|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one said there won't be things for Wizards, settle down.
My point was that if the Rune Lord archetype ends up being a largely flavor based archetype, rather than something that changes the Wizard playstyle in regards to magic, then perhaps it would have been better served in a different book rather than Secrets of Magic. Given there have been several references to things that had to be cut from this book, a wiser place to put it might have been in a Lost Omens or AP book.
But I guess we'll just have to wait and see what it actually does.
One of the things people aren't fond of on Wizard is the weak focus spells. A class archetype that gives domain focus spells is something that addresses that. As far as "lazy", I'd much prefer this to them writing up seven mutually exclusive sets of two focus spells that only come up if you are playing one archetype that can only be used by one class. Plus, they're cool focus spells! The Indulgence intro spell, Overstuff, is a utility debuff, which is such a fun combination. It fits Gluttony as well as anything I'd expect from a custom write-up.
Given that the cleric has access to over 100 different focus spells, forgive me for the thinking a Wizard could have a quater of that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Magus' Spinning Staff attack gives me hope that it will be possible to build a Staff Magus in PF2.Twisting Tree is the Hybrid Studies that focus on staves, it let you put property runes on staves (except shifting), the focus spell is to hit two enemies in range and I believe that their Arcane cascade effect is to give reach to staves.
Thanks for that information! That all sounds fun. And I like the name Twisted Tree. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that if the Rune Lord archetype ends up being a largely flavor based archetype, rather than something that changes the Wizard playstyle in regards to magic, then perhaps it would have been better served in a different book rather than Secrets of Magic. Given there have been several references to things that had to be cut from this book, a wiser place to put it might have been in a Lost Omens or AP book.
I don't see how Thassilonian Sin Magic won't be a change in the wizard playstyle regarding magic. The way it worked in 1e was you lose 2 schools of magic but get double the extra spell slots for your specialized school. If it works the same way, that's a big deal in 2e. I don't think it looks like a strictly stronger wizard, but between that change in magic and the addition of better weapon abilities and aeon stone related powers I do think it will result in a pretty different way to play the class.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I see. Personally, I'm happy to be getting the first class-specific archetype. It's been a couple years, and now we can finally see what they look like in practice. But if some folks would have preferred getting blood magic now instead of later and waiting more for a class-specific archetype, that's entirely understandable. Blood magic is cool! Fortunately, we've been told we will be getting it at some point.
As far as more focus spell options go, this archetype will almost double the amount for Wizards ("almost" because Runelords can't pick divination or universalist), while still leaving them with a lot more subclass options than Cleric gets. I know only Sloth gets something new, but doing the rest would mean cutting a dozen other new spells.
For me personally, the archetype does seem like what I've been looking for. I wanted an enchantment Wizard with a literally charming handshake, like you could do in PF1. Lust very likely gives Passion, which has Charming Touch. It's an alternate, stronger, more thematic focus spell. It solves one of my big disappointments with Wizard, that if you didn't like your school's initial focus spell, they didn't have other options like PF1 sub-schools. The Thassilonian flavor is gravy on top.
|
|
My point was that if the Rune Lord archetype ends up being a largely flavor based archetype, rather than something that changes the Wizard playstyle in regards to magic, then perhaps it would have been better served in a different book rather than Secrets of Magic. Given there have been several references to things that had to be cut from this book, a wiser place to put it might have been in a Lost Omens or AP book.I don't see how Thassilonian Sin Magic won't be a change in the wizard playstyle regarding magic. The way it worked in 1e was you lose 2 schools of magic but get double the extra spell slots for your specialized school. If it works the same way, that's a big deal in 2e. I don't think it looks like a strictly stronger wizard, but between that change in magic and the addition of better weapon abilities and aeon stone related powers I do think it will result in a pretty different way to play the class.
I’m pretty sure they stated somewhere that nothing in the book just adds more slots, so I doubt we will get anything like the 1e version.
That said, given it removes schools (and potential that additional slot with it) while locking out a school of magic for preparation, we should expect it to be a pretty powerful archetype.
