|
I just read the recent blog and love this concept. It is a much more colourful way to look at magic than the rather pseudo-scientific way that it is handled in the SRD and suddenly the magic system of Pathfinder is firmly grounded in the Runelord lore and part of the background. Wizards aren't just evokers or enchanters they are now Lords of Wrath or Mistresses of Lust. (my titles obviously)
Is all arcane magic going to be based around the seven deadly sins are are we going to see a seven saintly virtues analog magic system to counter the Runelords magic?
Im starting to get really excited about this new setting, keep up the good work Paizo!.
SW
I just read the recent blog and love this concept. It is a much more colourful way to look at magic than the rather pseudo-scientific way that it is handled in the SRD and suddenly the magic system of Pathfinder is firmly grounded in the Runelord lore and part of the background.
Yes, I agree that this is a very cool concept that with only the scraps of information we have about it already have my imagination going. This is my take on Sin Magic:
* All arcane magic is tainted by the Runelord's Sin Magic.
* All wizards must choose one sin as their speciality.
* I would like to see some sort of Taint system for Sin Magic. If Paizo doesn't provide such a system I will probably use the system from Heroes of Horror in my campaign. When a mage becomes Tainted he more and more adopts the characteristics of his chosen Sin.
* Arcane casters who don't specialize in any form of magic have higher resistance than their specialized counterparts. Classes like Beguiler, Warmage, and Dread Necromancer are considered specilized for this purpose.
* If anything I would probably like to see divine magic centered on the seven virtues. That way divine spellcasters are held in high esteem while arcane casters are viewed with suspicion.
Just a few thoughts...
I like those thoughts, evilash. Especially the taint concept. I don't know how it is done in Heroes of Horror, but is it based on the frequency with which a spellcaster uses a given school of magic? This is what comes to my mind as I speculate.
If a caster significantly favors one school over others, they develop specialization/taint in that form of Sin Magic. If they show no particular inclination in their casting, they are not specialized. Tracking their use of spells through the campaign, they may develop a taint along the way or even switch to another altogether. These taints provide some moderate benefit in regard to the particular school of magic and a caster may only possess one taint at a time. If a caster favors two schools equally beyond the others, they do not qualify for specialization.
It is a fun concept to consider, but I'm interested to see what the writers come up with first. No sense changing things before we've even got them in hand. There's plenty of time for that later. ;)
I like the idea as a sub-set of arcane magic, but to say that these concepts apply to all arcane magic really takes this setting on a departure from the standard or core D&D experience (and in a direction that I don't like honestly... I love arcane magic and thinking of it all as a corrupting force... well, it is a very different world at that point. Additionally, balance is currently set with arcane casters vs other classes and making them penalized just to stay evenly balanced seems a bad move).
Sean Mahoney
I like the idea as a sub-set of arcane magic, but to say that these concepts apply to all arcane magic really takes this setting on a departure from the standard or core D&D experience (and in a direction that I don't like honestly...
Well, I also have thoughts along the lines that it's only wizards that are susceptible to the taint, and that all other arcane casters are immune.
It is a fun concept to consider, but I'm interested to see what the writers come up with first. No sense changing things before we've even got them in hand. There's plenty of time for that later. ;)
Well, I'm almost certain that they are already considering something along these lines, but I though it wouldn't hurt to throw out ideas :)
Personally, I'd be extremely displeased if the new setting *required* wizards to specialize. I've never been a fan of Specialization, as I believe that entirely giving up access to one or more schools of magic is too great a sacrifice.
If the setting did require specialization for wizards, I'd probably just house-rule it away, or change it so that spells from the "banned" schools are instead treated as one spell level higher (so Abjuration isn't banned, instead you cast Dispel Magic as a 4th level spell). But that would leave me doing yet more work to re-add those "banned" spells back into NPC wizards' spell lists.
Contributor
|
Personally, I'd be extremely displeased if the new setting *required* wizards to specialize. I've never been a fan of Specialization, as I believe that entirely giving up access to one or more schools of magic is too great a sacrifice.
Nope. We won't require you to do that. Anything you can do in the SRD you can do in our campaign setting, including playing a generalist wizard. :)
Well, I also have thoughts along the lines that it's only wizards that are susceptible to the taint, and that all other arcane casters are immune.
