Secrets of Magic Playtest!

It is all about whether spontaneous casters should be able to use staves since they technically don't have the ability to cast spells of a spell level they don't have spell slots for.

But if you read staves as working that way, then any caster that exhausts their spell slots shouldn't be able to cast spells out of staff either. No one ever questioned it before this playtest because there was never a class that just started the day with no spell slots for lower level spells.

The core rulebook makes no allowance for the possibility that you lose the ability to cast spells of specific level, so all the information about how to handle this has to be housed in the spell casting ability of the classes that grant a set number of shifting level spell slots. Clearly sorting this out is something that needed lots of sets of eyes on it to suss out exactly what needed to be spelled out in the abilities.

Paul Watson wrote:

Temperans wrote:

This is why the current eidolon doesn't have enough customization.

That eidolon should be possible to make, but right now that eidolon is physically impossible to make.

Ok. What about it can’t you make? What does that eidolon actually do that you can’t do with the playtest version?

Here are Padrig’s PF1 stats. What about this can’t be done in PF2?

Chained Eidolon Evolutions

If reworked to Unchained Summoner:

Unchained Summoner Evolutions not to mention the choice of a subtype that gave abilities actually relevant to the subtype and not just things that should had been evolutions in the first place.

In any case the link you gave is literally level 1, the most basic of basic of Eidolons.

You said we couldn’t build Padraig, not some hypothetical eidolon. I can create him right now, and at first level he’ll have more abilities than in PF1, so saying “it’s physically impossible to make that eidolon” is not correct in any way.

That was the example stats I found. If you have higher official builds, I’m happy to look at those too.

Padrig is most certainly probably going to be a "thoughtform" arcane eidolon, imo.

Padraig is a PF1e Chained Eidolon and the link you gave is for a 1st level version of it. So its the simplest version of it. A an Iconic character a player can that that base and change it how ever they want. Specially if Paizo doesn't give later character sheets.

So if you extend the class as its normal. You would be using the Chained Eidolon rules as clearly see that the abilities are a lot more meaningful than what PF2 offers. Even after you remove all the bonus attack evolutions.

So tell me can you recreate the character progression of Padraig the PF1 Chained Eidolon using PF2? Well that is a rhetorical question of course you cant because its not possible.

You know what is possible? The PF1 Eidolon can recreate the PF2 Eidolon at level 1 and then gain abilities that the PF2 Eidolon would never have had.

PYou know what is possible? The PF1 Eidolon can recreate the PF2 Eidolon at level 1 and then gain abilities that the PF2 Eidolon would never have had.

Do you mean Unchained Summoner?

If you're speaking original Summoner, then it doesn't really matter. That class was absolutely busted.

I'm just happy that I'm going to be able to play with a Summoner, which (and I might get hated for this) I pretty much banned at every table after the first campaign I had one as a player. I never got to see the Unchained Summoner in action, but I would have liked to.

Either way, a previous editions exact metrics shouldn't be enforced on the new edition without good cause.

Temperans wrote:

PYou know what is possible? The PF1 Eidolon can recreate the PF2 Eidolon at level 1 and then gain abilities that the PF2 Eidolon would never have had.

Do you mean Unchained Summoner?

If you're speaking original Summoner, then it doesn't really matter. That class was absolutely busted.

I'm just happy that I'm going to be able to play with a Summoner, which (and I might get hated for this) I pretty much banned at every table after the first campaign I had one as a player. I never got to see the Unchained Summoner in action, but I would have liked to.

Either way, a previous editions exact metrics shouldn't be enforced on the new edition without good cause.

I never banned it but I straight up told players that other members of the group might hate them if they play one.

Midnightoker wrote:

Temperans wrote:

PYou know what is possible? The PF1 Eidolon can recreate the PF2 Eidolon at level 1 and then gain abilities that the PF2 Eidolon would never have had.

Do you mean Unchained Summoner?

If you're speaking original Summoner, then it doesn't really matter. That class was absolutely busted.

