|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just realized they said there will be 4 spell list...
Wizard/Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Bard~~~ wait a minute! That's 6 class spell list that's needed!?
So... People, what will happen with magic?
Will some class lose their spell casting ability?
Will some class end up using the same list as others, but maybe with some limitations in the max level they can reach?
Speculations:
I'm pretty sure Wizard and Sorcerer will still use the same list. That's one. Could be simply called "Arcane Magic".
Druid and rangers could end up with the same list, as they both have a "nature" theme. They could have the same list called "Nature Magic"
Cleric and Paladins could also use the same list, but with Paladin not reaching high level. That one would be "Divine Magic"
Then, we have Bards left. They have some unique spells and an healthy mix of spells from the Wizard and Cleric lists... He could have his own, and it could be called "Hedge Magic", and I could see the Witch get access to it later on.
...
But that's just my idea. I'm VERY curious how they'll handle this.
What are your opinions on that, fellow forumites?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope Paladins and Rangers don't get spells at all. Just take all the things spells normally do and make them class features. They're rarely powerful enough to be worth the limited cost, and when they are they're so powerful they may as well just be core features or eliminated altogether.
|
|
I have no idea what to expect, but I'm very curious to hear more from Paizo ...
Yeah, me too!
(BTW, I want to impress that I'm not worried about the missing lists, I'm just really curious and exited. I also don't think I saw anyone else talk about it... so I wanted to confirm if I was crazy or if there was really something here!)
I hope Paladins and Rangers don't get spells at all. Just take all the things spells normally do and make them class features. They're rarely powerful enough to be worth the limited cost, and when they are they're so powerful they may as well just be core features or eliminated altogether.
Yeah, last time I tried to build a Ranger, I really tried to make him without spells, but it was hard...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other possibility with the Bard would be that the Bard, like the Alchemist, will become a non-spellcasting class, perhaps with expanded Bardic performance abilities, and maybe with features that make using wands and scrolls possible without being able to cast the spells?
|
|
The other possibility with the Bard would be that the Bard, like the Alchemist, will become a non-spellcasting class, perhaps with expanded Bardic performance abilities, and maybe with features that make using wands and scrolls possible without being able to cast the spells?
That's possible too. But then, we still need at least one class to either lose spells or be rolled with another one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have been staying very quiet about this, several people have suggested occult as an option but it would make sense to save that for a late book. I really like the sound of hedge magic though, that seems really fitting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have been staying very quiet about this, several people have suggested occult as an option but it would make sense to save that for a late book. I really like the sound of hedge magic though, that seems really fitting.
Yeah, I really like the term and the lore it invoke in my mind. :3
That's why I like Varisia, as that theme is pretty much infused in their traditions.Hedge Magic is also usually a more "subtle" use of magic, more "manipulation", and less "BOOM". Which usually fit both the bard and the Witch. :P (even if the Bard himself is pretty much "in yo' face", his magic is less so, if we ignore Blistering Invective)
(BTW, that spell NEED to stay in PF2, it's just too awesome)
The most likely spell list options are Bard, Cleric/Paladin, Druid/Ranger, and Sorcerer/Wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really hate to see ranger and paladin just get crappy versions of the cleric and druid spell lists. Be better if they get some other set of abilities to represent their magical abilities, but I'd honestly prefer them to get their own spell lists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping for a reduction in spells lists. It isn't mentioned much, but spell lists were kind of a problematic element from a design point of view. With something like 20 different lists, it made allocating spells a disaster and often left newer casters in the dust.
Yeah, I hope we can maintain fewer spell lists this time around.
I really really hope that the Bard and Witch get to continue to dabble in all spell lists.
I'm slightly surprised they picked four for Core. Arcane, Divine, Nature cover what I expect in core, depending how they deal with bard. With each spell list having multiple classes that pull for it -- it sets a good precedent for not needing to create a new list each time they add a new class. They'd probably need to add a fourth Occult/Psionic/Mental however they want to deal with it later, but there's no core class that pulls from there (and I don't see that as Bard's).
