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.

 

[Charlaquin]

It’s also worth noting that this 4 lists thing is still speculation. When directly asked, Siefter didn’t confirm or deny it, but kind of vaguely hinted that they might be doing something along those lines, but that there will be some surprises. Which is notably different from the response when folks correctly guessed the Proficiency system (to which he said simply, “you’re on the right track.”)

 

[Wrathamon]

the designers of pathfinder are great at story & presentation ... and great at presenting wotc designs as their own.

I use to love paizo ... but, they are trying too hard to spin and dont feel honest to me. They lost me as a customer.

 

[Adso]

the designers of pathfinder are great at story & presentation ... and great at presenting wotc designs as their own.

I use to love paizo ... but, they are trying too hard to spin and dont feel honest to me. They lost me as a customer.

Well, that's a bit harsh considering some of use used to work for WotC and designed some of that source. Just say'n.

I would also challenge anyone to say that I either spin or am not honest...but you know, your feelings are your own, and I hope that we will regain you as a customer some day. In the end, the only thing we really want to do is make fun.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Pathfinder RPG Senior Designer
Paizo, Inc.

 

[Arilyn]

I really like the direction Paizo is taking with spells. The new ideas seem more interesting and streamlined. I like the scaling, and the decision with the components. Components have always felt tacked on, and don't actually interact smoothly with the caster's magic. Looks like this new system will change this in a good way.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do hope that spells that do use material components have some example components, if only for the fun of it.

 

[Blue]

It is kind of weird how much this edition seems to be taking the good parts of 4e and 5e. If they really haven't looked at 4e or 5e much, parallel evolution is a hell of a thing.

You want a fully available example of parallel evolution, look at how much 5e mimics 13th Age. 13th Age is a d20 game by Jonathan Tweet (one of the 3.0 lead designers) and Rob Heinsoo (4e lead designer). They solved a bunch of problems. Then 5e came around, and solved the same bunch of problems in mostly the same ways.

This isn't anything new - PF has close genetics to D&D, and that include inheriting the same class of problems.

 

[TwoSix]

You want a fully available example of parallel evolution, look at how much 5e mimics 13th Age. 13th Age is a d20 game by Jonathan Tweet (one of the 3.0 lead designers) and Rob Heinsoo (4e lead designer). They solved a bunch of problems. Then 5e came around, and solved the same bunch of problems in mostly the same ways.

This isn't anything new - PF has close genetics to D&D, and that include inheriting the same class of problems.

I'll be honest, while I see them sharing the same heritage, they actually seem like they go in fairly different directions from the shared 3e/4e base. I'm curious as to what you see as the strong parallels between the two.

If nothing else, 13th Age has a great warlord-esque class, so it has the most important distinction from 5e.

 

[Blue]

I'll be honest, while I see them sharing the same heritage, they actually seem like they go in fairly different directions from the shared 3e/4e base. I'm curious as to what you see as the strong parallels between the two.

If nothing else, 13th Age has a great warlord-esque class, so it has the most important distinction from 5e.

If you look at where 3ed and 4e where, from there to 13th Age and from there to 5e are very similar.

Some of the issues they solved was extreme streamlining in order to play faster. Removal of tactical play from the base and moving to theater of the mind. They both came up with upcasting spells in higher level slots to keep them relevant.

Again, thsi isn't saying it plays exactly - they don't and neither will PF & 5e (or PF & 13th Age -- just that their DNA shapes a lot of the positive that they kept, and shaped a lot of negative that came up with parallel solutions.

Many of the 13th Age unique points come not from that shared ancestry, but from concepts that evolved in more narrative games, like their One Unique Thing, and Backgrounds. 5e tried this some with Inspiration. (Though the Escalation Die was purely a solution to combat grind and pacing that is easily yoinkable and used in 5e.)

 

[Charlaquin]

If you look at where 3ed and 4e where, from there to 13th Age and from there to 5e are very similar.

Some of the issues they solved was extreme streamlining in order to play faster. Removal of tactical play from the base and moving to theater of the mind. They both came up with upcasting spells in higher level slots to keep them relevant.

Again, thsi isn't saying it plays exactly - they don't and neither will PF & 5e (or PF & 13th Age -- just that their DNA shapes a lot of the positive that they kept, and shaped a lot of negative that came up with parallel solutions.

Many of the 13th Age unique points come not from that shared ancestry, but from concepts that evolved in more narrative games, like their One Unique Thing, and Backgrounds. 5e tried this some with Inspiration. (Though the Escalation Die was purely a solution to combat grind and pacing that is easily yoinkable and used in 5e.)

I don’t really think “extreme streamlining” is a solution to a problem. “The game needs to be streamlined” is a problem, and 5e and 13th age solve that problem in different ways. For example, 13th Age streamlines skills by removing the idea of a skill list entirely and using backgrounds, which players put points into and the GM and player work together to determine when a background’s bonus is applicable to the roll. 5e kept the skill list, but instead streamlined skills by removing the concept of assigning points in favor of a binary trained/untrained system. Same problem, different solutions, both of which lead to a streamlining of the game.

 

[Jhaelen]

Perhaps I have missed something, but how is that different from getting Wish from 9th level spells in PF1 or D&D?

Mostly this:

XP Cost: The minimum XP cost for casting wish is 5,000 XP. When a wish duplicates a spell that has an XP cost, you must pay 5,000 XP or that cost, whichever is more. When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP.

In my experience (sic!) players were quite reluctant to cast spells with an xp cost.

