Arcane spells in Pathfinder 2e refer to a specific type of magic that is derived from the study and understanding of magic itself. Unlike divine spells, which are granted by deities, or occult spells, which involve tapping into the supernatural, arcane spells focus on the manipulation and harnessing of elemental energies. **Arcane spells are primarily accessed by spellcasters known as arcane spellcasters, such as wizards and sorcerers.** These individuals must study and learn arcane magic through rigorous training and study. They must dedicate themselves to understanding the mechanics and principles behind magic in order to manipulate and cast spells. One key aspect of arcane spells is that they are tied to the spellcasting tradition chosen by the caster.
Prepared Spell Retention: Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in his mind as a nearly cast spell until he uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until he abandons it. Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind.
If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind, and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells. A wizard in full plate with access to all the magic you can imagine would be even more broken -- as it is now it s still the best class after 4th level.
One key aspect of arcane spells is that they are tied to the spellcasting tradition chosen by the caster. There are four different traditions in Pathfinder 2e: arcane, divine, occult, and primal. Each tradition has its own unique spells and abilities, and arcane spells fall under the purview of the arcane tradition.
Arcane vs. Divine
I'm not talking about the roleplaying interpretations of each magic, because that's going to change with each setting. What I mean to ask is this: What is the mechanical difference between the two magic types?
At a cursory glance, arcane magic is capable of "moving mountains." Its effects are overt, distinguishable, and often flamboyant. In raw damage vs. damage for the blasting type (an inferior version of spellcasting) arcane magic always wins, often with twice the damage capacity. Divine magic is more subtle, and has access to healing magic.
Except that's not really the case. As a primary divine caster, Druids are very near to Wizards/Sorcerers in terms of magically making things happen. Druids move mountains, conjure beasts, and explode plants to entangle enemies. Bards are sort of like Druids in the same respect, relying on the more subtle aspects of magic to achieve their goals. Ignoring the fact that bards are capable of casting healing magic (from it's offshoot of the druid class), Bardic magic hardly seems par for classification as arcane.
This is all pretty confusing to me, since arcanists suffer heavy drawbacks in comparison to their divine companions. Few know their entire spell list (beguiler, dread necromancer, & warmage being the exception), and all suffer heavy penalties to their spellcasting capabilities with arcane spell failure. The problem with this, though, is that most of the "best," or most mechanically effective spells exist on both sides of the fence- or at least have mechanical substitutes (command vs. suggestion, entangle vs. web, shield vs. shield of faith).
So really, what's the difference? What question do developers ask when they see a spell that allows them to allot it to one of the spellcasting classes, other than thinking "it's leafy/elemental, so give it to the druids" or "I could see merlin doing this, give it to the wizards"?
The biggest - and only absolute - difference is that divine magic comes from a divine source (a god, a philosophy, nature. ) and arcane magic doesn't.
And the way I see it, spells are put on spell lists mostly on a "does it fit the concept" basis. There probably is some balancing, usually on a concept level, meaning they don't do the "can do all sorts of magic perfectly" concept.
Concerning mechanically substitutes:
Command isn't nearly as good as suggestion (command lasts for one round, and even greater command only lasts a couple of rounds, and you get a save each round), and shield is very different from shield of faith (shield bonus versus deflection bonus, personal versus touch).
Note that while wizards might not be able to wear armour without messing up their spellcasting (unless they stick to light armour and get feats), they have magic at their disposal that can make their armour class almost irrelevant.
Plus, except for the "cannot heal", the wizard's spell list is extremely versatile in general. They can protect. They can buff. They can hex, they cann destroy, they can kill, they can dominate, they can deceive.
Sean FitzSimon wrote:What's the difference?
I'm not talking about the roleplaying interpretations of each magic, because that's going to change with each setting. What I mean to ask is this: What is the mechanical difference between the two magic types?
Divine magic basically always comes with a code of conduct attached. Violate the code, your magic goes away - for a time. They often have a hierarchy they have to answer to. Arcanists never have this problem - they do what they want, when they want, how they want. This might not come up in every campaign, so it's tempting to call it a 'roleplaying interpretation', but there _is_ a defined mechanic for clerics and druids losing their powers.
I think a lot of GMs are pretty lenient with players about it too. Being a cleric or druid shouldn't always be 'don't do X and Y' but also 'DO this and that' as well. Divine casters should always have strong convictions and motivations, or they wouldn't have their magic at all (IMO).
Divine magic is better at dealing with positive/negative energies - healing/restoration and necromancy, where arcane magic is better at using elemental damage (fire/cold/acid/sonic/etc.). Divine magic is better at summoning (or, at least, friendly summoning), while arcane magic is better at dimensional movement (especially astral/ethereal/shadow). Arcane is also better at illusion.