I'm just happy that I'm going to be able to play with a Summoner, which (and I might get hated for this) I pretty much banned at every table after the first campaign I had one as a player. I never got to see the Unchained Summoner in action, but I would have liked to.

Either way, a previous editions exact metrics shouldn't be enforced on the new edition without good cause.

I never banned it but I straight up told players that other members of the group might hate them if they play one.

Haste/Slow as a level 2 spell.... WHY!?!

Padraig is a PF1e Chained Eidolon and the link you gave is for a 1st level version of it. So its the simplest version of it. A an Iconic character a player can that that base and change it how ever they want. Specially if Paizo doesn't give later character sheets.

So if you extend the class as its normal. You would be using the Chained Eidolon rules as clearly see that the abilities are a lot more meaningful than what PF2 offers. Even after you remove all the bonus attack evolutions.

So tell me can you recreate the character progression of Padraig the PF1 Chained Eidolon using PF2? Well that is a rhetorical question of course you cant because its not possible.

You know what is possible? The PF1 Eidolon can recreate the PF2 Eidolon at level 1 and then gain abilities that the PF2 Eidolon would never have had.

Ok. Do dragon and replicate a breath weapon that costs four evolution points when you only have three to use.

graystone wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

you can use a lower level spell in a higher level slot by RAW. even if it doesnt heighten.

No you can't. I've seen a random post from some other place that supposedly has a dev say you can but that #1 isn't official, even if it was the dev and #2 isn't a rule written in any book, so it's about as far away from RAW as it gets...

It's literally how wizard spell casting works.

You learn fireball.

At level 20 you can use that fireball spell you learned long ago and cast it out of your 10th level slot...

Sure, you can cast a fireball heightened to 10th out of a 10th level slot: You can't cast a 3rd level fireball out of a 10th level slot.

But I remember reading that all the summoner and Magus spell slots are considered signature spell slots.

The issue is that you can't cast an inappropriate level spell in those slots: you lose the ability to cast lower level spells once you raise in level. For instance, you can't cast an un-heightened air bubble in that 10th level slot, meaning you can't cast that spell out of a staff.

Temperans wrote:

Padraig is a PF1e Chained Eidolon and the link you gave is for a 1st level version of it. So its the simplest version of it. A an Iconic character a player can that that base and change it how ever they want. Specially if Paizo doesn't give later character sheets.

So if you extend the class as its normal. You would be using the Chained Eidolon rules as clearly see that the abilities are a lot more meaningful than what PF2 offers. Even after you remove all the bonus attack evolutions.

So tell me can you recreate the character progression of Padraig the PF1 Chained Eidolon using PF2? Well that is a rhetorical question of course you cant because its not possible.

You know what is possible? The PF1 Eidolon can recreate the PF2 Eidolon at level 1 and then gain abilities that the PF2 Eidolon would never have had.

Ok. Do dragon and replicate a breath weapon that costs four evolution points when you only have three to use.

Or create a dynoneichus-like beast with a giant claw for d8 damage and a tail slap for d4.
Or the angel with its bonus good damage for which no comparable evolution exists.
I can create all those in PF2. Show me how in PF1.

First this is my fault, but I mistyped. The exact phrasing I wanted to say was, "PF1 can recreate the PF2 eidolon and then gain abilities that the PF2 eidolon would never have had. I was typing something else and forgot to removed the level 1 part, sorry about that.

But I will attempt all 3.

* Dynoneicus lv 1: Biped (claws 1d8 x2, limbs x2), Tail (1), Tail slap 1d6 (1), Improved Damage (Claw) (1).

* Angel lv 5: Biped (claws 1d6 x2, limbs x2), Flight (2, lv 5 pre-req), Alignment Smite 1d6 good (2, level 5 pre-req), Celestial Appearance (3), 1 free evolution for something else.

* Dragon lv 9: Quadruped (bite (1d6), limbs x2), Tail (1), Tail Slap 1d6(1), Flight (2, lv 5 pre-req), Breath Weapon 7d6 1/day (4, lv 9 pre-req), Scent (1), Improved Natural Armor +2 AC (1), Immunity vs 1 energy (2), 1 point left to do whatever.

