| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is off topic buuuut
I've known a few chemists who tried to cook like a chemist, and a few cooks who attempted chemistry like a cook.
It has yet to produce any viable results. (Though some reactions were most exciting!)
There's literally an entire school of cooking like this that merges chemistry and cooking >.> It's called Molecular Gastronomy >.>
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why the bard being presented as the occult class frustrates me. Bards are also cheaters. Give me my Intelligence-based prepared occult spellcasting class that isn't a cheater like the witch.Is an arcane Sorcerer at all analytical, though?They don't necessarily need to be to use their spells, but they do to be any good at the Arcana skill. Sorcerers and oracles can cheat and not actually understand the magic they cast, so they aren't the best example when it comes to their skills.
I would argue that the bard's understanding of occult isn't cheating because unlike arcane, understanding occult with an intuitive approach is no less legitimate that developing a more rigorous understanding (and as seen, sufficiently rigorous approaches may be the ones missing the point anyway) but for what it's worth the Psychic is well on its way and will include Intelligence-based casting, albeit not prepared.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why the bard being presented as the occult class frustrates me. Bards are also cheaters. Give me my Intelligence-based prepared occult spellcasting class that isn't a cheater like the witch.Is an arcane Sorcerer at all analytical, though?They don't necessarily need to be to use their spells, but they do to be any good at the Arcana skill. Sorcerers and oracles can cheat and not actually understand the magic they cast, so they aren't the best example when it comes to their skills.
?
What makes the bard or a witch a cheater?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes the bard or a witch a cheater?
Aside from having Farien take my magical aptitude tests for me?
... analyzing...
It appears that the designation of cheater is assigned to any class that casts magic without studiously understanding the magic that they are casting.
So with that designation, Oracle cheats because magic is granted by an unknown entity. Same with Witch. Sorcerer cheats by having essentially innate spells. Summoner also cheats by getting magic from the bond with their Eidolon.
Cleric, Druid, and Bard are semi-cheating. Cleric and Druid have an intuitive understanding of their magic rather than a studious one. Bard is similar.
So really the only classes that wouldn't be designated as cheating under this definition would be Wizard and Magus who have to keep a spellbook and study their magic.
So it seems like a somewhat empty pejorative at that point.
I've expressed in my own post that what occult is defined as in game is the real world definition of the word arcane. Not to mention real world occult practices are described with the adjective arcane. I also think the distinction between arcane and occult is largely artificial, and I find the explanation that arcane magic is more or less scientific, materialist, and about mathematical formulas to just take all the magic out of arcane magic. To do magic is to interact with the metaphysical, what is beyond material reality and so on. If I get too deep into this the barriers between all four will fall apart or we'll be back to arcane and divine as the two kinds of magic.
What I really think this is, is a game design contrivance. Occult and arcane are different only because of the game design space it allows. Occult gets these special, arcane gets these, thus mechanics and aesthetics combine to make two different groups for people who wanna be all avant garde, goth or whatever, and those who wanna play... Nerds? Idk. Wizard is my favorite class, but not when what they amount to is "nerd who figured out how to do math so well he can pull rabbits out of hats". I do think there is some credence in the game mechanics that this division is arbitrary to some extend in the feat "Unified Theory" for the arcane skill. Which says:
You've started to make a meaningful connection about the common underpinnings of the four traditions of magic and magical essences, allowing you to understand them all through an arcane lens.
Frankly I think the implication here is that it is possible for arcane spell casters to 'fake' non-arcane magic with enough know how. No game mechanics do this as of yet, but I'm still saying the wizard should have gotten this as a class ability
In my mind wizards are still weirdo esotericists, occultists and even spiritually minded people. To a degree I think you'd have to in order to do any magic at all
I also think my take isn't super popular, and I also have a low tolerance to "thermia arguments" when my greivance is less about lore and lore justifications but more about why the designers made these choices to begin with
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like how the road least traveled for bards is to pour all their points into Charisma and Performance and never touch Intelligence or Occultism. I also think that the defining class for a spell list should be a prepared spellcasting class because an occult class can make use of the entire list rather than a select subset of spells.
Witch has the right ability spread and spellcasting style, but is an any list caster who derives their power from their patron, not their understanding of or connection to the subject of their tradition. Wizards fall under the former category: clerics and druids the latter. (No, abberations and spirits are not the subject of occultism any more than dragons are the subject of Arcana.)
Psychics are a spontaneous spellcasting class like the bard, and psychic magic is presented as a specialized subset of occult magic common only in select regions, which rubs me the wrong way.
It feels like if I want to play as a seer or a medium I have to take some kind of back door. Either a. become a performer, b. make a pact with some mysterious and powerful entity, or c. become a psychic. D, where you intuitively understand the threads of fate or the world of spirits and are a scholar of the weird and inexplicable is currently not an option, and I wish it were.
