Can spells be taught to another by an intuitive caster?

[Curbludgeon]

I could see arguments for either interpretation, but I'm hoping to find a page reference for an example of this, such as a Ley Line Walker being taught a spell by a Mystic or a Wizard learning a spell from a Priest. There is text that hints at this sort of thing, such as the section on The Dweomer Institute in WB16r, but it doesn't come out and say that it occurs. My guess is that PFRPG would be the most likely source, but I'm saying that due to not being as conversant with the material.

An interesting consequence of intuitive casters being unable to teach spells to non-intuitive casters is that certain fields of magic become intuitive only. Two examples of this are Biomancy and Chaos magic.

[Axelmania]

Page 142 of the Palladium RPG (revised edition from the 80s, not "Palladium Fantasy RPG 2nd Edition" from the 90s) allows "PRAYER OF INTERVENTION" to do this. This was one of the 3 prayers a Priest of Light could use. Priests of Darkness could not, they had summoning minions instead.

1) "cast ANY spell, of any level, that his god(s) knows"
2) "Or the prayer of intervention can be used to gain temporary knowledge of spell magic so that it can be sold, granted, and/or taught to a wizard. This knowledge is granted ONLY to priests sixth level or higher"

Pg 52 also mentioned it under "PURCHASING MAGIC" for the Wizard OCC: "Clergy - Only a sixth level priest (or higher) can sell magic spells for the good of the church."

Pg 53 had a pricing breakdown and stuff.

Although POI exists in 2nd ed, pg 65 seems to have removed this option. They can still use the miracle to make spell scrolls though, and wizards have a % chance to learn spells from scrolls, so that's the closest approximation of how to do this if you want to play on the SDC version of the Palladium World instead of the HP version.

I'm not sure about an Intuit > Non-Intuit transfer in Rifts, but there is some implication that the reverse may be possible.

Merctown 68 refers to a Golemgoyle ritual (you take the essence of an entity or minor demon and put it into a gargoyle statue) and one of the creator types is actually a Stone Master who don't get spells as they level up at all... Earth Warlock / Earth Elemental Fusionist are also mentioned and since no spell level is given, it's not clear at all how they would learn this except being taught it.

I should stop bragging about that spell, it's so great since it doesn't require SDC sacrifice and still gives a permanent minion. High Magi mass-producing this (I imagine using entities only, since Dweomer is friendly to demons) could help in explaining bolstered defences of that place.

[Nekira Sudacne]

High Magi already mass produce Super Golems in the form of Automations that use the essence fragments of the Three Lords of Magic, rather than a demon. Why would they downgrade?

[Axelmania]

High Magi already mass produce Super Golems in the form of Automations that use the essence fragments of the Three Lords of Magic, rather than a demon. Why would they downgrade?

1) Golemgoyles take less PPE to create, only 375 compared to 654 for the cheapest Automaton, an Earth Thunder

2) Golemgoyles may take less time to create. Automatons take "many months to build each body" and even the "rather quick" enchantment time is 48 hours. RUE 187 says even spells of legend as rituals don't take longer than 90 minutes to cast, so that's the most we can reasonably expect here, even if it's longer than the (BOM147: 13th level) 55-minute maximum time it would take to animate a golem. You could reasonable add some prep time for sculpting a humanoid figure out of clay to prepare for either of these rituals, but that isn't likely to take very long.

3) Golemgoyles, like Golems/Mummies/Zombies, can act independently. They don't need to have a person ordering them about. Ironically the most autonomy we see in Automatons is their "Preservation Mode" where it fights at half capacity, and only to get it's controller to safety. This STILL requires contact with a pilot who is either unconscious or injured. This doesn't work if the pilot is dead.
[INDENT]
The only exception to this is when linked to a Controller, who is still required to be within 200ft (500ft for Infiltrators) and there are limits to how many automatons one person can control, meaning you are limited by your population, how much of your population you can train, and how much of your population is awake.
[/INDENT]

4) Golemgoyles are tiny: only 3-4 ft tall. That's ~half the size of the 6-8ft tall Infiltrator who are even less versatile than most automatons since they only work when linked up to members of the Controller OCC. The smallest automaton usable by non-Controllers is the 10-12ft tall Earth Thunder, who is about triple the size of an earth thunder. This greatly limits where you could utilize Automatons compared to Golemgoyles

5) Golemgoyles heal faster untended: MDC every melee round. Automatons heal on an hourly basis unless you pump PPE into them to get an (albeit 3x superior to Golemgoyle) per-round rate.

6) Golemgoyles do not drain PPE/MDC from the Lords of Magic. Although "nobody" knows about this (I expect author intended pg 25 to say "nobody else"... surely the Lords themselves know about it?) it is at least a temporary inconvenience from them. If the Lords can immediately heal the lost MDC (they regenerate at least 10 per melee round) or PPE (grab it from a ley line or a follower) this isn't a big deal, but I think a lot of people reading this get the impression that perhaps it is actually their maximum MDC/PPE which is indefinitely (I won't say permanently)reduced and that it can't be regained until the object is destroyed or they touch it and will it back to themself. Similar to how PPE works for Cybermages or how ISP works for Psi-Mechanics in Nightbane. If the Lords DO know about this (if they don't, I'm sure they'll be the first to eventually discover it) they could discourage High Magi from making too many Automatons, and to pursue alternatives like Golems / Golemgoyles.

7) Golemgoyles have better senses than most automatons: they have nightvision, see the invisible, and can sense the supernatural (presumably akin to a psi-stalker). Automatons are limited to the senses of their users except for the Earth Thunder, who has STI/nightvision.

Golemgoyles are probably lighter. The lightest Automaton (the Infiltrator) weighs 1 ton while Earth Thunders weigh 5-7. This could make is very dangerous to use them on certain terrain. Earth Thunders (and all heavier types) mention under climbing "provided the structure can support it's weight" for example. Weight limits might be extremely high for MDC structures, but there are probably some SDC structures even in magical cities like Dweomer where you would prefer to use something lighter than 1 ton. Although Golemgoyles are not officially given a weight, I think a 3ft tall stone statue would weigh less than 2000 pounds. Anyone know if we were given a weight for the basic golem?

9) Golemgoyles climb at spd 22. Automatons aren't given climbing/swimming speeds so presumably they follow standard rules for it. RUE 316 doesn't seem to have that (RUE 317 gives swimming 3xPS in yards/melee, so in other words, you swim PS ft/melee whereas Spd is ft/second... so if you had Spd 10 PS 10 you would run 15x faster than you swam) so I'm not sure what normal climbing speeds are supposed to be. I do know you go half your speed attribute if you have the Light Body Climbing technique from Mystic China so presumably slower than that.

10) haunting entities are flooding the earth (+nearly in RUE) EVERY time a rift is opened, which would be a bigger-than-average problem in magic cities like Dweomer. This gives you a way to safely contain them if you don't want to kill them. "Immure Entity" (heart of magic 88) is cheaper, but it allows freeing the entity via exorcism. Destroying the object also works, meaning you'd need to provide your own suitable MDC jail if you didn't want that to happen very easily. Create Golemgoyle provides it's own MDC structure by converting SDC clay into MDC stone, just like the Create Golem ritual. If you want to imprison a minor/lesser demon, Golemgoyle costs the usual 375 while Immure doubles to 400, making Golemgoyle cheaper.

11) Golemgoyles are immune to cold and fire. Not even the Fire Demon or Ice Drake seem to enjoy that. Even standard golems are only impervious to NORMAL fire and cold (taking 1/2 from magic versions).

[drewkitty ~..~]

The short answer to the OP title question is no.

A Mage might derive inspiration from what spells an intuitive caster and granted casters use. But the Mage would have to R&D the spell for themselves. (See the NB: Through the Glass Darkly books for the guidelines for modern times. The guidelines for medieval style cultures are found in one of the Mysteries of Magic books.)