Keeping spell lists in check also means that any prestige classes, archetypes or whatever that pick up spellcasting aren't forgotten in future supplements that add more spells. They can't be, because just like a wizard or cleric, they will get new spells when they are added to the parent lists.
As for the fourth list, with the classes that are in the CRB it pretty much has to be for the Bard unless they did something completely out of left field like merge the Sorcerer and the Psychic. But it could still be the Psychic list, since most of the core bard stuff is various forms of mentalism whether as attacks, buffs, debuffs or whatever. The bard could very well keep its "jack of all trades" flavor through the simple expedient of an Advanced Learning class feature that at every level or every other level lets them pick one spell from any other spell list.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They've implied some people can cast more now, so Bard may be a full caster. That'd explain them getting their own list.
But yeah, I expect it's Bard, Wizard/Sorcerer, Cleric, and Druid (or Generalist, Arcane, Divine, and Nature depending on how they decide to define it). Psychic will be its own list and separate when it shows up.
Other Classes will probably get either full or reduced casting from one of those lists (Witch might well get Generalist and the same list as Bard, for example while Ranger would get reduced Nature list casting).
Spell List Proliferation was indeed definitely a problem in PF1 and one I hope they avoid in PF2.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the Know Direction livestream right now, Jason is asked about 4 spell lists. His response: "Yeah, there's 4 spell lists. That's interesting!"
He adds: "I think there are some folks who have guessed the direction we're heading with that." And says that it's not all that hard to figure out.
|
|
On the Know Direction livestream right now, Jason is asked about 4 spell lists. His response: "Yeah, there's 4 spell lists. That's interesting!"
He adds: "I think there are some folks who have guessed the direction we're heading with that." And says that it's not all that hard to figure out.
Oh! There's a livestream now? Thanks for the report!
Well, I'm happy there seems to be many thinking the same way I am, and combining with what Jason said, that may mean we're in the right direction! (I'm pretty sure he didn't mean my thread, as it's not been up long enough, but eh, I'd still be happy to have guessed right! )|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the Know Direction livestream right now, Jason is asked about 4 spell lists. His response: "Yeah, there's 4 spell lists. That's interesting!"
He adds: "I think there are some folks who have guessed the direction we're heading with that." And says that it's not all that hard to figure out.
Oh! There's a livestream now? Thanks for the report!
Well, I'm happy there seems to be many thinking the same way I am, and combining with what Jason said, that may mean we're in the right direction! (I'm pretty sure he didn't mean my thread, as it's not been up long enough, but eh, I'd still be happy to have guessed right! )
I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Jason had read the thread. He mentioned a previous interview (the Paizo Twitch livestream from either last Friday or the week before) that he had read "thousands and thousands" of forum posts since the Playtest was announced and that he was trying to keep on top of the forum, and that the forums are generally a really good way to "get information in" to Paizo even if no Paizo staff specifically responds to something. So my impression is that Paizo folk are lurking a lot even if not posting.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope Paladins and Rangers don't get spells at all. Just take all the things spells normally do and make them class features. They're rarely powerful enough to be worth the limited cost, and when they are they're so powerful they may as well just be core features or eliminated altogether.I'm hoping for the opposite. Give them Cleric/Druid spells up to 6th level.
With the attack proficiency resulting attack bonuses being a bit closer to each other, they could probably use it.
Yeah. D&D 5e did the same thing. It's alright, but that's a lot of spellcasting to balance around, and as a Paladin 9 times out of 10 you're just better off spending spell slots to Smite. I feel like they could have given paladins Warlock-style spell slots and used that as a smite pool and been done with it.
I just feel like, if Paladin and Ranger have spellcasting, they're too closely related to other classes. Give them unique abilities rather than having them piggyback on the shoulders of full casters.
|
|
I hope Paladins and Rangers don't get spells at all. Just take all the things spells normally do and make them class features. They're rarely powerful enough to be worth the limited cost, and when they are they're so powerful they may as well just be core features or eliminated altogether.I'm hoping for the opposite. Give them Cleric/Druid spells up to 6th level.