Bard with Enigma muse seem very much like they would want intelligence as they have most inventive compared to the other muses and even then it does mean they completely ignore it. Bards can be scholars and in fact songs and stories are common ways people pass these things down things bard would study and flavor paragraph of the bard says that they can be scholars. Also a witch can be a scholar or any class. You don't have to get magic through study to be a scholar and most I would say seek a deeper understanding of there magic that is why they are trained in the skill. So your D option is not about having a class similar to the wizard but how you portray your character.
I also disagree on your point on prepared caster vs spontaneous. Yes prepared have an easier time preparing other spell but no class uses all the spells on there list.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Witch has the right ability spread and spellcasting style, but is an any list caster who derives their power from their patron, not their understanding of or connection to the subject of their tradition.
I mean, the Witch is an Int based caster who studies and learns magic like a Wizard.
It feels weird to claim the class is 'cheating' because... they have a teacher?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like how the road least traveled for bards is to pour all their points into Charisma and Performance and never touch Intelligence or Occultism.
I don't know whether you accidentally flipped the signs on this sentence, or else I have seriously misunderstood your meaning. It seems like you mean to express disdain for Bards focusing too much on Performance and not enough on Occultism, rather than that Performance is rare?
That aside, I might say that even if a Witch has a private tutor with access to niche secrets, they still require Int just as much as a Wizard. I'll grant my interpretation of the Witch from 1e is not supported by the 2e description so it'll have to remain purely my own headcanon, but whatever the Witch does while learning magic, they do it with the learning-and-reason subset of their mental scores.
Aside from that, Psychics are not common in the Inner Sea, but neither are firearms. Psychics are by no means a niche subset of Occult magic given their substantial representation in Vudra and on Castrovel.
Regardless, I would say that Wizards have no more special an understanding of the mysteries of Arcane magic than Bards do of Occult. Bards understand the network of stories and connections which make up Occult magic through the approach of their ability to invoke these forces through song and story. Wizards understand the hidden underpinnings of reality that are the basis of Arcane magic with empirical experimentation. Both are merely approaches to understanding their respective branches of magic--as it happens Arcane yields better to categorical classification, and Occult to intuitive artistry.
Mind you, I don't think you're wrong to want a class that approaches Occult as a specialist with prepared casting, just I don't think you're giving the Bard as a true Occult practitioner.
---
In my mind wizards are still weirdo esotericists, occultists and even spiritually minded people. To a degree I think you'd have to in order to do any magic at all
I also think my take isn't super popular, and I also have a low tolerance to "thermia arguments" when my greivance is less about lore and lore justifications but more about why the designers made these choices to begin with
I wanted to say, I do absolutely love the concept of the wizard as a weirdo occultist, dabbler in spiritual matters, but unfortunately for both of us, you are right. This is not the magic system described for the Lost Omens setting nor the nomenclature used. To dispense with Thermian discussion, if game balance were not a thing, I would say absolutely that a 'Wizard' should be the name of somebody who fully embodies all kinds of magic that they can get their hands on, with no branch of magic too occult for their eventual grasp, even if it means learning to practice esoteric magics by the diversity of means out there and not focusing on a single approach, regardless whether this is hard-science or mysticism.
In fact, Old Mage Jatembe comes a lot closer to what I feel like a 'true' wizard might look like, having blended both Arcane and Primal into a new discipline. I would love to see an 'Mind-centric' equivalent hybrid magic that blends Occult and Arcane magics.
Nevertheless, no magic system exists in a vacuum. All settings are free to define what Magic A does relative to Magic X. At some point no matter how grounded the descriptions, every magic system must resort to assigning completely arbitrary definitions to their effects, and no one is inherently more legitimate than another. To that end, I have to object to the first half of your post:
I've expressed in my own post that what occult is defined as in game is the real world definition of the word arcane. Not to mention real world occult practices are described with the adjective arcane. I also think the distinction between arcane and occult is largely artificial, and I find the explanation that arcane magic is more or less scientific, materialist, and about mathematical formulas to just take all the magic out of arcane magic.
Occult magic matches the real-world definition of the word 'arcane' because the real-world definition of the occult treats the words 'arcane' and even 'esoteric' as interchangeable. I don't find this very relevant because of the aforementioned issue with any given magic system's inherent need to draw arbitrary distinctions to create a functioning system. Ideally those arbitrary distinctions satisfy the audience, but this does not make them actually less arbitrary, only feel less so.