[Curbludgeon]

Insofar as this thread is concerned with citations like that provided by Axelmania, blanket statements of personal opinion presented as fact are, to put it charitably, counterproductive.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Insofar as this thread is concerned with citations like that provided by Axelmania, blanket statements of personal opinion presented as fact are, to put it charitably, counterproductive.

I gave the canon answer. Not my opinion.
Yes, I didn't give citations because, as I stated, giving the answer in the short form.
The text referenced is in the MOM books in long form.
In which it states that only Mages can teach other Mages their spells. This idea should be in the text that talks about how long it takes for a mage to teach another mage a spell.
The idea that Intuitive and granted magic users can not teach others their magic is presented within nearly every PB game with magic class text & magic text in them. (the exceptions being the old/decanonized like PF1 before they had the mage teaching mage rules or the ones where the ability for magic is racially linked like in RT1 & RT2.)

To comment on Axe's answers,

Boiling things down to the core idea the priest is not teaching the mage magic. The priest is selling the mage a scroll that the mage can do a scroll conversion attemept with. So 'No, the priest is not teaching the mage a spell'. Which is in line with my short form answer.
AND,
Axe, never directly answered the core question that was presented in the OP title.

[jaymz]

I think intention of it would be no regardless of examples otherwise. Palladium is notorious for inconsistency within itself especially for rules as written versus rules as intended.

Intuitive mages should not be able to teach it since they themselves have no real idea how they do it.

[Axelmania]

Axe, never directly answered the core question that was presented in the OP title.

Yes I did: I gave page numbers which allow DIRECT TUTELAGE of priests>wizards in 1st ed PRPG.

They're removed from 2nd-ed but priest scroll creation wasn't removed, so you could take that path.

So could a Mystic who learned Create Scroll, presumably. Although I don't know if any Rifts OCCs have the ability to learn spells from scrolls like the wizard does....

Ah wait here it is, RMB 165. It's not an OCC ability but rather "a literate mage has a chance" which may perhaps apply to ANY magic OCC...

RUE 191 still has it. Still nothing which seems to opt out the intuitive types like Mystic / Fusionist / Warlock / Priest.

I think we still would assume that as the general spirit of things. We would assume that if you can't be taught in-person (often the assumption if it doesn't explicitly say you can be taught in person) that you can't learn from a scroll...

But beyond that assumption I'm struggling to find a forbidding RAW here to prevent certain OCCs (assuming they of course have Literacy) to qualify as a "mage" and use RMB165/RUE191. Is that maybe in some later book or errata?

[drewkitty ~..~]

My apologies. You did say if the game was PF1 it was possible for priests, after a successful prayer of intervention. But is was buried within other irrelevant text.

However, there was no clear y/n answer to the question. Which is what I meant.
---
A mage learning a spell from a scroll is learning from the scroll. Not from the scroll's creator. So even thou it may be a 'work around' the specific rules about an intuitive/granted magic users not being able to teach spells. Still, intuitive/granted magic users not being able to teach spells to any other character.

RMB (1st ed) page 165 In the text about scroll magic. "a literate mage has a chance of learning spells from scrolls" I sure do like Full Quotes as to make thing plain and clear what the quote is talking about.

"Mages" are not "intuitive" magic users nor "granted" magic casters. Mages have worked to develop their ability to cast magic. It was not given to them nor did they psychically just 'know' how to cast a few spells.
These differences are talked about in the MOM books.

I did note you mostly pulled quotes from books that are not in the current canon.

Is that maybe in some later book or errata?

The difference between mages/wizards/LLW/sorcerers.... and intuitive magic users (mystics/psi-mystics) and Granted magic users (priests/witches....) are found in the MOM books. As I pointed out in my last post.

[Curbludgeon]

(P)ractitioners of the mystic arts cannot teach spells nor make scrolls.

