Remastered Wizard reveals and speculation

[PossibleCabbage]

Well, the Wizard has the specific flavor of "someone who's ability to use magic is based on understanding academic theory that's sufficiently generalized that it can be transfered from one wizard to another." If you're someone who hasn't ever come into contact with academic theory of any type, they're probably not a Wizard.

[Temperans]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, the Wizard has the specific flavor of "someone who's ability to use magic is based on understanding academic theory." If you're someone who hasn't ever come into contact with academic theory of any type, they're probably not a Wizard.

Tell that to aristotle and all the other people who discovered things without having a degree in science.

Yeah having a degree helps. But its not the only way to find the answer. Not having the degree just makes it take longer, or require you to be a genius. Which both were perfectly represented before with picking a school meaning that 2 other schools were more difficult for you to cast, the high int ability score, and the trained (read extra time) starting age.

[Pronate11]

Temperans wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, the Wizard has the specific flavor of "someone who's ability to use magic is based on understanding academic theory." If you're someone who hasn't ever come into contact with academic theory of any type, they're probably not a Wizard.

Tell that to aristotle and all the other people who discovered things without having a degree in science.

Aristotle was taught in Plato's Academy, the most prestigious school in all of Greece. I get what you're saying, but thats a really bad example. Plus, those philosophers that didn't go to an academy or other schooling either A, didn't deal with metaphysics and delt with things like ethics or debate, or B, where very wrong about metaphysics. Even outside of Greece, I can't think of any scientists/natural philosophers/metaphysicsists who where famous for that and where self taught. Not saying that they don't exist, just that everyone who I can think of went to the closest thing they had to a school for what they did.

[Deriven Firelion]

Aristotle bad example, Temp. Greece was know for its schools. They were one of the most educated nations of their time. There is a reason the Greeks are studied practically world wide.

I'm fine with wizards learning from schools or some idea of it. Schools for teaching magic or having a master-apprentice relationship is a common trope in the fantasy genre. Wizards rarely learn magical powers without help.

The I know magic because I have an innate talent is covered by sorcerers and other classes. Wizard is the classic "scientist" wizard learning magic by learning about magical powers inherent in the world.

[PossibleCabbage]

We're also sort of well beyond the point in Golarion's timeline where "people are discovering pretty fundamental stuff". Modern Golarion is about 10,000 years after Earthfall, and there's at least one contiguous culture that predates Earthfall in Nidal. About 10,000 years before Aristotle we were transitioning from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic periods as agriculture was getting started.

[Temperans]

It was an off the top of the head example. The point was that he was doing science that by today's standard is often taught in high school. Or even grade school to prodifies.

Wizards were at the point were you could say you were a genius who learned everything they did from extrapolating from basic school and observation of nature/clerics and trying to replicate it. Now you have to go to an actual college, learn whatever is there. And you cannot focus on the type of spells that you want, but the spells that they teach you.

*****************

Btw for anyone thinking "they will add more feats". The entire reason there aren't a lot of feats for the schools of magic and wizard is Paizo actively not making those feats. They are one of the classes with the fewest number of feats despite being in the CRB. This change wont change the fact that Paizo doesn't write feats for wizard.

[Gortle]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

that's basically my point: A formal institution shouldn't be required to learn how to cast spells, but the flavor of the class implies that not only is it required, but it's also the only way.

I don't see that that is required. Normally when they do this sort of approach to magic schools, they provide a hedge wizard option, or a solo apprentice option. I hope they do that.

[Squiggit]

Temperans wrote:

Now you have to go to an actual college

Or you could just not, if that's the character you want to play.

[Pronate11]

Temperans wrote:

It was an off the top of the head example. The point was that he was doing science that by today's standard is often taught in high school. Or even grade school to prodifies.

Aristotle didn't do metaphysics (what we would consider science in the modern day) but that isn't really relevant.

Temperans wrote:

Wizards were at the point were you could say you were a genius who learned everything they did from extrapolating from basic school and observation of nature/clerics and trying to replicate it. Now you have to go to an actual college, learn whatever is there. And you cannot focus on the type of spells that you want, but the spells that they teach you.

A, you can still say that you were self taught nothing has changed and B, how is choosing to learn battle magic any different from choosing to learn evocation? You are still choosing to focus on the type of spells that you want, its just from a slightly smaller list. And if you don't want to specialize, that's probably what the generic option will let you do.

Temperans wrote:

Btw for anyone thinking "they will add more feats". The entire reason there aren't a lot of feats for the schools of magic and wizard is Paizo actively not making those feats. They are one of the classes with the fewest number of feats despite being in the CRB. This change wont change the fact that Paizo doesn't write feats for wizard.

I mean, presumably there isn't some secret Paizo dev plotting in his lair going "I know what I should do, I should make it so no more wizard feats are made! I will stop all devs from making new ones for all of eternity!" It is not unreasonable that whatever was actually stopping the devs from making more wizard feats is removed or fixed in the remaster. Maybe they won't who knows. But a lack of wizard feats has been a complaint for a while, so I wouldn't be surprised if they made some more to meet that demand.

[Shisumo]

Been thinking about the possible issues around future proofing of school curricula, and I think I've come up with a perspective that makes me fairly comfortable with the idea that the "known spells" lists for each core school are probably going to be fixed in the PC1 and won't be added to in the future, even as new spells are released.

This is based on a couple of premises; if you don't agree with them, you're probably not going to agree with my conclusions either. Disclaimer over.

The premises are these: first, that the PC1* spells represent the most well-known, widespread, and fundamental spells in all of wizardry, the Commonest of the Common, if you will. And second, that the schools themselves are likewise the most well-known, widespread, and fundamental schools of thought/formalizations of arcane study. Consequently, having the baseline schools teaching and making primary use of the baseline spells makes sense. Conversely, new schools released in later books will teach some spells released in later books, because they and their magics are more specialized, even if they aren't necessarily Uncommon.

It's not perfect, but I think it's a compromise I can live with for my headcanon if that's how things play out.

*and maybe PC2? - it seems unlikely but not impossible that the PC1 wizard schools will include some PC2 spells

[Quantarum]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Unicore wrote:

meaning that your school of magic as a wizard is the actual school you attended to learn your wizardry

I do not know if this is accurate. It could be more like "the Chicago school of economics", where it's more, like, a framework for your magic, whether or not you actually went to that school.

If it is about actual physical schools you have to have attended to have certain spells, that's a bad change. Very limiting.

EDIT: It could also be like backgrounds--just a sort of flavorful "you start with some bonus spells with otherwise minimal effect" mechanic. That wouldn't be so bad.

I hope it's like that, there are only three canon schools of magic in my campaign world, most wizards have to either find a teacher or root through obscure books to get their start.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Now, I'm not sure we should dismiss the Aristotle example so quickly, folks... An ancient philosopher who made up a bunch of arbitrary categories and tried to cram everything into those categories by whatever logic necessary, but which in modern day we know don't actually represent objective truths about the natural world? It's almost like he could have invented the Thassilonian schools of magic right alongside classical elements!

[Unicore]

I think it would really help people understand what was actually said at the panel about the rules remastery if people who didn't know what was said phrased their questions as questions and not as hostile assumptions.

Here is a link to the definition of the word school.

It is understandable to wonder which of the 5 primary definitions of school as a noun was being referenced when James Case was talking about reimagining schools of magic as being actual schools, but if you already understood that the OLG definition of school of magic was probably something more like definition 3: a source of knowledge, then you should be able to imagine that "schools of magic" is now an even more flexible term for associating your "student of arcane magical knowledge" with the process by which that knowledge is learned, since the fundamental conceit of a wizard as a class in the pathfinder universe is that their magical knowledge is researched and learned.

The more esoterically you want to imagine that learning process and having it be dependent upon one mysterious source that is not well known in the circles of people who study arcane magic in Golarion, the closer you are to describing the witch class in PF2.

Continuing to insist that everyone who watched the panel is wrong, and the developers literally and only mean some version of definition 1 that requires institutionalization and disallows any creativity on the part of the player in imagining their character is acting in very bad faith to this discussion, to the developers, and to the people who were there and heard what was said.

There are legitimate questions about what belonging to a school will mean, now that it is likely every wizard does; how many spells a wizard will have to cast each day and whether that will still be as open-ended as before; how feats will tie into these schools now that schools will no longer be inherent traits of all spells...

