This may be to reductive, but would it be reasonable to only have six Spell Lists.
How this would work is something like:
Arcane Spell List (Sorcerer and Wizard territory)
Divine Spell List (Cleric Territory)
Nature Spell List (Druid Territory)
Eldritch Spell List (Mix of Arcane and Nature Spell Lists)
Mystical Spell List (Mix of Divine and Nature Spell Lists)
Esoteric Spell List (Mix of Arcane and Divine Spell Lists)
All spells fall on one or multiple of these Spell Lists. If you have a partial caster like a Paladin then they would cast spells from the Divine Spell List up to level 5 spells. This way Spell Lists are not updated by Class, but instead by theme.
Later they could do something similar for a Psychic Spell List or Lists.
Well they've already said there's only four spell lists at launch. It's pretty obvious that three of them are Arcane, Divine and Nature. The open question remains which one is the fourth one, but it's probably going to be Bard, with Psychic waiting until PF2's version of the Advanced Player's Guide or some other book.
Thanks Fuzzypaws, I missed that announcement!
There's some speculation that bards might become psychic, which would rock. Besides, the iconic Bard and Mesmerist are brothers to boot.
That's actually pretty interesting because that would put all 4 of the standard Spell Lists in the game at the start.
Leaving the possibility for mixed Spell Lists to be added later. Those being:
Arcane/Divine Mix
Divine/Nature Mix
Nature/Psychic Mix
Pyschic/Arcane Mix
Divine/Psychic Mix
Arcane/Nature Mix
And then that would cap Spell Lists at 10 different lists. Assuming partial casters simply get access to spells up to a particular level from whichever list they have access to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And keep all spells at the same level, no matter in which list it appears. If Haste is 4th level in the Wizard list, it should be 4th level in whatever sub-list in appears.(if there are any 3/4 casters, or 1/2 casters.)
Strong agree. And then you can make spell progression stackable like BAB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And keep all spells at the same level, no matter in which list it appears. If Haste is 4th level in the Wizard list, it should be 4th level in whatever sub-list in appears.(if there are any 3/4 casters, or 1/2 casters.)Strong agree. And then you can make spell progression stackable like BAB.Mild disagree. There is a lot of value in giving spells at lower spell levels [but comparable level] for lighter casting classes.
Ranger and Paladin benefit a great deal from this [and bards/inquisitors etc somewhat] and I would be remiss to see it go away.
Now, if you got rid of it but built in a class feature/ class feat that allowed a lighter caster to take a handful of spells at a lower level spell level [insert restrictive verbiage I don't feel like brewing right now] than full casters then we could easily put them all on the same lists.
I don't think they would count a domain list or sorcerer bloodline or whatever as a "spell list." So they could certainly make every given spell always the same level on every primary list in which it appears, and then have it appear at different levels on these little individual class feature sublists.
And keep all spells at the same level, no matter in which list it appears. If Haste is 4th level in the Wizard list, it should be 4th level in whatever sub-list in appears.(if there are any 3/4 casters, or 1/2 casters.)Strong agree. And then you can make spell progression stackable like BAB.Mild disagree. There is a lot of value in giving spells at lower spell levels [but comparable level] for lighter casting classes.
Ranger and Paladin benefit a great deal from this [and bards/inquisitors etc somewhat] and I would be remiss to see it go away.
Now, if you got rid of it but built in a class feature/ class feat that allowed a lighter caster to take a handful of spells at a lower level spell level [insert restrictive verbiage I don't feel like brewing right now] than full casters then we could easily put them all on the same lists.
See, I would say that there still needs to be separate lists, just that all spells should hit all the lists at the same level. For example, there are spells that I think should be unique to rangers. Ranger's should have their own lists. But they shouldn't get (non-true example for illustrative purposes only) dimension door as a 2nd level spell just because that is when it comes online for a more powerful caster. Let the full 10 level caster KEEP that advantage. They give up lots of class features to get that advantage. Now, if you feel like a paladin or a ranger should get access to particular spells early, it may be prudent to make then 2/3rds casters instead of 1/2.
There's some speculation that bards might become psychic, which would rock. Besides, the iconic Bard and Mesmerist are brothers to boot.
