Save the Date for a New Pathfinder Class Playtest!

I do remember a lot of conversations saying that giving legendary to weapon/armor is bad cause that is the Fighter/Champion thing. While saying that its fine that most casters get legendary.

It was usually the people saying that it was fine that MC caster gave master proficiency. But complained about casters getting +1/+2 to attack spells to keep parity with magic items.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I could make the same argument by stating X new class having Legendary in Weapons/Armor doesn't take away from the Fighter or Champion having it, but I can assure you that many people do not and would not like those things implemented, and they have stated as such. It's not spiteful, it's niche protection. Flexible spellcasting tradition was a niche for Sorcerers, and it's been poached by 2 classes.

No. That's... What? I just can't comprehend this mindset. Is the Investigator poaching the niche of the Rogue by having more skill feats and bonuses than default classes? Was the Witch in PF1 poaching the niche of the Wizard by being an INT based prepared arcane caster? Flexible casting tradition is part of the design tools available when creating a class in PF2. The Sorcerer, Witch, and Summoner are nothing alike in anyway except for the fact they having spells and a flexible tradition. Flexible casting was pitched as the unique thing of the Sorcerer because it was new! It was an idea that was different from PF1 and they needed to sell us on the changes. I personally would be happy for new classes with Legendary proficiency in weapons/armor if it makes sense for the class and they do something new. A non-magic martial character with Legendary proficiency in armor seems interesting to me. It's not a Champion, it's something different. Likewise, while I don't see how another martial class could have Legendary weapon proficiency without being Fighter 2 (was Gunslinger ever confirmed to be keeping Legendary in guns?), I would still be down for it if the mechanics make sense. Artificially limiting the options for a class because it's part of another classes "identity" is silly, especially when it's a mechanical feature. Witches and Summoners making total sense to be flexible thematically and in universe.

Actually, yes. Rogues are meant to be the "Skill" class; having more than one "Skill" class impedes on Rogue's territory, especially when it has superior weapon proficiencies, neat new mechanics, and imitates a lot of the predecessor class (instead of Sneak Attack, we have Strategic Strike, for example). Really, the only reason why I would not play an Investigator compared to a Rogue is due to a lot of its ancillary benefits and features being too fringe to worry about, or requiring a specific party set to truly take advantage of all they have to offer (such as being all Investigators). Rogue is much simpler, and does offer at least one obvious benefit that no other class does. But make no mistake, Investigator has made me waver from thinking of playing different kinds of Rogues.

A lot of comparisons of an Arcane Witch to a Wizard were "It's just a Wizard with less raw spells, no Arcane Bond, and a beefed up Improved Familiar Thesis with a different exchange of focus spells and equally bad class feats." The fact they had to resort to flexible spellcasting and buy-in focus spell feats to give variety to the class, instead of, you know, improving on the absolutely obvious #1 feature that players from PF1 completely enjoyed about the class, *cough*Hexes*cough*, they poached from the Sorcerer's identity. How original and lazy. And many posters have commented as such in terms of the raw results.

I disagree on them not being alike in any way. The Sorcerer and Witch both have Focus Spells which tie into their spellcasting tradition choice, whether it be via Bloodlines or Patrons; it's just the same object with a different name. Both (can) have Familiars within their class, even though one has much more support for it, it's a minor difference given the power budget of Familiars in general, and a Sorcerer can match it if they try to invest.

Really, other than one being Prepared versus Spontaneous and having a different set of Focus Spells and maybe a handful of feats, they're the same class. I cannot comment similarly with the Summoner until I see the final product to be certain, but of what is confirmed with the Summoner they so far match these two other classes in those respects.

Oh wow they both have focus spells. Like... every spellcaster in the game.

So, wait. Does that mean the monk is making the champion less special then, or is the champion impinging on the monk's turf? They both get legendary in their defenses. Sure monks don't have armor, but you can fix that with Sentinel, and nothing's stopping champions fighting in their pajamas.

It technically does.

But the Monk does have Flexible Save progressions, which is pretty damn unique and worth it compared to what a Champion gets in comparison. Plus, Monks can't reasonably wear armor without invalidating a large amount of feat choices, and they can't wear Heavy Armor, which is +1 higher than what a Monk would have if compared to a Champion.

