Six new classes announced for the Advanced Player's Guide.
It has been let slip that Wayne Reynolds will be doing iconics for each in the style of the existing ones (Awesome for me! I know some don't like him, but it does have a nice continuity and add validation via art.)
So, will we be seeing them on the cover of an AP, I know it will be expensive, so its seems mad to only use them in the APG.
Also, will they get the same treatment as the original 12, as in monthly blog releases with backstories!? Because that was my favourite time ever on the Paizo blog, it may actually have gotten me hooked (I can't escape now, they were a gateway drug!).
I'm really psyched, I know we may not get much this far out, but the more the better. Would they be on the cover of Kingmaker? Or the Mwangi faction heavy AP? Or perhaps the additional cost of cover backgrounds from WAR means they are not destined for appearance on an AP.
It is also likely we'll see a half-orc! Woo!
Okay... *cathces breath*
I'm excited now too. Can't wait to see what they create.
Six new classes eh? Maybe we'll finally get a descent Shaman class. I'm guessing the Blackguard class is pretty much set in stone (though I don't really know why they're changing it to a class instead of just updating the Prestige Class). Maybe we'll also see a Marshal/Warlord type of class? What about Prestige Classes? Is there any chance we'll see new ones or updates to existing ones?
|
Six new classes eh?
Here's what we know so far, from the Blog;
The first class I want to look at is the Cavalier. While traditionally, this class has been focused on mounted combat, we have learned that classes such as this suffer terribly by the circumstances of the adventure. As such, the cavalier is going to have some aspects that make it a great mounted combatant, but it will also focus on directing and controlling a battlefield through a system of class features that allow it to enhance allies, unnerve opponents, and challenge foes. Unlike a bard, the cavalier will focus on individuals instead of large numbers, allowing it to have some greater effects. The class will not rely on spells or magic to get the job done, but it will be a bit more skill-focused than some of the other martial classes, especially when it comes to Charisma-based skills.
Next up is the Alchemist. Now, I know what you are thinking. Brewing alchemist fire and crafting tindertwigs is not the stuff of adventurers, and hardly enough to build an entire class around. On that, I would agree, but we are taking this in a slightly different direction. Think of the alchemist a bit more like Dr. Jekyll. He brews up elixirs, mixes up unguents and powders, and crafts all sorts of tricks to use in a fight. While some of these will certainly mimic spells, others might allow him to gain fiendish qualities, breath fire, or even transform into a puddle of living ooze. At higher levels, he will be able to use some of his concoctions on others, granting them some of his strange abilities. This class will work like an arcane caster, in that he will prepare his alchemy for the day and use them as day goes on, as they most likely do not keep for long. There will undoubtedly be a host of new alchemical items in the book for him to tinker with as well.
Next up is the Summoner. I should note that the title for this one is still a bit temporary as it does not quite convey the concepts we are looking for. This class is focused on the creation or summoning of a monster combatant or guardian. Think of it as a sort of arcane animal companion that is a magical beast, outsider, or aberration instead of an animal. While the class will still be able to cast arcane spells, in a bit more of a limited fashion than a sorcerer, it will have a number of abilities to enhance and empower its creation. Some of these will be able to be applied on the fly, while others will happen only when the summoner gains levels. The class will have a list of abilities that can be added to a monster as you gain levels, with more powerful abilities made available to use in your monster's construction at higher levels. To top it off, the class will be a bit variable in theme. You could be a pious summoner, creating a divine champion to guard and protect you, or you could be a foul chirurgeon, creating your monster from the corpses of other dead monsters.
Finally, the last class I want to talk about is the Oracle. This class is a spontaneous divine caster that is not devoted to any one god. Instead it is devoted to a particular concept or domain. The oracle draws his power from all the deities that support that concept, but none of them particularly hold any domain over him. A great example here would be Hercules, who would make a great oracle of strength. The class provides spontaneous divine casting, but the focus provides a host of other abilities and powers. You could expect feats of great might from the oracle of strength, while the oracle of fire is probably going to be able to roast you alive if you anger him. Think of the oracle more as an expert on a single topic and less as a seer of the future and you are close to the theme we are going for. I am really excited about what this class could do and the roleplaying options it presents. I might even have to give my current character a break to play an oracle as soon as the class is ready.