Now of course, the obvious upshot of this is that the distinctions between Arcane and Occult as you have read in the setting (and threads such as this) have not satisfied your tastes to date. Unfortunately, I don't know that there is a non-Thermian argument to be made about why a magic that you feel should be one thing exists as two separate traditions. From an out-of-universe perspective, there's not really a good reason why Arcane and Occult are different magics but there's also not really a good reason why Arcane and Divine are different. In both cases the answer is that they draw on different fundamental forces.
According to the in-character essays written about Arcane magic, many believe that they are wielding the subtle tools which the gods used to build the universe. In this light, we might say the only difference between a Wizard and a Cleric is whether they ask for permission to use the power. Even two classes typically described as opposites fall together, unless we treat the two traditions as somehow inherently different. It is the same way with Occult and Arcane.
If I may be permitted a small nod toward explanations grounded in the setting itself, we know that magic on Golarion is not inherently beyond beyond material reality. The metaphysical exists even on the physical plane--druids tap into it through their instinct and faith in natural cycles, and wizards study the metaphysical mechanics which underlie the tangible reality, and both do also extend their reach beyond the physical universe into the material energies of the elemental planes. The fact that wizards manipulate immanent, tangible forces doesn't mean they don't grasp at supernatural tools, just that those tools exist within and and around the mental and material realms they inhabit, not the far-off realms of the spirits.
---
Overall it feels like there is no small demand for an Occult practitioner who embodies more of the trappings of a classic wizard-type, and perhaps even approaches Occult magic in a manner that embodies the erudite hermit. A Bard without the music, so-to-speak (not unlike the Archaeologist of old, although I feel like a different name and identity would be necessary. Personally, I like Witch for the erudite hermit aesthetic, grasping at esoterica and knowledge beyond mortal ken, but I can understand that others feel the Witch's flexibility in tradition de-emphasizes the type of magic they study, and prefer to think of Witch more like a 5e Warlock--the caster with a sugar daddy who does no real work of their own--even if I object strongly to that particular interpretation.
.
.
.
That took a lot more time and page space than I'd meant it to...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like how the road least traveled for bards is to pour all their points into Charisma and Performance and never touch Intelligence or Occultism. I also think that the defining class for a spell list should be a prepared spellcasting class because an occult class can make use of the entire list rather than a select subset of spells.
Witch has the right ability spread and spellcasting style, but is an any list caster who derives their power from their patron, not their understanding of or connection to the subject of their tradition. Wizards fall under the former category: clerics and druids the latter. (No, abberations and spirits are not the subject of occultism any more than dragons are the subject of Arcana.)
Psychics are a spontaneous spellcasting class like the bard, and psychic magic is presented as a specialized subset of occult magic common only in select regions, which rubs me the wrong way.
It feels like if I want to play as a seer or a medium I have to take some kind of back door. Either a. become a performer, b. make a pact with some mysterious and powerful entity, or c. become a psychic. D, where you intuitively understand the threads of fate or the world of spirits and are a scholar of the weird and inexplicable is currently not an option, and I wish it were.
That's just the sort of narrow-minded thinking that is so at home in Arcane, the idea that it is studying something that provides a connection. The Occult can be studied, but it is much more properly practiced through an understanding of people. Being able to act the great plays that have moved thousands, to lie such that your words shape someone's understanding of the world, to sing so that you evoke emotions and memories in those around you, are these not more important expressions of understanding the mind and soul than being able to describe their composition?
I think that the four core single-list casters do an excellent job reflecting their respective schools of magic. Charisma is the most fitting stat for Occult, because in PF2, the simplest ways to perform Occult magic lean heavily on the theater and perception of it. If you had a second prepared, intelligence-based caster representing Occult in core, we wouldn't see the distinctions between it and Arcane.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the sense of disconnect might partially be the fault of the skills. Religion and Nature are Wisdom based skills, matching the Druid and Cleric, while Occult is Int based, which I think helps fuel that disconnect... and creates an odd scenario where a Wizard is a better Occultist than the Bard (which seems like exactly the reason Religion and Nature had their primary attributes flipped anyways).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like you want is an Occult researcher, with Wizard's exact flavor but for Occult. Which I guess is the Lovecraftian researcher, poring over tomes to summon betentacled things?
At that point, my recommendation would be a small customization of the patron to fit what you want.
- Your patron is the Akashic Record, represented by Fate. There exists a realm of perfect knowledge, and your studies have allowed you to tap into surface veins of occult secrets. Your familiar is the stolen record of an animal, in which you can safely store what you learn.
- You have no external patron, only your own research, represented by Baba Yaga- a Witch who serves as an example of not relying on another's power. Your familiar is a book of your research.
- Your patron is incapable of awareness of you, represented by Curse or Night. This is the Lovecraftian researcher approach- you are siphoning trivial, infinitesimal power off of something unknowable. Your familiar is simply a mind safely removed from your own so that you don't risk madness.
