Take A Look At Pathfinder 2's Revamped Magic System!

This blog post got me hyped! Everything in here looks awesome, especially the formatting of the spells, which is very nostalgic for me as a 4e fan.
 

Comments

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Yea, just read those comments. Looks like component will be more of a hook to hang class distinctions on, then (like the bard with the violin example). Makes sense.
It’ll also potentially inform what you can cast when - can’t perform somatic components of your hands are bound, can’t perform verbal components in a zone of silence, can’t perform material components if you don’t have the materials.

I do hope they list some materials for spells within material components. I know they rarely come up, but they’re a nice dash of flavor.
 
They’ve already been shown to work this way in the glass cannon podcast. Each component takes one action to perform, which is the reason different spells cost different numbers of actions. Even in the article, the heal spell lists it’s effects (which we know to cost 1, 2, and 3 actions respectively) by the components required to cast them.
Then I stand corrected and need to reread the article fully.

Thanks
KB
 

mach1.9pants

Adventurer
I really like this, tho they make the spell descriptions very convoluted - so much so that the blog initially had the heightened examples incorrect. It will be confusing to a fair number of people as evidenced by the questions in the comments.

I also agree that this is a totally different game, PF1 was all about backwards compatibility. PF2 had gone well beyond just fixing the problems of 3.x DnD and into its own system. Converting from PF1 or 3.x to PF2 looks like it will be a similar difficulty as converting to 5e
 
Then it would be just like Warhammer... well the limb chopping part. Warhammer has peg-legs though!
In Rogue Trader (for Warhammer 40k) I got possessed by a demon who activated a grenade and held it in his hand cackling.

I lost that arm, but got it replaced with, basically, a Transformer. It was an arm that could detach and fly around as a grapple hawk with stun claws.

Chopping off limbs is great!
 

Connorsrpg

Adventurer
The idea of same spell being cast at different levels is MUCH better than having similar named spells to prepare/learn at different levels. (Glad PF & 5E are going this route).

I LOVE the idea of each component type being an action. It actually brings these often ignored components into to play. (We already trialled something similar with 5E).

Also, in 3E we sorted all divine and arcane spells into 3 groupings: Simple, Advanced?, Exotic (much like weapon proficiencies and a cue from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed). We also borrowed and expanded Monte's idea of spell descriptors. EVERY spell had 1+ descriptor. This meant we no longer had to track every class's individual spell list. (Something I do NOT like in 5E). For eg. A Druid got access to Simple Divine Spells and added spells with certain descriptors to their list. These were usually a choice (for example 6 of the following - where 12 nature-type descriptors may have been listed).

In a nutshell, I like modular spell lists that can be easily expanded upon, rather than just adding to every class's list. A big problem in 5E for divine casters that therefore have no limit to spells 'known'.

If PF adopts something like the above with its spell groupings, I am all for it. (Looking at discussion in the blog re spell groupings).
 

Connorsrpg

Adventurer
Also noticed the necromantic spell did not specify a saving throw. I am sure this is just an error - or is there something funny going on with saves too?
 

Kaodi

Adventurer
I like this in general. I am just slightly worried about how non-casters are supposed to keep up when even cantrips level up.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I like this in general. I am just slightly worried about how non-casters are supposed to keep up when even cantrips level up.
It’s a little unintuitive, but it actually works. By insuring casters’ at-will options remain relevant at higher levels, it lessens the burden on high level spells to pull a spellcaster’s weight. With casters no longer reliant on an extremely limited pool of appropriately leveled spells, the developers can tone those high level spells down a bit. 5e does the same, and it’s probably the second most balanced iteration of D&D in terms of casters vs. martials.
 

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
I liked the bit about Material, Mental, Spiritual, and Vital spell lists in the comments on the blog.
Same. If those are the 4 lists they mention on the front page of playtest website, and casters get access to 1 or 2 of the lists each, I think that's a pretty cool system.

The fact that the spells have strong keywords in the top-left of their description make me thinking that granting access to spells by keyword is also going to be a thing. Maybe some class have one list, but certain feats/archetypes grant you access to all spells with a certain keyword from any list.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Same. If those are the 4 lists they mention on the front page of playtest website, and casters get access to 1 or 2 of the lists each, I think that's a pretty cool system.