Personally I never really understood the arcane/divine separation. Not from a flavour point of view and not from a strictly mechanical point of view either. I mean. using Helic's examples, Clerics get healing, sure (which should be Necromancy. ) but Wizards get Ray of Enfeeblement, Enervation, etc. and Clerics and Druids alike get some pretty good blasting spells, especially of fire and lightning.
Well, there's a reason I love Arcana Unearthed/Evolved's magic system, I guess, and that is in large part because it gets rid of the arbitrary arcane/divine divide. Instead it splits spells up into "Simple" (things most people with a smattering of magic can cast), "Complex" (things only the dedicated spellcasters can cast), and "Exotic" (very rare spells).
Helic has the right of it - Divine magic has strings attached, and at the other end of those strings is a god. On the plus side, you don't have to be as precise with divine magic: it's your intent that matters more than the precise way you do things. Hence the lack of arcane spell failure.
Arcane magic, on the other hand, has to be precise because you are taking the reigns of the forces of the universe personally.
Bardic magic is really on the cusp of divine and arcane - they are dabblers who pick up a little here and a little there; a prayer from this place and an incantation from that. Most importantly, though, they don't get their power from homage to any particular god. They can pull off healing but they are by no means expert at it.
It's all about balance.
It's all metagame reasons.
The Fluff stuff: Divine comes from Deities with strings attached, Arcane casting methodology is hindered with armor, etc., is all a result of balancing the game over the years.
Think about it -- if you're inventing D&D back in the 70s and coming up with spells, what happens if you only give Druids nature spells, or clerics healing spells? What if wizards really could do everything?
You would create an unbalanced magic system. A wizard in full plate with access to all the magic you can imagine would be even more broken -- as it is now it's still the best class after 4th level.
A druid in that kind of system would be useless in a fight -- the core function of the D&D game. Same with a cleric.
You have to come up with some reasons to diversify the cleric and druid while toning down the wizard -- for metagame reasons.
Think about it -- if you're inventing D&D back in the 70s and coming up with spells, what happens if you only give Druids nature spells, or clerics healing spells? What if wizards really could do everything?
**Arcane spells in Pathfinder 2e encompass a wide range of magical effects that can be used for various purposes.** These spells can create illusions, manipulate elements, control minds, summon creatures, and much more. The versatility of arcane spells allows spellcasters to adapt and overcome different challenges they may face. To cast an arcane spell, a spellcaster must have a minimum ability score in their spellcasting ability (usually Intelligence for wizards and Charisma for sorcerers). They must also possess the spell in their spellbook or spell repertoire, depending on their class. **Arcane spells can be memorized and cast a limited number of times before needing to be re-memorized or relearned.** Spellcasters can also enhance their spells through the use of metamagic feats, allowing them to modify and improve their spells in unique ways. It's important to note that arcane spells are not inherently good or evil. **The morality of a spell lies in its application and the intent of the caster.** While some arcane spells can be used for nefarious purposes, they can also be used for noble and righteous deeds. The responsibility lies with the spellcaster to use their powers wisely and ethically. In summary, arcane spells in Pathfinder 2e are a powerful and diverse form of magic that requires study, understanding, and talent to wield. **Arcane spellcasters have the ability to manipulate elemental energies and cast a wide range of spells for various purposes.** The morality of arcane spells lies with the caster, who must use their powers responsibly and ethically..
Reviews for "Spellbooks and Arcane Scrolls: Collecting and Organizing your Magical Arsenal"
- Sarah - 2/5 - I was really disappointed with the arcane spells in Pathfinder 2e. I felt that they were heavily nerfed compared to previous editions, and it really took away from the magic-using experience. The spells didn't feel as powerful or as versatile, and I found myself relying more on martial abilities than magic. Overall, I just didn't find the arcane spellcasting enjoyable in this edition.
- Michael - 1/5 - I have to say, the arcane spells in Pathfinder 2e are a huge letdown. They feel so limited and restrictive compared to other magic systems I've seen in other tabletop RPGs. The lack of creativity and variety in the spells really took away from the whole experience for me. I expected more from a game that prides itself on its magic system, and I was thoroughly disappointed.
- Emily - 3/5 - While I didn't hate the arcane spells in Pathfinder 2e, I definitely wasn't blown away by them either. I found them to be a bit underwhelming and lacking in depth. The spells felt repetitive and didn't offer much in terms of unique mechanics or interesting effects. It just felt like there was a missed opportunity to truly expand and innovate the arcane spellcasting in this edition. I hope future updates or expansions can address these issues and make the spells more exciting.