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 (http://pf2playtest.opengamingnetwork.com/spells/spell-lists/occult/), 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 (http://2e.aonprd.com/) 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.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1084135Fortunately 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.
I like the idea of having specialized classes instead of a generic wizard or cleric that can do anything the plot requires. Partly because of Sanderson's laws of magic (https://coppermind.net/wiki/Sanderson%27s_Laws_of_Magic), and partly because specialized mages like vivomancers and illusionists are simply more evocative.
That's why I like the
Spheres of Power and
Spheres of Might systems so much.
Quote from: Razor 007;1084075Yeah, it doesn't really bother me; but it seems a little strange, to think about Divine Sorcerers?
They existed in D&D back in 3e (Divine Soul) and in current 5e (Celestial Bloodline), so they're hardly a new concept.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1084144They existed in D&D back in 3e (Divine Soul) and in current 5e (Celestial Bloodline), so they're hardly a new concept.
Spontaneous casters added a new wrinkle, so we ultimately got variants like the Heroes of Horror's archivist (divine wizard, casts from prayerbook), Pathfinder's oracle (spontaneous cleric list caster), and Kobold Press' shaman (spontaneous druid list caster).
All of these variants just tell me that we need a toolkit class design so that if you want interesting fluff then you can built them.
Paizo also labeled some spells as being 10th Level Spells. Even at 20th Level, your character still doesn't have any 10th Level spell slots though....
Primal Spells sounds like D&D 4E Primal Powers, to me.....
Quote from: Razor 007;1084151Paizo also labeled some spells as being 10th Level Spells. Even at 20th Level, your character still doesn't have any 10th Level spell slots though....
Tenth level spells are optional. If you want them for your character it is a capstone feat you can take at 20th level.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084108Arcane, divine, occult, primal... where's shadow/phantasmal for the illusionist class?
Illusion spells are under Arcane.
QuoteEh... 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.
I still see a place for Pathfinder.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084165I still see a place for Pathfinder.
Yeah - it may be that people who want their D&D style gaming with more crunch & customization will for with PF 2. I like 5e pretty well, but even now I get a bit frustrated at how simplistic some things are. If I had the time I did back in college I'd definitely want more customization & crunch than 5e gives.
So - if PF 2 can maintain a decent player base, they'll be the refuge for the fantasy gamers who want more crunch.
I wonder if there will be very many private groups who continue to play this Playtest release, even after the official 2E comes out?
This hardcover Playtest release is a complete, playable game. The books will still exist.
Quote from: Razor 007;1084183I wonder if there will be very many private groups who continue to play this Playtest release, even after the official 2E comes out?
This hardcover Playtest release is a complete, playable game. The books will still exist.
I think it will largely depend on what the final changes actually are. I'm sure that either way there will be people that will, but since one of their design goals seems to be a bit of modularity (a book of optional rules and ways to adjust the system is probably a 2019 release) it is more likely that there will be a bunch of odd hybrid games.
If they succeed at their plans, that is.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1084190I think it will largely depend on what the final changes actually are. I'm sure that either way there will be people that will, but since one of their design goals seems to be a bit of modularity (a book of optional rules and ways to adjust the system is probably a 2019 release) it is more likely that there will be a bunch of odd hybrid games.
If they succeed at their plans, that is.
Well, I expect them to release a new official PF 2E Core Rulebook. It will likely be 90%-95% identical to the Playtest Rulebook. Not everyone will buy it all over again; is my prediction. That creates a problem for Paizo, doesn't it? They can't pay their salaries if people just download the free update, instead of purchasing more books.
Quote from: Razor 007;1084201Well, I expect them to release a new official PF 2E Core Rulebook. It will likely be 90%-95% identical to the Playtest Rulebook. Not everyone will buy it all over again; is my prediction. That creates a problem for Paizo, doesn't it? They can't pay their salaries if people just download the free update, instead of purchasing more books.
I don't think they are bothered by that, considering that they are releasing the entire set of rules for free online, the same thing they've been doing for years.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1084203I don't think they are bothered by that, considering that they are releasing the entire set of rules for free online, the same thing they've been doing for years.
There may be quite a few changes between PF 1E and 2E, but the Playtest should be very close to 2E. I guarantee they need people to continue purchasing printed books.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1084203I don't think they are bothered by that, considering that they are releasing the entire set of rules for free online, the same thing they've been doing for years.
Actually, they stopped doing that a few years ago. They would regularly update their version of the SRD, the PRD, with new open content from their books about six months to a year after that book came out. But then they stopped doing that. Then they even stopped hosting it, leaving it to a fan site to pick up its carcass.
Quote from: JeremyR;1084209Actually, they stopped doing that a few years ago. They would regularly update their version of the SRD, the PRD, with new open content from their books about six months to a year after that book came out. But then they stopped doing that. Then they even stopped hosting it, leaving it to a fan site to pick up its carcass.