My main worry with it is that there seems to be a lot of stuff going into it conceptually. These things are going to eat into feat space. There is always the chance it will come with a bucket of options, but I’m just worried they’ve went for too wide a concept to really useful.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as more focus spell options go, this archetype will almost double the amount for Wizards ("almost" because Runelords can't pick divination or universalist), while still leaving them with a lot more subclass options than Cleric gets. I know only Sloth gets something new, but doing the rest would mean cutting a dozen other new spells.
That’s a rather narrow view of “subclass options”. You can’t count schools as 8 options, but domains as one, given that there are over 50 domain options.
Asking for the Wizard to have a possible 27 focus spell options vs the 116 of the Cleric doesn’t sound like a big ask.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
SoM is a lore book too, it makes sense to have the biggest and baddest arcane casters in Golarion's history be featured in the big book of casters even if the archetype isn't the direct power creep on the original wizard that you want it to be.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The part of the book that have the Rune Lord archetype is about Rune Magic, explaining what it is and how they work in Golarion. SoM is not like the APG book, it's both a lore and GM and player book, per example, true names and ley lines not only have their lore and workings in the world but the options present there is all GM focused for campaigns that want to put those elements into them.
In class archetypes, they are trying to keep them power neutral, removing a feature of a class and giving them a feature of around the same power and then give feats that makes sense for that archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very curious on how the Runelord archetype might work. Personally, I’m okay with them not being some sort of stealthy buff to wizards: For one, they’re most likely going to be uncommon if not rare. There’s also the fact that they are veeery heavy on flavor… Like investing in intimidation for the debuff for your own spells, what if my characters don’t fit with that? My first wizard was this meek and shy halfling, for example! It just doesn’t work that well…
The lack of mechanically and narratively interesting options for spellcasters in general, especially(though not limited to) wizards and witches, should be dealt with the addition of more class feats and class options... At least in my mind. The chassis is already there, and I personally believe it’s fine-ish, and the current options are also fine-ish — if circumstantial or plain. Bards and druids don’t get so much flak as other spellcasters, and I think it’s because they just have more fun stuff going on for them. I’ll repeat what I always say: Reach is a pretty cool class feat, mechanically. But it’s… A little boring as well. As for why they’ve decided to not release more specific-class content in this… I can only presume that spells eat some of the space for the content budget for each class though, and that’s why the devs might tend towards more content that more than one class has access to (spells, in this case) than not (class feats and class options) in future releases.
Quickly back to the archetype thingie, though: I firmly believe that mechanics should reinforce the narrative. Runelords are one of the most iconics elements of Golarion, and I hope that whatever content is available on the archetype reflects that importance as the player character grows. If the archetype really is the loss of two schools for, I dunno, unscalable proficiency with polearms, some already-existent domains and some circumstancial and nifty ioun stone tricks… I mean, that’d be below of what we’ve got so far with the faction content, but more or less on par of it as well. What I mean is: I hope the archetype provides fun and thematic options! …That doesn’t make every wizard want to become another Runelord. :B
Personally! I’m still really looking forward for all the spells we’re going to get, and now that I know that specific class content is not going to be a focus on the book, I’m increasingly more interested on the new types of magic. Not to say all the lore! It’s still kind of eh to me that there’s focus on class feats(and, again, class options) for spellcasters, but the book otherwise seems like a beauty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as more focus spell options go, this archetype will almost double the amount for Wizards ("almost" because Runelords can't pick divination or universalist), while still leaving them with a lot more subclass options than Cleric gets. I know only Sloth gets something new, but doing the rest would mean cutting a dozen other new spells.
That’s a rather narrow view of “subclass options”. You can’t count schools as 8 options, but domains as one, given that there are over 50 domain options.
Asking for the Wizard to have a possible 27 focus spell options vs the 116 of the Cleric doesn’t sound like a big ask.
I'm not counting schools or domains as subclasses. I'd consider the thesis to be the effective subclass for Wizard, since that's what makes the biggest difference. But I guess that you'd call it an Enchanter Wizard or Universalist Wizard, so I'm probably using the term poorly. I meant to say Wizard has several times more non-focus options than Cleric.
