Unlocking J K Rowling's Secrets: A Podcast Series on her Occult Trials

J.K. Rowling, the renowned author of the Harry Potter series, has created quite a stir with her recent podcast appearance discussing occult trials. In the podcast, she delves into the history of witchcraft and wizardry and its connection to real-life trials that took place throughout history. Rowling's fascination with the occult is no secret, as it is evident in her fictional works such as Harry Potter. However, her interest in the historical context of witchcraft and the witch trials adds a new dimension to her storytelling abilities.

Can they "Copy" spells from a Scroll to their "trinket-formula-book"?

An antiquarian prepares spells by meditating and charging relics with supernatural power, which has the same requirements and limitations as preparing extracts. begingroup A better question might to to simply ask how to create the statues with the features you want rather than asking about you proposed solution.

However, her interest in the historical context of witchcraft and the witch trials adds a new dimension to her storytelling abilities. Throughout the podcast, Rowling delves into the trials that occurred during the witch-hunting fervor of the 16th and 17th centuries. She brings to light the horrifying reality of innocent people being accused of witchcraft and enduring brutal punishments, such as burning at the stake or drowning.

Investigator Antiquarian - Trinket Use

The Investigator Antiquarian archetype gives up potions for Trinkets that "count as formulae". They then use these trinkets to cast spells as an arcane caster, but does not suffer from arcane spell failure.

When using extracts, standard alchemist/investigators don't require concentration checks, but do provoke AOO's.

From the flavor description, they almost sound like single use activation items, although I don't think that is what they are meant to be.

I would assume that like a standard alchemist/investigators the trinkets don't require concentration checks, but do provoke AOO's.

“However, instead of creating extracts, an antiquarian casts spells as though he were an arcane spellcaster, which means he can affect other creatures with his spells. An antiquarian does not suffer from arcane spell failure.”

I think it is in most ways arcane spellcasting, so things like casting time and concentration are there too.

The most telling part is that we are told it’s like arcane spellcasting, and then we are given an exception for how it is different.

Another question came up in our group regarding Pearl of Power/Boro Beads.

Most investigators would use Boro beads the same as alchemists, but because the Antiquarian "prepares spells by meditating and charging relics with supernatural power" I would think a Pearl of Power is a better fit.

Anyone want to point out the flaw in that thought process?

Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast that day. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast.

An antiquarian prepares spells by meditating and charging relics with supernatural power, which has the same requirements and limitations as preparing extracts.

So the antiquarian prepares spells. And the antiquarian casts spells. So the Pearl should work fine.

I don’t think the boro beads would work. The antiquarian prepares spells similarly to extracts, but they are still spells for most purposes.

I have a couple questions on the Investigator/Antiquarian and how they relate to spell usage.

Can they use Wands? or Scrolls? (Spell trigger or Spell completion items).

Can they "Copy" spells from a Scroll to their "trinket-formula-book"?

I have a couple questions on the Investigator/Antiquarian and how they relate to spell usage.

Can they use Wands? or Scrolls? (Spell trigger or Spell completion items).

Can they "Copy" spells from a Scroll to their "trinket-formula-book"?

The antiquarian casts spells, ergo they have a spell list. Which should work fine for use of scrolls or wands of spells on that list.

As far as adding spells to their trinkets/formula book goes, a formula book has this property:

An alchemist can also add formulae to his book just like a wizard adds spells to his spellbook, using the same costs, pages, and time requirements.

So yes. I guess page counts wouldn't be particularly meaningful though.

Antiquarians don't have spell books, however:

Antiquarians explore and record the remnants of lost civilizations. Rather than using extracts, an antiquarian carries a collection of holy and unholy symbols, charms, and trinkets. Though an antiquarian may never know who or what grants him his power, he can produce magical effects all the same. Relic magic functions as the alchemy class feature, except as noted below.

Nothing says that the trinkets are actually artifacts, they can be recreations or attempts replicate magical effects via foci. An Antiquarian should be able to read a spell, know an ancient practice that did more or less the same thing, and (re)create a relic/trinket at the same relative cost of writing a spell into a spellbook that does the same thing as that actual spell.

