|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Internal consistency is the weakest reason to refuse change, because these worlds are all pretend anyway.
That rather depends upon how much you value internal consistency, wouldn't you agree?
And, in world, psychic magic did not recently migrate. There are at least a few decades or centuries old casters suddenly appearing in PFS scenarios immediately after the books came out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Occult Adventures is a fantastic book. It added quite a large wrinkle to a game that already has an overabundance of options, and that's no easy feat. I love it.
|
|
Ghosts didn't have to be evil, that's well established in Golarion. The only non-evil "undead" in Occult Adventures I can think of are a Spiritualist's Phantoms. Which really isn't a big jump from Ghost. Additionally Phantoms aren't undead, they're outsiders.I believe he is saying that post Occult adventures Undead doesn’t always = Evil
Where as it did before. Although I can’t say if the latter is accurate
I certainly thought that undead WERE always evil prior to Occult Adventures and the introduction of Phantoms. I did a quick search and this was the best quote that I could quickly find James Jacobs on undead
If you have a counterexample (Golarion, mind, published before Occult Adventures was well into its development) please show it and I'll happily admit that I was wrong on this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are several AP's with non-evil ghosts in them. Many in prominent plot positions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean by Changed Rules? Occult Adventures doesn't change any existing rules... It adds new rules for things which didn't have rules before which is very different so I'm rather confused.
I mean that the various Occult classes often use rules that were deliberately chosen to be quite different from the rules that previously existed. This very significantly increases the learning curve to either create an occult character or to GM an occult character.
As I said above, I GM PFS a lot. The amount of preparation time I had to spend on a scenario went up very significantly with Occult Adventures. I had to figure out lots of class details, look up quite a few new spells, check new feats, etc.
This work was far more than, for example, the work required to assimilate the Advanced Class Guide. All the classes in the ACG were just minor wrinkles on existing classes (at least from the point of view of a GM running published material).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are several AP's with non-evil ghosts in them. Many in prominent plot positions.
I'm just finishing book 5 in The Crimson Throne. Man, I wish there were non evil undead there :-).
Ok, so I was wrong about undead always being evil. I hereby officially remove that from the list of reasons that I dislike Occult Adventures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you saying that the write up for the Kineticist is clear as mud or are you using "un-pedagogically written" as a euphemism for something else?
The standards for Pathfinder books organize things like spells (in this case wild talents) makes the Kineticist really difficult to read: all the things are in one place, in alphabetical order, not separated by elements, etc.
Like if you reorganize Kineticist talents to be by element, and in the order you can get them it's a much easier thing to understand. But page space and editing standards for Pathfinder makes the Kineticist really tough to figure out from the dead tree version of the book.
All of the various SRDs out there do a better job with the Kineticist (the Archives of Nethys version is particularly helpful, I think.)
|
|
There are several AP's with non-evil ghosts in them. Many in prominent plot positions.I'm just finishing book 5 in The Crimson Throne. Man, I wish there were non evil undead there :-).
Ok, so I was wrong about undead always being evil. I hereby officially remove that from the list of reasons that I dislike Occult Adventures.
Groovy. I'm all for fair criticism, and it's always good when people listen instead of doubling down.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
You are totally and utterly right. And I GM'ed that Adventure Path several years ago :-).
I know (hope? :-)) that it wasn't your intention at all, but you've made me now feel like a right idiot :-) :-). How could I possibly have missed that example?
Doh!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, I was wrong. And talking out my rear, I see.
Seventh Path is actually focused on psionic necromancy, not on replicating Occult classes. The reason they overlap with a couple of the Occult classes is that there's only so much you can do with spirits before overlap sets in.
Yeah, those prestige classes were the source material. Weren't they also psionic prestige classes?
Ish okay.
Yeah there was a few (I loved the Pyro and Elocater) but I wouldn't consider them source material/overlap for Occult Adventures.
PAIZO PLZ BRING BACK BUTTRILOQUISM IN ERRATA
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **You are totally and utterly right. And I GM'ed that Adventure Path several years ago :-).
I know (hope? :-)) that it wasn't your intention at all, but you've made me now feel like a right idiot :-) :-). How could I possibly have missed that example?
Doh!
Not my intention at all, pobodies nerfect. It's a fantastic AP.
The post I was about to make would probably have been deleted so I'll try again.
