| Arcane Feline |
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.