Druid, and other PaizoCon banquet information!


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

I think that rangers will probably just have spell points, rather than spells, as the Paladin does.

I think it seems more likely that Sorcerers will just have the arcane list.

I think that Bards are the most likely to get the Occult list. It would be strange if bards became full casters. But it would also be weird if they were not casters at all.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It could be that with the occult spell list, none of the classes use it directly, but maybe an archetype or two changes which lists the class gets its spells from. Plus future proofing for updates later rather than a tack on after the fact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malthraz wrote:

I think that rangers will probably just have spell points, rather than spells, as the Paladin does.

I think it seems more likely that Sorcerers will just have the arcane list.

I think that Bards are the most likely to get the Occult list. It would be strange if bards became full casters. But it would also be weird if they were not casters at all.

When the question of Spontaneous Casters were brought up, the audience was told to wait for Bards and Sorcerers. Pretty sure they're still casters.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
There are only two colors of spell icons on that page of the book, and no other seeming way to determine spell list. Disintegrate, Dispel Magic, Disrupt Undead, and Dinosaur Form are the same color (they are black), as are Discern Lies, Disjunction, Dirge of Doom, and Discern Location (they are red). This is interesting. I have no earthly idea what it means, mind you, but it's interesting.

My guess is that the colors are for the Essences

Based on the examples you provided, I would say Black is Material while Red is Vital

Liberty's Edge

The Raven Black wrote:
My guess is that the colors are for the Essences

That's my current theory, I guess. That page only has two options on it which makes that weird, but I guess it makes sense.

The Raven Black wrote:
Based on the examples you provided, I would say Black is Material while Red is Vital

This would mean Clerics lack Dispel Magic and Wizards lack Disjunction (the latter is way weirder, and the one I think is likely untrue).

I think it's more likely Black is Material and Red is Mental, meaning all these spells are available to a Wizard (while the Black ones would also be available to Druids, who presumably get Material and Vital).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

*scratches head*

So what’s the difference between Essences and Designations like Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult?


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Items seem to have the color distinction as well, I've seen black and red, as well as orange as a third color on the equipment page spread.

I think coding information only in the background color of these level indicator is a mistake though. People with color blindness may not be able to discern that information.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rysky wrote:

*scratches head*

So what’s the difference between Essences and Designations like Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult?

I think I remember Mark saying on one of the panels that the essences are more of an informal grouping used in design than an actual game mechanic.

I may be wrong, though. If essences are an actual game mechanic, the current theory is that each of the spell lists collects the spells from two of the essences.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
MusicAddict wrote:
When they went over magic items during the banquet, the Phylactery of the Occult spoiled what the last list of spells will be. We know of Arcane and Divine, they confirmed that Primal is the third list, and they said they wanted to keep the 4th list under wraps for a while longer, but the grater version grants dream message as an innate OCCULT spell. Unless that this is meant to define a 5th category of spells that won't be used by any of the core classes by default, this is our 4th and final list.

I'm not convinced occult here indicated the fourth spell list. Why would you need to point a spell list for the a spell that you gain through an item? What would be the relevance of that information?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

*scratches head*

So what’s the difference between Essences and Designations like Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult?

We have absolutely no idea.

One theory is that spells are actually listed by Essence rather than Class List, with the 'Arcane List' being all Mental and Material Spells, and so on and so forth (Divine would be Spiritual and Vital, Primal probably Material and Vital, and Occult maybe Mental and Vital if it's the Witch/Bard list). Spell List would then be a term of slightly divergent meaning from PF1, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

But that's a theory with no real evidence to back it up.

Another possibility is that it's purely thematic, with no technical bearing on game rules at all, simply a set of categorizations used for world lore.

Liberty's Edge

Zaister wrote:
I'm not convinced occult here indicated the fourth spell lost. Why would you need to point a spell list for the a spell that you gain through an item? What would be the relevance of that information?

Several game rules in PF1 make a distinction between types of magic. Arcane Sight can determine whether magic is arcane or divine at a glance, you need scrolls of the right sort to function properly, and several other examples like that.