I'd like to request that the people who like this book STOP putting up strawmen and making false and, frankly, insulting claims about those of us who have the temerity to NOT like the book.
To be clear, I have no problem at all with you liking the book. Many people do. Good for you (sincerely). But that doesn't mean that those of us who don't are idiots, liars, luddites, etc. It just means that we have significantly different tastes and/or priorities than you do.
I can only speak for myself but
1) I HAVE read the book
2) I find the value of the changes is just not worth the effort. Admittedly, in many places I assign a negative value to the changes :-)
3) There most definitely ARE significant changes in the mechanics. The new occult caster rules affect every class in a sometimes subtle manner. The kineticist doesn't use those rules but the Kineticist definitely has class rule that definitely change the mechanics :-))
4) I've played significant portions of an Adventure path with a Mesmerist and a Kineticist. I've run or played in PFS games with every single Occult Class. Any complaints I have may or may not be universal but they are certainly based upon actual experience
5) The rules book retroactively changed the world in ways that I do NOT like. Suddenly not all Undead are evil, for example. Suddenly, there is a whole 3rd way of magic that everybody must have known about all along without bothering mentioning it (since it makes no sense otherwise). I assign a much higher value to the world having internal consistency and making sense than Paizo does.
6) I run a lot of PFS and so have, perforce, had many of the changed rules rammed down my throat against my will. This means that I
a) DO understand a lot of the changes
b) DO have an informed opinion on whether they are worth the effort
c) Did not have the option of just ignoring rules options I didn't like
Let me just say, if this was my GM's reasons, I would say they were bad reasons. Some random guy online? Sure whatever works at your table. But for my friends, all your problems are changed by re-flavoring occult to just different schools of arcane/divine. Other problems like the undead thing don't matter, because players only care about classes. You don't like the mechanics? From a purely rules designed standpoint, I disagree, the classes are better designed and balanced than the CRB. As for PFS, well that has little to do with actual pathfinder.
But hey, whatever works for your games. They don't affect me and I tend to homebrew my own classes now for Pathfinder campaigns.
I mean that the various Occult classes often use rules that were deliberately chosen to be quite different from the rules that previously existed. This very significantly increases the learning curve to either create an occult character or to GM an occult character.As I said above, I GM PFS a lot. The amount of preparation time I had to spend on a scenario went up very significantly with Occult Adventures. I had to figure out lots of class details, look up quite a few new spells, check new feats, etc.
This work was far more than, for example, the work required to assimilate the Advanced Class Guide. All the classes in the ACG were just minor wrinkles on existing classes (at least from the point of view of a GM running published material).
Okay, so your issue is new rules rather than rules changes. Just wanted to get clarification
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would Happily DM occult rules if my group wanted to play some occult classes. I honestly understood everything from first read, even the Medium back during the Playtest when they had Spirits based on the Harrow Deck. (God I wish that would have been able to fit, it was an AMAZING Concept. Since we didn't get all of the spirits revealed I can't even play with it either....)
I love parts and dislike parts
Pros
(...)
4. Occult Rituals. I really like ritual magic and honestly would like more in pathfinder
Yes, this section of the book is a good attempt to standardize rituals. Even if someone completely dislikes psychic magic - occult rituals are a different beast. While they need a bit of effort to understand, they are distinctively different to normal spellcasting. As a GM, you can insert them also in nonoccult campaigns, as you see fit. As a player, you now have an official way to become a lich (subject to GM's approval, of course).
Are you saying that the write up for the Kineticist is clear as mud or are you using "un-pedagogically written" as a euphemism for something else?The standards for Pathfinder books organize things like spells (in this case wild talents) makes the Kineticist really difficult to read: all the things are in one place, in alphabetical order, not separated by elements, etc.
Like if you reorganize Kineticist talents to be by element, and in the order you can get them it's a much easier thing to understand. But page space and editing standards for Pathfinder makes the Kineticist really tough to figure out from the dead tree version of the book.
All of the various SRDs out there do a better job with the Kineticist (the Archives of Nethys version is particularly helpful, I think.)
You're right -- at a brief glance at the Archives of Nethys version (instead of the www.d20pfsrd.com version) does look like it would be helpful -- same amount of stuff to read(*) if you are going to encompass the full set of mechanics (such as if you GM for multiple Kineticists), but at least it is easier to find the subset you need to build 1 character.
