All About Spells

Monday, April 16, 2018

Spells are magical formulas with esoteric components, including words of power, gestures, and unusual ingredients, that when taken together create extraordinary magical effects. Spells have always been a crucial part of Pathfinder and the fantasy genre as a whole. But what's new about spells in the playtest? Let's take a look!

Action!

You cast spells by using some combination of the Verbal Casting, Somatic Casting, and Material Casting actions (the most common combination is Verbal and Somatic Casting actions for 2 total actions). Not every class interfaces with those actions in the same way. For instance, clerics can use a divine focus to satisfy the Material Casting action, sorcerers use their magical blood, and bards can use instruments that change up several aspects (for instance, even if you're gagged or otherwise unable to speak, you can play your violin to provide the Verbal Casting portion).

Heightened Spells

In the playtest, you'll be able to heighten your favorite spells in order to gain greater effects than ever before. Heightening a spell works much like it did previously, where you prepare a spell in a higher-level slot (or cast it using a higher-level slot if you're a spontaneous caster), except now all spellcasters can do it, and you gain much more interesting benefits. Want to fire 15 missiles with magic missile or turn into a Huge animal with animal form? Just heighten those spells to the appropriate level! There's no longer any need to learn long chains of spells that are incrementally different and each require you to refer back to the previous spell.

Incidentally, the idea of using a spell's level to determine its power has led to some really interesting interplay between spells. For example, how many times have you run into a situation where your high-level illusionist is foiled by a simple detect magic spell or a similar effect? Now, illusions of a higher spell level than a detect magic cantrip can foil detection! Similarly, dispel magic has a harder time dispelling spells of much higher spell levels, while it can crush lower-level spells with ease. This extends to many other similar interactions; while in Pathfinder First Edition, a creature with some basic spell effect that's constantly active might be flat-out immune to your character's spells, now you can heighten your spells and overcome that obstacle!

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

Cantrips

In the playtest, cantrips are spells you can cast at will, but they are no longer level 0. Instead, they automatically heighten to the highest spell level you can currently cast. That means if you're 5th level, your ray of frost is 3rd level and deals more damage, and your light cantrip is better at counteracting magical darkness.

Domain Powers and Beyond

Pathfinder has always had domain powers, school powers, bloodline powers, and other special class-based spell-like abilities that you can use a certain number of times per day rather than using your daily spell slots on them. In the playtest, we've expanded this idea, allowing even more classes to gain these kinds of powers and standardizing the way we talk about the powers and their daily uses. The powers are now treated as a special kind of spell, and they are all cast using Spell Points. There is power in naming something; while you don't really count them differently than if you had a pool of uses per day, this allowed us to create new and interesting abilities that cost multiple Spell Points or that you could add extra features to at the cost of more Spell Points, in a way that works across classes more smoothly.

10th-Level Spells

So what's the deal with 10th-level spells? Jason mentioned these all the way at the beginning, and many of you have given excellent guesses for what they will be. They start with a class of spells that used to be 9th level+, by which I mean, they were 9th level, but even for that level they were usually balanced by expensive material costs. Spells like wish and miracle. In the playtest, these spells are free to cast but are 10th level. Then we added some brand-new and amazing spells, like fabricated truth and nature incarnate. I'm guessing you guys will quickly figure out what these spells do, but here's a hint: one of them had a critical failure effect previewed in the Critical Hits and Critical Failures blog!

Rituals

Ever since we introduced them in Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures, rituals have been a favorite both among fans and the adventure developers here at Paizo. If you haven't checked them out yet, they're story-rich spells with a long casting time that anyone skilled enough could conceivably try to perform as long as they have the hidden knowledge. Typically they involve some number of secondary casters, which can get the whole party involved or make a nice set-piece encounter with an evil cult.

Even in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, there were spells that sort of followed that mold already—the 8th-level spell binding is a perfect example. In the playtest, these sorts of spells have been made into rituals. This means that these downtime spells don't take up your spell slots, and that martial characters who manage to attain a high enough proficiency rank in magic-related skills like Arcana can cast them! This is particularly great when, for instance, the cleric dies but the monk can perform a resurrection ritual. (Don't worry, there is still also the non-ritual spell raise dead in case you need someone back in action faster, though a group that wants death to be more uncertain can easily omit that spell for an instant shift in the tone of the campaign.) Rituals also have delightful potential failure effects. For instance, if you critically fail planar binding, you call something dark and horrible that isn't bound by your wards, and it immediately attempts to destroy you!

Magical Traditions

Magical traditions, such as arcane and divine, have always been a part of Pathfinder spells. But the playtest gives us an opportunity to really explore what they mean, what makes them different, and how they metaphysically interconnect in a way that enriches the game's story. Magic taps into various essences in the cosmos. For example, arcane magic blends material essence (the fundamental building blocks of all physical things) and mental essence (the building block of rational thoughts, logic, and memories). This means that arcane traditions share a lot in common with science, as arcane spellcasters tend to use logic and rational methods to categorize the magic inherent in the physical world around them. Divine magic is the exact opposite; it blends spiritual essence (the otherworldly building block of the immortal self) and vital essence (the universal life force that gives us instincts and intuition). This means that divine traditions are steeped in faith, the unseen, and belief in a power source from beyond the Material Plane. These ideas have led to some exciting new additions of spells into each tradition's repertoire.

