Secrets of Magic Playtest Aftermath

Man, table variation never fails to amaze me. My players wouldn't want me to tell them rhe spell names. Descriptions only, unless their character would know it.

Similarly, monsters almost never "strike" they slash, lunge, swing etc. Whenever possible I aboid using game lingo if I can help it. I feel it gives a more emmersive experience.

Similarly, monsters almost never "strike" they slash, lunge, swing etc. Whenever possible I aboid using game lingo if I can help it. I feel it gives a more emmersive experience.

These aren't exclusive options. In my earlier example, I even used both together.

In this case, you really can have your cake and eat it too - describe the action narratively, and then (just so there's no misunderstanding of what just occurred) disclose the mechanical action involved.

Suggesting you have to live at one extreme or the other - or even in the middle - fails to recognize these are independent descriptors, and you can in fact use both.

Man, table variation never fails to amaze me. My players wouldn't want me to tell them rhe spell names. Descriptions only, unless their character would know it.

Similarly, monsters almost never "strike" they slash, lunge, swing etc. Whenever possible I aboid using game lingo if I can help it. I feel it gives a more emmersive experience.

Please leave these posts unedited and check back in the morning. I am the kind of person who "hears" writing, so your posts right now sound like someone a little buzzed and it is truly making me smile in delight.

I'm kind of the opposite of you. I tend to use game lingo liberally. It does break immersion, but the lack of ambiguity is precious to me.

I was speaking about changing description but still wanting hard coded traits. The traits have meaning and rules. If description is all that matters and the traits are meaningless then they are just a waste of space.

So you cannot have hard coded traits with strict meaning and rules, while also saying that they dont matter and only look at the description. Its a contradiction.

Oh man I was about to go to bed but then I kept giggling at this scenario:

BBEG: *summons a black flaming skull and sends it flying at the party, which explodes on impact*

Party Necromancer: Oh hell yes, I can't wait to get this dude's spellbook.

*one fight later*

Necromancer: Okay I grab his book, what sick ass spell was that?

GM:... it was fireball.

Necromancer: Oh. Like. Normal? Why did it look like that?

GM: Had to make him look evil, yo.

Necromancer: So, any actual Necromancy school spells in here?

GM: Nah, all reflavored evocation

WatersLethe wrote:

Man, table variation never fails to amaze me. My players wouldn't want me to tell them rhe spell names. Descriptions only, unless their character would know it.

Similarly, monsters almost never "strike" they slash, lunge, swing etc. Whenever possible I aboid using game lingo if I can help it. I feel it gives a more emmersive experience.

Please leave these posts unedited and check back in the morning. I am the kind of person who "hears" writing, so your posts right now sound like someone a little buzzed and it is truly making me smile in delight.

I'm kind of the opposite of you. I tend to use game lingo liberally. It does break immersion, but the lack of ambiguity is precious to me.

:D

I'm unlocking my secret drunk typing method of closing one eye for better conncentration

Oh man I was about to go to bed but then I kept giggling at this scenario:

BBEG: *summons a black flaming skull and sends it flying at the party, which explodes on impact*

Party Necromancer: Oh hell yes, I can't wait to get this dude's spellbook.

*one fight later*

Necromancer: Okay I grab his book, what sick ass spell was that?

GM:... it was fireball.

Necromancer: Oh. Like. Normal? Why did it look like that?

GM: Had to make him look evil, yo.

Necromancer: So, any actual Necromancy school spells in here?

GM: Nah, all reflavored evocation

And this narrative doesn't end with -

Necromancer: "You mean its an entire book of evocation spells with awesome necromantic special effects like screaming skulls and stuff? What is this, my birthday?!"

In your games?

Most Wizards I've run for would be ecstatic to get a book full of spells that don't fit their chosen school, since they've likely already picked up the stuff they wanted from that school to fill out their core functionality.

What are you even talking about? A Fireball spell is a Fireball spell. The spellbook would not give access to any special effect to how they look.

Thats the literal definition of Bait and Switch.

Thats the literal definition of Bait and Switch.

...only if you withheld the fact that the spell was a Fireball from the players in the first place.

You know, the thing I've specifically said one shouldn't do.

The game requires cooperation between the players and the GM, and accepting things like Incarnate spells as a unique form of summoning is an excellent example of that. If everyone understands what's going on and just plays the game, it works great. You only run into issues when people start picking it apart and saying, "Thats not TRUE Summoning! It doesn't even have hitpoints!"