Antiquarians don't have spell books,

I think this is the relevant quote for this,

An antiquarian begins play with a collection of religious trinkets that functions as his formula book.

I mean, "functions as" in this case is a rather loose meaning that I could see people interpreting either way, my point was that even if you interpret "functions as" to be replacing, it makes sense for an antiquarian to still be able to add spells to their repertoire like any other wizard/alchemist.

An antiquarian begins play with a collection of religious trinkets that functions as his formula book and weighs 2 pounds total, with each trinket functioning as a formula. Adding new trinkets has the same cost and time requirement as adding formulae to a formula book. An antiquarian can study a wizard’s spellbook or alchemist’s formula book to learn formulae, but an antiquarian’s trinket collection is too esoteric for anyone except another antiquarian to learn spells from. An antiquarian prepares spells by meditating and charging relics with supernatural power, which has the same requirements and limitations as preparing extracts.

The archetype is pretty well thought out really, but it’s unclear if you can learn formulae from scrolls though.

I guess you can complain about how meta it is that 5 trinkets weighs as much as 100 trinkets, but that’s pretty minor.

What if your trinkets are actually scrawled on pages of a book. Like a trinket book of sorts.

"each trinket functioning as a formula"

A page could be a trinket, but the words would mechanically be no different than scribbles. Only another antiquarian could copy from it, no matter how much like a spell book or formula book it may be.

"an antiquarian’s trinket collection is too esoteric for anyone except another antiquarian to learn spells from"

so - I would not have guessed that most people think Antiquarians can use scrolls to cast spells, but that seems to be what posters are saying. unless I am mis-reading again.

I mean, (IMHO) that's one of the major differences between Wizards and Alchemists. But I guess we have come full circle.

Wizards craft and use scrolls, and can use wands.

Alchemists lose Scroll use, but pick up potions (crafting) - but can only use scrolls to copy spells to their formula book. They can use Wands, but seem to lose the ability to craft them.

Investigators are like Alchemists in that they lose Scroll use, but they also lose Wand use. But can still copy scrolls to their formula book.

I surprises me that the consensus is that Antiquarians, a type of Investigator, gains the use of both Scrolls and Wands. Can they then take the Feats Craft Wand and Scribe Scroll?

They have caster levels, so can craft magic items. I'm pretty sure they can't learn from scrolls, but can use them as other spellcasters could. No read magic though, so that could be a problem.

They have caster levels, so can craft magic items. I'm pretty sure they can't learn from scrolls, but can use them as other spellcasters could. No read magic though, so that could be a problem.

Rarely used, as Read Magic is a cantrip, but:

Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll 15 + spell level

With a maximum DC of 24 (21 as you are limited to 6th level spells) and an intelligence-based class, it isn't difficult to beat the DC taking 10.

As Learning a spell has no risk of a mishap you can take 10 if you can do it in a calm environment.

Decipher the Writing: The writing on a scroll must be deciphered before a character can use it or know exactly what spell it contains. This requires a read magic spell or a successful Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). Deciphering a scroll is a full-round action.

So it’s possible without read magic, but that DC is not inconsequential until higher levels.

The bit for learning from scrolls only applies if you can learn from scrolls. It’s not like a sorcerer can learn a spell from a scroll no matter how good their spell craft. And I’m pretty sure the reliquaries can’t learn from scrolls the same as a regular investigator can’t.

Decipher the Writing: The writing on a scroll must be deciphered before a character can use it or know exactly what spell it contains. This requires a read magic spell or a successful Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). Deciphering a scroll is a full-round action.

So it’s possible without read magic, but that DC is not inconsequential until higher levels.

The bit for learning from scrolls only applies if you can learn from scrolls. It’s not like a sorcerer can learn a spell from a scroll no matter how good their spell craft. And I’m pretty sure the reliquaries can’t learn from scrolls the same as a regular investigator can’t.

At the first level, it requires 20 rounds for any spell with a level of 5- if you have intelligence 12. With intelligence 14 you can do the same with 6th level spells.

An investigator with intelligence lower than 12 has some serious problem.

Class skill, 1 rank, +1 for intelligence = +5, it is possible to take 20 as there is no risk of mishap.

I surprises me that the consensus is that Antiquarians, a type of Investigator, gains the use of both Scrolls and Wands.