Example Spells

Let's put everything we've talked about into perspective by taking a look at a spell that can be heightened and that uses actions in an interesting way: heal. (By the way, notice the new spell school!)

Heal Spell 1

Healing, Necromancy, Positive
Casting Somatic Casting or more
Range touch, Range 30 feet, or Area 30-foot aura (see text); Target one willing living creature or one undead creature

You channel positive energy to heal the living or damage the undead. You restore Hit Points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting modifier to a willing living target, or deal that amount of positive damage to an undead target. The number of actions you spend when Casting this Spell determines its targets, range, area, and other parameters.

  • Somatic Casting The spell has a range of touch. You must succeed at a melee touch attack to damage an undead target.
  • Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting The spell has a range of 30 feet and doesn't require a touch attack when targeting an undead creature. An undead target must attempt a Fortitude save, taking half damage on a success, no damage on a critical success, or double damage on a critical failure.
  • Material Casting, Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting You disperse positive energy in a 30-foot aura. This has the same effect as the two-action version of the spell, but it targets all living and undead creatures in the burst and reduces the amount of healing or damage to your spellcasting ability modifier.

Heightened (+1) Increase the amount of healing or damage by 1d8, or by 2d8 if you're using the one- or two-action version to heal the living.

So you can cast heal with 1 action and restore quite a few Hit Points to a touched target, especially for a single action. This is particularly useful if you cast heal several times in one turn on someone who needs emergency assistance after a critical hit! For 2 actions, you can cast safely from the back lines, and for 3 actions, you can change the area to a burst and heal living creatures while harming undead at the same time. It restores fewer hit points to each target that way, but if you have multiple allies in need of healing, it can be really efficient. This one spell, using heightened effects, combines the effects of all the cure wounds spells in one place.

At the bottom of the stat block, you see what one type of heightened entry looks like. This one gets better proportionally for each spell level above 1st. So a 2nd-level heal spell heals one target for 3d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier, a 3rd-level one heals one target 5d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier, and so on.

But heal is a classic spell chain that you already knew and loved in Pathfinder First Edition and that has already been revealed in tidbits through podcasts. How about its big sister regenerate?

Regenerate Spell 7

Healing, Necromancy
Casting Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting
Range touch; Target one willing living creature
Duration 1 minute

The target temporarily gains regeneration 15, which restores 15 Hit Points to it at the start of each of its turns. While it has regeneration, the target can't die from damage and its dying value can't exceed 3. If the target takes acid or fire damage, its regeneration deactivates until after the end of its next turn.

Each time the creature regains Hit Points from regeneration, it also regrows one damaged or ruined organ (if any). During the spell's duration, the creature can also reattach severed body parts by spending an Interact action to hold the body part to the stump.

Heightened (9th) The regeneration increases to 20.

Regenerate was always necessary to restore lost limbs or organs (a rare situation to come up in the game), but the way it worked made it fairly ineffective for use in combat. This version is much more attractive during a fight, particularly if your foe lacks access to acid and fire!

This spell doesn't increase in power incrementally as its level increases (except for being harder to dispel); instead, it has a specific heightened benefit at 9th level.

But what about something you've never seen before? Let's take a look at vampiric exsanguination!

Vampiric Exsanguination Spell 6

Death, Necromancy, Negative
Casting Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting
Area 30-foot cone

You draw life force from creatures and send it into your outstretched arms. You deal 10d6 negative damage to all living creatures in the area. As long as at least one creature in the area takes damage, you also gain half that many temporary Hit Points. You lose any remaining temporary Hit Points after 1 minute.

  • Success Half damage.
  • Critical Success No damage.
  • Failure Full damage.
  • Critical Failure Double damage.

Heightened (+2) Increase the damage by 3d6.

So we're dealing some reasonable damage in a cone; cone of cold isn't going to be jealous. But the trick here is that if you can get at least one foe (or minion) to critically fail its save against the spell, you gain a huge number of temporary Hit Points! If you're a wizard with a Constitution score of 12, that hapless creature might just provide you nearly 50% more Hit Points (incidentally, if you deal a lot of damage, you could kill a minion who critically fails the save, so use it responsibly). And since you're drawing in life force, guess who gains access to this spell? (Urgathoans rejoice!)

More New Spells

I'm going to close out by giving just the names of a smattering of new spells. What might they do? I'll leave it up to you guys to see what you think!

  • Alter reality
  • Collective transposition
  • Crusade
  • Disappearance
  • Divine inspiration
  • Duplicate foe
  • Energy aegis
  • Mariner's curse
  • Moment of renewal
  • Moon frenzy
  • Nature's enmity
  • Primal phenomenon
  • Punishing winds
  • Revival
  • Soothe
  • Spellwrack
  • Spiritual epidemic
  • Spiritual guardian
  • Tangling creepers
  • Unfathomable song

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
551 to 600 of 931 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:


Incidently, I don't think there is going to be a mental/vital/material/spirit lists, unless people are seeing a post from a developer I haven't. I think this is going to be how they flavor the brands of magic. We'll still get arcane and divine lists I bet, with spells relevant to those themes.

