| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The arcane tradition, and magic generally is one that needs a full overhaul with the remastered shift away from D&D lore. I am very curious to see how it plays out in the player core 1 and the GMG. Secrets of Magic was a delightful book that built a great framework...around OGL content and needs about as massive an overhaul as the Gods and Magic book. It sounds like we are getting the lore overhaul of Gods and Magic relatively soon. I almost think a Lost Omens Secrets of Magic book is necessary at this point to really explain what Arcane magic is in world and how it is fundamentally different than occult magic, which I think is eating up a huge chunk of design space for "the wise old hermit filled with secret lore" and even the "magical scientist" space. Like in APs, the folks grasping for potentially forbidden knowledge are always up to occult plots. The biggest arcane plots are typically dragon centric, or just blandly power centric with nothing really interesting to explore about how to acquire that power.
The schools of magic I think felt like a classification system for magic that fit the bill of an academic approach to magic, that is now gone from the game. Specific in world schools is a very interesting narrative space to fill, but there is no presented universal theory of magic for players to feel like they are getting wrapped up in playing a wizard anymore. If I could call a redo, it would probably be to not have an arcane tradition at all, and for wizards to steal spells from every tradition based upon feats, thesis and in world schools of magic, something we now know is possible because it could work very similarly to the apparitions of the Animist...but that is a ship long sailed.
In the mean time, I am curious to see what gets done at the lore level, and in play, the wizard as the spell slot magic dabbler works pretty well for me because the feats are so spell slot spell centric.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And here is the big one, The DM can modify non-combat situations as needed or wave them off if the player comes up with a better solution. You know what? The majority of players enjoy a DM that let's a creative player solution work in non-combat scenarios.If I can just ignore the rules completely, why am I playing the game?You can't ignore the combat rules. They work differently. That is why so much time is invested in ensuring they are balanced.
Why are you playing an RPG? To role-play in creative ways. Not to be rigidly bound by rules in non-combat scenarios where the DM decides everything by a roll regardless of how creative you as a player are.
You absolutely can just ignore combat rules in the same way you ignore social or exploration rules. Hell, I've done that in my own game via an adhoc'd fisticuff duel my barbarian initiated when he punched someone in a bar for no reason and started a fight.
I just smashed together the victory point system and a hard DC with the players Athletics checks to do a bar fight. It was 3 hours, 42 minutes into a 4 hour session and I did not have a statblock so I took a combat and turned it into a social rp where at the end of the brawl, they were buying each other drinks and he'd earned a reputation in the town as a good brawler.
Combat, Social, and Exploration all function the same way. And you can adhere to or disregard rules as you and your table desire. There's nothing that really elevates combat or lowers social/explorations importance other than a GM's preferences and parties habits.
You absolutely can just ignore combat rules in the same way you ignore social or exploration rules. Hell, I've done that in my own game via an adhoc'd fisticuff duel my barbarian initiated when he punched someone in a bar for no reason and started a fight.
We did similar in a game I was playing in. We had one character get into a WWE-style wrestling ring match. Used VP skill encounter rules.
I have also created a couple of chase/escape encounters where if the players don't succeed they are going to TPK due to drowning or being buried alive.
I haven't actually done it, but I can also see a failed skill encounter (especially social encounters) ending a campaign arc at the very least. Basically, 'you failed, bad things happen (king gets successfully assassinated), the world is now a worse place - at least in this section of it. Next adventure...'
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the idea that campaigns can't end because players don't invest in crucial skills is plain BS, and even some of those skills are impossible to attain (such as Legendary Perception).
Campaigns end when the players don't want to continue, not because they failed a skill check or combat ended in a TPK.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The arcane tradition, and magic generally is one that needs a full overhaul with the remastered shift away from D&D lore. I am very curious to see how it plays out in the player core 1 and the GMG. Secrets of Magic was a delightful book that built a great framework...around OGL content and needs about as massive an overhaul as the Gods and Magic book. It sounds like we are getting the lore overhaul of Gods and Magic relatively soon. I almost think a Lost Omens Secrets of Magic book is necessary at this point to really explain what Arcane magic is in world and how it is fundamentally different than occult magic, which I think is eating up a huge chunk of design space for "the wise old hermit filled with secret lore" and even the "magical scientist" space. Like in APs, the folks grasping for potentially forbidden knowledge are always up to occult plots. The biggest arcane plots are typically dragon centric, or just blandly power centric with nothing really interesting to explore about how to acquire that power.
The schools of magic I think felt like a classification system for magic that fit the bill of an academic approach to magic, that is now gone from the game. Specific in world schools is a very interesting narrative space to fill, but there is no presented universal theory of magic for players to feel like they are getting wrapped up in playing a wizard anymore. If I could call a redo, it would probably be to not have an arcane tradition at all, and for wizards to steal spells from every tradition based upon feats, thesis and in world schools of magic, something we now know is possible because it could work very similarly to the apparitions of the Animist...but that is a ship long sailed.
In the mean time, I am curious to see what gets done at the lore level, and in play, the wizard as the spell slot magic dabbler works pretty well for me because the feats are so spell slot spell centric.
There is a bit of "baby with the bathwater" here when it comes to the demarcation of Arcane and Occult in a narrative sense. Arcane does feel like its been "sanitised" in order to give the spooky-edgy-mysterious vibes of magic to Occult, which does leave arcane feeling a little uncompelling. Arcane still has its place, and if we are positioning Occult to be - ironically - the more "unknown" aspects of magic, Arcane could be repositioned as the fundamental underpinnings, structural, atomic/quantum physics of magic.
More wonder less spooky.