...But as many of the critics have pointed out, PF2 has not used OGL schools of magic in the same way as PF1 did from the very beginning of the system. Is it really that surprising that the developers are now telling us that this was not just an accidental "whoopsies!" but that building PF2 wizards to work just like D&D wizards was not something that they were ever that interested in and now that they are having to walk away from the narratives behind the OGL magic system, they are doing so by focusing in on the studious scholar narrative that PF2 has really focused on with the wizard from the beginning with the addition of a thesis and keeping all the old studious stuff, like a requirement that you have some kind of book (although I think this can be pretty flexible in the remaster and be a more multimodal version of a text if you wish, that is a big part of getting rid of verbal, somatic and material components afterall) from which you can study to learn your spells every day.

[Martialmasters]

Flexible caster archetype literally is described as an Arcanist and you get fluff detriment to casting too much in the form of headaches and such.

You still got say... Access to illusion spell slots prior to this change, but you obviously never went to school.

I think in this case, you can fluff it however you want?

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Martialmasters wrote:

Flexible caster archetype literally is described as an Arcanist and you get fluff detriment to casting too much in the form of headaches and such.

You still got say... Access to illusion spell slots prior to this change, but you obviously never went to school.

I think in this case, you can fluff it however you want?

Price is too high on flex casting. And heightening every spell is nice... but honestly there are a lot of spells that you don't care about heightening much, so it is a massive cost for so-so benefit.

[Martialmasters]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Flexible caster archetype literally is described as an Arcanist and you get fluff detriment to casting too much in the form of headaches and such.

You still got say... Access to illusion spell slots prior to this change, but you obviously never went to school.

I think in this case, you can fluff it however you want?

Price is too high on flex casting. And heightening every spell is nice... but honestly there are a lot of spells that you don't care about heightening much, so it is a massive cost for so-so benefit.

You misunderstood.

The fluff text is what I was referring to. The fact you can story it however you want.

But, I've ran the numbers, a flexible wizard with a school, was honestly really powerful. Well worth the cost imo.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Martialmasters wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Flexible caster archetype literally is described as an Arcanist and you get fluff detriment to casting too much in the form of headaches and such.

You still got say... Access to illusion spell slots prior to this change, but you obviously never went to school.

I think in this case, you can fluff it however you want?

Price is too high on flex casting. And heightening every spell is nice... but honestly there are a lot of spells that you don't care about heightening much, so it is a massive cost for so-so benefit.

You misunderstood.

The fluff text is what I was referring to. The fact you can story it however you want.

But, I've ran the numbers, a flexible wizard with a school, was honestly really powerful. Well worth the cost imo.

Depends greatly on your game. One fight a day game, sure. Long fight day games? Just be a sorcerer at that point.

[Martialmasters]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Flexible caster archetype literally is described as an Arcanist and you get fluff detriment to casting too much in the form of headaches and such.

You still got say... Access to illusion spell slots prior to this change, but you obviously never went to school.

I think in this case, you can fluff it however you want?

Price is too high on flex casting. And heightening every spell is nice... but honestly there are a lot of spells that you don't care about heightening much, so it is a massive cost for so-so benefit.

You misunderstood.

The fluff text is what I was referring to. The fact you can story it however you want.

But, I've ran the numbers, a flexible wizard with a school, was honestly really powerful. Well worth the cost imo.

Depends greatly on your game. One fight a day game, sure. Long fight day games? Just be a sorcerer at that point.

I wasn't aware you only slotted combat spells

Mine as well be a sorcerer at that point

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Martialmasters wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Flexible caster archetype literally is described as an Arcanist and you get fluff detriment to casting too much in the form of headaches and such.

You still got say... Access to illusion spell slots prior to this change, but you obviously never went to school.

I think in this case, you can fluff it however you want?

Price is too high on flex casting. And heightening every spell is nice... but honestly there are a lot of spells that you don't care about heightening much, so it is a massive cost for so-so benefit.

You misunderstood.

The fluff text is what I was referring to. The fact you can story it however you want.

But, I've ran the numbers, a flexible wizard with a school, was honestly really powerful. Well worth the cost imo.

Depends greatly on your game. One fight a day game, sure. Long fight day games? Just be a sorcerer at that point.

I wasn't aware you only slotted combat spells

Mine as well be a sorcerer at that point

I mean, if you play a game with minimal combat and lots of out of combat magic, enough that scrolls and the 1 spell a day sorcerers can prep won't cut it, then yeah, I see your point.

