|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A nod to the increased availability of rituals would be nice to have in an AP. I'm not sure how that would be represented narratively, though. A global revelation by Nethys, perhaps. Any ideas?
I think at a fundamental level it opens up some really interesting possibilities just for what kind of stories you can tell. If, for example, becoming a lich is a ritual (seems possible), does that mean we could see martial lichs in the new edition? What happens when the BBEG is a turn-resistant, nigh-unkillable undead whose touch drains the life out of you? Or lich monks who grapple you to death? Depending on what and how rituals open things up, we could see a huge increase just in the variations of classic enemies that show up in adventures, before we really even dig in to how other elements of the game world could evolve.
As Fuzzypaws mentioned, the idea that you could have shrine maidens and other mystical occupations fulfilled by rogues, fighters, rangers, monks, etc. opens up some very cool possibilities, not least of which is the fact that players are going to be much more likely to be surprised when they go into a "classic cleric/wizard/etc." encounter and discover that their opponent is very different than what would have been mechanically plausible before.
I'm definitely keen on exploring the possibilities of that! You can have it be part of the "job" of a King or Queen in certain nations to conduct important rituals for matters of state and national interest. [...]
Ooh, I hadn't even thought about that, but that is a really tropey idea that the new ritual system seems like it would support! It even seems like (purely speculating here) there could potentially be design space for something like a ritual having a "royal blood" component or something similar that both gates certain rituals and provides some back-context for why certain things are set up the way they are in various countries and organizations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like stuff that only plausibly affects player characters does not need an explanation.
Like if we're able to handle "there were no Psychics in Golarion prior to Occult Adventures, but then suddenly they were always there" then we can handle "magic works slightly differently."
I feel like stuff that only plausibly affects player characters does not need an explanation.
Like if we're able to handle "there were no Psychics in Golarion prior to Occult Adventures, but then suddenly they were always there" then we can handle "magic works slightly differently."
I wouldn't say we were able to "handle" it. "Where the hell did all these Psychics come from?" is a very good question. They were different enough from other casters and released late enough to warrant an explanation. The only reason my group allowed Occult stuff was because we were already using the Dreamscarred Psychic rules. I don't think it's too much to ask for Paizo to take canon seriously and provide answers for such questions.
|
On the age of Elves, yeah that could use an explanation. Starfinder lists the elves being able to remember 4000+ years to pre-gap times as one of the reasons they aren't active in the 'world'. That feels like a bigger difference than simply being an "alternate timeline".
This is factually false. The Gap only ended 317 years ago and there are Elves alive who have large parts of their own lives missing due to it, not any who remember the thousands of years before it happened.
600 years old is more than long enough for that to be true (and the 600 is taken from a throwaway line in a blog anyway, the PF1 750 might easily be possible, just rare, which it always was).
I wouldn't say we were able to "handle" it. "Where the hell did all these Psychics come from?" is a very good question. They were different enough from other casters and released late enough to warrant an explanation. The only reason my group allowed Occult stuff was because we were already using the Dreamscarred Psychic rules.
Psychic stuff had been mentioned in Golarion canon for years (without mechanics, mind you). It's specifically noted as common on Castrovel and over in Casmaron (especially Vudra), for example, in Distant Worlds and the Inner Sea World Guide respectively. It's just rare in the Inner Sea Region.
I don't think it's too much to ask for Paizo to take canon seriously and provide answers for such questions.
I don't think any of the new mechanics require basically anything in the way of explanation. Stuff like Resonance (in the form of a 'personal magic field') has been around since the Alchemist came out in the APG, Rituals have been around (if rare) since Occult Adventures (and a ritual user is hard to distinguish from a non-combat focused caster in-universe unless you know them personally or something), and nothing else mechanical is even a lore change.
The Goblin thing is a lore change, but one they've already said there'll be an explanation for (we can argue about whether it's sufficient when we hear it, there's really no point until then). And, as a completely non-mechanical change, sort of outside this thread's scope anyway.
It could be a simplification and I would be fine with that if it is their explanation. But if I remember correctly max age for an elf was 750.Clan Daggers for dwarves! Elves dying earlier! Both need to be explained.Eh, the "Elves Dying Earlier" I'd argue is just simplifying the maximum age rules, and even increased over the average max age from PF1e by around 50 years.
