| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I think the arcane list has fewer exclusive spells because the premise of the arcane spell list is that "it poaches stuff from other traditions".
I believe it was Mark Seifter who said something to the effect of the reason the Arcane List was greedy was that they needed to make sure all the various kinds of specialists had enough options.
The arcane list is a pie with a lot whipped cream. It looks like it has more than other lists, but really it is stacked with lots of fluffy, sweet, but useless whipped cream. Arcane spells don't offer more than any other list. There are a lot of them because the wizard that uses the list is a preparation class that can switch them out (possibly in 10 minutes), so you want to stack a lot of spells in the list so it looks like the wizard has a lot of options. But truly useful and viable options are about the same as other lists, so you don't end up switching too often.
I don't think the Arcane list should focus on Mental and Material. It should be Arcane focusing on lots of different aspects of magic. Strange universal secrets meant to manipulate the various forces in the world through arcane ritual and study.
There have been numerous conversations about this exact topic in the wizard threads over the years.
The thing is, the essences of magic are pathfinders core system of understanding magic. It is unique to this system and isn’t going anywhere. Healing is almost entirely vital essence or spirit essence in this cosmology. “Targeting a specific save” just doesn’t fit as squarely in mental or material enough to really prevent other traditions from having access to some options that give those lists flexibility.
We will see if and how much moving away from schools frees up what spells can go where, but it is just impossible at this point to know how much the devs want to move those needles in a remaster, vs a full edition change. If magic schools can break the
Agreed. PF2 was not making good use of the old system of schools of magic and they were only acting as a misleading mechanic for the vast majority of players who were coming to PF2 from any 3.x version of the game. Since it is clear now that the reason for that is because no one at Paizo felt comfortable doubling down on bringing the "schools of magic" forward (because there has clearly been some longer-term thinking about how close the schools of magic were tied to D&D lore) in PF2, it is better to get rid of them and stop having them just exist enough to conflate player expectations.
All I see when I look at the spell lists is the following:
Druid list became primal.
Cleric list became divine.
Wizard list became Arcane with a lot of quality spells rmeoved.
Bard list became Occult.
Sure there are some differences, but that looks like in essence what the did.
I like the change insofar as it made the sorcerer, witch, and summoner more interesting and flexible to build.
I almost wish they would let any caster pick a list rather than assign one. Make everything much more flexible and interesting when building characters. You could see an elementalist wizard using the primal list instead of Arcane.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point the whole thread has degenerated into people going in circles and repeating themselves with slightly different wording.
Rembember, you* don't need to get in the last word. Not responding to someone doesn't mean they "win," the argument.
*This is a plural you by the way. Not a specific poster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My impression of the whole spell lists thing: 2E was Paizo's first crack at dividing two big piles of spells into four lists; there were bound to be hiccups. I do generally agree the arcane list is a bit lackluster, and I hope they address it in the remaster.
Personally -- and admittedly this is kinda beside the point -- I'm not sure I see the thematic case for the occult list at all. Folding it back into the other lists -- principally arcane -- seems like it would solve a lot of problems. Then the Witch could just become a wizard archetype. Of course this would be far beyond the scope of a remaster, so...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Secrets of Magic delved into Arcane (and some other traditions, but it feels like an 'Arcane' book to me?)
Dark Archive delved into Occult (and some other traditions, but it feels like an 'Occult' book to me?)
Howl of the Wild sounds like it's going to delve into Primal (and some other traditions)
Not sure where Divine fits yet.
And yes, I would very much like Primalist, Occult, and Divine aspects to classes.
Different paths for Bards, Champions, Clerics, Druids, Monks, Oracles, Sorcerers, Wizards, Witches and Much Much MORE!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You just admitted my point finally. It was a self fulfilling prophecy of "we don't want to work on this after we wrote it" into "well we didn't work on this let's get rid of it".
We agree that PF2 was never going to use the D&D schools of magic the way that players familiar with them were ever going to be satisfied with, yes.
I don't think it is kind or correct to suggest that the issue is that the reason why is that "the developers didn't want to" out of some sense of spite for the people who like those schools of magic though. I think it is more accurate to say that they quickly realized that there was no way to make an Evoker wizard in Golarion that didn't just feel exactly like an Evoker Wizard in any D&D or D&D derivative game, and moving away from the OGL, that meant opening the rules of PF2 up to claims that they were dependent on a D&D cosmology and system of magic.