I suspect such a game is vanishingly rare.

[Temperans]

Unicore wrote:

I think it would really help people understand what was actually said at the panel about the rules remastery if people who didn't know what was said phrased their questions as questions and not as hostile assumptions.

Here is a link to the definition of the word school.

It is understandable to wonder which of the 5 primary definitions of school as a noun was being referenced when James Case was talking about reimagining schools of magic as being actual schools, but if you already understood that the OLG definition of school of magic was probably something more like definition 3: a source of knowledge, then you should be able to imagine that "schools of magic" is now an even more flexible term for associating your "student of arcane magical knowledge" with the process by which that knowledge is learned, since the fundamental conceit of a wizard as a class in the pathfinder universe is that their magical knowledge is researched and learned.

The more esoterically you want to imagine that learning process and having it be dependent upon one mysterious source that is not well known in the circles of people who study arcane magic in Golarion, the closer you are to describing the witch class in PF2.

Continuing to insist that everyone who watched the panel is wrong, and the developers literally and only mean some version of definition 1 that requires institutionalization and disallows any creativity on the part of the player in imagining their character is acting in very bad faith to this discussion, to the developers, and to the people who were there and heard what was said.

There are legitimate questions about what belonging to a school will mean, now that it is likely every wizard does; how many spells a wizard will have to cast each day and whether that will still be as open-ended as before; how feats will tie into these schools now that schools will no longer be inherent traits of all spells...

...But as many of the critics...

Yes school was used in the form of "source of knowledge" and the verb "learn a knowledge or skill". But the new approach is not more flexible given it physical has more restrictions on the spells that a player can take and the flavor of said spells.

The lore of wizarda came before the witch. The wizards having esotheric nature is the entire point because we are talking about magic. Saying that the wizard cannot be esotheric because of the witch, which nerver shouldnhad gotten a "lessons mechanic", is just saying that you never liked wizards and its fine that they got changed.

PF1e schools of magic (the basic descriptions) were of course based on DnD3.5e, but Paizo changed a lot to make it their own in PF1e. Want a great example? The Wizard's School in DnD3.5 just gave you the extra spells slot, in PF1e it gave you an extra spell slots and some extra abilities, in PF2e they decide to make those special abilities worse and give you only one. So Paizo had a unique aspect to the schools of magic, they could had expanded by doubling down on the unique aspects, but instead they say on it and are now removing it.

But you know what is funny? They aren't removing any of the domains nor bloodlines. So yeah, the devs didn't like wizards, remove what made them good, ignored it and its feature, and now are removing the identity it had in Golarion.

[Temperans]

Martialmasters wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

Flexible caster archetype literally is described as an Arcanist and you get fluff detriment to casting too much in the form of headaches and such.

You still got say... Access to illusion spell slots prior to this change, but you obviously never went to school.

I think in this case, you can fluff it however you want?

Price is too high on flex casting. And heightening every spell is nice... but honestly there are a lot of spells that you don't care about heightening much, so it is a massive cost for so-so benefit.

You misunderstood.

The fluff text is what I was referring to. The fact you can story it however you want.

But, I've ran the numbers, a flexible wizard with a school, was honestly really powerful. Well worth the cost imo.

Depends greatly on your game. One fight a day game, sure. Long fight day games? Just be a sorcerer at that point.

I wasn't aware you only slotted combat spells

Mine as well be a sorcerer at that point

Just because you can prepare does not mean that you want to prepare out of combat spells. A fighter and barbarian can prepare ranged weapons, but the game just assumes that they don't and designs around that.

[Deriven Firelion]

Is Vancian casting too associated with D&D? Will they have to change that?

[Pronate11]

By its very name, Vancian casting is associated with Jack Vance. Plus, if they were getting rid of Vancian casting, that would probably be announced by now, as thats by far the biggest change.

[PossibleCabbage]

Yeah, if Hasbro tried to assert that they owned "Vancian casting" the estate of Jack Vance would have something to say about it. IIRC TSR basically got to borrow wholesale because Vance was being nice.

[Rysky]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

But that's ultimately the problem: The only source for arcane magic, whether directly or indirectly, is from a collegiate institution publication.

According to who?