(*)Unfortunately, Archives of Nethys seems not to have been updated since September 20, so it just won't have as much stuff. Anyone know what happened?
|
About Psychic classes changing the Golarion lore about a third type of magic:
I always thought that since the beginning they ever throwed clues that psionics/psychic were a thing in Casmaron/Vudra. There a lot of mentions of mind wizards of far east and some mysterious things.
The kineticist... Not really seen enough of it to know if it works. I know it is very un-pedagogically written, and I like the concept behind it, but that's about it.Are you saying that the write up for the Kineticist is clear as mud or are you using "un-pedagogically written" as a euphemism for something else?
I mean its clear as mud. First thing I did for the class, to even be able to read it, was make power tables for the different elements. Occultist implements get spell lists, why don't kineticist elements get lists of accessible wild powers?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I finished an AP playing a kineticist and loved the class. It is way stronger than forums lead me to believe. Its not complicated once you wrap your mind around it and make space on your character sheet for burn and its non leathal damage. (Empowered Quickened blast and an empowered kinetic whip full attack is such a fun combo)
Our party also had an occultist and i dont think he appreciated the class as much or its complexity, but i think it still looks great and his character was great at providing solutions. Lots of standard action abilities though.
I think the medium looks awesome, 100% playable and simple. It might be my next character. (Spirit dancer is an option if i want to set complexity to 11)
I don't care for the mesmerist, spiritualist or psychic. None of these seem interesting to me and their powers are a bit too focused.
50% interest is pretty good. By comparison I liked the idea of only one hybrid class.
Edit: even though i own the book, I totally used archives of nethys to look at my options. It sorts by element and makes it so easy to plan out a kineticist character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Occultist implements get spell lists, why don't kineticist elements get lists of accessible wild powers?
uh... the elements do get lists of accessible wild powers....? Pg. 14.
|
I've not had the chance to play any OA stuff yet, so been watching this thread with interest; additional layers of convolution are definitely a feature rather than a bug for me, though I suspect that whenever I do get a chance to play rather than DM again it's going to be easiest to sell either of the groups I am likely to be playing with on a kineticist first as the others all seem likely to be perceived as more complex and slowing the game down.
I like the notion of an occultist, largely because it seems to be the best fit the game has yet produced for the concept of a character who does complex magic-type things consistently and gets useful results despite having a massively convoluted and completely wrong notion of how it all actually works, which I have fancied doing for a while. (Like using Ptolemaic epicycles to calculate trajectories for space probes; you can in theory do it, it's just massive useless overhead.) Having read through them and thought about them, pretty much the only one I am not drawn to is the mesmerist, as fluff and abilities both skew towards shapes of morally dubious I find notably unappealing.
mesmerizes are primarily buff/debuffers
not really seeing the morally dubious , at least not more then the bard,wizard and well all of the other casters classes ?
I could see how "out and out mind control" would be morally dubious, but the wizard has had that since the CRB, and the Mesmerist is more about "tricking people by confusing their senses" than out and out mind control.
That said, the Mesmerist is a pretty tricky class to figure out how to make work without playing one (everything it does is clear, how to put this all together to make a strong character is less so), so not being drawn to it is understandable.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
To this day I cannot fathom why “mind control” is considered more morally dubious than literally burning masses of people to death.
Or do that matter hacking them to death with a sword.
I have the beginnings of a campaign setting in my mind where there is no Arcane Magic, just divine and psychic magic.
To this day I cannot fathom why “mind control” is considered more morally dubious than literally burning masses of people to death.
Or do that matter hacking them to death with a sword.
If you get burned to death, you're gone (barring resurrection/reincarnation)(*).
If you get mind-controlled, you could become the antithesis of everything you've ever stood for, and/or you could cause several other people to be gone.
(*)Or getting turned into an Undead or something similar, but generally involves an implicit and sometimes even explicit combinatino of death with mind control.
To this day I cannot fathom why “mind control” is considered more morally dubious than literally burning masses of people to death.
Or do that matter hacking them to death with a sword.If you get burned to death, you're gone (barring resurrection/reincarnation)(*).
If you get mind-controlled, you could become the antithesis of everything you've ever stood for, and/or you could cause several other people to be gone.
(*)Or getting turned into an Undead or something similar, but generally involves an implicit and sometimes even explicit combinatino of death with mind control.
Or you could be made to re-strain yourself and hand yourself over to the authorities, after allowing whomever is controlling you into your operational head quarters.