Okay, fine, they don't do the actual work for it. They still let it happen
Quote from: Razor 007;1084205There may be quite a few changes between PF 1E and 2E, but the Playtest should be very close to 2E. I guarantee they need people to continue purchasing printed books.
Of course they need people to continue to give them money somehow, but the playtest document cutting into their income doesn't seem to bother them at all. It doesn't make much sense to be worried about a free document for a beta version of your game when you have already allowed a free document for the final version.
Quote from: JeremyR;1084209Actually, they stopped doing that a few years ago. They would regularly update their version of the SRD, the PRD, with new open content from their books about six months to a year after that book came out. But then they stopped doing that. Then they even stopped hosting it, leaving it to a fan site to pick up its carcass.
Okay, yes. They don't do the actual work of updating the online resources and fans have picked up the slack. However, even though they aren't going to be doing the work in house, the Archive of Nethys page already has a deal with them to host and maintain the 2nd edition PRD.
Once supplements start being published people will probably have to wait a bit before free stuff gets onto the AoN, but the game itself is still going to be free at launch.
Quote from: Razor 007;1084201Well, I expect them to release a new official PF 2E Core Rulebook. It will likely be 90%-95% identical to the Playtest Rulebook. Not everyone will buy it all over again; is my prediction. That creates a problem for Paizo, doesn't it? They can't pay their salaries if people just download the free update, instead of purchasing more books.
I guess they will have to come up with something they can sell. Maybe something they can put out every month on a subscription service that even groups playing with the free playtest rules can buy and use.
If only they can think of a product like that.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084227I guess they will have to come up with something they can sell. Maybe something they can put out every month on a subscription service that even groups playing with the free playtest rules can buy and use.
If only they can think of a product like that.
Indeed - the sort of people who sprang for the hard copy playtest are their core market - the kind who will buy a lot of supplements etc. I don't think its the end of the world for Paizo if they don't re-buy the core book.
Quote from: Razor 007;1084151Paizo also labeled some spells as being 10th Level Spells. Even at 20th Level, your character still doesn't have any 10th Level spell slots though....
Primal Spells sounds like D&D 4E Primal Powers, to me.....
While obviously inspired by primal powers, primal spells are actually a new division of magic a la arcane and divine. Previously druid and ranger spells were classified as divine, but now they are classified as primal.
Power sources aren't actually an innovation unique to 4e. Older editions had something loosely similar: e.g. OSRIC classifies magic as either arcane, phantasmal, divine or druidic.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084165Illusion spells are under Arcane.
I was referring to older editions of D&D in which illusionists were a distinct class rather than a sub-class of wizard.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084227I guess they will have to come up with something they can sell. Maybe something they can put out every month on a subscription service that even groups playing with the free playtest rules can buy and use.
If only they can think of a product like that.
IIRC, Paizo makes most of their profit from their adventures.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1084235Indeed - the sort of people who sprang for the hard copy playtest are their core market - the kind who will buy a lot of supplements etc. I don't think its the end of the world for Paizo if they don't re-buy the core book.
I think a considerable number of print copies of the Pathfinder Playtest, were sold to people who were very curious to see how Paizo finally responded to the huge success of D&D 5E. People who haven't been purchasing adventures from Paizo, etc. The Playtest is the shiny new object on the shelf.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084239I was referring to older editions of D&D in which illusionists were a distinct class rather than a sub-class of wizard.
Yeah you could have Illusionist as a distinct class and a Transmuter as a distinct class and a Necromancer as a distinct class and on the other hand I do like the elegance of the eight schools of wizardry.
QuoteIIRC, Paizo makes most of their profit from their adventures.
Exactly.
Bards shouldnt cast spells at all. Magical songs maybe. Simply inspiring tales and songs are my preference.
Quote from: Psikerlord;1084277Bards shouldnt cast spells at all. Magical songs maybe. Simply inspiring tales and songs are my preference.
Then go with a non-D&D inspired version.
As far as I'm aware - bards have always cast spells. The closest I can think of that didn't in any fantasy/magic setting was in the Dark Age of Camelot MMO - the Bard & Minstrel cast spells, while the Midgard (Viking) equivalent, the Skald, didn't cast spells, just shouts (crappy instant spells) but was the beefiest melee of the three and could act as a secondary tank.
And even then - the actual Bard class could cast spells.
I still don't really see how this change makes any real difference.
- What role would an Arcane Bard fill?
- What role does an Occult Bard fill?
- How does this change impact other things like race selection, equipment/magic items, etc.?
Quote from: HappyDaze;1084290I still don't really see how this change makes any real difference.
These four Traditions, the spells in their lists, and the essences that make up them, seem to be largely setting conceits and background design choices. Spell casters in setting are aware of these essences and the designers are trying to use them to guide how things are set up, but they aren't mechanical elements that I can tell.
I'll do a rough breakdown of some 3rd level spells.