Or whatever other trait other than hitpoints.

If only there were mechanics in place that let PCs identify spells...

Yeah or if there were identities that could give player characters spell mechanics... Damn. Already ‘zistz.

Or wait, no, I goddit. Right. Imagine, riiight if there were... mechanic identities player characters could give spells. Wait, no that isn’t it.

Ok, howboutthis. If there were identifiable mechanics spells could give...player characters. No, we have that.

Hnnnm. Erright. What if....there...were... spell characters....Umm, nope, Eidolonz.

Umm. What if...there were identical mechanic characters....Oh. Mario and his brother.

Sheesh. This is hard.

Ok, ok. If only there were spell mechanics that could identify player characters! Damn. Almost.

So, maybe there could be...spells identifiably mechanical player characters could place. Gah. Wards.

Umm...place characters that spelled mechanic? Ugh. Numerians.

Player character spell mechanic: identify?

If only there were spells that could give players character mechanics. See your local real world practitioner of magic for details. And be sure to ask them as to the name of the spell.

If that was directed at Krispy, such mechanics were already noted as also being included for the sake of character knowledge rather than player knowledge. (Seems like a potentially tough balance, but if it works for 'em.) Disagreements I'm fine with, even if I prefer some conducts to others, but frequently missing details of what other people said makes discussions seem like slapstick sometimes.

The group I'm a part of which started with 5E is a lot more reflavor-happy than the one that started with beta PF2 and went back to modified PF1, which makes sense, given the relative wibblywobbliness of each system. But I don't think that reflavoring impulse will leave them if they later get to play more Pathfinder, and the PF1 group is still keen on it for the sake of making characters work — there's just less of a need a lot of the time due to the sheer breadth of options in PF1.

@Alfa/Polaris

As I said previously (maybe you missed it) I have no problem with reflavoring, as long as it is not affecting the mechanics. And I do include traits as part of the mechanics. Once it starts to mess with mechanics to me thats homebrew.

Bringing it back to the blog post.

If Paizo wants to make Incarnate spells into something that is summon-like I don't mind it (its their game afterall). But I would rather they dont just call it a summon, and then say it doesn't work at all like a summon. Its the same problem I had with the Eidolon.

Also, what matters to me is what the official terms are. If people want to do something else in their game thats their prerogative. But what Paizo releases is the base for everyone else, and its the base for all future related content.

I've been thinking about Eidolans. Specifically, how would one go about having multiple Eidolans? Not out at the same time, obviously. It was the Beast Master Archetype that got me thinking, "Could the Summoner get something like this?" and all this re-flavor talk is perfect since re-contextualizing the BM's animals into spirits that it calls in separately really feels like a summoner to me with Call Companion being like a little ritual. (It also makes more sense then how the BM animals are currently handled; "Where was the bear hiding? Where'd the deer go? Are they on the boat with us?")

Would that be a route Summoner feats could go down? Problem is, I don't have a clue as to what other costs would be needed to balance that. What should be given up for that potential versatility? Also, should they be locked in to a specific group? I.e. Eidolan 1 is an Angel, so E2 must also be Divine. And finally, how would that connect with the Evolution feats? I personally would be fine with one Evolution feat affects one specific Eidolan; I think it answers the versatility question nicely.

I think spells like the Incarnate trait can serve a pretty important role: giving a specific identity versatility. Summoning is pretty well balanced right now, but that also means "is not always the right tool for the job." Summons are generally pretty bad against boss monsters which are smart enough to ignore them, or when you need your third action in most rounds. Incarnate represents way to utilize more powerful affects while still keeping your character concept focused on summoning.

Kinda like how an illusionist can deal damage through Illusory Creature or the Phantasmal spells.

wait wait, I've never once told the players what the enemy is casting unless they ID the spell. Sorey I'm drunk but are you saying you always tell them what spell they're getting hit with???

I've had a GM or two do this even though it was known that I had feats like Recognize Spell and Quick Recognition. It was totally frustrating.

