Secrets of magic hype

[WWHsmackdown]

I like spells essentially getting talisman equivalents in SoM. It'll be neat to dole out more consumable loot for the caster players.

[roquepo]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

roquepo wrote:

As a reddit user said a few days ago, the problem with attack roll spells is not that the math is wrong, but that the mayority of attack roll spells we have now suck. Have you seen the new Scorching Ray? And from the current available spells, have you tried Illusory Creature, for example?

We need better spells, not better math.

I don’t really see it. Unless those new spells have:

A) Failure conditions
B) Built in bonuses
C) Re-slot themselves on a miss
D) Some new alleviating mechanic altogether

Then it’s going to be the same issue over again. For multiple levels, normally during the “core” levels of a lot of games, you will be statically unlikely to hit, and because of their design, worse than getting nothing for a miss, you’ve blown a limited resource to do so.

Attack spells just aren’t good options these days.

In which way Illusory creature is not a good spell attack roll spell? or Flaming Fusillade? They are really strong in medium to lenghty fights.

Right now they are very few, but we have seen good examples of successful spell attacks, the ones that minimize the impact of failure. Improving the math is dangerous because True Strike exist, and it is equivalent to a bonus between +3 and +4 on the die (an untyped bonus of sorts were that not enough). I haven't done the math myself but it has been done to death due to 5E.

We need more of those and less Ray of Enfeeblement (I cannot stress this enough, attack plus save is so spectacularly bad that I can't imagine a way for it to work). If we get both actual spell attacks that can be detached from True Strike for full casters and nova slots for magus and EA (being honest the only real utility of spells like Polar Ray) I'm sure people will complain dramatically less about how "bad" spell attack roll math is.

[Old_Man_Robot]

roquepo wrote:

In which way Illusory creature is not a good spell attack roll spell? or Flaming Fusillade? They are really strong in medium to lenghty fights.

Neither of those spells have the Attack trait.

Both of those spells speifically lack, avoid, or get around many of the problems which make attack spells (those with the attack trait) so bad.

Produce Flame, being a cantrip, also avoids my ire with attack spells, simply because if you miss with it, its not a depleted resource like all non-cantrip spells. Flaming Fusillade style abilties are something I would really hope to see an expansion of.

roquepo wrote:

Right now they are very few, but we have seen good examples of successful spell attacks, the ones that minimize the impact of failure. Improving the math is dangerous because True Strike exist, and it is equivalent to a bonus between +3 and +4 on the die (an untyped bonus of sorts were that not enough).

True Strike exists for everyone, not just casters. The fact that runes already exist for martials, which benefit from True Strike as much as casters, and it doesn't screw up the whole game suggests this risk is overstated.

[Kalaam]

Casters have an easier access to True Strike though, however even with a staff you get "locked" into staves of divination so you can have a reliable source of true strikes.

The custom staves will help with that, but I assume TS will still be on everyone's staves.

I think we should have more attack spells being a single action, at least a few cantrips, even if they have a flourish trait or something, so you can attempt a strike while doing something else.

However, there is still ways to increase accuracy (yes they apply to everyone not just casters), between frighten, clumsy, immobilized, flat footed and I must forget quite a few, you can create situations where even a boss monsters can have a good chance of getting hit square by your strongest attack spell.

Maybe if they had a bit more oomph, it'd feel less frustrating, increasing the "high risk/high reward" feel to them.

[Unicore]

If people want to continue a conversation about the math and optics of spell attack rolls vs saving throws, there have been many threads that would be a more suitable place to keep discussing that, rather than in a thread for people to discuss the things about Secrets of Magic that they are hyped about.

I too am very curious to see what spellhearts look like in play. It is a cool idea that I had not really considered previously so it will be interesting to see how they get put in practice. I am hoping we can get a blog post example of one specifically sometime soon.

[wegrata]

Kalaam wrote:

Casters have an easier access to True Strike though, however even with a staff you get "locked" into staves of divination so you can have a reliable source of true strikes.

The custom staves will help with that, but I assume TS will still be on everyone's staves.

I think we should have more attack spells being a single action, at least a few cantrips, even if they have a flourish trait or something, so you can attempt a strike while doing something else.

However, there is still ways to increase accuracy (yes they apply to everyone not just casters), between frighten, clumsy, immobilized, flat footed and I must forget quite a few, you can create situations where even a boss monsters can have a good chance of getting hit square by your strongest attack spell.

Maybe if they had a bit more oomph, it'd feel less frustrating, increasing the "high risk/high reward" feel to them.

More single action cantrips would help, what I'd really like to see is feats that can add some type of affect on failure for some subset of spells

Like something that adds a slow affect that still applies on a miss, but not a critical miss to any spell you cast with both cold and attack traits for example.

I'd rather not have new spells completely invalidate existing or be straight up better.

Something like this could help but probably has other issues I'm not thinking of.

[TheGentlemanDM]

I'm excited about the kinds of narratives that Summoners are going to enable.

The bond between Summoner and Eidolon is more fundamental than the connection that any other character can forge. Clerics and Champions and their deities, Witches with their patrons... no. Your connection is so strong that you literally share HP. You're soulbound.

And yet eidolons are intelligent, independent, and often otherworldly beings. The potential for having two actual characters in play for the same character who can play off each other in many different ways and bring two radically different viewpoints about the world is fascinating to explore.

Often when creating a character and having their flaws and possible development in mind, you are still somewhat dependent on the other characters bringing their own flaws and viewpoints for your character to interact with. For a Summoner, you can build that yourself (ideally in a way that doesn't outshadow the other players).

Also, since they're always able to be around, the potential for that relationship to be developed with not just the Summoner but also the other PCs is so much greater than with a deity or patron.

[SOLDIER-1st]

I'm really hoping there will be a shadow eidolon option like there was in 1e.

[TheGentlemanDM]

SOLDIER-1st wrote:

I'm really hoping there will be a shadow eidolon option like there was in 1e.

We know that won't be the case immediately.

The 10 eidolon types are Angel, Anger Phantom, Beast, Construct, Demon, Devotion Phantom, Dragon, Fey, Plant, and Psychopomp.

That said, taking one of the Phantoms and giving them some spellcasting (they give the Occult list) and picking some stealth-focused evolutions could probably get you thematically and mechanically close?

[roquepo]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Neither of those spells have the Attack trait.

Both of those spells speifically lack, avoid, or get around many of the problems which make attack spells (those with the attack trait) so bad.

The fact remains that both are spells, both use spell attack rolls and both suffer from MAP, you are just being picky for the sake of being picky. Avoiding a problem from the beginning is the cleanest way to solve a problem.

Unicore wrote:

If people want to continue a conversation about the math and optics of spell attack rolls vs saving throws, there have been many threads that would be a more suitable place to keep discussing that, rather than in a thread for people to discuss the things about Secrets of Magic that they are hyped about.

Regardless of previous responses in this thread, this is true still, so I'll stop talking about the topic for now.

So back on topic, I know it is not something directly SoM related, but I really want to know how are they going to deal with Synthetist class archetype. In 1E it was one of the cooler archetypes aesthetic-wise, but mechanically, it was a mess.

[WatersLethe]

So, what's the deal with Elementalist? Was that an archetype that gives you a special elemental themed spell list?

[roquepo]

WatersLethe wrote:

So, what's the deal with Elementalist? Was that an archetype that gives you a special elemental themed spell list?

As I understood, it is an archetype for casters that empowers elemental casting, with Monk and Druid in specific getting in-class options for it. Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Kalaam]

I'd be down to try that archetype on Magus. Could give an interresting Kineticist Knight emulation

[Unicore]

I think one of the things that is going to surprise people about this book that missed the panel is just of different the organization of it is going to be from something like the APG. It is really not structured around the mechanical game options as much as that book and is instead much more narratively set up.

