This might be a weird topic to make a thread about but it's been in the back of my mind since I first read about the spell casting traditions in 2e. The definition for Occult magic is the literal definition of the word arcane. Am I the only one who noticed? If you look up definitions for the word arcane you'll find that it is relating to mysterious, secret and esoteric knowledge. The original idea of the wizard is someone who studies the boundary between the physical and metaphysical, learning *arcane* knowledge of the material and spiritual to understand and practice magic. Their practice is what the real world definition of "occult" means. Especially today. People in the real world who do occult practices very often identify as witches or *wizards*. It's spellcasting. It's really weird to me that what should be in it's totality just arcane magic is split into two halves of the same idea and practice. I know that Pathfinder 2e says arcane magic is studious and logical, which by this I think they mean it's Scientific according to our modern understanding; however the importance of language in all spells in real life practices and in the actual game world reflect the inherent logical systems in all magic. Divine, occult, arcane and primal. Verbal components reflect how language in the past was seen as magic, and by those who believe in magic today still call it magic. This is why spell is the word used for both magic and language. As for the science thing, I think it's weird to view magic as science when we can see actual science being applied in the world, but that's a different topic.
I really find it odd how these are categorized. Primal and Divine could be argued to have a similar problem in being not that different from each other, but it's a little easier to justify their separation, but occult and arcane are the same thing. Two halves of the same whole. I fail to see why they are separate and any wizard I play would be well versed in the occult, it comes with delving into magic, scientifically or otherwise
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, in Pathfinder...
Arcane = Sciencey Fantasy Magic
Occult ÷ Alien Mentalish Magic
Focusing too much on what makes them similar will lead to overlooking what makes them different, and what makes them different lies heavily on the associated in game/setting mechanics behind each.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
actually druids are refereed to as having faith many times around in pathfinder so i would say the divine label fits well
i think it all boils down to that 4 essence system they added (Material, Mental , Vital , Spiritual) it is specially problematic for the wizard because previously the wizard was kind of a jack of all trades in terms of magic kind of like the bard now
i feel like the arcane schools are now
arcane (Abjuration, Divination)
Occult (Enchantment, Illusion)
divine (Necromancy, Conjuration)
primal (Transmutation, Evocation)
of cource that is very rough but to some degree its true
a 1e wizard would be more of a multi tradition caster in 2e
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The two are pretty different thematically, too.
Arcane magic is explicable, it effects both the physical world and the mind, is associated with directly magical but straightforward creatures like dragons, elementals, and constructs. It is created and worked with scientifically, with language sure, but also with straightforward mathematics and replicability. It can be learned from ordinary (if esoteric and valuable) textbooks at an ordinary (if expensive) school.
Occult magic, meanwhile, is weird. It's the magic of the mind and soul and can thus warp non-physical things in weird an unexpected ways. It is associated with strange and off-putting creatures like aberrations, spirits, and oozes, and while it's a matter of knowledge, and even a certain sort of logic, it has more in common with folk lore and fairy tales than the scientific method. It is organic and flexible, not always working the exact same way, and any math associated with it is more likely to drive you mad than be found in a textbook.
Now, the word Arcane does perhaps fit Occult magic better than Arcane magic, but it's been grandfathered in. And I don't think 'Arcane' magic has really, thematically, been split. The vast majority of Arcane magic in D&D and Pathfinder has, for a very long time, been as I describe in my first paragraph.
Occult magic, when it showed up thematically in previous editions, would be some mix of the Psychic Magic in Occult Adventures and certain kinds of Arcane magic (Witches and Bards, mostly), but like calling a Druid's magic Divine that pairing of the truly weird and the Arcane label never really fit very well. Creating an explicit new type of magic makes good thematic sense in both cases.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Much like the word 'literally' now being used so broadly that one of its meanings is synonymous with 'figuratively', language evolves over time, especially in specific contexts.
While arcane and occult are technically analogous, in practice there's enough space between them in the context of Pathfinder and other TRPGs that we can see them as separate and well distinguished ideas.
After I wrote this I actually got hugely inspired by something and I might have a post about a proposition for wizard changes involving this, but not anything like other classes work
I do want to focus on something. Magic to me has always been *inherently weird*. What make divine magic divine is not that the magic is different, but that you get it indirectly from a god. It's still the same weird incomprehensible thing mortal minds only broach the surface of. At least this is how *I* think of it in my own head. I realize the setting of Golarion is potentially different. When I see this I see an incongruity specifically with occult and arcane. They mean the same thing and both study their magic. In Golarion the difference just seems to be that occult studies are oriented to the lesser known, weirder and deeper aspects of magic, which arcane is then very surface level magic. At least this is the impression I get from the book and from how it's talked about.