TBF the number of elves that managed to have a max age of 750 is less than 0.01%. Admittedly the number that could outlive 600 years was around 1 in 5, but even among them it's questionable how many that had that potential actually managed to survive that long. Golarion is a very dangerous world after all. It is a simplification, but I'm not sure it's one dramatic enough to need an in-story justification.
On the age of Elves, yeah that could use an explanation. Starfinder lists the elves being able to remember 4000+ years to pre-gap times as one of the reasons they aren't active in the 'world'. That feels like a bigger difference than simply being an "alternate timeline".
Does it say that? I'm pretty sure the reason they're less active in the Pact Worlds is because they're still paranoid because they're still within a generation or three of the Gap, so they themselves or people they know are still missing a large chunk of memories, not because they remember before it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are all going to be Paladins and bring love and joy and dancing and singing and beauty back to Golarion! The Eternal Rose sees love in everyone, and we will bring our own flavor to the stew! Everyone should be proud, too!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, it should be noted that Aasimars are so populous in Tian that they have their own country.
... are you operating under the assumption that Tian Xia had an overpopulation crisis of Aasimars and so rounded them all up and stuck them in what would become Tianjing? Cause.... that's not how that country came about.
Qlippoth tried to break through there and Celestials descended there to combat and guard them. Very, very friendly Celestials. Eventually they left and left the country in the hands of their descendants.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's too much to ask for Paizo to take canon seriously and provide answers for such questions.
Corrik, I appreciate that the word canon has a very specific and important meaning to you, but pathfinder is a game that releases new products every month. If they only ever allowed new material that was narratively set up in advance through an involved AP, they would run into a lot of trouble very quickly. The world of Golarion is large, diverse and complex. Not everyone everywhere knows what is and isn't possible in such a place. It is an imagined world and players and DMs are allowed to imagine it together as benefits them having the most fun for their game.
I for one am very thankful that the developers do not feel the need to control and micromanage every change and development in the world for their players. If some new rule or thing doesn't balance well with your game in progress, don't use it. When you start a new game, especially in a new setting or part of the world, then you can bring in the material and it doesn't have to destroy the fun you had playing the game before just because some things have changed. They want you and your gaming group to be able to play many of the APs in any order you wish, or exclude some entirely, and let your Golarion be as narratively consistent as you want it to be, without demanding that same narrative world for everyone else. This is a definite strength of a role-playing game, not a weakness.
However, it should be noted that Aasimars are so populous in Tian that they have their own country.... are you operating under the assumption that Tian Xia had an overpopulation crisis of Aasimars and so rounded them all up and stuck them in what would become Tianjing? Cause.... that's not how that country came about.
Qlippoth tried to break through there and Celestials descended there to combat and guard them. Very, very friendly Celestials. Eventually they left and left the country in the hands of their descendants.
I'm aware, but the fact remains that Tian has a sustainable population of Aasimar and they are far more common throughout the land than in the Inner Sea. It was used as a comment on the population size of the planer races in a conversation about the Races. But...thanks...for...paying...attention to the..........context.
This is factually false. The Gap only ended 317 years ago and there are Elves alive who have large parts of their own lives missing due to it, not any who remember the thousands of years before it happened.
600 years old is more than long enough for that to be true (and the 600 is taken from a throwaway line in a blog anyway, the PF1 750 might easily be possible, just rare, which it always was).
Yeah you're right, I think a conversation about immortals got mashed together with the elves knowing something went down during the Gap.
Psychic stuff had been mentioned in Golarion canon for years (without mechanics, mind you). It's specifically noted as common on Castrovel and over in Casmaron (especially Vudra), for example, in Distant Worlds and the Inner Sea World Guide respectively. It's just rare in the Inner Sea Region.
Which would be great if the game took place in Vudra or on a different planet. The problem is that game, and Pathfinder Society Modules especially, typically take place in the Inner Sea Region. So there was a sudden influx of completely different casters as party members because the Occult book didn't include any rules about Psychics being rare in Varisia. I don't think an explanation for this influx is too much to ask for. I had a similar issue with Kineticist, but them being kinda close enough to sorcerers helped cushion that more. The confusing layout of the class also helped to slow the roll out.