That is what a short answer looks like. Even here, though, one must acknowledge that the phrase "mystic arts" is used in a more strict sense than in other PB titles, where it is often used more broadly. This cannot be said as is erroneously suggested above to similarly apply to the word "mage", which is often yet far from exclusively used to refer to what MoM calls "learned types", and is even in the definition on pg 8 described as a general term for "Men of Magic, spell casters, and others with magical powers." The first example I came across of a non-learned caster being referred to as a mage is in the description of warlocks on PFRPG2E p. 108, and the trend is rife across Fantasy, Rifts, and Nightbane.

While quotes from PFRPG books published before 2009 would be interesting to see, the 2004 Rifts WB16r suggests otherwise with its descriptions on p. 131 of students teaching other students shamanic and nature magic after having learned it from shamans. This seems like potentially a fun little difference between settings, much like how Psi-Mystics can cast spells silently while Rifts Mystics can't. Coincidentally, those initial shamanic teachers are referred to as mages three times.

[Soldier of Od]

(P)ractitioners of the mystic arts cannot teach spells nor make scrolls.

That is what a short answer looks like. Even here, though, one must acknowledge that the phrase "mystic arts" is used in a more strict sense than in other PB titles, where it is often used more broadly. This cannot be said as is erroneously suggested above to similarly apply to the word "mage", which is often yet far from exclusively used to refer to what MoM calls "learned types", and is even in the definition on pg 8 described as a general term for "Men of Magic, spell casters, and others with magical powers." The first example I came across of a non-learned caster being referred to as a mage is in the description of warlocks on PFRPG2E p. 108, and the trend is rife across Fantasy, Rifts, and Nightbane.

While quotes from PFRPG books published before 2009 would be interesting to see, the 2004 Rifts WB16r suggests otherwise with its descriptions on p. 131 of students teaching other students shamanic and nature magic after having learned it from shamans. This seems like potentially a fun little difference between settings, much like how Psi-Mystics can cast spells silently while Rifts Mystics can't. Coincidentally, those initial shamanic teachers are referred to as mages three times.

The phrase "mystic arts" in terms of it use in the Mysteries of Magic book is defined on page 7 of that book. It refers to warlocks, priests, witches and psi-mystics (and some others).
The paragraph about power words on page 21 contradicts the section on psi-mystics, saying that they "speak a mantra in order to unlock the spell magic within themselves".

[Axelmania]

My apologies. You did say if the game was PF1 it was possible for priests, after a successful prayer of intervention. But is was buried within other irrelevant text.

I accept that different people's concept of relevance can be subjective. I view it as a continuum rather than discrete categorization.

Still, intuitive/granted magic users not being able to teach spells to any other character.

That's one thing I'm wondering about.

Doesn't the emphasis tend to be more along "the LLW can't teach the Mystic to cast Firebolt" rather than "the Mystic can't teach the LLW to cast firebolt" ?

RMB (1st ed) page 165 In the text about scroll magic. "a literate mage has a chance of learning spells from scrolls" I sure do like Full Quotes as to make thing plain and clear what the quote is talking about.

"Mages" are not "intuitive" magic users nor "granted" magic casters. Mages have worked to develop their ability to cast magic. It was not given to them nor did they psychically just 'know' how to cast a few spells.

These differences are talked about in the MOM books.

A lot of spells reference a "mage", including some of the new ones in Heart of Magic.

Are you implying that Mystics/Priests/Warlocks/Witches can't use them?

I'm not sure which MOM book you're referrencing. HOM39 includes Witches as "Dark Mages" and Witches are intuitive casters AFAIK. HOM38 under "Combat Mages" includes Warlocks/Witches.

Are you getting this maybe from "Warlock or mage" from HOM33?

I did note you mostly pulled quotes from books that are not in the current canon.

It is acceptable to game PRPG instead of PF2 if one wants a setting where priests can directly teach spells to wizards without scroll work-arounds. No harm in presenting all options.

The difference between mages/wizards/LLW/sorcerers.... and intuitive magic users (mystics/psi-mystics) and Granted magic users (priests/witches....) are found in the MOM books. As I pointed out in my last post.