People are pondering if the "Arcane List" will just be the Mental Spells plus the Material Spells, and the "Divine List" includes the Vital Spells and the Spirit Spells.

We always had crossing of spells in Pathfinder 1 and other games, and you can get more "lists" this way (6 if mixing 2 of them). It also opens the possibilities to have a new classes that get more Spell Slots, or Gain Higher Spell Slots earlier, or get extra powers by being over-specialized (like a Shaman that only gets Spiritual or a Psionic that only gets Mental), or the other way around, someone that gets a disadvantage (slower Spell Slot progression) in exchange of being allowed into 3 of the lists.

We don't have proof, but there are some indications that make us think that those could very well be the "4 Spell Lists" and the Classes just refer to which ones they have access. Maybe Paladin has more spells that he used to have, but only access to Vital, not Spirit, etc.

We will have to wait and see, but we are free to speculate :-P


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Spell Tiers sounds awesome. Better than Spell Circles. :)

My favoritism towards circles and the like is that it actually works in universe as well as a game term. You can say you are Incarnadine, Magister of the Third Circle, and it sounds awesome while also accurately reflecting the kind of powers you have access to.

Incarnadine, Magister of the Third Tier doesn't have the same cachet :)

Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
ubiquitous wrote:
Spell level vs caster level vs class/character level is a consistent point of confusion solely driven by the repeated usage of the word level. Just depends whether changing those names removes too much of the original flavour or not. While I've learned the differences between them over time, it would certainly make explaining those systems to new players a lot more simple.

Yup, I think we probably all agree that it's a point of confusion and also something that holds a bit of tradition. How we each feel about each of those factors (and, just as important, how strongly we feel) might vary a lot, and it could definitely be interesting to see what you guys think. For instance, I could definitely see a possible result where slightly more people slightly preferred changing the wording for clarity but didn't really care about the topic very much, and the people who wanted it to stay the same are very passionate. It's one of the fascinating, challenging, and rewarding parts of being a designer and working on a new game!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Spell Tiers sounds awesome. Better than Spell Circles. :)

My favoritism towards circles and the like is that it actually works in universe as well as a game term. You can say you are Incarnadine, Magister of the Third Circle, and it sounds awesome while also accurately reflecting the kind of powers you have access to.

Incarnadine, Magister of the Third Tier doesn't have the same cachet :)

I must concur with Fuzzypaws, circles would be great.

Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


I agree that sounds weird, however saving throw (or saves as they’re called at the table) or attack rolls and skill checks don’t generate confusion as much as the plethora of things that are all referred to using the word level.

Since this is like the third reply to say essentially this (not to pick on either your reply or on this line of replies as a whole), I should probably add that bringing up the example of something I can think of that we kept for tradition when another terminology was cleaner does not mean that the two cases have the same situations, nor that I think a change (or lack of change) to one necessitates a change (or lack of change) to both. I agree with you guys that they are different decisions with different factors, just the same genre.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Strachan Fireblade wrote:

Mark,

Can you confirm that for Heal the schools are Healing, Necromancy and Positive? Or am I reading the schools wrong.

If this is true, do you need access to just one school to have the spell on your list?

Necromancy is the school, whereas healing and positive are other traits of the spell (basically "descriptors" like you're familiar with, but not as wordy).

Thanks for the clarification. One follow up if question if I may. How am I to tell descriptor from the school? Is it more obvious in the play test book and it’s just a formatting issue on the forum or am i not noticing something? Thanks for your responses!


Bruno Mares wrote:
So why not have a different line for school and a different line for descriptors/traits?

It could be schools have no more impact in the rules than other spell descriptor/traits.

Kaemy wrote:
I wonder... If you don't like casting free level-appropriate cantrips all day long and feel like a WoW Mage casting Firebolts non-stop that are on league with a Fighter's Swings, and you House Rule (or Paizo releases) a class that completely forfeits cantrips all together for extra Spell Slots, how many would you need for balancing purposes.

Depends on how many spell slots you currently get. At the moment, wizards in our games barely run out of spell slots before the party is ready to stop fighting for the day. So if the wizard keeps getting the same amount of spell slots in the new edition as they do in the current edition, the answer is: none (at higher levels at least. Higher being level 9+).

If the wizard's spell slots per day get shrunk down dramatically then the answer could be: quite a few.

I'd also be okay with spell tiers.

Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Strachan Fireblade wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Strachan Fireblade wrote:

Mark,

Can you confirm that for Heal the schools are Healing, Necromancy and Positive? Or am I reading the schools wrong.

If this is true, do you need access to just one school to have the spell on your list?