I haven't finalized my idea yet because it requires other aspects of the wizard are on par, but the idea is that either the arcane thesis or the school can be replaced by a wizard who uses their arcane knowledge in conjunction with other traditions and adds a few spells into their repertiore from a singular other school and can use their arcane attack and DC for the spells. Having a capstone feat that makes it so a multiclass with a caster of that tradition you chose at level 1 uses your arcane DC and attack rolls instead. It would be a kind of multiclass enabling feat tree. Been deliberating the details and as it sits it's better than everything else, but I don't think that makes this too powerful, but instead reveals how not super impactful the other choices you have are.
My general idea (which is a super rough draft) is adding it as an arcane school and having four options that work something like this:
There are four options when you choose this school(or thesis depending on what makes more sense), arcanist, mystic Theurge, metaphysicists and "hedge wizard"(my least favorite name)
-Arcanist: you get the sorcerer dedication feat but you cannot gain additional spell slots from the sorcerer class archetype and dedication feats. You must choose a bloodline that grants the arcane spell list and you gain no weapon, armor or skill proficiencies from the class. Instead you get arcanist style preparations(5e style). I'm thinking level+int modifier. Then a feat tree that adds more arcanist like stuff and bloodline powers or something
Mystic Theurge: you get the cleric dedication feat, you do get the additional spell slots but none of the weapon, armor or skill proficiencies. You can only choose a god with one of the three domains, knowledge, magic or glyph. The feat tree allows you to add a single spell of each level to your repertiore that acts as an arcane spell, with a feat of level 16, 18 or 20 making the spells you get through this dedication line work as arcane spells like I mentioned before
Metaphysician: Same as Mystic Theurge but occult witch only.
Hedge Wizard: same as mystic Theurge and metaphysician but druid and potentially no beast or wild druid, only leaf or storm
Now the intent is that a wizard being studious can learn to utilize the spells of another tradition and incorporate it into arcane casting. The removal of proficiencies is to instead of making it like a true multiclass it's a difft flavored wizard. You still have to spend feats to get the class features and additional slots you normally would have if you multiclass at the same level progression. So that is not a huge power spike.
In order for the arcane schools to compete I think what would need to be added is more abilities and bonuses from those schools. I have an example of an idea for the evoker that puts these as just as valuable. For example the evoker at level 1(or two) gets the ability to make AoE damage spells only hit enemies and avoid allies, like spell shape in 5e and the metamagic feat in Pathfinder 1e. At level 6 or so an evoker can change the element of a spell and around 10 or later they get the ability to as a free action use the overwhelming energy metamagic feat
Please keep in mind this is a first draft I came up with this morning. Tinkering will be necessary
|
|
In Golarion the difference just seems to be that occult studies are oriented to the lesser known, weirder and deeper aspects of magic, which arcane is then very surface level magic. At least this is the impression I get from the book and from how it's talked about.
Not surface level exactly. Arcane magic is one of the magics of the material world, of the elements and their interaction, of more or less the entire discipline of physics, in real world terms. As well as being one of the magics associated with thoughts, emotions, and the mind in general, of the discipline of psychology in real world terms.
So it's physics meets psychology. That's pretty in depth stuff, in terms of 'fundamental mysteries of the universe'.
Occult magic, meanwhile, shares that affiliation with the mind with Arcane magic, but is otherwise the magic of the soul, of spirits, faith, morality, and the afterlife in all its forms, of theology and philosophy in real world terms.
So it's psychology meets philosophy and theology. I'm not at all sure that's deeper than the Arcane pairing...just a bit stranger and more difficult to explain.
In Golarion the difference just seems to be that occult studies are oriented to the lesser known, weirder and deeper aspects of magic, which arcane is then very surface level magic. At least this is the impression I get from the book and from how it's talked about.Not surface level exactly. Arcane magic is one of the magics of the material world, of the elements and their interaction, of more or less the entire discipline of physics, in real world terms. As well as being one of the magics associated with thoughts, emotions, and the mind in general, of the discipline of psychology in real world terms.
So it's physics meets psychology. That's pretty in depth stuff, in terms of 'fundamental mysteries of the universe'.
Occult magic, meanwhile, shares that affiliation with the mind with Arcane magic, but is otherwise the magic of the soul, of spirits, faith, morality, and the afterlife in all its forms, of theology and philosophy in real world terms.
So it's psychology meets philosophy and theology. I'm not at all sure that's deeper than the Arcane pairing...just a bit stranger and more difficult to explain.
That's kind of what I think my problem is. The idea magic can be seen as physics. It's weird to me. Especially because pagan traditions all honor gods in their spell craft, and occultists in the real world are theologians. Magic is sort of metaphysical/spiritual in nature. Likewise the arcane list has magic that influences the soul. A lot of necromancy spells do
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, a lot of necromancy spells don't really fit into the arcane list in my opinion (like animate dead), and were likely included mainly because the necromancer wizard is such a staple.
Yeah, a lot of necromancy spells don't really fit into the arcane list in my opinion (like animate dead), and were likely included mainly because the necromancer wizard is such a staple.
I would agree with the way Paizo has designed the traditions and such, it certainly doesn't fit. However we see divination as a wizard staple, but the root of the word is divine. As in peering into the divine to ascertain what the future might bring. Astrology is a form of divination and the concept behind it is reading the godly realm of the stars so that we can learn about the future. Divination magic is kind of on the fence here. We could explain it as physical but that's not all that satisfactory
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's kind of what I think my problem is. The idea magic can be seen as physics. It's weird to me. Especially because pagan traditions all honor gods in their spell craft, and occultists in the real world are theologians. Magic is sort of metaphysical/spiritual in nature.
In most real world traditions? Absolutely. But that's fundamentally not how, say, a Wizard's magic has really ever worked in Pathfinder, or in most editions of D&D. Real magical traditions don't have wizard colleges or the ability (real or imagined) to throw fireballs, either, after all.
Likewise the arcane list has magic that influences the soul. A lot of necromancy spells do
Not really, no. Looking through the PF2 list, almost all the Arcane spells I can see for Necromancy are very physical, dealing purely with the body rather than the soul. Vampiric Touch is a good example, as is Enervation, both effect life energy not the soul. Bind Undead is a bit of an exception, but even that falls easily under Mental, controlling minds as it does.
The PF2 version of Animate Dead is not an exception to this, as it now works like any other summoning spell, which is to say it has no real effect on the soul either, creating a creature out of magical energy, or using brief lived energy to move around a corpse. In either case, no souls are really involved (as you can tell by the lack of an 'Evil' tag in the spell).
The Create Undead ritual does effect the soul, and can be done with Arcana...but also requires a secondary caster using Religion for this very reason. You can mostly use Arcane magic for the process, but you still need that bit of Divine to mess about with souls.
This is technically a change, as Arcane did have a few soul effecting spells in previous editions (Animate Dead and Imprisonment are the only two that leap to mind, but they existed), but it's very much not true in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's kind of what I think my problem is. The idea magic can be seen as physics. It's weird to me. Especially because pagan traditions all honor gods in their spell craft, and occultists in the real world are theologians. Magic is sort of metaphysical/spiritual in nature. Likewise the arcane list has magic that influences the soul. A lot of necromancy spells doIn Golarion the difference just seems to be that occult studies are oriented to the lesser known, weirder and deeper aspects of magic, which arcane is then very surface level magic. At least this is the impression I get from the book and from how it's talked about.Not surface level exactly. Arcane magic is one of the magics of the material world, of the elements and their interaction, of more or less the entire discipline of physics, in real world terms. As well as being one of the magics associated with thoughts, emotions, and the mind in general, of the discipline of psychology in real world terms.
So it's physics meets psychology. That's pretty in depth stuff, in terms of 'fundamental mysteries of the universe'.
Occult magic, meanwhile, shares that affiliation with the mind with Arcane magic, but is otherwise the magic of the soul, of spirits, faith, morality, and the afterlife in all its forms, of theology and philosophy in real world terms.
So it's psychology meets philosophy and theology. I'm not at all sure that's deeper than the Arcane pairing...just a bit stranger and more difficult to explain.
The idea of essences came *after* the initial sorting of spells into various traditions. They made some adjustments to fit the new idea, but a lot of stuff, like Necromancy, was just left as is so as to not annoy long time wizard players who know their rights to "everything except healing" on their spell list. Though even there, wizards can no longer easily summon Imps or Demons; that's Divine now, and rightly so with the new metaphysics.
I have frequently voiced Opinions about all this, but it's all under the bridge now. They did the best with what time they had, and their best is quite good and enjoyable to play, which is the important part.
Even if I imagine some drunken grad student ranting about how the entire Necromantic school makes no damn sense. Edit: In light of DMW post above mine, I want to bring up that Arcane should be no more able to affect life than souls, so even spells that affect the living body (aside from setting said body on fire) should be difficult or out of bounds.
Also, you'll give yourself a headache if you try make sense of real world word meanings versus their in game terms, especially with magic schools.
That's kind of what I think my problem is. The idea magic can be seen as physics. It's weird to me. Especially because pagan traditions all honor gods in their spell craft, and occultists in the real world are theologians. Magic is sort of metaphysical/spiritual in nature.In most real world traditions? Absolutely. But that's fundamentally not how, say, a Wizard's magic has really ever worked in Pathfinder, or in most editions of D&D. Real magical traditions don't have wizard colleges or the ability (real or imagined) to throw fireballs, either, after all.
Likewise the arcane list has magic that influences the soul. A lot of necromancy spells doNot really, no. Looking through the PF2 list, almost all the Arcane spells I can see for Necromancy are very physical, dealing purely with the body rather than the soul. Vampiric Touch is a good example, as is Enervation, both effect life energy not the soul. Bind Undead is a bit of an exception, but even that falls easily under Mental, controlling minds as it does.
The PF2 version of Animate Dead is not an exception to this, as it now works like any other summoning spell, which is to say it has no real effect on the soul either, creating a creature out of magical energy, or using brief lived energy to move around a corpse. In either case, no souls are really involved (as you can tell by the lack of an 'Evil' tag in the spell).
The Create Undead ritual does effect the soul, and can be done with Arcana...but also requires a secondary caster using Religion for this very reason. You can mostly use Arcane magic for the process, but you still need that bit of Divine to mess about with souls.
This is technically a change, as Arcane did have a few soul effecting spells in previous editions (Animate Dead and Imprisonment are the only two that leap to mind, but they existed), but it's very much not true in PF2.
1e and two 2e D&D wizards definitely were closer to what I said. Real world traditions can't shoot fireballs however because magic afaik doesn't exist. I do want to say that animate dead I always thought was putting a false soul into the body of those undead. Otherwise I would see it as transmutation. Vampires also suck blood for the life energy and vampiric touch always read that way to me. Negative energy damage as a whole I always thought affected the soul. Likewise "life" is in 2e outside the domain of arcane magic according to this new separation. Anything that necromancy does that affects the body only I would argue should be transmutation or conjuration. It's why poison based magic is usually conjuration and stinking cloud as well as kill cloud are conjuration. Rotting flesh and so on I think are transmutation effects and with the infliction of diseases either feeling like transmutation or conjuration depending on how you think about it. Channeling power that affects the soul, negative and positive energy afaik does, seems to make all of necromancy not arcane. Power word kill, circle of death, finger of death, chill touch, all feel like soul affecting spells
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
1e and two 2e D&D wizards definitely were closer to what I said. Real world traditions can't shoot fireballs however because magic afaik doesn't exist.
My point was that, regardless of one's belief in them, real world magical traditions generally don't even claim they can throw fireballs. The sort of thing wizards can do in D&D and Pathfinder, and the way they learn to do it, is completely divorced from any real world mystical tradition on a pretty profound level.
I do want to say that animate dead I always thought was putting a false soul into the body of those undead. Otherwise I would see it as transmutation.
The reason that real, permanent, undead are Evil in Pathfinder and Golarion is pretty explicitly that creating them traps the body's original soul, at least partially, in the new undead, making it unable to move on.
Animate Dead, as it exists in PF2, doesn't seem to do that. Indeed, it doesn't even require a body to animate, name aside. It just conjures up a zombie (or whatever) out of raw necromantic energy (or animates a body with same). Without a soul, this doesn't last long (the spell's maximum duration is a minute), but that's very explicitly what it does.
Vampires also suck blood for the life energy and vampiric touch always read that way to me. Negative energy damage as a whole I always thought affected the soul.
No, negative energy has nothing to do with the soul and never has since it came into official existence. It's a pure life energy/death energy thing, and really always has been. It effects creatures epitomizing specific states of a soul (such as angels or demons) normally, and always has.
Likewise "life" is in 2e outside the domain of arcane magic according to this new separation. Anything that necromancy does that affects the body only I would argue should be transmutation or conjuration.
Well, yes, it is. And that's where we get to the 'grandfathered in' bit, but really all traditions blur a little around the edges. The Occult Tradition's soothe also falls under the 'life' category, and the Primal list gets fear despite that falling under Mind or Spirit, and charm animal despite the same. There are always a few outliers that blur the edges.
I was just noting that messing with souls actually isn't one of them. They've been very careful with that one.
It's why poison based magic is usually conjuration and stinking cloud as well as kill cloud are conjuration.
Cloudkill is a Necromancy spell in PF2. As is almost all other poison based magic.
Rotting flesh and so on I think are transmutation effects and with the infliction of diseases either feeling like transmutation or conjuration depending on how you think about it. Channeling power that affects the soul, negative and positive energy afaik does, seems to make all of necromancy not arcane. Power word kill, circle of death, finger of death, chill touch, all feel like soul affecting spells
But they aren't. None of those effect the soul at all, only whether you're alive or dead. And, indeed, the school of Necromancy is defined as follows in PF2:
Necromancy spells harness the power of life and death. They can sap life essence or sustain creatures with life-saving healing.
No mention of souls at all, in fact. Now, that is to some degree a drift from its original definition, but so is literally everything aside from asking the dead for information, so I think that's pretty reasonable, all things considered.
Is life essence not the soul though?
Also a lot is still conjuration, like stinking cloud. Which is poison and similar to cloudkill. Which thinking about these necromancy spells being physical means it's transmuting or conjuring poison, viruses, bacteria or fungi. Which I'm not sure if that should be necromancy. If it's not conjuring these things and affecting the life essence, then it's not really arcane. It feels like lose-lose
Is life essence not the soul though?
No, that is wholly separate. Soul falls under the "Spirit" essence, which life is distinct from. Spirit/Souls tap into the material of the outer/aligned planes, while Life/Vital taps into positive, negative, and First World planes.
Edit: Life + Matter is Primal
Life + Spirit is Divine (which is why they get the best and most complete healing)
Occult is Spirit + Mind
Arcane is Matter + Mind
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is life essence not the soul though?
No. Life energy is what keeps you alive. The soul is something very different indeed, the seat of personality and consciousness, and persists after death.
None of the things you list do more than kill you. You need something like Bind Soul to effect a soul. Now, Bind Soul is also Necromancy...but not Arcane Necromancy.
Also a lot is still conjuration, like stinking cloud. Which is poison and similar to cloudkill. Which thinking about these necromancy spells being physical means it's transmuting or conjuring poison, viruses, bacteria or fungi. Which I'm not sure if that should be necromancy. If it's not conjuring these things and affecting the life essence, then it's not really arcane. It feels like lose-lose
I mean, by this logic isn't Fireball also Conjuration rather than Evocation because it conjures fire?
Almost all physical magic is 'conjuration' in some sense, but the school of Conjuration is about either the movement or creation of creatures or more permanent physical objects than either the fire created by fireball or most of the poisons created by necromancy.
Is life essence not the soul though?
No, that is wholly separate. Soul falls under the "Spirit" essence, which life is distinct from. Spirit/Souls tap into the material of the outer/aligned planes, while Life/Vital taps into positive, negative, and First World planes.
Edit: Life + Matter is Primal
Life + Spirit is Divine (which is why they get the best and most complete healing)
Occult is Spirit + Mind
Arcane is Matter + Mind
Ah I see. I still feel more so inspired by the wizard abilities I thought up above and I think is bypasses the gripes I have with the weird layout of these traditions, or at least, makes them make more sense and the wizard make more sense. There is no reason a wizard could not research and attain these other kinds of magic by finding ways to tap into them, so I kind of like where my idea is going. I want to make a whole variant wizard I develop over play and bouncing the ideas off people
I mean, by this logic isn't Fireball also Conjuration rather than Evocation because it conjures fire?
Almost all physical magic is 'conjuration' in some sense, but the school of Conjuration is about either the movement or creation of creatures or more permanent physical objects than either the fire created by fireball or most of the poisons created by necromancy.
Evocation is a type of conjuration actually. The root of the word, evoker/invoker, means to summon or conjure. The difference is that evocation is raw energy, conjuration is more material. That's how I figured it anyways
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure it does follow logically that a Wizard could get any kind of magic just by studying it.
Primal and Divine, as defined in PF2, tend to resist intellectual analysis, requiring faith of some sort and a spiritual connection in order to utilize A Wizard can have those (as demonstrated by the multiclass Feats), but it's not as simple as just studying alone. It's certainly not impossible, I mean the Magambyaa in the Mwangi Expanse actually specializes in mixing Arcane and Primal magics, but it's not casually easy either.
If that works better for you and your group, you should obviously do it, but I'm not sure it's a necessary logical progression from how Wizards work.
I'm not sure it does follow logically that a Wizard could get any kind of magic just by studying it.
Primal and Divine, as defined in PF2, tend to resist intellectual analysis, requiring faith of some sort and a spiritual connection in order to utilize A Wizard can have those (as demonstrated by the multiclass Feats), but it's not as simple as just studying alone. It's certainly not impossible, I mean the Magambyaa in the Mwangi Expanse actually specializes in mixing Arcane and Primal magics, but it's not casually easy either.
If that works better for you and your group, you should obviously do it, but I'm not sure it's a necessary logical progression from how Wizards work.
The nature of magic being magic I think would, could and should defy logic to an extent, arcane or not. Wizards use funky words, random objects and gestures to interact with some metaphysical force and shape it into an effect. Learning how to reproduce the effects granted from that same force by the divine I think is certainly something a wizard could do. Even if it's integrating that faith into the arcane practice
1e and two 2e D&D wizards definitely were closer to what I said. Real world traditions can't shoot fireballs however because magic afaik doesn't exist.My point was that, regardless of one's belief in them, real world magical traditions generally don't even claim they can throw fireballs. The sort of thing wizards can do in D&D and Pathfinder, and the way they learn to do it, is completely divorced from any real world mystical tradition on a pretty profound level.
Whereas here in the real world, both physicists and forests can be said to create fireballs (not quite like the spell, but close enough for thematics).
Wizards share the occult and primal spells that lend themselves to study on the Material Plane. Divine spells, stemming from the Outer Planes, are not effects that wizards can access, study, or replicate short of wish.
I want to raise y'all the "Unified Theory" skill feat for Arcana. Which says
"You’ve started to make a meaningful connection about the common underpinnings of the four traditions of magic and magical essences, allowing you to understand them all through an arcane lens. Whenever you use an action or a skill feat that requires a Nature, Occultism, or Religion check, depending on the magic tradition, you can use Arcana instead. If you would normally take a penalty or have a higher DC for using Arcana on other magic (such as when using Identify Magic), you no longer do so."
