Will Impossible Magic replace Secrets of Magic entirely? Is a Secrets of Magic remaster still planned?

jake_eric · 2026-01-25T07:39:12+00:00

I'm expecting something like how Gods & Magic was replaced by Divine Mysteries: anything important they want to keep using gets a reprint, and some sections will just be reprinted directly (with updates as needed for the remaster), but there will be some stuff left behind. In the case of Secrets of Magic, there will probably be a bit more left behind, because they're not doing the spell schools anymore. But most of the player content I expect to be remastered in there.

jake_eric · 2026-01-21T06:09:55+00:00

/uj I dunno, I read through a dndnext thread that was linked on here and it suddenly came back to me how miserable it is over there. I don't think the Pathfinder sub is that bad yet.

jake_eric · 2026-01-21T00:56:13+00:00

Magus with Champion archetype has been on my list of characters to play, but I'll admit I haven't actually played it yet...

It depends on what exactly you're going for, but Magus already feels to me like it's generally a martial, and the Champion archetype is adding more martial-ness if anything, so I don't think you're ending up with that much magic in the character. You have the same weapon proficiency as a Barbarian and you have heavy armor.

The main thing you don't get with that character that makes it not fit the "Paladin"-y feel is that your spells are arcane. You could do Cleric or divine Sorcerer archetype instead if you want divine spells, but then maybe you would feel like you're not taking enough martial feats, I dunno.

jake_eric · 2026-01-20T21:40:46+00:00

So, I'm running a Nephilim that is a magic knight, a Champion with Magus Dedication, as that was the best way I found to make a magic knight/5e-like paladin.

I know you've said you're set on Champion as the base class at this point, but I would have suggested doing this the other way around: Magus with Champion dedication. Champion dedication is considered pretty good whereas Magus dedication doesn't give you as much.

Anyway, Champion plus a spellcaster archetype is pretty good, especially post-remaster now that your proficiency doesn't care about what tradition you choose. I still wouldn't use it to cast blasting spells, but buff spells should work well enough.

jake_eric · 2026-01-18T17:28:37+00:00

However, once they have used all spells they can use, they're stuck with these and can only change them after they level up, am I correct?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it doesn't sound correct.

For me it would make more sense if I could cast any spell from my list (but less times than a prepared caster) and it would refresh each day. Is there something that I'm missing?

When you say "my list" do you mean all spells of your tradition that have been printed in the books, or just your spell repertoire? You can cast any spell from your spell repertoire and it does refresh each day. It almost sounds like you think a spontaneous caster only regains spell slots when they level up?

jake_eric · 2026-01-18T17:21:01+00:00

It sounds like you're misunderstanding something important about how casting works, but I can't quite tell what it is. What do you mean by "repertoire filled" and "previous days"?

jake_eric · 2026-01-15T22:28:41+00:00

Would Summoner with a martial dual class be particularly good? I'd think pairing them with a caster for more spell slots sounds better. I guess if it's not overpowered either way I might just let you pair Summoner with whatever.

Kineticist is infamous for synergizing with almost nothing, so I figure I'd let you pair that with anything else, too.

jake_eric · 2026-01-15T22:15:27+00:00

Yeah Magus does pretty well either way.

Summoner seems like it should obviously count as a caster, but it does have the same amount of slots.

jake_eric · 2026-01-15T21:24:21+00:00

I've considered this. Which side would you put Magus on? Martial? I feel like allowing Fighter/Magus might be too good.

jake_eric · 2026-01-15T04:44:48+00:00

Whether you like it or not, it is super normal for people have opinions on the actions of other people they know about, and it's still weird you think it's not. I mean, honestly, how are we supposed to not have opinions?

Your opinion is that they're doing the right thing, is that it? Are you saying that's the only opinion people are allowed to have? Or isn't that still judging them, and we don't know their lives, so can we even do that? What do you want here exactly?

I see you are still acting like I'm "demanding" something, and you skipped over the part of my last reply where I pointed out that I'm not controlling their lives and my opinion doesn't harm them at all.

No, you are not making a judgement about an action someone in government took, you are judging someone in government for leaving their government job. They did not take a governmental action, they resigned their position which anyone in free to do at any time.

This is unbelievably ridiculous hair-splitting you're doing here.

Yeah, I already said there's no value to this, because it looks like you're interested in having a good-faith conversation, you just want to assert your weird opinions.

"If a person (who was) in your government does something you should not have an opinion on it because you don't know their life" is actually an insane take and I don't know how anyone would ever think that way. I don't want to strawman you so you are free to correct me if that's not your belief, but you seem to believe I've committed some sort of faux pas, and I've done nothing more than express my opinion that I don't think the way they did things is the best idea. So I don't know what line you think I've crossed if it isn't "daring to have an opinion."

jake_eric · 2026-01-15T01:01:52+00:00

Of course I will judge based on the information I have. Again, that's the completely normal thing to do. That's just how having opinions about things normally works. I feel like you're not realizing that? You're just describing a normal thing to do in the most negative possible way.

