Player Core Preview: The Wizard, Remastered

Tuesday, September 19, 2023

Hi everyone! James here to talk a little bit about the Remaster project. We're getting closer and closer to Pathfinder Player Core and GM Corereleasing in November. To shine a little more light on what's coming, the marketing team and us thought we would kick off a blog series going into some of our changes in a little more depth. We'll start things off with a class, the wizard!

The wizard is the classic arcane spellcaster who learns magic in the most academic way: institutions, tomes, tutors and the like, and we wanted this to come through in how the class feels to build and play, so expect to see some more references to training, incantations, runes, spell formulas, and the like in the feats and features.


Ezren, the iconic wizard. Art by Wayne Reynolds
Pathfinder Iconic, human wizard, Ezren

While the wizard was generally already providing a satisfying play experience at the table, it was also a class that interacts very heavily with one of the larger changes we’re making in the Remaster, which is the removal of the eight schools of magic that were deeply tied to rules we were using via the OGL. Though this presented a big challenge in remastering the class, it also let us solve one of the biggest frustrations of the wizard, which is that there wasn't a whole lot of space left for them to expand. One of the most commonly requested expansions for any class is additional major paths to build your characters along, but because the wizard schools already had all eight schools of magic that could ever exist in the setting (plus universalist), we could never increase the number of wizard schools or explore more interesting options beyond those preset themes.

The new role for arcane schools is as just that: actual mages' curricula in Golarion. This allows us to make much more tightly focused schools that really let you sell the theme of your wizard, from the tactical spells of the School of Battle Magic (fireball, resist energy, weapon storm, true target and the like) to the infrastructure-focused spells of the School of Civic Wizardry (hydraulic push for firefighting, summon construct and wall of stone for construction, pinpoint and water walk for search and rescue, and earthquake and disintegrate for controlled demolitions). We've also rearranged the existing wizard focus spells and, in some places, changed them a little bit to fit their new locations—the School of Mentalism's charming push focus spell functions much like the original enchanter's charming words, but the new spell doesn't have the auditory or linguistic traits, since the School of Mentalism is much more about direct mind magic.

This also opens the door to create more schools in the future based on the specific schools of magic in the setting, and I know my colleagues in the Lost Omens line have already started thinking of what some of these might be (they have, as yet, sadly rejected my suggestion for a goblin-themed wizard school containing mostly fire and pickling spells).

We haven't just remastered the schools; we wanted to go through the feats as well and give the wizard a few fun toys to underscore how they're nerds their academic mastery of magic. Some of these are tools originally developed in other places that make perfect sense for a wizard to have, like the Knowledge Is Power magus feat (with a few wizard-specific adjustments). We also gave the wizards some new feats, like the following:


Secondary Detonation Array [one-action] Feat 14

Manipulate, Spellshape, Wizard

You divert some of your spell’s energy into an unstable runic array. If your next action is to Cast a Spell that deals damage, has no duration, and affects an area, a glowing magic circle appears in a 5-foot burst within that area. At the beginning of your next turn, the circle detonates, dealing 1d6 force damage per rank of the spell to all creatures within the circle, with a basic Reflex save against your spell DC. If the spell dealt a different type of damage, the circle deals this type of damage instead (or one type of your choice if the spell could deal multiple types of damage).

This feat ties into some of the flavor tweaks we've made to wizards to have them talk about their abilities a little more academically, and it's burst of damage is one that requires a little bit of forethought in strategy to get the most out of, something that a spellcaster whose key attribute is Intelligence might gravitate toward.

That's our look at the wizard! Of course, what would a wizard be without their spells? Check back in on Thursday, where we'll go over some of the updates to magic coming in the remaster, from new spells to some of the new rules for spellcasting!

James Case (he / him)
Senior Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Pathfinder Remaster Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition Wizard
601 to 639 of 639 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
YuriP wrote:
summon spells usually needs to be casted as top rank spell slot to worth it action cost/utility.

That is wrong. I like level 1 and top level slots for summon spells.

Eventually you aren't using level 1 slots in tough combats, but you never really were.

I agree the new school lists are a worse restriction.

Still Staff Nexus, Spell Substitution and Spell Blending can reuse any slots they feel are wasted.

Spell Substitution cannot. The thesis lets you "prepare a different spell from your spellbook in its place" but "You can prepare only spells from your school’s curriculum in these extra slots."

