Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Magic (OGL)

Because the eldritch knight is a prestige class?

Because we can't use the duskblade?

Because we don't have a 20-level caster/fighter base class?

Because YOU demanded it?

Because we wanted to?

Sounds fine to me.

+1

And I think Erik just declared every reason in one succinct answer. You are on a roll Mr. Mona! Keep up the good work.

Because the eldritch knight is a prestige class?

Because we can't use the duskblade?

Because we don't have a 20-level caster/fighter base class?

Because YOU demanded it?

Because we wanted to?

Here, here! +2!

Don't see myself playing the Magus class, not my cup of tea. But looking forward to the added spells/feats the Ultimate Magic book will give us.

Hold on --- why are we getting a Magus when we have the Eldritch Knight in Pathfinder?

Let's hold off on the comparisons until we see what the magus actually does. After all, the cavalier is certainly a nice addition to the game, despite already having the fighter and the paladin.

There are two kinds of warrior-mages that I like. There's the person with two skill sets - he can fight the way a fighter fights, and he can cast spells the way a wizard (or sorcerer) does. Because this involves two skill sets, multiclassing (with the eldritch knight prestige class) works well. But then there's the warrior-mage who engages in hand-to-hand combat and uses magic to enhance those combat skills. She fights, but not using the methods of the fighter, and she casts spells, but not the sort of spells a wizard casts. There's definitely room in Pathfinder for this.

I'm hoping that the magus will be like the second type of warrior-mage.

The only question I have about the Magus is can I finally duplicate my elven fighter-magic user from 2e?

The only question I have about the Magus is can I finally duplicate my elven fighter-magic user from 2e?

How about we pass on recreating some of the most broken mechanics of 2e instead.

Wow, this is going to be both fun and insane for me.

I had to pour through the APG Spells and Feats to see if WotC had any duplicates. I usually use WotC's as a default, with exceptions (such as using Lunge over Lunging Strike).

I do the same with spells. It bugs me having "duplicate" spells, where a WotC spell and a Pathfinder spell do almost the same thing with a few twists or a change in spell level and I have to scour each one and make a Word file reference which material is stamped "Confirmed" or "Denied" on it, basically. (for example, there's the Tsunami spell in Spell Compendium and Tsunami in the APG; the one in the Spell Compendium is clearly better than the APG, so I ruled the duplicate in APG out my games)

So, my one request to Paizo staff, look at your WotC books, particularly the Spell Compendium, and try not to make duplicates. The same with feats! It's kinda annoying and tiresome :D Be unique!

I realize I am late in replying to this posting (almost a month has gone by) but figured I would any ways.

As some have mentioned after you posted this, the disparity in duplication is something that is going to happen as many of the rules ARE duplicated. If they did not do this then it would just be a supplement or alternate rules system for D20 rather then an entire new edition of the game that Pathfinder is now. Spells, Magic Items, equipment, and combat, movement, classes and the like are all duplications and slightly redone usually (not always).

So what you are asking above is basically a book of spells or a book in general that has NO duplications overall and a supplement to 3.5. (Yes I know I am somewhat assuming on what he wants but seems to be implied).

This is not what Paizo is about. They are revamping a game system. They are making money by doing what they are doing and people must like it so that means they are doing the right thing :)

[...]

4. They will probably have light armor proficiency and not have arcane spell failure in light armor.
5. There will be a Magus spell list which will be more combat oriented than the bard spell list, but which won't have the most powerful sorcerer/wizard spells. The spell list will includes 1st through 6th level spells.
6. They will probably have simple weapons and a subset of martial weapons.

The Bard would be a good starting point for speculation. Replace the bard spell list with the magus spell list and the bardic class abilities with magus abilities. (Better armor or weapon selections, channeling spells through weapons, expending spells for bonuses, etc).

I hope yopu are wrong.

If this book book is great I get it, if not I will probably stop buying any more rule books from Paizo.
Not that I really care about the Magus that much, but I hope it fix some of the stuff needed fixing.
Good high level cleric spells. Perhaps a level 7 heal spell cast with a range touch attack. A level 8 spell called dual heal or lesser mass heal that heals two targets.
Some good high level buff spells.
high level protection spells
Some good high level utility spells
Some good high level attack spells.
A channel vermin feat (specialized uses for channel energy sound really good)
And some cool and useful way to use the heal skill at higher levels.
New bard performances - I hope "specific bard performances" means just that.
Some new good Bardic buff spell at higher levels, perhaps improved haste spell.
It's pathetic that the best buff combo in the game at level 7 is haste + good hope + Inspire Courage is still the best buff combo at level 14.
So some good high level buffs would be nice
Some good bardic performance feats.
Some new ki powers that let the monk bypass DR.
Some new ki powers or/and feat that let the monk move + perform a partial flurry.
I really hope the Bard, Cleric and Monk isn't left without some new GOOD toys.