That leaves two in the dark, although I believe it was said that they would be announced around the time of a big Con in Australia (Brisbane?).
To be used in an AP, ideally, the class options should include something tank-y (Cavalier), something mage-y (Summoner?), something skillmonkey (Alchemist?) and something that heals (Oracle), so it looks like just these four could become the Iconics on the covers of the next AP, with the last two either showing up in that AP (perhaps with the Iconics serving as *villains* in that AP!) or the next, alongside more familiar faces.
|
I'd prefer something more like "Avatar" or "Champion" or "Paragon", or others.Paragon, Exemplar or Archetype or something would definitely fit better than Oracle. We'll see where they go.
Yeah. I want something that you can say "[Example] of [thing]!" and have everyone go "Oh, he must be really good at [thing]!" and not "So he tells the future of [thing]?"
Incarnate sounds intense. "I am FIRE INCARNATE!" Yeah, I like the ring of that.
It's a name I won't be using, unless I'm really mistaken about how the class will turn out.
Ok.
I actually liked oracle.
But Incarnate is too good.
It really, really works with the stated concept (a domain-based class, gods help but don't require supplication, etc).
Death Incarnate would make such a great villain NPC.
Please call it the Incarnate.
Creative Director
|
So, will we be seeing them on the cover of an AP, I know it will be expensive, so its seems mad to only use them in the APG.
Also, will they get the same treatment as the original 12, as in monthly blog releases with backstories!? Because that was my favourite time ever on the Paizo blog, it may actually have gotten me hooked (I can't escape now, they were a gateway drug!).
I considered putting these six iconics on the cover of an AP; that's actually the main reason we decided to do six iconics, in fact. But in the end, we decided against it. Pathfinder's current method of putting core and important NPCs on the covers helps to build an AP's theme, and putting new iconics on the cover would be weird. Also... we'd not want to "cross the streams" and would have Wayne do the cover paintings as well as the iconics, and we've already got him doing a lot of covers. He doesn't have time to do all those covers AND six additional Pathfinder AP covers, alas.
But the main reason? The Advanced Player's Guide classes aren't core. If we put these iconics on a Pathfinder AP cover, we would (and should) include them as characters in the back, which means we'd have to stat them up. And since the APG isn't a core book, we'd have to reprint ALL of the rules for these characters so that they'd be playable by anyone who picks up a copy of Pathfinder AP, not just those who also own the Advanced Player's Guide. And seeing as how at higher levels we have a tough time fitting core classes into the half-page format... there's NO WAY we could do the same for the "new iconics."
So! You can expect to see six blog posts in the future when we introduce the new iconics and their histories. You can also expect to see them showing up in art now and then. But the primary focus will remain on the 12 core iconics.
|
Creative Director
|
As for the oracle... we at Paizo are pretty fond of it, and it's unlikely to change. When you think of a "wizard" or a "rogue" or a "barbarian" you immediately have a mental picture of what they look like, appearance-wise. For us at Paizo, when we hit upon the word "oracle" as a class name, ALL of us at the table had a very similar idea of the character's appearance pop into our head. This doesn't happen for words like "incarnate" or "avatar" or a lot of other names.
So, oracle is a STRONG class name in that regard. And assuming we stick with it (which I assume we will), in six months or a year it'll feel right. I mean... before D&D decided to make the ranger an iconic class, I bet there would have been a similar outcry about "this name makes no sense!" Now, the ranger's pretty obvious what it is, but that's because of years of familiarity.
We DO listen to customer feedback, but sometimes we have to temper that feedback with other factors. The name "orcale" isn't 100% locked in yet (none of the names are), but it's very unlikely that we'll decide to change it.
In any case... we will be doing public playtests of these characters in a few months.
For us at Paizo, when we hit upon the word "oracle" as a class name, ALL of us at the table had a very similar idea of the character's appearance pop into our head.
I definitely have a strong idea of what an "oracle" should look like (an old guy or a young woman giving out cryptic advice), but the description that Jason gave in the blog sounded way, way different.
Oracle => Hercules? What the heck?
|
I'd like to throw in an additional vote for incarnate, that just sounds b~@+*in, I mean pure win.
As for oracle, the image that imeddiately pops into my head is a blind guy with a cloth over his eyes that predicts the future and sees without eyes who has no combat capability whatsoever, or a drugged up hot lady who dances topless and predicts the future. So, if you're going to have an Oracle, please use the second image for the art.
I really wonder what the heck pops into you guys at paizos heads when you hear the word oracle because I can't think of anything that sounds remotely like what you've represented.
As for ranger, before I ever played dnd, the first image that pops into my head is a woodsman/hunter (park rangers anyone?) or a specialized combatant with stealth training (military rangers) so no I don't think that the imagry for the word was as ill fitting as the oracle is for the concept described. I mean, I'm not opposed to it or anything, just saying I'm really curious as to what you guys see since you say that the name is so evocative.
Oracle => Hercules? What the heck?
Hercules = Strength Incarnate.
Checks out. :/
Well, I don't want to push too hard, since it speaks for itself:
but the idea that a person can gain their power from a single domain or concept like "Good", "Fire", "Evil", "Death", or "Strength" is evoked much more effectively by Incarnate than Oracle.
Incarnate derives from latin literally meaning "made flesh". I think Hercules would be much better described as "Strength made flesh" than "an Oracle of Strength".
But hey, I liked "Oracle" before "Incarnate" came along.
|
Creative Director
|
The image that popped into all of our minds was indeed a blind mysterious looking woman dressed in robes and armed with magic stuff.
For "incarnate," nothing pops into mind because there's not a real-world tradition for whatever an incarnate might be. And since nothing pops into mind, ANYTHING could be an incarnate, and that makes it a fundamentally flawed and weak choice for a base class name.
Jason's example of Hercules as a strength oracle was an attempt to show folks that, just as not all wizards are fireball shooters (some are necromancers, some are diviners, some are enchanters, etc. and thus all very different looking and acting even though they're still all wizards), not all oracles are focused on the domain of knowledge. The ICONIC oracle will be, though, because that's what an iconic oracle is to a lot of folks.
|
I'm with everyone else, I think of the word "Oracle" and the following things pop into my mind.
- "Auracle" CD by Lesiem
- A matronly woman in the Matrix who knows things beyond the core programming.
- A person, such as the Divine Oracle prestige class, who has an amazing precognitive ability.
- A person who consults runes, tarot cards, or other means of divination as a means of providing advice for someone else. (i.e. "Let's go consult the oracle")
- A ouiji board or similar oracular device.
I'm curious and very interested in knowing how or why the term "Oracle" brings up something other than what I have come up with.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Mr. Jacobs. An Incarnate of Knowledge, though could very well be considered an Oracle, much as a Wizard specializing in the school of divination would be considered a Diviner.
Is it wrong that the description of the oracle class makes me want to have a character that shouts, "SHAZAM!"?
As to the iconics, any hope that we might someday get writeups on the backgrounds for the iconic prestige classes presented in the core rulebook (aside from the one we already have, of course)?
|
|
Is it wrong that the description of the oracle class makes me want to have a character that shouts, "SHAZAM!"?
As to the iconics, any hope that we might someday get writeups on the backgrounds for the iconic prestige classes presented in the core rulebook (aside from the one we already have, of course)?
These are in the daily blog... :) Have to go back a bit.
Jason's example of Hercules as a strength oracle was an attempt to show folks that, just as not all wizards are fireball shooters (some are necromancers, some are diviners, some are enchanters, etc. and thus all very different looking and acting even though they're still all wizards), not all oracles are focused on the domain of knowledge.
It just seems a little weird, like renaming the "ranger" to the "archer" and then saying that it's possible to have an archer who doesn't use a bow. YMMV, obviously! :-)
|
|
Possible Alternatives for "Oracle" (My suggestions in bold.)
From different thesaurus entries.
astrologer, augur, auspex, bard, clairvoyant, diviner, druid, evocator, forecaster, fortuneteller, haruspex, horoscopist, magus, medium, meteorologist, ovate, palmist, predictor, prognosticator, prophet, prophesier, reader, seer, seeress, sibyl, soothsayer, sorcerer, tea-leaf reader, witch, wizard,
diviner, forecaster, harbinger, herald, prognosticator, prophet, seer, soothsayer
acceptor, adherent, apostle, canonist, convert, devotee, disciple, doctrinaire, dogmatist, follower, freak, orthodox, prophet, proselyte, religionist, religious person, supporter, upholder, zealot
charmer, conjurer, diabolist, diviner, enchanter, enchantress, exorciser, exorcist, feats or tricks archimage, fortune-teller, genie, genius, illusionist, marvel, medicine person, medium, miracle worker, necromancer, prophet, satanist, seer, shaman, siren, soothsayer, sorcerer, spellbinder, thaumaturge, theurgist, trickster, virtuoso, voodoo, warlock, witch, witch doctor, wizard
agent, ambassador, bearer, carrier, commissionaire, courier, crier, delegate, delivery person, detachment, detail, dispatcher, emissary, envoy, errand person, flag-bearer, forerunner, go-between, gofer, harbinger, herald, intermediary, mediator, minister, post, precursor, prophet, runner, schlepper
For "incarnate," nothing pops into mind because there's not a real-world tradition for whatever an incarnate might be. And since nothing pops into mind, ANYTHING could be an incarnate, and that makes it a fundamentally flawed and weak choice for a base class name.
I don't agree with this, but I'm backing off because I liked Oracle too.
To say that there is no real-world tradition of an incarnate, well... the dictionary begs to differ.
I'm with everyone else, I think of the word "Oracle" and the following things pop into my mind.
A matronly woman in the Matrix who knows things beyond the core programming.
But never says anything? Sure, she talks, but she doesn't ever tell anything to anyone. She just tells people that they already know what they want to know. Iconic fail. :P
I'm curious and very interested in knowing how or why the term "Oracle" brings up something other than what I have come up with.
When I hear or read oracle, I think of databases. Hm... I wonder if I can programme that new base class since I haven't worked with it for a while.
But basically, oracle means speaker. (Same origin as oral)
I can see a speaker for Irori be all about knowledge, and dispensing knowledge.
But that's not for every deity. Do you think Kurgess's oracle will speak for him about smarty-pants stuff? No, he'll tell you how cool it is to keep hitting the gym to become stronger. Gorum's oracle will use sign language, and he will shout. Shelyn's oracle will be all about soppy poems. And let's just not go into what Calistria's oracles talk about. Let's just say that you usually have to call a hotline that costs a lot of money to hear that sort of talk.
So the way I see it, for knowledge deities, the oracle can be like the oracle we know from myth.
An Incarnate of Knowledge, though could very well be considered an Oracle,
Incarnate isn't perfect, either.
What does the name evoke? Not much. There's stuff like "death incarnate" or "evil incarnate" that is sometimes used.
Incarnate means "made flesh".
Does that work? Knowledge made flesh? How do you make knowledge flesh?
Plus, it sounds very much like something that is the very impersonation of that concept.
The Grim Reaper is death incarnate. Some 1st-level follower of the death goddess isn't. She just isn't. When I hear "Death Incarnate", I think about something that sucks the life out of everything it touches. When I hear Death Incarnate, I think of someone who will take on a whole fleet of souped-up destroyer class ships enhanced with shadow technology, and winning.
Beyond that, when I read incarnate I think about a weird 3e book that never had much success.
So I think oracle can indeed work as well as incarnate, maybe better.
So we might as well go with that, or think of something even better.
Technically, incarnate isn't nounable either.
...but noun is verbable, evidently.
And verb is adjectivable.
|
|
The image that popped into all of our minds was indeed a blind mysterious looking woman dressed in robes and armed with magic stuff.
No see you're mixing my two examples into something I didn't suggest, I said I saw a blind man that fits your description,
The woman was supposed to be hot as hell and drugged up dancing topless. That's the image I expect you to run with of the two...:D
|
|
For "incarnate," nothing pops into mind because there's not a real-world tradition for whatever an incarnate might be. And since nothing pops into mind, ANYTHING could be an incarnate, and that makes it a fundamentally flawed and weak choice for a base class name.
See I think the exact opposite, I find that as a strength. Incarnate can be anything, so it doesn't sound weird when you say herculese is strength incarnate. But at the same time, incarnate is an evocative word, so being a strength incarnate, or a chaos incarnate doesn't sound as shoehorned as oracle, it does sound wierd as f*%% when you say herculese is a strength oracle. Because oracle from what it seems like Oracle pulls the same image for everyone when it comes down to it, and the description of the class doesn't fit, rather, one aspect of the class fits, and I think the other poster said it best, a knowledge, or divination incarnate can be called an oracle, but for the most part it seems weird the other way around.