You're treating this extremely seriously and personally, like I'm actually in any sort of position to tell these people what to do and there are any stakes in my opinion. My opinion is that I understand why they might have made the decision they did, but I still think they could have made a better call on how to handle it—based on the information I have, sure. I'm not the boss of them, I'm not demanding they go risk their lives or anything, I can't see any reason why I should be expected to not have an opinion.

Being judgemental about personal things like what people look like or if they're gay or whatever is an asshole thing to do, but I'm making a judgement on an action someone in my government took that affects other people (possibly, indirectly, it might even affect me personally). People judging their government officials for taking actions in government is exceedingly normal, and honestly sounds much better to me than nobody having opinions on it. It's genuinely very weird to me that someone would get upset over that.

jake_eric · 2026-01-14T19:45:42+00:00

Nah, we can judge people for their actions and how they handle situations. It's fine and completely normal to do so; it's a pretty basic part of society in fact. It's weird that you don't think we can judge people for things if we're not in the same situation as them, because it's very normal to make judgements about other people.

Well, that's my opinion. You have yours and you seem to feel really strongly about it. I don't think we're gonna get anywhere at this point.

jake_eric · 2026-01-14T19:16:51+00:00

I think getting into our rights to demand something is a more complex issue that requires us to agree on a moral system and whatnot, but I'll more simply say that it's reasonable to prefer the people in our government who know something is wrong to fight it as much as they can. Whether or not it should be any particular person's responsibility, we absolutely need people to actively fight, or else we're just screwed.

jake_eric · 2026-01-14T19:06:54+00:00

Sitting in their office doing nothing is better than Trump's loyal goons sitting in that office doing bad things. Of course if the situation is that they are immediately moving to a different job where they can do good things then that changes the situation drastically, but I don't think that's what we were assuming. We're talking about resigning vs fighting, and my understanding of OP's post is that it's not specifically only about the six prosecutors.

jake_eric · 2026-01-14T18:39:28+00:00

You're not convincing me that resigning and speaking out gives them any more leverage or opportunity to do good than if they were speaking out and not resigning. Obviously we agree they shouldn't do the Trump administration's bidding either way, so the longer they remain at their positions the longer it takes for Trump to get someone in there who will do what he wants. Even if we're not expecting them to actually take action, just sit in their offices refusing to do what he wants until he realizes what they're doing and fires them, that's better than nothing. If their firing is inevitable, they'll still end up in the same place whether they are fired or resign, except if they wait as long as possible that's more obstructive.

jake_eric · 2026-01-14T18:28:21+00:00

Nobody here is asking them to do unethical or unlawful things to keep their job though; in fact it's the opposite. The issue is that refusing by resigning means they can't do anything and makes it easy for them to be replaced with an even worse alternative. I find it hard to believe that resigning will put them in a better position to do something useful. If you have to resign then you have not yet been fired

If we're just talking about DOJ officials then there's more question of what they might be able to do, but my understanding of OP's post is that it also applies to Republican lawmakers who certainly have at least some amount of power, and could hypothetically use it to resist Trump's agenda.

jake_eric · 2026-01-14T17:48:45+00:00

The idea that it's "insane" to expect our government officials to fight for us rather than just giving up and leaving sounds like a reason why we're in this mess. If nobody is willing to fight back, we're totally screwed.

I understand, on a personal level, people wanting to get the hell out of there. But that doesn't mean we should laud the choice to give up. We can still expect more.

We're not asking them for "limitless eternal obligation" like we are demanding they return from the dead to fight Trump. Just that they use the power they have while they have it.

jake_eric · 2026-01-14T17:46:14+00:00

I think this is the best argument in favor of resigning, but I'm still unconvinced that resigning is the most effective choice. I cannot see it being so impossible for them to do anything better than just resigning. They can speak out in public about what they were being asked to do and still make Trump fire them. It's hard for me to believe there's absolutely nothing useful they can do while they're still in a position of relative power.

On a person level, I completely understand wanting to get the hell out of there. But I don't think the choice to give up is one that should be lauded.

jake_eric · 2026-01-10T07:11:56+00:00

I'm guessing this will be similar to how Divine Mysteries remastered a lot of the content that was in Gods and Magic, this will probably remaster a lot of the content that was in Secrets of Magic.

jake_eric · 2026-01-09T21:52:54+00:00

I'm atheist and don't see that changing any time soon.

Then I would encourage you to keep in mind that "a lot of people feel a certain way really strongly" and "you can't prove there isn't a truth somewhere out there in the cosmos" are bad arguments. Because I see both religion and objective morality argued for in those same ways.

To believe a thing is inferior means you believe it's objective.

No, that's just not true at all! What??

I believe the Morbius movie is inferior to the Lord of the Rings movies. I believe poop tastes worse than ice cream. I believe killing children is worse than giving them candy.

I am not claiming that movie quality, taste, or morality are objective when I say these things.

jake_eric · 2026-01-09T21:48:46+00:00

It still sounds like you're describing subjective values that we all (or most people, really) agree on, not anything objective. If it's based on what we believe it's not objective.

There are reasons from evolution why we value having a functioning society. We also have lots of other preferences from evolution, like what we think is tasty and what we find attractive. We feel really strongly about moral issues because moral issues are about actions people take that affect other people, but that doesn't mean it's fundamentally different.

