15
\$\begingroup\$

Per this discussion, I’ve cleaned up most of the confusion with . The only step discussed that I haven’t done is synonymizing with the new , as I do not have the requisite score of 5 to suggest a synonym.

I have recommended as a synonym for . Those who have the necessary score (5) in that tag should vote for the synonym, per the discussion.

Additionally, I created and for the relevant classes. I’m not 100% sure those are for the best, but they are classes and other classes have tags (including and itself). They need entries and they may need applying to other questions about those classes.

Finally, having gone through this process, I now think having on questions about the kineticist or the psychic or whatever is probably a mistake—it doesn’t really need to be there in most of the cases that it is. There are definitely legitimate questions, such as those about occult rituals or psychic duels, and those questions could also interact with some of the occult classes in a way that justifies both tags, but putting on every question about the kineticist just because the kineticist is an occult-magic class seems wrong. Since having the tag there makes it easier to find, though, I have left it for the time being.

So, discussion about and synonyms, the new and tags, and whether should be removed from questions about occult classes that don’t otherwise interact with special occult-magic issues like rituals or duels. Can anyone make those synonyms? Do we like the new class tags? How do we feel about this issue?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast: You can see KRyan's breakdown of how the terms are used in D&D 3.5e, Pathfinder 1e, and Pathfinder 2e in his linked answer to my previous question on meta. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Nov 5 '19 at 0:45
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast No; the previous discussion gets into all the details. PF 1e used “psychic magic” for the same concept that PF 2e calls “occult magic,” but this caused a great deal of confusion with “psionics” from D&D and elsewhere. Since PF has provided two names for the same thing, and one of those names is causing confusion, the consensus was to use the other one for tags, and use synonyms to encourage PF 1e players to use the correct tags even if they are unfamiliar with PF 2e’s terminology. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 5 '19 at 0:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ thanks, comment gone \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Nov 5 '19 at 0:48
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Thank you! I have upvoted this question to show my support for the process and my appreciation for the effort undertaken. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Nov 5 '19 at 7:34
5
\$\begingroup\$

Nice work!

Thanks for taking that effort on yourself; there was certainly quite a lot to be done there. All the changes you were able to make yourself seem good - though as you point out, quite a few of these new tags need tag wikis/info. Someone familiar with the concepts they're about should try and add some info about what each tag is about/to be used for.

I've gone ahead and synonymized with - per the case you presented in your answer to my previous meta, Paizo seems to be using them to refer to the same concept.

However, I'm not sure needs to be synonymized with , or that needs to exist as a tag at all... With the clear naming of the tag as , anyone who types "psychic" into the tag field will automatically be suggested to use either or (since is now a synonym of it). As such, adding as a synonym of the class tag seems unnecessary. That's just my personal assessment, though.

Regarding your assessment here:

I now think having on questions about the kineticist or the psychic or whatever is probably a mistake—it doesn’t really need to be there in most of the cases that it is. There are definitely legitimate questions, such as those about occult rituals or psychic duels, and those questions could also interact with some of the occult classes in a way that justifies both tags, but putting on every question about the kineticist just because the kineticist is an occult-magic class seems wrong.

I am generally inclined to agree with you here. It seems sort of like including a tag on every D&D question (though that's not a perfect analogy) - it's describing the source/category of the content being asked about, rather than describing the question itself. Again, though, that's just a personal assessment, specifically from someone who's not too familiar with Pathfinder.

If anyone has objections, questions, or concerns, feel free to bring them up here or leave your own answer as appropriate!

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

Thank you for taking the time. To help out, I've taken a first round crack at providing some tag guidance on the following:

These edits were based on your discussions within this question and your cited answer; I'm not an expert on either PF or psionics so I'd appreciate a double check. I did deviate from the manner which you tagged things like to simply be as broad as possible instead of citing specific system. I'm not sure if a Call of Cthulu game has something like a spiritualist or occultist class in it, so I didn't want to exclude other games by mentioning specifics in the tag.

I am concerned that my tag guidance on is going to create an issue with regards to the introduction of the term in PF2e. I've only skimmed the rules for PF2e, but I'm concerned there may be legitimate broad questions relating to magic types in PF2e that may feel the tag's guidance excludes their system.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I thank you for doing that, in that I forgot about it, but I have to disagree with some of the choices. Occult magic is something Dreamscarred Press has worked with (primarily to disentangle it from psionics), but it’s not really “theirs.” Likewise, psychic-class is supposed to be specifically for a “class” called “psychic.” The synonyms for occultist and spiritualist are good, and I think I’ll use those as a template for psychic-class. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 15 '19 at 17:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan by all means as I said I'm not an expert, I simply wanted to provide some initial text for a starting point. I find sometimes it's hardest to start a thing compared to simply revising and editing what someone else already started. \$\endgroup\$ – Pyrotechnical Nov 15 '19 at 17:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .