Friendly Rogue's page

I could see the Summoner/Spiritualist-style of Pokemon Trainer as a base-class chassis (preferably a Caster-type).

Similarly I could see Legacy/Phantom Weapon Wielders and Soul-Knives/Mind-Blades/Solarions, etc as a seperate base-class chassis (preferably a Martial-type with Spell Points; an arcane/occult foil to paladins.)

I'd actually prefer if they kept the Summoner as its own distinct class, focusing on extraplanar connections and the relationship between the summoner and the eidolon, and they cast off of spell points for summon spells, rejuvenate eidolon, etc.

As for the Spiritualist, a good way to go about it would be to give them the option at first level to either A.) go the road of the summoner (Path of Possession?) and gain a fighting ghost buddy, but you're restricted to spell points, or B.) go the road of the gish (Path of Death?) and gain an ectoplasmic weapon, as well as increased spellcasting to make up for the comparatively reduced action economy.

Just gonna shove an Elixer of Life down this threads throat.

Perhaps Damiel can be reclassed as a new artificer-esqe class combining the science of alchemy with the magical teachings of the arcane. Could be a new class, but could easily be an alchemist/wizard hybrid.

I mean, they could always do what they did with Seltyiel early in P1e's lifetime and make him an iconic for a prestige class - Master Chymist, as far as I'd argue, is right up Damiel's alley not unlike that one person he murdered in Kyonin

I will admit that, beyond Spellstrike, there is not a whole lot of reason to port the P1e version of the Magus into P2e because of the nature of multiclassing now, and that the Magus was initially created to support the gish playstyle that was difficult to pull off otherwise.

However, there is still enough of an identity to the Magus itself in the realm of their Arcana and Arcane Pool and, again, Spellstrike that we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. All that needs to be done is that we need to expand upon the concept of the Magus, be it by emphasizing pre-existing aspects of it or by introducing new mechanics through it, and then we can fully justify having the Magus in P2e.

There's already been a wide variety of good suggestions in here as to how it can be achieved, so it's less of a matter of "why" but more a matter of "how".

Frankly, I feel like the Magus, if the Spell-Point-focused approach is taken, might be a good opportunity to introduce a non-vancian caster into the game, where they get an extended pool of Spell Points and they cast somewhat similarly as psionics would.

This would work doubly well if they go the Sorcerer route and give them the choice between which spell list they get access to, and maybe even which mental stat their Spell Points are based off of.

Would a magus without spell slots (i.e. a point-based caster like the Paladin) be satisfactory? Since with the new rules "how do we handle casters who are less good at casting than a wizard or a druid, but still have a significant amount" is going to be a tricky thing for PF2 what with how the math works now, so I imagine we're either going to be printing "full casters" (oracle, witch, possibly the occultist) or "non casters/point-based casters" in the first several splatbooks.

I'm not sure a Magus works as a 10 level caster, since we're not likely to do custom spell lists for classes, just the basic four, so a 10 level casting Magus would have access to the full wizard list.

The more that I think about it, the more I actually wouldn't mind a spell-point based Magus - it would still give some room for the Magus to be able to use Spellstrike-like abilities (assuming it's possible for them to get Cantrips), and it would also open up the path for spellcasters to multiclass into Magus to get their spellstrike, enabling a more traditional Magus playstyle.

Spell strike can be covered by a feat. Doesn't need a whole class.

The feat should be generic and available to all casting traditions.

It can be covered by a feat, but should it?

No other class, regardless of how adept they were at both casting spells and fighting in a melee, has had access to spellstrike unless they were either a magus or entirely based off of it (as is the case for one of my favorite archetypes, the Phantom Blade Spiritualist). Being able to channel the force of a spell into a melee weapon, at least in my opinion, seems like the sort of thing that would be impossible to manage unless you have the specific training that would require it, which makes the existence of the magus - a class entirely devoted to mixing magical and martial combat - justifiable by that fact alone.

How long must we wait for the new blog...?

The inherent problem with lines of argument such as "oh why create a P2e Brawler class when you can Fighter/Monk multiclass" or "fighters being able to multiclass as either cleric or wizard combined with the new action economy completely makes the Magus obsolete" is that, with only a few exceptions like the Slayer, pretty much every single class has unique class features that allow them to stand out from other classes, like the Investigator's Studied Combat/Strike, or the Oracle's Mysteries.

While, mechanically, the new multiclassing and class options open the door to being able to play as a close approximation to the Warpriest, or the Magus, or the Investigator right out of the bat, that ignores the possibility of, when they're reintroduced to P2e, they'll be changed and updated to better fit the environment of P2e, such as the Magus getting access to unique cantrips and class feats that allow them to put a lot of special qualities on their weapons.

Instead of thinking of it as "why would you need to bring this class into P2e?", try to think of it as "how could they change and update this class to help solidify their place in P2e?"

I'd rather see the magus abilities ported into wizard class feats, optional for wizards, and be done with the need for classes like the magus.

It's so not unique that they used the same character as the Eldritch Knight from the CRB to be its iconic. It wasn't unique, just more well executed in getting the core idea down.

What unique features of the magus can't be covered by adding a few class feats to the wizard? Not many.