With the attack proficiency resulting attack bonuses being a bit closer to each other, they could probably use it.
Yeah. D&D 5e did the same thing. It's alright, but that's a lot of spellcasting to balance around, and as a Paladin 9 times out of 10 you're just better off spending spell slots to Smite. I feel like they could have given paladins Warlock-style spell slots and used that as a smite pool and been done with it.
I just feel like, if Paladin and Ranger have spellcasting, they're too closely related to other classes. Give them unique abilities rather than having them piggyback on the shoulders of full casters.
I don't mind them having spells, but I would like them to have interesting archetypes that remove the spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doing a quick scan through this thread, I'd have to say I'm on the Arcane/Divine/Nature/Psionic bandwagon. It would be nice to see the inclusion of a Psionic class right out the gate.
As for what this would mean for Ranger, Paladin, and Bard... well as an aside it would curious to see one or more of them be moved to archetypes of other classes... but more importantly I see their spell casting ability be moved to the Class Feat section of their classes. This means that easier for the player to choose whether or not they want to be a spell casting variant of the class... would also make it a lot easier to port the Ranger and Bard over to a no magic setting.
Also, I kinda think it would be interesting if the Bard, either by default or through archetypes, could choose which of the spell lists they cast from. The Bard is the jack of all trades, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope that there will be plenty of spells on more than one spell list. For example, I have an Inquisitor that focuses on ranged attacks. I'd love to have Gravity Bow as one of her spells, but I can't do that without taking a level in Sorcerer or Wizard or take 4 levels of Ranger. Or buy a wand of Gravity Bow and constantly do UMD checks.
Doing a quick scan through this thread, I'd have to say I'm on the Arcane/Divine/Nature/Psionic bandwagon. It would be nice to see the inclusion of a Psionic class right out the gate.
As for what this would mean for Ranger, Paladin, and Bard... well as an aside it would curious to see one or more of them be moved to archetypes of other classes... but more importantly I see their spell casting ability be moved to the Class Feat section of their classes. This means that easier for the player to choose whether or not they want to be a spell casting variant of the class... would also make it a lot easier to port the Ranger and Bard over to a no magic setting.
Also, I kinda think it would be interesting if the Bard, either by default or through archetypes, could choose which of the spell lists they cast from. The Bard is the jack of all trades, after all.
I'm pulling for the Bard to be the Psychic class, but your idea is good as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they were to include a psychic spell list in the core rulebook, they would need to have a class that casts from it. Bards (whose spells historically have always had vocal components and cannot be cast silently) are about as far from psychic spellcasting as you can get.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they were to include a psychic spell list in the core rulebook, they would need to have a class that casts from it. Bards (whose spells historically have always had vocal components and cannot be cast silently) are about as far from psychic spellcasting as you can get.
Yeah... I'm still betting on the 4th list being a hodgepodge of the others targeted at the Bard and the new Witch they'll release in the future.
But I'm pretty sure a Psychic list will come very soon after.I just hope that there will be plenty of spells on more than one spell list. For example, I have an Inquisitor that focuses on ranged attacks. I'd love to have Gravity Bow as one of her spells, but I can't do that without taking a level in Sorcerer or Wizard or take 4 levels of Ranger. Or buy a wand of Gravity Bow and constantly do UMD checks.
Ooh! Yeah... Inquisitor is a weird one in their spells... These spell lists wouldn't quite word with it.. The most logical would be the Divine list, but they tend to have more... unique spells too. :/
I think that the limitation of four spell lists is only definite for the playtest rules, highly likely (barring issues discovered during the playtest) for the official core rulebook, and no longer applicable at all when they get to future rulebooks with new spellcasting classes. They need to leave room for that future growth, but they don't need to publish any spell lists before they have at least one class that can cast from them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This pretty much guarantees that Paladins will be "shortchanged Clerics" and Rangers will be "shortchanged Druids" as far as spells go.