I don't think any of the new mechanics require basically anything in the way of explanation. Stuff like Resonance (in the form of a 'personal magic field') has been around since the Alchemist came out in the APG, Rituals have been around (if rare) since Occult Adventures (and a ritual user is hard to distinguish from a non-combat focused caster in-universe unless you know them personally or something), and nothing else mechanical is even a lore change.
The issue with Resonance isn't that a similar concept didn't exist, it's that now everyone explicitly has it. An explanation for why the fighter has an energy field limiting his magic items or why wands work completely differently is again not too much to ask for. It wouldn't require much, and several events could be used. The closing of the World Wound may have had seemingly unrelated consequences for instance.
Rituals it will really depended on how they end up being presented. If 1/3 of the spell book is a ritual and most anyone can do them with the proper time and resources, yeah that's a shift that requires explanation. If they remain rare enough, the fact that a fighter could complete that "once every 100 years" ritual could have just been a little known fact that doesn't require explanation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm aware, but the fact remains that Tian has a sustainable population of Aasimar and they are far more common throughout the land than in the Inner Sea. It was used as a comment on the population size of the planer races in a conversation about the Races. But...thanks...for...paying...attention to the..........context.However, it should be noted that Aasimars are so populous in Tian that they have their own country.... are you operating under the assumption that Tian Xia had an overpopulation crisis of Aasimars and so rounded them all up and stuck them in what would become Tianjing? Cause.... that's not how that country came about.
Qlippoth tried to break through there and Celestials descended there to combat and guard them. Very, very friendly Celestials. Eventually they left and left the country in the hands of their descendants.
I was.
Tian Xia has one country that has a high population of Aasimar, or at least higher than anywhere else. It does not state any of these Aasimars regularly leave to become adventures, and I don't think it's stated anywhere that Aasimar are more common in Tian Xia as a whole than the Inner Sea.
Tianjing is an outlier, not the standard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psychic stuff had been mentioned in Golarion canon for years (without mechanics, mind you). It's specifically noted as common on Castrovel and over in Casmaron (especially Vudra), for example, in Distant Worlds and the Inner Sea World Guide respectively. It's just rare in the Inner Sea Region.Which would be great if the game took place in Vudra or on a different planet. The problem is that game, and Pathfinder Society Modules especially, typically take place in the Inner Sea Region. So there was a sudden influx of completely different casters as party members because the Occult book didn't include any rules about Psychics being rare in Varisia. I don't think an explanation for this influx is too much to ask for. I had a similar issue with Kineticist, but them being kinda close enough to sorcerers helped cushion that more. The confusing layout of the class also helped to slow the roll out.
I may just not be remembering correctly, but from what I remember, the official justification for Psychic just "appearing" was that it had just been mistaken for Arcane magic before that point. Psychics and Kineticists could be mistaken for different kinds of Sorcerers, Mesmerist is very similar to Bard, and Spiritualist is like a Summoner with a particular type of Eidolon. The only ones that don't so neatly fit into the paradigm are Occultist and Medium, and either of them could be mistaken for any of a few classes depending on their chosen specialization.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may just not be remembering correctly, but from what I remember, the official justification for Psychic just "appearing" was that it had just been mistaken for Arcane magic before that point. Psychics and Kineticists could be mistaken for different kinds of Sorcerers, Mesmerist is very similar to Bard, and Spiritualist is like a Summoner with a particular type of Eidolon. The only ones that don't so neatly fit into the paradigm are Occultist and Medium, and either of them could be mistaken for any of a few classes depending on their chosen specialization.Psychic stuff had been mentioned in Golarion canon for years (without mechanics, mind you). It's specifically noted as common on Castrovel and over in Casmaron (especially Vudra), for example, in Distant Worlds and the Inner Sea World Guide respectively. It's just rare in the Inner Sea Region.Which would be great if the game took place in Vudra or on a different planet. The problem is that game, and Pathfinder Society Modules especially, typically take place in the Inner Sea Region. So there was a sudden influx of completely different casters as party members because the Occult book didn't include any rules about Psychics being rare in Varisia. I don't think an explanation for this influx is too much to ask for. I had a similar issue with Kineticist, but them being kinda close enough to sorcerers helped cushion that more. The confusing layout of the class also helped to slow the roll out.
