| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We know for sure that magic in the new setting order has four Essences. Material, Mental, Spiritual, and Vital.
We know for sure that there are at least four kinds of magic based on a combination of these essences; Arcane based on Material and Mental, Divine based on Spiritual and Vital, Occult based on Spiritual and Mental, and Primal based on Material and Vital.
That leaves two combinations; Mental and Vital, and Material and Spiritual.
What do we think can fill those slots?
I'm a fan of Psychic magic being Mental + Material and I think there is room for some sort of Shaman or Elementalist being Material+Spiritual.
However, there could also be space for single essence users as well. Kineticists could be completely focused on Material. Mesmerists could be Mental specialists. Spiritually dedicated characters could be Mediums. I'm not sure what a Vitalist class could map to, but it could be a magnificent healer or a frightening source of damage.
Anybody else have opinions or insight?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They've stated that Mental and Vital are the reverse of each other, likewise Material and Spiritual. It's thus very possible that you simply can't make the combinations you're talking about.
That would certainly be consistent with the four existing types of magic being linked specifically to certain skills.
They've stated that Mental and Vital are the reverse of each other, likewise Material and Spiritual. It's thus very possible that you simply can't make the combinations you're talking about.That would certainly be consistent with the four existing types of magic being linked specifically to certain skills.
I think any kind of distinction that says they're "The opposite of each other" is purely arbitrary.
Material and Spiritual might be "opposites" in terms of the figurative "essence" but the spell lists are certainly compatible.
The Witch in PF1 was a combination of Arcane spell lists and Divine spell lists, and specifically the Mental vs. Vital aspects of those lists, and while I can't seem to find which spells are explicitly which essence here's an example:
Chill Touch is a Cantrip on the Bard and Cleric spell list. This means it is the Spiritual Essence.
Chill Touch is also on the Witch Spell list, which means they must have the spiritual essence.
Burning Hands is on the Arcane spell list and the Primal Spell list, but it is not on the Divine or Occult spell list, which means that it is neither Spiritual, Vital, or Mental and is thus Material.
Witches get Burning Hands as a spell in PF1.
That means that the PF1 Witch, if just converted as the concept is, combines Spiritual and Material.
Basically, strongly disagree, and if an arbitrary line in the sand is going to be drawn, then I am going to be disappointed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a separate note:
How are Spells defined by essences at all?
For instance, every caster gets some access to Summoning, with 3 of the lists getting Summon Monster, and the Primal list getting Summon Nature's Ally.
Now my gut says that Summon Monster should not be on the Occult spell list, but I've read enough Lovecraft to know that summoning things you shouldn't is pretty much one of the most occult things you can do.
Do essences even matter or is that just an arbitrary name for a concept and each spell is classified by whether it "fits" into a particular list anyways?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think Summon Monster shouldn’t have been on the *arcane* spell list. Heresy I know, but I could see Conjurers getting the Summon Monster and Summon Nature’s Ally lines but arcanists in general not. And that’s because of the four essences, it feels strongest as “spiritual” (related to outer and aligned planes).
Edit: could see wizards/arcane getting a new Summon Animate Elemental spell, keying off the Material Essence, flavored as imbuing raw elemental stuff rather than Summon an ally from another plane.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Essences are a general design guideline operating behind the scenes, rather than something spelled out in the book. Some spells can be accomplished by different means, and would be considered appropriate for a larger number of lists- I think summoning could be considered either spiritual or material, which covers all four lists.
Essences are a general design guideline operating behind the scenes, rather than something spelled out in the book. Some spells can be accomplished by different means, and would be considered appropriate for a larger number of lists- I think summoning could be considered either spiritual or material, which covers all four lists.
And I can get that, one form of Conjuring is to create, another is to well, bring them to where you are.
In the former, Material, in the latter, Spiritual.
However, if "essences" ultimately don't weigh in on anything, why bother to create the distinction at all other than to frame things conceptually?
Basically, why bother putting it all in 4 distinct pools if you're just going to muddy the water anyways?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it’s still useful. It suggests things that should go to Clerics rather than Wizards. You can have a model that doesn’t accurately capture everything, but is still useful.
I mean, should Cleric share half its spells with Bard, but none with Wizard? No. But, it should also have some better guidelines for what sort of spells it gets than PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it’s still useful. It suggests things that should go to Clerics rather than Wizards. You can have a model that doesn’t accurately capture everything, but is still useful.
I mean, should Cleric share half its spells with Bard, but none with Wizard? No. But, it should also have some better guidelines for what sort of spells it gets than PF1.
But the guidelines are arbitrary as we just established as spells can be attributed to whatever essence you can envision.