I think Hogarth said it best. Saying an Oracle of Strength, sounds like renaming ranger archer and then saying "yeah, but think of conan as an archer of swords" wtf?
And maybe you're right, maybe after a few years we'd get used to it, but then again maybe it'll never really catch on.
Oracle works great! (Plus it reminds me of the old "N"PC class in Dragon Magazine lo these many years past.) Why mess with perfection?
Technically, incarnate isn't nounable either.
...but noun is verbable, evidently.
And verb is adjectivable.
Now I have a headache
And I like Paragon or Paradigm myself
Just sayin is all
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
In the end, does it matter what the published name is? In your games you can call them whatever you want. Don't want to walk around as the Oracle of Law? Call yourself Law Incarnate. Or the Magus of Laws. Or Paragon of Law. Whatever. Chances are the classes won't be very prevalent in many publications outside of the Advanced Player's Guide anyway, since they won't be core. So the main purpose they will serve will be to provide you with a new class to play. Not to make you play with that class under the name they provide.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Oracle works great! Why mess with perfection?
Well, it works, but not in the direction I think the designers want it to.
Noun
1. a shrine in ancient Greece or Rome at which gods were consulted through the medium of a priest or priestess for advice or prophecy
2. a prophecy or statement made by an oracle
3. any person believed to indicate future action with infallible authority [Latin oraculum]
There's lots of dictionary definitions of "oracle". This is representative and will do for our purposes.
If I wanted to build an "Oracle" class, I'd focus on prophesy, on being able to see future actions. Someone about as strong as a ranger or rogue. A class that would give a substantial bonus to reflex saving throws and initiative rolls. In combat, someone able to negate an opponent's dodge bonus to AC.
And everybody reading about an "Oracle" class would understand that. The name corresponds with the strengths of that class.
But it sounds like the design team is looking to build a class that exemplifies a particular divine domain. That's a cool idea. And in the one, specific case of someone exemplifying the Knowledge or (currently hypotethical) Prophesy domains, it would correspond to the idea of "Oracle", not because "Oracle" means "somebody who exemplifies a sphere of experience" but because it is associated with knowledge and prophesy.
For that one narrow example, you're right. The name works great.
For every other domain, Varianor, the term "Oracle" gives the same, but now wrong, image. Everybody's wondering "Hercules, Oracle of Strength??" Likewise, "Miyamoto Musashi, Oracle of War" or "Ilmarinen, Oracle of Artifice." Ilmarinen has nothing to do with oracles. He's simply the immortal smith to the gods.
To the people who think of the DC Comics character, "Oracle" is a good name because she's sitting on all this information. To the people who think of the Database software, the same connotation applies.
For "incarnate," nothing pops into mind because there's not a real-world tradition for whatever an incarnate might be. And since nothing pops into mind, ANYTHING could be an incarnate, and that makes it a fundamentally flawed and weak choice for a base class name.
I think you're learning the wrong lesson from 'Factotem'.
Nothing in general pops into mind with only the term "Incarnate", because there are so many diverse domains. But each specific domain's exemplar will be easy to understand. A "Chaos Incarnate" and a "Charm Incarnate" are going to look and play very different with the same underlying mechanics. But once a new player is presented with something specific, say a "Death Incarnate", she'll have a pretty clear image of what the character's supposed to be like.
Jason's example of Hercules as a strength oracle was an attempt to show folks that, just as not all wizards are fireball shooters (some are necromancers, some are diviners, some are enchanters, etc. and thus all very different looking and acting even though they're still all wizards), not all oracles are focused on the domain of knowledge. The ICONIC oracle will be, though, because that's what an iconic oracle is to a lot of folks.
But an enchanter or necromancer probably still looks like a spellcaster, which is the image normal people get from the term "wizard". Sure, you could have a wizard take a bunch of armor proficiency feats and look odd, but different common arcane casters still evoke the image of "wizard".
In only the special case of the Knowledge domain does the 'exemplar of a domain' generate the right stereotype for a "oracle". All the other common exemplars will look wrong.