I want an occult class that is to the witch what the wizard is to the witch.
I think that's Psychic. I don't think Occult really lends itself to prepared casting thematically. It was spontaneous-exclusive in PF1, and a lot of its theming is a certain unknowability or mysticism that is at odds with grabbing your book with the answers.
Thought on the general topic of the thread: In Arcane magic, a book is full of knowledge, and therefore powerful. In Occult magic, a book is a symbol of knowledge,and therefore powerful.
My (present) understanding of Occult magic, as opposed to Arcane magic, is the "computability" or "replication test" to stimuli and situation. Arcane magic is more about stimuli hat situation, as in "these hand signs and these words make Fireball" regardless of if you're on a mountain top, the Osirian desert, or a random forest. You can apply the same stimuli (inputs/arguments) to different situations and you get the same result. Occult magic doesn't seem to allow that, what funny words you have to say to cast Sooth on Jeff are different from the funny words to cast Sooth on Dave, are different for Jill, or Pete, ect. ect. If you want to cast Inspire Courage on a mountain top, you might play A Major, if you're in a desert: B# minor, forest? Cb (can't make a flat symbol) blues cord. You can't infinitely reproduce Occult magic with the same inputs on different situations. Heck, you might even need new inputs to Sooth Pete twice!
That's my two cents based on what I read in SoM, and my history of fantasy media that plays with more Occult style magic (Megami Tensei family coming to mind most predominately).
A wizard with the Eldritch Researcher archetype might be what some folks are looking for in a wizard unafraid to pursue magic at its core, crossing over the boundaries of traditions.
The mechanics of the game do not force fit as closely to the lore of secrets of magic as is necessary to think of the traditions as something that exist as hard coded distinctions between magic types. PCs, and PC classes are rare in world. PCs vary so much from one to another that it seems incredibly rare to run into any caster class that doesn't invent its own exceptions to spell lists based on tradition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could even create a Class archetype to change the Wizard's tradition to Occult spell list. Pick an existing level 2 archetype to use as the required archetype feat for the class archetype. I would recommend Ghost Eater because it is on-theme and doesn't provide spellcasting. Eldritch Researcher would be another option.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um...you did not create this thread, and it can go on without you.
Yes, sometimes people have differing opinions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to abort this thread. No one is seeing eye-to-eye with me on this or agreeing with me that the class I'm looking for is something this game sorely needs.
Yeah, I just don't understand what you are asking for.
You might start a thread in Advice if you are looking for ideas to create your character concept with existing classes and options, or in Homebrew if you want to get help defining something entirely new that would get you what you are after.
I think that's Psychic. I don't think Occult really lends itself to prepared casting thematically. It was spontaneous-exclusive in PF1, and a lot of its theming is a certain unknowability or mysticism that is at odds with grabbing your book with the answers.
Thought on the general topic of the thread: In Arcane magic, a book is full of knowledge, and therefore powerful. In Occult magic, a book is a symbol of knowledge,and therefore powerful.
I don't see why occult would be exclusively spontaneous when prepared casting is still absolutely bizarre and arcane(in the real world sense). Think about what it means to prepare a spell and what happens when you cast it. You memorize the spell as your preparation, embed it in your mind, and then when you cast it you forget the spell and how to even do it. This is intensely weird. It gives the vibe of a forbidden knowledge mortal minds are not fit to hold. A witch's familiar teaches the witch occult secrets and how to use them and then puts this occult knowledge in her mind and when it is used she can't even remember how to do it without communing with her familiar. Or replace all instances of occult with arcane and familiar with spellbook. Preparing spells is super strange in a good and magical way
***Edit***
On second thought, spontaneous seems to be the less magical one. As you cast spells you 'know', which are mundane enough to be a permanent fixture in your mind... Hmmm
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to abort this thread. No one is seeing eye-to-eye with me on this or agreeing with me that the class I'm looking for is something this game sorely needs.
I'm sorry that you feel this way and will probably not read this, but I am on some level of agreement with you. An Occult researcher sounds like an excellent character concept. After all, there was a reason people in the Witch playtest argued that Witch should be Occult-only. I didn't agree with them for Witch, but I do see the pull for a class which fully embraces the study of occult themes in all its options, not merely one of its paths.
That said, while I am interested in an occult researcher, I haven't really seen enough to justify a whole class. I can see the great want for such a class, but the need is not so great as you say. As others have suggested, if I were to play a student of the occult, I would lean into my headcanon of Witches learning magic the hard way through dark patrons, not merely being gifted it (though you are right, a strict reading of the lore supports the latter) and play a witch whose patron is centred on the Dark Tapestry or Old Cults. If I could do some homebrewing, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to create a Wizard who simply gets the entire Occult list in place of the Arcane list. This would be a great concept for a class path to be published down the line.