At the very most, I could see a more generic archetype for all spellcasters that gives you cast & fight abilities, but given the only real difference in weapon ability this edition is your level of training in martial weapons, and maybe some hit points, I'm not too sure how necessary that will even be given the fighter multiclassing grants both HP and weapon/armor proficiency.

What else do you actually need?

Given the way that multiclassing (at least in the Playtest) is now closely connected to the archetype system and is based off of trading class feats for the class features of other classes, who is to say that the Magus can't be this archetype? Spellstrike is easily the most definitive of class features the Magus gets access to, so I could easily see the Magus being a pretty lucrative multiclass archetype for other caster classes like a Witch or Druid if, instead of giving them access to spellcasting (which isn't necessary) or a lot of weapon and armor proficiency (which would step on the toes of the likes of Paladins and Fighters), it gave them Magus class features so they can get more combat utility out of their spells.

I think the key to truly porting the Magus into P2e (which I believe is entirely possible and justifiable) is to take what unique features that it has, like spellstrike and their various arcana, and expand upon them so that they form more of the core of the class. While the spell points system already serves as a great basis for their abilities that used to be fueled by their arcana pool, we could really expand on their relationship between might and magic, and being a true combination between the two, as opposed to a wizard who knows how to wear armor and wield a sword, or a fighter who has dabbled in sorcery to gain buffs and attacking options.

Taking a mystic approach to their design, like discussed above, could work, but might wind up feeling too disconnected from the P1e Magus in fluff if care isn't taken to make sure this isn't the default flavor. I feel like putting an emphasis on cantrips and spell-point based abilities, such as elemental buffs to their wielded weapon, would be the ideal route to take, not unlike what is happening with the Bard in the Playtest.

It would be especially good if the Magus was also extremely versatile and you could choose from the get-go whether or not they were similar to a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Witch, further increasing the variability between builds, but I may be asking for too much here.

The halfling blog told the truth as it was at the time of its posting; the playtest wasn't at the printers yet when that blog was made, and after a pretty significant call for action on the forums it seems Paizo made the decision to change halflings to a wis ancestry prior to printing.

I think they took comments about all short people having Cha to heart after the blog in question as Marks comments about wise halflings came AFTER the blog came out.

That's actually a pretty fair point, I failed to consider that as a possibility, and in that regard Halflings getting a +2 to Wisdom would definitely be appreciated.

In regards to Elves and Dwarves, I feel that the Elven +2 to Int can easily just represent how damn long they live in general and how they just pick up knowledge as they go along, and that the Dwarven +2 to Wis represents their sheer resolve and is one side of the coin of durability (with the other side being Con).

As much as I'm behind Halflings getting a bonus to Wisdom instead of Charisma, wasn't it flat out stated in the Halflings and Gnomes blog post that they still get +2 Dex and +2 Cha?

Halflings have nimble fingers, giving them an ability boost to Dexterity, and are jovial, getting another ability boost in Charisma.

I don't think Mark would lie about Halflings getting a Wisdom bonus instead of a Charisma bonus, so unless the Halfling blog post was flat out not telling the truth, I think we might be putting too much emphasis on Mark's use of the word "wise" in that post.

I hope strength rogues are supported in P2e. Even though I tend to prefer dexterity builds over strength builds, the fact that a strength rogue in 5e was explicitly unable to use sneak attack at all was a major put-off for me.

If the fact that Sneak Attack only works with Finesse/Agile weapons without a feat is true, well... I guess a feat tax is better than being without the option entirely, but it's definitely not ideal. That being said, though, things might look slightly better if there are agile weapons that greatly synergize with strength.

I feel like "should we make this area that was once not-a-desert but is now a desert" is a thing that Druids should disagree on. I can see Leaf and Fang/Wing druids wanting to reverse desertification and the Storm druids wanting to do the opposite.

Conflict between different philosophies among druids is definitely a good thing, especially from a narrative perspective; in one of my games, I had the party run into a Druid who actively sacrificed human chattel in order to improve the yield of his crops because he was a Life Channeler, a rare and extreme order of Druids who saw humanoids as a corrupting force and transferred their life essence to animal and plant life to maintain the closest approximation to natural superiority. While all the other druids in the rural area where he lived were extremely against what he was doing when it came to light, it still hurt their overall reputation among the non-druids once the news left the town.

Conflict is crucial to most good story telling, so Druids belonging to different orders with different priorities should definitely have differing values and anathemas to maintain the potential for conflict.

"Tries to repair an environment from desertification" *Falls*

:P

If an ecosystem has been a desert for a while, that means it is a desert - all the local animals, plant life, etc. have specifically acclimated to that environment, and to suddenly attempt to change local weather patterns could have devastating effects on all that live in that area.

In Las Vegas, when it rains for extended periods of time, the ground can't absorb all the rain water, which causes intense flooding that, were it not for a complex and meticulously crafted drainage system created around the city, would cause extreme structural damage. It can handle short bouts of heavy rain (albeit it happens extremely uncommonly), but long-term torrents of rain would be absolutely devastating to all that live there, even with the draining system.

There's a difference between changing the weather for a short period of time (causing a rainstorm to appear in a desert to create lightning) and actively causing long-term damage to an ecosystem in a futile attempt to change the environment (giving a desert long term weather patterns more akin to a rain forest).

One thing I really hope for in the future is more support for elemental orders like Fire (plus Ash), Water, or environmental ones like a Desert Druid.