[wegrata]

I thought it was mentioned elementalist gives a unique spell list as well

[Kalaam]

You mean like... the chapters on the new classes would be introduced like a study over them ? Like a wizard writing a report on specific type of magic practitionners, giving his opinion and theories as to how they function ?

[nick1wasd]

wegrata wrote:

I thought it was mentioned elementalist gives a unique spell list as well

I believe (not certain) that it gives you a spell list based upon elemental tags, not a tradition list. So any [FIRE] spell, regardless of Arcane, Primal, Divine or Occult. Or it could have it's own mini curtailed list of highly specific spells and focus spells. My best guess (and hope) is the former, but again I'm not certain

[SOLDIER-1st]

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

SOLDIER-1st wrote:

I'm really hoping there will be a shadow eidolon option like there was in 1e.

We know that won't be the case immediately.

The 10 eidolon types are Angel, Anger Phantom, Beast, Construct, Demon, Devotion Phantom, Dragon, Fey, Plant, and Psychopomp.

That said, taking one of the Phantoms and giving them some spellcasting (they give the Occult list) and picking some stealth-focused evolutions could probably get you thematically and mechanically close?

Ah, I did not know that. But yeah, I think it will be quite simple to mix and match the appropriate abilities to emulate one.

[Kyrone]

Btw, we know all the new offensive cantrips that will be in the book.

Spout - Water one, single target but if you are on water you can instead target all enemies adjacent of you like a whale.

Gale Blast - Wind, it pushes the enemy if they fail the save.

Scattering Spree - 1d4 + Spellcasting modifier, 30 ft range target 2 squares and create difficult terrain.

Haunting Hymn - Sonic damage, scales like daze but 15ft cone and deafened on crit failure.

A melee claw cantrip.

Puff of Poison - spellcasting modifier + 2 persistent poison damage, range is touch.

[AnimatedPaper]

Not my full list of wanted cantrips, but an excellent start.

Actually I’m a little surprised. They’re almost all damaging spells (assuming the wind one has no damage), with no utility ones. I was hoping for a fear, morph, or teleportation cantrip.

But I’m not complaining about getting several of the ones I was hoping for!

[Kyrone]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Not my full list of wanted cantrips, but an excellent start.

Actually I’m a little surprised. They’re almost all damaging spells (assuming the wind one has no damage), with no utility ones. I was hoping for a fear, morph, or teleportation cantrip.

But I’m not complaining about getting several of the ones I was hoping for!

I listed only the offensive ones, have more, per example have one that that either record or write (I don't remember which one) stuff for you.

[vagrant-poet]

Bullhorn is a cantrip! And one I'm glad is in the game for narrative reasons mostly.

[Old_Man_Robot]

roquepo wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Neither of those spells have the Attack trait.

Both of those spells speifically lack, avoid, or get around many of the problems which make attack spells (those with the attack trait) so bad.

The fact remains that both are spells, both use spell attack rolls and both suffer from MAP, you are just being picky for the sake of being picky. Avoiding a problem from the beginning is the cleanest way to solve a problem.

They just aren't what I'm talking about. Spells that use spell attack rolls aren't, in general, a problem. Spells with the Attack trait are however.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Kyrone wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Not my full list of wanted cantrips, but an excellent start.

Actually I’m a little surprised. They’re almost all damaging spells (assuming the wind one has no damage), with no utility ones. I was hoping for a fear, morph, or teleportation cantrip.

But I’m not complaining about getting several of the ones I was hoping for!

I listed only the offensive ones, have more, per example have one that that either record or write (I don't remember which one) stuff for you.

Do you have a list by any chance? I don't think I have them marked out anywhere.

[wegrata]

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

roquepo wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Neither of those spells have the Attack trait.

Both of those spells speifically lack, avoid, or get around many of the problems which make attack spells (those with the attack trait) so bad.

The fact remains that both are spells, both use spell attack rolls and both suffer from MAP, you are just being picky for the sake of being picky. Avoiding a problem from the beginning is the cleanest way to solve a problem.