Somewhat ironically, the same reason you disdain the Bard, Witch, and Psychic for being gimmicky, and not being purely focused on their spell list as their class identity, I find the Wizard unfortunately bland and lacking. Every other class that casts magic has something else going on that ties them thematically to the world and makes them feel real. Something that gives them a sense of belonging. If you want to think about how to role play a Cleric and where they fit in society, research historical religions, if Bard, musicians and troubadours, if Witch, hermits and beliefs about witchcraft. Wizard is the only class that feels like it rejects historical analogy (such as it is, given a fantasy setting) and stays in their lane as magic researchers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why occult would be exclusively spontaneous when prepared casting is still absolutely bizarre and arcane(in the real world sense).
I agree with your objection, but not your premise nor conclusions. I don't feel like Occult could never be prepared and more than Arcane not spontaneous. For obvious example, Witches can already prepare Occult spells, but even if we insist on Witches as an exception to a rule, I don't think the prep/spontaneous divide is a question of tradition, but a question of a given class' approach to learning magic.
That said, I don't think your conclusions about why preparation is more 'magical' than spontaneous casting are supported by the setting. You make much of prep casters losing spell knowledge as it is unleashed from their minds. This has been a longstanding joke about wizards since before Pathfinder, and there have been answers to the same for almost as long.
The aforementioned excerpt on arcane magic supports the reading that wizards (and probably other prepared casters) do not lose the knowledge how to cast a spell when they cast it, they lose their preparation--that is, they lose the energy they have carefully shaped into a magic missile-shaped vessel in their minds. They might remember the particulars of the spell after it is cast, but unless they have another one loaded, they will have to start at the beginning, winding that energy into the vessel through their preparation rituals.
Spontaneous caster, on the other hand, seem to be in touch with the flow of magic such that they have a few spell matrices semi-permanently embedded in their minds. The nature of their casting is that they don't need to screw the energy into a specific mental construct ahead of time, but the trade off is they can't learn more than a small handful of different spells
I think that's Psychic. I don't think Occult really lends itself to prepared casting thematically. It was spontaneous-exclusive in PF1, and a lot of its theming is a certain unknowability or mysticism that is at odds with grabbing your book with the answers.
Thought on the general topic of the thread: In Arcane magic, a book is full of knowledge, and therefore powerful. In Occult magic, a book is a symbol of knowledge,and therefore powerful.
I don't see why occult would be exclusively spontaneous when prepared casting is still absolutely bizarre and arcane(in the real world sense). Think about what it means to prepare a spell and what happens when you cast it. You memorize the spell as your preparation, embed it in your mind, and then when you cast it you forget the spell and how to even do it. This is intensely weird. It gives the vibe of a forbidden knowledge mortal minds are not fit to hold. A witch's familiar teaches the witch occult secrets and how to use them and then puts this occult knowledge in her mind and when it is used she can't even remember how to do it without communing with her familiar. Or replace all instances of occult with arcane and familiar with spellbook. Preparing spells is super strange in a good and magical way
***Edit***
On second thought, spontaneous seems to be the less magical one. As you cast spells you 'know', which are mundane enough to be a permanent fixture in your mind... Hmmm
Hmm. You do make a good point about the weirdness of prepared casting, but it's just not something the system acknowledges. If it were just Clerics and Witches who did it, getting spells from an outside entity, sure. But Wizards and Druids really don't have that vibe going on. If we do get more prepared Occult casters, though, that's a good way for me to think about it!
But, I guess my argument is more one about a spellbook, rather than prepared casting in general. Witch does occult prepared casting in a way that feels pretty dang occult, and there's nothing written down for somebody to go, "Oh, now I get it."
Hmm. You do make a good point about the weirdness of prepared casting, but it's just not something the system acknowledges. If it were just Clerics and Witches who did it, getting spells from an outside entity, sure. But Wizards and Druids really don't have that vibe going on. If we do get more prepared Occult casters, though, that's a good way for me to think about it!
But, I guess my argument is more one about a spellbook, rather than prepared casting in general. Witch does occult prepared casting in a way that feels...
A wizard still forgets the spell after they cast it and must go over their spellbook again the next day to embed it in their mind once more. It seems like the samething but toying more directly with this mystical and esoteric force in the world. You may not have something granting it to you (though arguably a wizard often still has a familiar which is an otherworldly spirit in all cases afaik), but you are still meddling in knowledge not fit for a mortal mind and thus have to record it to a book or be unable to keep it in your head. In my opinion the only difference is you cut out the middle man. While arcane magic is 'scientific' this science is still spiritual attunement, astral projection, words of power, occult symbols and esoteric rituals(material, somatic and verbal components are all still weird mystical "it just works" kinda magic stuff). A diviner who is an occult caster or an arcane caster(or divine, or primal) is still looking at the stars, reading palms, peering into a crystal ball and using tarot cards
This has been a longstanding joke about wizards since before Pathfinder, and there have been answers to the same for almost as long.