Blog wrote:

a creature can attempt a Nature or Survival check against your class DC to determine that the plant is new to the surrounding area

Does that mean that it can take a DC 30-something Nature check to identify that a Redwood should not in fact be growing in a dark cave miles below the surface?

"Hey Bhalqex, why is this tree growing so close to the city limits of Zirnakaynin?"

"I don't know, man, you know that wizard Xonya has a weird fascination with the surface, she probably just planted one here to study it."

I really like what I see so far! The order of the leaf scratches my itch for an Urban Druid that tries to improve society and lead communities away from harming the local environment.

I do need to ask, though, since I don't see mention of it in here and I'm genuinely curious as to what's going to happen... what's the situation looking like with metal armor? Are they anathema for Druids still, or is that being toned back in the Playtest?

Gavmania wrote:

Gorignak227 wrote:

Just to get everyone using the same terminology...

Wizards can't spontaneously heighten.
Only sorcerers have that capability (for 2 spells chosen every day).

That's true. The wizard version is called autoheighten, presumably because they can't cast spontaneously. It amounts to the same thing, however.

Sorry for my ignorance but what exactly is AutoHeightening?

Is it like the cleric's channel ability to have their additional max heightened Heal spells?

Or is this referring to the standard feature that both wizards and sorcerers can prep/know a spell in a higher slot, i.e. prep/know a Magic Missile heightened +2 (for an additional missile/action) in a lvl 3 slot.

I don't recall anything from the Wizard blog post implying that they can get auto-heightening for their spells - that only happens with things like Cantrips, and that's a universal thing for all spellcasters, or with their Spell Pool, which is entirely separated from spellcasting.

If Wizards want to heighten the effects of their spells, they need to actively prepare them in higher spell levels. They don't get the ability to heighten them on the fly like a Sorcerer.

I can foresee future conflict among the base about which list a given class should use or if it should be patron/mystery subfeature dependent.

I genuinely don't think it will be that big of an issue where there will be really widespread arguments about it. Even with the Bard, only a few people were particularly miffed about them being Occult spellcasters, but the majority of people seemed anywhere between indifferent to excited about it. I figure that, so long as it makes sense in the context of their previous incarnation, or is at least justifiable, then most people won't be too upset about whichever choices Paizo goes in regards to spell lists.

I really feel like the reason it took till the 4th class expansion book (!!!) to get a shaman class is because the hope to keep the term "shaman" as a generic non-meta term for the local spellcaster. "You should seek out the village shaman, he will know of this hidden knowledge." feels more organic than the very meta "Speak to the village Cleric/WIzard/Druid/etc."

We still don't know how the essences effect what spells end up on which spell list. Mark Seifter had a comment on another thread indicating that a spell could be on as many as 3 different spell lists.

Well, Shamanism is a very specific ideology that is pretty distinct from something like Druidism (the generalized veneration of nature) or worship of a deity like a Cleric, where it emphasizes spirituality and the connections between the physical and spiritual worlds. For non-meta terms regarding classes, you could always use things like Mage or Scholar for a Wizard, a Priest, Deacon, or Bishop for a Cleric (alternatively, you could use terminology from other religions, such as a Rabbi), and for a Druid you could use terms like a naturalist or... well, a Druid - there's no real shame in using meta terms to describe a character if they are that class, although I definitely understand a reluctance to want to use those terms constantly.

Dasrak wrote:

Hybrid Classes: I'm hoping better multiclassing rules makes these guys unnecessary. The Arcanist can stay, since it has a unique style of casting. The Arcanist spell list is obvious; it's right there in the name.

As many of theses are SUPER niche builds and only exist due to the base classes they are build off of, most of these also won't make it to P2, or if they do it will be in name only.

The only exception to this is the Shaman, who should have just been their own thing. Expect full rebuild of the Spirits, and likely uses the Sp + Ma spell list.

That's partly why I'm predicting why the Shaman will get a new spell list based off of Material and Spiritual essences - they're way too similar to the Witch for me to be comfortable with them getting a similar spell list, and if they get access to only the Primal spell list they'll be stepping on the toes of the Druid.

As for the other Hybrid classes, I'm fine with them being pretty different from their P1e counterparts if it's in exchange for them being unique in the next edition.

Psychics in D&D/Pathfinder also have a healthy tradition of biokinesis or psychometabolism. Psychics being the Mind of Matter including the matter of the self.

Alright, when you put it that way it seems a lot more plausible. It would also help distance the psychic casters from being explicitly occult, too, which I know some of my players would appreciate if that were the case.

Stone Dog wrote:

I think that it is likely that Oracle will stay Charisma, but it might not be necessary considering how the Sorcerer is turning out.

As a player of dwarves and hater of prepared casting i really wish there were a few more spontaneous casting classes/options that didn't use charisma. I still can't believe there isn't a spontaneous druid option yet.

Hunters are a pretty close approximation to a spontaneous druid - they cast off of both the Druid and Ranger spell lists (which are pretty similar to say the least) and they cast spontaneously off of Wisdom, with the same progression as a Bard. They're similar to Inquisitors in a lot of ways.

