James Jacobs wrote:
Spillover happens in the real world; that's enough of a reason to do the same in Golarion. But it also allows for some easy cultural "bridges" from one area to another, to help ease folks into a different region by giving them a few familiar faces along the way.
Sorry- my long winded analysis sort of obscured the question I think. I was actually curious why there wouldn't be/shouldn't be more of that sort of spillover- why you'd have these "pocket" geographic regions where there were a whole new set of gods with only a few crossovers, rather than having them be more globally interested (and as such, the same gods with different names).
I always assume the Asgardians employ energy weapons, in that both Mjolnir and Gugnir have energy projection capabilities. We just see it less on screen because it allows Thor and Odin to stand out more easily.
This is pretty much it. The Asgardians clearly do have lasers and spaceships and energy weapons- they have massive laser cannons that fired on the Dark Elf ships; they chased after Thor and Loki in their ships and fired lasers at them.
Actually, I kind of liked it from the first movie, but found him rather dull in Dark World. For a minute, I even thought they had replaced Anthony Hopkins with another (lesser) actor until I squinted my eyes real hard to make sure it was still him.
It wasn't just Hopkins' performance, IMO. It seemed the entire character of Odin was reworked from the first movie for his role in this. He seemed to have been rewritten as the wise king who punishes his son for his arrogance and dismissal of his "lessers" as this arrogant, blustering warmonger. Almost as if the characters of Odin and Thor had been switched between movies. It may have served the plot, but at the cost of the character and a good performance by a great actor.
Lord Snow wrote:
I don't actually think this kind of post modernist argument carries any sort of weight here at all. Asgardian cloths are incredibly silly for a culture as advanced as theirs. I'm a short pants & T-shirts guy. The kind of over the top splendor Asgardians wear is better suited for the gods of a myth of an ancient civilization than for a culture full of people who studied in universities.
Advanced meaning... what? Super-Technologies almost akin to magic? "Modern" ways of thinking?
There have been "advanced" societies throughout history that imposed sumptuary laws regarding the sorts of clothing men and women must wear, based on cultural values. For a culture like the Asgardians, who have a very strong emphasis (seemingly) on tradition and a strict hierarchy, that's not entirely unbelievable that they might have something similar instituted within their own society.
Just because many "modern" cultures have more lax and liberal viewpoints on such stylings doesn't mean it's absurd to think Asgardian culture would do the same.
(For that matter, the clothing the Asgardians wear outside of court- as evidenced in the "pub" scenes- is much less stylized than what they wear in court.)
James Jacobs wrote:
We might mention a few of the Tian Xia deities, but since they are by definition NOT Inner Sea Gods there won't be a lot. Probably nothing more or nothing new from Dragon Empires Gazetteer.
I know that there are reasons in the real world for the existence of multiple gods from culture to culture, and that there is sometimes "spillover" where two or more cultures intersect and borrow from one another (Rome and Greece being perhaps the most notable Western example).
While there is some of that in many fantasy worlds, such as Golarion (Shelyn stands out as one), but I've always kind of been curious as to the rationale for it in the minds of designers. In a world like our own, where there is little evidence of actual deific contact and interaction with the world (arguably), it is understandable that groups would create their own deities who may not necessarily be the same as other groups. But in most fantasy worlds, where evidence of such contacts are known to exist- both to us as players, but also to the people of the world, through clerical contacts, actual interaction, etc.- what would be the rationale for deities not having more of a global interest as a matter of course, and for the "spillover" effect of such deities appearing in more cultures on that scale, albeit with different names?
EDIT: I guess I'm looking more for your perspective specifically in the approach taken with Golarion, as opposed to just general speculation, as I'd imagine it varies not only between companies but probably between designers within them.
I'd still prefer Crusader (1st) or Templar (2nd), but Warpriest has kind of grown on me, so I wouldn't be horribly disappointed if it stays as is.
The "it's already the name of an archetype/prestige class" argument doesn't really hold a lot of weight, I don't think: witness the classes that already duplicate such names (Skald, f'rinstance), not to mention archetypes that duplicate each other (Buccaneer- gunslinger and bard, etc.).
Personally, I wish there were more name duplication in such instances, myself. I'd love to have a Buccaneer Wizard. I think it gets to a saturation point where you just simply run out of words in the Thesaurus to describe an archetype that fills the same niche but with/for a different class. Then you either start making up names, using names from other languages, or just ending up with some really odd, out of the depths of obscurity names.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I am going to remind folks here one last time to knock off the sniping and personal attacks. I am seeing way too many posts that are getting flagged or deleted by staff. If it keeps up, some folks are going to get a time out.
I blame the Skald. Clearly, his Raging Song has piped out of his own thread.
Though that makes me think- as much incense as the Warpriest discussion raises, maybe one of his abilities should be (or be renamed) Passion of the Faith?
The Arcanist needs more utility exploits.
This would be cool. Jason mentions that this is only a sample list; perhaps utility exploits weren't included since the abilities most likely to see use in a playtest (and those most in need of balancing) are the combat exploits?
I guess most of us think the Pathfinder setting is more renaissance than modern. And back then, the sum of all knowledge was such that a single person could have a good sense of most of it. That is why we talk of renaissance men and exalt the great names from this time. Today the sum of all knowledge is such that even a genius can only grasp a little bit of it. Not so in heroic fantasy.
Hmmm. The sum of all knowledge has not increased so much in the last 500 years that it is suddenly insurmountably impossible for society to produce Renaissance men.
Haven't followed this discussion from the start, but it occurs to me that perhaps the enchantment types should be tied to domains granted, rather than specific deities; that way, they are more easily used in non-Golarion campaigns, or new deities can be used, etc.?
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
I would have liked to see exploits that let you change:
As noted in the Jason Bulmahn's revision post, this is not a complete list of Exploits, just a sampling.
Craft Cheese wrote:
I like it; this is more in line with the idea I have had in my head for a "spellhacker" certainly.
That said, I think this revision comes pretty close, so I'm happy to see what direction it goes from here as well.
Say how many spells can I prepare per day as a 2nd level Arcanist? This one has me stumped. It says to refer to the table for it, but the only one available is spells per day.
It's referring to the table for the first draft of the class in the Playtest document. Per Jason Bulmahn, spells prepared hasn't changed for the revision.
But you know what? I'm tired of this argument. Paizo doesn't care if this class is freaking broken or not. I'll just ban it in my games and try to keep a modicum of balance... I gotta admit I didn't expect the ACG to be the very first book to convince me ban a whole class. That's some serious ground-breaking.
This revision just came out for playtesting. So that the devs could get some feedback on what might need to be changed or revised. Tonight.
Hello, Sky? This is Chicken Little. You're not really falling. Let's give the process a bit of a chance to work; this is all still early days yet.
Craft Cheese wrote:
Flavor: The problem with the "new" flavor is that, well, it's not really new. There's no character concept the arcanist fills that could not have been done with a Wizard. Wizards already tinker and search for new magics, that's the entire point of the spellbook and spell research mechanics. I guess Arcanists are supposed to be better at it, somehow? Why?
They're better at certain aspects of it, not all of it. The wizard is still the generalist (well, and a specialist in some areas); the wizard is the academic of the arcane world. He studies, creates reams of scholastic papers that sit in dusty shelves. He teaches and theorizes.
The arcanist takes shortcuts. He thinks outside the box. He's the prodigy that dropped out of school because it was too restrictive, and went off to court the venture capitalists and create a startup.
What if the deities' choice of weapon is as much a test of their warpriest's faith as it is pure fancy?
Pharasma: "Thou shalt destroy thine undead foes with... a dagger!"
Warpriest: "Yes! Ever your most dedicated servant am I... wait. What?"
Pharasma: "Thine faith shall be both weapon and shield." (holds forth tiny dagger)
Warpriest: "Err... okay."