In the Dying Earth series where this magic system comes from this is explicitly the case. I also believe that in 1-3.x D&D as well as Pathfinder 1e, the word 'forgets' is used explicitly. Unless something said otherwise in one of the source books I think this is a safe assumption to make. To me the only way this could be a 'joke' is assuming a materialist interpretation of the world which I don't think would ever be accurate to a fantasy setting. In the context of the world literally forgetting the spell is exactly the kind of thing it should be imo
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The different point of views on how vancian magic actually works IC have been going on since there has been vancian magic in RPGs. I think all are valid and can even coexist.
Though high INT = memory does not give you additional spells anymore. And high WIS, which is NOT memory, did grant additional spells too in 3.5/PF1.
Really, it's all for improved playability and fun. Not for improved IC verisimilitude.
This has been a longstanding joke about wizards since before Pathfinder, and there have been answers to the same for almost as long.In the Dying Earth series where this magic system comes from this is explicitly the case. I also believe that in 1-3.x D&D as well as Pathfinder 1e, the word 'forgets' is used explicitly. Unless something said otherwise in one of the source books I think this is a safe assumption to make. To me the only way this could be a 'joke' is assuming a materialist interpretation of the world which I don't think would ever be accurate to a fantasy setting. In the context of the world literally forgetting the spell is exactly the kind of thing it should be imo
There seems to be a slight misunderstanding. The joke to which I refer is the gag somewhat common in D&D-themed comics of poking fun at the concept of wizards who memorize the same spell every day but from the moment they have cast it, can no longer remember how to do the spell, often at a critical moment when it would be extremely convenient if the wizard didn't forget how to conjure fireballs the very moment after they cast one. This really has nothing to do with materialism, and while wizards study the magic inherent to the material world, the very existence of the Great Beyond renders any argument about strictly materialist interpretations pretty moot.
At the same time, I don't doubt or challenge the notion that wizardry requires memorization of devilishly complex spell formulae, nor that these formulae require a quick reference--wizardry is quite explicit about that. I was rather objecting to the idea that the only thing going on in spellcasting was memorizing and forgetting a complex formula, and that this was inherently more 'magical' than spontaneous casting. It certainly is some weird magical goodness that your brain holds onto this mental construct of a complex formula until the moment of casting, but I don't think a wizard who has just cast fireball is only prevented from casting another one because they can't remember how to do it.
...Actually, I can't seem to find an explicit Pathfinder 1e reference to wizards literally forgetting their spells upon casting. I know there must be one in here somewhere, but the most likely sources are referring to spells being lost, expended, and abandoned in general terms, and not talking about the in-fiction mechanics. On the other hand, p 218 of the Core Rulebook does allude to a wizard's capacity to prepare spells in terms of their "resources". In fact, Prepared Spell Retention explicitly references the reading that a prepared spell is a, "nearly-cast spell until he uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it, or until he abandons it."
Aside from that there is the text to which I was originally referring in my previous post. Secrets of Magic, pp 8-9 features a fictional excerpt from an arcane text, the latter half of which discusses a 'mnemonic matrix' as a palace of memory inside which one constructs spells out of language and mathematics, which they must energize with mental essence. The reason a wizard is said to lose a spell upon casting it, according to the this text, is that the act of releasing the energy collapses the construct, and the wizard is constrained by time and mental energy from swiftly repeating the spell.
So, certainly a wizard likely forgets the spell they have just cast. They do not lose knowledge how to cast that spell, but they will have to take a look in their spellbook again to get the complex formulae wound back into their brain, at which time they will be able to re-energize the mental construct and unleash it again.
Either way, while Vancian casting is indeed explicitly inspired by the Dying Earth, it is readily apparent that even the magic system directly inspired by it diverges significantly from its model. I don't think a world where magic is implied to be based in a scientific approach with mathematical complexity strongly supports your preference for occult wizardry.
---
To reiterate, I don't think you are wrong about the full breadth of the wonderful weirdness that the concept of a wizard could embody. In fact, there is no reason why a wizard does not study the obscure and occult--doing so requires only becoming trained in Occultism. I know you desire that the wizard's spells include esotericism and forbidden knowledge. Indeed, forbidden knowledge is exactly the kind of thing the Occult treatise argues is the dangerous misunderstood side of Occultism. When it comes to astral projection, that I believe is already within the field of wizardry by virtue of the Mental essence (Astral plane is described as the home of mental energy, and Summoners communing with astral constructs is one way for them to learn Arcane magic).