4 traditions of magic based upon the combination of 4 essences that get at the functionality of what a spell does made a magical tradition that needed to accommodate spells that did everything that magic can do a bad fit. I think we all know that you (and probably many others) would have preferred if they had gotten rid of traditions and kept the schools, but especially in light of the OGL to ORC switch, the fact that they had something else to underwrite their cosmology of magic could very well save the whole system if lawyers do end up having to get involved. At the very least, it is a very strong brick in the wall that might keep lawyers from even getting involved if Paizo shows that they are committed not to trying to keep narrative underpinnings that were obviously developed by another company.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure where Divine fits yet.
Wasn't that Gods & Magic?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also got a weird number of goodies for the other traditions' spell lists in it
I mean so do SoM and DA.
Secrets of Magic has almost nothing to do with arcane spellcasting at all (other than that the Magus is one) and mechanically did more to help the Divine list than the Arcane one, but we're still pretending it's somehow an arcane-centric book.
Honestly might be a point for the people complaining about wizards and the arcane list being underserved and underbaked with how big that reach is.
... though even Dark Archive has more class-specific support for Druids and Rangers than it does for Bards. So maybe the whole 'tradition book' concept is just suspect to begin with.
|
It's also got a weird number of goodies for the other traditions' spell lists in itI mean so do SoM and DA.
Secrets of Magic has almost nothing to do with arcane spellcasting at all (other than that the Magus is one) and mechanically did more to help the Divine list than the Arcane one, but we're still pretending it's somehow an arcane-centric book.
Honestly might be a point for the people complaining about wizards and the arcane list being underserved and underbaked with how big that reach is.
... though even Dark Archive has more class-specific support for Druids and Rangers than it does for Bards. So maybe the whole 'tradition book' concept is just suspect to begin with.
Only if you tie Traditions to strongly to classes, I think.
I really only think that spells like Synesthesia very much should have also been arcane. I did once make a thread about how the English word "arcane" means exactly what the occult spell list is described as, but I think despite me still feeling that arcane and occult feel like they are more or less the same kind of magic, this isn't really in conversation with the developers and why they made the four traditions which to me seems to be as a way to divide each into four broad kinds of casters who all do support roles they do it in different ways. It's like how in MTG the five colors will be primary in one thing, secondary in another and so on. Black for instance in primary in killing creatures, secondary in card draw, blue is primary in card draw and so on. Arcane seems to be intended to be primary in battlefield control and blasting, secondary in summoning and debuffs and doesn't get access to healing, and then maybe tertiary in buffs. Divine is probably something like primary in buffs and healing, secondary or tertiary in blasting, gets few control options. I think this is what is intended, but I would love if a designer was able to communicate to use what each tradition is supposed to be good at and the priority they get certain kinds of effects so that we can give feedback on the lists as to whether they fit the design goals
I like that there are some spells that fit into diverse traditions because each tradition is able to come at the same effect by different means, but in general I wouldn't mind seeing the logic behind the guidelines reflected a bit more,maybe with individual classes being able to dictate mire what toys they get beyond the common list.
To some extent I'm a little unclear how much the traditions are supposed to be objective magic categories and how much are they more classifications for major trends a la the way schools were.
The spell lists were created for attachment to certain types of classes that loosely tie to the type of magic they would use based on the old druid, wizard, bard, and cleric spell lists. It's easy to see that's what they did.
This allowed them to more flexibly build classes like the witch and sorcerer.
It worked out well for everyone but the wizard.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell lists were created for attachment to certain types of classes that loosely tie to the type of magic they would use based on the old druid, wizard, bard, and cleric spell lists. It's easy to see that's what they did.
This allowed them to more flexibly build classes like the witch and sorcerer.
It worked out well for everyone but the wizard.
Cleric and Druid were the two best classes they got toned down a bit and were rewarded with: The most 9th level spells and 10th level spell on a 10 minute rest CD.
Bard was the best buffer and got buffed, that class did not get a single nerf. They were made to straight up never run out of their buff ever.