In all 3 cases I spent 0 feats to get more evolutions. The Summoner had full access to Summoned Monster SLA, spells, and the Eidolon had spent 0 feats.

If I had spent all the summoner feats I would had gotten respectively 1, 3, and 5 extra evolution points to do more more stuff. The Eidolon would still have had all of its feats.

***********************

Again sorry about that typo, that was bad on my part. What I wanted to convey was that the system had the customization to allow all the concepts, but that typo clearly changes the meaning to something that is not realistic.

Also just a reminder that what I want is freedom to make what I want without being locked behind feats. I do not mind level locks as I know they are there for balance reasons. Its the ability to chose that I value most.

It is all about whether spontaneous casters should be able to use staves since they technically don't have the ability to cast spells of a spell level they don't have spell slots for.

But if you read staves as working that way, then any caster that exhausts their spell slots shouldn't be able to cast spells out of staff either. No one ever questioned it before this playtest because there was never a class that just started the day with no spell slots for lower level spells.

The core rulebook makes no allowance for the possibility that you lose the ability to cast spells of specific level, so all the information about how to handle this has to be housed in the spell casting ability of the classes that grant a set number of shifting level spell slots. Clearly sorting this out is something that needed lots of sets of eyes on it to suss out exactly what needed to be spelled out in the abilities.

Exhausted spell slots wouldn't stop you from using a staff, 0 =/= -

Paul Watson wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Padraig is a PF1e Chained Eidolon and the link you gave is for a 1st level version of it. So its the simplest version of it. A an Iconic character a player can that that base and change it how ever they want. Specially if Paizo doesn't give later character sheets.

So if you extend the class as its normal. You would be using the Chained Eidolon rules as clearly see that the abilities are a lot more meaningful than what PF2 offers. Even after you remove all the bonus attack evolutions.

So tell me can you recreate the character progression of Padraig the PF1 Chained Eidolon using PF2? Well that is a rhetorical question of course you cant because its not possible.

You know what is possible? The PF1 Eidolon can recreate the PF2 Eidolon at level 1 and then gain abilities that the PF2 Eidolon would never have had.

Ok. Do dragon and replicate a breath weapon that costs four evolution points when you only have three to use.

Or create a dynoneichus-like beast with a giant claw for d8 damage and a tail slap for d4.
Or the angel with its bonus good damage for which no comparable evolution exists.
I can create all those in PF2. Show me how in PF1.

First this is my fault, but I mistyped. The exact phrasing I wanted to say was, "PF1 can recreate the PF2 eidolon and then gain abilities that the PF2 eidolon would never have had. I was typing something else and forgot to removed the level 1 part, sorry about that.

But I will attempt all 3.

* Dynoneicus lv 1: Biped (claws 1d8 x2, limbs x2), Tail (1), Tail slap 1d6 (1), Improved Damage (Claw) (1).

* Angel lv 5: Biped (claws 1d6 x2, limbs x2), Flight (2, lv 5 pre-req), Alignment Smite 1d6 good (2, level 5 pre-req), Celestial Appearance (3), 1 free evolution for something else.

* Dragon lv 9: Quadruped (bite (1d6), limbs x2), Tail (1), Tail Slap 1d6(1), Flight (2, lv 5 pre-req), Breath Weapon 7d6 1/day (4, lv 9 pre-req), Scent (1), Improved Natural Armor +2 AC (1), Immunity vs 1 energy (2), 1...

Sorry. Claws are d4 and can be made d6 by Improved damage which doesn’t stack so can’t go to d8. I checked.

And the rest proves my point. You have to get to level nine to replicate my level 1 dragon, and level 5 for a first level angel. Pathfinder 1 is clearly too limited in what you can build.

Eh yeah I typed the wrong number. But PF1 Eidolon still has 2 1d6 claws instead of 1 1d8 claws. And both the Angel and Dragon PF1 Eidolon had flight unlike the PF2 Eidolon who needs to wait till level 16 to have flight.

And PF1 is not limited in what it can build, its limited on when you can build things. The difference is what resources it takes, and what abilities it can take.