Oh wow they both have focus spells. Like... every spellcaster in the game.

It's not simply because they have focus spells, it's because those focus spells they possess are tied to their Patron/Bloodline choice in particular.

Perpdepog wrote:

So, wait. Does that mean the monk is making the champion less special then, or is the champion impinging on the monk's turf? They both get legendary in their defenses. Sure monks don't have armor, but you can fix that with Sentinel, and nothing's stopping champions fighting in their pajamas.

It technically does.

But the Monk does have Flexible Save progressions, which is pretty damn unique and worth it compared to what a Champion gets in comparison. Plus, Monks can't reasonably wear armor without invalidating a large amount of feat choices, and they can't wear Heavy Armor, which is +1 higher than what a Monk would have if compared to a Champion.

So just to be clear: flexible save progression is a unique class feature that distinguishes two martial characters, but bounded spellcasting and an eidolon is a 'slight difference' from standard Sorcerer spellcasting and makes them 'carbon copies'?

If Classes being able to share in some aspects of the games core systems is somehow harming their identity, then Paizo should just stop making more Classes at this point I suppose; since any similarities to one another ruins them it seems. Everyone has HP, everyone has saving throws, everyone has proficiencies. As such, nothing is sacred. RIP Pathfinder 2e 2019 - 2021; never to add anything new ever again.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

So, wait. Does that mean the monk is making the champion less special then, or is the champion impinging on the monk's turf? They both get legendary in their defenses. Sure monks don't have armor, but you can fix that with Sentinel, and nothing's stopping champions fighting in their pajamas.

It technically does.

But the Monk does have Flexible Save progressions, which is pretty damn unique and worth it compared to what a Champion gets in comparison. Plus, Monks can't reasonably wear armor without invalidating a large amount of feat choices, and they can't wear Heavy Armor, which is +1 higher than what a Monk would have if compared to a Champion.

So just to be clear: flexible save progression is a unique class feature that distinguishes two martial characters, but bounded spellcasting and an eidolon is a 'slight difference' from standard Sorcerer spellcasting and makes them 'carbon copies'?

It's more distinguishable than Legendary Armor, IMO, since it's been established since Core that two classes have it, even if one is just a subset. After all, there aren't other classes that have a flexible save progression feature besides Monk that I am aware of.

The Eidolon determines the spellcasting tradition just like a Bloodline does, and both are (as far as I know) spontaneous spellcasters. It's similar enough to have simply been made a class archetype in my eyes, especially since Bounded Spellcasting was invented as more of a balancing point more than it was intended to be a feature to draw you to the class.

So if Witches had been in core it would have been fine, but publishing them one book later suddenly turns it into a sacred cow?

The Eidolon determines the spellcasting tradition just like a Bloodline does, and both are (as far as I know) spontaneous spellcasters. It's similar enough to have simply been made a class archetype in my eyes, especially since Bounded Spellcasting was invented as more of a balancing point more than it was intended to be a feature to draw you to the class.

The length of a Summoner class archetype for sorcerer would be absurd, to be entirely honest. You'd have to have the rules for Bounded Casting in there, you'd have to have the rules for Eidolons in there, you'd have to have the rules for when Eidolons gain proficiencies in there, and then you'd need to have at the very least all the Evolution class feats in the archetype to allow you to customise your eidolon. You'd end up with a single class archetype that changes the vast majority of the class, that you rarely take any non-archetype feats for, and that is about the same in-book length as a new class would be. What would the improvement here even be? If it's so significantly different, why have it as a class archetype?

Bounded Spellcasting, imo, was a way of introducing Partial Casters in a way that was different from 1e and didn't bar them from gaining 9th level spells. Magus and Summoner were both Partial Casters. For its part, Bard was upgraded to a Full Caster in 2e.

EDIT: Perhaps we can real this back into speculation and discussion on what we would like to see from the two new playtest Classes? There seems to be no sense in going around in a circle on this matter here, especially because it isn't something that is going to change.

Maybe you can share with us the two Classes you'd like to see Darksol; what you would do with them or what you want from them.

Perpdepog wrote:

So, wait. Does that mean the monk is making the champion less special then, or is the champion impinging on the monk's turf? They both get legendary in their defenses. Sure monks don't have armor, but you can fix that with Sentinel, and nothing's stopping champions fighting in their pajamas.