That's a giant disappointment, afaiac.
Makes me remember how awful the stunted Sorcerer list for Bloodrager felt - by the time you got access to a spell, the character level was high enough that the spells sucked! (Level 13 before you can get Fire Shield?? That's AWFUL :( )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on how they handle the few spells that were unique to rangers and paladins.
It should not take much space to stuff class-unique spells into their respective class' section rather than in the main spells section.
If those spells become class feat(ure)s, for example.
Or if they are dependent upon the character's patron deity, limiting whatever spells specifically to paladins/rangers that follow X Gawd(dess).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they were to include a psychic spell list in the core rulebook, they would need to have a class that casts from it. Bards (whose spells historically have always had vocal components and cannot be cast silently) are about as far from psychic spellcasting as you can get.
You're mixing up mechanics with flavor. Remember that Paizo's psychic magic is NOT the same thing as 3.5/Dreamscarred's psionic power system. All of the psychic casters from PF1's Occult Adventures still used verbal and somatic components in their spells... it's just the flavor of the spells / spell lists that was different.
Besides, the execution of "how you cast a spell" is in fact something that could be handled by class features of various classes. If they want the Psychic class to cast psychic spells by pure act of will with no verbal or somatic components, that can just be a class feature of the Psychic class, while a Bard still uses very obvious performance as they cast the same spells. If they want the Witch to use all the random-ass material components like bat guano for a fireball while Wizards get to focus their spells through an implement like a rod or staff, but they're both on the Arcane list, that's easily handled by class features.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Erm ... psychic spells do not use V, S components - they use E, T (emotion and thought) components in place of verbal and somatic components.
The worst thing for a psychic spell caster to do is fail a save against a fear effect as it nearly cripples their ability to cast their spells...
Having said that, I love your suggestions re: variations of required components. Witches smearing goop and uttering bizarre chants in Aklo; Wizards uttering Draconic "words of arcane power" whilst channeling eldritch power through [arcane focus] ... good times.
This pretty much guarantees that Paladins will be "shortchanged Clerics" and Rangers will be "shortchanged Druids" as far as spells go.
That's a giant disappointment, afaiac.
Makes me remember how awful the stunted Sorcerer list for Bloodrager felt - by the time you got access to a spell, the character level was high enough that the spells sucked! (Level 13 before you can get Fire Shield?? That's AWFUL :( )
If nothing else changed, sure.
But now, spells always have scaling DCs. So all those spells that would have been useless are actually handy for a change. A Paladin being able to command somebody to halt where they are is pretty stylish.
All of the psychic casters from PF1's Occult Adventures still used verbal and somatic components in their spells...
My copy of Occult Adventures begs to differ:
psychic spells never have verbal or somatic components, and have only expensive material components.
...Instead of verbal and somatic components, all psychic spells have components related to the caster’s inner being. The two psychic components are called emotion components and thought components. If a spell’s components line lists a somatic component, that spell instead requires an emotion component when cast by psychic spellcasters, and if it has a verbal component, it instead requires a thought component when cast by psychic spellcasters. Psychic spells cast by non-psychic arcane and divine casters use any listed somatic and verbal components as normal.
(Page 144)
Psychic casters do not use somatic or verbal components, but all spells are listed with somatic and verbal components instead of thought and emotion because non-psychic casters may be able to cast them, including that one Occultist Archetype that is a divine caster and is the only person who will ever need the listed material component to cast etheric shards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pulling for the Bard to be the Psychic class, but your idea is good as well.
Also, I kinda think it would be interesting if the Bard, either by default or through archetypes, could choose which of the spell lists they cast from. The Bard is the jack of all trades, after all.
A second thought that came to me after walking away from this thread for a little bit... what about Sorcerers? In D&D 3.5 they are just spontaneous caster versions of the Wizard. But Pathfinder 1.0 really played up their bloodline powers.