PF1 lets you pick what you want, I could had not taken the tail and tail slap and instead had gotten a poison bite.

PF2 just "you have x". You have the illusion of choice, which is not what I want.

Unicore wrote:

It is all about whether spontaneous casters should be able to use staves since they technically don't have the ability to cast spells of a spell level they don't have spell slots for.

But if you read staves as working that way, then any caster that exhausts their spell slots shouldn't be able to cast spells out of staff either. No one ever questioned it before this playtest because there was never a class that just started the day with no spell slots for lower level spells.

The core rulebook makes no allowance for the possibility that you lose the ability to cast spells of specific level, so all the information about how to handle this has to be housed in the spell casting ability of the classes that grant a set number of shifting level spell slots. Clearly sorting this out is something that needed lots of sets of eyes on it to suss out exactly what needed to be spelled out in the abilities.

Exhausted spell slots wouldn't stop you from using a staff, 0 =/= -

No where is there text telling us what "-" means on those charts in the core rulebook. There is text telling us that you cannot cast spells of a higher level slot than you have access to on the various charts, but there is no text telling us what "-" means when you no longer have spell slots of a given level, but do have access to cast spells of a higher level slot. Everything said about what "-" means on that chart for lower level spells is conjecture, even more so for the magus, as the summoner does talk a little bit more about that scenario. Hence why it is valuable to point out that that is an issue, but probably not necessary to suss out what it means without additional text because additional text is necessary only if this model of casting makes it through to the final version anyway.

Eh yeah I typed the wrong number. But PF1 Eidolon still has 2 1d6 claws instead of 1 1d8 claws. And both the Angel and Dragon PF1 Eidolon had flight unlike the PF2 Eidolon who needs to wait till level 16 to have flight.

And PF1 is not limited in what it can build, its limited on when you can build things. The difference is what resources it takes, and what abilities it can take.

PF1 lets you pick what you want, I could had not taken the tail and tail slap and instead had gotten a poison bite.

PF2 just "you have x". You have the illusion of choice, which is not what I want.

Lvl 16 for flight is actually an early level for that in PF2. NOBODY gets permanent flight earlier, and all fly options before are in a short burst, like the one Eidolon can have with the summoner boost. This is a SYSTEM change to fit more with the intended narrative. Not a class-specific nerf.

Did we ever get confirmation that you can use a staff's charges when it's not in staff form?

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Unicore wrote:

It is all about whether spontaneous casters should be able to use staves since they technically don't have the ability to cast spells of a spell level they don't have spell slots for.

But if you read staves as working that way, then any caster that exhausts their spell slots shouldn't be able to cast spells out of staff either. No one ever questioned it before this playtest because there was never a class that just started the day with no spell slots for lower level spells.

The core rulebook makes no allowance for the possibility that you lose the ability to cast spells of specific level, so all the information about how to handle this has to be housed in the spell casting ability of the classes that grant a set number of shifting level spell slots. Clearly sorting this out is something that needed lots of sets of eyes on it to suss out exactly what needed to be spelled out in the abilities.

Exhausted spell slots wouldn't stop you from using a staff, 0 =/= -

No where is there text telling us what "-" means on those charts in the core rulebook. There is text telling us that you cannot cast spells of a higher level slot than you have access to on the various charts, but there is no text telling us what "-" means when you no longer have spell slots of a given level, but do have access to cast spells of a higher level slot. Everything said about what "-" means on that chart for lower level spells is conjecture, even more so for the magus, as the summoner does talk a little bit more about that scenario. Hence why it is valuable to point out that that is an issue, but probably not necessary to suss out what it means without additional text because additional text is necessary only if this model of casting makes it through to the final version anyway.

Seeing as how the chart has '-' for higher level you don't have, I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat '-' the same way as those: spells you don't have slots for and you can't cast...

Seems like getting over your skis there. You should not assume that slots higher than those you can cast and slots lower than those you can cast should be treated the same, even if they use similar notation.

Seems like getting over your skis there. You should not assume that slots higher than those you can cast and slots lower than those you can cast should be treated the same, even if they use similar notation.