This plurality confuses me, I still see the 2nd book (Dark Magicks) as pre-order / coming soon, do some people have it already? I thought the 1st (Heart of Magic) was the only one out.

I'm hoping for some help in locating which part you're talking about.

There are references to a "mage" in new spells for warlocks in HOM so I'm not sure this is entirely a consistent point throughout the book.

[Curbludgeon]

An example of an intuitive caster being able to teach a spell to a learned caster is found in WB9. Blue Flame spells can be learned by any magician, but must be taught by either a Larhold Shaman or someone taught by one.

Edit: Ha! I was looking at a bad copy, and page 188 describes the teachable spells as learned initially by magicians. I think the resultant comments are still worthwhile, though, since Andrew has been pulling this crap for years.

Warning: Warning, address the post, not the poster.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Any posts above passing off an exception as the basis for overturning what official canon says may be thus dismissed as someone passing off their personal opinion as canon.

I am pretty sure the above poster looked hard to find that exception to the official rules.
Just like how that poster probably looked hard for a topic where that poster might somehow disagree with what I presented. And then directly insult me
The poster's last post to this topic was in march and it is now September. More then six months later. One can wonder why the poster went to an effort to find something to try to ''black eye'' me on something.


I've already had enough of people bringing up """Exceptions to the general official rules''''' to support making those same said rules not canon because they want something.

[Curbludgeon]

Oh, no, it's really easy to find things over which to disagree with you, since you routinely make things up. Please note the OP, which I wrote, was looking specifically for examples and not pronouncements.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I gave the canon answer.

[Curbludgeon]

It really doesn't matter how many times you write canon, it doesn't lend any more credence to your opinion over what PB has published. And it's adorable how you keep editing your posts.

[drewkitty ~..~]

It really doesn't matter how many times you write canon, it doesn't lend any more credence to your opinion over what PB has published. And it's adorable how you keep editing your posts.

Yes that is your opinion of me not bending to your ""interpretations"" of the canon text over what there canon text literally says.

I can't say it's been a wealth of pleasure...but goodbye.

[Curbludgeon]

Fingers crossed, but I'm assuming that's just another word whose meaning you don't know.

Edit: And who needs a way to "black eye" you? The claim that you saw class changing rules once at a convention, which can't be found, no one else has ever claimed to have seen, and is the basis for posts made over the course of years is enough to permanently mark you as silly. If I could be said to want anything from this, it's for you to stop spreading misinformation to new posters, of which I've seen three instances in the past two weeks. It's creepy, and makes this forum worse. Stop making this forum worse.

[Father Goose]

My new head canon has DK and Curb sitting in a Victorian style gentleman's club with their monocles and cigars, exchanging barbed comments in the most "civilized" tones while the rest of the room watches, nods occasionally, and generally enjoys the spectacle.
As this exchange happens in thread after thread, I have built quite the visual to go along with the reading.

[Soldier of Od]

My new head canon has DK and Curb sitting in a Victorian style gentleman's club with their monocles and cigars, exchanging barbed comments in the most "civilized" tones while the rest of the room watches, nods occasionally, and generally enjoys the spectacle.
As this exchange happens in thread after thread, I have built quite the visual to go along with the reading.

Indeed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nCKYEM8qRc

[Father Goose]

My new head canon has DK and Curb sitting in a Victorian style gentleman's club with their monocles and cigars, exchanging barbed comments in the most "civilized" tones while the rest of the room watches, nods occasionally, and generally enjoys the spectacle.
As this exchange happens in thread after thread, I have built quite the visual to go along with the reading.

Indeed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nCKYEM8qRc

Thank you for this. It was brilliant to watch.

[ITWastrel]

I swear this forum will fight over anything.

To the OP, short answer, not usually.