Arcane and Primal casters both have the Material Essence that I mentioned above. They share such spells as Earthbind, Feet to Fins, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Meld into Stone, stinking cloud, and Wall of Wind. Largely elemental powers that focus on the physical world.
Arcane and Occult casters have Mental essence and share spells like Clairaudience, Dream Message, Enthral, Hypnotic Pattern, Invisibility Sphere, Locate, Mind Reading, and Paralyze. Mostly powers that affect the mind or possibly make use of the Astral plane.
Divine and Occult casters have the Spiritual essence. Their shared spells include Circle of Protection, Heroism, and Zone of Truth. Granted, sample size is small here, but branching the comparison to 4th level, they also share Read Omens, Remove Curse, and Talking Corpse. So you are looking at spells that deal with souls, divine powers, and energies from the Outer Planes. Zone of Truth seems like it could be Mental, but they are probably going with Divine Authority and Heroism is bolstering the soul or something
Divine and Primal casters deal with the Vital essence and can both cast things like Neutralize Poison, Remove Disease, Searing Light, as well as Heal and Finger of Death. Had to branch out from 3rd level again. Sigh. But these spells deal with life, death, vitality and such.
Not much to compare at this level for two of those (clearly), but the spell lists in the playtest have already been criticized for being skewed. At least in spell count and variety for 3rd level spells Arcane casters have the advantage at 26 spell choices. The Occult list has 22, the Primal list has 18 and the Divine list has 14. Hopefully the final document addresses this.
There are some spells that are universal. Fear, Blindness, Dispel Magic, Banishment, and others. I guess some effects are so useful that casters worked hard to develop their own methods.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084276Yeah you could have Illusionist as a distinct class and a Transmuter as a distinct class and a Necromancer as a distinct class and on the other hand I do like the elegance of the eight schools of wizardry.
The eight schools are essentially arbitrary and don't adequately organize spells by effect. For example, healing spells and teleportation spells have changed schools across editions. Conjuration got particularly bloated in 3rd edition.
I prefer a more reasonable organization like
Ars Magica or
Spheres of Power.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1084318These four Traditions, the spells in their lists, and the essences that make up them, seem to be largely setting conceits and background design choices. Spell casters in setting are aware of these essences and the designers are trying to use them to guide how things are set up, but they aren't mechanical elements that I can tell.
I'll do a rough breakdown of some 3rd level spells.
Arcane and Primal casters both have the Material Essence that I mentioned above. They share such spells as Earthbind, Feet to Fins, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Meld into Stone, stinking cloud, and Wall of Wind. Largely elemental powers that focus on the physical world.
Arcane and Occult casters have Mental essence and share spells like Clairaudience, Dream Message, Enthral, Hypnotic Pattern, Invisibility Sphere, Locate, Mind Reading, and Paralyze. Mostly powers that affect the mind or possibly make use of the Astral plane.
Divine and Occult casters have the Spiritual essence. Their shared spells include Circle of Protection, Heroism, and Zone of Truth. Granted, sample size is small here, but branching the comparison to 4th level, they also share Read Omens, Remove Curse, and Talking Corpse. So you are looking at spells that deal with souls, divine powers, and energies from the Outer Planes. Zone of Truth seems like it could be Mental, but they are probably going with Divine Authority and Heroism is bolstering the soul or something
Divine and Primal casters deal with the Vital essence and can both cast things like Neutralize Poison, Remove Disease, Searing Light, as well as Heal and Finger of Death. Had to branch out from 3rd level again. Sigh. But these spells deal with life, death, vitality and such.
Not much to compare at this level for two of those (clearly), but the spell lists in the playtest have already been criticized for being skewed. At least in spell count and variety for 3rd level spells Arcane casters have the advantage at 26 spell choices. The Occult list has 22, the Primal list has 18 and the Divine list has 14. Hopefully the final document addresses this.
There are some spells that are universal. Fear, Blindness, Dispel Magic, Banishment, and others. I guess some effects are so useful that casters worked hard to develop their own methods.
And that's why I think the
Spheres of Power mechanics are superior in every way. It is vastly more flavorful in its implementation of how magic is organized. Not only does it provide 22 spheres in the core rules, but you can make up your own spheres if desired (the examples include "fairy" and "bear"). And the casters aren't overpowered like they are in the default magic system, since you have to specialize in a sphere to get good at it rather than gaining a laundry list of spells every other level.
The problem with the
Pathfinder magic system (beyond being another implementation of the broken 3e magic system) is that it forces you to use the Golarion cosmology, which exemplifies the worst parts of the Great Wheel cosmology. Even 5e D&D has dispensed with the Great Wheel for the most part.
I don't have any experience with Spheres of Power, other than it is well regarded. I'm sure it will see an update, though.
I don't have any problem with the Great Wheel either and a quick Google for "5e cosmology" shows pictures that look like the Wheel anyway so... Eh? Not really bothered there either.
