Secrets of Magic on Game Trade Mag #255

Elfteiroh wrote:

BluLion wrote:

I'm kinda curious about spell hearts. I know runes already handle physical attacks and ac/saves, so I wonder if it is just a new method, or if it affects something else. Maybe it boosts magic attack rolls?

Mark confirmed that they are not. Nothing in this book changes the math of the game, so no bonus to spell attacks.

Unicore wrote:

I can't believe we are not talking about how awesome this is:

the article wrote:

The book kicks off with essays written by spellcasters from the setting of Golarion to let you better understand what a spellcasting character knows about how magic works.

I REALLY LIKE that these are "in-character" treatises about magic. I can wait to read them and see how they fit with the rules, or how wrong some will be in their interpretations. (Probably not much, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are one or two details in some that contradict another treatise, even if both make sense as interpretations...)

I believe you, but where did Mark mention that? i like to keep track of where things were said.

I can say it here, so it's easier to keep track of it.

Well, I hope you're happy to see everyone's speculation Mr. Seifter xD

Elfteiroh wrote:

BluLion wrote:

I'm kinda curious about spell hearts. I know runes already handle physical attacks and ac/saves, so I wonder if it is just a new method, or if it affects something else. Maybe it boosts magic attack rolls?

Mark confirmed that they are not. Nothing in this book changes the math of the game, so no bonus to spell attacks.

Unicore wrote:

I can't believe we are not talking about how awesome this is:

the article wrote:

The book kicks off with essays written by spellcasters from the setting of Golarion to let you better understand what a spellcasting character knows about how magic works.

I REALLY LIKE that these are "in-character" treatises about magic. I can wait to read them and see how they fit with the rules, or how wrong some will be in their interpretations. (Probably not much, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are one or two details in some that contradict another treatise, even if both make sense as interpretations...)

I believe you, but where did Mark mention that? i like to keep track of where things were said.

Sorry, Usually I give my sources, but I forgot. >_>

Well, I hope you're happy to see everyone's speculation Mr. Seifter xD

For sure!

@Mark, do you have a secret wizard persona who has written one of the essays in this book?

@Mark, do you have a secret wizard persona who has written one of the essays in this book?

How would that work, exactly?

I'm waiting to see Tereif Karm, grand wizard of the mwangi expanse and his famous magic theories

Unicore wrote:

@Mark, do you have a secret wizard persona who has written one of the essays in this book?

How would that work, exactly?

If I had to guess, I’d say secretly.

I wonder if some of the casting options are partly designed to help build 1e classes that aren't available yet. Arcanist is similar to the new casting method, kineticist to elemental casting, occultist sounds close to binding items to your soul. And that's just the few things we know

I wonder if some of the casting options are partly designed to help build 1e classes that aren't available yet. Arcanist is similar to the new casting method, kineticist to elemental casting, occultist sounds close to binding items to your soul. And that's just the few things we know

Emotional casting for a better Bloodrager?

Actually, all of these hinted alternative spell casting options seem to be perfect parallels to missing PF1 classes (other than true names but those are still a very popular magical trope).

I wonder if some of the casting options are partly designed to help build 1e classes that aren't available yet. Arcanist is similar to the new casting method, kineticist to elemental casting, occultist sounds close to binding items to your soul. And that's just the few things we know

Part of me hopes so, but another part is worried if that is the case, since it would make getting those as full classes later on less likely.

Gaulin wrote:

I wonder if some of the casting options are partly designed to help build 1e classes that aren't available yet. Arcanist is similar to the new casting method, kineticist to elemental casting, occultist sounds close to binding items to your soul. And that's just the few things we know

Emotional casting for a better Bloodrager?

I was thinking Thought and Emotion components for occult casting.

Despite all my hype for magus and summoner, class archetypes are definitely the highlight for me. I'm all for archetypes that can give you the feel of various 1e casters. We'll just have to wait and see the sacrifices and benefits of each archetype

Oh understood, and thanks Mark for confirming that in thread!

