| David knott 242 |
David knott 242 wrote:I don’t know the original source, but yesterday’s Know Direction on Twitch brought it up.Anyway -- Where are you guys getting the idea that there will only ever be four spell lists, ever? I do not recall seeing anyone from Paizo suggest anything of this sort.
I heard that Twitch broadcast. Jason said very little about the four spell lists other than they were "interesting". We still do not know enough about them to conclude that Paizo won't add more spell lists in future books.
| QuidEst |
QuidEst wrote:David knott 242 wrote:I don’t know the original source, but yesterday’s Know Direction on Twitch brought it up.Anyway -- Where are you guys getting the idea that there will only ever be four spell lists, ever? I do not recall seeing anyone from Paizo suggest anything of this sort.
I heard that Twitch broadcast. Jason said very little about the four spell lists other than they were "interesting". We still do not know enough about them to conclude that Paizo won't add more spell lists in future books.
Oh, I misread what you said, my apologies.
Yeah, there’s no way it’s going to be just four lists ever.
| edduardco |
Anyway -- Where are you guys getting the idea that there will only ever be four spell lists, ever? I do not recall seeing anyone from Paizo suggest anything of this sort.
From the Playtest announcement page
EDIT: I misread too, but only having four spell list will be easier for designers
| David knott 242 |
Let us recall what happened in the Advanced Class Guide playtest. There, the goal was to add ten new classes without adding any new spell lists. Here is the final score:
Arcanist: Used sorcerer/wizard list. Success.
Bloodrager: Originally used magus list, but ended up getting its own spell list. Failure.
Brawler: Non-spellcaster.
Hunter: Used alchemist formula list. Success.
Investigator: Used composite of druid and ranger spell lists. Success.
Shaman: Playtest tried cleric and druid spell lists in turn before settling on a new spell list. Failure.
Skald: Used bard spell list. Success.
Slayer: Non-spellcaster.
Swashbuckler: Non-spellcaster.
Warpriest: Used cleric spell list. Success.
So in that case, the playtest resulted in the addition of two new spell lists when none were originally intended.
It remains to be seen how well any plans to have classes that used to have separate spell lists share common spell lists works out in the new playtest.
| WhiteMagus2000 |
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 disagree. Just a bit of magic with my rangers has been a great benefit, when used right. People constantly cry that fighters, without any innate magic, can't deal with even basic obstacles and supernatural tricks, such as walls, water hazards, invisibility, etc. With the right spells, my rangers can usually get past these kind of things, and I'd really hate to lose that, in exchange for some lame ass feature like a constant know direction effect.
Resist Energy, Air Bubble, Keep Watch, Speak with Animals, and Glide have each gotten me past obstacles in the past, and you get them all at only level 4. Their later utility and buff spells have been really useful to me and I'd hate to see them go, at least not in exchange for some crappy cantrip or skill focus.