So it never ultimately comes down to essences at all, it comes down to the spell itself, so it's not so much a guideline nor is it particularly helpful IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think it's not a matter of whether it is helpful for us, but rather whether it is helpful for the writers at Paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it’s still useful. It suggests things that should go to Clerics rather than Wizards. You can have a model that doesn’t accurately capture everything, but is still useful.
I mean, should Cleric share half its spells with Bard, but none with Wizard? No. But, it should also have some better guidelines for what sort of spells it gets than PF1.
But the guidelines are arbitrary as we just established as spells can be attributed to whatever essence you can envision.
So it never ultimately comes down to essences at all, it comes down to the spell itself, so it's not so much a guideline nor is it particularly helpful IMO.
Sometimes things should be exceptions.
Summoning is pretty key to both Wizards (it’s something they’re commonly depicted doing) and Clerics (talking with angels or demons is a big deal for them too, as is getting aid from servants of their deity). So, you look at it and consider what the exception means.
Detect Magic better be on all the lists. That’s kinda fundamental.
But, Wizards probably don’t get to sneak in healing spells anymore like they did in PF1 (Vampiric Touch, Infernal Healing, etc.), and Druids are able to call on natural forces other than just lightning. That’s why it’s a set of guidelines rather than a set of rules.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They've stated that Mental and Vital are the reverse of each other, likewise Material and Spiritual. It's thus very possible that you simply can't make the combinations you're talking about.
Personally I would see "these two forces are opposed or inverses to each other" as a reason that actively invites a particular magic tradition that focuses on them.
Like these are reasons "not to do one in the core rulebook" or even to have this be a thing that leading magical scholars in the Inner Sea region believe, but it's simultaneously a reason *to* do them later when we start looking at other parts of Golarion.
Like I can see Mental+Vital being a sort of "interplay of mind and matter and how they oppose each other but can also work together" which is popular in Vudra or Material + Spiritual being part of some animist magical tradition popular in the Mwangi Expanse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think it's not a matter of whether it is helpful for us, but rather whether it is helpful for the writers at Paizo.
Why disclose what an "essence" is at all then? If it's not meant for the players/GM, it doesn't need to be printed in the book (which it is in the Playtest).
But, Wizards probably don’t get to sneak in healing spells anymore like they did in PF1 (Vampiric Touch, Infernal Healing, etc.), and Druids are able to call on natural forces other than just lightning. That’s why it’s a set of guidelines rather than a set of rules.
Just to clear things up, in the previous edition nothing snuck in because all the Spell Lists and Spells were assigned Spell lists.
It is far more likely that something could "sneak in" with broad classifications of Spell groups under "essences".
I would agree if there weren't exceptions everywhere in just the Playtest:
Fear is under Arcane, Divine, and Occult. How does that factor? Do Clerics need Fear? It's a Mental essence for sure, so are we meant to argue that it could possibly be "Spiritual" as well? And if you can always argue that anything Spiritual is also Mental, then why bother with the distinction.
Consolidating the lists to 4 lists, that's fine. Isolating spells to certain lists, also fine.
But now we have
"Only X + Y go in this list, and Z + W go in that list, and Z + X go in this list, and Y + W go in that list.
Except, we make exceptions to all of this based on each individual spell, so ultimately WXYZ really don't matter in the slightest"
We’re essences in the Playtest book? I didn’t think they were.
The terms are clearly intended as verbal/ descriptive models. And it isn't particularly difficult to see how as qualitative terms they help describe what kind of mojo powers the spell casting. To be clear we are talking about MAGIC, as in the metaphor it happens by magic. Your attempts to demand a pure logical mathematical construction to magic, don't make any sense.
Now hopefully they got rid of the nonsense that was calling bards occult magic, because that flavor just don't work.
"Demand" who's demanding? I said they don't matter.
"Hopefully they got rid of the nonsense that was calling bards occult magic"
That's my favorite change about the bard so strongly disagree
theres two issues with the playtest spell lists. 1) the idea of essences was applied after the fact (I think it came up from the campaign side instead of the rules side; I’ll try to pull up Marks quote on that layer), and 2) the fact that so many exceptions to the essence sorting were in favor of the arcane spell list. Wizards pretty much got everything that wasn’t healing, and could use a good pruning. The Occult spell list is only marginally better. On the flip side, primal got the short end of the stick.
Hopefully the final lists will be a little more balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We’re essences in the Playtest book? I didn’t think they were.
They were only in a preview blog, not the actual playtest.
We’re essences in the Playtest book? I didn’t think they were.They were only in a preview blog, not the actual playtest.