Old habits from previous editions I guess.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

When it's literally and clearly just a spell effect, like a Wall of Force/Fire, or a Cone of Cold, or even Magic Missiles, it's pretty damn obvious what it is, and players can act appropriately against it. This? Not so much. I understand it's a "beta" thing, and that everything is subject to change (such as making it available for Arcane spellcasters; come on, a Necromancer creating a tornado of dead souls is absolutely iconic and cool and expected of them to do), but as someone looking at it, it needs to have a much clearer identity to avoid situations like the above.

You seem to be implying you wouldn't tell your players the villain cast Fireball, or Wall of Fire, or in the case of the Incarnate Example, Summon Vengeful Dead.

That's an absolutely alien thought to me - rules are how players understand the 'physics' of the game world, so withholding essential basic details from them is hampering their ability to make informed decisions.

That's why I don't see any problem with re-describing a Fireball, or Flaming Sphere.

Because any use of them begins with, "The enemy spellcaster conjures a ball of flame, that takes on the visage with a manic grin before gleefully exploding - they cast fireball, make a reflex save."

There's no possibility of confusion, because the Players know how fireballs work and its not metagaming to roll with cool descriptions of things, and understand the underlying assumption about how 'physics' work in the game world.

Of course, Identify/Recognize Magic is a tool for characters to show their understanding of magic - but I don't have a lot of problems locally with players overly conflating player and character knowledge.

The only mechanical things players need to know about the spell are what saving throw it is (if any, or if it's an attack roll), and what damage it is (if they may have resistances to it). Otherwise? They don't quite know what just happened in-character aside from visual descriptions unless they are a spellcaster with that spell on their spell repertoire or in their spellbook, or if they spend an action (or reaction with a feat) to Recognize Spell. Or even if they've dealt with similar spell effects before. But a level 3 party going up against a Fireball for the first time? Probably not going to know what it is initially, and even if the players know, their characters can't act upon it without knowledge checks or acquiring the spell themselves. It's really no different than if I was throwing an Uncommon, Rare, or even Unique spell at the players, and they never read or heard of it before: I don't tell them because it's something that not everyone or even anyone else has probably seen before and has been able to replicate it or demonstrate it without survivors.

I mean, most spell effects are pretty obvious to identify, Fireball being one of them, since the visual description is on-par with the spell effect, which is a fiery explosion out of apparent thin air. Some other spells, like Dominate or Charm Person, not so much, when the descriptions state they appear no different than merely talking (except on a Critical Success). So, if I cast Dominate, and then say "I cast Dominate on X," it makes metagame implications that players may act upon, and then I will have to deny them their activities as GM because they are now acting as a player trying to win, not as a character trying to defeat the encounter, which may create unneeded conflict when players don't see or understand the difference between what they as a player know and what they as a character know.

But, if I tell a player to make a Will Save, and they haven't acted until their coming turn, then I won't say anything about it until it comes their turn, in which case the surprise (as the game dictates) comes to pass and now the players will appropriately know when something is up the same time the characters do. They might know something is up before-hand, meta-game wise, but I won't tell them how or what that something is, and I probably won't let them act upon it unless they recognize the spell or perceive that so-and-so's character is looking strange.

As GM, my job isn't just to make a scenario for the players to defeat, but to immerse the players into the scenario as if they were the characters themselves. Surprises like Dominate are good for the gaming atmosphere, I've found, and so are potential (even if empty) threats. I sometimes even jokingly state they may have attacks of opportunity when they really don't, roll dice stating they're making one if a player provokes reactions, and then when the results are in, lie and say that they don't actually have it, to keep the players on their toes when it might be possible that creatures may or may not have attacks of opportunity. It makes them gauge their moves more appropriately, just like their character would. It might slow gameplay down a tad, but it creates an air of risk and high stakes, which makes the atmosphere of the encounter more memorable for the players and more important for the characters.

Plus, if certain players chose options specifically for these purposes I've described above, and I basically screw them out of their choices, that player is going to retrain and take options that are actually meaningful. I'd rather not invalidate certain choices players make just because I run the rules differently than what the game expects the GM to run the rules as in this particular scenario.

WatersLethe wrote:

Oh man I was about to go to bed but then I kept giggling at this scenario:

BBEG: *summons a black flaming skull and sends it flying at the party, which explodes on impact*

Party Necromancer: Oh hell yes, I can't wait to get this dude's spellbook.

*one fight later*

Necromancer: Okay I grab his book, what sick ass spell was that?

GM:... it was fireball.