This class archetype (probably) brings Wizard up to 30+ focus spell options. (2*8 for the schools, 2*7 for Runelord schools, 1 for Universalist.) I disagree on only counting unique ones, since Cleric doesn't really have any focus spells that aren't available to one or two other classes. I mean, I definitely agree with you on Wizard needing access to than just the 17; that's why I'm happy about the archetype.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really disappointed to hear that there won't be much support for existing caster classes. I expected SoM to be THE book for casters, and don't know where else I could expect to get some of the extra support certain caster classes seem to desperately need.
| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, I still maintain that they don't need it, from what we know, Wizards are the most played spell caster in their survey data. Which is usually a more reliable metric than the forums, because people will avoid playing things that are noticeably weak. Wizards seem fairly powerful in my own experience too, with the extra slots and the thesis really making a big difference.
If we're being honest, there's a handful of posters on the forums that keep insisting that the need for these fixes have been established, but Paizo's internal data seems to debunk it. Otherwise it likely would have been in the first or second errata to the CRB.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was having a conversation with a co worker today about class feats versus archetypes. I personally see it as a matter of perspective; some who feel let down by no class feats for their class could look at the whole situation a different way. A huge chunk of class archetypes/regular archetypes are feats you can take. That those feats aren't unique to wizard/witch/bard/whatever shouldn't make them any less attractive, in my eyes at least.
There are arguments against that, of course, like that taking an archetype takes a feat, and it locks you out of some other archetypes for a time. And that's true too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't say I'm not disappointed that we aren't getting more class feats, but archetypes are functionally feats for everyone. The Elementalist let"s me make a Pyromancy Wizard now, and that is cool.
With extra character options being included in APs, there are even more places where we can get new feats from. I'm fact, Strength if Thousands seems like a solid place for that kind of stuff.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is usually a more reliable metric than the forums, because people will avoid playing things that are noticeably weak.
I'm not sure this really holds up. Some of the most popular classes in PF1 were also some of the most consistently criticized for being weak and ones that ended up getting improvements down the line.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thought Elementalist was more whatever area you're in can affect the strength of spells, and wanted to use all the elements.I can't say I'm not disappointed that we aren't getting more class feats, but archetypes are functionally feats for everyone. The Elementalist let"s me make a Pyromancy Wizard now, and that is cool.
With extra character options being included in APs, there are even more places where we can get new feats from. I'm fact, Strength if Thousands seems like a solid place for that kind of stuff.
I believe that is geomancy. Elementalist seems to be a specialized caster of elemental trait spells like fire, water, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Geomancy is cool too!
We really know very little about elementalist, only that it can be taken by arcane and primal magic users and that it limits or changes your spell list. Who knows what else it can do. Same with a lot of the class archetypes (minus the arcanist casting one, seems pretty cut and dry)
We really know very little about elementalist, only that it can be taken by arcane and primal magic users and that it limits or changes your spell list. Who knows what else it can do. Same with a lot of the class archetypes (minus the arcanist casting one, seems pretty cut and dry)
Even the Arcanist-esque one, we don't know what sort of feats it comes with at all. At minimum, these all need at least two additional feats so you can "leave" the archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We really know very little about elementalist, only that it can be taken by arcane and primal magic users and that it limits or changes your spell list. Who knows what else it can do. Same with a lot of the class archetypes (minus the arcanist casting one, seems pretty cut and dry)Even the Arcanist-esque one, we don't know what sort of feats it comes with at all. At minimum, these all need at least two additional feats so you can "leave" the archetype.
I could be wrong, but I think it was mentioned you can leave the archetype after just one feat.