Necromancy is the school, whereas healing and positive are other traits of the spell (basically "descriptors" like you're familiar with, but not as wordy).
Thanks for the clarification. One follow up if question if I may. How am I to tell descriptor from the school? Is it more obvious in the play test book and it’s just a formatting issue on the forum or am i not noticing something? Thanks for your responses!

While these statblocks aren't actually using the final presentation with graphic design elements for the final book (in part because we're not 100% sure about all of those yet!), the school is grouped with all of the other traits that aren't schools because they all are aspects of the spell (traits, even!) that might be something you have to quickly locate because a special ability says "You get a bonus against death effects" or "Whenever you are the target of a necromancy spell" or things like that. In our most current layout, the traits aren't in a row like you see here but instead in a little box that makes all of them easy to find so you can quickly scan for that.

Does that make any sense? It'll be easier to explain when you can see it, I imagine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know, seems to me that changing spell levels to something else would cause confusion for more experienced players and wouldn't help neonates anyway since the term would still have to be explained to them.

Also, Circles seems a particularly poor choice as it doesn't really fit with hierarchical structure and almost sounds like unrelated forms of magic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Strachan Fireblade wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Strachan Fireblade wrote:

Mark,

Can you confirm that for Heal the schools are Healing, Necromancy and Positive? Or am I reading the schools wrong.

If this is true, do you need access to just one school to have the spell on your list?

Necromancy is the school, whereas healing and positive are other traits of the spell (basically "descriptors" like you're familiar with, but not as wordy).
Thanks for the clarification. One follow up if question if I may. How am I to tell descriptor from the school? Is it more obvious in the play test book and it’s just a formatting issue on the forum or am i not noticing something? Thanks for your responses!

While these statblocks aren't actually using the final presentation with graphic design elements for the final book (in part because we're not 100% sure about all of those yet!), the school is grouped with all of the other traits that aren't schools because they all are aspects of the spell (traits, even!) that might be something you have to quickly locate because a special ability says "You get a bonus against death effects" or "Whenever you are the target of a necromancy spell" or things like that. In our most current layout, the traits aren't in a row like you see here but instead in a little box that makes all of them easy to find so you can quickly scan for that.

Does that make any sense? It'll be easier to explain when you can see it, I imagine.

Yes it does. Thanks!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing is, Mr. Seifter, just because "things have always been done this way" doesn't mean there's not a better way. To risk a jar of gummy worms, take Goblins. It's a tradition for them to be monsters and slaughtered by low level PCs. Yet Paizo is upending that tradition by including this monster as a playable race in the Core Rules. Now, I can see good and bad points to allowing Goblins as Core. One good point is it suggests monster races can be used as a PC ancestry... and that races such as Aasimar and Sylph in the Bestiary could be utilized if a GM was willing.

So why not work and change another tradition? This one has a valid reason for changing. Spell Circles (I do like "Tiers" better but it does sound better if used in an in-universe term... basically both terms are valid in eye eyes as a replacement) would help reduce the confusion of new (and some older!) players. It is understandable and logical.

And hey, not all traditions are good ones. Do Paladins still have a Minimum Charisma of 17? Do Rangers still require 13s and 14s for four of their Stats? When Familiars get killed, do Wizards have to make a Saving Throw to avoid dying, and lose a level of experience in any event? Those were traditions that D&D 3.0 did away with. They were not missed.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we avoid imolying certain design choices of rules are antiquated, outdated and "so last century". If a design choice is actually better, it will stand on its own two feet. Denigrating other people's preferences is not necessary.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I agree that I really don't like the fact that they are called spell levels. I would much prefer anything else, just not the word level


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the spells are being presented with boxes and such, is there an aim to get the format down to a size that fits on a playing card? Maybe Paizo could sell spell decks based on the spell list they are in and we could flip them over after a spell has been cast.

;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
Also, Circles seems a particularly poor choice as it doesn't really fit with hierarchical structure and almost sounds like unrelated forms of magic.

I agree. Circle never sounded right to me. Tier, rank, grade, layer, order, step, ect all seem fine: circle though... it doesn't imply any level of hierarchy like the others do. I mean, would squares or triangles make sense?

EDIT: now a circle COULD apply to a group of people so it could be uses for character level though i don't think I'd like that either.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno, Dante talked about the Nine Circles of Hell. There's a tradition you might latch on to.

But, whatever you call it, I would love to let your editors lose on finding distinct labels for all of those different aspects of the game.

Bringing new people into the game is HARD, and 'tradition' is a strange reason to deliberately keep the barriers to entry high.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd be happy with Spell having Levels and Characters/Classes having Ranks, though I suppose that's even more of a flouting of tradition.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
Circles seems a particularly poor choice as it doesn't really fit with hierarchical structure and almost sounds like unrelated forms of magic.

I think you’re supposed to think of them as concentric. So you move from the outer circle to the inner ones as you delve ever deeper into the mysteries of magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Even though there are only four Traditions and each class seems like it is only going to get one or two of them on their standard lists, I could see ways for classes to branch out from that using the keywords.

Wizards could take Class Feats like Necromancer that allows them to pick Necromancy spells regardless of what Tradition they are.