Occultists are artificers and Mediums are possessed people basically :3
I don't think it's too much to ask for Paizo to take canon seriously and provide answers for such questions.Corrik, I appreciate that the word canon has a very specific and important meaning to you, but pathfinder is a game that releases new products every month. If they only ever allowed new material that was narratively set up in advance through an involved AP, they would run into a lot of trouble very quickly. The world of Golarion is large, diverse and complex. Not everyone everywhere knows what is and isn't possible in such a place. It is an imagined world and players and DMs are allowed to imagine it together as benefits them having the most fun for their game.
I for one am very thankful that the developers do not feel the need to control and micromanage every change and development in the world for their players. If some new rule or thing doesn't balance well with your game in progress, don't use it. When you start a new game, especially in a new setting or part of the world, then you can bring in the material and it doesn't have to destroy the fun you had playing the game before just because some things have changed. They want you and your gaming group to be able to play many of the APs in any order you wish, or exclude some entirely, and let your Golarion be as narratively consistent as you want it to be, without demanding that same narrative world for everyone else. This is a definite strength of a role-playing game, not a weakness.
I, and many others, would argue that a constant release of products that aren't properly tied to game world caused a lot of trouble very quickly. It certainly got us some broken feats. Not everything requires it's own AP, but you can plan the broad strokes in advance. Certainly coming up with a reason for a change or introduction to maintain consistency in the setting is doable. I realize that properly mapping out how a new item would impact society is a lot, but it's how I view things. That item doesn't just let you do <insert effect> during combat. That item might completely reshape society as we know it, and I can't stop thinking about that. So I either now have to change up my stuff to match the story, or ignore a component of the campaign setting. Neither is a good option for me, I consider it a failure.
I don't consider the campaign setting to be mine. I have my homebrew where I can do whatever I want. I don't want my own little version in the corner that gets further and further away from the actual setting with every new release, with every session. I want to play around in Golarion, and I want Golarion to be consistent. If this book says A and this book says C, then I want an answer as to what B is and how it lead us to C. Not only do I want to know what B is, I want B to be a well written progression to C that feels organic within the setting and story. I recognize that the nature of the medium means things won't always line up 100%. However, I put a lot of work making sure my characters and stories fit in to the setting. That I don't drop a Forgotten Realms character in to the Inner Sea. I feel like I've been doing backflips trying to avoid treating Starfinder as Shadowrun. I don't appreciate being told that's a pointless waste of time, just do whatever you want none of it matters.
And I get that it's a difficult balancing act. Made more difficult by the fact that the game has decades of legacy. Some of which is a boon and some of which needs to die in a fire. That there is a lot of disagreement as to which is which. That there is another autistic old man out there that considers doing away with LG only core Paladins as egregious as making Goblins core or whatever else. I can meet people in the middle, I can accept changes and explanations that don't quite sit well with me. I can't accept a lazy hand wave and being told it doesn't matter. It does matter to me.
I was.
Tian Xia has one country that has a high population of Aasimar, or at least higher than anywhere else. It does not state any of these Aasimars regularly leave to become adventures, and I don't think it's stated anywhere that Aasimar are more common in Tian Xia as a whole.
Were you though? Because I did not state they become adventurers more often. I did not state it was the standard. Didn't even use it as an example for them being a core race. I responded to a comment about the size of the planer races. I then went on to talk about Goblins. Mentioning that the green buggers don't have their own country, drawing attention to the fact that even Aasimar do. It was more a comment on how even clearly non-core races have a leg up on Goblins.
The population of planer and spiritual races is stated to be higher in Tian Xia than in the Inner Sea. The spiritual world has much more physical presence in the "mysterious far east". It's one of the gimmicks of the area. Let's talk about Tianjing real quick though, because it actually does have interesting implications. It has been populated by Aasimar for roughly 6000 years. 6000 years of a sustainable Aasimar population. Now Aasimar, Tieflings, and the other planer races are often not treated as a true breeding race, such as Half-Elves. That a celestial relative did not guarantee an Aasimar, that 100 generations removed from a celestial ancestor still could result in an Aasimar. Tianjing is a good example for that dynamic being changed up or just flat wrong. If Aasimar can true breed often enough to have their own country, why then not others? The elemental or genie-kin races in the Kelish Empire or Tieflings in Cheliax. An increasing Tiefling population has actually come up for Cheliax.