Remove a bad curriculum spell, you still have to put in a bad curriculum spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Disguise spell requires a skill check vs your spell dc to overcome, so a rank 1 disguise magic spell is still useful for disguising magic against anyone except high level people. It will be fine for general use purposes.

Rank 1 summons are about having a creature open a dangerous looking door, doing a short recon, or even just “here is a flanking buddy that might waste an action from an enemy if they target it.”

It is really only battle magic that lacks a first rank spell that doesn’t eventually require heightening, and even that doesn’t matter that much for them because mystic armor and force barrage are good spells to have at higher levels and the battle wizard isn’t the wizard for going spell substitution and spamming lots of lower level slots on.

The need for only ever casting top 2 rank spell slots in combat is also wildly exaggerated. It is mostly true for the primary spell you cast in the first round of combat, but weaknesses in PF2 get very high, very fast, and targeting a weak defense with a good damage type can make up 3 to 4 ranks worth of heightening with relative ease. Having a lot of different saves and damage types available to you is a very good idea for a caster and well supported by the battle wizard.

But speaking of versatility and overcoming the “feels bad” and f a low level slot you don’t often use, rank 1 scrolls are trivial cheap by mid game. You very well might have every level 1 spell on a scroll in your back back by that point. You can start every encounter with a level 1 scroll of fear in one hand, use it, and barely be making a dent in your overall character wealth. 1 rank one spell slot is the most meager of resources AND something that players who want to can easily make a character choice to trade away.

No one should be making significant choices about their character based upon wether they are regularly going to be casting all 4 of their rank 1 spell slots by level 7 or 9. Not feeling like a school delivers on its vision is worthwhile critique, and identifying spells that feel off is valuable, and something I hope GMs listen to. Making sure every school spell is always useful to every character from level 1 to 20 really does not feel like an important measure of the school to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Another thing about dropping the old "schools of magic" is that it was largely a vestigial system that existed almost exclusively for the Wizard class. Clerics, Bards, Druids, Sorcerers, Psychics, etc. barely cared whether the spells they cast were Abjuration or Necromancy or Transmutation or whatever. Sure there were a few things that keyed off the school of a spell, like the Magus's Arcane Cascade or the Dweomercat familiar but honestly having Arcane Cascade add a small amount of extra mental damage or fire damage instead of force damage honestly wasn't that interesting.

It's probably not worth it to have a whole subsystem involving traits that go on lots of things that basically only serves one class, as iconic and important as that class might be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sy Kerraduess wrote:
Trip.H wrote:

Another thing to consider is the Wizard Dedication, which does not benefit from a thesis, so no spell blending. Especially when talking about Dedication dips, Wizard is in direct comparison to other spell casters.

And w/ basic spell casting unlocked, Witch offers the same number/rank of spell slots (and cantrips), on top of everything else it does...

IMO Wizard Dedication is rather clearly not in a good place.

I don't get this part. Wizard multiclass does not get school slots, so it is completely unaffected by useless school slots.

But it would benefit if Wizard was 4 slot standard, instead of 3 slot + curriculum slot, or if the Dedication were updated to add curriculums similar to how Witch Ded gets a familiar (which upgrades as a free rider upon taking Basic Witchcraft).

Right now, the Wizard Ded's loss of serious core class features like Drain Bonded Item IMO leaves it mechanically inferior to the Witch Ded.

And with how easily Paizo made the Wizard V Witch Dedication comparison, it's kinda bizarre/amateurish to re-release it yet again in that state.

No player should ever have to look at the Dedication options and RP themself into taking something inferior, nor the reverse.

Right now, those two Int prepared caster Dedications are far too similar to avoid comparison, and RP aside, Witch is clearly the better option. Even if you just forever tattoo the familiar or something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Disguise spell is a niche spell to begin with and you only want to use it, when somebody has means to detect magic in the first places. That skill check to disbelieve is actually not a will save, but the spell tradition, which tends to be better.
So in those niche scenarios where the spell would be useful, you'd rather cast a high rank version of it, so that enemies of your own level don't have a 50% chance to see through that trick. And that's not even accounting for the fact after being able to do so, you'd hardly want to cast this spell below rank 2 anyways.

Most of the things that rank 1 summon can do, Mage hand can do as well and that is a cantrip. As for recon, afaik those -1 Minions can't speak, you tell them what to do and they execute the command. So how would they tell what they saw? And how much recon can a non sentient creature actually do in 1 minute? Low level minions costing actions? They die by an AoE attack or will mostly be ignored, just like I would ignore a fly when fending off 4 rats.