Long answer, unless specified in an ability description, such as with the priest's prayer for knowledge, an intuitive caster such as a mystic doesn't understand WHY the spell works, and may not even make recognizable spell-like words or gestures. A mystic might use an invisibility spell, but to them it's instinct, with absolutely no need to understand why it works. A mystic "teaching" the spell would be laughable.

Wizard: OK, mystic, what do you do to become invisible?
Mystic: I squint, and I say "I'm Invisible!" three times. Then I'm invisible!
Wizard: But, what evocation of illusion do you use?
Mystic: Um, I told you, I say "I'm invisible". Three times. While squinting.
Wizard: Ok, but do you open a chakra to empower yourself? Which one?
Mystic: Sometimes, I wiggle my hips a little...
Wizard: *sigh* OK, How about fire bolt? What do you do there?
Mystic: I think about my ex-husband and make a fist. The blasts come easy then.

Intuitive casters just don't have the base of magical knowledge to explain why it works, for them, it just does.

[Father Goose]

I swear this forum will fight over anything.

To the OP, short answer, not usually.

Long answer, unless specified in an ability description, such as with the priest's prayer for knowledge, an intuitive caster such as a mystic doesn't understand WHY the spell works, and may not even make recognizable spell-like words or gestures. A mystic might use an invisibility spell, but to them it's instinct, with absolutely no need to understand why it works. A mystic "teaching" the spell would be laughable.

Wizard: OK, mystic, what do you do to become invisible?
Mystic: I squint, and I say "I'm Invisible!" three times. Then I'm invisible!
Wizard: But, what evocation of illusion do you use?
Mystic: Um, I told you, I say "I'm invisible". Three times. While squinting.
Wizard: Ok, but do you open a chakra to empower yourself? Which one?
Mystic: Sometimes, I wiggle my hips a little...
Wizard: *sigh* OK, How about fire bolt? What do you do there?
Mystic: I think about my ex-husband and make a fist. The blasts come easy then.

Intuitive casters just don't have the base of magical knowledge to explain why it works, for them, it just does.

This is a great explanation

[The Beast]

I swear this forum will fight over anything.

Well that's what happens when there's no hard rule that gives a definitive answer one way or the other, and people have to guess what works best for the game they're in.

[Axelmania]

Could be fun to go back and see how canon described this initially in Rifts in 1990...

Pg 86 Unlike
the other magic O.C.C.s, "the mystic can not be taught nor purchase additional spell knowledge"

Learning from a scroll is not purchasing spell knowledge if you just find/steal a scroll...

As for 165, even if "learning spells" from a scroll is not considered "self-teaching" or "teaching by proxy", it's worth noting that 164 mentions "Practitioners of magic, except for the mystic, can learn and cast spells far above their actual experience level"

Mystics cannot learn/cast spells FAR above their experience level, whatever that is. I'd say at least 8 levels since the example is of a level 2 caster using a level 8 spell. Presumably 1 level higher is not FAR above and could be feasible.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Mystics don't have the knowledge of spell casting that would let them do "spell scroll conversions". It would be like an illiterate person by themself trying to read a book one time, to learn how to fix a car.

What spells are available to a mystic is subject to GM fiat. Just like everything else in the game.

[Father Goose]

Mystics don't have the knowledge of spell casting that would let them do "spell scroll conversions". It would be like an illiterate person by themself trying to read a book one time, to learn how to fix a car.

What spells are available to a mystic is subject to GM fiat. Just like everything else in the game.

Excellent example.
As usual, exercising common sense goes a long way toward understanding the intent of the rules to supplement the places where the writing is not explicit.
Elastic creativity has its place in RPGs, but not where rules interpretation is concerned.

[Axelmania]

Mystics don't have the knowledge of spell casting that would let them do "spell scroll conversions".

For us to conclude that, we must consider scroll conversion to be "teaching" (ie self teaching) which bars it via the "can not be taught" rule.

Meaning mystics don't self-teach they just intuitively know somehow. Sort of like how a priest isn't taught a spell he just intuitively knows how to do it because the god tells him to call upon him for something I guess.