Necromancer: Oh. Like. Normal? Why did it look like that?

GM: Had to make him look evil, yo.

Necromancer: So, any actual Necromancy school spells in here?

GM: Nah, all reflavored evocation

And this narrative doesn't end with -

Necromancer: "You mean its an entire book of evocation spells with awesome necromantic special effects like screaming skulls and stuff? What is this, my birthday?!"

In your games?

Most Wizards I've run for would be ecstatic to get a book full of spells that don't fit their chosen school, since they've likely already picked up the stuff they wanted from that school to fill out their core functionality.

I realize I may have come off as sarcastic or dismissive. I love you to death and your playstyle is totally valid.

But if I tried to pass off a book of evocation spells as a big gift for my necromancer player I would face a mutiny!!

I realize I may have come off as sarcastic or dismissive. I love you to death and your playstyle is totally valid.

But if I tried to pass off a book of evocation spells as a big gift for my necromancer player I would face a mutiny!!

I mean, from the pure metagame mechanics standpoint, in my experience a book of evocations is way more valuable to a necromancer than a book of necromancy spells, which would at best be a bunch of free gold for selling it, and at worst a 'taunt' making them feel like they wasted their resources.

Most Wizards I've run for choose all their core spells - in this case, all the necromancy stuff they really want - as their level up spells, or they buy them as soon as they can. A book of Necromancy spells would typically be strictly useless, but a book of spells of another desirable school (like evocation) would be pure gold in terms of giving them access to new resources. Especially if the character could justify using them while maintaining their idiom.

There's some exceptions in 2E, because of things like Animate Dead being rituals, but those are so iconic to the character archetype that I'd assume they'd be worked out with the GM ahead of time to ensure the character will work at all in the campaign.

So yeah, this particular case isn't exactly my normal perspective on things - its largely a mechanical/metagame item :D

I think that it really depends, it would make a lot more sense to give a book related to the character's specialty if we ever end up in a place where we have so many spells its not possible for a specialist to take them all on level up.

One of the problems I have with the PF magic system is that it is in some sense boring. Cast fireball. Big ball of fire, does nDm damage. Cast it 10,000 times, the effects are no different. Boring. There ought to be some variance in there, even if the casts are successful. Okay, heightening increases the damage. Still boring.

One of the problems I have with the PF magic system is that it is in some sense boring. Cast fireball. Big ball of fire, does nDm damage. Cast it 10,000 times, the effects are no different. Boring. There ought to be some variance in there, even if the casts are successful. Okay, heightening increases the damage. Still boring.

That's part of why some people like illusionists, summoners, or enchanters. The spells are ones with more variety of use. But if you take the spells designed to do damage... yeah, they're going to do damage. Pathfinder isn't a game that really means into chaotic, unpredictable magic, which is good for people like me.

Magus and Summoner are definitely not going to change that, though.

One of the problems I have with the PF magic system is that it is in some sense boring. Cast fireball. Big ball of fire, does nDm damage. Cast it 10,000 times, the effects are no different. Boring. There ought to be some variance in there, even if the casts are successful. Okay, heightening increases the damage. Still boring.

Damage spells work well and are simple, but honestly they're not the ones that really 'break' encounters - that mantle remains with buffs and debuffs, because with how tight the math is now, even small shifts matter a lot.

Stealing an action a turn from a boss will cripple them, imposing penalties to attack rolls and defenses will render them ineffective, and utility magic like illusions only benefit from tighter rules that make it really clear how to arbitrate them.

The variance for spellcasters is on you, the player, to bring it - not expecting fireball to somehow occasionally not be a fireball.

WatersLethe wrote:

wait wait, I've never once told the players what the enemy is casting unless they ID the spell. Sorey I'm drunk but are you saying you always tell them what spell they're getting hit with???

I've had a GM or two do this even though it was known that I had feats like Recognize Spell and Quick Recognition. It was totally frustrating.

Old habits from previous editions I guess.

You have the feats, but you need to use the actions to benefit from them.

Personally, the existence of those feats means I can't tell my player what the spell is without them taking the Feat and using the action - unless they've been exposed to that spell several times before and know what it is. Like, they'd recognize someone casting Heal or Soothe by now, but not Restoration or Lightning Bolt.