Incorrect.
The Glossary Pg. 421 reads:
Arcane - Arcane magic is the tradition that blends material and
mental essences, understanding the magic of the universe
based on experimentation and measurable effects
The other glossary definitions mirror this format.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We’re essences in the Playtest book? I didn’t think they were.They were only in a preview blog, not the actual playtest.
They're alluded to in the glossary (Italics mine):
Arcane Arcane magic is the tradition that blends material and mental essences, understanding the magic of the universe based on experimentation and measurable effects
Divine Divine magic is the tradition that blends spiritual and vital essences, steeped in faith, the unseen, and belief in power from beyond the Material Plane
Occult Occult magic is the tradition that blends spiritual and mental essences, understanding the unexplainable, categorizing the bizarre, and otherwise accounting the ephemeral in a systematic way.
Primal Primal magic is the tradition that blends material and vital essences, rooted in an instinctual connection to and faith in the natural world
That seems to be the only place, though, so they're technically in the playtest book, but really out of the way.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They've stated that Mental and Vital are the reverse of each other, likewise Material and Spiritual. It's thus very possible that you simply can't make the combinations you're talking about.
That would certainly be consistent with the four existing types of magic being linked specifically to certain skills.
It is very possible that you are right, and the symmetry for the skills is a thing to consider. However, psychic magic is often an optional rule anyway and I could see an in-world explanation for rarity being that blending the opposite essences is normally very difficult. It gives GMs an out if they don't want that sort of thing in their games. I'm optimistic that a reasonable way to make those blends could happen, but they could just leave it as a simple square of options, leaving out the cross space.
Fear is under Arcane, Divine, and Occult. How does that factor? Do Clerics need Fear? It's a Mental essence for sure, so are we meant to argue that it could possibly be "Spiritual" as well? And if you can always argue that anything Spiritual is also Mental, then why bother with the distinction.
This makes me think that the essences can actually free up some interesting options.
Let's say, for the sake of discussion only, that Fear has a line in the stat block that says "Essence: Mental, Spiritual." Let's imagine further that some forms of Undead (skeletons, zombies, etc) have a trait that makes them immune to or resistant to certain Mental essence effects.
So now you have Arcane casters whose Fear spells don't work well on the dead, but when a Divine caster or Occult caster works their Fear magic, it hammers even a shambling corpse with something like terror.
Or you could have some sort of construct or other creature that can be overwhelmed by Arcane mind magic, but not be terribly concerned with godly or esoteric effects.
Unlikely to actually happen, but it could be neat if it does.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is very possible that you are right, and the symmetry for the skills is a thing to consider. However, psychic magic is often an optional rule anyway and I could see an in-world explanation for rarity being that blending the opposite essences is normally very difficult. It gives GMs an out if they don't want that sort of thing in their games. I'm optimistic that a reasonable way to make those blends could happen, but they could just leave it as a simple square of options, leaving out the cross space.
Personally, I'm inclined to think Psychic will be a casting method (ie: replacement of components) rather than a spell list, and we might easily see Psychic casters from several different spell lists, though I'd most expect to see Occult, I acknowledge.
Adding spell lists post corebook always has issues involving backdating all possible spells, and bigger problems the longer it waits, but my biggest worry really is the Skills. Right now there's excellent parity between the four knowledge skills (Arcana, Nature, Occultism, and Religion), but adding new magical types really breaks that on a profound level which I strongly dislike.
I honestly feel like adding four new spell lists would work a lot better mechanically, but that runs into issues with the Essences and how they work.
.
.
.
And I'd like to note that, from things they were saying, I wouldn't expect details of the Spell Lists from the Playtest to be set in stone. I think we'll need to look at the final spell lists before we can really comment on what actually typifies one Essence or another.
BUT... the essences is only part of the topic I wanted to bring up!
Lets talk about caster types too and where they might fit in.
What do we have along those lines anyway... Prepared, Spontaneous, and Powered? They probably aren't called "Powered," but I wanted a one word category.
For prepared casters we have Wizards (arcane), clerics (divine), and druids (primal). For spontaneous casters we have Sorcerers (any) and Bards (occult) so far. For powered castes we are stuck with Champions (divine) for now.
Some people have put forward the idea that the Witch is going to wind up an Occult prepared caster, which I think could be a great idea.
While Sorcerers have great flexibility for being able to select any spell list by their background, I hope there is still space for Oracles to be a purely Divine spontaneous caster.
I know that the Shifter has gotten a lot of flak since its creation, but a Powered Primal type could work out well for it all the same.
