Talk:Magic

Unsourced statement about the nature of magic

That bit at the beginning about the source and nature of magic has been bugging me, to the point where I posted a question on RPG StackExchange. Naturally, the top-voted answer first quotes the unsourced statement. :D

Any thoughts on how that statement got there and what potential sources there might be for it? It looks like Brandingopportunity added the part about it being naturally occurring back in 2012, and Fleanetha flagged it as unsourced a year later. -Oznogon (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I *think* that might be one of the 'early ideas that never caught on' or 'didn't fit with the direction Golarion was headed' --Cpt kirstov (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Officially ambiguous, per James Jacobs. -Oznogon (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Schools of magic

The Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project eliminated mechanics for the eight schools of magic. I'm assuming this has little effect on in-universe references to schools of magic, but like alignment they're now solely fictional/setting details, such as the literal school or academy that a wizard attended. -Oznogon (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

See Player Core pgs. 387–388. Particularly unified magical theory, which might need to be prioritized for creation or repurposed/moved from universal. -Oznogon (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The traditions of magic (arcane, divine, occult, primal) have also been removed in Core and renamed mechanically to their classes (wizard, cleric, bard, druid). Not sure what canon impact this has, if any. -Oznogon (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)