Given that the Redcap's ability to get deadlier by dipping their hat in blood is specified as Arcane, such distinctions seem likely to be even more important in the new edition.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

True, but I'm still not convinced.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

IIRC, Arcane and its brethren, called traditions in the blog on spells, are spell-lists. Wizard casts from the Arcane list, Cleric from the Divine list

Essences are described as the building blocks of the universe. The examples given in the blog show that Arcane and Divine "blend" 2 essences each

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So at this point would it be more accurate to say Traditions are descriptors for the caster and Essences are descriptors for the spell lists?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Zaister wrote:
I'm not convinced occult here indicated the fourth spell lost. Why would you need to point a spell list for the a spell that you gain through an item? What would be the relevance of that information?

Several game rules in PF1 make a distinction between types of magic. Arcane Sight can determine whether magic is arcane or divine at a glance, you need scrolls of the right sort to function properly, and several other examples like that.

Given that the Redcap's ability to get deadlier by dipping their hat in blood is specified as Arcane, such distinctions seem likely to be even more important in the new edition.

Which distinctions do we have so far, is it Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal? Are those also the titles of the different Spell Lists?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
So at this point would it be more accurate to say Traditions are descriptors for the caster and Essences are descriptors for the spell lists?

I would say Traditions for the Classes, including spell-lists, and Essences for the spells

Which sounds odd though because IIRC native spell abilities and magic items mention Traditions rather than Essences

Liberty's Edge

Weather Report wrote:
Which distinctions do we have so far, is it Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal? Are those also the titles of the different Spell Lists?

That seems to be the case, yes. Technically, Occult is speculative, but I find the evidence compelling.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Which distinctions do we have so far, is it Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal? Are those also the titles of the different Spell Lists?
That seems to be the case, yes. Technically, Occult is speculative, but I find the evidence compelling.

Right on, thanks, I wonder if they originally went with Psychic, but decided on Occult. Interesting that they brought in Primal, it's pretty cool in 4th Ed (nice way to separate druid from cleric), though calling Barbarian powers "evocations" seems wrong, ha.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Rysky wrote:
So at this point would it be more accurate to say Traditions are descriptors for the caster and Essences are descriptors for the spell lists?

I would say Traditions for the Classes, including spell-lists, and Essences for the spells

Which sounds odd though because IIRC native spell abilities and magic items mention Traditions rather than Essences

*nods*

I'ze confused :3


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I am wondering also if occult is being established here so further classes can specialize in it. Occult could just be a rebranding of Psychic. It seems to me very odd if Bards or Sorcerers were occult, especially Bards. I could see Witches, but they are not in the playtest

IF we get a double-sized Bestiary, they might want Occult around just so they can make monsters that reference those rules, without having to recreate slightly different creatures whenever Psychic magic was fully introduced into the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like that pretty well my prediction that you wouldn't need the shifter class if the druid has a shape shifting specialization holds out and pretty well their we go!


MMCJawa wrote:

I am wondering also if occult is being established here so further classes can specialize in it. Occult could just be a rebranding of Psychic. It seems to me very odd if Bards or Sorcerers were occult, especially Bards. I could see Witches, but they are not in the playtest

IF we get a double-sized Bestiary, they might want Occult around just so they can make monsters that reference those rules, without having to recreate slightly different creatures whenever Psychic magic was fully introduced into the system.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, they have used the term Occult to replace Psychic, maybe they felt Psychic is still a bit too sci-fi for some purposes. I really like the Occultist and Spiritualist classes, and looks like at least one of those is on the horizon.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I like that pretty well my prediction that you wouldn't need the shifter class if the druid has a shape shifting specialization holds out and pretty well their we go!

Sure, but isn't there a large group of people who want a spelless shape shifter? I assume that was the reason the class was made in pf1 more so then the full bab... getting it at level 1 was probably also pretty important, though the shifter class didn't get that, but no reason they shouldn't get it here if druid already can.


