While I was reading Secrets of magic hype thread and the both Conjuring Phrases: Meet the Secrets of Magic Authors there's one thing I notice that recurrent appears "the book space is limited!".
If I understand right this a complain from many authors of SoM, there's too many concepts and ideas but no space for them all. The info we know there's nothing extra for witches probably for other casters too and probably many other things that we ever know.
I now some people expect some more things in books of the dead and other future books maybe some dedicated to occult and primal contexts but not exactly specifically dedicated for spellcasters like SoM will be.
So do you think there's space for another SoM like book in near future expanding e implementing many of the things that was out of SoM for space limitation just like we have with bestiaries?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't necessarily have to be in a magic-focused book, but I'd definitely love to see more interesting class feats for casters. Really my only complaint with the system.
I would love to see expanded feats and subclasses for existing classes, whether that’s for casters in a SoM2 or an advanced players options book. For example, the Summoner is ripe for more eidolon types than what we are getting. I would also love more magic centric archetypes whether it’s archetypes for magical warriors or more caster centric archetypes such as a Metamagic Manipulator (gets access to universal metamagic for any class) or magic school archetypes.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can it be called the secreter secrets of magic?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are definitely books I would rather see before this, but I would have a few wishes:
-An Aberration eidolon for the Summoner. It’s the missing option I’d want most.
-Gloomblade as an Archetype anyone can take, though this could also fit into a Secrets of Martials.
-Another standalone Occult caster, something closer to the core flavor than the Bard is; I’d ideally love to see both Psychic and Antiquarian make the cut.
-Kineticist if it hasn’t been printed yet.
-This is a longshot, but I dearly want an Unchained Witch. The 2e version of the class packs so little flavor into Patron choice and it truly breaks my heart.
-Another longshit, but I’d love to have the Nanite Bloodline back.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can it be called the secreter secrets of magic?
As long as any potential third book gets called the Secreterer Secrets of Magic.
---
What I'd like to see if such a thing happened and these options weren't already in other books. Basically, considering SoM seemingly wants to focus on things that apply to every caster to be as broad as possible, I'd like to see more fine-tuned support for various caster classes.
-Class archetype for Cleric that replaces Divine Font with something else. Because as powerful as Divine Font is, nothing screams "healbot" like forcing the class to have a bonus pool of Heal spells, and I'd like to be able to take the class in a different direction (without just having Harm instead).
-More Bloodlines for Sorcerer, because bloodlines are thematic and fun.
-More Summoner Eidolons, because previews show they're rather limited and can't really fit more in SoM due to how much page count the class already takes up. (Aberration Eidolon also the one I'd be most interested in seeing)
-A variety of School-based feats for Wizard, so specialists have a chance to actually feel like specialists.
-Class archetype of Witch that replaces extra familiar advancement with something Patron related. Because I never wanted to focus on pet ownership and Patrons could use a bit more. (Seriously, "talking animal" is the extent I see of magic on familiars in most witch stories - and that can already be done at 1st level by any familiar haver. I don't need more familiar abilities to feel like a Witch, I need more Witch abilities or more focus on their Patron connection).
-Class archetype for Witches to have an inanimate familiar without being locked behind a single Rare Patron. PF1 had several archetypes that did interesting things with replacing familiars with objects - and it doesn't translate well to say all of them should live in the region of Baba Yaga and have her as their patron.
-More Hexes for Witch, especially ones that would work with Eldritch Nails by the time you can take it. Really feels awkward / unfinished that the feat doesn't fully work due to a lack of options to work with it.
-More Patrons for Witch, especially less vague ones that have more relevance/weight to the Witch (think Demonic Patron, Dragonic Patron, Fey Patron, etc.) Possibly some advanced feats specific to each Patron type to help differentiate them more.
-More caster feats, especially low-level caster feats, because almost every caster in my games just takes reach spell or an archetype while saying there aren't any other options that interest them. Especially glaring for Sorcerer & Witch due to their pick-a-tradition nature (Summoner unlikely to have this issue due to how much page space they're apparently getting for Eidolons).