I like that so long as the flavor is right, and a bard can be "bardy" without having to be "Cthulhu investigatory" :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think they would count a domain list or sorcerer bloodline or whatever as a "spell list." So they could certainly make every given spell always the same level on every primary list in which it appears, and then have it appear at different levels on these little individual class feature sublists.And keep all spells at the same level, no matter in which list it appears. If Haste is 4th level in the Wizard list, it should be 4th level in whatever sub-list in appears.(if there are any 3/4 casters, or 1/2 casters.)Strong agree. And then you can make spell progression stackable like BAB.Mild disagree. There is a lot of value in giving spells at lower spell levels [but comparable level] for lighter casting classes.
Ranger and Paladin benefit a great deal from this [and bards/inquisitors etc somewhat] and I would be remiss to see it go away.
Now, if you got rid of it but built in a class feature/ class feat that allowed a lighter caster to take a handful of spells at a lower level spell level [insert restrictive verbiage I don't feel like brewing right now] than full casters then we could easily put them all on the same lists.
On this note, sorcerers need to get their bloodline bonus spells earlier rather than later. They should be able to cast their bloodline spells as though they were one level lower. It doesn't make sense to have the sorcerer wait an extra level to get a spell for free that they are supposed to have some kind of blood affinity for. Give the arcane bloodline (for example) dispel magic at 4 instead of 6, and let them cast it from their 2nd level slots. Sorcerers should get their iconic bloodline spells [b]early[/i] instead of late.
Given the opportunity to redesign the classes from the ground up, I'd make sweeping changes to the bard along the lines of the alchemist. Let them do interesting and unique things entirely based on their performances, instead of casting any spells directly at all. There's precedence for this with the bardic masterpieces added in ultimate magic and beyond, and I think it would make the class more interesting all around.
That would effectively leave two classes each for three spell lists in core with Divine (Cleric/Paladin), Nature (Druid/Ranger) and Arcane (Sorcerer/Wizard). I, like others, would very much like for that fourth list to be psychic. I'm not sure that's particularly likely though, as its only possible use in the core rules would be for archetypes.
A man can dream, though. A man can dream.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I like the simplicity and ease of introducing new classes without having to write up a list of specific spells for them to get, I'm not sure I'm on board with this. There is the problem of classes with a specific 'theme' that isn't really represented with these lists. Like the summoner, their theme is summoning, teleportation and buffing their critters. Just giving them Arcane up to level 6 or 7 would make them weaker sorcerers with a pet instead of their own thing. And for some limited casters it makes sense for spells to have different levels.
And there is the Witch (which apparently was almost the added core class instead of the alchemist, so it's almost certain to return, probably sooner rather than later). The witch combines arcane, divine and nature. And their list shouldn't be the bard list with more levels. They have their own flavor.
So yeah, my main opposition is it removes the flavor of some non-core classes. But it's entirely possible that they're doing something similar to what you described considering there are more core caster classes than there are lists. Wizard/Sorcerer are certainly going to share a list again, but with 4 lists I think Paladins and Druids will just have the Cleric list with fewer levels.
I think alchemists might not even have extracts that act like spells anymore (or they didn't include them in the count because they're technically Formulas not Spells), which I'm not sure is a good idea. I'm curious what the new alchemist will be like, hopefully it's not just that they make and use the standard alchemical items.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The open question remains which one is the fourth one, but it's probably going to be Bard, with Psychic waiting until PF2's version of the Advanced Player's Guide or some other book.
I expect we'll get Psychic based on the fact it makes sense to have them be based on power source (primal, arcane, divine, psychic). Furthermore when asked why they didn't include psychics in the core rules on the podcast (know direction?) I believe it was Logan who said they couldn't answer that question at that time. Which to me says there's a good chance they ARE including psychics (as in people who use psychic magic) as an archetype or prestige class.
I agree with three of the lists being arcane (sorcerer/wizard), divine (cleric/paladin) and nature (druid/ranger). I have no idea what the 4th list could be, logically it should be psychic but that would only waste space in the play test book. So maybe bard, but I wish they would tell us for sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess we can call the bard list "musical" if it needs a type other than arcane.
I guess we can call the bard list "musical" if it needs a type other than arcane.
I like it.
I do not expect it but I would like to see the fourth be a 'Blended' list :
* Arcane.
* Divine.
* Nature/Pantheistic.
* "Blended".