Wizardry does not need to be perfectly mundane, or lacking in mystery, as I have argued on this very thread before, but when it comes to the magic described as bizarre and defying logic or explanation, that is Occult. Arcane magic may be difficult to understand, written in obscure symbols, or given the trappings of mysticism by its practicioners, but it is fundamentally knowable by means of logic. Quantum Theory and advanced mathematics are bizarre things, but they are still understood by logic and reason, which is the basis and thematic function of wizardry in this specific setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see making a Wizard that only memorized Occult spells (which are also Arcane). That'd be limiting, yet more than viable. That could get one the "Occult Researcher" vibe and one could frame it that their Arcane/non-Occult aptitude's a side hobby.
Or an Investigator w/ MCD Wizard and the same limit would fit in a Lovecraftian setting (or MCD Occult Sorcerer, etc.).
And while the Occult Witch has the "flaw" of getting their powers from a higher entity, isn't that about as Occult as one can get? Did you think the universe answers to YOU, mortal?! And one could flip (if not open to flat out reskinning) so that yes, the Patron gives the Witch power, but it was because the Witch was an occult researcher first, who tapped into or was granted that power explicitly as part of that research. Not even sure Patrons have to be known or sentient forces anyway, yet you could choose Cthulhu as one's Patron and embrace the madness.
Heck, IMO maxed out Occult is enough to qualify, perhaps w/ some Int and Item bonuses, perhaps Trick Magic Item and some Occult trinkets. The classes and spells themselves seem secondary to being an aficionado of the occult (or champion against, etc.).
ETA: Now I'm tempted to make a Superstitious Barbarian who's afraid of magic not because of what they don't know, but because of what they do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm late for this part of the discussion, but regarding how similar arcane and occult are;
Arcane is how mental and physical connect - a neuroscientist/brain surgeon. a fully scientific approach to a physical problem with chemicals or scalpel.
Occult is where mental and spiritual connect - it is a psychiatrist, dealing with the brain and how it feels/copes with the world, medicine may be used, but in many cases talking and dealing with emotions is all that's needed.
Both are experts of different aspects of the mind and apply that expertise differently, and certainly there's overlap enough that they'd have a lot to talk about at a party, but in the end for all their similarities, what they do is completely different. They can solve some of the same problems, but they each also solve problems the other might do more harm than good trying to solve problems more suited to the other - a square peg in a round hole.
This is a faulty analogy since real world science and fantasy magic are very dissimilar at their core, but might be enough to illustrate how important differences of two superficially different things can be. Imagine a brain surgeon or a psychiatrists each trying to help the other's patients... the results would be disastrous.
*shrugs*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does seem likely that people on Golarion will probably eventually understand how to how to unify all the magical essences (after all they are just two antipodal pairs in orthogonal dimensions), and thus the magical traditions will just be understood as paradigms and heuristics to understand something that abstract and difficult to understand. I mean, modern physicists have figured out how 3 of the 4 basic natural forces are the same things (we first understood that magnetism and electricity are the same thing in the 19th century, then how the weak force and then the strong force can be understood in the same context in the mid to late 20th century)
It's just that doing this is outside the purview of one hero's life so the actual mechanics are not interested in doing this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC the Cascade bearer feats of the Magaambyan wizards allow them to poach spells from every tradition, including Occult.
I believe the Magaambya as a whole believes in a sort of 'unified theory' of magic - Jatembe presents the four traditions as all still ultimately being magic, which is why Strength of Thousands enables characters who know both arcane and primal spells from the outset. 1e also featured an Archetype called the Magaambyan Telepath, who would be an occult/primal blend under the current paradigm.
Give them a few more decades and I bet the Magaambya will figure out all four traditions. I imagine them and Rahadoum were two major factors in driving Golarion's magical understanding in the future that leads to Starfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I *really* want from the Magaambya during the life of PF2 is for someone to figure out how to use both of the opposite essences together (i.e. Matter AND Spirit, or Life AND Mind). I think you could do something really neat there.
I am not sure you can use 2 opposite essences without using a 3rd one to complete them.
Fey feel a bit like they should be using Mind/Life. The Nature list has a bunch of blasty stuff that doesn't fit, and is missing large chunks of illusion and enchantment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I *really* want from the Magaambya during the life of PF2 is for someone to figure out how to use both of the opposite essences together (i.e. Matter AND Spirit, or Life AND Mind). I think you could do something really neat there.
What if the idea is that they can't be used together? For whatever reason. And that the 4 magical traditions are thus defined by combining the essences that do play nice with one another?