Charon, we’re completely aligned on the Witch. Bless you!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I could see Secrets of Magic just being the foundation work for a series of books focusing further on each of the traditions: Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal. Then, each of those can dive deeper into its respective sphere of magic and any classes, spells, monsters, items, locations, related planes, archetypes, and whatever else fits the theme of that tradition and matters related to it. For example, natural and wilderness stuff like the shifter class, more animal companions, could come along for the ride with Primal, inquisitor class and more information on gods, faiths, and paths characters can take towards attaining enlightenment could be in Divine, and Occult could host the psychic, medium, and occultist classes along with more details on aberrations, rules for dealing with the supernatural effects of minds made unstable by knowledge too dangerous to comprehend, and in-setting material for seances and haunts in Ustalov. Naturally, things like new Bloodlines, Patrons, and Eidolons, can also show up in each relevant book, too, as well as perhaps certain ancestries with a close connection to these traditions. You could even add more ambiance by giving each tradition book its own unique and flavorful name, such as A Treatise on the Essential Elements, The Scrolls of Enlightenment, Ezren's Grimoire, etc.
Secreter Secrets of Magic, eh? Let's see...
* Spontaneous Arcane caster, prepared Occult caster, and spontaneous Primal caster classes. Let's finish it.
* More spells, rituals, items, and types of items.
* We're going to get lore about the four essences and the four types of magic, so lets get lore about magic in Golarion. I mean having specific types of mages talking about their version of magic and what sets it apart. Sarkorian god-callers, Chelish diabolists, Magaambyan halcyon mages, Irriseni winter witches, Thassilonian rune mages, Nidalese shadow mages, and so on.
(I know we might get some of this in SoM, I'm talking a dedicated section)
* More feats for all casting classes, and class archetypes for all casting classes.
School archetypes to build thematic casters. Conjurer archetype to augment summons, evoker archetype to mold aoes or add persistent damage, abjurer archetype for tankier mages, illusionist archetype to augment your tricks, transmuter archetype to augment buffs. Casting as it stands in p2e wants you to cast a wide net to get the most out of your class/spell list. It would be nice to be able to lean into the spells you want to predominantly use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the developers have decided to make schools of magic specifically relevant outside of wizards in PF2 or if schools of magic is supposed to be a specifically wizardly concern. There are some feats outside of the wizard class related to aspects of schools of magic, but by and large it seems something pretty squarely avoided. It will be interesting to see what the thassalonian specialist is about in relationship to how much of their abilities boost spells from a specific school, or just act as a gate for what spells you can select.
The old schools of magic do not line up especially well with the traditions of magic and having casters that can overly specialize in any one of the schools. Arcane get the most access to spells of different schools, and the are still pretty limited in some options. Giving clerics the ability to specialize in illusion magic for example would limit them to essentially 2 or 3 spells they can cast, based upon the deity they selected. Certainly, I would want to see what secrets of magic adds to the game, before contemplating what might be possible in a secreter secrets of magic book.
Adding new options that appear to increase flexibility, but would really only allow for 2 or 3 overly powerful options and 15 or more terrible ones is not a design space I want to see pushed into. It was a kind of interesting mini-game of PF1, but more than anything it created really boring characters who could do one thing really well and get killed quickly when the enemy was immune to the gimmick. PF2 should continue to resist encouraging players to give up flexibility for over-specialization. I know a lot of players want thematic specialization, but I really hope that comes in the form of giving characters versatility within their themes instead of more power from them.
I just want casters to have specializing archetypes the same way martials do. We'll see how the archetypes in SoM deliver.
- I'll agree on the witch wanting more hexes. I'd love to see a witch class archetype who could cash in their daily spells for more and better stuff out of hexes and hex cantrips - basically a witch-based Kineticist. Maybe they'd be able to have/recover more than 3 focus points? I'd also like to see more love for the witch's familiar - just interesting and useful stuff they could get by sinking deeper into the familiar side of things. Similarly, having a class archetype that basically cashes int eh familiar altogether in return for somethign else useful.
- Prehensile hair. I want prehensile hair to be good enough that it's actually worth taking on a Witch (and not requiring a specific adventure path). Admittedly, it might be a bit tricky to make it good enough for the witch and not too good for the monk, but....
- Aberrant summoner Eidolon (Occult). I want my tentacle buddy.
- Undead summoner Eidolon (Divine). It's an obvious character concept, and it needs to be supported. Ideally, there'd be a way to turn your eidolon into a swarm/mob/horde monster as well.
- Synthesist summoner. Actually, I don't want that in SoM2, because I want a version that goes martial with it rather than caster, but that's my own thing. Actually, what I *really* want is to have two *different* class archetypes - Synthesist Summoner and a version of summoner that cashes in its daily spells for something suitably nifty - and have them be designed to work well together. Obviously you wouldn't get as much for it as the witch does, because you don't have as much spellcasting to cash in. Still.