Paizo might not succeed at their goals, but I'm still looking forward to judging the results.
It appears that the UTEML Skill Proficiency idea, is the best thing I've come across so far in the Playtest hardcover.
Untrained -2
Trained +0
Expert +1
Master +2
Legendary +3
Although I've read online that the UTEML modifier scale is likely changing to +0, +2, +4, +6, +8????
I'm aware that it's actually Level +1, etc. I'm just looking at the modifiers alone, for use in my far less crunchy home brew D&D.
I'm pretty sure that you are right about the new numbers for UTEML, but also untrained skills get no level bonus by default.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084385The eight schools are essentially arbitrary and don't adequately organize spells by effect. For example, healing spells and teleportation spells have changed schools across editions. Conjuration got particularly bloated in 3rd edition.
I prefer a more reasonable organization like Ars Magica or Spheres of Power.
Of course it is arbitrary which is why people keep on tweeking the rules.
I wouldn't say arbitrary so much as poorly administered.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1084395I don't have any experience with Spheres of Power, other than it is well regarded. I'm sure it will see an update, though.
I don't have any problem with the Great Wheel either and a quick Google for "5e cosmology" shows pictures that look like the Wheel anyway so... Eh? Not really bothered there either.
Paizo might not succeed at their goals, but I'm still looking forward to judging the results.
Reading the DMG, it explicitly states that the cosmology is up to the DM and provides a list of the cosmologies that have been published across the editions, including all the obscure ones, and suggestions for making your own. This is probably the best thing an edition of D&D has ever done.
The problem with the Great Wheel cosmology is that unless you're playing
Planescape, the planes are completely irrelevant to your campaign.
Planescape is written with the intention that you'll be visiting the planes from level one (and therefore bothers to go into great detail on them) whereas pretty much everything else (including
Pathfinder) makes it the purview of high-levels only and barely ever details them. To add insult to injury, the planes are painfully boring most of the time. The whole shtick of the inner planes alone is that they are infinite expanses of a homogeneous substance, a concept that is so obviously stupid that it is ignored by every single video game which includes elemental planes as locations.
Furthermore, there are just too many planes. Far more than anyone actually needs. Most of them are redundant (in addition to boring as I just said). Do we really need eighteen different outer planes? Do we really need three transitive planes? Do we really need the inner planes period?
The amount of attention that
Pathfinder spends on the planes is wasted. Most the attention they do give is spent on demons, since that's what most people care to use. Most people aren't going to run planar adventures. Even people that do want to use planes won't necessarily use
Pathfinder's default cosmology. So basing the dynamic of the magic system on the structure of the great wheel needlessly shackles the rules to the 3e's horrible history of arbitrary and backwards world building.
The Great Wheel gets a full page spread in the 5E PHB.
After reading over the PF 2E Playtest for a few hours, and spending a few hours reading threads on the Paizo forums; I'm pretty sure that I don't like PF 2E as a whole, better than 1E. 2E is not any more simple than 1E, at its entry point. It's not going to be fun, trying to teach all that stuff to someone who doesn't already have a grasp of half of it, to begin with. PF 2E is a Featpalooza.
The new Core Rulebook is going to be 640 pages, because they couldn't meet their maximum target goal of 570 pages. The new cover art for the 2E books looks great though.
This gives me a greater appreciation for PF 1E.
Quote from: Razor 007;1084546After reading over the PF 2E Playtest for a few hours, and spending a few hours reading threads on the Paizo forums; I'm pretty sure that I don't like PF 2E as a whole, better than 1E.
Fortunately finding out about the final product is risk free come August.
I'm not sold on the game just yet as I am pretty sick of 3.x as a whole. However, I'm still going to be watching it to see if it surprises me in the end. I like a bunch of stuff they are trying to do, but I don't know how well they are going to wind up doing it.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1084551Fortunately finding out about the final product is risk free come August.
I'm not sold on the game just yet as I am pretty sick of 3.x as a whole. However, I'm still going to be watching it to see if it surprises me in the end. I like a bunch of stuff they are trying to do, but I don't know how well they are going to wind up doing it.
This is Paizo's one chance to respond to D&D 5E in the RPG marketplace.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084522The amount of attention that Pathfinder spends on the planes is wasted. Most the attention they do give is spent on demons, since that's what most people care to use. Most people aren't going to run planar adventures. Even people that do want to use planes won't necessarily use Pathfinder's default cosmology. So basing the dynamic of the magic system on the structure of the great wheel needlessly shackles the rules to the 3e's horrible history of arbitrary and backwards world building.
Any attention that publishers use on things that I dont like is wasted.
But in any case the Pathfinder planes are not the same as the Planescape planes and on the other hand I can see how some people may confuse the two.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084572Any attention that publishers use on things that I dont like is wasted.
But in any case the Pathfinder planes are not the same as the Planescape planes and on the other hand I can see how some people may confuse the two.
