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


Aldarc

Legend
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lylandra

Adventurer
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.
 

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

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
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

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
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

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
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

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
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

Adventurer
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
 

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top