Edit - From the-magic-sword's write up, logan interview - Example of Flexible Spellcasting: The trade off is fewer spells per day, so instead of going from 2 to 3 spells per day, you stay with 2, but you can cast the spells with every slot. The Archetype is pretty straightforward, you finish it with one feat, unlike most archetypes, which they don't do very often.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, I still maintain that they don't need it, from what we know, Wizards are the most played spell caster in their survey data. Which is usually a more reliable metric than the forums, because people will avoid playing things that are noticeably weak. Wizards seem fairly powerful in my own experience too, with the extra slots and the thesis really making a big difference.
If we're being honest, there's a handful of posters on the forums that keep insisting that the need for these fixes have been established, but Paizo's internal data seems to debunk it. Otherwise it likely would have been in the first or second errata to the CRB.
I'd warn against a lot of the underlying assumptions in this post.
This isn't a video game. We don't have accurate player population data, we don't have class-specific "win rates". We certainly don't have any population effectiveness metrics.
Further, at least one of those people in the survey would have been me, and I am someone who does think Wizards need help. Just because you think something isn't the best don't mean you don't play it. This feels like more video game logic, where people just hop from dominant strategy to dominant strategy as the wind and patches blow.
We aren't a competitive game, people don't 'lose' because our fellow players 'win', that's just not the dynamic the game works under.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, I still maintain that they don't need it, from what we know, Wizards are the most played spell caster in their survey data. Which is usually a more reliable metric than the forums, because people will avoid playing things that are noticeably weak. Wizards seem fairly powerful in my own experience too, with the extra slots and the thesis really making a big difference.
If we're being honest, there's a handful of posters on the forums that keep insisting that the need for these fixes have been established, but Paizo's internal data seems to debunk it. Otherwise it likely would have been in the first or second errata to the CRB.
I'd warn against a lot of the underlying assumptions in this post.
This isn't a video game. We don't have accurate player population data, we don't have class-specific "win rates". We certainly don't have any population effectiveness metrics.
Further, at least one of those people in the survey would have been me, and I am someone who does think Wizards need help. Just because you think something isn't the best don't mean you don't play it. This feels like more video game logic, where people just hop from dominant strategy to dominant strategy as the wind and patches blow.
We aren't a competitive game, people don't 'lose' because our fellow players 'win', that's just not the dynamic the game works under.
This is all true, and very well said. It is also true though that paizo isn't sharing all of the specifics of their survey data with us as respondees, and the only way we really see the results of that data is in the new material that comes out and the Errata.
It sounds like, if things like item bonuses to spell attack roll spells and increasing the power level of wizard focus spells were on the to do list of the developers, they would be needing to do that in an errata that inserts them into one of the "core" books. It sounds like that possibility has not been removed from the table, but is still a pretty distant unlikelihood unless an overwhelming call for it happens.
And that is where I think there is a lot of divergence in what players are saying about spell casting classes. I know that I have very different opinions and experiences with casters, and especially wizards in PF2 than some of the people on the forums, but consistently it is the spell casters turning the tables on encounters with really great spells, and then martials taking advantage of the new situation to finish the situation off. In two out of the 8 long term campaigns I have been involved in (including play by post and VTT gaming), parties have decided to drop a martial character to add another caster by level 5 because encounters have tended to hinge more on whether a party can hit an enemy where it hurts, and take away their toys, than it does on just trying to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible. Even if that strategy works out fine in 75% of encounters, those 25% of encounters where overwhelming firepower can't be brought to bear effectively turn into real party killers.
Wizards have been very popular characters to fill that roll because mid to high level spells are so good at problem solving and number of spell slots is so low generally in PF2 casters.
Now personally, I do hope we continue to get more material which broadens options, but I think I agree pretty strongly with the developers that "fixing" power balances with boosts in supplemental books is a race to ruin for the system as a whole. If there are real, demonstrable problems with balance between classes, that probably needs to be addressed at the root level. Making unsupported styles of play possible should be a function of supplemental books, but not increasing the power level of classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say, one thing I'd been hoping for and expecting, that from everything I've heard isn't there, was a way for most of the non-caster classes to splash a little magic without going Caster MC.
Whether it be class feats like Rogue's Minor Magic or Focus Spells, just something.