Dead Phoenix wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I like that pretty well my prediction that you wouldn't need the shifter class if the druid has a shape shifting specialization holds out and pretty well their we go!
Sure, but isn't there a large group of people who want a spelless shape shifter? I assume that was the reason the class was made in pf1 more so then the full bab... getting it at level 1 was probably also pretty important, though the shifter class didn't get that, but no reason they shouldn't get it here if druid already can.

You might be right but a class focused on shape shifting if they gets some spells isn't that rally just gravy at that point? I guess They could make an even better shape shifting class but I guess I'll have to see the complete collection of options for the druid.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Dead Phoenix wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I like that pretty well my prediction that you wouldn't need the shifter class if the druid has a shape shifting specialization holds out and pretty well their we go!
Sure, but isn't there a large group of people who want a spelless shape shifter? I assume that was the reason the class was made in pf1 more so then the full bab... getting it at level 1 was probably also pretty important, though the shifter class didn't get that, but no reason they shouldn't get it here if druid already can.
You might be right but a class focused on shape shifting if they gets some spells isn't that rally just gravy at that point? I guess They could make an even better shape shifting class but I guess I'll have to see the complete collection of options for the druid.

I certainly won't complain about having spells, but we all know there are some people who avoid them like the plague, prepared spells even more so. I also think there is a lot of design room for the aspect system shifter had in Pf1 for them to mess with that maybe the druid wouldn't mess with so much... and maybe this time let people actually make their bearowl shifter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Dead Phoenix wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I like that pretty well my prediction that you wouldn't need the shifter class if the druid has a shape shifting specialization holds out and pretty well their we go!
Sure, but isn't there a large group of people who want a spelless shape shifter? I assume that was the reason the class was made in pf1 more so then the full bab... getting it at level 1 was probably also pretty important, though the shifter class didn't get that, but no reason they shouldn't get it here if druid already can.

This.

What I want from a shifter class is a focus on shape shifting without spells and other druid doodads

A druid that is just a bit focused on shapeshifting is still a druid, and not scratching that particular niche.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

I am wondering also if occult is being established here so further classes can specialize in it. Occult could just be a rebranding of Psychic. It seems to me very odd if Bards or Sorcerers were occult, especially Bards. I could see Witches, but they are not in the playtest

IF we get a double-sized Bestiary, they might want Occult around just so they can make monsters that reference those rules, without having to recreate slightly different creatures whenever Psychic magic was fully introduced into the system.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, they have used the term Occult to replace Psychic, maybe they felt Psychic is still a bit too sci-fi for some purposes. I really like the Occultist and Spiritualist classes, and looks like at least one of those is on the horizon.

My immediate thought was that they didn't want the psychic spell list to be confused with the psychic class, whenever those some day reappear. But then again Occult versus Occultist is hardly much better :P


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

I am wondering also if occult is being established here so further classes can specialize in it. Occult could just be a rebranding of Psychic. It seems to me very odd if Bards or Sorcerers were occult, especially Bards. I could see Witches, but they are not in the playtest

IF we get a double-sized Bestiary, they might want Occult around just so they can make monsters that reference those rules, without having to recreate slightly different creatures whenever Psychic magic was fully introduced into the system.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, they have used the term Occult to replace Psychic, maybe they felt Psychic is still a bit too sci-fi for some purposes. I really like the Occultist and Spiritualist classes, and looks like at least one of those is on the horizon.
My immediate thought was that they didn't want the psychic spell list to be confused with the psychic class, whenever those some day reappear. But then again Occult versus Occultist is hardly much better :P

With the new resonance system, it seems like the Occultist's mechanics are now just baked into the system, rather than something that would be its own class. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get a PF2 Occultist (though we might get a feat line or archetype that opens up some new options for things to do with Resonance).


Zaister wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
When they went over magic items during the banquet, the Phylactery of the Occult spoiled what the last list of spells will be. We know of Arcane and Divine, they confirmed that Primal is the third list, and they said they wanted to keep the 4th list under wraps for a while longer, but the grater version grants dream message as an innate OCCULT spell. Unless that this is meant to define a 5th category of spells that won't be used by any of the core classes by default, this is our 4th and final list.
I'm not convinced occult here indicated the fourth spell list. Why would you need to point a spell list for the a spell that you gain through an item? What would be the relevance of that information?