A Pharasmin cleric that has the Death domain could similarly take anything that is tagged Death and a Saraenite with the Fire domain could be picking spells from the Material Tradition so long as they are fiery.

Non-specialists of these classes could load up on Class Feats or whatever resources that improves their existing powers, sacrificing scope of ability for depth of power.

I can see potential for good customization here and I hope we see it something along those lines in the playtest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Circles seems a particularly poor choice as it doesn't really fit with hierarchical structure and almost sounds like unrelated forms of magic.
I think you’re supposed to think of them as concentric. So you move from the outer circle to the inner ones as you delve ever deeper into the mysteries of magic.

Is it a tangent for us to talk about concentric circles of magic? ^_^


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Spell Tiers sounds awesome. Better than Spell Circles. :)

In my group, we use Order as the in-character descriptor. For example: "I'm capable of casting spells of the third order."

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Strachan Fireblade wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Strachan Fireblade wrote:

Mark,

Can you confirm that for Heal the schools are Healing, Necromancy and Positive? Or am I reading the schools wrong.

If this is true, do you need access to just one school to have the spell on your list?

Necromancy is the school, whereas healing and positive are other traits of the spell (basically "descriptors" like you're familiar with, but not as wordy).
Thanks for the clarification. One follow up if question if I may. How am I to tell descriptor from the school? Is it more obvious in the play test book and it’s just a formatting issue on the forum or am i not noticing something? Thanks for your responses!

While these statblocks aren't actually using the final presentation with graphic design elements for the final book (in part because we're not 100% sure about all of those yet!), the school is grouped with all of the other traits that aren't schools because they all are aspects of the spell (traits, even!) that might be something you have to quickly locate because a special ability says "You get a bonus against death effects" or "Whenever you are the target of a necromancy spell" or things like that. In our most current layout, the traits aren't in a row like you see here but instead in a little box that makes all of them easy to find so you can quickly scan for that.

Does that make any sense? It'll be easier to explain when you can see it, I imagine.

I'd suggest always making the school first then, rather than jumbling them all up alphabetically. That way, if you're specifically looking for the school, you know it's always first.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Spell Tiers sounds awesome. Better than Spell Circles. :)
In my group, we use Order as the in-character descriptor. For example: "I'm capable of casting spells of the third order."

That also works! <3

I just want something that isn't Spell Level and has some flavor to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Also, Circles seems a particularly poor choice as it doesn't really fit with hierarchical structure and almost sounds like unrelated forms of magic.

I agree. Circle never sounded right to me. Tier, rank, grade, layer, order, step, ect all seem fine: circle though... it doesn't imply any level of hierarchy like the others do. I mean, would squares or triangles make sense?

EDIT: now a circle COULD apply to a group of people so it could be uses for character level though i don't think I'd like that either.

I'm not really convinced of the need for a change, but 3.X already borrows heavily from Ars Magica so maybe use Magnitude?


Steve Geddes wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Circles seems a particularly poor choice as it doesn't really fit with hierarchical structure and almost sounds like unrelated forms of magic.
I think you’re supposed to think of them as concentric. So you move from the outer circle to the inner ones as you delve ever deeper into the mysteries of magic.

Circles, regular polygons, regular polyhedra, and spheres can be concentric. This means that triangles, squares, hexagons, pentagons, cubes, ect equally apply. So, again, I find circle as odd as a suggestion as cube or pentagon...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

Guessing time. :3

  • Alter reality: Illusion, quasi-wish. Create a permanent (or instantaneous if they really want it to be that potent) illusion replacing reality within its area of effect.

Hmmm.

AD&D 2nd Edition Tome of Magic wrote:

Alternate Reality* (Alteration)

Range: 0
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous
Casting Time: 3
Area of Effect: Creature touched
Saving Throw: None
With this spell, the caster creates a small variation in probabilities. This variation lasts only a moment, but creates alternate results for one recent event. When the spell is cast, any one event attempted by the recipient during the previous round is recalculated, essentially allowing (or forcing) the creature to make new die rolls.
Only events that begin and end in a single round can be affected. Only one die roll can be rerolled. If the creature touched is a willing recipient, the player can choose which roll (the original or the new roll) affects him, more than likely picking the most successful. If the creature is unwilling, he must redo the action. The second result, whatever its outcome, cannot be changed.
Typical uses of this spell include allowing a fighter to reroll an attack, forcing an opponent to reroll a saving throw, or allowing a wizard to reroll the damage caused by a fireball.
The material component is a small, unmarked die.

Pardon the massive block quote, but it's been a few pages.

Fuzzypaws is remembering Alter Reality correctly. "Alternate Reality", as Zaister quoted, is a different spell.

The mistake? Consulting 2ed, which had illusionist as a specialist, next to many others that we still have today, like necromancer.

AD&D, the game in question, aka 1st edition, has Alter Reality, and it's an Illusionist spell. In that game, "Illusionist" is a class next to "Magic-User", and is largely limited to ONLY illusions (obviously there are some odd exceptions to this). 2nd Edition rolled the spell lists together and gave us something like the modern distinction we have today with wizard.