I guess Warlocks are similar but I'm not sure if Warlocks are more similar to Mystics or to Priests. Maybe somewhere in between.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Mystics don't have the knowledge of spell casting that would let them do "spell scroll conversions".

For us to conclude that, we must consider scroll conversion to be "teaching" (ie self teaching) which bars it via the "can not be taught" rule.

Meaning mystics don't self-teach they just intuitively know somehow. Sort of like how a priest isn't taught a spell he just intuitively knows how to do it because the god tells him to call upon him for something I guess.

I guess Warlocks are similar but I'm not sure if Warlocks are more similar to Mystics or to Priests. Maybe somewhere in between.

Again you are posting out of your gluteus Maximus. Trying to restart/contenue an argument that the idea you are supporting has been debunked just shows you are trolling. I wish you would stop posting these 'half donkeyed' ideas that were just Debuncked in the post you are quoting and/or in other posts before yours.

[The Dark Elf]

Bit late to the party but the answer to the OP is nope.

[Orin J.]

well i'm not going to be enough of a clown to try and assert that the language relating to the matter has been cohesive across all books, but in the PFRPG the wizard's entry describes magic incantations as "a properly spoken repetition of words or series of words" (pg. 104) used alongside their training in magical arts, belief, and PPE reserve (which we can assume the mage trying to learn from a mystic would have) and obfuscated with some meaningless patter and misdirection to hide the incantation itself. but it describes the psi-mystic as gaining their magical powers through their psychic powers rather than a conventional spell (Pg. 183) So the question is does the mystic understand the incantation itself or do they understand "their" incantation, with the gibberish and mumbling and actual syllables all having the same importance to them?

interestingly, the psi-mystic differs from the mystic in several ways and focuses much more on their psyhic powers, in addition to being a P.C.C and master psychic rather than an O.C.C. and major psychic. It's also worth pointing out that scrolls aren't part of normal spell teaching, as per this book but are rather privately tutored (pg. 247), so the mystic wouldn't need to be literate but would rather need to be able to properly convey their incantation

[barna10]

It comes down to what you want for your game.

Also, feel free to only worry about books you actually own.

[drewkitty ~..~]

As stated before in different words, the practitioners of the mystic arts can not teach their magic to anyone. The operative word being the word 'teach'.

Can their spells serve as an example of the spell to practitioner of the Magical Sciences who is trying to copy them? Yes, they can.

[Curbludgeon]

There is no regular faculty for these types of magic though visiting sorcerers or shamans may stay a while to teach and nurture the art; otherwise they are taught by the students who learned from the original mages.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Gee...
Wow..
This that look like Exceptions...

Sorry, nice try, but that text doesn't change the general rules being talked about.

That there was a school in Tolkeen that had taught citizens there how to be Mystics. Which can't teach their Spells to other sort of like the situation you brought up.
They are taught how to be those classes but those classes can't teach their Spells to anyone.

[LokiBoi]

Palladium 2nd edition page 65 states that with the Pray of Intervention, you can create scrolls. Those scrolls could then be converted using the wizard's conversion of spell scrolls ability on page 105. However, there is only a 9% chance per level (this requires 6th level so has a base of 54%) that the priest will be able to succeed in his attempt at Pray of Intervention and only an 8% +2% per level that the wizard will succeed in converting it.

[drewkitty ~..~]

"" by LokiBoi » 12 Feb 2024 15:36
Palladium 2nd edition page 65 states that with the Pray of Intervention, you can create scrolls. Those scrolls could then be converted using the wizard's conversion of spell scrolls ability on page 105. However, there is only a 9% chance per level (this requires 6th level so has a base of 54%) that the priest will be able to succeed in his attempt at Pray of Intervention and only an 8% +2% per level that the wizard will succeed in converting it.""

This was brought up in the OP.
No one was arguing about that loophole. The main discussion has been about if a Intuitive magic user and directly teach a spell. (still the answer is 'No'.)

[Curbludgeon]

It's as if you're itching for another ban, Andy.