As somebody who owns every Planescape supplement, does plane hopping pretty regularly, and likes both the Great Wheel and the Great Beyond, they are close enough for government work. Saying otherwise to someone who doesn't like them is like telling a vegetarian that a meat lovers pizza and pepperoni & sausage are different.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1084575As somebody who owns every Planescape supplement, does plane hopping pretty regularly, and likes both the Great Wheel and the Great Beyond, they are close enough for government work. Saying otherwise to someone who doesn't like them is like telling a vegetarian that a meat lovers pizza and pepperoni & sausage are different.
Exactly. There is no point trying to convince a vegetarian about the benefits of bacon.
Quote from: Razor 007;1084537The Great Wheel gets a full page spread in the 5E PHB.
That doesn't contradict anything I said. The rulebooks state at multiple different points that the cosmology will vary by DM fiat. The DMG has a whole chapter explaining how to make your own cosmology and the MM states that different planes won't exist in different settings. The books only provide the most basic detail on the planes, hardly sufficient to actually run adventures there.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084572Any attention that publishers use on things that I dont like is wasted.
But in any case the Pathfinder planes are not the same as the Planescape planes and on the other hand I can see how some people may confuse the two.
I understand they aren't the same, but Paizo has clearly been trying to copy
Planescape as much as legally permissible. They doubled down on the incoherence factor. There are a bazillion demon races and psychopomp races with arbitrary and hairsplitting distinctions.
There are five or six different canonical flavors of the personification of Death alone. You have Charon as the Horseman of Death, Zyphus as the Grim Harvestman, anywhere from one to nine or more grim reapers, and innumerable lesser deaths, minor reapers and thanadaemons. In addition, you have the psychopomp race, the psychopomp lords, the valkyries, the shinigami, the maruts, etc. And Pharasma as the neutral (not lawful) judge-goddess of the dead.
Paizo does a similarly convoluted formula for absolutely everything. It's stupid. Real mythologies get complicated, sure, but nowhere near this level. In fact, real mythologies will typically combine figures that fulfill the same role rather than keep them distinct.
If I was charge, then I'd do something smart like combining all those. The Horseman of Death, the Grim Harvestman and the Judge-God of the Dead become the same figure, and will be Lawful (I'm not going into the good/evil distinction because I think it's silly). The grim reapers, lesser deaths, minor reapers, thanadaemons, psychopomps, valkyries, shinigami, maruts, etc would all be merged into a singular race of psychopomps. They reap souls, ferry souls, judge souls, kill people, hunt down those who live too long, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat for every aspect of the cosmology.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084680That doesn't contradict anything I said. The rulebooks state at multiple different points that the cosmology will vary by DM fiat. The DMG has a whole chapter explaining how to make your own cosmology and the MM states that different planes won't exist in different settings. The books only provide the most basic detail on the planes, hardly sufficient to actually run adventures there.
I understand they aren't the same, but Paizo has clearly been trying to copy Planescape as much as legally permissible. They doubled down on the incoherence factor. There are a bazillion demon races and psychopomp races with arbitrary and hairsplitting distinctions.
There are five or six different canonical flavors of the personification of Death alone. You have Charon as the Horseman of Death, Zyphus as the Grim Harvestman, anywhere from one to nine or more grim reapers, and innumerable lesser deaths, minor reapers and thanadaemons. In addition, you have the psychopomp race, the psychopomp lords, the valkyries, the shinigami, the maruts, etc. And Pharasma as the neutral (not lawful) judge-goddess of the dead.
Paizo does a similarly convoluted formula for absolutely everything. It's stupid. Real mythologies get complicated, sure, but nowhere near this level. In fact, real mythologies will typically combine figures that fulfill the same role rather than keep them distinct.
If I was charge, then I'd do something smart like combining all those. The Horseman of Death, the Grim Harvestman and the Judge-God of the Dead become the same figure, and will be Lawful (I'm not going into the good/evil distinction because I think it's silly). The grim reapers, lesser deaths, minor reapers, thanadaemons, psychopomps, valkyries, shinigami, maruts, etc would all be merged into a singular race of psychopomps. They reap souls, ferry souls, judge souls, kill people, hunt down those who live too long, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat for every aspect of the cosmology.
And; in D&D 4E, didn't the Sorrowsworn hunt down those who had cheated death?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084680I understand they aren't the same, but Paizo has clearly been trying to copy Planescape as much as legally permissible. They doubled down on the incoherence factor. There are a bazillion demon races and psychopomp races with arbitrary and hairsplitting distinctions.
Well yeah of course they did. The whole game is built on top of over 30 years of DnD history of course it is incoherent.
The problem that I see is that the only time when WotC sat down and said "This is an incoherent mess so lets tidy it up" was the only time in history that DnD was beaten by another version of DnD that specifically did not and, in your own words, doubled down on the incoherence.