Which suggests within a study of the arcane tradition you can understand the magic of other traditions through it's lens. I think the precident is set that wizards theoretically could adopt the spells and abilities of the other three traditions. I think for wizards specifically this could be a place to differentiate them from any other caster
I mean, in Pathfinder...
Arcane = Sciencey Fantasy Magic
Occult ÷ Alien Mentalish Magic
Focusing too much on what makes them similar will lead to overlooking what makes them different, and what makes them different lies heavily on the associated in game/setting mechanics behind each.
This is true, but it creates inconsistencies. Or at the very least, questions that I don't think the lore explains.
As an example, since Elves are aliens in the Golarion universe, why do their ancestry feats give bonus Arcane and Primal cantrips/innate spells and not Occult spells, since they are aliens, and the Occult list explicitly deals with aliens?
I mean, in Pathfinder...
Arcane = Sciencey Fantasy Magic
Occult ÷ Alien Mentalish Magic
Focusing too much on what makes them similar will lead to overlooking what makes them different, and what makes them different lies heavily on the associated in game/setting mechanics behind each.
This is true, but it creates inconsistencies. Or at the very least, questions that I don't think the lore explains.
As an example, since Elves are aliens in the Golarion universe, why do their ancestry feats give bonus Arcane and Primal cantrips/innate spells and not Occult spells, since they are aliens, and the Occult list explicitly deals with aliens?
Doesn't the 1e innersea world guide say they're fey?
**Edit**
Nevermind double checked, it's not there. I must have misremembering and confused it with D&D lore
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't the 1e innersea world guide say they're fey?
**Edit**
Nevermind double checked, it's not there. I must have misremembering and confused it with D&D lore
You're thinking of Gnomes. They originally came from the First World, although they are thoroughly humanoids now.
You're thinking of Gnomes. They originally came from the First World, although they are thoroughly humanoids now.Doesn't the 1e innersea world guide say they're fey?
**Edit**
Nevermind double checked, it's not there. I must have misremembering and confused it with D&D lore
I actually knew that, but I just thought they both did
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, in Pathfinder...
Arcane = Sciencey Fantasy Magic
Occult ÷ Alien Mentalish Magic
Focusing too much on what makes them similar will lead to overlooking what makes them different, and what makes them different lies heavily on the associated in game/setting mechanics behind each.
This is true, but it creates inconsistencies. Or at the very least, questions that I don't think the lore explains.
As an example, since Elves are aliens in the Golarion universe, why do their ancestry feats give bonus Arcane and Primal cantrips/innate spells and not Occult spells, since they are aliens, and the Occult list explicitly deals with aliens?
Shouldn't a Chelish person who crosses the border into Andoran be able to use Occult Magic since they are now an alien?
|
While I see where you are coming from, I think Unified Theory lends itself to a different shift. Instead of gaining access to whole different traditions, the studious and experimental flavor of wizards (to me) lends itself more toward dragging some spells from other lists onto their arcane list.
To me, Unified Theory hints that arcane includes a bit of dabbling into the other 3 traditions. That, through intense study of the arcane, you can understand magic as a whole. Once you have understood magic as a whole, it stands that you might be able to replicate the effects of some spells of other traditions via arcane practices. As such, the creation of a wizard feat option to replicate spells onto the arcane list from the others should require Unified Theory.
I like it.
While I see where you are coming from, I think Unified Theory lends itself to a different shift. Instead of gaining access to whole different traditions, the studious and experimental flavor of wizards (to me) lends itself more toward dragging some spells from other lists onto their arcane list.
To me, Unified Theory hints that arcane includes a bit of dabbling into the other 3 traditions. That, through intense study of the arcane, you can understand magic as a whole. Once you have understood magic as a whole, it stands that you might be able to replicate the effects of some spells of other traditions via arcane practices. As such, the creation of a wizard feat option to replicate spells onto the arcane list from the others should require Unified Theory.
I like it.
Take a look at my proposal above, the hella long message and tell me what you think. It's a little bit extra but I have my reasonings
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, in Pathfinder...
Arcane = Sciencey Fantasy Magic
Occult ÷ Alien Mentalish Magic
Focusing too much on what makes them similar will lead to overlooking what makes them different, and what makes them different lies heavily on the associated in game/setting mechanics behind each.
This is true, but it creates inconsistencies. Or at the very least, questions that I don't think the lore explains.
As an example, since Elves are aliens in the Golarion universe, why do their ancestry feats give bonus Arcane and Primal cantrips/innate spells and not Occult spells, since they are aliens, and the Occult list explicitly deals with aliens?
Alien in this case meaning "strange, unknowable, or inherently metaphysically foreign" as opposed to "traveling through space".
Elves may be extraterrestrial (i thought they left golarion and came back?), but they aren't 'alien' in the same sense an Outer God or Great Old One is.
|
|
Eh..
