I just acquired a hardcopy of the PF Playtest Rulebook.  My curiosity got the better of me, I guess?

Classes now cast spells from either Arcane, Divine, Occult, or Primal spell lists.  At first glance; the Bard is now an Occult, instead of an Arcane caster?

At first glance, the Paladin and Ranger don't appear to have the same magical focus as before either?

Strange it is.....

What is Occult supposed to be? How is it really any different from Arcane?

Don't bards change with every edition?

Original Bard cast MU Spells
1e Bard cast Druid Spells
Revised 1e Bard cast Druid and Illusionist Spells (with some restrictions)
2e Bard cast MU Spells
3rd edition had its own list
Looking at the "Occult" list, it seems reasonable enough, mostly charm and illusion spells and the like.  Not like the fireballs and such which seem like a poor fit for a bard.

Why did they need another category of magic?

Especially with a name that just means "magic"?

I don't think "occult" does mean "magic", I think it means hidden and got applied to a type of magic.  At any rate, it means more real world psychic style magic, as opposed to fantasy magic.

PF1 had a book called Occult Adventures, which had classes like the Medium, the Spiritualist, the Kineticist (basically telekinesis), Mesmerist, and Occultist. Each of those had its own spell list. I guess in PF2, rather than every class having its own spell list, there are only four.

"Occult" definitely means magic.  

It has different connotations sure, but that's not a lot to hang something on.
When you have "Arcane" and "Divine" you at least know that while the first word tells you very little at least the second suggests that gods are involved.  Primal is pushing it -  Occult definitely slides over into the realm of jargon.

Why not just say psionic and be done with it?

EDIT: Now thinking about it.  How about we call primal for what it truly is.  Shamanism, or a better word saying your using nature spirits instead of gods.

Also: Sorcerers may possibly have any 1, of the 4 Spell Lists; depending upon the source of their powers?

That's right: Different flavors of Sorcerers.

Quote from: Razor 007;1084059Also: Sorcerers may possibly have any 1, of the 4 Spell Lists; depending upon the source of their powers?

That's right: Different flavors of Sorcerers.

That doesn't seem inherently bad.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1084057Now thinking about it.  How about we call primal for what it truly is.  Shamanism, or a better word saying your using nature spirits instead of gods.

Because "primal" rolls off the tongue better, and at this point it seems fairly entrenched in societal consciousness that "primal" relates to wild, untamed nature.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1084063That doesn't seem inherently bad.

Yeah, it doesn't really bother me; but it seems a little strange, to think about Divine Sorcerers?

Quote from: TJS;1084052Why did they need another category of magic?

Especially with a name that just means "magic"?

Well; they need to rewrite Pathfinder, so they can once again sell you Pathfinder....  They are changing enough of the fiddly bits to make it impossible to run PF 1E and PF 2E characters at the same table together.  It would be chaos for any DM to try to do that.  They are making enough fundamental changes, to force a reboot of their system.  In doing so, they are invalidating a lot of existing PF content.  

I already have a shelf full of Pathfinder books, and this Playtest is not just a little update.  PF1 and PF2 are not compatible.  

I was curious about the book, and I'm sure to get some flavorful inspiration for my far less crunchy home brew games.  I don't play PF, but I like to read and examine it as a system.  I'd actually rather play OD&D, or something similar.

I am following the progression of D&D 3rd Edition on my bookshelf.  3.0, 3.5, PF, PF2E Playtest, etc.  I'll probably buy the official PF2E book too, at some point.  They make for interesting comparisons.....

Quote from: HappyDaze;1084050What is Occult supposed to be? How is it really any different from Arcane?

Pathfinder 2nd edition groups up magic traditions by having them be a combination of two of four essences.  Material is associated with the Elemental Planes, Mental derives from the Astral, Vital taps into the Positive/Negative energy planes and the First World, and Spiritual channels the powers of the Outer Spheres and the Ethereal.

Arcane magic is Material and Mental.  Divine magic is Spiritual and Vital.  Occult is Spiritual and Mental.  Primal is Material and Vital.  Since some spells are in more than one list (Everybody can Disrupt Undead) I assume that different traditions have developed their own techniques on how to get certain things done, but the essences/traditions are supposed to color what sorts of approaches magic takes.

They say there are no current plans for building traditions from Material and Spiritual essences or Mental and Vital, but I don't know how long that is going to last.

Why are Bards occult casters though?  I don't think that has been completely explained just yet.  I think it is going to be a combination of Bards picking up esoteric lore and obscure mysticism and their musical magic being able to create otherworldly vibrations and effects from the Astral and Ethereal planes.  

Not that all Bards are now Erich Zann, but they CAN learn to play a violin in a way that sends devils back to Hell (Banishment).  I kind of like that.


As an aside, the second edition is going to be free online on day one.

Arcane, divine, occult, primal... where's shadow/phantasmal for the illusionist class?

Eh... I think Pathfinder2 is making a number of genuinely good changes to the often questionable 3e rules, although the wording could certainly be fixed (particularly anything dealing with tagging systems, which would be better off using brackets to save on strange wording). However, I suspect that it will most likely bomb. The only reason Pathfinder1 took off was everyone being upset over D&D4. Now that D&D5 has reverted the controversial changes, Pathfinder doesn't have a place anymore.

It makes more sense to repackage Pathfinder as supplements for D&D5. D&D5 isn't the best, but it is sufficient for a foundation.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084108Arcane, divine, occult, primal... where's shadow/phantasmal for the illusionist class?

Fortunately subclasses are still a thing, so having illusionist Wizards and illusion focused Bards anf such are all still either confirmed or likely.

From the context of your comment about an illusionist as a specific class I bet you were making an early edition D&D joke, but still.