Here's the spell:

ADVANCED D & D Adventure Games PLAYERS HANDBOOK wrote:


Alter Reality (Illusion/Phantasm, Conjuration/Summoning)

Level:7
Components: Special
Range: Unlimited
Casting Time: Special
Duration: Special
Saving Throw: Special
Area of Effect: Special

Explanation/Description: The alter reality spell is similar to the seventh level magic-user limited wish spell (q.v.). In order to effect the magic fully, the illusionist must depict the enactment of the alteration of reality through the casting of a phantasmal force, as well as verbalization in a limited form, before the spell goes into action.

Going to the illusionist's phantasmal force, a 1st level spell, in turn directs you to the magic-user's spell of the same name, a 3rd level spell. It's generally the spell that became minor image (spectral force, the 3rd level illusionist spell, became major image). The text for it includes visual illusion only, and excludes "audial illusion".

I don't know if alter reality required you to first cast phantasmal force on round N and then cast alter reality on round N+1, or if expending the 7th level spell slot simultaneously with the 1st level spell was the correct method of play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So thus sounds like pathfinder spells 2.0 are the equivalent to 5e. Not happy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like one aspect of more useful, auto heightened cantrips that people seem to be forgetting is that using wands now cost resonance to use. It was very easy for a wizard to pick up craft wand and very cheap to craft a wand with 50 charges that very much could be used all day long. The way I see it cantrips being boosted is to account for the fact that, that is no longer possible and to alleviate some of the issues that people could have had with no longer having a fall back spammable spell. On that note, I've rarely seen wizards even at very low levels really run out of spells if they adequately prepare scrolls and wands, so some of these supposed situations of saving just the right spell for just the right moment seems unlikely to occur if the character is moderately prepared utilizing wands for spells that need to be cast a lot and scrolls for utility spells that come up on occasion and lastly their spell slots falling somewhere in the middle.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Xunal wrote:

Does sound like an interesting change in game mechanics.

I like the idea that spells get better as your caster level increases.
Sounds a lot better than cantrips being little tiddlers no matter how powerful the spell caster is.

I take it that there will still be the basic difference between INT based wizards and CHA based sorcerers?
(i.e. books and versatility vs. a limited selection of spells that are ingrained)

"AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook" wrote:
It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem.

Gary Gygax thought it was too late to change in 1978, good luck with getting it changed forty years later! :-)


mach1.9pants wrote:
Xunal wrote:

Does sound like an interesting change in game mechanics.

I like the idea that spells get better as your caster level increases.
Sounds a lot better than cantrips being little tiddlers no matter how powerful the spell caster is.

I take it that there will still be the basic difference between INT based wizards and CHA based sorcerers?
(i.e. books and versatility vs. a limited selection of spells that are ingrained)

"AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook" wrote:
It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem.
Gary Gygax thought it was too late to change in 1978, good luck with getting it changed forty years later! :-)

And yet here we are playing Pathfinder, not AD&D. ;)

Just because something is "the way it's always been" doesn't mean that has to STILL be the case. Paladins now no longer require a 17 Charisma minimum. If memory serves me correct, Rangers are no longer limited to Neutral alignments. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons became just plain old Dungeons and Dragons. ^_^

Mr. Gygax felt it was too late to change things. But he was also talking several significant changes. Also, he is wrong about "not as confusing as it may now seem" - because ALL of my players have had issues with this. Some of them are quite intelligent. One manages to frequently mess up my evil GMing plans with spell use that I didn't anticipate. And hey, what Mr. Gygax wrote in AD&D isn't canon - if it were, we'd still be playing AD&D. :)

Maybe... just maybe... it's time to end using the term Spell Level and start with a new term: Spell Circle, Spell Tier, Spell Order, whatever. What matters is that it's changed so we don't have someone trying to find out the DC of their 1st level spell cast by a 5th level bard, the spell also being a 2nd level Wizard spell.


Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
So thus sounds like pathfinder spells 2.0 are the equivalent to 5e. Not happy.

Can you expand on why you're not happy? I've never really heard anything bad about 5e spells so I'd like to hear why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
So thus sounds like pathfinder spells 2.0 are the equivalent to 5e. Not happy.
Can you expand on why you're not happy? I've never really heard anything bad about 5e spells so I'd like to hear why.

5E has a rather awful, underpowered version of upcasting. But even with just those few example spells, Paizo is already showing they're doing it better. So I'm not sure what Terevalis's worry is.

Hopefully casters will be allowed to know more cantrips than in 5E as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaemy wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


Incidently, I don't think there is going to be a mental/vital/material/spirit lists, unless people are seeing a post from a developer I haven't. I think this is going to be how they flavor the brands of magic. We'll still get arcane and divine lists I bet, with spells relevant to those themes.

People are pondering if the "Arcane List" will just be the Mental Spells plus the Material Spells, and the "Divine List" includes the Vital Spells and the Spirit Spells.