QuoteThere are five or six different canonical flavors of the personification of Death alone. You have Charon as the Horseman of Death, Zyphus as the Grim Harvestman, anywhere from one to nine or more grim reapers, and innumerable lesser deaths, minor reapers and thanadaemons. In addition, you have the psychopomp race, the psychopomp lords, the valkyries, the shinigami, the maruts, etc. And Pharasma as the neutral (not lawful) judge-goddess of the dead.
Paizo does a similarly convoluted formula for absolutely everything. It's stupid. Real mythologies get complicated, sure, but nowhere near this level. In fact, real mythologies will typically combine figures that fulfill the same role rather than keep them distinct.
Real mythologies and religions do have a couple of advantages over roleplaying canon. Firstly they can essentially kill off all of those people that dont at least pretend to believe the official story and secondly because they are the only ones actually written down the competing beliefs will die off naturally as old people die and the young people get taught the official story.
I mean there is evidence that the Jesus story (https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/774752/JESUS-prior-religions-CONTROL-the-people-roman) is essentially a rip off of Persian, Egyptian and Roman stories. So the mythology is not even something new it is just building on top of the most popular things that came before.
Another factor to consider is that there may be no single unifying coherent story. I can see the attraction of having something that answers all the questions once and for all like the one line of Physics equation that solves the Universe. But what happens if there really is Charon and Zyphus and Pharasma? The multiverse is a big place and there is room for multiple Deaths. Now I have no problem with you limiting yourself to a single Death but thats not my bag.
QuoteIf I was charge, then I'd do something smart like combining all those. The Horseman of Death, the Grim Harvestman and the Judge-God of the Dead become the same figure, and will be Lawful (I'm not going into the good/evil distinction because I think it's silly). The grim reapers, lesser deaths, minor reapers, thanadaemons, psychopomps, valkyries, shinigami, maruts, etc would all be merged into a singular race of psychopomps. They reap souls, ferry souls, judge souls, kill people, hunt down those who live too long, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat for every aspect of the cosmology.
I see no reason why you could not be smart and do exactly what you say for your own home campaign. World building is great who knows what you will come up with.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084680Paizo does a similarly convoluted formula for absolutely everything. It's stupid. Real mythologies get complicated, sure, but nowhere near this level. In fact, real mythologies will typically combine figures that fulfill the same role rather than keep them distinct.
I definitely find it works best to use a lot of syncretism in polytheistic settings. Works much better in-world and gives rise to interesting effects. Eg turns out my son's Dragonborn Bbn-20 Shieldbiter is supposedly demigod son of the gold dragon goddess Aura, who is identified with Athena. He works for the Kingdom of Nerath who identify their patron goddess Erathis with Athena too. So that gives Shieldbiter a lot of prestige within Nerath even though he's a different species from the human Nerathi.
Quote from: S'mon;1084742I definitely find it works best to use a lot of syncretism in polytheistic settings. Works much better in-world and gives rise to interesting effects. Eg turns out my son's Dragonborn Bbn-20 Shieldbiter is supposedly demigod son of the gold dragon goddess Aura, who is identified with Athena. He works for the Kingdom of Nerath who identify their patron goddess Erathis with Athena too. So that gives Shieldbiter a lot of prestige within Nerath even though he's a different species from the human Nerathi.
Greetings!
You know, I admit, while part of me rolls my eyes at "Dragonborn"--you know why, my friend!:D Having Dragonborn be savage and powerful barbarians is very cool. I think having them be savage barbarians actually creates a legitimate "space" for them to exist in a campaign. I like that as well, S'mon!
I think the syncretism thing for religion also works nicely. I tend to do a lot of that in my World of Thandor. I don't necessarily even make rules for it; the players just know that sages believe the Goddess She-Rah is very similar to the War Goddess Xena, and there also overlap in customs, such as sacred temple prostitutes, like what the cult of the goddess Kambi Kardesha supports. Especially in larger cities of the civilized lands, where there are huge temples, specialized markets and festivals, with lots of festivities and such going on. Such temples also augment their vast profit streams by developing and operating special market shops that sell a variety of styles of clothing, as well as cosmetics, perfumes, and body oils.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Bard with occult spells, like having Ozzy or any number of other metal band dudes in your group. :D
Quote from: Chainsaw;1084757Bard with occult spells, like having Ozzy or any number of other metal band dudes in your group. :D
"Generals gather in their masses..... Just like witches at black masses!!!"
Quote from: Shasarak;1084709Well yeah of course they did. The whole game is built on top of over 30 years of DnD history of course it is incoherent.
The problem that I see is that the only time when WotC sat down and said "This is an incoherent mess so lets tidy it up" was the only time in history that DnD was beaten by another version of DnD that specifically did not and, in your own words, doubled down on the incoherence.
Cleaning up the cosmology wasn't the sole reason that 4e was hated. In fact, I don't think it was that high on many people's lists of reasons to hate it.
