|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Deighton Thrane wrote:
This actually reminds me of something me and a buddy were talking about lately, can you decide to not apply your strength to damage? Neither of us could actually find something that actually says you can. It seems silly that you couldn't give someone a love tap, instead of trying to knock their head off their shoulders, though. Probably one of those things the designers didn't bother putting in like characters needing to sleep.
I guess that's kind of what I mean....Are you for example allowed to say I'm only going to use 3 of my 6 attack bonus, and forgo my strength mod to damage ?
And rightfully so...apologies.I wish I could blame it on auto correct, but the plain simple truth is that when I am more focused on the content than the presentation...my dyslexia tends to creep in :(
As the name doesn't trigger an auto-correct response...I didn't even notice.
Tha mi duilich
Sources of Scott's usage by modern neo-pagans are easy to find on the internet...just punch in the term warlock...or reclaiming warlock...and you will find a gaggle of pages dedicated to the topic.
As far as usage prior to the eighties...it's not the term warlock coming about in the eighties...it's large scale adoption of the idea that it means "oathbreaker". Prior to the eighties, it's more a matter of LACK of usage (ie: warlock = oathbreaker).
As it was used by the Scott's, it could refer to the act of attracting/binding a spirit to service...or blocking/barring them (as in the use of the term Warlocking...to protect something from spirits)or it's use in some place where spirits where bound (eg: a warlocked glade).
In other words, you can't cite "a source" for "it wasn't used to mean oathbreaker"....when it wasn't used to mean oathbreaker ;)
Generally when people (ie: wiccanate types) go that route with me (which they often do), I ask them to show me a single example in Scott's lore (or actually any lore)where it IS used to mean oathbreaker. To date, no one has been able to come up with a single example prior to modern times.
However, when all is said and done...people will believe what they want to believe. I'll keep using the meaning my culture uses....and if modern neo-pagans want to think I mean "oathbreaker" if I use the term....it really doesn't matter ;)
I came to the same conclusion about using Synthesist...it would certainly be easier to use the synthesist....but as that seems too often be the case for concepts I have...I was trying to go with the class that "should" be able to do it. Eventually my table is going to get sick of me using synthesist for every bloody concept :P
Honestly it never even occurred to me to play my strength as "less than" it's actual value....is that even allowed ?
I did consider giving him a bit higher strength score...but giving him the Mania condition...to replicate his ever increasing addiction to his mutagen...
My thinking was that he suffered the "sickened" effect whenever he is not under the effect of his mutagen. The -2 more or less equals a -4 to his strength score....
Completely missed that he wouldn't get Persistent Mutagen either :(
I am revisiting a character concept I tried a while back...but dropped due to frustration on actually getting it where I wanted it.
Human Master Chemist...
Just couldn't clear the gap in my last attempt...so I'm basically looking for methods that really boost the gap between the goals on STR, and will last the duration of the mutagen (average of 2 hours per level).
I'm also looking for way's to buff DR/AC that will last as long as the mutagen.
Any ideas ???
That's part of why a lot of modern witches hate the term "warlock."
Only American neo-pagans. In Scotland the majority of male neo-pagans use the term Warlock ;)
Even in early modern Witch trads, the term was not associated with "oathbreaker"...that came about in the early eighties after American wiccans stumbled across dictionary references based on Tolkien's entries in the Oxford Dictionary (and I know this because I was involved in the discussions BTW).
The real hurdles are that
It is entirely possible that the English, when hearing the Scott's use the term Warlock associated it with their word for oathbreaker....but it was certainly not what the Scott's meant when the used the term ;)
Literature/Comics/History .... Keep in mind that in many cases the words Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch/Warlock/Magus have all described the exact same kind of character. It's only in the context of Pathfinder that they have different meanings.
Not entirely true...Historically many cultures use a wide number of specific terms that address specific differences in "magic specialists" within the culture.
Example: "Wizards come from Vili, Sorcerers and Warlocks come from Vé" (Norse). They are using specific titles to address at least perceived differences in how these individuals practice/work/sometimes gender.
You see the same thing across all of Europe, and just about every other culture I have researched.. with very specialized titles for a wide range of specialists.
It's not until after conversion that they are all dumped into the same pot so to speak ;)
Of the existing classes, the Shaman, and possibly the Medium, and Spiritualist, come closest to the Scott's version of a warlock.
Neal Litherland wrote:
In general good information is not available online...so I don't do a lot of tracking internet sources, with the exception of the occasional thing that's pointed out to me by friends. I do know that both Claudes books, and Eva Poc's book are available usually at local libraries.
If you want solid academic information...with the exception of some colleges, and a few organizations, that make solid material available on line from time to time....it's best to steer clear of the internet ;)
Neal Litherland wrote:
For witch lore, the most easily obtained academic sources would be Claude Lecouteux- Witches werewolves and fairies (he includes an extensive bibliography of extant sources if your interested in the original stories, or translations of... if an english speaker)and Eva Poc's also has several books covering the topic....however her focus is more on Hungarian (which actually matches the Scandinavian/Germanic closely at least in early examples).
You want to look at sources that are pre-medieval first, as the medieval period is where many of the changes in perception occur.
To my knowledge, no one has done a specific/indepth study of the Scott's term warlock...so you have to do a bit more research under your own power. There was an etymological paper done by a linguist in the early 2000, addressing the unlikelyhood that the term evolved from "oath breaker. I'll try and find you a link to the full article....here is an excerpt as an example....