We always had crossing of spells in Pathfinder 1 and other games, and you can get more "lists" this way (6 if mixing 2 of them). It also opens the possibilities to have a new classes that get more Spell Slots, or Gain Higher Spell Slots earlier, or get extra powers by being over-specialized (like a Shaman that only gets Spiritual or a Psionic that only gets Mental), or the other way around, someone that gets a disadvantage (slower Spell Slot progression) in exchange of being allowed into 3 of the lists.

We don't have proof, but there are some indications that make us think that those could very well be the "4 Spell Lists" and the Classes just refer to which ones they have access. Maybe Paladin has more spells that he used to have, but only access to Vital, not Spirit, etc.

We will have to wait and see, but we are free to speculate :-P

Sure, but here and elsewhere I have just seen a lot of speculation, or misreading of one thing or another, and people making a leap to assuming this implies a specific rule. And I think you need to be very careful when you do that, since potentially you you get people worked up over nothing, or disappointed when they see the final product. Granted, I don't think this is quite as incendiary a topic as many other things in this playtest, but just something to consider

For instance, you could say that those four properties explain the 4 spell lists. OR, you could interpret that some core classes are not going to have a spell list anymore, OR that those classes will simply be pulling from a 10th level caster spell list, but either have spells come on later or slower.

I think that basically: We are getting four spell lists (Divine, Arcane, Bard, and Nature), and all of this vital/material/etc stuff is flavor to explain why they are different. I certainly hope they don't adhere to this material/spiritual what have you classification scheme and use those categories, because otherwise you are probably going to have a lot of sensible spells either made to fit a category because they fit the classic conception of the class, or moved out/in to spell lists, in confusing ways. Paizo has run into this problem before, with the Shaman. That was originally suppose to get an existing spell list, but got a custom one as it was missing too many spells that seemed appropriate fora shaman theme. Flavoring is fine, but spell selection should fit a theme, and not all themes are going to fit a 6 variation spell list.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
5E has a rather awful, underpowered version of upcasting.

So is the issue not the mechanics but the math behind the spells?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
5E has a rather awful, underpowered version of upcasting.
So is the issue not the mechanics but the math behind the spells?

The math is broken in 5e you add one dice for each level you highten the spell.


graystone wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Circles seems a particularly poor choice as it doesn't really fit with hierarchical structure and almost sounds like unrelated forms of magic.
I think you’re supposed to think of them as concentric. So you move from the outer circle to the inner ones as you delve ever deeper into the mysteries of magic.
Circles, regular polygons, regular polyhedra, and spheres can be concentric. This means that triangles, squares, hexagons, pentagons, cubes, ect equally apply. So, again, I find circle as odd as a suggestion as cube or pentagon...

They would work as well (although concentric circle is a better known term than concentric pentagon in everyday language).

My point though was that the idea of them being unrelated schools of magic rather than as part of a hierarchy probably stems from picturing them as disjoint.


Tangent101 wrote:


And yet here we are playing Pathfinder, not AD&D. ;)

Just because something is "the way it's always been" doesn't mean that has to STILL be the case. Paladins now no longer require a 17 Charisma minimum. If memory serves me correct, Rangers are no longer limited to Neutral alignments. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons became just plain old Dungeons and Dragons. ^_^

Mr. Gygax felt it was too late to change things. But he was also talking several significant changes. Also, he is wrong about "not as confusing as it may now seem" - because ALL of my players have had issues with this. Some of them are quite intelligent. One manages to frequently mess up my evil GMing plans with spell use that I didn't anticipate. And hey, what Mr. Gygax wrote in AD&D isn't canon - if it were, we'd still be playing AD&D. :)...

I don't disagree with changing it, as I have DnD for DnD - I'm just saying I can;t see it changing, thus my 'good luck'


Emeric Tusan wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
5E has a rather awful, underpowered version of upcasting.
So is the issue not the mechanics but the math behind the spells?

The math is broken in 5e you add one dice for each level you highten the spell.

Fair enough. I don't have my books with me (or to be honest the inclination) to see if a 1 dice increment is actually a fair representation of what spells natively of higher spell slots actually deal in terms of damage. Although keep in mind the math could be quite similar for PF2e. This could be disguised by:

* PF2e PCs having more HP than 5e characters.
* PF2e handing out less spell slots than 5e (we don't actually know if they hand out less, the same or more).

Once we get the playtest it could be the underlying math is effectively the same, it's just being disguised by other variables being different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:
Xunal wrote:

Does sound like an interesting change in game mechanics.

I like the idea that spells get better as your caster level increases.
Sounds a lot better than cantrips being little tiddlers no matter how powerful the spell caster is.