It technically does.

But the Monk does have Flexible Save progressions, which is pretty damn unique and worth it compared to what a Champion gets in comparison. Plus, Monks can't reasonably wear armor without invalidating a large amount of feat choices, and they can't wear Heavy Armor, which is +1 higher than what a Monk would have if compared to a Champion.

I just can't imagine viewing the game this way. Monk has crazy martial arts and ki moves that enable it to do special spells that come through meditation and inner cultivation. A champion is a martial character that focuses on defense and their God allows them to channel some divine spells. Viewing them as saves or proficiencies just feels like missing the fun of an rpg. Do you play in Microsoft excel?

Mechanics and thematics carry equal weight, I figure, but that's when you look at it from the perspective of "the character you are actually playing." A top level choice like "I could have chosen a different bloodline" really doesn't have anything to do with the character you're actually playing

I can't believe that we're never getting another divine caster because it "steps on the toes" of cleric and oracle. Go make another thread if you want to whine about your overtly restrictive concepts of class design, Darksol.

As previously mentioned though, please god give me cooler medium+shaman with Shardra as the iconic. pleeeease.

The argument I find convincing about waiting on the inquisitor is mostly- we're still waiting for our 2nd primal and 2nd occult class, the fourth divine class can wait.

The argument I find convincing about waiting on the inquisitor is mostly- we're still waiting for our 2nd primal and 2nd occult class, the fourth divine class can wait.

It's more like four primal/occult and five divine/arcane, but that does make sense. Though at the same time I feel like "divine gish" is one of those really popular mechanical conceits that is still kind of hard to build in a satisfactory way in PF2. I"m less sure about what pressing holes a new occult or primal caster might fill. From what I've seen, discourse around those has been more generic.

So if Witches had been in core it would have been fine, but publishing them one book later suddenly turns it into a sacred cow?

Even if Witches were Core, it wouldn't have been well received because the #1 feature that defined the class' identity (Hexes) wasn't the showcase of the class, it was variable prepared spellcasting (somewhat different if only because it's prepared) determined by Patron (mirror of Bloodlines) followed by Familiars (which have taken more of a backseat in this edition compared to PF1, and can already be done with Wizards). Really, I'm not particularly upset that there is a variable prepared spellcaster, more that it basically was made variable in the same means that a Sorcerer was, just with a different name on the label. Maybe if it was inverted I'd feel the same way about Sorcerers, but with the added notion of power creep instead.

But again, when the Core Rulebook defines the expectations, such as Legendary Weapons for a Fighter, a future class can't step on those toes because it then invalidates that class' identity. The game has put niche protection on a pedestal for that very reason, plus to balance the class's expectations against other classes.

I'm hoping for 2 full casters or a full caster and a bounded one

Playtesting two full casters just seems unpleasant. At least when we did the APG playtest, we had 2 noncasters to go with the oracle and witch.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The argument I find convincing about waiting on the inquisitor is mostly- we're still waiting for our 2nd primal and 2nd occult class, the fourth divine class can wait.

It's more like four primal/occult and five divine/arcane, but that does make sense. Though at the same time I feel like "divine gish" is one of those really popular mechanical conceits that is still kind of hard to build in a satisfactory way in PF2. I"m less sure about what pressing holes a new occult or primal caster might fill. From what I've seen, discourse around those has been more generic.

For me, I want a class that highlights what makes the occult tradition different from arcane, and on the primal side what makes the primal tradition not the Druid spell list.

I like the essences lore, but I don’t feel the traditions exactly match, and agree with those that have commented that the arcane, primal, and divine traditions feel like the wizard, Druid, and cleric class spell lists first and class agnostic lists second. So I would like to see classes that explore the themes suggested by the traditions but aren’t already covered by the core classes.

The game has put niche protection on a pedestal for that very reason, plus to balance the class's expectations against other classes.

But they didn’t. Niche protection isn’t really a thing. It almost can’t be because of PFS and the need to have almost any grouping of random adventurers to be at least viable, if not exactly ideal.

Squiggit wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The argument I find convincing about waiting on the inquisitor is mostly- we're still waiting for our 2nd primal and 2nd occult class, the fourth divine class can wait.