Other gods snickering in the background. "She loses more faithful that way."
(Tongue firmly in cheek here; it isn't actually a poor way of considering it, and I am definitely in favor of keeping the deity weapon focus as a core part of the concept.)
Minor terminology quibble here: an opposed check involves both parties (not adventuring parties, but entities) comparing dice.
lol! Yes, you are correct. See, this is why I've had to wait years for the guys at Paizo to put together this sort of class for me. :)
Then a spell tinkerer check (d20 + arcanist level) vs the DC of the spell?
Just thinking out loud here- obviously haven't had a chance to test anything yet- but I'm wondering if Spell Tinkerer might need to be done as an opposed check versus the DC of the spell if the spell effect is not one created by the Arcanist? I'm not sure a 1st level Arcanist should be able to suppress the Hallucinatory Terrain effect of a 20th level Wizard, for instance.
Okay- this is mechanically pretty close to the idea I have been toying with for years. On first read, I am liking this quite a lot.
(I mean, mechanically other than the exploits and such; I hadn't envisioned such a class taking that kind of feature, but I was struggling with how to represent it mechanically, and this kind of covers a lot of the bases that I wanted to create, but couldn't think of how to do it without a lot of different abilities.)
I was thinking last night that a neat ability- a feat or archetype feature or something- might be to allow the Arcanist to usurp control of another spellcaster's magical effects.
I tried to do something like that with an RPG superstar entry from a couple years back, but don't quite have the mechanics down.
Yes. It was lampooned in several Dragon magazine articles (generally the April Fool's issues) as I recall as well. It certainly was used quite a bit in letters to the editor of that magazine for a long time, which is where I first saw it, and was thus attributable to the community for a long time prior to both the card game and the WotC boards (or the internet, for that matter). Hard as that is to visualize for many.
In any event, think we're all veering a wee bit off-topic now, eh?
I can't wait for the spellhacker. I've been wanting one of those for years, ever since I envisioned a character in a story as having that sort of role. I just could never work out the mechanics of how it should look, game-wise.
Also, the idea of the Investigator negating poison is kind of cool.
Just tossing blades of grass in the wind here, but- it probably has something to do with the fact that this is a *playtest*, and not a *critical analysis* test.
They're not trying to get 50,000 extra designers on board, they'd just like some feedback into whether what the designers they've got are doing something that works and that is enjoyed.
On top of which, frankly, is the fact that the critical analysis that people seem to feel is falling upon deaf ears is not, in fact, falling upon deaf ears. Just because the folks at Paizo aren't jumping in to respond to every criticism, every suggestion, and every complaint, doesn't mean they aren't responding off-boards. (Vis a vis, the Arcanist revisions.)
I think there is a really strong sense of entitlement that comes along with the playtest that people seem to think they are going to have a direct and quantifiable role in the design process of these classes that is not only unrealistic, but completely unwarranted. It's the same sort of sense of entitlement that accompanied months of "When's it out? Is it out yet? How about now? C'mon guys! How long does it take to slap something together and put it out for us to look at? For free?"
Then maybe you aren't really wanting to play a warpriest at all? Perhaps one of the other choices- cleric, paladin, inquisitor- might be more to your liking?
And if you don't like the flavor of a given deity's chosen weapon, pick another deity. Or play another class. As Ciretose says, the favored weapon is one of the hallmarks of this particular class. They are the chosen warriors of the deity, and it only makes sense that they would primarily use the deity's favored weapon.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
This makes me even more excited to see it, since it is sounding a bit more like the "spell hacker" sort of class I've long wanted to try and create, but couldn't quite figure out how to work the mechanics. You guys have much more experience at that sort of thing, so I'm eager to see what results.
One thing that I had sort of thought about in those terms would be somehow using metamagic, but on other people's spells and spell effects. I am not sure it sounds like you're going that way, but perhaps the framework you come up with will allow some tweaking to make such a thing possible.