Sorcerer was nerfed slightly by having less abilities in the bloodlines, but still got some quality 10th level spells on a 10 minute rest CD.
Wizard was nerfed all over the place. Bonus feats? Remove. Discoveries? Removed. Schools? Effectively remove with how bad the spells they got are. Its advantage of getting spells 1 level early? Removed. Prepared casting? Effectively removed.
It tells you how big the nerfs were when Sorcerer with 6 spells was tied with the Wizard with 4 spells. But now they both have 4 and the wizard is considered straight worse.
While I agree (to a degree) that Wizards were nerfed harder than most classes with the edition change, I'm not sure where you are getting these numbers from.
What 10th level spells do Sorcerers, Druids and Clerics have that they can cast once per refocus period?
What 10th level spells do Sorcerers, Druids and Clerics have that they can cast once per refocus period?
I think you need to focus long and hard on that question, and you will probably find your answer behind what type of spell can do that.
Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.
Perhaps. But I always thought that is was a designed balance point in favour of the Druid - good, commonly useful, focus spells.
|
|
Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.Perhaps. But I always thought that is was a designed balance point in favour of the Druid - good, commonly useful, focus spells.
Why would the Druid need this over the Wizard ?
Not trying to be antagonistic here. I'm really curious about what could be the balance reason.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What 10th level spells do Sorcerers, Druids and Clerics have that they can cast once per refocus period?I think you need to focus long and hard on that question, and you will probably find your answer behind what type of spell can do that.
If that's what they meant, that's pretty awkwardly worded. Wizards have 10th level focus spells by that token as well.
Its the quality that's the issue.
The post made it sound like they were misunderstanding Bloodline Conduit style effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.
Change doesn't equate to better. It's a common misconception, and given that this change is because of the OGL, assuming it's meant to be a buff isn't really an accurate statement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Change is.
Neither better or worse, but the unknown paradigm is jarring in comparison to the known.
I wonder if that will be a theorem for Wizards.
|
|
Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.Change doesn't equate to better. It's a common misconception, and given that this change is because of the OGL, assuming it's meant to be a buff isn't really an accurate statement.
This change also includes erratas. Those make things better.
This change also includes erratas. Those make things better.Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.Change doesn't equate to better. It's a common misconception, and given that this change is because of the OGL, assuming it's meant to be a buff isn't really an accurate statement.
Errata is clarification, so in regards to ensuring rules are ran as intended, they are better.
Erratas can also come in the form of nerfs. In that sense, they aren't better.
Unfortunately, until we get confirmation on what the change precisely is, it's strict conjecture to say if it's "better" in the latter sense.
|
|
This change also includes erratas. Those make things better.Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.Change doesn't equate to better. It's a common misconception, and given that this change is because of the OGL, assuming it's meant to be a buff isn't really an accurate statement.Errata is clarification, so in regards to ensuring rules are ran as intended, they are better.
Erratas can also come in the form of nerfs. In that sense, they aren't better.
Unfortunately, until we get confirmation on what the change precisely is, it's strict conjecture to say if it's "better" in the latter sense.
Erratas are always better. They can be perceived as nerfs by some, but, if Paizo issues them, it's for better overall game balance.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Erratas are always better. They can be perceived as nerfs by some, but, if Paizo issues them, it's for better overall game balance.This change also includes erratas. Those make things better.Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.Change doesn't equate to better. It's a common misconception, and given that this change is because of the OGL, assuming it's meant to be a buff isn't really an accurate statement.Errata is clarification, so in regards to ensuring rules are ran as intended, they are better.
Erratas can also come in the form of nerfs. In that sense, they aren't better.
Unfortunately, until we get confirmation on what the change precisely is, it's strict conjecture to say if it's "better" in the latter sense.
Because Paizo can't do wrong or make mistakes in gauging balance points? Even with the intention of "Errata are supposed to fix these sorts of things," they can still just as easily cause them.
|
|
Because Paizo can't do wrong or make mistakes in gauging balance points? Even with the intention of "Errata are supposed to fix these sorts of things," they can still just as easily cause them.Erratas are always better. They can be perceived as nerfs by some, but, if Paizo issues them, it's for better overall game balance.This change also includes erratas. Those make things better.Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.Change doesn't equate to better. It's a common misconception, and given that this change is because of the OGL, assuming it's meant to be a buff isn't really an accurate statement.Errata is clarification, so in regards to ensuring rules are ran as intended, they are better.