If Pathfinder 2.0 does the same then you could have dragon bloodline Sorcerers who are arcane casters, celestial or fiend bloodline Sorcerers who are divine casters, fey bloodline Sorcerers who are nature casters, and aberration bloodline Sorcerers who are psionic casters. It could be interesting. That that is just sticking to the most obvious parings. There is room for fey or fiends to be arcane, celestial to be nature, dragon or fiend to be psionic.
This pretty much guarantees that Paladins will be "shortchanged Clerics" and Rangers will be "shortchanged Druids" as far as spells go.
That's a giant disappointment, afaiac.
Makes me remember how awful the stunted Sorcerer list for Bloodrager felt - by the time you got access to a spell, the character level was high enough that the spells sucked! (Level 13 before you can get Fire Shield?? That's AWFUL :( )
That is part of the reason I'm hoping Paladins and Rangers have their spell casting ability behind class feats. You can choose to ignore, dip, or deep dive at your discretion. Also, based on the proficiency system and some of the talk they've had about base attack bonuses, I expect caster levels and spell resistance will be handled with more finesse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of the psychic casters from PF1's Occult Adventures still used verbal and somatic components in their spells...My copy of Occult Adventures begs to differ:
psychic spells never have verbal or somatic components, and have only expensive material components.
...Instead of verbal and somatic components, all psychic spells have components related to the caster’s inner being. The two psychic components are called emotion components and thought components. If a spell’s components line lists a somatic component, that spell instead requires an emotion component when cast by psychic spellcasters, and if it has a verbal component, it instead requires a thought component when cast by psychic spellcasters. Psychic spells cast by non-psychic arcane and divine casters use any listed somatic and verbal components as normal.
(Page 144)
Psychic casters do not use somatic or verbal components, but all spells are listed with somatic and verbal components instead of thought and emotion because non-psychic casters may be able to cast them, including that one Occultist Archetype that is a divine caster and is the only person who will ever need the listed material component to cast etheric shards.
Again, that really just comes down to class features. It's simple to throw in a line that "class X replaces Somatic components with Emotion components and Verbal components with Thought components." Or that "Witch replaces Focus components with Material components." Or whatever other tweak to make two classes accessing the same list feel distinct from each other.
|
|
Again, that really just comes down to class features. It's simple to throw in a line that "class X replaces Somatic components with Emotion components and Verbal components with Thought components." Or that "Witch replaces Focus components with Material components." Or whatever other tweak to make two classes accessing the same list feel distinct from each other.All of the psychic casters from PF1's Occult Adventures still used verbal and somatic components in their spells...My copy of Occult Adventures begs to differ:
psychic spells never have verbal or somatic components, and have only expensive material components.
...Instead of verbal and somatic components, all psychic spells have components related to the caster’s inner being. The two psychic components are called emotion components and thought components. If a spell’s components line lists a somatic component, that spell instead requires an emotion component when cast by psychic spellcasters, and if it has a verbal component, it instead requires a thought component when cast by psychic spellcasters. Psychic spells cast by non-psychic arcane and divine casters use any listed somatic and verbal components as normal.
(Page 144)
Psychic casters do not use somatic or verbal components, but all spells are listed with somatic and verbal components instead of thought and emotion because non-psychic casters may be able to cast them, including that one Occultist Archetype that is a divine caster and is the only person who will ever need the listed material component to cast etheric shards.
Yep. I agree. But I don't think the list will be in the corebook, and they have enough unique spells to have their own list. :)
(I don't think you ever said your opinion on that point in this thread. I'm just saying my position on the original point of the argument. Also, it could be interesting to see other swap of actions, but it may be too much. One kind of swap is already complicated enough that some pêople got it mixed up.)| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they were to include a psychic spell list in the core rulebook, they would need to have a class that casts from it. Bards (whose spells historically have always had vocal components and cannot be cast silently) are about as far from psychic spellcasting as you can get.
Yeah... I'm still betting on the 4th list being a hodgepodge of the others targeted at the Bard and the new Witch they'll release in the future.