It sounded like Magus would get a feature at 7th for a little additional casting, and Summoner would get a way to give their Eidolon casting, but they said that multiclassing was still the intended way to pick up more spells. They do have rules for high-magic settings, though, where everyone can do at least a little magic.
I will say, one thing I'd been hoping for and expecting, that from everything I've heard isn't there, was a way for most of the non-caster classes to splash a little magic without going Caster MC.
Whether it be class feats like Rogue's Minor Magic or Focus Spells, just something.
Have magic items that can help with that, like one that you can put on either on your armor or weapon for an effect and then cast cast a spell at the cost of ending that effect.
It sounded like Magus would get a feature at 7th for a little additional casting, and Summoner would get a way to give their Eidolon casting, but they said that multiclassing was still the intended way to pick up more spells. They do have rules for high-magic settings, though, where everyone can do at least a little magic.
Summoner have to pick evolutions for spells on the Eidolon and Magus is basically the Martial caster of the playtest as a lvl 7 feature, 2 spell slots limited to a small list that also depends of your hybrid studies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say, one thing I'd been hoping for and expecting, that from everything I've heard isn't there, was a way for most of the non-caster classes to splash a little magic without going Caster MC.
Whether it be class feats like Rogue's Minor Magic or Focus Spells, just something.
There are a few other options. There are a few archetypes like Eldritch Archer and Runescarred. Some ancestries like Elves and Kobolds have decent options. And there are lots of ways to get cantrips. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are also going to be rules for granting everyone some magical oomph in Strength of Thousands IIRC, so keep your eye out for when that AP drops, too.
It's free archetype, but you can only choose the Wizard or Druid MC and apply at lvl 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did anyone say that you actually get the chosen archetype dedication at 1st level? That would be a change from the Gamemastery Guide rules for the Free Archetype variant (which would be granted for free at 2nd level, with additional feats allowed at every even level thereafter).
Did anyone say that you actually get the chosen archetype dedication at 1st level? That would be a change from the Gamemastery Guide rules for the Free Archetype variant (which would be granted for free at 2nd level, with additional feats allowed at every even level thereafter).
Pertinent to my interests!!
|
|
Pertinent to my interests!!
Did anyone say that you actually get the chosen archetype dedication at 1st level? That would be a change from the Gamemastery Guide rules for the Free Archetype variant (which would be granted for free at 2nd level, with additional feats allowed at every even level thereafter).
Yes, it was mentioned in the Live Stream. Basically the AP takes place at a magic school so everybody needs some sort of magic to get in. As such, they give the archetype for free at first level to meet that requirement.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the problem is less with some caster's power, but more their lack of options to help differentiate themselves from other similar casters.
Wizards are fairly well-off power wise, but their issue is that specialists don't feel like specialists. When you can prepare the exact same spell list as a wizard of a different specialization and the attached focus spells are often not worth using - then there doesn't seem to be much point in differentiating between them. Something as simple as adding a section of class feats with different specializations as prerequisites would go a long way to helping with that, and they only need to be usable/special rather than increasing the power level of the class in any significant way.
What I find more concerning are casters like Sorcerer and Witch. Pick-a-Tradition is great, but you need something mechanically meaty to help define yourself as not just a lesser version of whatever caster shares the selected tradition. The upcoming Summoner is unlikely to have this issue due to the Eidolon seeming to have significant page space dedicated to it, but bloodlines and patrons feel rather anemic in comparison. Again, simply adding some more class/option specific Sorcerer/Witch feats could help out a lot here.
Witch in particular also has issues with things like Eldritch Nails not able to fully function at the level you take them, because there are no hexes which actually qualify to be used with the feat at that level and there are only about 2-3 hexes which function with it in total. Actually adding more hexes to the Witch, especially ones that could function with Eldritch Nails, would do wonders to solve this.
Overall: I'm just kinda disappointed because SoM seems like the perfect place to address some of this by adding options to flesh out some of the casters that seem a bit lacking in thematic options to take. Options for everyone are great, but I don't want to see the base classes get neglected as a result.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the problem is less with some caster's power, but more their lack of options to help differentiate themselves from other similar casters.