The blended list could simply be all of the Spells that every Spellcasting Class can use, (Spell Level permitting), leaving the other lists to be more specialized and thematic to their type of Magic. Alternatively, it could be a Spell list for Magic users who are versatile at the cost of specialization. My favourite option would be a take on the cross-type comments above - a list of Spells tagged with more than one type, (e.g., Arcane-Nature), that can be accessed through a Class Feat or Archetype, (expanding your Spell List seems a worthwhile expenditure). So the Wizard could gain access to the Arcane-Nature blended Spells with a Feat, then if so desires can use another to add Arcane-Divine Spells. I would see that as an even better choice for Spontaneous Casters, as it is not a "Feat tax" to add extra Spells from their own single, set Spell List, (a la Expanded Arcana), rather gaining more control over their Spell list choices instead. In fact, they could open up their Spell list with one Feat/Archetype, then use Expanded Arcana to add additional Spells Known from this wider pool of choice. They would still be limited to their Spells Known and have a central Magic type, yet gain a little more flexibility/give the Player more control over what is "innate" or natural development for their Character('s choices).
Again, this is more of a "wish list" than an expectation, I doubt this aligns much with others' ideas. xD
While I hoped for Psychic, we're getting Bard. Either here or Reddit had a playtest report by a Bard who cast healing spells (in the context of where party healing came from and whether it was adequate). I have a hard time reconciling that with anything but a Bard list that resembles the PF1 list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I hoped for Psychic, we're getting Bard. Either here or Reddit had a playtest report by a Bard who cast healing spells (in the context of where party healing came from and whether it was adequate). I have a hard time reconciling that with anything but a Bard list that resembles the PF1 list.
5th edition lets you pick a College that helps define your class features. I could see Pathfinder 2nd ed doing the same thing. Or even a core bard class feature "Choose one spell per spell level from any spell list. You know that spell. You can choose an additional spell each time you gain a new spell level." That would help them fulfill the healer role (although beyond HP restoration it seems at least one internal playtest bard is mainly focusing on HP restoration for their healing role). Remember: 1 heal spell = cure light wounds, cure moderate wounds, cure serious wounds, cure critical wounds, mass cure light wounds, mass etc, etc. So it doesn't take much to give an arcane caster the ability to heal.
I'm more speculating that it will be Arcane, cleric, druid and alchemist.
And I don't like it.
In Pathfinder, the bard, paladin and ranger get access to spells that are unavailable to other classes. This is a feature, and helps classes retain their identity.
Opening up access to Holy Sword, Glibness, Instant Enemy and Hunter's Howl to other classes chips away at class identity.
The Alchemist doesn’t operate from a spell list this time, just amped up alchemical items.
I personally understand that perspective and why its appealing, but on the other hand I question why bother with a class system at all if that's true. If everything's going to be poachable and any class can fulfill any niche by taking x, y, and z options, then frankly you have no business using a class system and would be much better served with a more open character build system.
I would be happy with a classless system if it also had a good organized play organization supporting it.
While I like the simplicity and ease of introducing new classes without having to write up a list of specific spells for them to get, I'm not sure I'm on board with this. There is the problem of classes with a specific 'theme' that isn't really represented with these lists. Like the summoner, their theme is summoning, teleportation and buffing their critters. Just giving them Arcane up to level 6 or 7 would make them weaker sorcerers with a pet instead of their own thing. And for some limited casters it makes sense for spells to have different levels.
And there is the Witch (which apparently was almost the added core class instead of the alchemist, so it's almost certain to return, probably sooner rather than later). The witch combines arcane, divine and nature. And their list shouldn't be the bard list with more levels. They have their own flavor.
So yeah, my main opposition is it removes the flavor of some non-core classes. But it's entirely possible that they're doing something similar to what you described considering there are more core caster classes than there are lists. Wizard/Sorcerer are certainly going to share a list again, but with 4 lists I think Paladins and Druids will just have the Cleric list with fewer levels.
I think alchemists might not even have extracts that act like spells anymore (or they didn't include them in the count because they're technically Formulas not Spells), which I'm not sure is a good idea. I'm curious what the new alchemist will be like, hopefully it's not just that they make and use the standard alchemical items.
What if the changes to which spell goes into which list are intended to fill this need for specialization? If spells that were once conjuration attacks get moved to evocation, then maybe a Summoner could just have access to a couple Schools (Transmutation, Conjuration, Abjuration) and have most of what they could previously do.
What if the changes to which spell goes into which list are intended to fill this need for specialization? If spells that were once conjuration attacks get moved to evocation, then maybe a Summoner could just have access to a couple Schools (Transmutation, Conjuration, Abjuration) and have most of what they could previously do.
That does make some sense, but I feel would again just make Summoners more limited sorcerers. Maybe have something where they can get the particular schools from multiple lists, that could be and interesting way to give a unique collection of spells. But I'm not sure that works entirely either.