But I'm pretty sure a Psychic list will come very soon after.I just hope that there will be plenty of spells on more than one spell list. For example, I have an Inquisitor that focuses on ranged attacks. I'd love to have Gravity Bow as one of her spells, but I can't do that without taking a level in Sorcerer or Wizard or take 4 levels of Ranger. Or buy a wand of Gravity Bow and constantly do UMD checks.Ooh! Yeah... Inquisitor is a weird one in their spells... These spell lists wouldn't quite word with it.. The most logical would be the Divine list, but they tend to have more... unique spells too. :/
This is one of the problems with having only a few spell lists. Some classes really do need a custom list to fit the theme of their class. Inquisitors really deserve a list dedicated to seek and destroy, along with divine punishments. Summoners should have a summon, teleport and buff focus. And while both witch and bard straddle the divine/arcane divide, I don't think it really fits to give them the same list. None of these really work with just getting a different list up to a certain level.
So I am a bit wary of having so few lists. Although I do like the idea of keeping them from having the crazy inflation that PF1 did which as has been said, did tend to leave some of the newer classes behind with oversights in spells they should have had. For just the core classes, four lists might work ok, I am a bit concerned about Ranger and Paladin being left with just the crappy spells though.
But I can see room for several more lists when you bring in other PF1 classes. Off the top of my head I'd think Inquisitor, Summoner, Witch, Magus, Psychic. Magus might be able to work with the first x levels of wizard. The occult classes might be able to share the psychic list, but I'm not sure. I don't know them as well but I'd think they would be best with their own specializations. It might be possible to give lists limited to arcane schools, like summoners get the wizard list to level 7 but only conjuration, abjuration and maybe transmutation. Although I like the way they get some spells at lower levels like how teleport is a 4th level spell for summoners while a 5th for wizards (the Unchained summoner got it moved to 5th, but I never liked that version).
I'm also pretty sure it will be Arcane/Divine/Nature/Bard, with Bard being called Universal or something like that.
While it seems extremely unlikely, it would be interesting if the "Universal" casters like Bard and Witch simply have access to both the Arcane and the Divine spell lists. Or maybe Arcane/Nature for the Witch.
Their spellcasting would need to be limited of course, with fewer spells per day or something, shifting them to rely more on their other abilities like Hexes and Performance. Their access to spells could also be limited by school. No Necromancy and Evocation for the Bard, no Illusion and Evocation for the Witch. Something like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would help if this go 'round every spell list was broken down by school instead of just the 'arcane' list.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually quite prefer a 'Generalist' list with bits of everything but some sharp limits, especially on area offensive spells, and worse healing than the Divine list, as a good fit for Bards and Witches (and maybe another class or two). Having Bards and Witches on the same list also very definitely makes sense since both draw significant power from their non-spell abilities (Performance and Hexes respectively).
If Bards were full casters that'd also give that list an Int-based Prepared Caster and a Cha-based Spontaneous Caster, neatly fitting the pattern established by other spell lists.
I guess Bards will have their own list, because it makes sense that they have a few spells that are specific to them.
Yeah 80% sure what Deadmanwalking said is true. Arcane, nature, divine and generalist.
But could generalist actually be the alchemist list? Then bards will simply have 3/4 arcane progression?
Rangers and paladins will get up to 5th level spells ofcourse. Provided their proficiencies are good and maybe even if they can combine their spellcasting with their attacks things will be nioce.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry John John but Alchemists Are Not Casters, they create Alchemical Items, like elixirs and bombs, and potentially at lvl 18, Potions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that Jason said it wasn’t hard to figure out is enough to make me consider Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard all but certain. That’s the most obvious. No setting up for occult classes in the future or sneaking the Witch’s list in early. We’ll get more lists in later books for the classes that need them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the suggested name "Hedge spells".
I think all the things that make a Bard stand out as a Bard, and a Witch stand out as a Witch, etc, need to be covered by things that aren't on their spell list. The Paladin has a set of uniquely Paladinish things that only they can do. That way, a higher level wizard can't be a better Paladin than the Paladin, because they'll never have access to those things.