. Ahhh, heck. I'm greedy. I'd probably want a "no-dailies" version of the Magus, too. Just let us have that juice as focus spells instead. I know the Magus loves their focus spells. That one might not work as well, though - the Magus seems to lean into the fact that their dailies and their focus spells are *different* in a way that the other two don't.
|
Other names could be:
Secrets of Magic, Volume 2
Secrets of Magic 2: Electric Arc Boogaloo
You won't believe its Magic!
Super-Duper Secrets of Magic
Serious Guys, don't tell anyone about this Magic
Fascism Cortege
The totally normal book of physical things thats in no way enchanted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want casters to have specializing archetypes the same way martials do. We'll see how the archetypes in SoM deliver.You mean for example the Mauler, the Sentinel or the Bastion archetypes?
Exactly, but for spells! Cheek aside, it would be nice to have. Who knows though, shadow magic, elementalism, and blood magic might scratch the itch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blood Magic won't be in Secrets of Magic. We have been told that it was cut, but will likely turn up in some future product.
I just want casters to have specializing archetypes the same way martials do. We'll see how the archetypes in SoM deliver.
I'm not sure how much those are "specializing". From the martial side, it feels like the stuff you take a dip in in order to play around with the other guy's toolkit too. Like, if you're a Champion, and you're taking Bulwark, then you're doing some funny, funny things with your build. I feel like the magic equivalent might be a cycle of archetypes that let you Mystic Theurge. For example, each feat migh cover two spell levels. If you're a wizard who wants a touch of the divine, then your dedication feat at 2nd lets you fill 1st and 2nd level slots with divine spells. At 6th, you can buy similar access to 3rd and 4th... and so on. At a price, you can buy access to the other guy's toolbox. Now, I'm not pretending that that's perfectly balanced or anything, but I feel like it would be something *like* that.
|
I just want casters to have specializing archetypes the same way martials do. We'll see how the archetypes in SoM deliver.I'm not sure how much those are "specializing". From the martial side, it feels like the stuff you take a dip in in order to play around with the other guy's toolkit too. Like, if you're a Champion, and you're taking Bulwark, then you're doing some funny, funny things with your build. I feel like the magic equivalent might be a cycle of archetypes that let you Mystic Theurge. For example, each feat migh cover two spell levels. If you're a wizard who wants a touch of the divine, then your dedication feat at 2nd lets you fill 1st and 2nd level slots with divine spells. At 6th, you can buy similar access to 3rd and 4th... and so on. At a price, you can buy access to the other guy's toolbox. Now, I'm not pretending that that's perfectly balanced or anything, but I feel like it would be something *like* that.
Don't Casters MC dedications already provide this ?
Exactly, but for spells! Cheek aside, it would be nice to have. Who knows though, shadow magic, elementalism, and blood magic might scratch the itch.I just want casters to have specializing archetypes the same way martials do. We'll see how the archetypes in SoM deliver.You mean for example the Mauler, the Sentinel or the Bastion archetypes?
A Firemancer, Icemancer (or Coldmancer I don't know), Forcemance anything-you-can-think-mancer. Maybe in SoM we have something like this.
Such archetype could be used for both casters and non-casters like Mauler, Archer do. Martial could use a specialized spellcast archetype to increment their attack option, caster could use to strength their firepower or increase their daily spells with theses specialized spells.
In same way the Martials archetype do allowing the char to gain access to -2 levels feats of a specialized weapon group instead of half-level of a multiclass dedication allows. A specialized caster archetype could add spells to 9lvl and increases the limit to cast 3 per-level but having access only to just on type of spell like fire for a firemancer for example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect we'll see the content they couldn't do as a result of space in future books, but the book would likely have a somewhat different theme than straight up 'here's another book about magic itself'
One example we already know about is Blood Magic which was cut for space, we don't know when exactly its popping back up but I believe it was mentioned it already has a home in another release and that we'll see it sooner than we think?
Don't Casters MC dedications already provide this ?Ah. Fair point. The idea of being a caster and then deciding that you don't have *enough* of your power in daily spells and want more is so alien to me that I wasn't even thinking about that. I think there's space for somethign sort of in the middle, where instead of having two different sets fo spell slots, you have jsut one set that can be used in two ways, but the Mystic Theurge path is pretty well provided for already. Still, that's... basically what the martial sub-archetypes (like Bastion) do for you as a martial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't Casters MC dedications already provide this ?