Why, it is almst as if these elements form a sort of circle around a central paradigm, and by the time of Starfinder, they have figured out what that paradigm is, and that is why there is only one 'Magic' skill in Starfinder: Mystcism.
So I don't think there is going to be a joining of opposites any time soon in Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wonder why Occult isn't a Charisma-based skill since a lot of its explanations from the source material seem to solely focus more on a Charismatic standpoint (how the power feels and how it affects your interactions with one another) compared to an Intelligence one (how the power functions when tested and theorized with logic).
And we can't sit there and say "Because balance," due that this same argument was made for Nature and Religion skills (knowing about natural and religious entities means Intelligence should be required, not instinctual understandings via Wisdom), and those were thrown in to be Wisdom-based to balance out Wisdom-based spellcasters from being too MAD to function compared to Intelligence-based spellcasters.
|
|
I really wonder why Occult isn't a Charisma-based skill since a lot of its explanations from the source material seem to solely focus more on a Charismatic standpoint (how the power feels and how it affects your interactions with one another) compared to an Intelligence one (how the power functions when tested and theorized with logic).
And we can't sit there and say "Because balance," due that this same argument was made for Nature and Religion skills (knowing about natural and religious entities means Intelligence should be required, not instinctual understandings via Wisdom), and those were thrown in to be Wisdom-based to balance out Wisdom-based spellcasters from being too MAD to function compared to Intelligence-based spellcasters.
Though I agree with your last part, I'm okay with the studious (high INT) classes, such as Wizard, Witch, Investigator Inventor and Mastermind Rogue being best at RK against oozes and Aberrations. There is no reason that should be the bard's forte.
Though I agree with your last part, I'm okay with the studious (high INT) classes, such as Wizard, Witch, Investigator Inventor and Mastermind Rogue being best at RK against oozes and Aberrations. There is no reason that should be the bard's forte.I really wonder why Occult isn't a Charisma-based skill since a lot of its explanations from the source material seem to solely focus more on a Charismatic standpoint (how the power feels and how it affects your interactions with one another) compared to an Intelligence one (how the power functions when tested and theorized with logic).
And we can't sit there and say "Because balance," due that this same argument was made for Nature and Religion skills (knowing about natural and religious entities means Intelligence should be required, not instinctual understandings via Wisdom), and those were thrown in to be Wisdom-based to balance out Wisdom-based spellcasters from being too MAD to function compared to Intelligence-based spellcasters.
The reasoning is already explained behind what Occult represents. There is no logic or reasoning behind the Occult, only emotion and feeling. The Occult is comparable to Cthulhu, and given that Cthulhu is an entity that we as human beings cannot understand or comprehend, it only makes sense that Occult being Intelligence-based is equally absurd as Religion/Nature being Wisdom-based, since Charisma is all about emotion and force of personality, which is perhaps the only means of which Cthulhu could be comprehended, if at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is still useful to draw a distinction between the knowledge of theory and the practice of a magic tradition. As far as I know, casters do not need to extend their knowledge of theory beyond the basics to cast spells, and advanced knowledge if theory can but doesn't necessarily grant spells. Bards may practice Occult magic with an instinct for the interaction between art, mind, and soul, but we've seen there is no single correct approach to practicing any tradition. Witches can practice divine magic with reason, Sorcerers can practice Arcane with instinct.
I'm just spitballing now, but I see knowledge of theory being a related, but different skill set than practice. Even though the practice of Occult magic lends itself to approaches which favour an instinct for affecting and audience and drawing connections, I don't think Cha is necessarily a logical skill for synthesizing and correlating knowledge. On the other hand, while many feel that all knowledge should logically be based on reason and memory, I feel there is a case for being able to synthesize knowledge not with memorization and reason, but through intuition and holistic understanding. Recently I read an article about medieval medicine which illustrated to me why premodern medicine makes more sense as a Wis based skill than an Int one.
Given the above discussion about why Wizardry's emphasis on empirically verifiable spell craft is suited to Arcane magic and why that is different from Occult magic emphasized the need for Occult practitioners to be able to adapt to a subject without empirical truths, needing to synthesize an understanding from moving variables, it almost seems as if Wisdom would be a more fitting ability.
Nevertheless, it seems to me like the skills are divided by mental traditions and vital traditions. The theory of Occultism, like the theory of storytelling, is still based in symbols and rational patterns, provided one does not make the mistake of seeing the symbols and tropes as the substance of the magic, as all too many cultists and writing advice blogs do, and instead see what those logical rules repesent and why every rule is a guideline that can be broken in the correct circumstances.
(Fun fact aside from this discussion: the physicians who wrote most of the texts and debated the theory of medicine did not actually practice it, and in fact looked down on those who did, meanwhile those why practiced medicine did not often write down what had to be learned from experience.)