I always tell what the spell is being cast after it has been casted <_<(so after its too late to counterspell it anymore as you don't know what you are counterspelling before you do it unless you identify the spell)

That just seems kinda common sense to me, there aren't really spells with "secret effects" where if you fail the save you don't know what happens to you. I guess some gm might be like "okay I won't tell you are dominated before you make charisma roll", but that just seems weirdly confusing to me.

Same Corvus, I usually tell them the character is casting a spell, ask for saves, then tell them the effect or click on the spell being cast (playing on roll20).

As for not saying what spell it was or its effect. It really depends on how visible the effect it. Healing for example is not very visible, neither is things like dominate, or fear.

Whether or not spells are generally recognisable has different consequences for intrigue and combat games. I believe that if we compare the GM interpretations of this vs the style of game (combat or intrigue) they run then we will see a correlation.

I always tell what the spell is being cast after it has been casted <_<(so after its too late to counterspell it anymore as you don't know what you are counterspelling before you do it unless you identify the spell)

That just seems kinda common sense to me, there aren't really spells with "secret effects" where if you fail the save you don't know what happens to you. I guess some gm might be like "okay I won't tell you are dominated before you make charisma roll", but that just seems weirdly confusing to me.

I've found this edition has a lot more focus on identifying things taking effort. And because they take effort I'm not really doing freebies as much. Sure, some NPCs they kill labelled their scrolls and potions, and some NPCs will tell you what your loot is, but others won't. Otherwise the guy who took Quick Identification wasted a Feat.

I do the same with monsters, because it now takes an action to ID them they get nothing past the image for it without effort. I'm running Age of Ashes and they've ID'd about, 4 enemies total in 2 books. They don't even take the 6 seconds after to look over the corpse. They have a hard time talking about what they fought because they only have physical descriptions most of the time.

And nobody took Identify Spell, so I can't tell them what the spells are. Because of the Spell Manifestation precedence from 1E they know magic is happening but not what it is. So they get to scratch their heads at how the Rogue was one shot dropped from a spell against a boss (don't crit fail against Vampiric Touch when you have 10 Con) but the Barbarian only took a little damage. Especially so in that case because nobody has ever cast a Vampiric Touch themselves at that time.

I tend to say the spell name, after reading this discussion I tried not doing that, but then the automation of my VTT announced it as part of the damage roll *shrug* its really the same difference so long as you enforce the separation of knowledge for counter spell and such.

Speed and clarity are important to me during combat. Otherwise, combat could become boringly slow due to multiple guessing games in the middle, and I could miss something important such as to mention that the spell dealt fire damage to a PC wearing a Ring of Fire Resistance. Thus, when the enemy wizard casts a Fireball, I will say Fireball.

And identifying spells is different in the rules than identifying magic items.

Identifying Spells

Sometimes you need to identify a spell, especially if its effects are not obvious right away. If you notice a spell being cast, and you have prepared that spell or have it in your repertoire, you automatically know what the spell is, including the level to which it is heightened. If you want to identify a spell but don’t have it prepared or in your repertoire, you must spend an action on your turn to attempt to identify it using Recall Knowledge. You typically notice a spell being cast by seeing its visual manifestations or hearing its verbal casting components. Identifying long-lasting spells that are already in place requires using Identify Magic instead of Recall Knowledge because you don’t have the advantage of watching the spell being cast.

Pay attention that the rules say that a character with the spell in his or her repertoire automatically identifies the spell. It does not say that the character automatically succeeds at the the Recall Knowledge check; rather, no check nor action is required. It is like identifying that an enemy barbarian is holding a greatsword instead of a battleaxe. No Recall Knowledge (Crafting) check is required.

The Recall Knowledge check fits the magic system if the spell is subtle, which sometimes happens with buff and debuff spells. The druid did not cast an obvious spell spell like Burning Hands. No, he cast a subtle spell like Charm. Even an immediate spell like Stabilize could be hard to distinguish from Heal.

As for identifying magic items, my players are not good at tracking their loot. I remember one occasion where the record-keeper said they were selling a large ruby. Do you have the price I asked? No. Do you remember which room where you picked up the ruby? No. We narrowed down the room based on what was above and below the ruby in the list, so that I could look up that the ruby was worth 50 gp. I would rather that their treasure list said Staff of Enchantment than "wooden staff capped with a mesmerizing gemstone."