I restate that my real problem with Goblins as core is keeping the old core list but hot gluing Goblins to it. If the core race line up was being changed more, it would be less of an issue. Doing away with half-elfs and half-orcs and folding them in to Elf and Orc. Folding the planer races in to humans or making them a single race entry with different heritages. A single race with different heritages could make them core material, and tying heritages to different areas helps maintain the lore. I don't want to see a bunch of half measures for 2e. I don't to see claims that everything is the same except for this, that, and the other. If they are going to make changes, I would like to see changes. I will also restate that I don't particularly want the planer races to be core, just an example.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By making the statement of "are far more common throughout the land" you kinda are implying they are the standard.
And I don't know why you keep bringing up that they have a country where they beat out other races for once, as it's pretty much meaningless. Gnomes, Halflings, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs don't have their own countries and they're Core, and probably less numerous than Goblins.
(I don't know were it was stated that Planetouched don't breed true. This is the first I've heard of it)
To answer your question for that, it's simple. Breeding has absolutely nothing to do with whether a country forms. Just because you have a lot of some groups doesn't mean they automatically get a country. There's a LOOOOOOOOOOT of moving parts that goes into making one of those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually see the change to core goblins as a mechanical change that has the game catching up to the existing lore. Ever since Pathfinder became it's own game, goblins have been iconic to it and presented in more complex ways, as in not always monstrous. Really, goblins are more iconic to the game then almost any other race, and are more common in world than almost any other race. The core rulebook is finally going to acknowledge what is already the case in the lore.
;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I get that it's a difficult balancing act. Made more difficult by the fact that the game has decades of legacy. Some of which is a boon and some of which needs to die in a fire. That there is a lot of disagreement as to which is which. That there is another autistic old man out there that considers doing away with LG only core Paladins as egregious as making Goblins core or whatever else. I can meet people in the middle, I can accept changes and explanations that don't quite sit well with me.
Corrik,
Your use of of the word autism here is confusing and feels like you might be using it as an insult against someone else here on the forums. I don't know if by "another" you mean to imply yourself, or myself or who that comment is being directed. If you are not intending it as an insult, but as a discussion of autism and the importance of consistent narrative consistency, it would be better to make that connection more clear in your post, than to first mention it in reference to someone else. Otherwise it feels a lot like an attack.I share your concern for avoiding broken feats and larger mechanical issues, I just think it is probably better to not to think of Golarion or the larger megaverse around it, as one set place, outside of the specific game world you are playing in, with the specific people you are playing with. There are certainly thousands of different Golarions out there shaped by different adventuring groups and it is ok if each of them operates a little differently. Asking developers for clarifications about things that don't make sense to you is a perfectly fine use of message board space, as is making respectful comments about what you would like to see changed in the larger setting, but calling things garbage and demanding that everyone else change their own playing universe because it doesn't align with yours is not a productive use of this space.
If your playing universe can't handle the introduction of psychics or certain playable ancestries, it is perfectly ok to play games you GM without them. If you are playing as a player in a game someone else is running, you don't get to decide what their Golarion has to be for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I get that it's a difficult balancing act. Made more difficult by the fact that the game has decades of legacy. Some of which is a boon and some of which needs to die in a fire. That there is a lot of disagreement as to which is which. That there is another autistic old man out there that considers doing away with LG only core Paladins as egregious as making Goblins core or whatever else. I can meet people in the middle, I can accept changes and explanations that don't quite sit well with me.Corrik,
Your use of of the word autism here is confusing and feels like you might be using it as an insult against someone else here on the forums. I don't know if by "another" you mean to imply yourself, or myself or who that comment is being directed. If you are not intending it as an insult, but as a discussion of autism and the importance of consistent narrative consistency, it would be better to make that connection more clear in your post, than to first mention it in reference to someone else. Otherwise it feels a lot like an attack.I share your concern for avoiding broken feats and larger mechanical issues, I just think it is probably better to not to think of Golarion or the larger megaverse around it, as one set place, outside of the specific game world you are playing in, with the specific people you are playing with. There are certainly thousands of different Golarions out there shaped by different adventuring groups and it is ok if each of them operates a little differently. Asking developers for clarifications about things that don't make sense to you is a perfectly fine use of message board space, as is making respectful comments about what you would like to see changed in the larger setting, but calling things garbage and demanding that everyone else change their own playing universe because it doesn't align with yours is not a productive use of this space.
If your playing universe can't handle the introduction of psychics or certain playable ancestries, it is...