This could be done with a bit of effort in a new SoM style book. We need such a book in the future anyhow, as we need somewhere to bring the Magus up to speed, to remaster the Runelord archetype and introduce some new schools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the idea that campaigns can't end because players don't invest in crucial skills is plain BS, and even some of those skills are impossible to attain (such as Legendary Perception).Campaigns end when the players don't want to continue, not because they failed a skill check or combat ended in a TPK.
Well, characters can't continue if they are dead, especially in the lower levels where revival is basically non-existent. And failing a skill check could indeed result in a TPK if that is what the adventure entails. Such as, you know, failing a Deception check against a squadron of guards that outlevel you, and being beaten into submission, imprisoned, and/or killed if resistance continues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You going to as a DM short circuit their attempt because say you guys don't have invisibility, so you can't do it. Or tell them none of it works because they don't all have the right social skills?Yes, of course. If they don't have the proper tools to break into the fort it just doesn't work.
In general, I'll tell them that they don't see it working. But if they insist, they just fail.My players can come up with creative ideas, and it's highly encouraged, but being excited about an idea doesn't make it work. It also needs to be realistic and properly backed up by skill checks and magic. Otherwise, just try to find another idea. And if the whole party is a bunch of Barbarians who increase only Athletics, then they won't succeed at out of combat encounters and suffer the proper consequences. Well, in general, if the party is a bunch of Barbarians who increase only Athletics, I encourage them to switch characters as they won't be able to play the adventure at all.
You missed the entire context of the section of post you quoted:
"For example, let's say your four players talk amongst themselves and come up with some interesting method using their available abilities to break into a fort or something. Your rogue uses stealth and follow the leader. Your fighter uses athletics and high strength to bust the door in. Your caster uses ghost sound to simulate something falling in another area to slightly distract the guards. And your cleric just follows the plan.
You going to as a DM short circuit their attempt because say you guys don't have invisibility, so you can't do it. Or tell them none of it works because they don't all have the right social skills?"
Are you going to tell the party that they can't use those skills and abilities to break into a Fort? If you would, I am glad you don't GM or play at my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the tangent:
You guys just need to see what happens when players decide to create stealth party and play stealth intrigue/social infiltration game for whole campaign
If my party wants to play that why am I running PF2 instead of Blades in the Dark?
If my party wants to play that why am I running PF2 instead of Blades in the Dark?On the tangent:
You guys just need to see what happens when players decide to create stealth party and play stealth intrigue/social infiltration game for whole campaign
Because the group wants to play PF2E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the group wants to play PF2E.
That's a bad choice. Play PF2 for what it's good at and play other systems for what they're good at. Don't beat a generalist high fantasy d20 game into something it's not.
Because the group wants to play PF2E.That's a bad choice. Play PF2 for what it's good at and play other systems for what they're good at. Don't beat a generalist high fantasy d20 game into something it's not.
Yeah, you can do that in PF2E. Easily.
There are always more characters.
In fact in our old playing some characters died and new 1st level ones joined the party.
PF2 offers a soft solution which allows to add a character of an advanced level with equipment included, and gaining double XP while under the others.About Wizard as prepared caster, remember that Flexible Casting is always an option, and in the case of Wizard has many options to get extra slots to compensate, in addition to Superior Bond and Bond Conservation.
But I think the Flexible Casting should be a choice at level 1st, not requiring your 2nd level feat. You are paying the tax with 1 spell slot of each level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you can do that in PF2E. Easily.
Is it done better? Do you even know what Blades in the Dark is and what it is designed to do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you can do that in PF2E. Easily.Is it done better? Do you even know what Blades in the Dark is and what it is designed to do?
Yes, I have played it. Group didn't like it - and we've done stealth and social intrigue focus in PF2E to great success and fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a bit of "baby with the bathwater" here when it comes to the demarcation of Arcane and Occult in a narrative sense. Arcane does feel like its been "sanitised" in order to give the spooky-edgy-mysterious vibes of magic to Occult, which does leave arcane feeling a little uncompelling. Arcane still has its place, and if we are positioning Occult to be - ironically - the more "unknown" aspects of magic, Arcane could be repositioned as the fundamental underpinnings, structural, atomic/quantum physics of magic.More wonder less spooky.
This could be done with a bit of effort in a new SoM style book. We need such a book in the future anyhow, as we need somewhere to bring the Magus up to speed, to remaster the Runelord archetype and introduce some new schools.
I think we are in large agreement here, but I do have concerns about the ability of arcane magic to fill the roll you are talking about in the Golarion Lore. Namely, what really are the fundamental underpinnings of magic in the universe? All the metaphysical math of the universe has had the rug pulled out from under it in Golarion, and all the lore content we get is subjective perspective. How many elemental planes are there? (For example). There used to be four, in some locations there are 5 and from a player (out of universe) perspective, we know we can play with 6, but there is 0 certainty that that is a known, hard limit that won’t change again.
With wizard schools moving away from an objective classification of magic based on schools, the “science of magic,” especially Arcane magic is incredibly nebulous. Where does arcane magic come from? How do you find it? Study. Study what? Magic. But what is magic? See the recursive loop that has no in universe explanation for arcane magic in particular. In that regard it is a fundamental mystery, but one that is tricky because if you start to chase it down in world or in adventures, it is going to lead you toward divine, primal, or occult sources for its power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because I don't want to learn blades in the dark or play it?
Not a knock against blades in the dark... but... yeah. The time spent learning another system is time not spent playing the game.
This aversion to learning new systems, systems that are objectively less rules-dense than PF2, baffles me. I run the system that fits the tone my players aimed for in our pre-session zero talks, I don't contort systems to fit that tone because that's always going to take more work over the course of the campaign than using the right tool for the job would.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removed a baiting post and its many quotes. This conversation seems to be wandering through many topics at this point. Im going to lock it down. If any of these other discussion topics are something you all want to continue, please make their own threads.