Erratas can also come in the form of nerfs. In that sense, they aren't better.
Unfortunately, until we get confirmation on what the change precisely is, it's strict conjecture to say if it's "better" in the latter sense.
Not as easily. It's called learning from experience.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, there was that one Errata a long time ago. The infamous weapon cord one. That definitely wasn't a change for the better. But it was also a long while ago, with arguably a different team entirely to what is there now.
Still, to say that all Errata and all Paizo changes are always for the better seems a bit too cultish to me. Everyone can make mistakes and nobody/nothing is perfect, and Paizo needing to issue errata at all shows that.
|
|
I mean, there was that one Errata a long time ago. The infamous weapon cord one. That definitely wasn't a change for the better. But it was also a long while ago, with arguably a different team entirely to what is there now.
Still, to say that all Errata and all Paizo changes are always for the better seems a bit too cultish to me. Everyone can make mistakes and nobody/nothing is perfect, and Paizo needing to issue errata at all shows that.
And the erratas are better than the rules before they were issued. It's exactly what learning ftom your mistakes and improving your products is all about.
Hence why people kept clamoring for more frequent errata BTW.
How can we be sure the weapon cord errata was not for the better ?
This change also includes erratas. Those make things better.Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.Change doesn't equate to better. It's a common misconception, and given that this change is because of the OGL, assuming it's meant to be a buff isn't really an accurate statement.Errata is clarification, so in regards to ensuring rules are ran as intended, they are better.
Erratas can also come in the form of nerfs. In that sense, they aren't better.
Unfortunately, until we get confirmation on what the change precisely is, it's strict conjecture to say if it's "better" in the latter sense.
Agreed, for the most part, though I'm a little cautiously optimistic just because the things we know are changing also happen to be the worst things about the existing class. There's a decent chance even by pure accident they just end up better anyways.
Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.Perhaps. But I always thought that is was a designed balance point in favour of the Druid - good, commonly useful, focus spells.Why would the Druid need this over the Wizard ?
Not trying to be antagonistic here. I'm really curious about what could be the balance reason.
Because wizard gets the arcane list and more effective spell slots.
My impression was that was what Paizo intended. They continued this with Psychic class, which arguably has the best focus spells and even less slots.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the arcane list factored into that decision, but I do agree that the druid got better focus spells in exchange for having one less slot. Always having something that's good enough to cast every combat is a recurring theme for the 3-slot casters that the 4-slot casters lack (no focus cantrips and focus spells tend to be more situational or, in many cases, having zero combat application).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.Perhaps. But I always thought that is was a designed balance point in favour of the Druid - good, commonly useful, focus spells.Why would the Druid need this over the Wizard ?
Not trying to be antagonistic here. I'm really curious about what could be the balance reason.
Because wizard gets the arcane list and more effective spell slots.
My impression was that was what Paizo intended. They continued this with Psychic class, which arguably has the best focus spells and even less slots.
Psychics are more of the cantrip-caster than the focus spell one. While they have good focus spells, its more their unique (and unique enhancements) to cantrips that set them apart.
Psychics have a good few things ongoing on besides, its not a straight spellslots <> Focus spells conversion.
List based balancing doesn't really seem to be present all that much when it comes to pick-a-list style casters either.
Arcane pick a list is generally worse in what they get.Since we know Focus spells for the Wizard will change in Remastered, I think we can hope for improvement on that side too.Perhaps. But I always thought that is was a designed balance point in favour of the Druid - good, commonly useful, focus spells.Why would the Druid need this over the Wizard ?
Not trying to be antagonistic here. I'm really curious about what could be the balance reason.
Because wizard gets the arcane list and more effective spell slots.
My impression was that was what Paizo intended. They continued this with Psychic class, which arguably has the best focus spells and even less slots.
Psychics are more of the cantrip-caster than the focus spell one. While they have good focus spells, its more their unique (and unique enhancements) to cantrips that set them apart.