They just aren't what I'm talking about. Spells that use spell attack rolls aren't, in general, a problem. Spells with the Attack trait are however.

You know I'd actually live more stuff like those spells, but more broadly available than just fire oracle. Like if Flaming Fusillade was available to all classes that had access to produce flame and there were similar ways to augment other spells or categories of spells with the attack trait, that would be awesome.

[Davido1000]

I was kinda hoping for some girth via interesting class feats to some of the more lacking or uninteresting spellcasters like the witch or wizards.

They might get some content hopefully but i didnt see or hear anything about it so i assume its a no on that front. Kind of annoying considering the druid who is already well represented and the monk who is a martial are getting feats.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Davido1000 wrote:

I was kinda hoping for some girth via interesting class feats to some of the more lacking or uninteresting spellcasters like the witch or wizards.

They might get some content hopefully but i didnt see or hear anything about it so i assume its a no on that front. Kind of annoying considering the druid who is already well represented and the monk who is a martial are getting feats.

I think they said there won’t be a lot of class feats overall, which I agree is a shame.

The Wizard is getting a unique class archetype however, which I’m very eager to see.

[richienvh]

Kyrone wrote:

Btw, we know all the new offensive cantrips that will be in the book.

Spout - Water one, single target but if you are on water you can instead target all enemies adjacent of you like a whale.

Gale Blast - Wind, it pushes the enemy if they fail the save.

Scattering Spree - 1d4 + Spellcasting modifier, 30 ft range target 2 squares and create difficult terrain.

Haunting Hymn - Sonic damage, scales like daze but 15ft cone and deafened on crit failure.

A melee claw cantrip.

Puff of Poison - spellcasting modifier + 2 persistent poison damage, range is touch.

Any idea on whether any of those are attack cantrips?

Asking for my future Magus...

From what I see, only Puff of Poison the Claw One and maybe Scattering Spree

[AnimatedPaper]

Kyrone wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Not my full list of wanted cantrips, but an excellent start.

Actually I’m a little surprised. They’re almost all damaging spells (assuming the wind one has no damage), with no utility ones. I was hoping for a fear, morph, or teleportation cantrip.

But I’m not complaining about getting several of the ones I was hoping for!

I listed only the offensive ones, have more, per example have one that that either record or write (I don't remember which one) stuff for you.

Ah. I missed that qualifier. In that case, my hype remains unabated!

[Kyrone]

richienvh wrote:

Kyrone wrote:

Btw, we know all the new offensive cantrips that will be in the book.

Spout - Water one, single target but if you are on water you can instead target all enemies adjacent of you like a whale.

Gale Blast - Wind, it pushes the enemy if they fail the save.

Scattering Spree - 1d4 + Spellcasting modifier, 30 ft range target 2 squares and create difficult terrain.

Haunting Hymn - Sonic damage, scales like daze but 15ft cone and deafened on crit failure.

A melee claw cantrip.

Puff of Poison - spellcasting modifier + 2 persistent poison damage, range is touch.

Any idea on whether any of those are attack cantrips?

Asking for my future Magus...

From what I see, only Puff of Poison the Claw One and maybe Scattering Spree

All of them are save based, except the claw one that they did not say.

[wegrata]

That's disappointing to hear, I hope magus gets a focus cantrip or something to keep it from every magus using the same couple cantrips.

[The-Magic-Sword]

wegrata wrote:

I thought it was mentioned elementalist gives a unique spell list as well

Unclear, they kept mentioning an 'elemental' spell list during the panel so I reported what they said about it, and then they clarified it wasn't a new tradition, it almost sounds like it might have a special bespoke spell list for itself to give characters who take certain option(s?) access to elemental magic they don't normally by tag or something, but we just don't know yet.

[richienvh]

wegrata wrote:

That's disappointing to hear, I hope magus gets a focus cantrip or something to keep it from every magus using the same couple cantrips.

I guess that feat to Spellstrike with save spells will be handy

The Claw Cantrip will probably be attack, though

[Arachnofiend]

The claw cantrip is a polymorph, I'm pretty sure. So it'll just give you a natural attack you can attack with later.

[Dubious Scholar]

Kyrone wrote:

Btw, we know all the new offensive cantrips that will be in the book.

Spout - Water one, single target but if you are on water you can instead target all enemies adjacent of you like a whale.

Gale Blast - Wind, it pushes the enemy if they fail the save.

Scattering Spree - 1d4 + Spellcasting modifier, 30 ft range target 2 squares and create difficult terrain.

Haunting Hymn - Sonic damage, scales like daze but 15ft cone and deafened on crit failure.

A melee claw cantrip.

Puff of Poison - spellcasting modifier + 2 persistent poison damage, range is touch.

Haunting Hymn's scaling will be acceptable I guess if it's a cone. 4d6 fall well short of 10d4, though (+2 heightening is awkward on odd-level spells - getting to 5d6 would have helped. I want to say it ends up around 14+stat damage average at 20, compared to the 25+stat of Electric Arc)

[Davido1000]

Arachnofiend wrote:

The claw cantrip is a polymorph, I'm pretty sure. So it'll just give you a natural attack you can attack with later.

Thats too close to wild morph, i think it will just be a quick spell attack polymorph claw strike that quickly changes back after the cantrip.

[Themetricsystem]

Did there happen to see any hints during the show about if Black Blade is being supported via Magus Feats or better yet, another Archetype entirely?

[Kyrone]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Did there happen to see any hints during the show about if Black Blade is being supported via Magus Feats or better yet, another Archetype entirely?

No sentient weapon, but have an archetype called Soul Forger that might do similar enough, you bind a part of your soul into the equipment, the prerequisites is either 14 Wisdom OR be a divine caster.

[Invictus Novo]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Did there happen to see any hints during the show about if Black Blade is being supported via Magus Feats or better yet, another Archetype entirely?

That was asked in the after panel discord and the answer was simply "no" with no elaboration.

[Inquisitive Tiefling]

Invictus Novo wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

Did there happen to see any hints during the show about if Black Blade is being supported via Magus Feats or better yet, another Archetype entirely?

That was asked in the after panel discord and the answer was simply "no" with no elaboration.

There was some indirect elaboration, actually:

"Intelligent weapons are kind of a GM decision. They are not an object or slave, they're a person, basically an NPC along with the party with their own motivations and actions in combat, so it's unlikely to really make a player-opt-in intelligent item for those reasons. But a GM interested in the idea and OK with the power boost of those extra actions can totally work with players to make a soulforged weapon intelligent, or I think you could pick an intelligent weapon as your soulforged weapon if you have one but I don't have my file open,"

Basically because of how powerful they can be and being another NPC for the GM to play and manage, they want to make sure it's in the GMs hands to decide when or if an intelligent weapon is included.

[Candlejake]

Davido1000 wrote:

I was kinda hoping for some girth via interesting class feats to some of the more lacking or uninteresting spellcasters like the witch or wizards.

They might get some content hopefully but i didnt see or hear anything about it so i assume its a no on that front. Kind of annoying considering the druid who is already well represented and the monk who is a martial are getting feats.

I agree that its sad that not many more new class feats come and personally hoped for more sorcerer bloodlines especially maybe finally a good occult one. What would be nice if in line with elementalist they expand on the elemental bloodline to include electricity and cold.

But druid actually felt like it got the least stuff in the APG. Didnt even get a new order.

Personally im always excited for more monk stuff. I'm curious to see whats in store for them conderning elementalist though.

[Ezekieru]

Candlejake wrote:

Davido1000 wrote:

I was kinda hoping for some girth via interesting class feats to some of the more lacking or uninteresting spellcasters like the witch or wizards.

They might get some content hopefully but i didnt see or hear anything about it so i assume its a no on that front. Kind of annoying considering the druid who is already well represented and the monk who is a martial are getting feats.