Good high level cleric spells. Perhaps a level 7 heal spell cast with a range touch attack.

This one is already possible with metamagic. I doubt Paizo will make new spell the duplicates almost exactly what an existing spell + a 1 level metamagic feat from the APG can already do. It isn't efficient.

Some new good Bardic buff spell at higher levels, perhaps improved haste spell.

It's pathetic that the best buff combo in the game at level 7 is haste + good hope + Inspire Courage is still the best buff combo at level 14.

I agree on the spells part. Inspire Courage is part of the buff combos because it scales with level. I'd suggest a feat that lets a bard combine 2 effects in one song.

Some new ki powers that let the monk bypass DR.

Some new ki powers or/and feat that let the monk move + perform a partial flurry.
I really hope the Bard, Cleric and Monk isn't left without some new GOOD toys.

I don't expect to see much for the monk to be honest, not with Ultimate Combat coming out later next year. I agree with most of the other stuff though.

Zark wrote:

Good high level cleric spells. Perhaps a level 7 heal spell cast with a range touch attack.

This one is already possible with metamagic. I doubt Paizo will make new spell the duplicates almost exactly what an existing spell + a 1 level metamagic feat from the APG can already do. It isn't efficient.

I haven't noticed this.Thank fpr the info.

I'd suggest a feat that lets a bard combine 2 effects in one song

This will probably never happen. Not even lingering performance can be use to combine effects, but who knows.

Actually, would love to see some Metamagic feats that apply a +0 to casting level. Some say it could be broken, but it depends on what they decide for the Metamagic feat.

Two reasons I always stayed away from Metamagic feats is one, they made them full round casting times for Sorcerors (which I prefer over Wizards) and two, the ‘x’ spell levels added onto the spell.

Now they have given a good alternative in the Arcane bloodline for Sorcerors in not making all your spells full round castings with Metamagic feats, would be nice to see an option for those feats not to add levels, either.

If I could make a single wish about this book, I'd want a "complete" spell list -- i.e. all the spells from UM, APG and the core rulebook -- for each class. That would make every GM's life *so* much easier. :)

BTW, is Seltyiel going to be the iconic Magus?

If I could make a single wish about this book, I'd want a "complete" spell list -- i.e. all the spells from UM, APG and the core rulebook -- for each class. That would make every GM's life *so* much easier. :)

+1000 then add in what book and page number they was from.

BTW, is Seltyiel going to be the iconic Magus?

Yup!

And since eldritch knight is a prestige class... he still works as the iconic eldritch knight as well, since in theory, a magus should be able to benefit from that prestige class.

Asgetrion wrote:

BTW, is Seltyiel going to be the iconic Magus?

Yup!

And since eldritch knight is a prestige class... he still works as the iconic eldritch knight as well, since in theory, a magus should be able to benefit from that prestige class.

Hmmm, funny, I didn't even consider EK as an ideal PrC for a Magus, but that might be a really cool character concept!

You know, I wasn't too excited when I first heard about the Magus as a "gish" class; I've always been of the mind that there should be no such core classes, because spellcasting warriors already exist in the game as fighter/wizards. Also, 'Magus' is not actually a good name for this class; in my opinion even a bit sillier names like Spellblade would fit the bill better. However, that is not a major issue for me.

I do like that most classes get to choose abilities (hexes, rage powers, rogue talents etcetera) and I'm glad that Magus has Magus Arcana. Perhaps paladins and fighters will get their own auras/"smite powers"/stances/whatever in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, hmmm?

And I just love that WAR sketch in the playtest document... probably the best picture of Seltyiel to date. :)

Asgetrion wrote:

If I could make a single wish about this book, I'd want a "complete" spell list -- i.e. all the spells from UM, APG and the core rulebook -- for each class. That would make every GM's life *so* much easier. :)

+1000 then add in what book and page number they was from.

I would settle for a .PDF version of the list if it is not in the Ultimate Magic Book. Not to mention a little descriptor of the spell would be nice too as an added bonus. :D

Dark_Mistress wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

If I could make a single wish about this book, I'd want a "complete" spell list -- i.e. all the spells from UM, APG and the core rulebook -- for each class. That would make every GM's life *so* much easier. :)

+1000 then add in what book and page number they was from.