Not really, in the same way Fighter dedication didn't really do enough and we got more stuff in later books. The specific archetypes allow them to add unique options to those characters and most importantly focus your character more, something caster MC doesn't really do and something spellcasters in general are kind of lacking the ability to do much of at all right now.
Not really, in the same way Fighter dedication didn't really do enough and we got more stuff in later books. The specific archetypes allow them to add unique options to those characters and most importantly focus your character more, something caster MC doesn't really do and something spellcasters in general are kind of lacking the ability to do much of at all right now.
Don't Casters MC dedications already provide this ?
I guess the thing I'd say is that they don't really focus you *more*, though. They add another/different area of focus. Like I said - taking Bastion is not going to make you tankier than a Champion. If you're already a Champion, then taking Bastion is not generally going to make you tankier than you were to begin with (there are a few weird edge-case exceptions, but those exceptions weren't maxxing out their available tankiness anyway).
The problem is that spellcasters often don't seem to have those sorts of specializations to begin with - not ones that stretch across multiple classes.
I mean.. what kind of specializations would you be meaning? Honestly, this sounds more like saying "my class feats kinda suck, and I want to focus on spellcasting, so could I get a way that I could spend my class feats that let me do that?" I mean, that's legit, but the feats in those combo/specialist archetypes tend to come from other classes (poisoner as alchemist/rogue, for example) What themes are you going to pull out of the feat lists of two or more caster classes?
I guess the thing I'd say is that they don't really focus you *more*, though. They add another/different area of focus. Like I said - taking Bastion is not going to make you tankier than a Champion. If you're already a Champion, then taking Bastion is not generally going to make you tankier than you were to begin with (there are a few weird edge-case exceptions, but those exceptions weren't maxxing out their available tankiness anyway).
I mean they do kind of. A ranger who takes Bastion is going to get more stuff they can do with shields than otherwise. Someone who takes Mauler is going to unlock more tricks with two-handed weapons than they would otherwise. They aren't always big vertical power increases, but they don't need to be and I think that's important to define.
I mean.. what kind of specializations would you be meaning?
Anything that enhances a specific aspect of spellcasting. Dangerous Sorcery is an existing example right now, it provides a clear benefit to a specific type of spell. The druid Wild Shape feats interact with focus spells so it's a little different, but it's still a group of feats you take to hone your ability to do a specific thing.
But outside that there aren't a lot of similar options for casters. You can't really make any mechanical choices that meaningfully differentiate your fire-themed blaster from your summoning focused conjurer in the same way that you can make an archer fighter meaningfully distinct from a sword and board fighter through a myriad of feat choices.
The Elementalist stuff in Secrets of Magic sounds like it's in that vein and I'd just like to see more of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean they do kind of. A ranger who takes Bastion is going to get more stuff they can do with shields than otherwise. Someone who takes Mauler is going to unlock more tricks with two-handed weapons than they would otherwise. They aren't always big vertical power increases, but they don't need to be and I think that's important to define.
...but they don't, really. The only reason it works that way for the Ranger is that the Ranger starts out being pretty lousy with the shield. Basically it lets them adjust their specializations - cash in some of their standard ranger specialization for something that looks more like it came from Champion or Fighter - but that's shuffling things around from tall piles to short piles. Nothing in there is going to let you increase your max cap in anything. Martial Artist isn't going to make you better at the punchy than a monk is already. It just lets you trade out some of whatever else it is that you have for some of what the monk has.
What you're lookign for is a different thing. You want, like, a Ray specialist... but there is no "Ray Specialist" class that you can borrow some of the tricks of. I suspect that's what your issue is. in part.
I suppose I could see "Wild shape, the archetype" in the same way that Beastmaster is "animal companion, the archetype". We might even be able to fit in a "Heal Font, the archetype" and a mirror for Harm Font. I get the impression that that wouldn't satisfy you, though. You're looking for "cool archetypes that let me do interesting/specialized things with my class feats to boost my spellcasting in an area of focus". That's a thing that could potentially happen (and seems to *be* happening, to a degree) but it's a lot easier for that kind of add-on to become OP than the ones that are just drawing from existing feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really, in the same way Fighter dedication didn't really do enough and we got more stuff in later books. The specific archetypes allow them to add unique options to those characters and most importantly focus your character more, something caster MC doesn't really do and something spellcasters in general are kind of lacking the ability to do much of at all right now.
Don't Casters MC dedications already provide this ?
I guess the thing I'd say is that they don't really focus you *more*, though. They add another/different area of focus. Like I said - taking Bastion is not going to make you tankier than a Champion. If you're already a Champion, then taking Bastion is not generally going to make you tankier than you were to begin with (there are a few weird edge-case exceptions, but those exceptions weren't maxxing out their available tankiness anyway).