These days where we play with Roll20 and Discord, I cut and paste the treasure list to the Loot channel in our Discord group, along with the experience points. Technically, that list is out-of-character and the players could roleplay identifying the item if they want, but we don't always bother. They did make identify checks for the three wands carried by Nashgra in our October 30th game session.

KrispyXIV wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Oh man I was about to go to bed but then I kept giggling at this scenario:

BBEG: *summons a black flaming skull and sends it flying at the party, which explodes on impact*

Party Necromancer: Oh hell yes, I can't wait to get this dude's spellbook.

*one fight later*

Necromancer: Okay I grab his book, what sick ass spell was that?

GM:... it was fireball.

Necromancer: Oh. Like. Normal? Why did it look like that?

GM: Had to make him look evil, yo.

Necromancer: So, any actual Necromancy school spells in here?

GM: Nah, all reflavored evocation

And this narrative doesn't end with -

Necromancer: "You mean its an entire book of evocation spells with awesome necromantic special effects like screaming skulls and stuff? What is this, my birthday?!"

In your games?

Most Wizards I've run for would be ecstatic to get a book full of spells that don't fit their chosen school, since they've likely already picked up the stuff they wanted from that school to fill out their core functionality.

I realize I may have come off as sarcastic or dismissive. I love you to death and your playstyle is totally valid.

But if I tried to pass off a book of evocation spells as a big gift for my necromancer player I would face a mutiny!!

"Get the GM, burn them at the stake!"

I think that in terms of "this isn't really x, even though you say it is" a little detail goes a long way. You don't want it to just be a skin for fireball, but it doesn't have to go the whole nine yards either-- just for example, giving your player a necro-themed fireball is probably disappointing... but altering fireball in some small ways would bridge the gap, in this case something like dividing the damage partially to evil/negative would be plenty and is very safe homebrew territory.

This applies to the designers and incarnate spells, a pinch of mechanical aknowledgement for the narrative difference between these spells and other spells would go a long way... though in my eyes, we're probably already there by virtue of the 'arrive' and 'depart' mechanic. Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Maybe we could enhance that (without losing the advantage of this design) by introducing a sustain mechanic? The thing shows up on one turn, but then on the following turn you can spend an action to sustain it, delaying the departure mechanic, and giving you some minor benefit while it's still on the field.

For instance, maybe while sustained, creatures affected by the vengeful dead can't drop their fear level below 1.

Then, we can add the ability to attack incarnations to that trait, and make it into a "I can hit this to counteract it" mechanic, which would cancel the departure mechanic if it works. There's probably an intuitive way to make that interact with banishes as well, though I need to finish this post now.

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

and?

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

and?

The spell you described and the spell I described do exactly the same thing.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

and?

The spell you described and the spell I described do exactly the same thing.

is that a problem?

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

and?

The spell you described and the spell I described do exactly the same thing.

is that a problem?

Yes, redundant spells are the definition of rules bloat.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

and?

The spell you described and the spell I described do exactly the same thing.

is that a problem?

Yes, redundant spells are the definition of rules bloat.

So in other words- No, it isn't a problem, considering that there is no "Echoing Fireball" Spell in Pathfinder 2e.

There is an echoing spell meta-magic that allows you duplicate a casting of a spell 4th level or lower the next turn. But thats a level 18 feat, works only on low level magic, and would cost 3 actions on the turn of, with a follow up of 2 actions on the next turn in order to function.

Which is very different-- so not only was the original spell made up, and therefore not an actual redundancy of any kind (they could just as easily not choose to publish spells that would be redundant with the proposed incarnate spells) the closest mechanical implementation in the game would probably preclude any such spell ever existing.

For instance, maybe while sustained, creatures affected by the vengeful dead can't drop their fear level below 1.

Then, we can add the ability to attack incarnations to that trait, and make it into a "I can hit this to counteract it" mechanic, which would cancel the departure mechanic if it works. There's probably an intuitive way to make that interact with banishes as well, though I need to finish this post now.

The sustain mechanic sounds interesting. I could even see it be a summoner feat of some kind, so that Summoners would get more out of Incarnate spells than other casters (easiest way to implement that would be having the sustain benefit vary by tradition, so like all Divine spells give your eidolon fast healing equal to the spell level or something, instead of each individual spell having its own).