Pathfinder wasn't lauded for its convoluted cosmology, but for its gameplay replicating 3e with minor adjustments.
This is a simple "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" problem. 5e threw out a lot of genuinely good innovations from 4e, and kept things that weren't particularly relevant in the first place that few people complained about anyway. Combining AC and Reflex saves was a good idea, but it got thrown out with the bathwater.
The feywild and shadowfell have been retrofitted to the latest version of the great wheel while the quasi-elemental planes have been thrown out in favor of the elemental chaos. Nobody really complains about that, because nobody really cares about the planes to begin with.
QuoteAnother factor to consider is that there may be no single unifying coherent story. I can see the attraction of having something that answers all the questions once and for all like the one line of Physics equation that solves the Universe. But what happens if there really is Charon and Zyphus and Pharasma? The multiverse is a big place and there is room for multiple Deaths. Now I have no problem with you limiting yourself to a single Death but thats not my bag.
Those gods are exclusive to Golarion. Golarion isn't a multiverse, it's a single planet. It makes zero sense to have three mutually exclusive Deaths unless the writers can't get their shit straight. That's the whole problem with trying to build your cosmology around the inherently absurd D&D wheel model.
Quote from: S'mon;1084742I definitely find it works best to use a lot of syncretism in polytheistic settings. Works much better in-world and gives rise to interesting effects. Eg turns out my son's Dragonborn Bbn-20 Shieldbiter is supposedly demigod son of the gold dragon goddess Aura, who is identified with Athena. He works for the Kingdom of Nerath who identify their patron goddess Erathis with Athena too. So that gives Shieldbiter a lot of prestige within Nerath even though he's a different species from the human Nerathi.
Quote from: SHARK;1084755Greetings!
You know, I admit, while part of me rolls my eyes at "Dragonborn"--you know why, my friend!:D Having Dragonborn be savage and powerful barbarians is very cool. I think having them be savage barbarians actually creates a legitimate "space" for them to exist in a campaign. I like that as well, S'mon!
I think the syncretism thing for religion also works nicely. I tend to do a lot of that in my World of Thandor. I don't necessarily even make rules for it; the players just know that sages believe the Goddess She-Rah is very similar to the War Goddess Xena, and there also overlap in customs, such as sacred temple prostitutes, like what the cult of the goddess Kambi Kardesha supports. Especially in larger cities of the civilized lands, where there are huge temples, specialized markets and festivals, with lots of festivities and such going on. Such temples also augment their vast profit streams by developing and operating special market shops that sell a variety of styles of clothing, as well as cosmetics, perfumes, and body oils.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
An explanation I settled on at one point was a Eberron-style agnosticism mixed with a celestial bureaucracy. Essentially, divine magic comes from an undefined source regardless of the belief of the caster. Divine beings are created from the belief in them and built an elaborate bureaucracy to oversee all the different pantheons. There's a department for every godly purview, so different gods may sit in multiple departments.
Although I ultimately found it easier not to have gods at all, or at least not ones that are arbitrarily beyond game statistics. D&D gods are huge a*holes anyway, what with letting empyrean titans run around causing chaos and resurrecting them whenever adventurers justly kill them.
If the party meets a "god," who literally comes out of the Woodwork to drive the plot, they are well within their rights to imprison or kill said god. The consequences vary by god, but generally either another appropriate god will assume their duties if possible (e.g. imprisoning the Sun will force the Moon to shine 24/7), their killer will inherit their duties (e.g. killing Death and Santa Claus will turn you into Father Deathmas), or really bad stuff will happen until the problem is solved (e.g. if the Sandman is imprisoned then nobody will be able to dream, and will thus go progressively crazier, until he is freed).
There has been a lot of interesting ideas on this thread I didn't really expect when I first saw it. For now though, I want to come back to this bit.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084385The problem with the Pathfinder magic system ... is that it forces you to use the Golarion cosmology, ...
This doesn't seem to be true at all. The spell lists might be organized in the background by Essences and Traditions, but there is nothing mechanical forcing use of the Great Beyond or any other cosmology. Material, Mental, Spiritual, and Vital magics can either be tied to whatever sources your campaign has that maps to their general vibe or ignored completely.
There is an in-setting reason why things are the way they are, sure, but players being forced to use it? I'm just not seeing that. You could just as easily say that a setting has a Unified Mana Theory where all the magic comes from one source and the four Traditions are just broad categories of how it is accessed. I think that is how Starfinder sets up the future of the setting. Technomancers and Mystics both tap into the same power, they just learn different things to do with it.
However, it does seem that they are going to stop making generic supplements. So while people might not be forced to use setting elements to make use of the mechanics, if they buy the books those elements will be part of the purchase. That might not be to everybody's liking.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1085284Cleaning up the cosmology wasn't the sole reason that 4e was hated. In fact, I don't think it was that high on many people's lists of reasons to hate it. Pathfinder wasn't lauded for its convoluted cosmology, but for its gameplay replicating 3e with minor adjustments.
It was pretty high on my list, definitely top ten but honestly there was just so many problems where do you even start? Pathfinder keeping the normal pl;anes and alignment system was a definite "improvement" over the 4e version.
QuoteThis is a simple "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" problem. 5e threw out a lot of genuinely good innovations from 4e, and kept things that weren't particularly relevant in the first place that few people complained about anyway. Combining AC and Reflex saves was a good idea, but it got thrown out with the bathwater.
Not sure what you mean there, AC and Reflex have always been different things unless you mean the Pit Trap hitting you in your Reflex instead of making a save against it? Personally I prefer to make my own save rather then the static defenses.
QuoteThe feywild and shadowfell have been retrofitted to the latest version of the great wheel while the quasi-elemental planes have been thrown out in favor of the elemental chaos. Nobody really complains about that, because nobody really cares about the planes to begin with.
Well you and I care so screw those other guys! I like the Feywild/First World that was a pretty iconic plane kinda missing from the Great Wheel. The Shadowfell is nothing special, just the Plane of Shadow rolled into the Domains of Dread but now there is a place where Emo Goths come from so that is a solid meh I guess. The Elemental Chaos is super lame, like someone smashed up all your toys and now your parents are trying to convince you that it is actually better to play with broken stuff. No one is buying that.
QuoteThose gods are exclusive to Golarion. Golarion isn't a multiverse, it's a single planet. It makes zero sense to have three mutually exclusive Deaths unless the writers can't get their shit straight. That's the whole problem with trying to build your cosmology around the inherently absurd D&D wheel model.
Well either Golarion uses the Great Wheel planes or it does not. If it does then it is part of the multiverse with all of the diversity that entails.
Which reminds me of a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson which if I may paraphrase without permission; the Multiverse is under no obligation to make sense to you.
The Raven Queen rules over the Shadowfell, and the Sorrowsworn do her bidding. They serve as her enforcers.
That's how I run it.
Put me down as another alienated by 4E's cosmology.
I never used it even when I was running 4E.
I don't want a cosmology that was designed by committee to facilitate 'adventure'.
Quote from: TJS;1085721Put me down as another alienated by 4E's cosmology.
I never used it even when I was running 4E.
I don't want a cosmology that was designed by committee to facilitate 'adventure'.
I don't want a banal over-complicated cosmology designed by nerds with OCD to facilitate "symmetry" that isn't remotely fun to adventure in.
There's a reason why
Planescape: Torment took place almost entirely within Sigil despite being able to play with the great wheel.
There's a reason why the concept of multiple planes is used as a throwaway joke in popular culture.
The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy references "Elysium, Shangri-La and Lower Heck" as jokes.
Invader Zim mentions a "universe of pure itching," "universe of pure dookie," and "a room with a moose" as jokes. The Buffyverse mentions "land of the trolls," "land of perpetual Wednesday," "crazy melty land," "world without shrimp," and "world with nothing but shrimp" as jokes.
The reason is because it's a fundamentally silly idea that only D&D explores with any degree of seriousness. Naturally, the planes are horribly banal. Even D&D itself ignores most of the planes to focus on the few interesting bits like the City of Brass. The City of Brass is the only interesting location in the entire elemental plane of fire, because unsurprisingly an entire universe made of nothing but fire is extremely boring.
I've tried many times to make the planes interesting. Ultimately I've largely given up because there's really no point to having planes. You can do all the same stuff on the mortal plane. Want to visit the City of Brass? It's located in a Mordor-esque volcanic wasteland full of exotic landscapes and wildlife, fought over by multiple tribes of ifrit, seraph, eldjotnar, salamander, azer, etc.
Long story short, the planes are stupid.
No point in covering the rest of your post but just wanted to cover this bit real quick.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1085727There's a reason why Planescape: Torment took place almost entirely within Sigil despite being able to play with the great wheel.
I presume that reason is the same as why Baldurs Gate took place entirely on the Sword Coast or Curse of the Azure Bonds took place entirely within the Dalelands.
I gotta say that is the worst argument that I have seen today next to the guy who sued Neverending Story for having an end.
Why does paizo do anything?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1086505Why does paizo do anything?
You know, this thread just might have slipped into obscurity off the front page if you didn't lock lips and try to puff life into it.
Maybe replying to topics you can't just close if they bore you is as useless to post as it is to read your snark?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1086505Why does paizo do anything?
Not much of a Paizo fan?
Quote from: Razor 007;1086559Not much of a Paizo fan?
Understatement of the year..
Quote from: Manic Modron;1086561Remember, they are trying to destroy Western Civilization or something.
I'm not a fan of their safe space garbage, either.
Quote from: Razor 007;1086559Not much of a Paizo fan?
Nope. Never have been.