It's more like four primal/occult and five divine/arcane, but that does make sense. Though at the same time I feel like "divine gish" is one of those really popular mechanical conceits that is still kind of hard to build in a satisfactory way in PF2. I"m less sure about what pressing holes a new occult or primal caster might fill. From what I've seen, discourse around those has been more generic.

For me, I want a class that highlights what makes the occult tradition different from arcane, and on the primal side what makes the primal tradition not the Druid spell list.

I like the essences lore, but I don’t feel the traditions exactly match, and agree with those that have commented that the arcane, primal, and divine traditions feel like the wizard, Druid, and cleric class spell lists first and class agnostic lists second. So I would like to see classes that explore the themes suggested by the traditions but aren’t already covered by the core classes.

After reading through SoM, and a few other sources, I think maybe the most apt (and simplest) way to explain the Occult Tradition is "the study of esoteric and eldritch knowledge" instead of the direct study of magic pursued by the Arcane Tradition? I've touched on this in the past, but some key differences I've found between the other three seems to be Arcane being magic "through the lens of science", Divine "though the lens of religion", and Primal "through the lens of nature". Not sure how Occult measures up to that quite yet, but my initial thought process is "through the lens of philosophy"? By definition, philosophy is "the study on the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence". SoM sort of describes Occult as "the emotions, experiences, and knowledge" more or less accumulated over the course of existence. I feel that these things are sort of the building blocks of philosophy at its core; formulated and given life by these factors.

Another thing I noticed is every Tradition can sort of be applied to the various spheres of existence. Arcane is the Material Plane, Primal is the Inner Spheres (particularly, the Elemental Planes), Divine is the Outer Sohere, and perhaps Occult is everything else inside (and outside) the confines of reality (Energy Planes, Transative Planes, the Astal Plane, and the "Beyond Beyond").

Not sure. These are just some of my musings on the matter. I'm hoping that we do eventually get books covering the broader aspects of each tradition and their essences, so they can maybe dive a bit deeper into their underpinnings. I feel SoM was just scratching the surface.

The argument I find convincing about waiting on the inquisitor is mostly- we're still waiting for our 2nd primal and 2nd occult class, the fourth divine class can wait.

Monk is kinda .5 occult and ranger is kinda .5 primal.

I could see inquisitor moving more into the Occult space than the Divine and I think Shaman could certainly be an occult prepared with a varying addition to the list based on their spirit/bonded object.

Occult didn't exist in PF1 and tbh I think it's themes fit a lot better for the Inquisitor considering they were already not as bound by deities as other religious bound classes since they were mostly domain oriented. Maybe that's a stretch for others but I think the spell lists of inquisitor isn't that far from Occult and to me I can see the likes of Trevor Belmont, Van Helsing, The Wichesters living much better in the Occult space.

And to be honest if an inquisitor was divine it might require a lot more defining to separate itself from warpriest and champion.

Regarding the planes related to traditions, you are mostly correct, but astral is arcane/occult. The planes actually related to specific essences, not directly to the traditions.

Mark went into his thoughts on the matter during the original playtest. I can probably find the quite again once I’m home tonight.

As a huge Inquisitor fan, I would be really upset if there wasn’t support for being a weapon of your god. I would be down with a choice between Occult or Divine, but lacking Divine options entirely would leave a bad taste in my mouth.

As a huge Inquisitor fan, I would be really upset if there wasn’t support for being a weapon of your god. I would be down with a choice between Occult or Divine, but lacking Divine options entirely would leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Why not a domain of your God but using occult spells?

After all not having to be the exact alignment of the god already kind of lends itself to the idea that there is not a super hard tie.

Not saying they can't be themed by a god, but having to gain spell lists directly from their god doesn't seem entirely necessary to me to allow theming with weapons, domains, etc.

Like for instance Van Helsing right, probably one of the most iconic ideas of an inquisitor type. In most depictions, they were a tool of the church and had things they gained or were supported from the church, but to say Van helsing was intrinsically connected to the church in the same way a priest would be doesn't seem true.

I mean they already sort of opened the gates on getting deific-ish powers via unconventional narrative means with oracles not requiring hard ties and witches gaining Divine via learning it from a Divine patron.