Wizards are fairly well-off power wise, but their issue is that specialists don't feel like specialists. When you can prepare the exact same spell list as a wizard of a different specialization and the attached focus spells are often not worth using - then there doesn't seem to be much point in differentiating between them. Something as simple as adding a section of class feats with different specializations as prerequisites would go a long way to helping with that, and they only need to be usable/special rather than increasing the power level of the class in any significant way.
What I find more concerning are casters like Sorcerer and Witch. Pick-a-Tradition is great, but you need something mechanically meaty to help define yourself as not just a lesser version of whatever caster shares the selected tradition. The upcoming Summoner is unlikely to have this issue due to the Eidolon seeming to have significant page space dedicated to it, but bloodlines and patrons feel rather anemic in comparison. Again, simply adding some more class/option specific Sorcerer/Witch feats could help out a lot here.
Witch in particular also has issues with things like Eldritch Nails not able to fully function at the level you take them, because there are no hexes which actually qualify to be used with the feat at that level and there are only about 2-3 hexes which function with it in total. Actually adding more hexes to the Witch, especially ones that could function with Eldritch Nails, would do wonders to solve this.
Overall: I'm just kinda disappointed because SoM seems like the perfect place to address some of this by adding options to flesh out some of the casters that seem a bit lacking in thematic options to take. Options for everyone are great, but I don't want to see the base classes get neglected as a result.
Yea I was hoping for school specialization archetypes myself that wizards could freely pick the feats from if it was their school. Also more witch content. But it's not my game to design. At least grimoires, personalized staves, spellhearts, and special components will serve to help all casters. The archetypes in book will definitely help fill out some of the niches people have wanted with their casters. Shadow mages, single element-centric mages, 5e wild mages, and 5e casting. It's definitely got a lot to offer.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A little disappointed that the Witches doesn't seem to really be getting much that is unique and special to help them out.
The Wizard is highly contested, and could probably use a bit more fancy flair to bring them to their full potential. Not necessarily for a power boost, but just something to make them a bit more exciting to play as.
The Witch on the other hand I feel is actually underwhelming, without enough extra to justify their 1 less spell slot per level. Comparing them to Druids, Clerics, and Bards leaves them feeling not so appealing IMO.
Some cool new Hexes, maybe a Class Archetype that really grows them into something awesome.
I may be biased because the Witch is my favorite pure spellcaster in Pathfinder and I want them to be really good and exciting (not broken powerful like in PF1, but still), but I feel like this is still a fair assessment.
I believe that is geomancy. Elementalist seems to be a specialized caster of elemental trait spells like fire, water, etc.Thought Elementalist was more whatever area you're in can affect the strength of spells, and wanted to use all the elements.I can't say I'm not disappointed that we aren't getting more class feats, but archetypes are functionally feats for everyone. The Elementalist let"s me make a Pyromancy Wizard now, and that is cool.
With extra character options being included in APs, there are even more places where we can get new feats from. I'm fact, Strength if Thousands seems like a solid place for that kind of stuff.
This seems to be a common misconception, but the elementalist class archetype was described thus by Avi Kool, directly quoted from the PaizoCon stream:
"It gives you class options that allow you thrive in different environments and use those elemental environments to evoke your elemental powers. It's not like you pick fire and then that's your one thing that you can do, it's much broader than that. You're feeding off the elements as a whole."
Their description seems to make it clear that elementalist (the class archetype) is an elemental generalist that's powered by their surroundings.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, that might have been a simple mix up. Avi could have been thinking of the wrong archetype.
Drawing power from your surroundings does sound more of a Geomancy thing than an elementalist thing. And I can't remember them giving a description of Geomancy at all.
It seems unlikely that the elementalist gets a unique selection of spells (which I think was confirmed?) and special stuff based on location.
|
I'm looking forward to that. I like that Paizo is playing with breaking their own rules for their stories; it's neat seeing them putting their advice about altering the game for everyone's enjoyment into practice.Yes, it was mentioned in the Live Stream. Basically the AP takes place at a magic school so everybody needs some sort of magic to get in. As such, they give the archetype for free at first level to meet that requirement.Pertinent to my interests!!