The first that comes to mind is resistances/immunities to specific types of magic. PF1 has a few abilities that resist or affect divine magic differently (for god hating outsiders, generally, but also Rahadoum feats) and one of the later dragons resists psychic magic as a class.

Feeblemind also made a distinction between the type of magic used by the target.


Brew Bird wrote:
With the new resonance system, it seems like the Occultist's mechanics are now just baked into the system, rather than something that would be its own class. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get a PF2 Occultist (though we might get a feat line or archetype that opens up some new options for things to do with Resonance).

I believe it was Mark who mentioned that resonance opens up an interesting design space for Occultist as king of resonance.

MMCJawa wrote:
My immediate thought was that they didn't want the psychic spell list to be confused with the psychic class, whenever those some day reappear. But then again Occult versus Occultist is hardly much better :P

At least it's not the exact same word- it's like arcane/Arcanist. Thinking about it, it's funny that a Diviner doesn't do anything with divine spells.

MMCJawa wrote:
I am wondering also if occult is being established here so further classes can specialize in it. Occult could just be a rebranding of Psychic. It seems to me very odd if Bards or Sorcerers were occult, especially Bards. I could see Witches, but they are not in the playtest

Well, they also mentioned that arcane casters use the arcane list. Between "the Bard uses the same list as Wizard" and "the Bard uses the same list as a future Psychic class will", I'm guessing the latter.

The Raven Black wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
There are only two colors of spell icons on that page of the book, and no other seeming way to determine spell list. Disintegrate, Dispel Magic, Disrupt Undead, and Dinosaur Form are the same color (they are black), as are Discern Lies, Disjunction, Dirge of Doom, and Discern Location (they are red). This is interesting. I have no earthly idea what it means, mind you, but it's interesting.

My guess is that the colors are for the Essences

Based on the examples you provided, I would say Black is Material while Red is Vital

That was my initial thought too, but on closer examination, I think I've found the real meaning! As Zaister mentioned, it would be a bad idea to include information only as color. Disintegrate, Dispel Magic, and Dinosaur Form are all spells we know can be heightened. Discern Lies, Discern Location, and Disjunction are all spells we know can't be heightened. It seems reasonable that Disrupt Undead (a cantrip) would heighten to do more damage, and it seems reasonable that Dirge of Doom (also a cantrip) would not get any benefit from heightening, since from what little we can read of it, it's an AoE frighten effect.

Items seem to have their own thing going on. I can't figure out a distinction that doesn't require exceptions. My guess is it's something to do with activation. The only orange item is Indestructible Shield (13 hardness, can't be dented or destroyed by anything short of a really high-damage disintegrate), and shields use reactions.


MMCJawa wrote:
Dead Phoenix wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I like that pretty well my prediction that you wouldn't need the shifter class if the druid has a shape shifting specialization holds out and pretty well their we go!
Sure, but isn't there a large group of people who want a spelless shape shifter? I assume that was the reason the class was made in pf1 more so then the full bab... getting it at level 1 was probably also pretty important, though the shifter class didn't get that, but no reason they shouldn't get it here if druid already can.

This.

What I want from a shifter class is a focus on shape shifting without spells and other druid doodads

A druid that is just a bit focused on shapeshifting is still a druid, and not scratching that particular niche.

Same. One option I suggested was to have some kind of Totemic "Rage feats" in core that let a Barbarian Wild Shape (even if limited) at a decently low level. Better than nothing if you don't like a Druid, right?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

I am wondering also if occult is being established here so further classes can specialize in it. Occult could just be a rebranding of Psychic. It seems to me very odd if Bards or Sorcerers were occult, especially Bards. I could see Witches, but they are not in the playtest

IF we get a double-sized Bestiary, they might want Occult around just so they can make monsters that reference those rules, without having to recreate slightly different creatures whenever Psychic magic was fully introduced into the system.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, they have used the term Occult to replace Psychic, maybe they felt Psychic is still a bit too sci-fi for some purposes. I really like the Occultist and Spiritualist classes, and looks like at least one of those is on the horizon.
My immediate thought was that they didn't want the psychic spell list to be confused with the psychic class, whenever those some day reappear. But then again Occult versus Occultist is hardly much better :P

Has anyone who actually knows said anything about an occult or psychic spell list in the Playtest or core rules for PF2? It would seem more likely that Bards still have their own spell list. It would actually be a less radical change to make Bards something other than arcane spellcasters than it was to make Druids no longer divine spellcasters.