I dunno, Psychics don't really come off as they would be Mental and Vital - in the Spells blog post, the essences are Material (building blocks of physical things), Mental (building blocks of rational thoughts, logic, and memories), Spiritual (building blocks of the immortal self, presumably the soul), and Vital (the building blocks of life force, instincts, and intuition); while Mental definitely fits the bill for the Psychic, Vitality does so a whole lot less, because it's pretty heavily implied that's where a bulk of the healing spells are, and Psychics have never really been associated with healing. I'd actually sooner give Psychics the Arcane spell list, or potentially the Occult spell list, because those are more distanced from explicit healing capability.

I do think that the Material + Spiritual spell list would probably be called something of the lines of Soulful, because it would be a combination of the spiritual aspects and physical aspects of life, much like how souls are the ultimate building block of the planes. I'm actually having a hard time pinning a name on what a Mental + Vital spell list would be called.

I think we are going to be seeing three basic types of casting classes.

The first are classes largely locked to one spell list. We know about these already. Wizards (Arc), Clerics (Div), Bards (Occ), and Druids (Pri). Differentiation will be by style; school for Wizards, religions for Clerics, muses for Bards, and orders for Druids.

The second are classes that might be based off of primary attributes instead of spell lists. Sorcerers (Cha), Oracles (Wis), and Witches (Int). These will have a greater variety of spell types; Bloodlines, Mysteries and Patrons will all have different lists assigned to them. I am hoping that their spell slots will be more limited, but bloodline powers, revelations, and hexes will be the main draw there.

The third could be spell-less classes that have themed powers instead. The Paladin and any future Exemplar style classes are going to be the poster children for this. Hunters, Inquisitors, and Magi among others could all be very well served by this sort of thing. They are still magical, but under the new paradigm might not need to be actual spell casters.
Not to say that some of them couldn't be one of the other two options. An inquisitor could well be an ability style spell caster augmented by Judgement powers, for example.

A forth, pseudo-magical class type would be people who use mundane skills to produce supernatural effects. The Alchemist is the first example we've really seen about this, but I'm starting to think the Occultist might slot in nicely too. Where the Alchemist is ... well... Alchemy, the Occultist is said to be the master of Resonance and might well be the master of Ritual Magic as well. Zero spells, but the ability to draw out more from magical items and ceremonies than any other class.

It'd take me a while to get used to Oracles being Wisdom based instead of Charisma based like they were in P1e, assuming that's the direction they take, but I definitely like the idea of attribute casters! It would give Draconic Oracles more precedence if they got Arcane casting, and it could also open up the door to Witch patrons being more open, such as Draconic Witch patrons that grant arcane casting.

I'd also like to see more about the potential of new spell lists being added in the future. Based off of the current paradigm of Mental, Vital, Spiritual, and Material, there's still room for two combinations that currently aren't being used; Mental + Vital, and Material + Spiritual. I reckon that the Shaman will be the spell-list based caster of Material + Spiritual spell list (perhaps the Soulful Spell List?), leaving an open slot for a new spellcaster for a Mental + Vital spellcaster.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Friendly Rogue wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Yep, that's definitely an issue when it comes two different flavours of classes are forced to use the same list. Tbh, I'd prefer if Occult List but cast as an Arcane caster just to keep the flavour consistent.

...What? They haven't even implied that Bards wouldn't be using Verbal/Somatic components for their spells - they're going to be casting just like every other spellcaster in the Playtest, so in essence it pretty much is just them casting off of the Occult list as an "arcane" caster, in the sense that they have Verbal and Somatic components. With how the way spellcasting classes seem to work in P2e, I actually wouldn't be surprised if the use of Thought and Emotion components become exclusive to just a few classes, like the Psychic and Mesmerist, when they eventually bring the Occult Adventures classes into P2e.

There is a difference between the spells and essences intrinsic to the occult tradition and the trappings of casting psychic magic. It's possible to make a bard a caster who follows the occult tradition and doesn't use psychic magic.

So Occult and Psychic are separate things? Can you have Psychics that use say the Arcane, Primal, or Divine Spell lists?

Yup; Occult and Psychic are two different things in P2e. I actually predicted in this thread that Psychic spellcasters will be a specific category of casting gained by specific classes, if not flat out going back to a non-vancian style of casting. While I predict that the Psychic and Mesmerist will stick with the Occult spell list, I also predicted that, if the Kineticist gains spellcasting, it will be from the Primal spell list.

After the news that the Sorcerer got to pick and choose whichever spell list it had access to based on their bloodline, and the fact that the Bard is now the official, 10th level, Occult caster for the core rulebook (with less spell slots and spells per day than the Sorcerer), I figured that it would be fun to predict which future classes would get which spell lists, in what capacity, and in some cases how they would be differentiated from the Sorcerer. Let me know what you think!

• Witches will be a prepared Occult spellcaster, with no reduction in their spells per day/spells known. Their choice in Patron will determine what bonus spells they get, like with Sorcerer bloodlines, and their hexes will operate similarly as the Bard's performances, with their lower level ones acting as cantrips.
  
• Oracles will be spontaneous Divine spellcasters, but will primarily be differentiated from the Sorcerer by their proficiencies and their Mysteries. Mystery abilities will be powered off of Spell Points, and I predict that Curses will remain mostly unchanged.
  