Did anyone say that you actually get the chosen archetype dedication at 1st level? That would be a change from the Gamemastery Guide rules for the Free Archetype variant (which would be granted for free at 2nd level, with additional feats allowed at every even level thereafter).
I hope it does not prevent the PC from taking another dedication, including with things like Ancient Elf or Eldritch Trickster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, that might have been a simple mix up. Avi could have been thinking of the wrong archetype.
Drawing power from your surroundings does sound more of a Geomancy thing than an elementalist thing. And I can't remember them giving a description of Geomancy at all.
It seems unlikely that the elementalist gets a unique selection of spells (which I think was confirmed?) and special stuff based on location.
I would give them a bit more credit than that!
Besides, during the PaizoCon Discord Q&A session this was asked:
Is Geomancy a subset of Elementalism? The way they were described as using elemental environments/terrain features seemed to be very similar.
Which was answered by Mark Seifter:
Geomancy: Terrains
Elementalism: Elements
Separate but you could use them together and it work work very well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ummmm, how are you getting "manipulate elements based on environment" as being Geomancy? By its very definition Geomancy is control of the earth. It literally has the word "Geo" which mean "related to earth" in its name.
There is a Geomancer Occultist archetype, that is all about controlling terrain. Geokineticist, are all about earth. Etc.
But I will say, I wonder what will happen to Elementalist Wizards. Thoae really do focus on 1 element to the point of being unable to use the opposite.
The Geomancer Occultist gets different spell lists depending on terrain. A lot of those spells have nothing at all to do with the earth element. The archetype was about adapting to the local environment even when that is another plane or underwater.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Elementalist: Class archetype for Arcane and Primal casters that alter your spell list.
Geomancy: Standard archetype that gives stuff depending of the terrain that you are, like Favored Terrain, if you are on an Artic Terrain you do/gain X and if you are on a swamp you do/gain Y.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes my point is elementalist is a lot more broad than just "geomancy". Because by its nature elementalist also includes other elements besides just earth and nature.
Geomancer Occultist Spell List
Cold: 1st—frostbite, 2nd—frigid touch, 3rd—sleet storm, 4th—creeping ice, 5th—icy prison, 6th—freezing sphere.
Desert: 1st—sun metal, 2nd—shifting sand, 3rd—cup of dust, 4th—fire shield, 5th—flame strike, 6th—sirocco.
Forest: 1st—entangle, 2nd—tree shape, 3rd—speak with plants, 4th—arboreal hammer, 5th—tree stride, 6th—liveoak.
Jungle: 1st—nauseating dart, 2nd—sickening entanglement, 3rd—venomous bolt, 4th—poison, 5th—snake staff, 6th—swarm skin.
Mountain: 1st—stone fist, 2nd—stone call, 3rd—stone shape, 4th—obsidian flow, 5th—cave fangs, 6th—move earth.
Plains: 1st—mount, 2nd—gust of wind, 3rd—plant growth, 4th—aspect of the stag, 5th—control winds, 6th—whip of ants.
Planes (Other Than the Material Plane): 1st—endure elements, 2nd—rope trick, 3rd—blink, 4th—dimensional anchor, 5th—planar adaptation, 6th—plane shift.
Swamp: 1st—mudball, 2nd—burst of nettles, 3rd—lily pad stride, 4th—slowing mud, 5th—insect plague, 6th—mass fester.
Underground: 1st—expeditious excavation, 2nd—darkvision, 3rd—meld into stone, 4th—echolocation, 5th—suffocation, 6th—conjure black pudding.
Urban: 1st—urban grace, 2nd—share language, 3rd—urban step, 4th—zone of silence, 5th—telepathic bond, 6th—statue.
Water: 1st—air bubble, 2nd—slipstream, 3rd—water breathing, 4th—fluid form, 5th—geyser, 6th—control water.