[Kobold Catgirl]

I do not think that the new schools are going to inherently refer to actual institutions. PossibleCabbage has provided a few fun interpretations of the rule--"you came from a school, your mentor did, your book did"--but I don't think any of those will be the stated flavor. I think it's more likely that each "school" will simply be a focus of your study, a philosophy of magic passed down among wizards. Whether or not a literal school is responsible for that philosophy will be up to the GM and player.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

But you know what is funny? They aren't removing any of the domains nor bloodlines.

Bloodlines weren't made by WotC, they were a Pathfinder creation.

Domains are open ended enough and different in how they function that it sidesteps the issue, the 8 schools of magic though are specifically a DND thing, they're a mix of flavor and mechanics and was a direct replica in each game, that's the issue.

[Lurker in Insomnia]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I do not think that the new schools are going to inherently refer to actual institutions. PossibleCabbage has provided a few fun interpretations of the rule--"you came from a school, your mentor did, your book did"--but I don't think any of those will be the stated flavor. I think it's more likely that each "school" will simply be a focus of your study, a philosophy of magic passed down among wizards. Whether or not a literal school is responsible for that philosophy will be up to the GM and player.

I tend to agree. I haven't seen anything out of Paizo that leads me to believe that there is anything that would prevent you from being a self-taught prodigy or force you to have gone to some sort of accredited institution or anything like that.

If anything it seems like it will open up doors for more varied schools of magical thought, including the possibility of a hedge wizard who cobbled together bits of texts from here and there and wound up with a spell list.

[Pronate11]

I think as a compromise, wizards should require that you, the player, have gone to an appropriate school in order to play them. You can't be expected to be able to play a wizard trained in war if you haven't gone to a military academy can you?

[Temperans]

Rysky wrote:

Temperans wrote:

But you know what is funny? They aren't removing any of the domains nor bloodlines.

Bloodlines weren't made by WotC, they were a Pathfinder creation.

Domains are open ended enough and different in how they function that it sidesteps the issue, the 8 schools of magic though are specifically a DND thing, they're a mix of flavor and mechanics and was a direct replica in each game, that's the issue.

They were not a golarion creation. The implementation is just different because PF1e made it different and PF2e expanded on it more. But clearly making it their own is not enough given the stuff they are removing.

Also, you really are going to sit there and say "clerics get two domains from the list dictated by their god, this domain grants them 2 abilities" is really different to "clerics get two domains from the list dictated by their god, this domain grants them 1 ability and a set of spells". While the two lists are virtually identical. Which again it was PF1e that added that second ability.

So as I have been saying, they set up arcane schools to fail.

[Pronate11]

Temperans wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Temperans wrote:

But you know what is funny? They aren't removing any of the domains nor bloodlines.

Bloodlines weren't made by WotC, they were a Pathfinder creation.

Domains are open ended enough and different in how they function that it sidesteps the issue, the 8 schools of magic though are specifically a DND thing, they're a mix of flavor and mechanics and was a direct replica in each game, that's the issue.

They were not a golarion creation. The implementation is just different because PF1e made it different and PF2e expanded on it more. But clearly making it their own is not enough given the stuff they are removing.

Also, you really are going to sit there and say "clerics get two domains from the list dictated by their god, this domain grants them 2 abilities" is really different to "clerics get two domains from the list dictated by their god, this domain grants them 1 ability and a set of spells". While the two lists are virtually identical. Which again it was PF1e that added that second ability.

So as I have been saying, they set up arcane schools to fail.

The fact that sorcerers get abilities from their bloodline and clerics get abilities from their god is not copyrightable. The fact that wizards get abilities from the type of magic they study is not copyrightable. What might copyrightable is having magic be split into 8 distinct types, with the names and meanings of those types coming from DND. If WOTC sues, it is unknown how a court will rule, or how similar Paizo can legally be. Can they just change the names, or do they need to change the definitions and number to? Maybe even if they change the names and number, having wizard subclasses based on them pushes it over the copyrightable edge. No one knows, and Paizo is playing as conservative as possible to avoid not only losing a lawsuit, but trying to not get sued in the first place.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Sorcerer bloodlines were absolutely a PF1 creation, weren't they? There sure wasn't anything like them in 3.5, and I didn't see any of them in 4e when I played that game briefly.