• Inquisitors will be spontaneous Divine spellcasters, with reduced spells similarly to the Bard. There will be more emphasis on the effects of their Judgements, while their Inquisitions will have a more mundane focus on their proficiencies, skills, etc., not unlike that of P1e's Inquisitions.
  
• Magi are a bit more up in the air - if they're reintroduced into P2e as a full class, I predict that they will be a prepared Arcane caster, but similarly to the Bard, will have reduced spells per day. Most of their class abilities will focus on applying magical affects to their weapons and increasing the power of offensive cantrips. This being said, I could definitely be wrong, and it's likely that they could rely more on spell points.
  
• Summoners will be spontaneous casters, with reduced spells like the Bard. Their choice of eidolon will determine which spell list they have access to, and they will have class feats that focus on improving their eidolon or otherwise boosting the effectiveness of their conjuration spells.
  
• Arcanists will be spontaneous Arcane spellcasters, casting off of Intelligence. They will have access to a spellbook to change what spells they can cast each day, and their class feats will center around exploits.
  
• Hunters will be spontaneous Primal spellcasters, similarly to the Bard. Their class feats and abilities will center around their animal companions.
  
• Bloodragers will not get spellcasting - instead, they will rely on Spell Points, similarly to the Monk/Paladin, and the powers they can use with their Spell Points will be determined by their bloodline.
  
• Shamans will be reintroduced as a new Material/Spiritual spellcaster, likely still prepared and still full 10th level. Spirits will provide access to spells in other spell lists, and otherwise will act similarly to a Witch in regards to hexes.
  
• Skalds, if they're reintroduced, will operate very similarly to the Bard, but will have a heavier focus on combat.
  
• Warpriests will be prepared Divine spellcasters with reduced spells per day, bridging the gap between Clerics and the now-spell-less Paladins. I figure that there will be more of a focus on reducing the time needed to cast spells.
  
• The Psychic classes will operate on their own spellcasting system, but otherwise will continue to use the four spell lists that we know. Psychics will be full spontaneous Occult spellcasters, gaining extra spells from other lists via their Disciplines, while Mesmerists will be very similar to the Bard in terms of spellcasting, albeit focusing on debuffing rather than buffing.
  
• Spiritualists will be the psychic analogue to the Summoner, but it's hard to see them with anything other than the Occult spell list, if they're not just folded into the Summoner to begin with.
  
• Mediums will continue to be the absolutely wild Jack of All Trades that they are, but their spellcasting will be more streamlined, with their active spirit determining which spell list they will cast from, if any.
  
• Occultists will lose access to spellcasting, but will become an occult analogue to the Alchemist, with a large focus on creating trinkets on the spot, similarly to the Alchemist with alchemical items.
  
• Kineticists are also a wild card - if they do not gain some form of casting, some of their abilities will likely be heavily based off of the Spell Points system, while they gain some cantrips based on their chosen element; in this scenario, Kinetic Blasts will remain semi-similar to the P1e interpretation. If they do gain spellcasting, it will likely be spontaneously like the bard, and off of the Primal spell list, albeit their spell choices will be limited by their element; in this scenario, Kinetic Blasts are relegated to Kineticist-exclusive cantrips.
  

Cantriped wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Personally I think all non-core iconics should be half-orcs to make up for the race/ancestry getting snubbed again.

Why do we even still have half-orcs? I don't see Orcs amongst the core races. Is it the origin-by-rape fantasy, or just legacy considerations? Pathfinder 2 needs Half-Goblins, because the purple golem loves their goblins.

Seriously though, An Iconic of every race would be the way to go, though I would be happier still if all the Iconics were Human... except that the Iconics (especially the Core ones) are part of Paizo's brand identity and its too late to change the whole line-up now.

Maybe we could have seen Kyra replaced with Oloch (warpriest) or Imrijka (inquisitor) since the hybrid classes are probably all dead.

We have half-orcs as a compromise because D&D-style writers are cowards. An instance where you can say "Blizzard Entertainment wrote them better" is a very sad one indeed.

I wouldn't care at all if half-orcs were removed in favor of actual orcs. Most anyone who play half-orcs that wouldn't play an orc are... very bad at playing half-orcs.

I feel the same way that Orcs in general need more love, but honestly I would still like to keep Half-Orcs around - hell, I actually wouldn't mind if Paizo went all out and included half-human ancestries for more ancestries, like Dwarves, and even Hobgoblins.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Renchard wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Occult flavour is about things like cults, rituals, invocation, forbidden practices, relics, sacrifice, drawing in power from outside, sympathy, spirits, old gods, ascension, etc.

Occult flavor is now more about bard stuff. New edition, new flavor.

Also, even in PF1 the Occult was also about stuff like "predicting the future with harrow cards or similar" or "object reading" or "perceiving people's auras" or "hypnotism" or "faith healing", all of which are wholly in the bard's wheelhouse.

What Milo is talking about is the darker side of occultism, let's have the classic bard hero define the lighter side of occultism.

If you want to think of it differently Arcane is High Art magic where as the Occukt is more like hedge magic, still gets the job done but it requires a different way of thinking.

Leaning into the hedge magic side of things, it reminds me of Pratchett's Witches and Headology. It's a perfect fit for the discipline involving mental and spiritual essences.