Because you seem to think that it's tied to the class. It's not, it's tied to the form of casting. Regular spellcasting includes the ability to use scrolls and wands. Alchemy does not (Alchemists get a special excemption for wands). It doesn't matter what the class name is, or what craft feat the character man have, only the form of casting matters. If there was a Wizard archetype that changed casting to alchemy, that Wizard couldn't use scrolls or wands, and on the flip side, any archetype that gives Alchemist or Investigator regular casting allows them to use scrolls and wands.

No such Wizard archetype actually exists (or any archetype that grants alchemy or changes spellcasting to alchemy, q_q), but there are archetypes that remove spellcasting (e.g. Virtuos Bravo Paladin), which do remove wand/scroll usage as well even when they don't explicitly say so. Somewhat similar, the Metamorph Alchemist removes alchemy, and thus wand usage, as the special exception given in the alchemy description is lost, too.

And I’m pretty sure the reliquaries can’t learn from scrolls the same as a regular investigator can’t.

Can't they? The class description says "An investigator can also add formulae to his book just like a wizard adds spells to his spellbook, using the same costs, pages, and time requirements." and the "Adding Spells to a Wizard’s Spellbook" rule section in the CRB bunches scrolls and other spellbooks together (the respectiver subsection is even headered by "Spells Copied from Another’s Spellbook or a Scroll").

Note: The only clue on enchanting I got is a passage that says "To enchant a wand with fire element, you could hire a wizard to enchant it using Mage Hands. It will take a day."

One of the main ideas Rowling emphasizes is the unfair and biased nature of these trials. She highlights the lack of evidence and reliance on superstitious beliefs that led to the persecution of individuals who were often misunderstood or simply different. Rowling draws parallels between these historical trials and the discrimination faced by certain groups in society today. Additionally, Rowling also explores the role of women in relation to witchcraft. She discusses the patriarchal society of the time, which viewed women with suspicion and often saw them as temptresses or tools of the devil. These societal attitudes played a significant role in the accusations and subsequent trials of countless women, many of whom were simply healers or practitioners of folk magic. Overall, Rowling's podcast appearance on occult trials sheds light on a dark and often overlooked aspect of history. Her passion for storytelling, combined with her extensive knowledge of the subject, makes for an engaging and thought-provoking discussion. Through highlighting the injustices of the past, Rowling prompts listeners to reflect on the importance of empathy, understanding, and the dangers of prejudice in today's world..

Reviews for "J K Rowling and the Occult: Uncovering the Truth on this Captivating Podcast"

1. Sarah - 1/5 - I was really excited to listen to the "J K Rowling Occult Trials Podcast" as a fan of Harry Potter. However, I was extremely disappointed. The podcast felt more like a conspiracy theory show rather than a well-researched exploration of J K Rowling's occult influences. The host constantly made sensational claims without providing any substantial evidence. It seemed like they were just trying to create drama and controversy for the sake of it. I was hoping for a thought-provoking deep dive into the hidden influences in Rowling's work, but all I got was a shallow attempt at conspiracy entertainment.

2. David - 2/5 - As someone who loves J K Rowling's books, I was intrigued by the idea of a podcast focusing on her occult trials. Unfortunately, this podcast fell short of my expectations. The host seemed more interested in sensationalizing the topic rather than providing well-researched information. The episodes lacked depth and often veered off into unrelated tangents. It felt like they were stretching to make connections between Rowling's work and occult practices that just weren't there. I was hoping for a well-balanced exploration, but this podcast ended up feeling more like a clickbait attempt to capitalize on Rowling's name.

3. Emily - 1/5 - I cannot recommend the "J K Rowling Occult Trials Podcast" to anyone. The episodes were filled with baseless speculations and wild conspiracy theories. The host seemed more interested in stirring up controversy than providing credible information. As a longtime fan of J K Rowling, I was extremely disappointed by the lack of research and objective analysis in this podcast. Rather than shedding light on the alleged occult influences in Rowling's work, it left me more confused and skeptical. I would advise anyone interested in this topic to look for alternative sources of information.

The Controversial Path of J K Rowling: A Podcast Discovering her Occult Trials