So no, it's not just the School of Battle Magic that has this problem, most of them have it.
Nobody said you can and should only cast top 2 rank slot spells in combat, but when cantrips outdamage the slotted spells, items the game expects the party to have outperform the spells or they have the incapacitation trait, you are obviously not going to use them at low ranks.

Scrolls again are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Every caster has access to them, Universalist gets them, doesn't make those dead school spell slots any less clunky. That limit on the school slot is just BS and needs to go. If Paizo wants to make schools unique, they should do it with feats or some other mechanic that actually adds to the game instead of punishing players for taking that option. Until then, every Wizard should simply forget the Schools exist and make a Universalist instead.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Elementalist Wizard specialized in air or earth plus (delayed) Witch MC really has a lot to recommend it.

The "scrolls are so cheap your prepared 1st level spells are worthless at that point" message isn't true. They require hands to hold and actions to draw during combat. Just among ORC spells there's already three different reactions I'd like to have memorized for defensive purposes (Air Bubble, Interposing Earth, Gentle Landing), control/knock prone options to toss of cheaply without precommitting actions/hands (Grease, Command, Gust of Wind), Sure Strike, mobility (Fleet Step, Jump), and plenty of others I can imagine wanting to cram in for immediate accessibility. This list gets much larger if we get into Dark Archive and Secrets of Magic, but I understand why the PC1 couldn't do that.

I'd like something somewhat plausible from this by no means tiny list included on a curriculum at 1st level. If you throw summons on the list then only Battle Magic is lacking one of these options, if you don't (my preference, three actions for an instantly killed flanker/one action absorber is a lot) then Boundary and probably Civic Wizardry (Hydraulic Push is very low control return for two actions at that point) are also lacking a fig leaf option.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There are rank-1 spells that don't say "I am out of juice and am not pulling my weight" in high-level combat:

1-action rank-1 arcane spells: true strike, jump, kinetic ram, buoyant bubbles, pet cache ...

reaction rank-1 arcane spells: air bubble, feather fall, interposing earth, Schadenfreude ...

Rank-1 scrolls are indeed cheap, but that doesn't mean that they're good in high-level combat. Free hands are a very limited resource.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I always thought it’d be neat if Wizard’s Spellbook had the Inscribed trait where they can store scrolls inside and cast scrolls from.

The Spellbook was always something associated to the Wizard (iconic art of flipping to a page and casting the spell) and that fits perfectly with the mechanics associated to Inscribed + Scrolls.

Maybe that could be an Arcane Thesis where some Wizards decide to make their Spellbook able to store a number of scrolls.

Instead of the Spellbook just being a floppy disk to boot up ye olde “Prepared Spell Program” and then chucked back into the bag.


I'll add a couple more to the ones already mentioned
Befuddle, Fear, Goblin Pox, Tailwind, Mud Pit, Shockwave

To a lesser degree
Animate Rope, Create Water, Exchange Image, Message Rune


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

I'm afraid for all the people claiming that universalists are clearly the better option. I suppose that's true if you want easy mode of all the same number of spells, no restrictions to plan around, and mostly ignore focus spells (that latter still not a bad plan for a Wizard). And it's also probably the case if (1) you don't take spell blending because you want a different thesis and (2) there's no specific level 1 focus spell you want (although I hardly love hand of the apprentice even at lower levels and spending money and hands on a real weapon to eke it along at higher levels is a mistake).

But as bad as most of the level 1 focus spells are, Hand of the Apprentice plus a bonus feat isn't obviously better, and losing an extra top rank cast due to the the different drain arcane bond mechanics is a significant countervailing factor. Even the extra specialist cantrip is nice, imo. And the advanced universal school focus spell is sadly quite bad, and a few of the specialist ones are...decent.

If you do take spell blending (and I think it is the strongest overall, even if the others have more merits than most spell blending partisans will admit) you just need useable school spells in your top two ranks (including heightened) and focus spells that don't make you cry (not crying is I think the baseline for wizard focus spells that the majority meet).

Ars Grammatica focus spells aren't a travesty, protective wards could get used in lots of fights I guess. Dispel Magic (in particular), Suggestion, and Contingency can all get heightened to fill your top two rank spell school slots while you blend away the lower trash when you don't like the rest.