Adding spell lists post corebook always has issues involving backdating all possible spells, and bigger problems the longer it waits, but my biggest worry really is the Skills. Right now there's excellent parity between the four knowledge skills (Arcana, Nature, Occultism, and Religion), but adding new magical types really breaks that on a profound level which I strongly dislike.
One way you could deal with that parity would be to assign the knowledge to an essence instead of the Spell List itself, then you have four distinct skills, four spell lists, and classes can choose between two knowledges per caster to invest in (which seems reasonable).
Then new Spell lists are free to combine and operate under the same "two knowledges per spell list" paradigm.
Would having an optional rule (a new magic tradition and associated skill) that requires a different character sheet really be a problem?
Like every PF1 game these days uses traits, but there's not a place to write them on the character sheet in the CRB. So people just use different sheets.
|
|
In terms of caster types, I think we'll eventually get Prepared casters of all four lists (Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and probably Witch IMO), Spontaneous casters of all four lists (Bard, probably Oracle, maybe Shaman for Primal, and probably something new for Arcane), and both Prepared and Spontaneous 'modular' casters who can pick a Spell List (Sorcerer, and either Witch as some have suggested, or something new).
We may well also get Classes beyond those (I could see Psychic as a second spontaneous Occult option, for example), but that's the baseline I expect.
In terms of Focus-based Classes, I'm not sure we're gonna get clear delineations between Spell Lists. None in the Playtest even listed a type of magic they are, but if they eventually do, I'd expect at least one for each list (Champion for Divine, maybe Monk for Occult, perhaps Shifter for Primal, and something for Arcane).
EDIT: Oh! I just remembered: I'd expect to see Summoner as the Arcane Spontaneous Caster. Which seems reasonably workable to me. Or a version that incorporates Spiritualist and Hunter and picks a spell list ala Sorcerer, I suppose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding spell lists post corebook always has issues involving backdating all possible spells, and bigger problems the longer it waits, but my biggest worry really is the Skills. Right now there's excellent parity between the four knowledge skills (Arcana, Nature, Occultism, and Religion), but adding new magical types really breaks that on a profound level which I strongly dislike.
I honestly feel like adding four new spell lists would work a lot better mechanically, but that runs into issues with the Essences and how they work.
Adding new spell lists is problematic due to them being tied to skills. But I think that's more an argument against the way they're tied to skills than against being able to add spell lists. Being forever limited to four spell lists seems like a pretty dramatic straight-jacket. Especially coming down from the huge number in PF1. I understand and agree with wanting to reduce things for simplicity's sake, but only having four is too much of a reduction. Especially since now apparently there are only full 9 (or rather 10 now) spell level casters and people using focus powers. That's a dramatic reduction in design space from also having 6 and 4 level casters with a variety of customized lists. Simplification shouldn't go so far as to limit possibilities too much. "Too much" is of course carrying a lot of weight here, it is very subjective.
I like the concept of the esscenes, but they might be more trouble than they're worth in the end. Moving on to implementing more classes from PF1, it starts to feel very much like they're being shoehorned when you assign spell lists. For example, moving the Inquisitor to a full divine caster doesn't really sit right with me, neither does stripping away spells entirely and only having focus powers (although this is what I expect will be done). Particularly since the selection of focus powers is dramatically lower than even the reduced number of spell slots, and compete with other class features for feats. I could say the same with most other non-core classes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they've expanded ways to 'add spells to your list', which makes for a sort of 'build your own list' option on top of the preexisting four spell lists, which allows for some pretty unique stuff if done properly. Plus Focus Spells subbing in for 4-level casters, which looks like it's gonna work fine.
Frankly, I think only four lists makes a much more coherent world than everyone having vastly different ones without rhyme, reason, or in-world explanation for how it worked.
It does certainly limit design space to some degree, I'll not deny. But it doesn't do so in a way I think diminishes the game's fun or keeps relevant character types from existing. Not all limitations are inherently bad.
I mean, four lists alone gives a minimum of 10 different casting classes to fill every 'niche' (not counting Focus Spell classes). How many Classes do we need, and how many of them need to be casters? I mean, PF1 had 40 Classes, 26 of which were Casters (though 7 were either using the Alchemist stuff or 4 level casters, neither of which need be casters in PF2)...but that strikes me as a mark against PF1. That's too many Classes, and not enough freedom to modify the ones there were.
I'm much rather have Warpriest as a Cleric option (as it appears to be in PF2) than a separate Class, and the same is true of many of the Classes in PF1, while others are better as Archetypes (Gunslinger and Vigilante in particular)...and if we pare things down to 20 or 25 Classes, do we really need more than 10 or 12 casters?
Let's say, for the sake of discussion only, that Fear has a line in the stat block that says "Essence: Mental, Spiritual." Let's imagine further that some forms of Undead (skeletons, zombies, etc) have a trait that makes them immune to or resistant to certain Mental essence effects.So now you have Arcane casters whose Fear spells don't work well on the dead, but when a Divine caster or Occult caster works their Fear magic, it hammers even a shambling corpse with something like terror.
Or you could have some sort of construct or other creature that can be overwhelmed by Arcane mind magic, but not be terribly concerned with godly or esoteric effects.
Unlikely to actually happen, but it could be neat if it does.
And while some may hate that concept and consider it too granular, I love the idea.
As you said though, unlikely to actually happen.
It does certainly limit design space to some degree, I'll not deny. But it doesn't do so in a way I think diminishes the game's fun or keeps relevant character types from existing. Not all limitations are inherently bad.
And if this principle didn't ultimately remove a Class from the previous edition in it's normal state, I think I'd be fine with it, but the Witch (even when it was introduced in 3rd Edition DMG) spell list is a combination of Material and Spiritual. Morgan Le Fay fits very well there for instance.
Could they fit under Occult? Probably.
Could you just make them the prepared version of the Sorcerer? absolutely elegant solution.
However, Witch was popular as is and the players in my group that played Witch may or may not like either of the above.
Ultimately, I'd be fine with it, but using the "We have four skills for knowledge, and this messes that up" to me is a flaw with the design around those Knowledge Skills not something sacred that means we need to keep four Spell Lists.
Personally, I think if that's the major crux for keeping things as is, then I'd rather they move Knowledge back to a format similar to the current Lore situation to allow the Knowledge to scale appropriately. I can get the consolidation of Spell Craft/Knowledge/etc. by magic type, but etching four distinct traditions in stone in your first book seems like it's going to have long term consequences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
another option, besides spontaneous vs prepared, is a full on spell-point based caster. Paizo's past hesitation IIRC with that method of casting was the lack of comparable mechanics in the game which they thought made it unwieldy and difficult to learn. Given the existence of focus powers, creating a dedicated point based caster which started off by default with a lot more "points" and then used that for casting is suddenly something that is an easy extrapolation of the current system. (Note I am not talking Champion, but something that by default has a lot more spell points and which primarily uses those points)
The other niche I was thinking of are dedicated pet classes related to each list. In Pathfinder 1, we already almost have that, with the spiritualist(Occult), hunter (Primal), and summoner (which in PF unchained revamped version is probably a better fit for the Divine). I know some folks feel these can be either just combined together as one class, but I feel there is a lot of thematic differences between, say fighting alongside your pet wolf, and and having a weird Protean buddy that pops out of nothing.
another option, besides spontaneous vs prepared, is a full on spell-point based caster. Paizo's past hesitation IIRC with that method of casting was the lack of comparable mechanics in the game which they thought made it unwieldy and difficult to learn. Given the existence of focus powers, creating a dedicated point based caster which started off by default with a lot more "points" and then used that for casting is suddenly something that is an easy extrapolation of the current system. (Note I am not talking Champion, but something that by default has a lot more spell points and which primarily uses those points)
.
Now to me this is where Psionics can come in, point based for all the lists, which means you can have quite a few flavors.
Also in regards to the caster count, the additional two lists would only add four different casters if you made a spontaneous and prepared for each (and honestly a few of them are going to be PF1 classes of that was the route they went). No where near the massive twenty six from PF1
|
another option, besides spontaneous vs prepared, is a full on spell-point based caster. Paizo's past hesitation IIRC with that method of casting was the lack of comparable mechanics in the game which they thought made it unwieldy and difficult to learn. Given the existence of focus powers, creating a dedicated point based caster which started off by default with a lot more "points" and then used that for casting is suddenly something that is an easy extrapolation of the current system. (Note I am not talking Champion, but something that by default has a lot more spell points and which primarily uses those points)
.Now to me this is where Psionics can come in, point based for all the lists, which means you can have quite a few flavors.
Also in regards to the caster count, the additional two lists would only add four different casters if you made a spontaneous and prepared for each (and honestly a few of them are going to be PF1 classes of that was the route they went). No where near the massive twenty six from PF1
I don't think they will ever bring back psionics to Pathfinder, mainly because it's a bit too much iconic to D&D. Most of the copyrighted creatures have psionics powers... and they are often the most iconic psionic races.
I don't think they will ever bring back psionics to Pathfinder, mainly because it's a bit too much iconic to D&D. Most of the copyrighted creatures have psionics powers... and they are often the most iconic psionic races.