The problem is that spellcasters often don't seem to have those sorts of specializations to begin with - not ones that stretch across multiple classes.
I mean.. what kind of specializations would you be meaning? Honestly, this sounds more like saying "my class feats kinda suck, and I want to focus on spellcasting, so could I get a way that I could spend my class feats that let me do that?" I mean, that's legit, but the feats in those combo/specialist archetypes tend to come from other classes (poisoner as alchemist/rogue, for example) What themes are you going to pull out of the feat lists of two or more caster classes?
My Gnome Liberator Champion with flickmace took Bastion precisely because it DOES make him more of a tank. He gets Disarming Block and, more importantly, Reactive Shield from Bastion for the free reaction to block himself when he does not raise his shield beforehand because he had to spend that third action on something else. Combined with other feats, like Quick Block, Divine Wall, and Shield of Reckoning he becomes a better tank. In my opinion, being a tank is not just about AC and HP.
My Gnome Liberator Champion with flickmace took Bastion precisely because it DOES make him more of a tank. He gets Disarming Block and, more importantly, Reactive Shield from Bastion for the free reaction to block himself in the same round he has to also protect an ally with Shield Warden. Combined with other feats, like Quick Block, Divine Wall, and Shield of Reckoning he becomes a better tank. In my opinion, being a tank is not just about AC and HP.
Okay, this is getting really off-topic, but I'm a bit confused here, because if you're depending on Reactive Shield, then you haven't raised your shield yet, and reactive shield only triggers on the enemy attacking *you* so as long as they go for your buddy before they take a swing at you, you can't use Shield Warden. It also means that you're spendign your one untyped reaction on that, when you coudl have it available for another shield block, Champion's Reaction, or even Shield of Reckoning. Sure, Bastion gets Reactive Shield, and Champion doesn't, but that's because Champion who's going max tank should be raising shield pretty much every turn regardless. If you don't, it's because you want to do something less tanky with that action.
My Gnome Liberator Champion with flickmace took Bastion precisely because it DOES make him more of a tank. He gets Disarming Block and, more importantly, Reactive Shield from Bastion for the free reaction to block himself in the same round he has to also protect an ally with Shield Warden. Combined with other feats, like Quick Block, Divine Wall, and Shield of Reckoning he becomes a better tank. In my opinion, being a tank is not just about AC and HP.Okay, this is getting really off-topic, but I'm a bit confused here, because if you're depending on Reactive Shield, then you haven't raised your shield yet, and reactive shield only triggers on the enemy attacking *you* so as long as they go for your buddy before they take a swing at you, you can't use Shield Warden. It also means that you're spendign your one untyped reaction on that, when you coudl have it available for another shield block, Champion's Reaction, or even Shield of Reckoning. Sure, Bastion gets Reactive Shield, and Champion doesn't, but that's because Champion who's going max tank should be raising shield pretty much every turn regardless. If you don't, it's because you want to do something less tanky with that action.
That is off-topic; you did not respond to the point I was trying to make. I merely gave one example of what a round might look like with a feat he picked up from Bastion.
Yes, you are not wrong; that is how those feats work. I'm not saying I chain all or even most of those feats together. I'm saying my champion can be tanky in more situations now than he could before he took the archetype. And the thing about using that action to do something else other than raising a shield can be for something tanky, too; just not always actually raising a shield. Doing things to get the enemy's attention on you rather than the allies you are protecting is still tanking, whether it be causing a distraction, inflicting a debuff (via intimidate or something elese), a trip attack, or using all your movement through difficult terrain to rush up and get in between the enemy and your allies. All of that and more is tanking. Tanking is not just about making sure you can take hits and protect allies, it is making sure that the enemy pays more attention to you than anyone else and, if they don't, they get penalized and/or punished for it. Because as long as they are on you, your allies are free to do what they need to do.
My point was that he is more of a tank because he can do it with his shield in a more situations and combinations of action types because he picked up stuff from the Bastion archetype. There is nothing LESS tanky about it.
I’m now wondering: with the existence of the Elementalist offering an alternate spell list, what else might we see later on? Is this maybe where “Psychic” ends up?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m now wondering: with the existence of the Elementalist offering an alternate spell list, what else might we see later on? Is this maybe where “Psychic” ends up?
I doubt it, Occult was practically tailor made for the psychic and the other classes like it, I believe that's even been said.