That's even worse from a mechanics standpoint. You are basically hamstringing one class without giving them anything to balance out the negative. You are telling players "DO NOT TAKE WIZARDS OR SPECIALISTS OR YOU WILL BE PUNISHED."
Now, if you felt the wizard was overpowered then I suppose a nerfing is indeed in order, but in my experience what class seems broken is a group to group thing based on the players (for example, the DM I am replacing for the group I joined complaigns that Psionics, Wizards and Rogues are broken... interestingly enough all instance of this breakage run back to a single player, not the classes... he understands the system and uses it to his advantage).
Now, I would likely be DMing this campaign for my group and not running it, but I have a special place in my heart for Wizards (my fav class as a player) and making a move that changes them drastically from the core D&D for this setting that will be used repeatedly will be a move that I think alienates certain groups. I LOVE Paizo stuff, but my group may not like this move away from core D&D.
My hope is that I am simply reacting (and over-reacting as the case may be) to speculations to how this will work and not what Paizo is actually doing. But for whatever my two-cents is worth, I think Paizo should keep the base play as close to core D&D as possible (which I believe they have stated is their intent).
All that said, a sub-set of arcane magic that is more powerful in general but has drawbacks along the lines of taint would be a VERY cool addition to the game. Just as long as it isn't that all wizards in the game are bound by those specialized rules.
Sean Mahoney
Personally, I'd be extremely displeased if the new setting *required* wizards to specialize.
The way I read it, only the Runelord sin magic features auto-specialization. I'm sure Paizo is still going to have non-specialized casters in their setting.
- - - - -
#pathfinder chat: Chat Now! (Channel: #pathfinder)
OK, I would like to clear up a couple of things...
First of all I don't think that forcing wizards to specialize is to nerf them, since it's my feeling that specialized wizards are MORE powerful that generalists, especially with the Master Specialist prestige class.
Secondly I don't see a taint system as nerfing either, at least not the taint system I would like to see. It would more be along the lines of flavor. I think it should have both pros and cons.
Now, most of my players like specialist wizards, so if I house ruled that they wouldn't really protest...
EXCELLENT!!!
This is exactly what I was hoping to hear. And that being the case, while I doubt I would do the extra work to put it in myself, I wouldn't mind a taint style system associated with this at all.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
Sin magic is magic that the Runelords and their minions use. It's not even something that the PCs find out about for quite some time (hence the placement of a spoiler warning in that blog post); it's CERTAINLY not a requirement for all wizards in the Pathfinder world.
Thanks for the reply James.
I like the idea that there is a cost to magic, a price to pay for the power granted. A lot of this can be handled through GM colour and true its not something that we want to see mandated in the background. It is all to easy in D20 to think of magic in a psuedo-scientific way with ethical or moral implications. Ok Sin magic is for the bad guys, but it is just the way I like to handle magic in my games.
I will be keenly watching how things develop before coming to any conclusions on how I handle PC magic. But you never know, a magic user in my campaign may well find that while she thought that her magic came from her love of fertilty and living things that deep down their is much more base emotions driving her desire for power, just waiting to bubble to the surface. You know. Im just saying.
SW
The concept of Sin Wizards is interesting... with magical ethics reminiscent of Dark Sun's environmentally responsible spellcasting.
In the general D&D game, the way Wizards & Sorcerors "balance" versus Fighters... not all games are created equal, and sometimes some characters can be marginalized by the wild power swings as levels go up.
Maybe it's the job of the player to "maximize" each level and each choice in order to avoid marginalization... but that becomes a hair-pulling exercise for some, just as "Specialists are underpowered" or "Specialization is punishment". Why? Why can't I play a Specialist? Why do I have to plan my feat & skill outlay to attain PrC XYZ?
I don't want to see Sin Wizards as an unbalancing method of playing another new PrC, and then the next PrC being the trump card & more unbalanced than the previous.
Hopefully it will make more sense as the games in the adventure path come out.
Also, the Sin Wizards (Wizards of the Sin?) & the name of that "other company"... I find it funny.