I could see inquisitors gaining occult spell list with deity domains and deity weapon proficiencies with judgements being even a Divine themed focus spell (that's right a hybrid tradition caster, and since buffs generally don't care about your training proficiency, it wouldn't even require extra proficiency on divine).

There's ways I can see it working but it's a stretch probably.

keftiu wrote:

As a huge Inquisitor fan, I would be really upset if there wasn’t support for being a weapon of your god. I would be down with a choice between Occult or Divine, but lacking Divine options entirely would leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Why not a domain of your God but using occult spells?

After all not having to be the exact alignment of the god already kind of lends itself to the idea that there is not a super hard tie.

Not saying they can't be themed by a god, but having to gain spell lists directly from their god doesn't seem entirely necessary to me to allow theming with weapons, domains, etc.

Like for instance Van Helsing right, probably one of the most iconic ideas of an inquisitor type. In most depictions, they were a tool of the church and had things they gained or were supported from the church, but to say Van helsing was intrinsically connected to the church in the same way a priest would be doesn't seem true.

I mean they already sort of opened the gates on getting deific-ish powers via unconventional narrative means with oracles not requiring hard ties and witches gaining Divine via learning it from a Divine patron.

I could see inquisitors gaining occult spell list with deity domains and deity weapon proficiencies with judgements being even a Divine themed focus spell (that's right a hybrid tradition caster, and since buffs generally don't care about your training proficiency, it wouldn't even require extra proficiency on divine).

There's ways I can see it working but it's a stretch probably.

Dual Occult/divine actually kind of reminds me of the Hexenhammer archetype from 1e.

I really, really, really want the Occult alternative to the Champion.

Give me the spookiest beeftank devoted to esoteric weirdness with a polearm and real armor, please.

I really, really, really want the Occult alternative to the Champion.

Give me the spookiest beeftank devoted to esoteric weirdness with a polearm and real armor, please.

An Occult martial is something I'm struggling to picture, but want very badly.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I really, really, really want the Occult alternative to the Champion.

Give me the spookiest beeftank devoted to esoteric weirdness with a polearm and real armor, please.

An Occult martial is something I'm struggling to picture, but want very badly.

I played a few occultists that were basically this. The Battle Host occultist knows 2 spells per spell level until 10th level, and the Trappings of the Warrior Occultist can only access 3 schools of magic until 10th. Both of these characters you could replicate the feel of very well with a Championesque class that devotes more of its class budget to focus spells.

keftiu wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I really, really, really want the Occult alternative to the Champion.

Give me the spookiest beeftank devoted to esoteric weirdness with a polearm and real armor, please.

An Occult martial is something I'm struggling to picture, but want very badly.

I played a few occultists that were basically this. The Battle Host occultist knows 2 spells per spell level until 10th level, and the Trappings of the Warrior Occultist can only access 3 schools of magic until 10th. Both of these characters you could replicate the feel of very well with a Championesque class that devotes more of its class budget to focus spells.

keftiu wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I really, really, really want the Occult alternative to the Champion.

Give me the spookiest beeftank devoted to esoteric weirdness with a polearm and real armor, please.

An Occult martial is something I'm struggling to picture, but want very badly.

I played a few occultists that were basically this. The Battle Host occultist knows 2 spells per spell level until 10th level, and the Trappings of the Warrior Occultist can only access 3 schools of magic until 10th. Both of these characters you could replicate the feel of very well with a Championesque class that devotes more of its class budget to focus spells.

I have this imagine in my head of a fusion between D&D's Psychis Warrior and Soulknife for an "Occult Champion", and I want it.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I really, really, really want the Occult alternative to the Champion.

Give me the spookiest beeftank devoted to esoteric weirdness with a polearm and real armor, please.

An Occult martial is something I'm struggling to picture, but want very badly.

Imagine a person who gets possessed every time a fight breaks out. Imagine the possession is from an alien entity, a demonic presence, or the ghost of an ancestor. The possessing entity defines the attacks & defenses of the person. Maybe the ancestor's sword materializes in her hand. Or she gains flames & claws of sulphur, or a dozen tendrils spill out from her mouth. Since the entity has to enter the person for the attacks to work, we will call this possession. let's definitely NOT call it stance.n

That is how I imagine an occult martial. :) YMMV

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I really, really, really want the Occult alternative to the Champion.