I would settle for a .PDF version of the list if it is not in the Ultimate Magic Book. Not to mention a little descriptor of the spell would be nice too as an added bonus. :D

Yeah, a free web enhancement would do it. And I agree that the list should include a short description of each spell -- if only possible, the format used in the core rulebook and APG would be ideal. :)

I know Paizo is very careful about introducing new prestige classes, but wont this book have any?

WANT!

A new prepared spell caster, about time really. And as fun as the Magnus looks to be I've got to ask something. I've loved artificer type wizards, the artificers themselves, golem, homonculi, all that crafting stuff. Even made a mini-team of humonculi heroes for the party...nostalgia~ So! These new golems, are they different types, will they be models for say a worg-based flesh golem? Maybe magic missle launchers built into golems? Will there be a way to make, in essence, a pathfinder version of an artificer? And will there finally be a template for a turtle shaped iron golem that can breath fire and carry my ill gotten goods in it's shell?

His is a minor point but I'd still like to know: will we get any more information on how to handle/use a witch's patron? Or will it mainly just be spell lists and new critters for familiars (which will be plenty cool in its own right)?

will we get any more information on how to handle/use a witch's patron?

What do you mean by this question?

I know Paizo is very careful about introducing new prestige classes, but wont this book have any?

+1

I posted this elsewhere (another Ultimate Magic thread I think) but I'd like to see an "Eidolon Adept" PrC... basically a prestige class that does for Summoner what Master Chymist does for the Alchemist.

And, given the lack of arcane caster type PrC's in the APG... if I had to guess, I'd say that we're gonna see some here... in Ultimate Magic.

But, that's just a guess. :)

Dean (TMW)

will we get any more information on how to handle/use a witch's patron?

That would be interesting. Are these patrons gods, affiliated with the gods, different outsiders, elemental spirits, genies, etc.? Are they more like Oracle Mysteries, and not tied to one specific being, so that a Witch with the Shadow Patron is receiving her tutelage from the essence of shadow itself, the Plane of Shadow, or some proto-archetypal being representative of Shadow from the First World or something? Or, all-of-the-above?

A sample patron would be neat, although, right now, I think I'm liking it being *less* defined.

The recent discussions over Clerics in Golarion, limiting them to only specific dieties, and dismissing the idea of Clerics of ideals or Clerics of pantheons or Clerics of dead gods or 'heresies' or whatever, has only made the options for that class smaller (although still plenty huge, with literally dozens of dieties, demon lords, empyreals, etc!), so nailing the Witch down to saw that all Witches with the Nature Patron follow 'Cerna the Horned Huntress' or something, might exclude more play options than strictly necessary.

Keeping it mysterious might even be suitable, although, in a world with divination magic that can speak to the gods themselves, it's not like any church that wanted to know if the source of Witchly powers was 'kosher' or not wouldn't be able to do that with a phone call...

Less might be more, for gameplay purposes. Too much definition of exactly what a Patron is (and, more importantly, isn't) risks taking options away from the players, as it did with the Cleric.

Too much definition ends up also stripping some of the mystery out of the 'magic.'

I really think there should be a base class that uses the Words of Power system

Eric Hinkle wrote:

will we get any more information on how to handle/use a witch's patron?

What do you mean by this question?

Such as -- does it make any real difference if a witch's patron is, say, a Fey as compared to a Fiend. What demands if any do the various patrons tend to make of their witches? Just how secret do witches have to be about who's giving them their powers? I suppose I'm asking if we'll get any 'fluff' about the various spellcasting classes along with lots of crunch.

Sorry for the vagueness of the original post.

Eric Hinkle wrote:

will we get any more information on how to handle/use a witch's patron?

That would be interesting. Are these patrons gods, affiliated with the gods, different outsiders, elemental spirits, genies, etc.? Are they more like Oracle Mysteries, and not tied to one specific being, so that a Witch with the Shadow Patron is receiving her tutelage from the essence of shadow itself, the Plane of Shadow, or some proto-archetypal being representative of Shadow from the First World or something? Or, all-of-the-above?

A sample patron would be neat, although, right now, I think I'm liking it being *less* defined.

The recent discussions over Clerics in Golarion, limiting them to only specific dieties, and dismissing the idea of Clerics of ideals or Clerics of pantheons or Clerics of dead gods or 'heresies' or whatever, has only made the options for that class smaller (although still plenty huge, with literally dozens of dieties, demon lords, empyreals, etc!), so nailing the Witch down to saw that all Witches with the Nature Patron follow 'Cerna the Horned Huntress' or something, might exclude more play options than strictly necessary.

Keeping it mysterious might even be suitable, although, in a world with divination magic that can speak to the gods themselves, it's not like any church that wanted to know if the source of Witchly powers was 'kosher' or not wouldn't be able to do that with a phone call...