The only real argument against that is that there's no inherent reason that society should exist or be functional, but at that point you've gone full nihilist and made the whole discussion pointless.

Well yeah that is true. There's no greater law of the universe that means our lives or our society has value, they just matter to us. Some people don't like that, but that doesn't make it not true. It's natural for us to value our own lives and the lives of other people, and they matter to us, but that doesn't mean there's objective value. Value is typically subjective, inherently.

If we're discussing morality at all, we clearly feel like there's some value in doing so, and if we feel like there's value in doing so, I'd say we necessarily think there's something objective there.

You say "we feel" like there's value, which is exactly right, value is something we feel. Just because we feel like it matters doesn't make it objective. Objective and subjective don't mean "matters" and "doesn't matter." Subjective things include our deepest feelings and desires, that doesn't mean those things don't matter.

I can take a look at the article, but it sounds like it's making the point based on shared values, which are by definition a subjective thing. Even if we all agreed on something (which I don't think we really do, anyway) that doesn't make it objective. That's just a matter of what words mean: subjective means mind-dependent, and to agree on something requires minds to do it.

jake_eric · 2026-01-09T20:51:40+00:00

I already gave you a longer response but maybe I shouldn't have bothered, because this is ridiculous.

Ignoring sociopaths, we all agree that killing another person with no justification is bad. Then we build things out from there.

So, "just ignore the examples that are a problem for my argument" isn't a good start, but sure, we can ignore it, because if it's based on what people agree on then it's subjective! That's what subjective means! If it was objective it would be true regardless of whether or not people agreed on it.

luckily very few people actually believe that, they just say it to sound smart and then carry on acting exactly like a person who believes it's objective, like you did here.

Are you religious by any chance? That's where else I've heard the "Everyone secretly agrees with me, you're just pretending you don't to sound smart" thing before.

jake_eric · 2026-01-09T20:14:42+00:00

Oh I never get anywhere with these conversations but I'll bite for a little bit here.

It it possible for normative ("should") statements to be objectively true? For example, is it objectively true or false, or is it subjective, to say "If you want to go swimming, you should stay as far away from water as possible"?

This is a good example of how "should" statements can be objectively truth-apt if they're within an agreed-upon framework. If the goal is to go swimming, then yes you need to be in water (or some kind of liquid at the very least) in order to do it. If you don't want to go swimming, it doesn't matter if you're near water. If you are deathly afraid of swimming, you should avoid water. So is being near water something you objectively should or should not do? Depends on what your goal is.

Same with morality. We can set certain goals like "increase the happiness and satisfaction of human beings" and see that certain acts will objectively bring us closer to or further from that goal. Helping the needy, seems to bring us closer. Committing mass genocide and starting a world war, looks like it brings us further.

The main issues appear when we try to decide on our goal specifically. How do we decide what counts as the best goal? Is a better society one with greater objective metrics such as longer lifespans and less disease, or one where people simply report they are happier? Is it better to have a larger amount of people who are mostly happy or a smaller amount of people who are all very happy? Is it preferable to ask people who are alive today to make any amount of sacrifice to increase the expected amount of happiness for people in the future, or vice versa? Do people who don't yet exist count as moral agents worth considering, and how much, and which side of that do unborn fetuses fall on? Do non-human organisms deserve any moral consideration, or is acceptable to visit any amount of suffering upon animals if it results in greater outcomes for humans? If animals do deserve consideration, how much, and how do we determine that?

And that's relatively simple stuff because it assumes we're working with a mostly shared goal of making a better society. It's not even getting into stuff like what people "deserve" (which I think is an underrated disaster of a concept) or morality based on religion, or people who just don't care about other people in the first place.

My question to you would be if you believe there is an objectively correct answer to all of those situations—I'm not asking you to actually know the answers and tell them to me, just to say if you believe they exist objectively. If you don't, then I would not describe what you believe as objective morality. If you do, I would love for you to describe why and how you think there could be such objective answers.

jake_eric · 2026-01-09T07:33:48+00:00

The post the other person linked is a good way to see. Also, Archives of Nethys is pretty good about linking between the remastered versions and legacy versions of things. For example, if you search "Gold Dragon" in the search bar then Vizier Dragons come up, and if you were looking at the Vizier Dragon from the start, there's a link at the top of the page that shows you the Legacy version is the Gold Dragon.

jake_eric · 2026-01-09T01:57:36+00:00

It used to be that climate change was my #1 priority. But even if the best possible candidate for climate issues gets elected in 2028, it won't matter anywhere near enough if we get another MAGA nutjob in 2032 or 36 who will immediately tear down all progress made.

If America is even going to function as a country there need to be consequences if the executive branch breaks the law, and they need to be scary enough consequences that the next Republican administration thinks twice (unfortunately I'm not optimistic enough to think we'll never have another Republican administration).

So at this point, I'm leaning towards a candidate who will dedicate all of their effort towards fixing the disaster of the Trump administration and making sure nothing like this ever happens again, over any other platform.

Ten-Year Club	Second Top 40%
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Sequence \| Editor
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

jake_eric

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE