*casts raise thread*
Should a Grimoire (or your magic book name of choice) be a Rulebook or Pathfinder Chronicles book? I can think of pros and cons for each.
Rulebook: Well, the spells are there, and what I want is an extrapolation of the function of spells in the Core Rule Book. A lot of these spells are based on older gaming traditions, like "Elemental Planes" which could be explained in a setting-independent way that was useful to all the settings that make use of the CRB. On the other hand, it is hard to dance around which cosmology might be employed in a setting — summoning in the Great Wheel vs. the Great Beyond is apt to be different on a nuts-and-bolts level.
Chronicles: This is probably the better choice. As a Pathfinder Chronicles GM, I really want to know the details about my world — how spells interact with the inner planes and the great beyond.
What do you all think?
Chronicles +1
I think it is a great idea, but I'd like it to be Glorion specific. Perhaps touching on how magic works from planet to planet in the solar system. (sidebars would do for me.)
I don't really need any Paizo works that are not setting specific at the moment. But that's just me.
Agreed, something so rooted in fluff and metaphysics would be somewhat nuetered in a setting nuetral book.
|
Recent discussion about the finer points of magic, such as interactions between detection spells and illusions, have left me with a rekindled desire to see a robust treatment of Pathfinder's metaphysics. I want to see a 328+ page unapologetic romp through inner planes, conjurations, spell preparation, verbal, somatic, and material components. I think a book on Magic — not segregated by arcane and divine, but magic in general — would be an excellent read. Of course, you could put some great new spells in there.
I'm suddenly brought back to two of my favorite Realms source books...
Pages from the Mages and Prayers from the Faithful. Both were approximately 130 pages long. One specifically focused on arcane the other on divine magic.
They focused on what it meant to be to be a caster, discussed the availability of spells (if a spell should be rare or not), wizard sigils (a cool concept!), and semi-famous spellbooks with lots of fluff and crunch about what those books contained!
While I too think it should probably be a Chronicles book, I don't want to discount the potential importance of closing the "fluff gap" with Vancian magic in a way that is useful to any setting that uses that magic system. To my mind, it is a flaw that the book saddles the GM with the task of making Vancian casting seem less "gamist".
Maybe they should do a Chronicles and use that as a testbed to see what works for a later, universal Rulebook? Yeah, that sounds right to me.
A couple of thoughts on this topic:
1) A Pathfinder Companion title on how magic works on Golarion (making it a player, as well as GM, resource) might be a better idea than a Chronicles title, IMO. Not only would this allow the information on magical metaphysics to be kept somewhat vague or even contradictory, instead of locking the system into rigid cannon*, but could increase sales (because of the wider target audience). As others have discussed, too much detail can stifle creativity (both in game and for future development). Because the the Companion titles are usually light on crunch, it would also help avoid the "splatbook arms race" that 3.5 suffered.
*- Think of most fields of science in the real world; we're continuously discovering new wrinkles to even the "best" theoretical models.
2) If a Chronicles product is successful, then perhaps a more generic RPG title could be developed. As an RPG product there would need to be more crunch, so instead of detailing one "system of magic" such as standard Vancian casting, it would probably be better to take a broader approach by laying out several alternative fluff/crunch systems (see 3.5 Variant Magic from the SRD for a couple) and tweaks to give GMs ideas on customizing how magic works in their campaign. The alchemist from The Advanced Player's Guide is a great example: they don't "cast spells," but rather imbue substances temporarily with magical potential or transformative power. A system of psionics might be another possible topic*.
*- Yes, I know this will cause some people to howl "Psionics aren't magic!" Semantics, pure semantics... Call it magic, "mind powers," psionics, or whatever you please. As long as the fluff and crunch mesh well with the setting, I could care less.
|
well i'd love a book with magic detailed on how it works in different worlds/planes that are different from the norm
how does a spell with verbal components work in a vaccum?
how would create water spell work on a planet with no water? or on the plane of fire?
also i'd like a book that gives rules/guidlines for twiking magic into your own setting
+1 for the grimoire!
|
|
Heck yeah, count me in!
(Especially so I can pass it off to rookie players who whine about the vancian system 'making no sense' xD "Read it. All of it. Or shut up lol")
Why don't you just hand them some, um, Jack Vance novels? ;)
And, hells yeah I'd buy a book (or books) like this, as long as they dealt with magic, and weren't just Spell Compendiums.
+1 for me :) I'd love to see a Grimoire that got into magical theory and practice. In addition, I'd like to see a few new magic-based prestige classes and a few base classes (like Tome of Magic did). Also, how about some ideas on spell creation and balance? I'd definitely like to see it as a hardcover ala the Bestiary (with maybe a Grimoire II and such on a bi-annual basis).
+1 as well!
I currently use the default magic system, but with spell points and then I add several 'lesser' and alternate systems, plus variants. E.G.: Fey have bumps to their Enchantment school, but are vulnerable to Necromantic magics of all types. Elves are able to Craft through communal chanting rituals. The Guilde Arkane produces spells with integrated Metamagic features. Orcs use Spell Charms that allow them to cast pre-set spells. Different languages with different effects. The HypertextD20 metamagic components are about to be introduced.
A 'pick and choose' collection of Fluff and Crunch would be nice.
I use 'status cards' to remind everyone of their conditions and effects. Since I use spell points, several players use colored Pente beads to signify expenditures (Yes, several players are recovering MtG addicts!). One player has begun making a Caster card that helps her track potions, spells used, active spells, scrolls, etc. A section of any Grimoire MUST include such mechanicals to make the vastly more numerous players to want to buy it.
I think leaving room for exception is very very important. I am a Planescape fan after all.
But still, it would be nice to have some theories put forth at least. Why somatic, verbal, and material components? What is it about preparation that allows components to shape reality when executed... and so forth.
I'd buy it in a heartbeat. There must be tons of real-world 'customs'/theories as well as a huge load of fantasy literature to serve as inspiration. Take that, compile it all in a RPG-friendly format - I'd love it.
I would totally buy something like this just for fun reading as well as ideas to integrate into my games....just expanding and detailing the core concepts and variations of divine, arcane, prepared vs. spontaneous, supernatural creatures and abilities and how they interact with magic adepts.....it could be like a unified field theory of magic for pathfinder or not.
I also loved Pages of the Mages articles also, I loved actually giving them as treasures.
That's why I also limit access to spells for wizards/sorcs to those in the Core book, unless they find a copy of it...whether it's in a dusty old tome in the back of a library, or found in the a dragon's treasure trove. It also allows me to keep broken spells that I don't want in my game out.
Oh I also allow new spells t be researched like old school D&D.
|
I really like this idea, as it would finally answer the one question that vexes me... why an arcane/divine divide at all when so many spells cross over? Why do some spells NOT cross over?
Why can a sorcerer/wizard, cleric, druid and paladin cast Bull's Strength, but bard, druid, ranger and sorcerer can cast Cat's Grace?
Those are the kinds of things that annoy me. So yeah, I'd LOVE to see an answer presented to explain that.
Divine and Arcane are methods.
Consider video games: You can get a game for either xbox 360 or playstation 3. It's the same game either way, it's just how it was programmed and how you direct it is different.
I'll add a "+1" for a Pathfinder Grimoire.
Oh, and KnightErrantJr has a point. If this is done it should be made clear it's only one possible explanation (although the one that favors the history of the game) and emphasize that there are many other possibilities out there.
What I'd actually like to see would be several theories put forth by practitioners who actually live in Golarion. How do Seoni, Ezren, Lini, and Kyra's views differ from those of Karzoug, Alicavniss Vonnarc, or even extra-planar beings such as angels and devils?
I think such musings would make interesting intros to each chapter.
For a Grimoire all about magic, the Fluff should be about the metaphysics behind the magic, but the Crunch should be a set of guidelines about how to create and balance new spells. Something along the lines of spell seeds like were used for Epic Spells in the ELH, or for Rituals in Urban Arcana, just develop a method for matching the custom spells to an appropriate spell level, and you're good to go.
|
|
Divine and Arcane are methods.
Consider video games: You can get a game for either xbox 360 or playstation 3. It's the same game either way, it's just how it was programmed and how you direct it is different.
If they were just methods, then Wizards would be casting Cure Spells, and Clerics would cast Cat's Grace. After all if a spell is BOTH arcane and divine why can't a cleric cast it? That is the problem I have. If it were just methods, then every spell would be on every caster's list.
|
|
I'm really starting to think that magic is best left ambiguously define. Arcane magic is what someone can learn to do themselves, without belief or outside power source, to alter reality, whereas Divine magic is powered by belief or higher powers, not by power collected from the "ambient" universe, to create specific effects that are pretty much like miracles.
Me too. Your description of the problems in the Realms is spot on and would prefer to avoid it. As for your Arcane vs Divine, I agree.
I think one of the best things WOTC did was getting rid of divine spellcasters having to learn spells. IMHO, it made them less spellcaster and more miracle worker. Sure mechanically they're spellcasters, but to the game-world-joe, they're not.
Wizards learn magic. Through study & discipline.
Sorcerers forge magic. Through force of will they make magic do what they want.
But Clerics and Paladins (and druids/hunters).. they don't sit around reading prayer books anymore like in AD&D. They get all their spells. They don't spend their time studying spells that fill up their head and limit how many they remember in a day like a wizard.. or recklessly toss out magical energy so they burn themselves out like a sorcerer. No, they ask their god or goddess for aid, a blessing, or a miracle.
Any mechanical similarity between the Arcane and Divine is just that, mechanical for the ruleset. It's so we don't have 2 kinds of magic systems in the core rules (like Psionics is it's own system.)
The fluff requests I see here aren't going to make it into a RPG line book anyway, it'd be a chronicles book. Fluff books imply setting, the RPG line is setting neutral.
In anycase, I don't want to see a fluff book happen. If you try to mix mechanics and fluff, you end up creating a problem with "how do they interact with eachother then" and I don't want any cockamamie that can end up being world break (yes I'm talking about the Weave.) It's far simpler to keep saying that Wizard-like people learn to control "magic," sorcerer-like people forge their "magic," and cleric-like people are granted the power to control "magic."
In AD&D divine casters didn't learn spells, they prayed for them from their Gods...that wasn't a WotC change.
|
|
In AD&D divine casters didn't learn spells, they prayed for them from their Gods...that wasn't a WotC change.
Hmm.. are you sure.. granted it's been a looong time but I swear they had prayer books and had to find scrolls like Wizards.
Maybe I'm thinking of a different game then.. it has been awhile since I played AD&D and even longer since I played a Priest.
In that case then, I give WOTC too much credit, but what I said for the rest still holds true. :)
|
|
In AD&D divine casters didn't learn spells, they prayed for them from their Gods...that wasn't a WotC change.Hmm.. are you sure.. granted it's been a looong time but I swear they had prayer books and had to find scrolls like Wizards.
Maybe I'm thinking of a different game then.. it has been awhile since I played AD&D and even longer since I played a Priest.
In that case then, I give WOTC too much credit, but what I said for the rest still holds true. :)
Yeah, they just prayed for spells, and only had seven levels of them.
Yeah, they just prayed for spells, and only had seven levels of them.In AD&D divine casters didn't learn spells, they prayed for them from their Gods...that wasn't a WotC change.Hmm.. are you sure.. granted it's been a looong time but I swear they had prayer books and had to find scrolls like Wizards.
Maybe I'm thinking of a different game then.. it has been awhile since I played AD&D and even longer since I played a Priest.
In that case then, I give WOTC too much credit, but what I said for the rest still holds true. :)
And reincarnate was a 7th level druid spell ... the top of the druidic food chain. To get one of those, you had to impress a major named druid NPC. No getting yer dead buddies *bamf'd* back to life just because it's a paltry 1,500 gp or so "by the book"...
|
|
And reincarnate was a 7th level druid spell ... the top of the druidic food chain. To get one of those, you had to impress a major named druid NPC. No getting yer dead buddies *bamf'd* back to life just because it's a paltry 1,500 gp or so "by the book"...Yeah, they just prayed for spells, and only had seven levels of them.In AD&D divine casters didn't learn spells, they prayed for them from their Gods...that wasn't a WotC change.Hmm.. are you sure.. granted it's been a looong time but I swear they had prayer books and had to find scrolls like Wizards.
Maybe I'm thinking of a different game then.. it has been awhile since I played AD&D and even longer since I played a Priest.
In that case then, I give WOTC too much credit, but what I said for the rest still holds true. :)
Yeah, 1e was a different animal, that's for sure.
Yeah, 1e was a different animal, that's for sure.And reincarnate was a 7th level druid spell ... the top of the druidic food chain. To get one of those, you had to impress a major named druid NPC. No getting yer dead buddies *bamf'd* back to life just because it's a paltry 1,500 gp or so "by the book"...Yeah, they just prayed for spells, and only had seven levels of them.In AD&D divine casters didn't learn spells, they prayed for them from their Gods...that wasn't a WotC change.Hmm.. are you sure.. granted it's been a looong time but I swear they had prayer books and had to find scrolls like Wizards.
Maybe I'm thinking of a different game then.. it has been awhile since I played AD&D and even longer since I played a Priest.
In that case then, I give WOTC too much credit, but what I said for the rest still holds true. :)
I was telling one of my players - who is in his early 20's - about the fun stuff in 1e, and he was basically going: "WHY did they take some of that stuff out?! THAT'S AWESOME!!"
Just wanted to add my +1 to the general idea.
I really like this idea, as it would finally answer the one question that vexes me... why an arcane/divine divide at all when so many spells cross over? Why do some spells NOT cross over?
Here's my answer, Krome:
Divine Magic originates from Deity, which is a fundamentally different state of being than Mortality. Thus, Divine Magic has the power to create and destroy life itself, and differs in many aspects from mortal magic.
Arcane Magic stems from a Mortal Soul's connection to the world around it. In essence, an arcane caster uses his own soul to tap into the energies of creation, but he can only alter what is already there. Even spells that appear to create new matter or energy are merely recombining existing elements or transporting them from another plane.
Both achieve alteration reality through application of the same principles (Verbal and Material Components) but differ in essential ways due to their different power sources. Hence, they can have spells in common, but they do not entirely overlap.
|
|
I really like this idea, as it would finally answer the one question that vexes me... why an arcane/divine divide at all when so many spells cross over? Why do some spells NOT cross over?Here's my answer, Krome:
** spoiler omitted **
See, I can dig that (did I just date myself?)
That is the way I picture it working as well... but then you get spells like Cat's Grace, which just throws a MAJOR monkey wrench into it. There's not many spells that screw up the whole system of arcane/divine, but there are a few.
See the problem I have with THAT spell is that it is the same nature as Bull's Strength and Bear's Endurance. A Druid can cast it, so it IS divine. Yet a Cleric cannot... umm why... the Cleric can cast Bear's Endurance and Bull's Strength, but cannot cast Cat's Grace... just makes no sense at all to me.
I want to know why a God is incapable of granting that spell! lol
i'd like to add a petition for other types of magic to be included in the game (rune magic, ritual magic and true naming)
Just remember that Paizo won't "file the serial numbers off" WotC proprietary 3.5 content. If they do decide to publish "rune magic, ritual magic and true naming," then they will develop their own versions, probably from various real world myths, literature, and movies.
Actually, rune magic has already had some information published: Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Second Darkness, and Council of Thieves all have elements of aboleth/Thassilonian rune magic.
I'll chime in here (though I'm not sure the Paizo folks are paying a lot of attention to this thread given the earlier shenanigans).
I think a grimoire is a GREAT idea. While the Spell Compendium was much maligned, it was also very heavily used.
Also, I've long lamented the lack of magic creation rules - we have rules for creating magic items and what the costs are, but nothing similar for spells. Suppose I invent a new spell - how do I know what level it is, or what the school should be, or whether it's arcane or not, and whether rangers or paladins should be able to cast it?
And I think the Tome of Magic was cool, as was the earth node magic from Forgotten Realms. This is the sort of stuff that lets a DM give places a definite flavor. I tend to make some of that kind of magic localized so that different places have a different feel. Kind of like how I use Ghostwalk in my campaign, but only in the capital region of one particular country.
Anyways, a book of spell rules and additional spells (perhaps compiling a lot of the spells scattered all over the APs etc.) plus some alternate systems would be a big win for me.
Just remember that Paizo won't "file the serial numbers off" WotC proprietary 3.5 content. If they do decide to publish "rune magic, ritual magic and true naming," then they will develop their own versions, probably from various real world myths, literature, and movies.
That's what sells me on the idea right there :) I'd rather see something a bit different for the Truenamer than what Tome of Magic did ... maybe even something that steers away from Vancian magic?
That's what sells me on the idea right there :) I'd rather see something a bit different for the Truenamer than what Tome of Magic did ... maybe even something that steers toward Vancian magic?
Fixed.
That's what sells me on the idea right there :) I'd rather see something a bit different for the Truenamer than what Tome of Magic did ... maybe even something that steers toward Vancian magic?Fixed.
Tarrasque Substitute approves of this message.
Vancian magic is often thought of as "gamist." For a very long time, I really hated it, because I had come to like the skill-driven magic of Shadowrun and Mage: the Ascension. But in my dotage I have come to realize that there is only one fantasy magic system that truly requires you to pore over heavy tomes and memorize obscure formulas... and that is the Vancian system which has been preserved in Pathfinder.
Pathfinder is now the steward of the Vancian magic tradition in fantasy games. It is often maligned, but I think that animosity stems mainly from how ambiguous the rulebooks have been with respect to how magic works, how it looks, feels and relates to the world.
Once I made the conceptual leap away from magic-is-skill to magic-is-power, I grew to love Vancian magic intensely. A Vancian wizard performs rituals at the outset of the day, patterning his own soul with auras that he carries around like loaded weapons. It is not his skill that he wields, but the very fabric of the world that he has stolen and re-purposed for his own whims.
...
Hmm, I had been starting to get annoyed with the Vancian magic system, but you bring up some good points about how it fits a wizard very well. Personally though, I think that the Vancian system makes no sense when applied to certain spontanious casters such as sorcerors and psions. It just seems to me that those sorts of casters should have more freedom when using their powers than just being able to repeatedly cast a very short spell list over and over.
Anyway, the idea of a Grimoire for characters that would use the Vancian system sounds good to me, more spells always makes things more interesting.
Hmm, I had been starting to get annoyed with the Vancian magic system, but you bring up some good points about how it fits a wizard very well. Personally though, I think that the Vancian system makes no sense when applied to certain spontanious casters such as sorcerors and psions. It just seems to me that those sorts of casters should have more freedom when using their powers than just being able to repeatedly cast a very short spell list over and over.
Well, first: There's no accounting for taste. I can't make you like something if you don't like it. I can only explain why I (have grown to) like it:
I have no problem with Sorcerers and spontaneous casters interacting with the Vancian system. To me, the existence of discrete formulaic spells is why Vancian magic is internally consistent. The Sorcerer is not a "skilled" caster any more than the wizard. They are tapping into powers that only the gods can really comprehend, and performing them by rote, just as the wizard does. The only difference is that their magical lineage can be substituted for the meticulous preparation a wizard requires.
I like that all magic works in this quirky way. I'm not a big fan of alternative magic systems, because they threaten the internal consistency of my explanations (though I definitely don't begrudge people their alternate magic systems).
Adequately explained, the Vancian system makes as much sense as anything else and is much more unique. The general expectation that magic should be a "Skill" leads to a lot of disappointment with the system. Absent that expectation, I've found that Vancian magic is actually really, really cool.
It seems the Vancian system has threadjacked this discussion.
Personally, I always liked the idea of spell-trees, where individual spells could be refined into more powerful versions of themselves. Rolemaster, Earthdawn, and Vampire: the Masquerade all had this theme in common, yet all had completely different mechanics. Vancian, mana-based, skill-based, situation-based (4e), it doesn't really matter to me.
By the way, Kaisoku's molecule analogy of the vancian system (above) was clever.
I had always thought of the D&D system as cooking. Beginning chefs don't start out cooking like Bobby Flay or Emril Lagasse. Beginners start out with hotdogs (magic missile), before moving on to pot roast (fireball). Finally, they are skilled enough to try herb encrusted kobe beef fillets on a bed of asparagus tips (meteor swarm).
In this analogy, microwave dinners = cantrips.
Anyway, I would also like to know the psudoscience behind Pathfinder magic, as long as a grimoire also included a good reason why sorcerers and wizards are the only two spellcasting classes with the exact same spell lists.
PS, jalapeno poppers:
It seems the Vancian system has threadjacked this discussion.
The topic naturally begets the conversation: "What should be in the Grimoire?" which leads inevitably to the "Vancian magic good/bad" discussion. You're right, it's OT, but I've seen worse.
That's what sells me on the idea right there :) I'd rather see something a bit different for the Truenamer than what Tome of Magic did ... maybe even something that steers AWAY FROM Vancian magic?Fixed.
Repaired ;)
I don't have an issue with Vancian magic ... I just would like some other options :) If I had an issue, please know that I'd be playing something else ... so don't "fix" my words, 'Kay? :D
I have always been a suc... umm... Fan(yes that the word) of spell books. ie - books that focus on a slew of new spells.
So yeah, I'm for it.
Repaired ;)
I apologize. That was just a snarky thing that is sometimes done around here. Your original words are unharmed, and your irritation is duly noted.
That's what sells me on the idea right there :) I'd rather see something a bit different for the Truenamer than what Tome of Magic did ... maybe even something that steers AWAY FROM Vancian magic?Fixed.
Repaired ;)
I don't have an issue with Vancian magic ... I just would like some other options :) If I had an issue, please know that I'd be playing something else ... so don't "fix" my words, 'Kay? :D
*Lunges for Sketchpad's steering wheel.*
I'll help with the steering!*Thread begins to weave wildly in and out of lanes*
*CRUNCH*
What needs to be in a grimoire seems simple to me.
* Logic rules for spell crafting.
* New/collected spells.
* Optional alternate magic systems (a la the rune magic from Rise of the Runelords, the magic systems in Tome of Magic, the node magic stuff from Forgotten Realms, etc.)
Simple :)
|
|
*CRUNCH*
What needs to be in a grimoire seems simple to me.
* Logic rules for spell crafting.
* New/collected spells.
* Optional alternate magic systems (a la the rune magic from Rise of the Runelords, the magic systems in Tome of Magic, the node magic stuff from Forgotten Realms, etc.)
Simple :)
+1
Contributor
|
+1 for a grimoire. I'd also like to see it contain a variant magical system or two. With the math behind them exposed, so the equivalencies are understood and guides to designing/tweaking your own system are in there. Sort of like Tome of Magic (that was the book with Pact Magic in it, right?) meets the Deities and Demigods section on designing a god/dess.
I'd like to see a spin where its written as if each kind of magic-wielder (divine, arcane, chewing gum) remains convinced that their explanation is the right one and all the rest are flawed or incorrect.
In other words, the book should have 3, 4, 5 or more metaphysical explanations for why and how magic works that totally ignore the way their theory contradicts the others at some point.
In short, no one really understands why magic works but everyone thinks they do. For game design, this makes for a couple of benefits:
1. GMs can pick and choose the explanations that work for them
2. Maximizes conflict between competing schools of magical thought
3. Avoid the FR Shadow/Weave problem. Don't nail it down.
etc. etc.
I want a grimoire too.
In short, no one really understands why magic works but everyone thinks they do.
Nex and Nethys do, but they wouldn't explain it to me. I think it has something to do with names, so I'm going to be changing mine to Nemizu sometime soon. I'll let you know how that goes after I achieve godhood.