So...are you getting more than just the dedication for cleric, witch, and druid? Are you getting the basic spellcasting? Are you getting more than just the basic spellcasting? If yes to the last two, then that sounds more powerful than the other thesis. Or, if yes and they are class feat progressions, then why not dedicate? If no, then why not just dedicate?
Shouldn't a Chelish person who crosses the border into Andoran be able to use Occult Magic since they are now an alien?I mean, in Pathfinder...
Arcane = Sciencey Fantasy Magic
Occult ÷ Alien Mentalish Magic
Focusing too much on what makes them similar will lead to overlooking what makes them different, and what makes them different lies heavily on the associated in game/setting mechanics behind each.
This is true, but it creates inconsistencies. Or at the very least, questions that I don't think the lore explains.
As an example, since Elves are aliens in the Golarion universe, why do their ancestry feats give bonus Arcane and Primal cantrips/innate spells and not Occult spells, since they are aliens, and the Occult list explicitly deals with aliens?
I know this was a sarcastic response, but the question I posed was a serious one.
I could have sworn I read somewhere that in Pathfinder, Elves came from space, and had to like crashland onto Golarion (AKA Earth) or something, with no way back home, and as time went on they abandoned the idea and turned Golarion into their new home planet, more or less.
I mean, in Pathfinder...
Arcane = Sciencey Fantasy Magic
Occult ÷ Alien Mentalish Magic
Focusing too much on what makes them similar will lead to overlooking what makes them different, and what makes them different lies heavily on the associated in game/setting mechanics behind each.
This is true, but it creates inconsistencies. Or at the very least, questions that I don't think the lore explains.
As an example, since Elves are aliens in the Golarion universe, why do their ancestry feats give bonus Arcane and Primal cantrips/innate spells and not Occult spells, since they are aliens, and the Occult list explicitly deals with aliens?
Alien in this case meaning "strange, unknowable, or inherently metaphysically foreign" as opposed to "traveling through space".
Elves may be extraterrestrial (i thought they left golarion and came back?), but they aren't 'alien' in the same sense an Outer God or Great Old One is.
I mean, to us they are different, but I imagine the first Elf sitings might not have been unlike us discovering UFOs or "visitors", as a comparison.
I also don't find Cthulhu being comparable to an example alien to be outlandish or unreasonable, either.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Elves are also found on the Pulp Venus inspired Castrovel in Golarion's solar system, and indeed there's ongoing travel between the two via a portal in Kyonin.
It is in-universe unclear which of the two planets they originate on, with the elves of Golarion holding with Golarion and those of Castrovel likewise thinking their home is the origin point, but what evidence we have as readers points to Castrovel.
Regardless, during Earthfall and the Age of Darkness many elves (basically, the ones near Kyonin) retreated from Golarion to Castrovel via the aforementioned portal, and only returned when that unpleasantness was over.
But, as KrispyXIV notes, none of that makes them notably more likely to use Occult magic, which is associated with 'alien' things in the sense of truly alien ways of thinking, rather than merely 'planets other than Golarion', many of which are not really alien in that sense at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this was a sarcastic response, but the question I posed was a serious one.
I could have sworn I read somewhere that in Pathfinder, Elves came from space, and had to like crashland onto Golarion (AKA Earth) or something, with no way back home, and as time went on they abandoned the idea and turned Golarion into their new home planet, more or less.
You're half right.
Elves, canonically, are natives of Castrovel, the lush jungle equivalent of Venus in the Golarian solar system. They travelled to Golarion via the Elf Gates. They can go back but Golarion is their home. They actually did (for the most part) to avoid Earth Fall.
Think less stranded aliens, and more fully transplanted immigrants.
EDIT: Ninja'ed by DMW
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The nature of magic being magic I think would, could and should defy logic to an extent, arcane or not. Wizards use funky words, random objects and gestures to interact with some metaphysical force and shape it into an effect. Learning how to reproduce the effects granted from that same force by the divine I think is certainly something a wizard could do. Even if it's integrating that faith into the arcane practice
I just said you could do this. In fact, take a look at Halcyon Speaker which does more or less exactly this, melding Arcane and Primal, and while not restricted to Wizards is primarily used by them.
What I said was that it wasn't simple, easy, or ubiquitous. It's a tricky thing to do.
Unified Theory actually supports this, being as it is a Legendary Skill Feat. Every Wizard cannot do this, it is in fact rare and special to be able to. Not impossible, certainly, but not easy either.
Eh..