I sort of like that incarnates don't have hit points, but your suggestion also has merit. We'll see how it all goes.

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

and?

The spell you described and the spell I described do exactly the same thing.

is that a problem?

Yes, because one of them is called a "summoning spell."

I know this is off topic to what people have been discussing for a while, but is anyone that liked the playtest classes going to continue playing them in games? I really like the way magus plays in the playtest, but with all the possible changes noted in this blog, I worry the changes will be things I'm not in favour of and then I'll be in a weird spot with the character when the final version comes out.

My summoner turned out interesting, so that one yeah. I disliked playing the magus, but given the changes they're considering I'll give the final version another look.

I feel like we are doing the playtest of the Incarnate spells :-)

Just make it a minion, give it another action in the first round with the same restrictions as its first action in the second round and reduce its speed by half and it will be a proper summoned creature, though one with specific abilities.

Once those are tailored to give the proper feeling of a summoning, you're set to go.

I know this is off topic to what people have been discussing for a while, but is anyone that liked the playtest classes going to continue playing them in games? I really like the way magus plays in the playtest, but with all the possible changes noted in this blog, I worry the changes will be things I'm not in favour of and then I'll be in a weird spot with the character when the final version comes out.

I'm going forward with my Summoner. I've enjoyed it so far, and most of the proposed changes are only beneficial, so I'm not too worried about adjusting when SoM is published :)

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

I cast banishment (or dispel magic) on your echoing fireball before your second turn.

Does it go away?

Speaking of which, incarnate spells should probably have a Will save for the purposes of banishment.

Gaulin wrote:

I know this is off topic to what people have been discussing for a while, but is anyone that liked the playtest classes going to continue playing them in games? I really like the way magus plays in the playtest, but with all the possible changes noted in this blog, I worry the changes will be things I'm not in favour of and then I'll be in a weird spot with the character when the final version comes out.

I'm going forward with my Summoner. I've enjoyed it so far, and most of the proposed changes are only beneficial, so I'm not too worried about adjusting when SoM is published :)

Likewise, Cirieo Thassaddin, my playtest summoner, is still in my party. I will have him depart the party somewhere safe as soon as possible, but that involves the party fighting their way through a hobgoblin platoon. Cirieo and Fluffy disappearing without justification would leave an unsightly plot hole.

Cirieo is still being played by a player, and I told him that he can use the Variable Act Together rule mentioned in this article. That player also is playing his new permanent character, so between the summoner Cirieo, the eidolon Fluffy, and the monk Ren'zar-jo, he controls three bodies.

Draco18s wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Even if we get a Phoenix-flavord incarnation that shows up with a fiery explosion, and leaves with a fiery explosion, it being broken into two parts that way still conveys the narrative of something showing up, and leaving in a way a single explosion doesn't.

Echoing Fireball

Fireball target location
Start of your next turn, fireball second target location

I cast banishment (or dispel magic) on your echoing fireball before your second turn.

Does it go away?

Speaking of which, incarnate spells should probably have a Will save for the purposes of banishment.

If the math checks out, I'd probably just use the level DC for the spell

Healing for example is not very visible, neither is things like dominate, or fear.

Umm, but all three of those ARE visible. With healing you see wounds close up, with fear you see someone starting to panic or hear them screaming, dominate is most arguable one, but it often accompanies character's behavior suddenly changing or them becoming more "placid"

I mean its clear when the effect happens. But not clear when the effect is happening. Also healing is weird because its not always wounds.

I know this is off topic to what people have been discussing for a while, but is anyone that liked the playtest classes going to continue playing them in games? I really like the way magus plays in the playtest, but with all the possible changes noted in this blog, I worry the changes will be things I'm not in favour of and then I'll be in a weird spot with the character when the final version comes out.

After much consideration, Blinski, my Magus and Ondelf, my co-Gm’s Magus, will remain in the party. We’re trying to stick pretty much to what was said in the blog, so we’re moving the proficiency to match a Monk and Champion, Martial Caster to 7th level and removing Magus Potency. Allowed them to pick up appropriate rune’d weapons for what a character of their level would get

On the Striking Spell, we’ve removed the crit fishing part and folded the two roll system into a one roll system for attack spells (that part is the one we liked the most out of the possibilities that have been mentioned), we’re considering having a crit with the weapon only be a crit with the attack spell if said attack spell was going to be a hit.