" If, as is posited in many Modern English dictionaries, the word"warlock" comes from a ME "warloghe" from OE "w¾rloga", then the Modern form we should expect to see would be something like warlow, or werlow, since the tendency to move from 'gh' to 'w' is strong in English, and from 'gh' to 'ck' unknown.
When one also considers the semantic shift,i.e., from "traitor, oathbreaker" to "sorcerer, conjurer", this all begins to introduce an element of doubt as to the actual etymology."
Beyond that it's really a matter of simply looking at Scott's lore, and later english translations that use the term "warlock"....there is not a single case that an argument can be made for a meaning of "oathbreaker" and no example of that meaning prior to Tolkien's entries to that effect ;)
EDIT: BTW just checked his sources....none of which are considered "reliable" academic sources.
What I find particularly funny is that the article asserts that the word's origin meant "Oath-Breaker" and the 4th and 5th edition Warlocks are about forging pacts with some kind of powerful entity, they get power from an Oath.
It's far more likely that the Scott's term "Warlock" comes from the Scandinavian term "varÝlokkur" or "spirit chanter/binder".
This fit's all aspects of etymological and folklore usage.
Some interesting historical tid bit's.....
The term Witch was in it's earliest usage (Germanic) referring to a strictly supernatural being (not a living mortal). A being who caused harm to humans (especially children) cattle and field....and would often torment people over a period of time.
Over time the idea evolved that they could also "posses" (for lack of a better term) someone and work through them to cause harm. Interestingly, early stories hold the person manipulated in this manner innocent by the community.
Still later, we begin to see the idea that mortals can also learn "witch craft" to curse and cause harm to the community, and eventually the original harmful spirit seems to fade from folklore, and the idea that a witch is generally a mortal takes over.
The idea of a "good witch" is a strictly modern invention, not attested to in any older folklore.
The term Warlock, is likewise not specifically attached to the idea of a "male witch" until reasonably modern time...
No where in folklore is the term warlock ever used to indicate an "oath breaker"...and the idea that it is related to the term wearlog appears no where prior to Tolkien stating it as a possible Germanic root word that the Scott's adopted.
Just a heads up, people aren't asking for sexy men. Rugged, bad ass men can be sexy too. What people are asking for are less rugged, more feminine men that are...
Nah...rugged men are far more sexy than swishy little teenage twinks:PWhat would be nice to see is a perfectly average/"normal" (neither "butch beyond measure" or a "teenage fem/twink" that was also openly homosexual.
THAT would be a score ;)
I'm of the opinion that calling the phantom from the ethereal plane taking a full minute is fine...but if it's already "housed" in your consciousness, should only take a standard action to manifest, possibly decreasing even that as you level up.
I personally love the idea of your phantom appearing in front of you as an immediate action to take a hit for you at higher levels....and being able to switch from incorporeal to material form in a timely fashion could be a very interesting way to give the phantom a bit more use in combat.
I spent most of the playtest focused on the Medium...so have just been getting to some of the other classes...all in all, I like the keneticist...and that's coming from someone who not horribly into elemental themed stuff. My first thought was that I could pretty easily re-skin a Spellfire wielder with this class...something like
Class skills: A spellfire wielder adds Kn: Arcana and Spellcraft to her list of class skills.
Simple Blast: A spellfire wielder has access to the following simple blast wild talent.
Defense: a spellfire wielder has access to the following defensive wild talent at 2nd level.
create a few new wild talents...and BINGO...the spellfire weilder I have always wanted ;)
That said, I hope they come up with a few more options less tied to the four basic elements...or methods of modifying basic elements, for example "hell fire" or such.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Many thanks Mark. I heard comments to this effect from several of the Dev's...looking foreword to hearing these.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
The goliath druid gains special access to the enlarge person spell (with some restrictions and some advantages), has a specific choice of domains & subdomains if she goes that route, and must select a dinosaur or megafauna as a companion if she goes THAT route. Her wild shape is altered to add giant form, and her summon nature's ally lists has been expanded with additional dinos, giants, and megafauna.
Many thanks....don't care for dinos and megafauna, but being able to use wild shape for Giant Form is exactly what I was looking for ;)
Mark Seifter wrote:
I've noticed there have been no blog posts pretty much all week...is something going on ?
Nope....medium is still a mess....at least IMOAt this point I would rather be playing a spiritualist...
So I'm guessing that's a no.....
Mark Seifter wrote:
Then could we maybe get some of the non-combat options ?I am rebuilding from the ground for our last round of playtest...and really everything seems intent on pushing me into a melee role.
Problem is, my attraction to this class has nothing to do with a melee role....that's not what I'm looking for out of it....yet I'm stuck playing a melee character.
The Phantom may not be able to attack....but all allies gain the +2 to attacks and +4 bonus to damage.
If the Medium is given a both spells and class abilities independent of the Spirits, it'd help players understand how to build a Medium better, with Spirits only emphasizing the aspects they want.
I would actually be fine, and in fact would prefer, if the existing mechanic of spirits determining your spell known was kept in place.And I'm fine with keeping the skills/level at +4.
I think the current spirit progression, and the abilities gained would be fine as well if the class had 6 levels of casting, but right now it's to pigeon holed into a melee role....and that's not what I was hoping for from the class.