So...are you getting more than just the dedication for cleric, witch, and druid? Are you getting the basic spellcasting? Are you getting more than just the basic spellcasting? If yes to the last two, then that sounds more powerful than the other thesis. Or, if yes and they are class feat progressions, then why not dedicate? If no, then why not just dedicate?
it's built in progression and to enable access to flavorful focus spells and abilities for the class. If it is too convoluted there are probably better ways of implementing the idea without the whole dedication feat stuff. I picked prepared casters of the tradition that seemed like exemplars of the tradition, and worrying about how it interacts with spontaneous casters was too much of a boggle. However I do think the other schools or thesis need to be expanded on as is, so I'm not too worried about it being better
The nature of magic being magic I think would, could and should defy logic to an extent, arcane or not. Wizards use funky words, random objects and gestures to interact with some metaphysical force and shape it into an effect. Learning how to reproduce the effects granted from that same force by the divine I think is certainly something a wizard could do. Even if it's integrating that faith into the arcane practiceI just said you could do this. In fact, take a look at Halcyon Speaker which does more or less exactly this, melding Arcane and Primal, and while not restricted to Wizards is primarily used by them.
What I said was that it wasn't simple, easy, or ubiquitous. It's a tricky thing to do.
Unified Theory actually supports this, being as it is a Legendary Skill Feat. Every Wizard cannot do this, it is in fact rare and special to be able to. Not impossible, certainly, but not easy either.
thanks for bringing this to my attention. I think unified theory is exactly what you said, and having a single tradition being a specialization you can take as opposed to a school or thesis(depending on what makes more sense) would be in line with this, only fully incorporating a tradition near max level. The reason I went with MDC was because it had inherent limiting factors. No 9th or tenth spells, limited access to the class's abilities and needing to sacrifice wizard abilities to get access to those etc. Where I don't like that I did MDC for this idea is that I want them to still be wizards and not multiclasses, so stripping a lot of these elements from the MDC is necessary for flavor, not really even balance. It also might be clunky. I do however like building the arcanist as an alternate class right into the wizard, but I know some people want it a separate class. I purposefully posted it so people could tell me what was wrong even though it was super rough
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if we want to be really pedantic, both Wizard and Wise share a similar linguistic root, so wizards should really be using Wisdom instead of Intelligence to cast their spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if we want to be really pedantic, both Wizard and Wise share a similar linguistic root, so wizards should really be using Wisdom instead of Intelligence to cast their spells.
The same linguistic root. Wizard almost literally translates to someone who is wise. In the same fashion as drunkard or dullard or coward.
Similar note, the Druid class as it exists in Pathfinder doesn't really bare all that much resemblance to what we know of historical Druids.
And while the OP is right that Arcane and Occult are basically synonyms, it even goes a step further. Arcane means mysterious or hard to understand, while in Golarion Arcane magic is the most scientific and studied of magic (with the other traditions being weirder and harder to access directly as a matter of course), basically giving it almost the opposite definition.
Words are weird.
...so I'm not too worried about it being betterThis is where we differ.
Oh? Because a common complaint is that the wizard gets piss all to make it a meaningful choice from the other casters, especially ones who also get the arcane list. The schools give you one slot so you're up to par with other casters but it's not flexible at all and the focus spell you also get is meh outside of two or three options. The thesis also need follow up feats that expand on this, like every class but the wizard gets for their starting choices. The schools and thesis need feat trees or something
I think that the primary distinction that defines arcane magic is that it, above all other magic, can be studied. It is said above that primal and divine magic resist study(even if it is possible to a legendary wizard). I think that this should also be extended to occult magic. Consider that the iconic occult caster, the bard, collects tales and scraps of magical knowledge, but doesn't seek to study them academically. Consider also the witch(which in my opinion ought to have been single list occult, but has been landed with that simply being the most common option). They receive knowledge of spells from their patron, rather than elaborating on the knowledge itself.
If you will allow me some flavour text: Occultism is the magic of secrets and half knowledge, lacking the fundamental, possibly mind breaking comprehension that would make it whole. As a result, it is not a cutting science, mastered by great mids pushing back the boundaries of the unknown, but an accumulation of scraps, undertaken by people who either accept that they are groping blindly forward in the dark, feeling for anything other than the base ground, or who have yet to go mad. Each scrap is unconnected to the last, and they form no great tapestry, but a monument to human ignorance. No wizard could study it for long, as the futility of their attempts at progress would drive them away, insane or both.
In short, if the arcane be magic from study, primal from one-ness with nature and the divine from faith, the occult is magic from harnessing the inexplicable, without seeking explanation.
And in less esoteric terms, the comparison is like that between a guy who uses the latest science to make a laser gun, and a guy in the middle ages who finds a death ray and knows how to use it but not how to make another. It may be possible to understand, but no-one yet has, and it would require an understanding of subjects that require so much more study to be useful that it's ridiculous to think of someone reaching that unified theory anytime soon. At best, the occult spell caster can use static electricity to perform some amazing party tricks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
to begin the power creep that destroyed PF1.
That's not a thing that actually happened though.
to begin the power creep that destroyed PF1.That's not a thing that actually happened though.
PF1 started with overpowered nonsense. Right now wizards both lack features and are mathematically worse. Seems cut and dry to me