Give me the spookiest beeftank devoted to esoteric weirdness with a polearm and real armor, please.

An Occult martial is something I'm struggling to picture, but want very badly.

Perhaps this could be created with a Pathfinder 2E version of the Starfinder Vanguard or Solarion...

keftiu wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I really, really, really want the Occult alternative to the Champion.

Give me the spookiest beeftank devoted to esoteric weirdness with a polearm and real armor, please.

An Occult martial is something I'm struggling to picture, but want very badly.

Perhaps this could be created with a Pathfinder 2E version of the Starfinder Vanguard or Solarion...

Given Occult is the province of Mind and Spirit, I’d see some sort of Psiblade being more likely. There’s nothing that really ties them to the Sun, although the weird geometries and gravity effects of the other half of Solarion do tie in well with the occult spell list.

The Solarian would be a great example of “Primal but not Druid” that i mentioned. It is definitely vital and material, but not nature worshiping.

Edit: having said that, reflavoribg the abilities to work off light, dark, sonic, and force effects would put it firmly in occult with few changes to the mechanics beyond that necessary to be in PF2.

What I thought of with the Psychic Warrior and Soulknife combo is basically a... er... Psychic Warrior, capable of manifesting their arms and armor through psychic means

The Soulknife is portrayed more as being a Rogue of D&D's Psionic system. Pathfinder could instead treat it as a... well, Psychic Warrior, capable of manifesting psychic abilities by created arms and armor from their mind. Similar in concept to the Soulforged Armaments I suppose. I'll call them, Psiforged. To make it different, maybe tie their psychic powers to a particular role? Like, maybe one is simply a warrior, but another is like a Rogue, capable of delivering precision damage. Another can manifest and detach these psiblades to perform ranged attacks. This kind of mirrors the approach with the Magus. The ties to Champion circles back to Focus Spells. They are able to perform a number of Focus Spells to enhance and augment their blades and armor. For the sake of proficiency, they are always considered at least trained with these arms and armor, as they are a manifestation of their mind. Depending on their role, maybe these proficiencies are different? Like, the Rogue Psiforge gains a better proficiency for manifesting weapons that are simple or light, while a Warrior style Psiforge does this with all armor? Could still restrict this a bit, by require a Class Feat to be able to manifest, say, an Advanced Weapon or Heavy Armor.

EDIT: Psiwright is another name. Like Shipwright. Doesn't quite role off the tongue tho.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The argument I find convincing about waiting on the inquisitor is mostly- we're still waiting for our 2nd primal and 2nd occult class, the fourth divine class can wait.

It's more like four primal/occult and five divine/arcane, but that does make sense. Though at the same time I feel like "divine gish" is one of those really popular mechanical conceits that is still kind of hard to build in a satisfactory way in PF2. I"m less sure about what pressing holes a new occult or primal caster might fill. From what I've seen, discourse around those has been more generic.

For me, I want a class that highlights what makes the occult tradition different from arcane, and on the primal side what makes the primal tradition not the Druid spell list.

I like the essences lore, but I don’t feel the traditions exactly match, and agree with those that have commented that the arcane, primal, and divine traditions feel like the wizard, Druid, and cleric class spell lists first and class agnostic lists second. So I would like to see classes that explore the themes suggested by the traditions but aren’t already covered by the core classes.

After reading through SoM, and a few other sources, I think maybe the most apt (and simplest) way to explain the Occult Tradition is "the study of esoteric and eldritch knowledge" instead of the direct study of magic pursued by the Arcane Tradition? I've touched on this in the past, but some key differences I've found between the other three seems to be Arcane being magic "through the lens of science", Divine "though the lens of religion", and Primal "through the lens of nature". Not sure how Occult measures up to that quite yet, but my initial thought process is "through the lens of philosophy"? By definition, philosophy is "the study on the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence". SoM sort of describes Occult as "the emotions, experiences, and knowledge" more or less...

Occult IMO would be "from the lens of storytelling".

I’ve yet to really understand how the “emotions, connections, and storytelling” part of Occult fits into the “alien horrors, cosmic revelations, and oozes” part of Occult.