If Witches are prepared occult spellcasters when they're released, I swear to God the first 2e Witch I make is just gonna be an expy of Granny Weatherwax

Down the line, I imagine magus would go the route of Paladin in 2e using class feats and spell points to give powers.

I don't know, the thought of the Magus not getting spellcasting seems really off to me, and it somewhat clashes with the concept of someone who melds arcane study with martial training. I feel like leaving the door open for a new Arcane Paladin-esque class in the future would be a better fit. I would suggest the Bloodrager would be a good fit, but considering the Sorcerer is no longer exclusively Arcane, it doesn't have as strong a fit into the concept anymore.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Felinus wrote:

Am I wrong in guessing that spells of a single essence may exist on multiple lists, where relevant, to limit refluffing a duplication?

You are not wrong. Spells with two adjacent essences (they rarely have two opposing essences) may even be on all three lists that border either essence, depending on how they work.

Will these essences limit the possibilities of adding more spell lists down the line when more classes are created/updated? I can see the witch possibly using the occult list, but having them use the same list as bards is a bit odd. Psychic maybe the occult list, but a dedicated psychic list makes more sense to me.

And I'm very curious how former 6 and 4 level casters are going to be dealt with now that all of the core classes are all or nothing for spell-casting. Magi with full 10 level casting? Inquisitors with only powers instead of normal spell slots? Summoners really need a list of their own or maybe it'd be something like all conjuration, abjuration and transmutation spells from the Arcane and Occult spell lists but nothing else.

I think one of the major design goals with spells in the playtest is to step away from the design concept of each class having its own individual spell list, and instead having them refer to pre-existing spell lists that are almost communal for certain classes.

In that respect, it's a pretty logical conclusion that, since the Bard, the one 6th level caster in Core P1e, is now a 9th level caster but with slightly less spells overall than its other spontaneous counter part, the casting-focused Sorcerer, that the other historically 6th level casters will follow a similar path, having less spells than historically-full casters and having more focus on their class abilities.

In example, I could see both the Magus and the Summoner having default access to the Arcane spell list, but with slightly less spells known/per day/slots, and more emphasis on their ability to use combat-focused magic in a skirmish and their ability to summon, respectively. Same goes for the Warpriest and the Inquisitor for the Divine analogy, except with being a spell-casting tank and delivering judgement to enemies of your faith, respectively - hell, now that Paladins don't have any conventional spellcasting, Warpriests and Inquisitors being the divine gishes is more justifiable, especially since the Warpriest and Inquisitor by themselves are pretty distinct in how they operate (IE Prepared vs. Spontaneous).

Associating bards with the occult is a pretty weird leap to me. The conflict between performance (a public expression of artistic creativity) and occult knowledge (by definition secretive and insular) just doesn't work. I respect people trying to reconcile the concepts here, but if the connection isn't intuitive to readers, why use it? If you were to tell me that *any* major spellcasting class had a link to the occult, bards would have been last on my list.

I don't want to be that person, but if we're going off of definitions, Arcane is the one that is more strictly defined as mysterious, secretive, and insular. While the actual word Occult has its roots with the Latin word for "secret," most modern definitions tend to more closely tie it with explicit magical/supernatural beliefs or practices. Either way, both the terms "arcane" and "occult" are practically synonyms in practice, so you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

Are you saying that "Performance" as used by Paizo in the context of the Bard includes conducting rituals with absolutely no witnesses (besides the universe itself) and with no goal of entertaining anyone or even being acknowledged by anyone?

I mean, in the context of a lot of the class abilities, you're going to be using your Bardic Performances to directly buff people and, as a result, there will be (corporeal) witnesses, but in the context of using Bardic Performances to only buff yourself or otherwise not effect other characters? That could entirely be the case.

Besides, for an example of how Oration could work in the context of a Bard, one of the major NPCs in one of my games is an Elf Studious Librarian Bard who does the bookkeeping for her family's estate; she's used to searching and delving into old, musty tomes, creating records for relics and artifacts some of her relatives find on expeditions for the purposes of keeping track of finances, and occasionally she has to set up meetings where she has to discuss events such as mysterious persons gaining access to the family fortune - to her, using Oration for Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and her Bardic Performances is a result of her falling back to rehearsed and trained slogans and speeches to gain the upper hand in situations and otherwise bolster the morale of her associates, even if she leans more on the introvert side of things.

Yep, that's definitely an issue when it comes two different flavours of classes are forced to use the same list. Tbh, I'd prefer if Occult List but cast as an Arcane caster just to keep the flavour consistent.

...What? They haven't even implied that Bards wouldn't be using Verbal/Somatic components for their spells - they're going to be casting just like every other spellcaster in the Playtest, so in essence it pretty much is just them casting off of the Occult list as an "arcane" caster, in the sense that they have Verbal and Somatic components. With how the way spellcasting classes seem to work in P2e, I actually wouldn't be surprised if the use of Thought and Emotion components become exclusive to just a few classes, like the Psychic and Mesmerist, when they eventually bring the Occult Adventures classes into P2e.

And yet the magic bards have picked up has never been shown to be occult in flavour. Just because something manipulates minds does not make it automatically fit the occult flavour. It sounds like bards are only occult casters because they want psychic-style casters later to use the occult spell list so the occult spell list is where mind-manipulating stuff will be focused, despite the fact the bard flavour has zero occult elements. And if they're studying magical lore, then why doesn't their spellcasting style reflect the fact their power comes from learning with it being charisma based?