Why would a '-' in one place be treated any different than a '-' in another place in the same chart. IMO, I think the onus is on someone to prove they are different, not on me to prove that identical things aren't the same.

If they are both '-' then then they are the same.

If they are not meant to be treated the same Paizo should indicate it.

If they are both '-' then then they are the same.

If they are not meant to be treated the same Paizo should indicate it.

Pretty much. It's not like leaving it blank wan't an option if they wanted it different.

Here are Padrig’s PF1 stats. What about this can’t be done in PF2?

At first level? Two attacks with no penalty, ability boost, Weapon Finesse, reach.

I see no point in debating whether they can or they can't use staffs etc. until Paizo clarifies it.

I see no point in debating whether they can or they can't use staffs etc. until Paizo clarifies it.

LOL That assumes it'll get a clarification. We might get the book with the magus and summoner in our hands and still might not know... We still don't know how many hands it takes to use Battle Medicine and it's not like people aren't using that feat. Might as well hash out as much as we can on our own. :P

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I see no point in debating whether they can or they can't use staffs etc. until Paizo clarifies it.

LOL That assumes it'll get a clarification. We might get the book with the magus and summoner in our hands and still might not know... We still don't know how many hands it takes to use Battle Medicine and it's not like people aren't using that feat. Might as well hash out as much as we can on our own. :P

Are you telling me to ask my GM Gray?

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I see no point in debating whether they can or they can't use staffs etc. until Paizo clarifies it.

LOL That assumes it'll get a clarification. We might get the book with the magus and summoner in our hands and still might not know... We still don't know how many hands it takes to use Battle Medicine and it's not like people aren't using that feat. Might as well hash out as much as we can on our own. :P

Are you telling me to ask my GM Gray?

Not really: if we hash it out and figure out the arguments and rules related to the issue so when it comes up in game, we know what to say. With this kind of problem, it's likely a GM not up on what's going on here might not even have a clue about 4 slot casting and staves so just asking for a ruling out of the blue isn't the most helpful thing to do.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I see no point in debating whether they can or they can't use staffs etc. until Paizo clarifies it.

LOL That assumes it'll get a clarification. We might get the book with the magus and summoner in our hands and still might not know... We still don't know how many hands it takes to use Battle Medicine and it's not like people aren't using that feat. Might as well hash out as much as we can on our own. :P

Are you telling me to ask my GM Gray?

Not really: if we hash it out and figure out the arguments and rules related to the issue so when it comes up in game, we know what to say. With this kind of problem, it's likely a GM not up on what's going on here might not even have a clue about 4 slot casting and staves so just asking for a ruling out of the blue isn't the most helpful thing to do.

... but if it's ambiguous (and even if it isn't) its still gonna be up to him (me actually since I'm the GM) regardless. Also how dare you assume I don't have clues. I have all the clues!!! :P

Hi everyone, update here:

Given the short playtest duration, Covid-related limited play environments, and the online convention lineup that falls during this playtest, we have decided against using the magus and summoner playtest classes in official Pathfinder Society games.

While I understand why this is the case, I can't say that I'm not frustrated and disappointed with this direction. Society was my best avenue for playing Pathfinder even before the viral sensation sweeping the nation, so my chances of getting some quality time with my favorite class during this all-important playtest window is are pretty low.

I'm concerned that my input will have little value without actual table time to back it up.

Is it stated anywhere whether Secrets of Magic will include updated rules for Thassilonian Specialist Wizard thesis, Cyphermage, Bloatmage and other lore specific magic casting archetypes? Or would they be in a future Lost Omens book instead?

Is it stated anywhere whether Secrets of Magic will include updated rules for Thassilonian Specialist Wizard thesis, Cyphermage, Bloatmage and other lore specific magic casting archetypes? Or would they be in a future Lost Omens book instead?

No info on those. Only that there will be some form of alternative casting (as in, alternative casting system in game, not "remove vancian casting as an optional rule")

Good to have some free 2nd edition magical secrets play-testing stuff. :)