Battle Magic focus spells are fine, and heightening works with almost any of your curriculum spells in those top two rank school slots for big blasts. Blend away everything else for utility, defense, and battlefield control. But this one is a pure nightmare for dead lower level slots with any other thesis, just awful.

School of the Boundary has easily the...

The way Bond Conservation works make Unified Theory much, much better for casting endurance. More uses of Arcane Bond mean more uses of Arcane Bond enhancing feats.

Unified Theory isn't good just because of the focus spell. It's good because it has the best feat support.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
At level 7, a low threat encounter should yield about 220gp to the party. Assuming you have to sell what ever you find (which should not be the case all the time) and a party of 4, that is 27 and half gold pieces, per low threat encounter. A level 1 scroll is 4 gp, so not even 15% of what is really the minimum amount of treasure you should receive for that encounter. Yes a spell slot is more convenient than a scroll, but it would take some strange number of encounters for that issue with scrolls to be something where having 1 more rank 1 spell slot is significant or important compared to having a bundle of 1st rank scrolls at that point in the game.

That hasn't been my experience at all. Many creatures have no treasure in APs and when treasure is gotten it is in items which sell for half price if not needed by other players. Treasure is rarely coins, is not divvied out this way. This is completely out of line with published adventure and play experience.

Unicore wrote:
A dead level 1 slot is such a minor issue

But you agree it is an issue.

Minor or not it didn't need be designed that way. With a little bit of extra thought designers could have ensured there was at least 1 spell per rank in each curriculum that stayed useful as the character levels when cast at the rank it was received at.


To be fair, then we’d be complaining that everyone in the same school always by necessity has the same spell prepared in their low level curriculum slots.


Trip.H wrote:

Right now, the Wizard Ded's loss of serious core class features like Drain Bonded Item IMO leaves it mechanically inferior to the Witch Ded.

And with how easily Paizo made the Wizard V Witch Dedication comparison, it's kinda bizarre/amateurish to re-release it yet again in that state.

No player should ever have to look at the Dedication options and RP themself into taking something inferior, nor the reverse.

Right now, those two Int prepared caster Dedications are far too similar to avoid comparison, and RP aside, Witch is clearly the better option. Even if you just forever tattoo the familiar or something.

There are two things at play here:

1) Witch is the outlier here, not the other way around. No other full caster MC gets a freebie just for picking it up, so buffing Wizard to compensate wouldn't solve the power disparity, it would just make it between Witch/Wizard and everyone else instead.

2) All other things being equal, players are more likely to choose the class with no familiar than the class with one. As such, there is little incentive to take away the tiny edge the familiar MC gets.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, another issue with the change:
One of my AV players was a divination wizard. His entire school is gone. Kaput. Turned to ashes. And he was thematically a fortune teller. What am I supposed to do here? Foundry has removed all support for searching via schools, and asking him to browse the books manually is a huge ask for a married person with children who's squeezing 2hrs every week to play. Did I mention his FA was Oatia Skysage (I use thematic free archetype only, so the ghost hunter Cleric is going to have the same problems)

I mean I ended up making a fortune telling school from scratch but that's two hours of my life I'm not getting back. Hope he likes it but I can absolutely state that Renaster shrunk the flavour space of wizards by a lot and the results aren't even good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Generally, any time there is a rules update that would require significantly reworking a character, it's better to finish up that character's story before implementing the rules update.

Like if you were in the middle of a PF1 campaign when PF2 dropped, it probably was for the best to finish up that PF1 campaign before moving over to PF2.

So if you have a 5th level Diviner Wizard, let that player stay a Diviner Wizard as long as they want, because all the rules for playing that are available in existing books released under the OGL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That’s good advice as long as he’s not using Foundry and a busy person, but presumably we would have been told if that were the case.


Don't update Foundry then? You don't need to do the update immediately.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well one of the problems is that the Player Core didn't provide a conceptual counterpart for all schools.

We went from 8 schools to 6, and while it might be easy enough to transfer your Transmuter to school of Protean form and keep the same overall themes and concepts, the core didn't provide a way to this for all the broadstroke versions.

An Evoker can be a School of Battle Magic easy enough.
An Enchanter can be a School of Mentalism handily.

Divinationists just didn't get an analogous counterpart as part of the core.