Scarab Sages

Love the idea of trinkets! :)

Sorcerers being occult would make a strange amount of sense if the class were conflated with Witches and Warlocks. Maybe class feats allow you to pick a path along those lines, like the Druid can feat into being a Shifter, Hunter, or storm caller. Maybe Witch gives you a hex, Warlock an at-will blast, and Sorcerer access to some arcane spells...

Scarab Sages

If Bards end up being full casters, though, as someone implied, they‘d probably need a non-arcane list to be sufficiently different from Sorcerers. If they only get powers, the spell list is pretty irrelevant since powers are individual, explicitly named spells rather than open-ended lists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There can eventually be both an Occult and Psychic (or whatever) spell list. If each is inspired by two out of four (physical, mental, spiritual, vital) essences there are six unique possible combinations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Has anyone who actually knows said anything about an occult or psychic spell list in the Playtest or core rules for PF2? It would seem more likely that Bards still have their own spell list. It would actually be a less radical change to make Bards something other than arcane spellcasters than it was to make Druids no longer divine spellcasters.

No, they have not. What we do have is the following item:

Phylactery of the Occult (Item 5+)
Divination, Invested, Occult
Method of use: worn, circlet
Bulk: -
Activation: spellcasting actions of the chosen spell, 1RP

This amulet is usually hollow and shaped in the form of an unblinking eye; its cavity typically holds some fragment of occult text. While wearing the phylactery, you gain an item bonus to Occultism checks, and you can cast the Guidance cantrip as an innate occult spell.

Type: standard; Level 5; Price 150 gp
The phylactery grants a +2 bonus.

Type: standard; Level 14; Price 4,250 gp
The phylactery grants a +4 bonus, and you can activate it to cast Dream Message (4th level) as an innate occult spell.

This item comes right after the Phylactery of Faithfulness, which is tagged Divination, Divine, Invested. This would also help explain why we have both the Arcana skill and the Occultism skill, which would be rounded out by the Nature and Religion skills.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So we have have both an Animal Whisperer background and Feat?


Catharsis wrote:
If Bards end up being full casters, though, as someone implied, they‘d probably need a non-arcane list to be sufficiently different from Sorcerers. If they only get powers, the spell list is pretty irrelevant since powers are individual, explicitly named spells rather than open-ended lists.

I fear this, a little. One of my absolute least favorite things about 5E is a Bard as full caster. It just never fit with my idea of the Bard. But then, I'm sure it's perfect for some. So, oh well, if it happens, I guess.


Sorcerers being occult caster would be interesting. Though if their spell list is based on their bloodline that would be even better.

Really not liking the T-rex's bite damaging being just piercing.

Druid sounds interesting.

Discern lies sounds weak, "powerfully weak".

Liberty's Edge

Weather Report wrote:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, they have used the term Occult to replace Psychic, maybe they felt Psychic is still a bit too sci-fi for some purposes. I really like the Occultist and Spiritualist classes, and looks like at least one of those is on the horizon.

I think we'll get the 'Psychic' Classes that have healing (so, Occultist and Spiritualist, if Spiritualist still exists) using the Occult list (along with Bard and Witch), while those who can't (the Psychic and maybe Mesmerist) will get a brand new Psychic List when they come out.

Yes, that folds what were previously different types of magic into one, but it still seems both likely and reasonable.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, they have used the term Occult to replace Psychic, maybe they felt Psychic is still a bit too sci-fi for some purposes. I really like the Occultist and Spiritualist classes, and looks like at least one of those is on the horizon.