I was referring to myself and not meant as an attack or insult. Apologies if it came off that way. Narrative consistency is a tic for me. I seriously have a hard time not thinking about it, to the point where I can't at times. The comment about others was more a self awareness comment and recognizing that other people feel similar ways about other things. I know that for a fact, one of them is at my table.
If your playing universe can't handle the introduction of psychics or certain playable ancestries, it is perfectly ok to play games you GM without them.
Like I said earlier, this isn't my setting. The problem is that I do view it as a single megaverse. That when I take all the rules and story elements and put them together, the setting is the the natural outcome. If it deviates, then there should be an explanation. I'm well aware that is not how it works, my brain less so. And good luck convincing my brain that I can or can not play without elements I don't like. For other tables, I can take "This is a homebrew setting largely based on Golarion", try to compartmentalize it, and mostly move on. Mostly. As I said, Ultimate Psionics is in play. To give you an idea, we are running a short side game for new players and the fact that just the tone doesn't line up bothers me.
But for me, I'm playing in this universe, and this universe has this element, and if I don't have it then I'm not playing in that universe. Reconciling new content(especially content that has implications for the larger setting), errata, inconsistencies, and the like is difficult for me. And it isn't even consistently difficult. I can watch a bad 80's action movie and sometimes the inconstancy is part of the fun and other times they make it unbearable. I can be loving a comic but then it contradicts a meaningless detail and it just ruins it. I promise it isn't half as fun as it sounds.
The only thing I think I've galled garbage is the Gap. Which is way to not have narrative consistency in Starfinder. I've asked "What about this" for 100+ things and don't find "The Gap, we don't have to explain anything" acceptable. I don't like it and I won't apologize for calling it as it as I see it. Trying to compartmentalize in that game has been hell. I don't think I've demanded other people change their home games. Either way, lets move on from my defects.
We've talked about rituals some. Do you think there will be a need for a story update on any other magic? Some explanation on resonance and the effects on consumables would be nice. Spells don't seem to be getting a bit change, assuming having 10th level spells more of a sliding effect. Even so, some lines to explain even the small differences would be appreciated. Someone mentioned Nethys, which has a lot to play around with.
|
|
Which would be great if the game took place in Vudra or on a different planet. The problem is that game, and Pathfinder Society Modules especially, typically take place in the Inner Sea Region. So there was a sudden influx of completely different casters as party members because the Occult book didn't include any rules about Psychics being rare in Varisia. I don't think an explanation for this influx is too much to ask for. I had a similar issue with Kineticist, but them being kinda close enough to sorcerers helped cushion that more. The confusing layout of the class also helped to slow the roll out.
What influx? Almost no Occult NPCs show up. The few that do are in small enough numbers to easily have been overlooked previously.
The Occult Book is setting agnostic, so of course it doesn't say whether they're rare any particular place, it can't. Setting books do in fact say precisely this. Occult Origins, for example, explicitly goes into all Occult Classes being very rare and proceeds to note where in the Inner Sea you might find them, while also noting that they are often mistaken for con artists and the like when they do show up.
As for PCs...PCs are exceptions to a lot of rules, and mostly don't exist in the same universe as each other. In the Golarion that I run and play games in I think we've seen all of two Occult characters in the Inner Sea in the whole time since Occult Adventures came out (both were PCs). Two people in a whole region is a not a huge influx.
The issue with Resonance isn't that a similar concept didn't exist, it's that now everyone explicitly has it. An explanation for why the fighter has an energy field limiting his magic items or why wands work completely differently is again not too much to ask for. It wouldn't require much, and several events could be used. The closing of the World Wound may have had seemingly unrelated consequences for instance.
A Fighter already had limits on how many magic items he could wear. I'm not sure how that can be explained in a way that's not pretty similar to Resonance.
And Wands work the same except for charges being a 'daily' thing rather than a forever thing. That's a rules change, but doesn't change how any single piece of Pathfinder fiction has gone.
Rituals it will really depended on how they end up being presented. If 1/3 of the spell book is a ritual and most anyone can do them with the proper time and resources, yeah that's a shift that requires explanation. If they remain rare enough, the fact that a fighter could complete that "once every 100 years" ritual could have just been a little known fact that doesn't require explanation.