It'd be interesting if their were some sort of Occult/Psychic archetype that changed one's components. I suppose it could give a new spell list too, but I'm less interested in that, though it'd be interesting if it were for all the lists!
Convert Wizards to primal/divine/occult casters. How tied to their lists are the classes mechanically? That'd open up lots of pre-balanced options, since their strength isn't explicitly tied to their lists, is it?
Arcane Warpriests, Occult Druids, etc.
Can't immediately think of a conversion that would be OP, and with Witch & Sorcerer already mirroring that power schema, it doesn't seem too off the curve.

What might I be missing? Any "spell list swapping" that'd be too powerful if given the access to feats/abilities from another class?

Part of me hopes so, but another part is worried if that is the case, since it would make getting those as full classes later on less likely.

I feel that with second editon's flexilbity, the idea of "class" isn't really the same as it was before, and so long as it does what it did before, all we're really discussing is the name.

I feel 2E is too crunchy to do what FAGE did (have only 4 core classes, and everything is built with archetypes on top of one of those 4) but I feel that it's very close to being possible.

It'd be interesting if their were some sort of Occult/Psychic archetype that changed one's components. I suppose it could give a new spell list too, but I'm less interested in that, though it'd be interesting if it were for all the lists!

Convert Wizards to primal/divine/occult casters. How tied to their lists are the classes mechanically? That'd open up lots of pre-balanced options, since their strength isn't explicitly tied to their lists, is it?
Arcane Warpriests, Occult Druids, etc.
Can't immediately think of a conversion that would be OP, and with Witch & Sorcerer already mirroring that power schema, it doesn't seem too off the curve.

What might I be missing? Any "spell list swapping" that'd be too powerful if given the access to feats/abilities from another class?

The Cleric's Divine Font abilities break if they don't have heal/harm on their spell list. This could be addressed with a first-level class feat or tying each kind of list into the class with unique font abilities based on the new spell list.

Castilliano wrote:

It'd be interesting if their were some sort of Occult/Psychic archetype that changed one's components. I suppose it could give a new spell list too, but I'm less interested in that, though it'd be interesting if it were for all the lists!

Convert Wizards to primal/divine/occult casters. How tied to their lists are the classes mechanically? That'd open up lots of pre-balanced options, since their strength isn't explicitly tied to their lists, is it?
Arcane Warpriests, Occult Druids, etc.
Can't immediately think of a conversion that would be OP, and with Witch & Sorcerer already mirroring that power schema, it doesn't seem too off the curve.

What might I be missing? Any "spell list swapping" that'd be too powerful if given the access to feats/abilities from another class?

The Cleric's Divine Font abilities break if they don't have heal/harm on their spell list. This could be addressed with a first-level class feat or tying each kind of list into the class with unique font abilities based on the new spell list.

I imagine an archetype that changes a cleric's spell list could also change how their Divine Font works.

I wonder if Magical Stance and Spellstrike work like the Swashbuckler's precise strike/finisher mechanic. That is, you enter the stance by burning the slot, and you get bonus damage to all of your regular strikes, or your can leave the stance by discharging the spell with spellstrike.

That feels like the right kind of dynamic.

I wonder if Magical Stance and Spellstrike work like the Swashbuckler's precise strike/finisher mechanic. That is, you enter the stance by burning the slot, and you get bonus damage to all of your regular strikes, or your can leave the stance by discharging the spell with spellstrike.

That feels like the right kind of dynamic.

That's my guesstimate too.

So its numbers might be more akin to a Barbarian's, except it costs a slot (bad) and can be discharged (good) which might balance (and knowing Paizo's number crunching, almost certainly balances, albeit with different tactics benefiting each differently).

Arcanist. ARCANIST. AAAARRRCAAANNNIIIISSSTTT!!!

I know it was fairly broken, but I love the spellcasting style, and my favorite character from PF1 was an arcanist, and I want to remake him soooo badly. Let's gooooooooooo!!!!

I like the idea of a druid with arcanist spellcasting. However, number one is still gonna be Geomancer. Think it will be for any caster or just primal?

I'm REALLY curious to see what the Arcanist-style Archetype makes a character give up for this casting style. It seems like a pretty significant upgrade compared to the original Vancian style.

First option coming to mind would be reduced Spell Slots. But for all prepared casters other than the Wizard that would mean only 2 Slots per spell level, which seems awfully low for a full-time caster. I could maybe see it work on something with other combat options, such as a Warpriest or Wild Druid. But a pure caster with only 2 slots per doesn't sound fun at all.

Another option would be 5e-like more limited number of spells prepared. But that would probably need to be a pretty tight limit, lest the arcanists become more flexible than the spontaneous casters.

It could also "simply" take away half of your class feats.

Last option I can think of is making the Archetype super focused on spellcasting, giving up most other class-features. So no Arcane Thesis, Focus spells, Druid Orders, Deity spells or automaticaly advancing Witch Familiar.

I'm REALLY curious to see what the Arcanist-style Archetype makes a character give up for this casting style. It seems like a pretty significant upgrade compared to the original Vancian style.

First option coming to mind would be reduced Spell Slots. But for all prepared casters other than the Wizard that would mean only 2 Slots per spell level, which seems awfully low for a full-time caster. I could maybe see it work on something with other combat options, such as a Warpriest or Wild Druid. But a pure caster with only 2 slots per doesn't sound fun at all.

Another option would be 5e-like more limited number of spells prepared. But that would probably need to be a pretty tight limit, lest the arcanists become more flexible than the spontaneous casters.

It could also "simply" take away half of your class feats.

Last option I can think of is making the Archetype super focused on spellcasting, giving up most other class-features. So no Arcane Thesis, Focus spells, Druid Orders, Deity spells or automaticaly advancing Witch Familiar.

I believe the only thing they've said in regards to that is that the spellcasters would prepare less spells, but would be able to apply those prepared spells in any slot. So likely, the second 5e-like option.

My understanding is that it will make you a spontaneous caster but with ~half the spells known per day, but you can swap your entire suite of spells known every day.

So Clerics, Druids, Witchs will prepare two spells per level day they can use as spontaneous slots per day, while wizards might get three prepared per day.

Maybe you prepare one less than you have slots. And no signature spells.

So for many levels you have less than half the options that an actual spontaneous caster does, but more day to day flexibility. If that's still too strong it could cost your level 2 feat as well.

I had the idea that the Magus' "recharge" might be that using spellstrike damages their weapon and they have to repair it from time to time. Something like "the weapon takes damage equal to the spell's level". Though it wouldn't work with unarmed...

My understanding is that it will make you a spontaneous caster but with ~half the spells known per day, but you can swap your entire suite of spells known every day.

So Clerics, Druids, Witchs will prepare two spells per level day they can use as spontaneous slots per day, while wizards might get three prepared per day.

Maybe you prepare one less than you have slots. And no signature spells.

So for many levels you have less than half the options that an actual spontaneous caster does, but more day to day flexibility. If that's still too strong it could cost your level 2 feat as well.

No signature spells would outright kill the whole thing for me. Having 2 spells prepared per level to cast spontaneously a total of 3 times is a ridiculously minor improvement to simply having 3 regular prepared spell slots.

I would think of it like "half of your slots are spontaneous, you make a small selection of spells each days that you can cast using any of those"

2 spells per level and no signature spells is literally useless. Its also a far cry from Arcanist casting, which is supposedly how its supposed to work from what people are saying.

Arcanist casting can be summed up in PF2 by: Prepare spells, all of your prepared spells are signature spells, you do not lose the spell when you cast it.

Though guys, let's not judge something based on speculation alone. We litteraly don't know how it works. So no need to get aggressive and call it shitty xD

vagrant-poet wrote:

My understanding is that it will make you a spontaneous caster but with ~half the spells known per day, but you can swap your entire suite of spells known every day.

So Clerics, Druids, Witchs will prepare two spells per level day they can use as spontaneous slots per day, while wizards might get three prepared per day.

Maybe you prepare one less than you have slots. And no signature spells.

So for many levels you have less than half the options that an actual spontaneous caster does, but more day to day flexibility. If that's still too strong it could cost your level 2 feat as well.

No signature spells would outright kill the whole thing for me. Having 2 spells prepared per level to cast spontaneously a total of 3 times is a ridiculously minor improvement to simply having 3 regular prepared spell slots.

Great! That's exactly what the response should be, to be honest.

Then the class archetype can just be plug and play, and not a power increase. Probably doesn't need to take the 2nd level feat then.

I think that people are expecting to get something that is genuinely better than either existing casting paradigm, at no drawback.

Expectations need to be tempered. You're not getting a 1e arcanist.

You're getting an option to make prepared spellcasters more flexible, and there's going to be drawback so they're not just better than spontaneous spellcasters.

Yeah, an archetype shouldn't be straight up better than base.

It does sound like this arcanist style casting exists in a chapter of the book presenting variant rules. As such, like dual class and free archetype, it could exist outside of the games core mechanical balance. However, unlike those systems, this would apply to only one or to characters in the party so it can’t be that disruptive.

That said there are enough people that feel like the wizard is so underpowered that a variant rule that only applied to them might give some tables the tool they need to be happy with an arcane caster class and other people can not use it, how’re folks at a lot of tables would then not get to play with the arcanist style at all, so my preference would be no power boost.

It does sound like this arcanist style casting exists in a chapter of the book presenting variant rules. As such, like dual class and free archetype, it could exist outside of the games core mechanical balance. However, unlike those systems, this would apply to only one or to characters in the party so it can’t be that disruptive.

That said there are enough people that feel like the wizard is so underpowered that a variant rule that only applied to them might give some tables the tool they need to be happy with an arcane caster class and other people can not use it, how’re folks at a lot of tables would then not get to play with the arcanist style at all, so my preference would be no power boost.

What we've see so far has not suggested it's wizard specific.

Lot's of people also expect +1 spell attack items in this book.

So expecting wizard buffs/number increases is setting you up for disappointment, because you're writing a book that was never going to exist.

My guess, and again, it's pure speculation is what I posted above, where a prepared spellcaster swaps to effectively a spontaneous spellcaster with fewer spells known, but can change those spells every day (or more often for a wizard with the right thesis). I suspect lots of people will loudly declare it awful and useless, and those people already likely don't like spellcasting as is.

Quote:

No signature spells would outright kill the whole thing for me. Having 2 spells prepared per level to cast spontaneously a total of 3 times is a ridiculously minor improvement to simply having 3 regular prepared spell slots.

Great! That's exactly what the response should be, to be honest.

Then the class archetype can just be plug and play, and not a power increase.

The response most certainly should not be "That's so much more terrible than the base that I'd never even consider playing it."

I completely agree that it should not be a more powerful option, mind you. But it should at least be somewhat comparable, which 2 spells on 3 spell slots is not.

But anyway, no sense in arguing about it for now. It comes down to "wait and see and have faith in Paizo", I guess.

vagrant-poet wrote:

Quote:

No signature spells would outright kill the whole thing for me. Having 2 spells prepared per level to cast spontaneously a total of 3 times is a ridiculously minor improvement to simply having 3 regular prepared spell slots.

Great! That's exactly what the response should be, to be honest.

Then the class archetype can just be plug and play, and not a power increase.

The response most certainly should not be "That's so much more terrible than the base that I'd never even consider playing it."

I completely agree that it should not be a more powerful option, mind you. But it should at least be somewhat comparable, which 2 spells on 3 spell slots is not.

But anyway, no sense in arguing about it for now. It comes down to "wait and see and have faith in Paizo", I guess.

I'm not sure how "ridiculously minor improvement" and "so much more terrible than the base" are the same thing. That's not putting words in your mouth. That was your reaction.

I suspect what's true is: "that I'd never even consider playing it", and you're unconsciously editing your original reaction to justify that, because what I suggested doesn't excite you or meet your expectations.

I agree, no sense in arguing about it for now. Paizo will probably have something very different again in the final release. Just have tempered expectations, because it will likely not seem like a buff in anyway, and many people won't prefer it to existing spellcasting. Otherwise it wouldn't be a reasonable option.

Lot's of people also expect +1 spell attack items in this book.

So expecting wizard buffs/number increases is setting you up for disappointment, because you're writing a book that was never going to exist.

Lots of people expected the spell attack potency items because its nonsensical that they dont exist. If what you say is true and we wont be seeing any item bonus boosters for spell attacks then ill just continue using my homebrew fix. I will just scratch my head baffled at why the designers dont want spellcasters to use spell attack spells.

I homebrew to allow a spell attack potency item too. Hell, I also buff most of the non-electric arc cantrips too.