Psychics have a good few things ongoing on besides, its not a straight spellslots <> Focus spells conversion.
List based balancing doesn't really seem to be present all that much when it comes to pick-a-list style casters either.
The current pick a list casters are sorcerer, witch, and summoner. I'm not sure this is enough to establish a trend.
Sorcerer is workable because it makes the class pseudo prepared, stepping on the toes of the Wizard. While also having Crossblooded so they can access spells from other lists.Yeah... Feats for specialists to spontaneously cast certain spells would have been and would still be nice given sorcerer's evolution feats.
If it's good enough to establish a serial killer's trend, it's good enough to establish design trends. Sorcerers and Witches have worse Arcane focus spells compared to their Occult or even Primal counterparts (Wilding Word is an outlier in this case), meanwhile Occult and Primal are the better spell lists compared to Arcane.
Summoners are more defined by their Eidolons and don't have much in the way of Focus spells tied to tradition, but again, Primal and Occult Eidolons seem to have more going for them than their Arcane counterpart(s) in regards to build options and feat choices in terms of raw effectiveness in combat (and out of combat too). So the idea that they are worse seems to track based on current published content, meaning Paizo either puts too much value in Arcane (AKA the Spell Bloat), or puts too little value in Occult/Primal.
For the other thing, I would rather they be able to spontaneously cast spells of their chosen school at all levels they can cast, since you know, they are specialists. This lets them prepare the off-beat spells Wizards should be able to prepare (without being caught with their pants down in a sense) while simultaneously still being true to their specialty when they need to be. But I suspect something like this will not come to pass for the Wizard, if not just because of the fact that Wizards aren't meant to be the "spontaneous" type of spellcaster like other classes can be. (And also because there is already the Substitution Thesis for this kind of thing, though I'd rather have it function in-combat than strictly out-of-combat.)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the idea that they are worse seems to track based on current published content
I mean it doesn't really though, otherwise we'd see it play out somewhere.
What we mostly see is a hodgepodge of haphazard balancing across every option these classes have that suggests Paizo doesn't really consider tradition much at all for these classes, otherwise the options wouldn't be so all over the place.
You mention primal witches, but primal witches have three hex cantrips: buzzing bites, clinging ice, and wilding word. There's zero internal balancing consistency between those three options, so trying to then extrapolate that out into a general statement about how Paizo feels about the primal spell list is obviously not really doable.
What we mostly see is a hodgepodge of haphazard balancing across every option these classes have that suggests Paizo doesn't really consider tradition much at all for these classes, otherwise the options wouldn't be so all over the place.
Just because it does this doesn't mean that we can't extrapolate that the Arcane ones are weaker than the Primal/Occult ones; there's bound to be variance in power levels between even options of the same level/type, so saying that because this variance exists that it can't be used as a comparison just sounds like a cop-out.
This is like saying you can't use 2nd level skill feats as a power level basis because you have feats like Armor Assist and then feats like Quick Jump/Intimidating Glare/Bon Mot, so it's impossible to accurately gauge other feats' respective power because skill feats at this level are so varied that it's not possible to make this comparison.
|
|
What we mostly see is a hodgepodge of haphazard balancing across every option these classes have that suggests Paizo doesn't really consider tradition much at all for these classes, otherwise the options wouldn't be so all over the place.Just because it does this doesn't mean that we can't extrapolate that the Arcane ones are weaker than the Primal/Occult ones; there's bound to be variance in power levels between even options of the same level/type, so saying that because this variance exists that it can't be used as a comparison just sounds like a cop-out.
This is like saying you can't use 2nd level skill feats as a power level basis because you have feats like Armor Assist and then feats like Quick Jump/Intimidating Glare/Bon Mot, so it's impossible to accurately gauge other feats' respective power because skill feats at this level are so varied that it's not possible to make this comparison.
Actually, if there is enough variation within a category, trying to assess the influence of other factors within the category might be rendered moot.
There are statistical formulas (variance analysis IIRC) that help determine whether a factor has a significant impact within a category or not.
Assessment by a single observer might point in the direction of such a factor being there, but thorough statistical analysis is required to get more precise data and verify whether the observer's intuition is real.