I take it that there will still be the basic difference between INT based wizards and CHA based sorcerers?
(i.e. books and versatility vs. a limited selection of spells that are ingrained)

"AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook" wrote:
It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem.
Gary Gygax thought it was too late to change in 1978, good luck with getting it changed forty years later! :-)

And yet here we are playing Pathfinder, not AD&D. ;)

Just because something is "the way it's always been" doesn't mean that has to STILL be the case. Paladins now no longer require a 17 Charisma minimum. If memory serves me correct, Rangers are no longer limited to Neutral alignments. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons became just plain old Dungeons and Dragons. ^_^

Mr. Gygax felt it was too late to change things. But he was also talking several significant changes. Also, he is wrong about "not as confusing as it may now seem" - because ALL of my players have had issues with this. Some of them are quite intelligent. One manages to frequently mess up my evil GMing plans with spell use that I didn't anticipate. And hey, what Mr. Gygax wrote in AD&D isn't canon - if it were, we'd still be playing AD&D. :)

Maybe... just maybe... it's time to end using the term Spell Level and start with a new term: Spell Circle, Spell Tier, Spell Order, whatever. What matters is that it's changed so we don't have someone trying to find out the DC of their 1st level spell cast by a 5th level bard, the spell also being a 2nd level Wizard spell.

And none of the people I've played with since the 80's have had any problem comprehending it (which has to be at least 30+ different people). Including some who weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. So much for anecdotal "evidence" for how confusing it is.

I don't think it's necessary to change it. If they do, Circle would definitely be amongst the least favourable options, that doesn't correlate to spell level at all IMO. And, as was pointed out above, you'd still have to explain it to new players. And their question might then just be: "But I'm a 7th level wizard, why can't I cast 7th Circle/Tier/Shoe Size spells???".

Liberty's Edge

PF2 derives from PF1 derives from 3.5 D&D, which goes down the chain, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, AD&D, D&D.
D&D 5ed derives from 4ed which derives from 3.5, etc.

It would be vastly more confusing to change the terminology in just one of these ten things. If anyone is confused by this stuff, it is literally just momentarily.


Mark Seifter wrote:


While these statblocks aren't actually using the final presentation with graphic design elements for the final book (in part because we're not 100% sure about all of those yet!), the school is grouped with all of the other traits that aren't schools because they all are aspects of the spell (traits, even!) that might be something you have to quickly locate because a special ability says "You get a bonus against death effects" or "Whenever you are the target of a necromancy spell" or things like that. In our most current layout, the traits aren't in a row like you see here but instead in a little box that makes all of them easy to find so you can quickly scan for that.

Does that make any sense? It'll be easier to explain when you can see it, I imagine.

That still leaves the problem of presentation for non-layouted displays like the PRD. Maybe it is a bit early to think about that, but maybe it wasn't on your radar yet.

And yeah, please change the term "spell level". How about "spell grade"?
A characters class level(s), character level and caster level(s?) depend on one another, so using the same term there is okay, if confusing for starters (though that explanation should be easy). The spell grade is a function of your characters class levels.

EDIT... okay, spell grade might not be that good a fit. a 1st grade spell is better than a 9th grade spell, cause it's 1st grade?


Realistically, the only reason my group doesn't have the "spell level" problem is because we're doing it electronically and have most of it calculated for us. I'd be happy with "tier" (or "order" as a passable second choice), and find "circle" mildly questionable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:

{. . .}

EDIT... okay, spell grade might not be that good a fit. a 1st grade spell is better than a 9th grade spell, cause it's 1st grade?

No, 9th grade definitely sounds more advanced than 1st grade. But then it makes me think of going on up to 12th grade, and then eventually to college . . . .


I get the strangest feeling that I'd start buying gnomish hats (heck, gnomish fashions in general) if you guys were selling. Love that headgear (and especially that it looks like it could fit on my big apparently-gnomish head. Most hats are too tight for me).

As for the actual blog, mostly I'm positive. Some of the spells' wordings and organization are a little confusing, to the point that after reading all the comments I still don't quite understand how much temporary hp vampiric exsanguination gives you, but it sounds like these blocks aren't the finished product yet, so I'm waiting and seeing, and right now feeling generally positive about it all.

Now about getting those hats added to the store somehow... I think I'd like a nice wine-red one. Oh, and one in purple! ;)

Buyer - BOSCO'S

edduardco wrote:
There could be six combinations

And if half-casters only get access to one list there could be _ten_ types.

If vastly powerful magical beings (divine avatars maybe?) can get access to three or four lists than that's another five types, for a total of 15.


I question how popular Rituals really are given I haven't seen them at any table and seen them in APs maybe twice. As plot points too.

So they are probably going to remain so or as an extra long all day effect(Hello Endure Elements). Side note if your going to pull from Occult adventures, maybe make Haunts easier to run. Just an idea


I've never had a problem with understanding the difference between spell level and caster level. I mean changing it to something else is fine, but circle is too arcane sounding for Divine magic.

Sczarni

5 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:

*basks in the new information*

I wonder if Prestidigitation gets any heighten effects.

A third level Prestidigitaion gets rid of 99.9 percent of all germs.

Scarab Sages

Yes, Spell Tiers or Orders would be great. I don't like Circles, they sound like a family rather than like a hierarchy. For instance, I'd rather call Necromancy and Enchantment different Circles of Magic.

Also, Saving Throws and Attack Rolls? Wow, and here I've been rolling my saves like a pedestrian for years! A wonder I've made it this far...

551 to 600 of 931 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: All About Spells All Messageboards