Rituals can't be used by 'anyone'. There's a Ritual Caster Skill Feat. They can be used by people who have that Feat, most of whom are probably either spell casters already, or would've had a level or three of a spell casting class in PF1 (I think a lot of Cleric 1/Rogue 2 cultists would now be straight rogues with Ritual access). Also, most NPCs don't have Skill Feats.
I don't think Ritual spells have gotten a lot more common in-world, there's just a mechanical shift in who can have them. Again, this really doesn't seem like a setting shift.
Weren't Occult Rituals in PF1 useable by anyone? We always ran them that way.
I mean, Occult Adventures says-
While anyone can attempt to cast occult rituals, the process is fraught with peril.
So the "Caster" of your ritual (i.e. the person making the skill checks) can be a rogue or a fighter or a monk. So nothing about "Rogues can cast rituals" is new.
|
|
Weren't Occult Rituals in PF1 useable by anyone? We always ran them that way.
I mean, Occult Adventures says-
While anyone can attempt to cast occult rituals, the process is fraught with peril.So the "Caster" of your ritual (i.e. the person making the skill checks) can be a rogue or a fighter or a monk. So nothing about "Rogues can cast rituals" is new.
Yup. It actually looks slightly more restrictive inasmuch as you now need to invest a Skill Feat into being able to do it.
What influx?
In my area there were a ton of Occult Pathfinders who just showed up.
A Fighter already had limits on how many magic items he could wear. I'm not sure how that can be explained in a way that's not pretty similar to Resonance.And Wands work the same except for charges being a 'daily' thing rather than a forever thing. That's a rules change, but doesn't change how any single piece of Pathfinder fiction has gone.
Fighter had a limit on slotted items and no limit on slotless wondrous items. Sure high level characters can still be a christmas tree, but it's a physical fact about the universe that 10 years ago a level one character could have a magic item in every slot, but now they can't. Sure, that might not come up. However, a king could certainly discover that the magical protection his father afforded him no longer works for his son. Similarly wands from 10 years ago had a flat number of charges, all of which could be used in a single day. Now their usage is limited by the level and Charisma of the user.
Compare that to magic weapons, which always dealt more damage than non-magic weapons. Changing that from +1 damage to +1d6 damage is more representative of a rules change than a lore change. But I certainly wouldn't begrudge someone from wanting an explanation in the difference in function between 10 years previous and today.
Rituals can't be used by 'anyone'. There's a Ritual Caster Skill Feat. They can be used by people who have that Feat, most of whom are probably either spell casters already, or would've had a level or three of a spell casting class in PF1 (I think a lot of Cleric 1/Rogue 2 cultists would now be straight rogues with Ritual access). Also, most NPCs don't have Skill Feats.
This is a bit specific of a response to a post that effectively translates to "Maybe, we'll see" but screw it. Have we confirmed the specifics of the Ritual Caster feat? Don't remember it and didn't find any at a glance. You also need to remember that variant multi-classing might be the norm, meaning non casters can pick up caster feats. Either way, the spell blog post states "martial characters who manage to attain a high enough proficiency rank in magic-related skills like Arcana can cast them!" Which means that anyone can use them if they invest in the proficiency. Anyone in this case referring to people other than casters. More specifically, the lv 20 drow fighter trying to use a ritual in the example I was responding to.
As you said, currently rituals are rare. The spell blog posts definitely hints in a shift from that standard, but maybe not. The blog does describes a Monk using a resurrection ritual. Sure, Monks of the Healing Hand could do that before. But it is confirmed that there is a resurrection ritual, and that a martial can perform rituals with investment in the Arcana skill. This implies to me that barbarians or fighters could resurrect the dead, a feat I'm unaware of in 1E. Now, that might mean that the barbarian can resurrect someone once a year and only with XYZ items. But it might mean that a Barbarian could do that once a week, with the right set up. It might mean they can perform multiple rituals a day for a series of minor effects. How much, if any, explanation is required depends on how rituals pan out. Maybe nothing, maybe line or two of explanation, maybe Nethys decided to switch things up. Is that more clear?
There’s also the lore changes to deities to consider, particularly now that the “within 1 step” alignment clause seems to be gone (judging by the fact that Shelyn can’t have True Neutral clerics). Ditto for channeling.
Other than those, Resonance is the biggest change, and I doubt they’ll address either of the issues in the playtest, since they’re more world building issues than mechanical ones, which is what the playtest is for.