Alright, then what is the occult flavor? I can easily associate the Bard to occult themes due to 1.) their constant theme of extensive knowledge, which makes sense that those who are worldly and delve into ancient knowledge forgotten by traditional scholars would have occult knowledge (and, consequentially, the ability to cast spells), 2.) occult works in general tend to have themes that coincide pretty naturally with the bard, such as H.P. Lovecraft's The Music of Erich Zann as discussed upthread, especially considering Azathoth is frequently associated with music, and 3.) the fact that the Bard spell list focused primarily on mental and force effects, much like how the Occult spell list is going to focus primarily on mental and force effects, and as a result they tie in really close together.

From the sound of things, though, you can't divorce the concept of a spoony luter making a fool out of himself and trying to seduce everything from the Bard, which, frankly, sells the Bard short on what it represents as a whole, be it in the playtest or P1e.

As far as your point about Paizo just wanting a core class to have the Occult class so other classes in the future can quickly adopt it... so? As far as I'm concerned, there's already plenty of justification to have the Bard be the core Occult spellcaster, but even if there wasn't, what are they gonna do, give the Occult spell list to the Cleric? Just have the Bard bum off of the Arcane spell list even though it makes absolutely no sense mechanically? No matter which way you spin it, the Bard being given the Occult spell list is perfectly justifiable.

Friendly Rogue wrote:

Did you read the blog post? Bards get their spellcasting from piecemeal collection of occult knowledge and lore they're exposed to over the years, and Bards are by no means exclusively musicians - they weren't in P1e, and they especially aren't in the playtest.

Except that occult lore doesn't seem to have anything else to do with the rest of the classes fluff. They just randomly find occult lore that doesn't seem to exist outside of their own class it because they're performers...?

Bards have always been associated with magical lore, especially considering in P1e one of their key class abilities is Bardic Knowledge. Bards are just as much collectors of lore, orators, and scholars as they are performers who prance around the battlefield while tooting a flute - the fact that they're not shoehorned into being exclusively musicians is part of the reason why they're my favorite class.

Besides, the P1e Bard spell list focused heavily on spells that affect the mind and evoked occult themes on their own, including Hideous Laughter, Mad Hallucination, Mad Sultan's Melody... Bards are more than qualified to be considered Occult if you ask me.

I'll probably end up needing to ban this class in my campaigns since it looks like they still want to restrict the fluff to musicians who have magic for no discernible reason.

Did you read the blog post? Bards get their spellcasting from piecemeal collection of occult knowledge and lore they're exposed to over the years, and Bards are by no means exclusively musicians - they weren't in P1e, and they especially aren't in the playtest.

I like moving the songs over to spells. Much slicker. I wonder though, since we have inspire courage as an occult cantrip, does that mean a sorcerer with the occult spell list has access to it, or are cantrips class locked rather than spell list locked?

Compositions like Inspire Courage are basically Bard-exclusive cantrips, so they're not available to any occult caster, just the Bard.

As a matter of fact, from the looks of things, so far Bards are the only class that get cantrips exclusive to their class, so it's pretty interesting where this sort of concept might go in the future.

ErichAD wrote:

I'd think the occultist would make for a simple archetype for alchemist. Sub out alchemy/bombs for wonderous items/trinkets, give them a boost to rituals, add some spell point casting and you're good to go. When it comes down to it, they're the same sort of class with a focus on magic items rather than alchemical items.

Sub out bombs and alchemy. I mean, sure, but since "alchemy" includes basically all class abilities I'm not certain that it is as minor a swap as you're thinking.

Although I do agree that the class when it arrives will likely focus around trinkets, spell point powers, and have the same increased resonance that alchemists have (possibly even more). Hey, maybe they can call it a hedge mage.

Honestly, while I don't think making it an archetype would be either simple or practical, I feel that basing the Occultist pretty heavily off of the Alchemist (no spellcasting, but a lot of neat tricks involving magic items and class abilities that focus in on these abilities) would be a really smart way to approach it, especially now that 6th level casters are somewhat being phased out in favor of default full casters (and this is assuming this doesn't change in the future, or that it's easy for classes like the fighter to invest into spellcasting and get partial magic).

Friendly Rogue wrote:

This is hands down one of the best previews in my opinion. The bard is one of my favorite P1e classes, so reading that not only are they now full casters, but they also have a specifically defined spell list and are tied to occult themes? At that point, everything else is just a lot of icing on the perfectly moist cake.

I must ask, though, especially since the Occult spell list is also going to be accessible to the Sorcerer and presumably other classes in the future, what are the combat options like for the spell list? Are they particularly limited, or are they just more focused on mind-affecting effects?

You mean in-battle options or specifically damaging/offensive options? The influence from the spiritual focuses on force and sonic damage spells, combined with mental attacks like phantasmal killer and so on.

I was thinking of damaging/offensive options specifically, such as Ear-Piercing Scream or Chord of Shards from the Bard spell list in P1e, but if the Occult spell list has a focus on force effects due to the spiritual influence, does that mean spells like Magic Missile could also appear on it?