I’ve yet to really understand how the “emotions, connections, and storytelling” part of Occult fits into the “alien horrors, cosmic revelations, and oozes” part of Occult.

I think a famous play about a monarch of a certain colour links them together.

Stories that become all too real. Connections through which the contamination of the alien spreads. And horror is most definitely an emotion. Not all stories are nice. And the mad artist connected through dreams with Eldritch Horrors appears frequently in the myth.

keftiu wrote:

I’ve yet to really understand how the “emotions, connections, and storytelling” part of Occult fits into the “alien horrors, cosmic revelations, and oozes” part of Occult.

I think a famous play about a monarch of a certain colour links them together.

Today I learned it was a play first. Huh.

Paul Watson wrote:

keftiu wrote:

I’ve yet to really understand how the “emotions, connections, and storytelling” part of Occult fits into the “alien horrors, cosmic revelations, and oozes” part of Occult.

I think a famous play about a monarch of a certain colour links them together.

Today I learned it was a play first. Huh.

Really? Far as I knew the play was fictional, and it was a book by Robert Chambers about the play.

I’ve yet to really understand how the “emotions, connections, and storytelling” part of Occult fits into the “alien horrors, cosmic revelations, and oozes” part of Occult.

IMO part of it is the idea that there are primordial truths and archetypes that we base our stories on, things like universal archetypes of behavior and patterns of storytelling, and that writers like Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith took this idea and related it to the physical. It's harder to get much more primordial than an ooze, after all. It's also that their writings were at least partially inspired by some of the esoteric, pseudo-scientific stuff coming out of the late 1800's and early 1900's, which was really exciting.

Also Cthulhu got popular, so everybody wanted to riff off that. Lovecraft probably got spooked by a picture of an octopus, too; that guy was afraid of a lot of stuff.

Stories that become all too real. Connections through which the contamination of the alien spreads. And horror is most definitely an emotion. Not all stories are nice. And the mad artist connected through dreams with Eldritch Horrors appears frequently in the myth.

The premise of Persona 2: Innocent Sin is that if enough people believe a rumor it becomes true; fabricate a story and spread it around with the help of a friendly reporter and you can open up solutions that were not previously available (for example, getting a bunch of people to believe there's a secret tunnel under the school building means that there is now a secret tunnel). I'd definitely call that sort of thing occult magic.

I would love for an entire class based on gloomblade. As cool as soulforger is, there are a lot of things 1e gloomblade does that soulforger doesn't, like changing into different weapons on a whim, auto scaling, and fun things like gloomstorm (I think that's what it's called). Could be a cool subclass style option for a more martial occult style class that people have been mentioning in this thread. Soulforger doesn't seem to be available for society play either, which is a bit of a bummer.

Agree with Gaulin. I was hoping the Soulforger would cover this on its own but I guess the archetype really shows you need something meatier to fully encapsulate this kind of concept.

I would love for an entire class based on gloomblade. As cool as soulforger is, there are a lot of things 1e gloomblade does that soulforger doesn't, like changing into different weapons on a whim, auto scaling, and fun things like gloomstorm (I think that's what it's called). Could be a cool subclass style option for a more martial occult style class that people have been mentioning in this thread. Soulforger doesn't seem to be available for society play either, which is a bit of a bummer.

I want this very badly.

Gaulin wrote:

I would love for an entire class based on gloomblade. As cool as soulforger is, there are a lot of things 1e gloomblade does that soulforger doesn't, like changing into different weapons on a whim, auto scaling, and fun things like gloomstorm (I think that's what it's called). Could be a cool subclass style option for a more martial occult style class that people have been mentioning in this thread. Soulforger doesn't seem to be available for society play either, which is a bit of a bummer.

I want this very badly.

We can call it the 'inquisitor'! (only kidding keftui)

Keftui's going to be playing for the next thirty years if they get everything on their wish list to get through everything.

Keftui's going to be playing for the next thirty years if they get everything on their wish list to get through everything.

An Inquisitor with something like a Gloomblade would make me an astonishingly happy girl! Just need Psychic in the mix somewhere and I’m happy as a clam.

I still can’t believe Androids, Magi, and guns are all in this edition so soon. I’m very very pleased.