Outside the Illithid, I'm not aware of many other "iconic" ones that were psionic based (I thought the Beholder was just rays, but I'm probably forgetting something), but nonetheless whatever PF2 wants to call their "Psychic" casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be very surprised if they didn't bring psychic classes back, considering how popular they were in 1e.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if we couldn't make "Burn" a unified mechanic for the psychic classes.
Specifically- you have a reservoir of focus points. Each spell has a cost in focus points and spell slots for non-cantrips, but you can reduce the focus point cost by jumping through various hoops (or increase it to pump up your spells.) What "being out of focus points" means will depend on the class.
It feels right that Psychic folks would be governed by some sort of internal reservoir of power in a way that other spellcasters are not (as they draw from external sources).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if this principle didn't ultimately remove a Class from the previous edition in it's normal state, I think I'd be fine with it, but the Witch (even when it was introduced in 3rd Edition DMG) spell list is a combination of Material and Spiritual. Morgan Le Fay fits very well there for instance.
Uh...it's really not. Witch has the healing stuff (which would be Vital, though the Occult list can fake it with Spiritual, I'll grant you), and doesn't have much burn/elemental stuff at all (which is Material), and has a vast array of mental effects of various sorts (which are, obviously, Mental). Mental makes so much more sense for that list than Material I'm shocked you think otherwise.
Frankly, I think the Occult list is pretty perfect for the Witch. They need some polymorph spells added, but that's easy enough to do (heck, making it a Hex, or equivalent, would work fine), but other than that it lines up really well.
The varying list is also possible, and a solid option.
However, Witch was popular as is and the players in my group that played Witch may or may not like either of the above.
Sure, but that's inevitably true of it getting a new spell list, too. Because, if designed properly, that new one won't be 'for' the Witch in any real sense, it'll be based on the Essences. Frankly, some people will always dislike any particular change, the trick is to pick one most people are fine with (and both the Occult and modular versions of Witch have pretty widespread approval).
Personally, I think if that's the major crux for keeping things as is, then I'd rather they move Knowledge back to a format similar to the current Lore situation to allow the Knowledge to scale appropriately. I can get the consolidation of Spell Craft/Knowledge/etc. by magic type, but etching four distinct traditions in stone in your first book seems like it's going to have long term consequences.
It absolutely does have consequences. I agree entirely. I'm just not at all sure they're bad ones. Having magic in the world be consistent in application, and characters who are experts in it not suddenly need to buy new skills to continue to be so when a new book comes out is a very good effect, for example. And limiting the total number of casting classes somewhat strikes me as a positive as well.
I've also been thinking, and, if they do choose to go the route of adding new lists (which, to reiterate, I'm actually not super against, I just think not adding them is also a solid call) there are ways to add new magic mapped to the existing skills, if we go with Psychic as Mental/Vital and Shamanic as Material/Spiritual, we could easily say that knowing about Psychic magic is a harder check but uses either Arcana or Occultism, while Shamanic works the same but with Nature or Religion (just as one example).
I would be very surprised if they didn't bring psychic classes back, considering how popular they were in 1e.
Agreed. Spiritualist might go away (or be combined with Summoner), but the rest were all very popular in various ways.
I'd expect Kineticist and Medium to show up as Focus users, while Occultist might show up as either that or a caster, while Mesmerist and Psychic seem likely to show up as casters, though of what sort I'm less sure (I could easily see them being from different lists).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if we go with Psychic as Mental/Vital and Shamanic as Material/Spiritual, we could easily say that knowing about Psychic magic is a harder check but uses either Arcana or Occultism, while Shamanic works the same but with Nature or Religion (just as one example).
I think you do this with subclasses. Like we already have psychic disciplines so you do it something like an Abomination or Psychedelia psychic would use Occultism while an Enlightenment or Tranquility psychic uses Religion.
It's not totally different from how playtest monks could just straight up choose whether their powers are Religion or Occult.
Mental makes so much more sense for that list than Material I'm shocked you think otherwise.
I've always seen the "Mental" aspects being a part of the Hexes and not necessarily the list itself.
Typically, Witches are associated with Scrying, communing with other worldly powers (Spiritual).
But they're also known to transform people into toads, throwing fireballs (see Elfaba), and other things.
Could you make them Occult and then add Hexes that do the Material stuff? Sure.
You could also do the same with any other spell list (where the Hex covers the loss).
Heck if you based them off Morgana, they'd be closer to Primal than Occult or the Spiritual+Material Combo, which is why I hope the actual implementation is Sorcerer Prepared Caster based on Patron.
Frankly, I think the Occult list is pretty perfect for the Witch.
I don't hate the idea. It would certainly fit as the "prepared" Bard, and Witches/Warlocks are a staple of the Occult.
However, there's going to have to be a serious Patron influence involved.
Sure, but that's inevitably true of it getting a new spell list
While I agree, I think this type of deviation is pretty severe to say "ah well people gonna be upset either way".
This isn't like the Bard or Sorcerer that were desperately in need of a revamp.
Ultimately, as long as Hexes are done well, it probably won't matter, but it's a bigger concern than I feel is being represented.
having magic in the world be consistent in application, and characters who are experts in it not suddenly need to buy new skills to continue to be so when a new book comes out is a very good effect, for example.
I mean, there could be overlap for rolls, like with most knowledge checks.
This is more or less why I suggested knowledges based on Essence instead of spell lists.
Besides, 17 Skills isn't a massive amount anyways, 19 isn't a damnable offense IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you do this with subclasses.
...
It's not totally different from how playtest monks could just straight up choose whether their powers are Religion or Occult.
This is a very tidy option that I'm suddenly very happy with. It makes our hypothetical Psychic use the same sort of chassis as the Sorcerer, but broken down by approach instead of bloodline.
While I would still like the option of a fifth tradition and spell list, even with the possible wrinkle of an additional skill, this possibility feels elegant and snuggly fits in with the setting assumptions we are talking about.
Edit: I would also like for Burn to be some sort of mechanic for psychics. Being able to push yourself at risk of injury is pretty thematic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As promised, here’s the quote from Mark that tells how the essence concept came into the game.
I did ask Mark on an early playtest thread if they were going to "fill the grid" for the other two combinations of essences. He said "no", but I don't recall if it was just for the playtest or for longer than that. This maybe PF2, but it is still Pathfinder, so I would be surprised if by 2 years in, the grid hadn't been filled at least once.This was actually something that came to us first from the world team, specifically mostly from discussions with James Jacobs along with some with Mark Moreland, so we grabbed the essences and lists that made sense for what they were looking for in terms of explaining the metaphysics of magic. As per those discussions, they weren't looking at combining opposing essences with orthogonal metaphysics into traditions, and we have no plans to do that either, but no plans doesn't mean never. I guess if something brand new came into being that juxtaposed two incompatible concepts in one, it's always possible. And if that does happen, it's added a new story we can only tell thanks to the richer lore of the essences (that said, I'm a big essence/tradition fan and the one who started asking weird questions after we had the essences and traditions like "Could we have the sorcerer vary traditions based on bloodline?" and "Isn't the bard actually occult based on this framework?" so I'm biased).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mental makes so much more sense for that list than Material I'm shocked you think otherwise.I've always seen the "Mental" aspects being a part of the Hexes and not necessarily the list itself.
Typically, Witches are associated with Scrying, communing with other worldly powers (Spiritual).
But they're also known to transform people into toads, throwing fireballs (see Elfaba), and other things.
Could you make them Occult and then add Hexes that do the Material stuff? Sure.
You could also do the same with any other spell list (where the Hex covers the loss).
Heck if you based them off Morgana, they'd be closer to Primal than Occult or the Spiritual+Material Combo, which is why I hope the actual implementation is Sorcerer Prepared Caster based on Patron.
Frankly, I think the Occult list is pretty perfect for the Witch.I don't hate the idea. It would certainly fit as the "prepared" Bard, and Witches/Warlocks are a staple of the Occult.
However, there's going to have to be a serious Patron influence involved.
Sure, but that's inevitably true of it getting a new spell listWhile I agree, I think this type of deviation is pretty severe to say "ah well people gonna be upset either way".
This isn't like the Bard or Sorcerer that were desperately in need of a revamp.
Ultimately, as long as Hexes are done well, it probably won't matter, but it's a bigger concern than I feel is being represented.
having magic in the world be consistent in application, and characters who are experts in it not suddenly need to buy new skills to continue to be so when a new book comes out is a very good effect, for example.I mean, there could be overlap for rolls, like with most knowledge checks.
This is more or less why I suggested knowledges based on Essence instead of spell lists.
Besides, 17 Skills isn't a massive amount anyways, 19 isn't a damnable offense IMO.
Witches actually don't get fireball by default. Many got it from a patron, like Elemental, but it was never a default option. Baleful Polymorph was though.
Witches actually don't get fireball by default. Many got it from a patron, like Elemental, but it was never a default option. Baleful Polymorph was though.
They did get Burning Hands though, I was mostly just using Elphaba as a point of reference for generating fire, I would consider what she did to probably look at lot more like "Produce Flame", but she could also teleport as well (Material).
It really depends on who the mold for the "Witch" is, although I will say based on Morgana/Elphaba they would be an excellent Spontaneous Primal Caster choice with Hexes to supplement the Mental aspects.
Controlling the weather is also a common "Witch" trope.
And if this principle didn't ultimately remove a Class from the previous edition in it's normal state, I think I'd be fine with it, but the Witch (even when it was introduced in 3rd Edition DMG) spell list is a combination of Material and Spiritual. Morgan Le Fay fits very well there for instance.Uh...it's really not. Witch has the healing stuff (which would be Vital, though the Occult list can fake it with Spiritual, I'll grant you), and doesn't have much burn/elemental stuff at all (which is Material), and has a vast array of mental effects of various sorts (which are, obviously, Mental). Mental makes so much more sense for that list than Material I'm shocked you think otherwise.
With this description of PF witch magic, would it be fair to say that a theoretical Mental/Vital list would be even closer to a PF1 witch than Occult’s Spiritual/Vital mental (edit:derp)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the interests of getting all this stuff in one spot, here’s another relevant Mark post:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v759?What-do-we-know-about-the-four-essences# 2
They are primarily lore and don't appear in the playtest rulebook, even though they shape magic from behind the scenes.
Material/Physical Essence is on the Material Plane and much derives from the Elemental Planes.
Mental Essence is associated with the Astral Plane
Vital Essence is associated with the Positive Energy Plane and the First World, as well as the Negative Energy Plane at life's end
Spiritual Essence is associated with the Ethereal Plane and the Outer Sphere, like Heaven and Hell and such.Incidentally, the druid's primal magical tradition, previewed at the Paizocon banquet, draws upon Material and Vital Essences. This means that primal magic is rooted in an instinctual connection and faith in the world around, a faith in the cycle of day and night, the cycle of the seasons, and the natural selection of predator and prey. It also means druids get great Material Essence attack spells and Vital essence healing spells, which is a potent and versatile combination.
That whole thread has some decent discussion actually.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pruning spell lists down to four js so much healthier for the system in the long run, though. There were nearly 20 unique spell lists across the lifespan of PF1. From a practical standpoint, it became incredibly difficult to add new spells and keep these lists at parity with one another. Sure, we lose some things in this change, but we'll have a healthier system.
On top of that, we are actually putting down some light lore on how magic works. This at least puts some structure in place going forward. Having some ideas in place for how spell lists are structured should help with their design going forward.
I feel like the "PF1 had too many spell lists" was because of the existence (and popularity) of 6-level casters who had enough of their class features invested in spellcasting that we needed to give them certain spells at lower spell levels than full progression casters got them. I think this is where things got silly.
I wonder if we couldn't instead do the 2/3 casters by giving them full spell progression as a wizard/cleric/whatever but giving them lower proficiency and not giving any slots at the highest spell levels. I guess multiclassing as a spellcaster already kind of does this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think they will ever bring back psionics to Pathfinder, mainly because it's a bit too much iconic to D&D. Most of the copyrighted creatures have psionics powers... and they are often the most iconic psionic races.Outside the Illithid, I'm not aware of many other "iconic" ones that were psionic based (I thought the Beholder was just rays, but I'm probably forgetting something), but nonetheless whatever PF2 wants to call their "Psychic" casters.
Well, I always only knew of Illithids and Gith(yanki/zerai) as psionics... and the 3 are copyrighted.
[EDIT] Oh, there was also the Thri-kreen from Dark Sun! I'm not sure of their legal status, but they only ever appeared in D&D.
In the interests of getting all this stuff in one spot, here’s another relevant Mark post:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v759?What-do-we-know-about-the-four-essences# 2
That whole thread has some decent discussion actually.They are primarily lore and don't appear in the playtest rulebook, even though they shape magic from behind the scenes.
Material/Physical Essence is on the Material Plane and much derives from the Elemental Planes.
Mental Essence is associated with the Astral Plane
Vital Essence is associated with the Positive Energy Plane and the First World, as well as the Negative Energy Plane at life's end
Spiritual Essence is associated with the Ethereal Plane and the Outer Sphere, like Heaven and Hell and such.Incidentally, the druid's primal magical tradition, previewed at the Paizocon banquet, draws upon Material and Vital Essences. This means that primal magic is rooted in an instinctual connection and faith in the world around, a faith in the cycle of day and night, the cycle of the seasons, and the natural selection of predator and prey. It also means druids get great Material Essence attack spells and Vital essence healing spells, which is a potent and versatile combination.
That conversation was awesome. I REALLY like the lore they created around that, and it make me much more interested in magic!