I just don't expect to ever see it in an official splat book for 2e.

They're not going to change the fundamental math, no matter what you or I think about it's relative balance.

And it's important that people don't set expectations before every release "This will fix everything I don't agree with". It's just going to cause infinite fights and disappointment because you made a promise to yourself that could never be kept by someone else.

Agreed its best to just wait and see.

But I want to remind everyone.

Class archetypes are not just changing your class, you also have to spend your 2nd level feat. A class archetype should not be judged on the base class. But on the base class plus one feat.

Im still very much looking forward to this book even if it doesnt have something i want. Just seems like such an odd omission that could be easily fixed.

Anyway, i'm liking what im seeing from this preview and the magus is going down a direction i like of being empowered by casting the spell and then throwing out spellstrike as a finisher-esque ability.

Would of liked a lot more info on summoner. they seemed completely glossed over apart from the plant eidolon drop.

All the new spells and magic items sound great and class archetypes sound interesting.

Im still holding out hope for magic school archetypes!

Class archetypes? I'm hoping for a bladebound archetype!

I made multi-year campaign around a bladebound magus's blackblade

Class archetypes are not just changing your class, you also have to spend your 2nd level feat. A class archetype should not be judged on the base class. But on the base class plus one feat.

To quote the article itself: 'These archetypes alter some of your class’s core class features, even at 1st level.' It doesn't sound like class archetypes will function like dedications.

In the CRB (or was it in the Game Master guide?) there is an entry about future class archetype, they'll change class features at the cost of locking out your level 2 class feat.

Hype!!!

I'm not sure how "ridiculously minor improvement" and "so much more terrible than the base" are the same thing. That's not putting words in your mouth. That was your reaction.

They are not the same thing. I kept thinking about this stuff between my posts and changed my opinion. What seemed a minor improvement at first became worse than the original system the more I thought about it. All striclty in my opinion and based on what you suggested it might be, of course.

I suspect what's true is: "that I'd never even consider playing it", and you're unconsciously editing your original reaction to justify that, because what I suggested doesn't excite you or meet your expectations.

Are you a psychotherapist or something? I'm honestly curious since this kind of argument is rare on the internet.

I frankly have no fixed expectations. I assume paizo thinks arcanist style casting is stronger than the old vancian version, so there has to be some balancing factor. I don't know what to expect from that. Hence my first post musing about possible downsides to this flexible caster archetye.

Upon reading your suggestion I decided that this hypothetical version would not be something I enjoy. I wouldn't mind this turning out to be the "real" version, I just wouldn't play it. I've never played an Arcanist in PF1 nor any caster in 5e, so I'd like to try out this style of spellcasting system. If would make me sad if the PF2-version turns out to be something I wouldn't enjoy. And I'll freely admit that my previous posts leaned lot towards hyperbole.

There's already plenty of stuff in the game I'd never touch personally, including some classes that oveall seem pretty popular like the Oracle and the Investigator. I'm happy for players who enjoy those things, even if they do nothing for me. If the flexible caster archetype ends up in the same corner, I'll be happy for players who enjoy it and keep playing my vancian casters.

In the CRB (or was it in the Game Master guide?) there is an entry about future class archetype, they'll change class features at the cost of locking out your level 2 class feat.

Lemme see...

"It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class’s initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype’s dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype."

Page 219. Looks like ya got me there.

Kalaam wrote:

In the CRB (or was it in the Game Master guide?) there is an entry about future class archetype, they'll change class features at the cost of locking out your level 2 class feat.

Lemme see...

"It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class’s initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype’s dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype."

Page 219. Looks like ya got me there.

Maybe they'll change it in the book though, we'll have to see.

Ruzza wrote:

Kalaam wrote:

In the CRB (or was it in the Game Master guide?) there is an entry about future class archetype, they'll change class features at the cost of locking out your level 2 class feat.

Lemme see...

"It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class’s initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype’s dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype."

Page 219. Looks like ya got me there.

Maybe they'll change it in the book though, we'll have to see.

The archetype itself could give you a class feat or class feat equivalent choice at 2nd level, making it more of a technicality.

I say that because it's the exact kind of thing they would have done in PF1 if they had accidentally painted themselves into a rule corner.