Arcane Feline's page

I've been told, over and over, by many people, that the wizard should not have any healing spells, because it would negatively affect balance and invade the niche which the divine spellcasters occupy. And yet now we see druids being able to cast fireballs and chain lightnings, just like wizards.

Don't get me wrong - I find it logical that a druid, being a primal caster in tune with the elements, would be able to conjure fire and lightning. However, wouldn't it be an invasion of the niche occupied by the arcane spellcasters, like wizards and sorcerers?

I just want some consistency, here. Now, far be it from me to demand any changes without asking "what was their reasoning?", first. So I'm asking. I'd also like to hear what other people have to say about that.

Note: I also do not believe the changes to the druid's spell list to be game-breaking. And this is exactly my point: changing the wizard's spell list to include some healing spells would also not be game-breaking, and yet "wizards can't heal, it's a cleric's/druid's/bard's" job has always been a sacred cow for many games stemming from D&D.

Seems to me that these are just slightly different flavors of the same thing. Occult and arcane are basically synonyms, both meaning something obscure, esoteric and mystical.

It seems that Paizo are trying to differentiate between a more scientific, rigorous type of magic and a more mystical, esoteric type of magic. But why? For the longest time in d20 fantasy games and related books and other media, magic of non-divine spellcasters (Arcane magic) has been called "The Art" for a reason - it was a combination of study and mysticism. Not truly a science, but not a purely intuitive thing, either.

Now, we've got two different skills and spell lists which have so much in common it's strange why the distinction even there. The only real mechanical difference is that Occult spell list has some spells from the Divine spell list, but fluff-wise, Occult and Arcane are almost the same.

As a contrast, Divine and Primal magics are very distinct, flavor-wise. One deals with the over-worldly powers (i. e. supernatural) another deals with powers of the world itself (i. e. natural in the strictest sense).

Meanwhile, what's the difference between "magic writing" and "occult writing"? Or between "magical creatures" and "creatures of occult significance"? Descriptions of Occult and Arcane skills basically describe the same thing, just use slightly different words, synonyms, essentially.

Personally, I believe it would be a better idea to introduce Psionics as the fourth pillar of magic. It has the same "aberration-flavored/mind magic" feel that Occultism has, but it differs more from the Arcane.

So, can anyone please sell me on the idea of dividing Arcane and Occult magic? I honestly want to understand it, so I could enjoy the game just as much as other players in my group do. The fluff has always been crucial for me when it comes to table-top roleplaying.

I know I could be biased, but it seems to me that the wizard class has lost some uniqueness in the new edition.

Let me explain: previously, wizards were the studious spellcasters. They could learn new spells from scrolls, scribe spells into scrolls and they knew about magic more than any other class.

Now, according to skills like Occultism, Nature and Religion, every spellcaster class can learn and scribe spells, and judging by the Occultism skill and Occult spell list (especially by the Legend Lore ritual), bards are the primary know-it-alls about magic and supernatural. They were the primary loremasters in previous editions, too, and that was okay, but now they're better in knowing about supernatural than the class which derives it's very essence from supernatural.

Moreover, among the rituals only two seem to be available to the wizard, because other rituals require skill rank of expert or master in Occultism, Nature or Religion. And these ranks are (as far as I am aware) unavailable to wizards, because these skills are not signature skills for wizards.

My point is - what's the wizards' distinct feature/feel in this edition? I don't get it. They're not the primary scholars anymore. Who are they, then?