The fact that the spells have strong keywords in the top-left of their description make me thinking that granting access to spells by keyword is also going to be a thing. Maybe some class have one list, but certain feats/archetypes grant you access to all spells with a certain keyword from any list.
Siefter said that part of the reason they included some of the more destructive necromancy spells under Material Essence was because necromancy specialist wizards would have been sad otherwise. So I’m guessing it won’t be as simple as spell school specialists getting access to spells of their school outside of their essences.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
My guess is
Bard:Mental or Mental/Vital
Cleric: Spiritual/Vital
Druid: Material/Vital
Paladin: Spiritual
Ranger: Vital
Sorcerer: Material/Mental
Wizard: Material/Mental

Once they add psychics, they’ll be Mental/Spiritual. That leaves Material/Spiritual as an unused combination and I’m not really sure what class might use that. I guess maybe Sorcerer, but I’m expecting they’ll share the same spell list as wizards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Connorsrpg

Adventurer
Same. If those are the 4 lists they mention on the front page of playtest website, and casters get access to 1 or 2 of the lists each, I think that's a pretty cool system.

The fact that the spells have strong keywords in the top-left of their description make me thinking that granting access to spells by keyword is also going to be a thing. Maybe some class have one list, but certain feats/archetypes grant you access to all spells with a certain keyword from any list.

Yeah - this has me excited too. As stated above, that is pretty much how we did our 3E spell lists. It worked very well. Though we had a lot more spell descriptors (kind of more like the Spheres from 2E).
 

R_Chance

Explorer
Yeah - this has me excited too. As stated above, that is pretty much how we did our 3E spell lists. It worked very well. Though we had a lot more spell descriptors (kind of more like the Spheres from 2E).
Spheres from 2E is what this reminded me of, if, as you say, a simpler version of it. I like the idea and its certainly cleaner than assembling customized lists for every class. New spells can be popped onto a appropriate list and you instantly know what classes can access them. I like the tie in with actions and components as well.

I wonder how Wizards will fare in terms of the total number of available spells they can access vs. PF1 if they only have access to half the lists. Either their lists will have more spells or the new PF2 Wizard will be somewhat more limited in spell variety than in PF1. Although I never checked on the raw number of spells available to each class, it always seemed the Wizards had the widest variety / number of spells possible. Am I wrong about that? Well, we will see I suppose.
 

Stacie GmrGrl

Explorer
This blog post has me even more excited for 2e than anything else before it. This magic is like 4e's system but reimagined in a way that people will like.
 

Jhaelen

Visitor
I really like this, tho they make the spell descriptions very convoluted - so much so that the blog initially had the heightened examples incorrect. It will be confusing to a fair number of people as evidenced by the questions in the comments.
Yup. Describing a spell's effect in a single sentence is impossible. Every player of a spellcasting character will need to have the complete text available at all times.
In that regards it's similar to D&D 4e. The spell block doesn't look quite as elegant to me, though.

It does make the spells look more exciting and may also mean they remain useful for a wider range of character levels.

What I definitely dislike, though, is the idea of 10th level spells. Who wants a wizard casting wishes all day? I don't. Hopefully, most campaigns will end way before their players get access to 10th level spells.
Also, what about using scrolls? Can I just buy a bunch of wish scrolls and cast the spell from them? That would be utterly terrible.
 

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
What I definitely dislike, though, is the idea of 10th level spells. Who wants a wizard casting wishes all day? I don't. Hopefully, most campaigns will end way before their players get access to 10th level spells.
Also, what about using scrolls? Can I just buy a bunch of wish scrolls and cast the spell from them? That would be utterly terrible.
Considering most campaigns end well before anyone gets 9th level spells, I don't think that will be much of an issue.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
What I definitely dislike, though, is the idea of 10th level spells. Who wants a wizard casting wishes all day? I don't. Hopefully, most campaigns will end way before their players get access to 10th level spells.
Perhaps I have missed something, but how is that different from getting Wish from 9th level spells in PF1 or D&D?
 

In Our Store!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Top