If you stab someone to death. They're dead.
If you incinerate tens of people, they're incinerated.
If you mind control someone they are suffering momentary loss of agency.
And thats the strongest kind of mind control available.
Could much more easily follow out one request one would usually not, treat someone briefly as a friend you would usually not, momentarily be paralyzed.
Mind control =/= Evil
You can do evil things with mind control.
But you can also do some pretty neutral things too.
A fireball is always for burning people
A sword for stabbing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they’d find watching those same people incinerated more objectionable surely?
And yet no-one storms I’m waving there morals around when someone makes an evoker.
“Give me liberty or give me death”
“It is better to die on one’s feet than it is to live on one’s knees”
And several other phrases like those but I’m short on time this morning. Yes, there are people for whom death is not as horrific as losing their agency. It’s more or less a foundational belief to a culture that has insinuated itself globally and holds massive societal influence.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also the practical fact that mind control is FAR, FAR more dangerous on a societal level.
You kill the king? Well, thats bad. But there are well known laws of succession and another noble steps in and there isn't any lasting danger (Absent Railroad Adventure Path Plot Shenanigans :-) :-))
Take over the mind of the king? Suddenly the kingdom is under somebody else's control. And NOBODY KNOWS IT.
Take the real world for a moment. There are constant stories that <political figure> is essentially a figurehead for <political figure/organization/conspiracy/etc>. And that is SCARY as it removes agency from the people, it means that we don't know who is in control, etc.
Mind Control is FAR scarier than just murder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And NOBODY KNOWS IT.
Well EVERYONE knows you cast a spell*: if the king starts acting weird, it shouldn't be hard to figure out why.
* Do to the FAQ on detecting spellcasting, EVERYONE within line of sight instantly knows you're casting a spell.
|
|
And NOBODY KNOWS IT.Well EVERYONE knows you cast a spell*: if the king starts acting weird, it shouldn't be hard to figure out why.
* Do to the FAQ on detecting spellcasting, EVERYONE within line of sight instantly knows you're casting a spell.
1) There are ways (post Ultimate Intrigue) around this so it is actually moderately easy to do it openly.
2) I don't expect the king to be mind controlled OPENLY. Somebody manages to sneak into his bed chamber, his trusted son does it, a Doppleganger replaces a member of the guard and does it, <Shenanigans> magic item does it, etc etc etc.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mind Control is FAR scarier than just murder.
It’s a potentially a more dangerous tool
But yet it has multiple applications, you can with great stealth care and trickery make a puppet monarchy.
But you can also do good things, peacefully too. A fireball will always be a fireball and it will always be for killing.
Edit: this is probably a derail in retrospect, there may be a better place for it
I feel like the key difference is that characters will often give (implied) consent to be in situations where others throw fireballs and stick swords in fleshy things, often because they initiated that sort of thing and are using the same tactics themselves.
It is nearly impossible to consent to being mind controlled to do something. So there's a difference between "we fireballed the orcs who were attacking the caravan so they left" and "we mind-controlled the orc chief to get him to murder his heir causing a succession/fit-to-rule crisis that had the orcs distracted so they didn't attack the caravan to begin with."
Plus, I mean, agency is held somewhat sacred by the players of the game, so denying it to others might seem unacceptable whereas "I refuse to get hit by fireballs" would get funny looks at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) There are ways (post Ultimate Intrigue) around this so it is actually moderately easy to do it openly.
While they DO exist, I have yet to see them actually used/taken [PC or NPC]. As such, I don't find them very relevant.
2) I don't expect the king to be mind controlled OPENLY. Somebody manages to sneak into his bed chamber, his trusted son does it, a Doppleganger replaces a member of the guard and does it, <Shenanigans> magic item does it, etc etc etc.
If someone can sneak into the kings chamber unnoticed, mind control is about the least evil thing that can happen. :P If a doppelganger can get through to the king, why can't they BE the king? add "<Shenanigans> magic item does it, etc etc etc."
I feel like the key difference is that characters will often give (implied) consent to be in situations where others throw fireballs and stick swords in fleshy things, often because they initiated that sort of thing and are using the same tactics themselves.
It is nearly impossible to consent to being mind controlled to do something. So there's a difference between "we fireballed the orcs who were attacking the caravan so they left" and "we mind-controlled the orc chief to get him to murder his heir causing a succession/fit-to-rule crisis that had the orcs distracted so they didn't attack the caravan to begin with."
Plus, I mean, agency is held somewhat sacred by the players of the game, so denying it to others might seem unacceptable whereas "I refuse to get hit by fireballs" would get funny looks at the table.
Last post on this derail. Can’t help my self.
You’re saying that if someone attacks you out of the blue, you must meet there force with like forces. E.g swords and fire meets swords and fire. Or you’re evil because they didn’t think you could fight them through an alternative means and weren’t prepared?
I’m sorry using means available to defend yourself from already actioned aggression doesn’t scream evil to me.
They lost the right to chose how you fight them when they attacked you.
Pre-emtively creating a coo in case they attack you is another beast entirely. Player agency is important to players yes, but I suspect if pushed to chose they’d rather lose there player agency than have the player stabbed to death.
Or you could be made to re-strain yourself and hand yourself over to the authorities, after allowing whomever is controlling you into your operational head quarters.To this day I cannot fathom why “mind control” is considered more morally dubious than literally burning masses of people to death.
Or do that matter hacking them to death with a sword.If you get burned to death, you're gone (barring resurrection/reincarnation)(*).
If you get mind-controlled, you could become the antithesis of everything you've ever stood for, and/or you could cause several other people to be gone.
(*)Or getting turned into an Undead or something similar, but generally involves an implicit and sometimes even explicit combinatino of death with mind control.
An awful lot of dystopian agencies and criminal organizations in our world would LOVE to be able to do this.
If you stab someone to death. They're dead.
If you incinerate tens of people, they're incinerated.
If you mind control someone they are suffering momentary loss of agency.
And can be made to kill multiple other people.
And thats the strongest kind of mind control available.
Ways exist to make mind control permanent. Most of them are quite far up the tech trees, but Modify Memory is available as early as 10th or 11th level (depending upon what kind of caster you are), and its shadow Memory Lapse is available as early as 1st level (I could have sworn this used to be 2nd level in 1st Edition AD&D, but still . . .).
Could much more easily follow out one request one would usually not, treat someone briefly as a friend you would usually not, momentarily be paralyzed.
Mind control =/= Evil
You can do evil things with mind control.
But you can also do some pretty neutral things too.A fireball is always for burning people
A sword for stabbing.
As has been pointed out, you can do neutral things with Fireballs and swords as well.
At least if you get hit with a Fireball or a sword, you know you've been hurt. If you get hit with Mind Control, you might know, or worse, you might even be compelled to seek out more of it (and in the worst case, even to spread it around).
As has been pointed out, you can do neutral things with Fireballs and swords as well.
It becomes MUCH harder to justify a spell like Explode Head... There isn't much 'good' it can do or other uses you can find. It a non-evil spell that blows up peoples heads...
^It's been said before but I'll say it again: Some of the choices of spells to receive or NOT receive the [Evil] descriptor are really weird . . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^It's been said before but I'll say it again: Some of the choices of spells to receive or NOT receive the [Evil] descriptor are really weird . . . .
Oh I agree. Pain Strike is evil because it "wracks the targeted creature with agony" but Inflict Pain isn't evil because you "wrack the target’s mind and body with agonizing pain"... So the moral is that you have to hit the body AND mind with agony to make it not evil. :P
...Back to the original topic...
For me it boils down to style and theme. In my opinion, Dreamscarred Press's updated/expanded psionics line is so much better than the occult themed "psychic magic" from paizo.
Part of it is that I hate venetian spellcasting, so the power point system is a better option.
Part of it is that when I think of "psychic or mental magic" I don't associate it with occult themes, but with strength of mind and force of will.
And part of it is that the occult classes don't actually feel like distict, seperate classes to me. Each one could easily be an archtype added to an existing spellcaster. Whereas the psionic classes all feel like they deserve to be a full-fledged class.
Again these are just my opinions on the subject, feel free to agree or disagree as you desire.
Part of it is that I hate venetian spellcasting, so the power point system is a better option.
Actually Occult Bestiary and Bestiary 5 & 6 use a point based system for the spells of some monsters. It's called psychic energy, in short PE. Couldn't find any player option for that, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fireball will always be a fireball and it will always be for killing.
Wait... Are saying you can't think of any use for a spell that creates (and aims) huge amounts of fire?!
That's like saying that knives are only good for stabbing and explosives are only good for bombing people.