I agree that its sad that not many more new class feats come and personally hoped for more sorcerer bloodlines especially maybe finally a good occult one. What would be nice if in line with elementalist they expand on the elemental bloodline to include electricity and cold.

But druid actually felt like it got the least stuff in the APG. Didnt even get a new order.

Personally im always excited for more monk stuff. I'm curious to see whats in store for them conderning elementalist though.

Druids and Clerics definitely got shafted in the APG, options-wise. They both got feats, sure, but Druids got Verdant seeds/weapons and Clerics got extra divination feats.

I'm glad Druids are getting more Orders in SoM. It'll flesh them out well, and give them extra support for if they also wanna grab the Elementalism class archetype.

Now if only we'd get more cleric doctrines. At least Lost Omens: Gods and Magic gave them tons of gods to choose from.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Personally I'd like to see a more divine focused book for Clerics. A future product focusing on clerics, oracles, maybe re-introducing the Shaman, and some other divine types.

Actually, thinking about it. I would like to see a book per magic tradition aimed at supporting their primary class types - the classes that only do that type of magic, and then additional support for that type of thing overall.

Something like:

Book of Occult Mysteries
- Heavy Bard support
- Introduces other occult classes, psychic, etc.
- Occult Archetypes for everyone
- Spells and items

Book of Arcane Secrets
- Heavy Wizard support
- If we weren't getting the Magus already, I'd say they go here. Perhaps a new take on the Arcanist.
- assorted arcane inspired archetypes
- Spells and items

Book of Primal Discovery
- Heavy Druid suppport
- Return of the shifter, maybe the shaman here, get the Hunter back with a fresh take
- Leshy everything
- Spells and Items (all of them leshy)

Book of Divine Revelations
- You get the item.

[Kyrone]

Scorching Ray is also on the book.

1 to 3 actions lvl 2 spell.

1 action is 2d6.
2 actions is 4d6 but 2 targets.
3 actions 4d6 and 3 targets.

Spell attacks for each ray but don't increase MAP until the end of the spell.

Heightening is probably 1d6 forn1 action and 2d6 for 2 and 3.

[Davido1000]

Ezekieru wrote:

Druids and Clerics definitely got shafted in the APG, options-wise. They both got feats, sure, but Druids got Verdant seeds/weapons and Clerics got extra divination feats.

I'm glad Druids are getting more Orders in SoM. It'll flesh them out well, and give them extra support for if they also wanna grab the Elementalism class archetype.

Now if only we'd get more cleric doctrines. At least Lost Omens: Gods and Magic gave them tons of gods to choose from.

Druids however are a very solid class and don't really "need" more content to flesh them out. Clerics just needed more spells which should hopefully be fixed in this book, Warpriest does however need some specific feats to help out in the mid game.

The Wizard and especially the Witch are in the most desperate need for feat support. The wizard list is quite boring and some school specific feats would really flesh them out. The Witch just feels like an unfinished class that a bunch of feats could hotfix such as more access to hexes, new hexes, feat trees to empower weak feats like living hair.

[roquepo]

Kyrone wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

Did there happen to see any hints during the show about if Black Blade is being supported via Magus Feats or better yet, another Archetype entirely?

No sentient weapon, but have an archetype called Soul Forger that might do similar enough, you bind a part of your soul into the equipment, the prerequisites is either 14 Wisdom OR be a divine caster.

Did they mention the level for the Archetype Feat? Is it level 2 like most or is it higher?

[Perpdepog]

Kinda bummed to here the aberration-style eidolon isn't in SoM, I was really looking forward to that. Ditto for the amalgam one, and I was low key hoping for an aeon or protean one. I am all but certain they'll be in later books, and it doesn't reduce my hype for the class, but still a little sad-making none the less.

[Squiggit]

Kinda same. The options look neat, but it feels a little limiting that all of the Occult eidolons are phantoms.

[Perpdepog]

On the upside, it does mean that those eidolon types, and also devils which I forgot to mention before, will likely come out in later books after the devs and other writers have seen people's reactions to the summoner in play. Sort of a stealth playtest, if you will.