This is hands down one of the best previews in my opinion. The bard is one of my favorite P1e classes, so reading that not only are they now full casters, but they also have a specifically defined spell list and are tied to occult themes? At that point, everything else is just a lot of icing on the perfectly moist cake.

I must ask, though, especially since the Occult spell list is also going to be accessible to the Sorcerer and presumably other classes in the future, what are the combat options like for the spell list? Are they particularly limited, or are they just more focused on mind-affecting effects?

I really like how flexible the Monk in P2e seems to be, especially with Wisdom being pretty optional now!

I would really like to see what the status is on their alignment restrictions, like a few others in here. Beyond mechanics, one of the reasons why I wasn't particularly fond of the Monk in P1e was the fact that they had to be Lawful, and it would be a relief to hear if they were instead bound by anathemas that the player could choose, much like the Barbarian Totem anathemas but perhaps stricter.

I never really vibed with the notion that Lawful=Disciplined inherently, because it's entirely possible for Neutral or even Chaotic characters to be disciplined in regards to their physical and spiritual training.

I hope that there's more support for water-based spells. Hydraulic Push always seemed pretty underwhelming to me, considering it was one of the few spells that used water offensively, yet all it did was bull rush people around, so its usefulness is pretty situational. There are no water spells that I can think of off the top of my head that actually cause damage, especially since not all water is cold - the best I can think of is a metamagic feat that allows fire spells to be used underwater.

One of my favorite aspects of P1e's trait system is that you could really customize your character in a variety of ways by virtue of taking multiple traits that aren't explicitly tied together with each other, IE the Voices of Solid Things regional trait from Legacy of the First world letting you use Charisma for Spellcraft, then you could play as a Sorcerer who spent enough time with the Witchmarket to learn a fey-like approach to magic, with a distinct mechanical benefit for such.

While the backgrounds seem more all-encompassing and fine for more generalized backstories, especially with the fact that their benefits include ability boosts, I'm worried that they might cause some of the more specific backstories to be harder to support.

I really like the blog post! I'm glad that there's now distinct hierarchy for the Paladin Tenets so less-than-honorable GMs will have a tougher time putting the party Paladin into lose/lose situations.

However, there are some important things to bring up. After talking with my players about it, a lot of them are concerned with the fact that the Paladin is the de jure armor specialist; they believe that the Fighter should obtain legendary proficiency with Armor and Weapons by default, and they believe that making the Paladin the one class with legendary armor proficiency limits player agency if they don't want to play a religious character.

For a variety of different reasons, I agree with them. Personally, I feel that locking the armor specialist behind a specific alignment (LG) is particularly limiting - I understand the reasoning behind keeping the playtest version of the Paladin LG, especially since alignment in general is such a touchy subject, but considering being the tank is a pretty serious role, the prospect of that role being limited to one alignment is worrying. This concern is further cemented by the Barbarian, as I can only imagine that, with their heavy focus on damage output, would also have legendary weapon proficiency that is augmented by their rage.

Ignoring the alignment concerns (because frankly it's so touchy of a subject I don't want to focus on it), I believe a good middle ground would be to make the Paladin the armor specialist, the Barbarian the weapon specialist, and giving the Fighter legendary proficiency in both weapons and armor - seeing as the Paladin and Barbarian both have special class abilities that further cement their ability to tank hits and dish out intense damage respectively, with the Fighter being more dependent on feats, I feel that they deserve to get legendary proficiency in both weapons and armor to compensate and help promote build variation for Fighters. However, this is just my opinion, and I'm withholding a cemented opinion on this until after I get my hands on the playtest.

Charlatan wrote:

And I do think a lot of ppl came here to read more about magical weapons and how they'll work, rather than just normal weapons themselves. I can only assume we're getting more dice, rather than just "half your dmg is fire" ala STF.

I don't want to get ahead of myself but I'm hoping that magic abilities like flaming and shocking let martials use resonance to shoot that energy.

I also hope that the elemental upgrades get a buff, IE having the bonus damage they add being directly tied to the damage dice of the weapon being enhanced, if not having larger damage dice than the base weapon.

Oh, I just remembered a question I've been meaning to ask:

One of my biggest pet peeves with P1e's core weapons was the fact that the Morningstar, with its reduced weight, similar damage dice, cheaper cost, and multiple damage types, completely outclassed the Heavy Mace in every single way. I recognize that it was a 3.5 holdover, and as a result I'm fairly confident that this balance issue is going to be addressed.

That being said, I'm curious as to how it's being addressed; is the Morningstar going to have its damage dice reduced? Is it instead going to have its proficiency level bumped up to martial? Or is something else going to happen?

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Friendly Rogue wrote:

The Sightless Swordsman wrote:

This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.

I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.

Also, Excalibur's scabbard was actually more OP than Excalibur itself.

I mean few things are as dangerous as a big rock!

There's actually a game where you get "Sword in the Stone" as a weaon. It's a sword with a big boulder attached to the end.

That description just reminded me of the Kirkhammer from Bloodborne, and now I want to see trick weapons converted into Pathfinder in general.

Do you think my players will notice how Soulsborne-inspired my games are if I were to homebrew them myself?

This is also why messers are inferior weapons because you cannot end your opponent rightly.

I'm still waiting for when Paizo finally adds stats for sword pommels, but odds are they'd likely be too OP, what with them being able to completely demolish entire villages and what not.