I have no idea why the core didn't have two more schools to at least cover a rough counterpart to old schools.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:
Don't update Foundry then? You don't need to do the update immediately.

What if the rest of the party and the GM wants to update? Should the rest of the group miss out?

This isn't necessarily a good or workable solution for a group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Well one of the problems is that the Player Core didn't provide a conceptual counterpart for all schools.

We went from 8 schools to 6, and while it might be easy enough to transfer your Transmuter to school of Protean form and keep the same overall themes and concepts, the core didn't provide a way to this for all the broadstroke versions.

An Evoker can be a School of Battle Magic easy enough.
An Enchanter can be a School of Mentalism handily.

Divinationists just didn't get an analogous counterpart as part of the core.

I have no idea why the core didn't have two more schools to at least cover a rough counterpart to old schools.

Because it was essential that the new schools do not map directly over the old ones , or there was no point in changing them. Battle magic might seem to be the most direct analog, because it kept focus spells intact, but at most battle magic is like half the old evocation school, hence all the outrage about its curriculum spells. It only includes damaging evocations really.

It is unfortunate foundry was so zealous about wanting to provide such an immediate, day one, all ORC ruleset, since the “remastered” game is still so glaringly incomplete. We don’t even have monsters yet. It is currently needing to work much more like unchained, variant rules, rather than a whole new thing. I foresee a lot of frustration for players and GMs using foundry for the next several months. Like is a magus even playable without a lot of the old spells?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Well one of the problems is that the Player Core didn't provide a conceptual counterpart for all schools.

We went from 8 schools to 6, and while it might be easy enough to transfer your Transmuter to school of Protean form and keep the same overall themes and concepts, the core didn't provide a way to this for all the broadstroke versions.

An Evoker can be a School of Battle Magic easy enough.
An Enchanter can be a School of Mentalism handily.

Divinationists just didn't get an analogous counterpart as part of the core.

I have no idea why the core didn't have two more schools to at least cover a rough counterpart to old schools.

Because it was essential that the new schools do not map directly over the old ones , or there was no point in changing them. Battle magic might seem to be the most direct analog, because it kept focus spells intact, but at most battle magic is like half the old evocation school, hence all the outrage about its curriculum spells. It only includes damaging evocations really.

It is unfortunate foundry was so zealous about wanting to provide such an immediate, day one, all ORC ruleset, since the “remastered” game is still so glaringly incomplete. We don’t even have monsters yet. It is currently needing to work much more like unchained, variant rules, rather than a whole new thing. I foresee a lot of frustration for players and GMs using foundry for the next several months. Like is a magus even playable without a lot of the old spells?

Sure, it is. The people who spell struck with cantrips and used slots for utility are still just fine. The people who loaded their 4 precious slots with attack spells....yea, their options have shrunk significantly


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WWHsmackdown wrote:
The people who spell struck with cantrips and used slots for utility are still just fine. The people who loaded their 4 precious slots with attack spells....yea, their options have shrunk significantly

The damage options on cantrips have shrunk too. Many energy types have now moved exclusively to save spells. A magus has 0 options for spell striking with acid damage, or cold damage anymore.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


Because it was essential that the new schools do not map directly over the old ones , or there was no point in changing them. Battle magic might seem to be the most direct analog, because it kept focus spells intact, but at most battle magic is like half the old evocation school, hence all the outrage about its curriculum spells. It only includes damaging evocations really.

Analogue, not a port. But even at that, without the fundamental schools of magic, any thing conceptually in the same vein would have done the job. Hasbro don't own the concepts of "Diviners" or "Transmutationists", so the it was in no way essential to not provide some sort of analogus option which allowed for some continuity of concepts.

School of Portents or even a School of Temporal research would have worked.

Make it a mix of old divination spells, fortune spells, some of the spells that are themed around time, reworked diviners sight a bit, then round it out with something like the Stasis focus spell, and you have something which at least provides a rough thematic counterpart to a diviner.


Gortle wrote:
YuriP wrote:
summon spells usually needs to be casted as top rank spell slot to worth it action cost/utility.

That is wrong. I like level 1 and top level slots for summon spells.

Eventually you aren't using level 1 slots in tough combats, but you never really were.

I agree the new school lists are a worse restriction.

Still Staff Nexus, Spell Substitution and Spell Blending can reuse any slots they feel are wasted.

I know you can use lvl 1 summons as sacrifice (literally you can use them as bombs with Final Sacrifice and this is stronger than a fireball but unless that you start an encounter with the summons probably don't worth the action cost) but the point here is that you are basically have a slot locked only to do this. It's not like you have to sent a summon as a distraction or to trigger a trap all time (for the oposite usually this is situational). Also as GM I could allow this strategy once for fun but if a player begins to try to trivialize all traps using disposable summons I would readjust my traps to prevent this (increasing the area, ignoring some kind of creatures and so on).

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Gortle wrote:
YuriP wrote:
summon spells usually needs to be casted as top rank spell slot to worth it action cost/utility.

That is wrong. I like level 1 and top level slots for summon spells.

Eventually you aren't using level 1 slots in tough combats, but you never really were.

I agree the new school lists are a worse restriction.

Still Staff Nexus, Spell Substitution and Spell Blending can reuse any slots they feel are wasted.

I know you can use lvl 1 summons as sacrifice (literally you can use them as bombs with Final Sacrifice and this is stronger than a fireball but unless that you start an encounter with the summons probably don't worth the action cost) but the point here is that you are basically have a slot locked only to do this. It's not like you have to sent a summon as a distraction or to trigger a trap all time (for the oposite usually this is situational). Also as GM I could allow this strategy once for fun but if a player begins to try to trivialize all traps using disposable summons I would readjust my traps to prevent this (increasing the area, ignoring some kind of creatures and so on).

This post just made me realize I can now freely use Final Sacrifice on non-mindless minions without risking becoming Evil, since alignment is gone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Old_Man_Robot wrote:


I have no idea why the core didn't have two more schools to at least cover a rough counterpart to old schools.

Pre-remaster I thought one of the points of having trimmed down schools was that it opened up the possibility to have more of them, since they're tied to arbitrary concepts rather than discrete traits.

Obviously we might get more with splats but it does feel like a bit of bad look to start out with less instead.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
This post just made me realize I can now freely use Final Sacrifice on non-mindless minions without risking becoming Evil, since alignment is gone.

Agreed. It is no longer evil, rather it's a noble sacrifice for the greater good.


The Raven Black wrote:
This post just made me realize I can now freely use Final Sacrifice on non-mindless minions without risking becoming Evil, since alignment is gone.

Just keep a close eye on your personal Edicts and Anathema, and those of your deity....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or just don't do a cleric or druid :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
This post just made me realize I can now freely use Final Sacrifice on non-mindless minions without risking becoming Evil, since alignment is gone.
Agreed. It is no longer evil, rather it's a noble sacrifice for the greater good.

Eh, not even that. They always were just temporary magic constructs. Not sure why all this talk of evil even persisted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
Gortle wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
This post just made me realize I can now freely use Final Sacrifice on non-mindless minions without risking becoming Evil, since alignment is gone.
Agreed. It is no longer evil, rather it's a noble sacrifice for the greater good.
Eh, not even that. They always were just temporary magic constructs.
Not in all cases. That is a suggested interpretation, one of two in Secrets of Magic. So not everyone sees it that way. Paizo have deliberately left it a bit vague. Allow both ways seems to be Paizo's default position.
Errenor wrote:
Not sure why all this talk of evil even persisted.

Because the Trait is in the spell text. Which was annoying as it isn't always warranted. The increased flexibility to interpret evil in different ways is one of the good things to come out of the alignment removal.


Gortle wrote:
Errenor wrote:
Eh, not even that. They always were just temporary magic constructs.
Not in all cases. That is a suggested interpretation, one of two in Secrets of Magic. So not everyone sees it that way. Paizo have deliberately left it a bit vague. Allow both ways seems to be Paizo's default position.
Errenor wrote:
Not sure why all this talk of evil even persisted.
Because the Trait is in the spell text. Which was annoying as it isn't always warranted. The increased flexibility to interpret evil in different ways is one of the good things to come out of the alignment removal.

I was half-joking. But the thing is I can't find another interpretation in Secrets of Magic, only the one of them being a 'facsimile' in the Conjuration article. I searched for 'summon ' and 'summons' in the book. Or have I also read your post wrong somehow?

By the way, the devs also could have made a difference between summons and permanent minions in the spell's text. Though doesn't matter now.


Errenor wrote:

But the thing is I can't find another interpretation in Secrets of Magic, only the one of them being a 'facsimile' in the Conjuration article. I searched for 'summon ' and 'summons' in the book. Or have I also read your post wrong somehow?

The discussion amongst the researchers is whether it is a facsimile or a teleported creature. The conclusion was that it was probably facsimile. Which means there were dissenting opinions.


Cyouni wrote:
Don't update Foundry then? You don't need to do the update immediately.

I like how after implicitly stating I updated Foundry I got told "why not don't do the thing you already did?"

It's not possible for various reasons, including the fact I'm not exactly bursting with free time to sus out every change. I didn't even know that Divination was dropped prior to hitting update!


Xenocrat wrote:
Gortle wrote:
YuriP wrote:
summon spells usually needs to be casted as top rank spell slot to worth it action cost/utility.

That is wrong. I like level 1 and top level slots for summon spells.

Eventually you aren't using level 1 slots in tough combats, but you never really were.

I agree the new school lists are a worse restriction.

Still Staff Nexus, Spell Substitution and Spell Blending can reuse any slots they feel are wasted.

Spell Substitution cannot. The thesis lets you "prepare a different spell from your spellbook in its place" but "You can prepare only spells from your school’s curriculum in these extra slots."

Remove a bad curriculum spell, you still have to put in a bad curriculum spell.

That is a fair interpretation. This is one of the places that Specific overrides General rules systems fall apart. Which one of Arcance School or Spell Substitution is more specific. I can see people arguing this as either can be seen as a full overwrite of the other.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:


I have no idea why the core didn't have two more schools to at least cover a rough counterpart to old schools.

Pre-remaster I thought one of the points of having trimmed down schools was that it opened up the possibility to have more of them, since they're tied to arbitrary concepts rather than discrete traits.

Obviously we might get more with splats but it does feel like a bit of bad look to start out with less instead.

Oh we're defintiely getting more schools in time, but its the in time that bugs me really. Without basic coverage to provide for rough conceptual analogues, the class has diminished in the themes it can cover. Hence why I've called it regressive.

We aren't getting another Lost Omens book until next August, and - and this my real worry - Lost Omens has already visited a lot of places where some really cool schools would be.

We might get some in adventures paths, as and when they come out, but in any realistic case its going to be quite some time before the Wizard even has a chance to catch-up on what they lost, let alone add anything.

The Core really needed to contain 8 schools + Universal, so we at least have conversion points for character concepts.


Gortle wrote:
Errenor wrote:

But the thing is I can't find another interpretation in Secrets of Magic, only the one of them being a 'facsimile' in the Conjuration article. I searched for 'summon ' and 'summons' in the book. Or have I also read your post wrong somehow?

The discussion amongst the researchers is whether it is a facsimile or a teleported creature. The conclusion was that it was probably facsimile. Which means there were dissenting opinions.

No, the conclusion was "this debate is now settled, and modern scholars agree that summoning creates facsimiles". There's no other opinions in this article, it's definite.

Even though it's a point of view from some person inside the setting it's enough for me and my characters. It's now the standard for lore from paizo anyway.


Errenor wrote:
Gortle wrote:
Errenor wrote:

But the thing is I can't find another interpretation in Secrets of Magic, only the one of them being a 'facsimile' in the Conjuration article. I searched for 'summon ' and 'summons' in the book. Or have I also read your post wrong somehow?

The discussion amongst the researchers is whether it is a facsimile or a teleported creature. The conclusion was that it was probably facsimile. Which means there were dissenting opinions.

No, the conclusion was "this debate is now settled, and modern scholars agree that summoning creates facsimiles". There's no other opinions in this article, it's definite.

Even though it's a point of view from some person inside the setting it's enough for me and my characters. It's now the standard for lore from paizo anyway.

Settled and not still up for debate like so many other things are today.

I'd like to note that Summoners go on to have the Teleportation trait on their manifest action. As well as the Conjuration trait - which presumably will now go away.


Gortle wrote:

Settled and not still up for debate like so many other things are today.

I'd like to note that Summoners go on to have the Teleportation trait on their manifest action. As well as the Conjuration trait - which presumably will now go away.

Well, let's wait for new lore and then continue.

As for Summoners - you have to agree that eidolons and summons from spells are a little bit different things, right?
P.S. That said, you absolutely can create a character that believes that summons from spells are real creatures and pesters lower-case-summoners for abusing summons. For example. Don't know whether that would be fun.

601 to 639 of 639 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Player Core Preview: The Wizard, Remastered All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.