 

[Aldarc]

Mostly this:

In my experience (sic!) players were quite reluctant to cast spells with an xp cost.

"Wish" in Pathfinder has a material cost (a diamond worth 25K gold) and not an XP cost. "Wish" in 5e has no associated cost other than a 9th level spell slot.

It remains to be seen whether one of the biggest unbalancers of magic in 3.PF - bonus spell slots based on caster stat - will be present in PF2.

 

[Lylandra]

Mostly this:

In my experience (sic!) players were quite reluctant to cast spells with an xp cost.

Not only in your experience. That was also the main reason why we didn't care for magic item creation in 3e (okay and the fact that using myriads of exp for high level items would have made no sense at all for the creator... You wish to buy a headband of intellect? Okay, gotta slay a dragon to get enough "resources")

Also, many groups use different means of gaining levels now, so an XP cost wouldn't really work for those models.

 

[CubicsRube]

I really like the spell lists.

I see pathfinder as having the potential for their own spin on d20 - modular design and maximym customization.

With the spell lists, ancestry feats, class feats you have the ability to potentially make very different characters.

A strength of spell lists means that they can inyroduce new classes that might have other differences, but can access the same or similar lists. I find this much more ellefant than trying to hack it into a subclass of the same caster or even to say "this class uses the wizard list" etc.

I hope the situational bonus and other things thst bog down play during play time, but i really like what I'm seeing in terms of character creation rules.

And for what it's worth, I'm burned out hard on pf1 and would never touch it again, but pf2 might persuade me to buy in, so i guess I'm one of the potential market they're talking about.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

I would venture that Material/Spiritual or Material/Vital fit the sorcerer better.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would venture that Material/Spiritual or Material/Vital fit the sorcerer better.

I’m assuming Vital will be where the majority of the healing spells fit, and sorcerers are not traditionally healers. And I’m guessing spiritual will be where you get you detect alignments, your protection from [whatever]s, your banes blessings, your consecrates and desecrates, etc (which is why I peg Paladins as having Spiritual rather than Vital), and that doesn’t seem particularly Sorcerer-y either. Conversely, I’m guessing Material is where you’ll see most of your blaster-caster spells and Mental will be where most of your charm, dominate, control, and illusion spells come from, all of which are very much in the sorcerer’s wheelhouse.

 

[TwoSix]

I’m assuming Vital will be where the majority of the healing spells fit, and sorcerers are not traditionally healers. And I’m guessing spiritual will be where you get you detect alignments, your protection from [whatever]s, your banes blessings, your consecrates and desecrates, etc (which is why I peg Paladins as having Spiritual rather than Vital), and that doesn’t seem particularly Sorcerer-y either. Conversely, I’m guessing Material is where you’ll see most of your blaster-caster spells and Mental will be where most of your charm, dominate, control, and illusion spells come from, all of which are very much in the sorcerer’s wheelhouse.

You're probably right, but I'd love to see Sorcerer as Material/Spiritual just to give a different take on the class than the 3e/PF sorcerer.

 

[Charlaquin]

You're probably right, but I'd love to see Sorcerer as Material/Spiritual just to give a different take on the class than the 3e/PF sorcerer.

It would certainly be an interesting combination if my assumptions about what kinds of spells fall under which Essence are correct. Elemental and shapechanging magic combined with protective and blessing magic. Kind of a battlepriest type thing.

 

[TwoSix]

It would certainly be an interesting combination if my assumptions about what kinds of spells fall under which Essence are correct. Elemental and shapechanging magic combined with protective and blessing magic. Kind of a battlepriest type thing.

Assuming the "4 list" speculation is correct, seeing what kind of effects go into what list is going to be really interesting.

 

[MoonSong]

You're probably right, but I'd love to see Sorcerer as Material/Spiritual just to give a different take on the class than the 3e/PF sorcerer.

Specially given the "arcane traditions share a lot in common with science, as arcane spellcasters tend to use logic and rational methods to categorize the magic inherent in the physical world around them." bit. You know cause the very first thing that pops out to mind when faced with a sorcerer is how rational, logical and methodical they are... It'd be nice to have them spun into their own thing (for real, not just making them wizard minus).

 

[Wrathamon]

Well, that's a bit harsh considering some of use used to work for WotC and designed some of that source. Just say'n.

I would also challenge anyone to say that I either spin or am not honest...but you know, your feelings are your own, and I hope that we will regain you as a customer some day. In the end, the only thing we really want to do is make fun.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Pathfinder RPG Senior Designer
Paizo, Inc.

This goes a long way. I appreciate the response.

for me it has to do with reading things like "first introduced in ..." "never played 5e so not aware of what they are doing" paraphrasing

but as a video game designer for 20+ years ... I play everything. And, I am honest when we get inspired by other games.

If I read an article, or interview mentioning hey yes we loved some of the changes that 5e & 4e did and we feel our spin on those same ideas is what's good for pathfinder, then I might be more interested in it.

I've read more of we're doing our own thing and yet those ideas are so similar that it feel disingenuous to me. I dont care if they are similar, or complete clones of mechanics. Good idea is a good idea. I just want to feel like it's not paizo being afraid of the backlash if they mention the other game as inspiration or do you truly believe that PF2 is completing designed in a pathfinder 1 vacuum?

I have to admit ... I normally do not have negative emotional feelings when a new game comes out. If anything I'm the opposite. I am actually not having any bad feelings about the game designs I am reading. It's the PR.

thank you for your time