Less might be more, for gameplay purposes. Too much definition of exactly what a Patron is (and, more importantly, isn't) risks taking options away from the players, as it did with the Cleric.

Too much definition ends up also stripping some of the mystery out of the 'magic.'

Agreed, and thanks for your own take, but at least a few 'official' hints would be a help.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Eric Hinkle wrote:

will we get any more information on how to handle/use a witch's patron?

What do you mean by this question?

Such as -- does it make any real difference if a witch's patron is, say, a Fey as compared to a Fiend. What demands if any do the various patrons tend to make of their witches? Just how secret do witches have to be about who's giving them their powers? I suppose I'm asking if we'll get any 'fluff' about the various spellcasting classes along with lots of crunch.

Sorry for the vagueness of the original post.

I think the intention was to leave it vague, so that individual GM's could define it as they wished. Especially since it is just a matter of fluff. I foresee a lot of potential RP goodness with patrons, leaving them undefined makes me feel like I have plenty of freedom instead of having to alter or houserule if they start to pin them down in any way.

Yeah, a free web enhancement would do it. And I agree that the list should include a short description of each spell -- if only possible, the format used in the core rulebook and APG would be ideal. :)

Now that is a great idea. Because as soon as they put this in Ultimate Magic another book will come out with new spells and we will still have to look in two books.

I would love a web enhnacement that gets updated. I already print the spell parts out and have a book but it is still spread across two books within that notebook. This has always been one of the biggest hassles with D&D. Trying to find something you need that is spread across 20 books. And then of course there will be Golarion specific spells spread across the Campaign Setting line and maybe the APs and who knows what else.

Let's have two - one for the RPG spells and one for Golarian specific spells.

Oooooh, eidolon Templates. I like!! First day buy!

Tim, get the RPG subscription line before it's due to ship and you'll get the PDF even earlier!! ;)

Let's have two - one for the RPG spells and one for Golarian specific spells.

There's already one, essentially, here, or http://archivesofnethys.com/spellsClass.htm. The joys of Open Content.

Shem wrote:

Let's have two - one for the RPG spells and one for Golarian specific spells.

There's already one, essentially, here, or http://archivesofnethys.com/spellsClass.htm. The joys of Open Content.

That one is handy if you own all the Chronicles and Companions; however, I meant a compiled list of Core + APG + UM spells. In my group there's just no time for me -- or my players -- to comb through every Paizo product for spells.

I've updated the cover image, which now uses the finished artwork. (There might be some additional tweaking of the layout before it goes to press, so while it uses the final *artwork*, it may or may not be the actual final cover.)

that is a sweet cover.

Very cool cover

Another awesome cover

Holy Shmoly.

I do like the idea of alternate Adepts. 3e has tradionally made them cleric-lites, but they also have that flavor of primitive shaman. Giving them all familiars does seem to pigeonhole them. Are there no non-clerical healers who work in temples, who don't have bat and cat familiars?

The new cover...

HOT DANG!!

New channel stuff for clerics...

New ki-tricks for monks...

MORE FAMILIARS!

Oh and, um, the magus and stuff...

Because the eldritch knight is a prestige class?

Because we can't use the duskblade?

Because we don't have a 20-level caster/fighter base class?

Because YOU demanded it?

Because we wanted to?

we dont have a non LG/CE holy warrior either

we dont have a non LG/CE holy warrior either

You just made my CN cleric of a war god very sad.

MerrikCale wrote:

we dont have a non LG/CE holy warrior either

You just made my CN cleric of a war god very sad.

This made me chuckle. Its true as the cleric are the military arm of their faith, but it still made me chuckle.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

MerrikCale wrote:

we dont have a non LG/CE holy warrior either

You just made my CN cleric of a war god very sad.

This made me chuckle. Its true as the cleric are the military arm of their faith, but it still made me chuckle.

But ... but ... Paladins are the military arm ... and because Paladins are wildly unpredictable (will he sit idly in the pub or will he start detect evil+smite the bartender just because HE CAN ?) and bipartisan (republican, democrat, i'm the one with aura of mothertrucking justice) THEY ARE TOTALLY CHAOTIC NEUTRAL ! IT MAKES ALL SENSE !

THEY ARE TOTALLY CHAOTIC NEUTRAL ! IT MAKES ALL SENSE!

No, Paladins are Lawful Good. It's their players that are Chaotic Neutral. :)

Can't wait for this one!

Any chance that we'll see Pathfinder treatments for:

The Warlock
The Warmage
The Hexblade
The Duskblade??