Similarly, in response to the questions about artificers- I don't think this class will probably end up that direction, but it might lend itself to an archetype of that nature, or at least (like above) provide a framework on which to hang an artificer's abilities down the road.
Whether we see this in a playtest or at the time of the ACG release, I am looking forward to it!
So, it's the Inquisitor with slightly different abilities. Again, why do we need another one of those when it already exists in a better form?
You don't need to know why the designers feel there's room for it in order to playtest it.
In my opinion, it's pretty clearly to fill the niche that the paladin is too narrowly defined to fit; holy warrior, minus the restrictive code.
The devs already made the decision to work over the Arcanist when people pointed out its shortcomings in the "where does it stand?" department, so I hope they will at least give us a good idea what their intent with the Warpriest is.
playtest document wrote:
"The warpriest turns the divine nature of the cleric into a raw weapon that fuses with the fighter's battlefield mastery."
playtest document wrote:
From the playtest document. It's a fighter-cleric. That's pretty straightforward.
And for the Riftwar fans, the scene that popped immediately to my head when I read the description was when Macros took the little magic hammer and used its magic power to enchant Arutha's sword.
Never read the Riftwar saga, but now that you mention the above image, I thought of something that might be a really interesting fit for retooling of the Arcanist as described by Jason: using the bound magic of magic items in crafting (enchanting different items, or adding abilities to them).
That would be really cool, and might lead to a sort of Artificer archetype that some have been wanting.
This sounds very exciting; I've long wanted to see a class like this- someone who can see the very essence of magic and manipulate it directly- kind of a "spell hacker". Altering and manipulating the "code" of magic cast by others to their own ends.
This isn't quite the same, but it feels similar to what I envisioned, and I'm interested to see what you guys do with it.
This is what I like about the concept. If you stay war priest, your Gods favored weapon would become awesome due to the fact you are a warpriest.
It's one of the things I like, too. If some of those weapon options seem less than maximized to some players, so be it. Select another deity, or perhaps the warpriest isn't the concept for you. From a game world perspective, not all Gods are going to have warpriests (just as not all have paladins).
I'd really like to see Sean or Jason or Mark address what the concept of the Warpriest is.
It's pretty well spelled out already; both in the foreward of the playtest document (cleric and fighter) as well as in the descriptive text of the class itself- it fills a similar conceptual role to the paladin (martial divine) but without all the alignment/moral restrictions.
Now whether you agree that the class fills those purposes or not is a different matter, but the concept is clear enough. It pretty much fills the same role as the Arcanist, as I see it. Offering more flexibility than one of the existing classes it overlaps, while still offering some of the abilities of another of the classes it overlaps.
Give it trapfindning.
You know, that makes me think (and it may have already been suggested) that maybe adding something akin to the Trapper's trap ability wouldn't be out of place in a Hunter class. I know others have mentioned that (with tracking coming in at 2nd level) the Hunter isn't quite as great a hunter/tracker as a Ranger, but that might even the playing field a little bit on that side of things.
Oh, and another ability that I really wanted was Urban Tracking. I think that might really work well as a talent.
There is Perceptive Tracking, and Survival in PF doesn't really make quite the same distinction between tracking in urban environments vs. wilderness environments that 3.5 did (that I can see).
As to the "add 1d6" talents, I too was a bit confused about the wording there at first. As I read it, if you take those talents, you can automatically add 1d6 to the rolls for the skills called out by the talent, as opposed to spending an inspiration point for it. Wording might need some clarification, though.
Channel Energy, Sacred Weapon, and Sacred Armor could all be rolled up into one pool. This would lessen the counters needed to be tracked.
This is pretty good. I've been racking my brain trying to think of a good way to emulate something like this, for the same reasons you cite; bookkeeping, if nothing else. Having all these x/rounds+minutes+times per day abilities just makes the warpriest's abilities too cumbersome, IMO. I think using the Channel Energy feature as a pool in some way is a good idea, and I think you have hit on a way to do that that I couldn't quite get my mind around.