Anyways, cleric domains in PF2 are pretty distinct, and moreover, don't involve a bunch of extremely specific words like "abjuration", "evocation", "transmutation", "enchantment" and "conjuration" with completely unchanged meanings from their D&D counterparts. I barely recognize PF2's domains, except that they're called "domains"--which, for all we know, is due for a change so trivial Paizo didn't even bother to mention it.

Temperans, I hate to ask this question, but are you a copyright lawyer? Because it feels like you're assuming you understand the copyright better than the lawyers Paizo has hired for this exact task.

[Rysky]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Sorcerer bloodlines were absolutely a PF1 creation, weren't they? There sure wasn't anything like them in 3.5, and I didn't see any of them in 4e when I played that game briefly.

Anyways, cleric domains in PF2 are pretty distinct, and moreover, don't involve a bunch of extremely specific words like "abjuration", "evocation", "transmutation", "enchantment" and "conjuration" with completely unchanged meanings from their D&D counterparts. I barely recognize PF2's domains, except that they're called "domains"--which, for all we know, is due for a change so trivial Paizo didn't even bother to mention it.

Temperans, I hate to ask this question, but are you a copyright lawyer? Because it feels like you're assuming you understand the copyright better than the lawyers Paizo has hired for this exact task.

They're assuming they know P2 better than people who actually play it.

[Temperans]

Bloodlines were originally from Unearth Arcana. Paizo made it a Sorcerer feature with some extra stuff. Also domains use the same names as they did back then, maybe a few names got added or changed, but mostly the same.

Pronate11 and Kobold, I am not saying that I know copyright better than lawyers. I am expressing my own personal opinion that they are going too far with some changes, and taking half measures with others. Simple as that.

Some people have their opinion on what should be removed and they state their reasons why. I have my opinions on what should not be removed and state my reasons why. So what is the issue?

[Ed Reppert]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Given that Strength of Thousands is probably the only thing in 2E that has been established with having substantiative lore behind spellcasting academies, it seems the popularity of that AP is going to be the norm for Wizards going forward, which again, I don't much care for, since not all Wizards are mere attendees or graduates from "Ye Olde Magicke College."

I also don't know how these colleges just let these Wizards go out into the world unprepared and unattending within their listed curriculum; don't they have classes that they have to teach them with which? Where's Necromancy 101? Even if there is an explanation, it limits the concept to being "I'm still a wizard in training," unless we want to say that a Wizard character is considered a graduate, in which case it's still a forced roleplay hook, because maybe some people want to roleplay the "amateur Wizard growing up to be a true master" type of character, or some other, more self-sufficient character....

IIRC, Ezren was largely self-taught because the magic schools he looked into declined to take him on as a student, considering him too old.

[AestheticDialectic]

Pronate11 wrote:

Temperans wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, the Wizard has the specific flavor of "someone who's ability to use magic is based on understanding academic theory." If you're someone who hasn't ever come into contact with academic theory of any type, they're probably not a Wizard.

Tell that to aristotle and all the other people who discovered things without having a degree in science.

Aristotle was taught in Plato's Academy, the most prestigious school in all of Greece. I get what you're saying, but thats a really bad example. Plus, those philosophers that didn't go to an academy or other schooling either A, didn't deal with metaphysics and delt with things like ethics or debate, or B, where very wrong about metaphysics. Even outside of Greece, I can't think of any scientists/natural philosophers/metaphysicsists who where famous for that and where self taught. Not saying that they don't exist, just that everyone who I can think of went to the closest thing they had to a school for what they did.

This reminds me of how Ayn Rand literally called her philosophy "objectivism" lmfao. So entirely out of touch with philosophy

[Unicore]

In PF2 clerics don’t get 2 domains with powers automatically given from them. That is OGL.

Clerics getting special spells to cast from the deity that they worship is very different.

[Kobold Catgirl]

It just sort of hit me that I get absolutely nothing from this pseudo-edition war argument about rules Paizo isn't even allowed to feature in their game anyways, so I'm going to disengage and go back to something that brings me joy:

What kinds of new schools would you like to see?

It sure sounds like the floor is now being opened to some proper wizard subclasses! What are you hoping to see, or what might you want to homebrew in yourself?

For me, my favorite ideas:

Mesmerism-themed school: I'd love to see a school for beguiling figments and phantasms, mildly-ethically-dubious enchantments, flattering transmutations and glamors, etc, etc. You know, a sort of "courtly wizard" philosophy that holds that magic is there to make people happy... and to advance your standing among the gentry.

Dark magic-themed school: This school wouldn't necessarily be Evil, but it would be full of those spells that make people look at you funny. Dominate, animate dead, fear, and confusion would all fit right in.

[Rysky]

Food.

It can be the buff centered school. Also yummy. Maybe the summon buildings spells can go in there s well.

[AestheticDialectic]

Rysky wrote:

Temperans wrote:

...oh look you can apply sorcerer bloodlines to any character. Its almost as if the game was designed to do this...

I've never seen someone so badly trip and fall on their face trying to move the goalposts after being called out on being wrong.

Quote:

None of the names that DnD are copyrightable.

Those specific 8 names in that specific order doing those specific things however are. Or are close enough that it's a legal quagmire that's best avoided.

Quote:

Also I never knew that talking about the things Paizo wrote, and where they came from is "making things up".

You're claiming Paizo hates the Wizard and that DND invented Sorcerer bloodlines, that squarely falls under making things up.

Quote:

Btw Rysky, aren't you one that likes to say to remove things because you don't like it? So why are you acting high and mighty over me saying I don't like something I liked about the game and setting being removed?

(I guess I say that? *shrugs*) Again, because you're making stuff up and throwing around dirt. This is not active campaign to kill the Wizard like you seem to believe it is.

Well, depends on if PF1 came out before the 4e PHB2. 3.0 introduced the sorcerer but the bloodline thing is only flavor text. 4e sorcerer on the the other hand has you choose between things like draconic and wild magic. I don't have the PDF so I can't say specifically what language is used, but that is pretty close. Ironically the flavor text I was reading in my 3.5 pdf makes sorcerers out to be the true autodidacts some user here are asking for. After all, sorcerers still practice their magic to improve it

[Kobold Catgirl]

Rysky wrote:

Food.

It can be the buff centered school. Also yummy. Maybe the summon buildings spells can go in there s well.

CAMPFIRE WIZARD CAMPFIRE WIZARD CAMPFIRE WIZARD

Sorry. I'm really into campfire fantasy. The idea of a cooking and subsistence-themed wizard school sounds glorious. Buffs, wards, maybe a couple borrowed naturey spells (though I do like the angle of "druids are campers, wizards are glampers"), etc, etc.

[Unicore]

I really look forward to regional and local schools of magic tied to academies in AP home towns. I think that will be a clever way to help prep players for what spells will be useful in a campaign, even if the party has no wizards. Because other casters than wizards can tangentially hang around schools to learn spells or contribute to the scholarship behind them.

I want to see several competing schools inside the larger academies of magic, like Magaambya for sure should have at least 4 if not as many as 12. These schools should be very low profile in the space they take up and can probably fit on half or 3/4ths a page with a unique focus spell. How much lore text they need will obviously depend on whether the school is getting described elsewhere in an adventure, which we practically get enough of in town gazettes as is.

Then I also want some esoteric/list schools that you can find out about after finding a spell book in a tomb or dungeon that offer interesting and unique spells your future characters can later basically turn into schools of their own.

[AestheticDialectic]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

It just sort of hit me that I get absolutely nothing from this pseudo-edition war argument about rules Paizo isn't even allowed to feature in their game anyways, so I'm going to disengage and go back to something that brings me joy:

What kinds of new schools would you like to see?

It sure sounds like the floor is now being opened to some proper wizard subclasses! What are you hoping to see, or what might you want to homebrew in yourself?

For me, my favorite ideas:

Mesmerism-themed school: I'd love to see a school for beguiling figments and phantasms, mildly-ethically-dubious enchantments, flattering transmutations and glamors, etc, etc. You know, a sort of "courtly wizard" philosophy that holds that magic is there to make people happy... and to advance your standing among the gentry.

Dark magic-themed school: This school wouldn't necessarily be Evil, but it would be full of those spells that make people look at you funny. Dominate, animate dead, fear, and confusion would all fit right in.

My main draw to wizards is 1.Control focused support spells 2.intelligence primary stat and 3.vancian spellcasting. When it comes to new schools I will primarily just pick what gives me abilities that help me be the best support pillar for my team and help them shine, and maybe do some recreational AOE blasting. I'm not super married to any specific thematic stuff cuz I can change and reflavor this as I want and so all I hope for is these cool abilities being in one place. So far battle magic and civic engineering seem to have the most spells I like, wall of stone for instance. But I am really hoping the enchantment higher level focus spells makes it back because "dread aura" or whatever it was called is such a cool spell

I assume these will exist alongside the thesis that already exists and those won't be changed, and so I don't expect these schools to be more than a list of spells for your bonus slot and two focus spells each

[Rysky]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Temperans wrote:

...oh look you can apply sorcerer bloodlines to any character. Its almost as if the game was designed to do this...

I've never seen someone so badly trip and fall on their face trying to move the goalposts after being called out on being wrong.

Quote:

None of the names that DnD are copyrightable.

Those specific 8 names in that specific order doing those specific things however are. Or are close enough that it's a legal quagmire that's best avoided.

Quote:

Also I never knew that talking about the things Paizo wrote, and where they came from is "making things up".

You're claiming Paizo hates the Wizard and that DND invented Sorcerer bloodlines, that squarely falls under making things up.

Quote:

Btw Rysky, aren't you one that likes to say to remove things because you don't like it? So why are you acting high and mighty over me saying I don't like something I liked about the game and setting being removed?

(I guess I say that? *shrugs*) Again, because you're making stuff up and throwing around dirt. This is not active campaign to kill the Wizard like you seem to believe it is.

Well, depends on if PF1 came out before the 4e PHB2. 3.0 introduced the sorcerer but the bloodline thing is only flavor text. 4e sorcerer on the the other hand has you choose between things like draconic and wild magic. I don't have the PDF so I can't say specifically what language is used, but that is pretty close. Ironically the flavor text I was reading in my 3.5 pdf makes sorcerers out to be the true autodidacts some user here are asking for. After all, sorcerers still practice their magic to improve it

... Paizo making Pathfinder is because WotC made 4e and cut them and others off of using their licenses.

[AestheticDialectic]

Rysky wrote:

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Temperans wrote:

...oh look you can apply sorcerer bloodlines to any character. Its almost as if the game was designed to do this...

I've never seen someone so badly trip and fall on their face trying to move the goalposts after being called out on being wrong.

Quote:

None of the names that DnD are copyrightable.

Those specific 8 names in that specific order doing those specific things however are. Or are close enough that it's a legal quagmire that's best avoided.

Quote:

Also I never knew that talking about the things Paizo wrote, and where they came from is "making things up".

You're claiming Paizo hates the Wizard and that DND invented Sorcerer bloodlines, that squarely falls under making things up.

Quote:

Btw Rysky, aren't you one that likes to say to remove things because you don't like it? So why are you acting high and mighty over me saying I don't like something I liked about the game and setting being removed?

(I guess I say that? *shrugs*) Again, because you're making stuff up and throwing around dirt. This is not active campaign to kill the Wizard like you seem to believe it is.

Well, depends on if PF1 came out before the 4e PHB2. 3.0 introduced the sorcerer but the bloodline thing is only flavor text. 4e sorcerer on the the other hand has you choose between things like draconic and wild magic. I don't have the PDF so I can't say specifically what language is used, but that is pretty close. Ironically the flavor text I was reading in my 3.5 pdf makes sorcerers out to be the true autodidacts some user here are asking for. After all, sorcerers still practice their magic to improve it

... Paizo making Pathfinder is because WotC made 4e and cut them and others off of using their licenses.

Yes, this is known, but whether the Player Handbook 2 in specific came out before the PF1 core rulebook is what this depends on. The timeline of development matters as to whether bloodlines for the sorcerer is a paizo thing or d&d thing

[Rysky]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Food.

It can be the buff centered school. Also yummy. Maybe the summon buildings spells can go in there s well.

CAMPFIRE WIZARD CAMPFIRE WIZARD CAMPFIRE WIZARD

Sorry. I'm really into campfire fantasy. The idea of a cooking and subsistence-themed wizard school sounds glorious. Buffs, wards, maybe a couple borrowed naturey spells (though I do like the angle of "druids are campers, wizards are glampers"), etc, etc.

You can't not tell me there's a travel/adventurer school of wizardry.

Anthony Bourdain wizard.