I think we'll get the 'Psychic' Classes that have healing (so, Occultist and Spiritualist, if Spiritualist still exists) using the Occult list (along with Bard and Witch), while those who can't (the Psychic and maybe Mesmerist) will get a brand new Psychic List when they come out.

Yes, that folds what were previously different types of magic into one, but it still seems both likely and reasonable.

Isn't it breaking Psychic magic into an Occult and Psychic spell list?

Liberty's Edge

Weather Report wrote:
Isn't it breaking Psychic magic into an Occult and Psychic spell list?

Yep. But they're already doing that with Divine and Primal (splitting the former Divine category).

The new thing (if my theory is correct) would be having Bard and Occultist using the same list despite not having the same type of magic in PF1.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Rysky wrote:
So at this point would it be more accurate to say Traditions are descriptors for the caster and Essences are descriptors for the spell lists?

I would say Traditions for the Classes, including spell-lists, and Essences for the spells

Which sounds odd though because IIRC native spell abilities and magic items mention Traditions rather than Essences

*nods*

I'ze confused :3

Critical failure on save vs Confusion ;-)

"So that's what it does."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope bards are not full casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
I hope bards are not full casters.

Yeah, that has not sat right with me about 5th Ed.

Scarab Sages

Mbertorch wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
If Bards end up being full casters, though, as someone implied, they‘d probably need a non-arcane list to be sufficiently different from Sorcerers. If they only get powers, the spell list is pretty irrelevant since powers are individual, explicitly named spells rather than open-ended lists.
I fear this, a little. One of my absolute least favorite things about 5E is a Bard as full caster. It just never fit with my idea of the Bard. But then, I'm sure it's perfect for some. So, oh well, if it happens, I guess.

It seems the only option between full caster and martial is «power user», so I guess full caster is the best fit for the Bard after all.


Catharsis wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
If Bards end up being full casters, though, as someone implied, they‘d probably need a non-arcane list to be sufficiently different from Sorcerers. If they only get powers, the spell list is pretty irrelevant since powers are individual, explicitly named spells rather than open-ended lists.
I fear this, a little. One of my absolute least favorite things about 5E is a Bard as full caster. It just never fit with my idea of the Bard. But then, I'm sure it's perfect for some. So, oh well, if it happens, I guess.
It seems the only option between full caster and martial is «power user», so I guess full caster is the best fit for the Bard after all.

Makes sense I guess, I wonder how all the partial casters from PF1 are going to be now. I for one liked full caster Bards from 5e

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Weather Report wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I hope bards are not full casters.
Yeah, that has not sat right with me about 5th Ed.

Why ?


Catharsis wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
If Bards end up being full casters, though, as someone implied, they‘d probably need a non-arcane list to be sufficiently different from Sorcerers. If they only get powers, the spell list is pretty irrelevant since powers are individual, explicitly named spells rather than open-ended lists.
I fear this, a little. One of my absolute least favorite things about 5E is a Bard as full caster. It just never fit with my idea of the Bard. But then, I'm sure it's perfect for some. So, oh well, if it happens, I guess.
It seems the only option between full caster and martial is «power user», so I guess full caster is the best fit for the Bard after all.

That's because we haven't seen the only 6/9 caster from PF1, aka the bard. The power user was 4/9 caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Dead Phoenix wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I like that pretty well my prediction that you wouldn't need the shifter class if the druid has a shape shifting specialization holds out and pretty well their we go!
Sure, but isn't there a large group of people who want a spelless shape shifter? I assume that was the reason the class was made in pf1 more so then the full bab... getting it at level 1 was probably also pretty important, though the shifter class didn't get that, but no reason they shouldn't get it here if druid already can.

This.

What I want from a shifter class is a focus on shape shifting without spells and other druid doodads

A druid that is just a bit focused on shapeshifting is still a druid, and not scratching that particular niche.

This seems easily doable as a Ranger specialization. I really hope there is a Shifter variant of the Ranger, either in the CRB or the APG.

51 to 100 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Druid, and other PaizoCon banquet information! All Messageboards