And assuming we stick with it (which I assume we will), in six months or a year it'll feel right. I mean... before D&D decided to make the ranger an iconic class, I bet there would have been a similar outcry about "this name makes no sense!" Now, the ranger's pretty obvious what it is, but that's because of years of familiarity.
Look, it's your game. You can call the class anything you please. "Fishmonger". (And, hey, when you say 'Fishmonger', people have a STRONG visual.) People will still play "Fishmongers of Fire" and, after six months, people playing Pathfinder will make whatever mental contortions they need, in order for "Fishmonger" to make sense as a 'exemplar of a domain'. But it'll be an uphill fight. Same with "Oracle".
|
Well, I figure they have been pretty much on the spot so far with the APs, the RPG, and the Setting. They have said things that have made me wonder if they were smoking happy grass or something, but turns out they were always ahead of the rest of us.
So, whatever name they choose, I'll go for it.
Even if the name does flop, they have been right too many times to not trust.
Personally I like the name Incarnate or Paragon (though I think 4E has something about Paragons). I also like the name Oracle, but not for the class as described. But what the heck I'll bite and say sure, Oracle of Strength, or Oracle of Fire works.
And in all honesty, James is probably right, in a few years we'll wonder why anyone would have considered any other name but Oracle.
And everybody reading about an "Oracle" class would understand that. The name corresponds with the strengths of that class.
Why no, I wouldn't understand that. I don't presume to think that anyone else would automatically understand that either! :)
However, I think the point is that the name won't change now either way.
|
|
As for the oracle... we at Paizo are pretty fond of it, and it's unlikely to change.Good! I love the oracle's name (unlike some haters locally), and I was psyched about it from the moment I heard about it at the GenCon seminar.
Jeremy Puckett
Look I don't hate oracle as a class name, I just don't think it fits what they're putting it on. If the oracle class comes out and is named oracle and when I read the class even if they take a domain like strength, or travel, then yeah I'll be the first in line to admit I'm wrong. But what they've described doesn't sound like an oracle to me at all. In the one instance where they take the right domain it sounds right.
But what this is coming across to me as is like what if instead of calling it the wizard class it was instead called Necromancer.
Yeah when a necromancer takes necromancy as his focus school or at least has a bunch of necromancy spells it makes sense. But when you see a necromancer who casts nothing but charm and illusion spells does the name still fit?
Maybe if they had named the class necromancer 15 years ago by now we'd be used to it, but that doesn't mean it fits.
Once again, I'm not hating on the name Oracle, it just doesn't sound right for this class, that's all I'm saying. And I'm not saying I might not turn out to be wrong when the class actually gets released for us to see.
But from what I've heard of it, incarnate does sound to me a much better fit, and I'm not the one who suggested the name, so it's not like I'm here shouting, pick my idea it's the best.
|
Creative Director
|
Really... folks need to take a step back and exercise some patience. We'll be showing off all of the classes early, the oracle included. Trying to second guess what we've got planned based on a couple blog posts and a firestorm of messageboard posts (some of which were made before even we at Paizo had a good idea about what these classes were gonna be) isn't a very constructive way to tear apart new content that is still VERY much in conceptual stages. Once we reveal the class, if the name's still causing a lot of trouble and aggravation we'll listen to the complaints and concerns and make our decision then. Just try not to lose sight of the truth that even though we at Paizo are pretty open about our products with open playtests and the like, that's not the same as running the development and the design of the game as a democracy.
So again... try to be patient and wait a few months to not only let the name settle in, but in a few months we'll show off some early builds and playtest the heck out of the Oracle and, hopefully, folks at THAT point will see what we're doing with the class makes the name a really good fit.
For now, we're just not ready to show any of that stuff off.
|
|
In the end, does it matter what the published name is? In your games you can call them whatever you want.
And that's a decent point. It's not like anyone in my games calls themselves 'a Fighter,' after all. They call themselves soldiers, warriors, sellswords, etc. Not since they discarded the class name 'Magic-User' has there been a name as lame as 'Fighter.' :)
It's entirely possible that an Oracle will not just have a Domain and cast spells from it, but will channel that Domain, literally calling the embodiment of that Domain down into themselves and speaking in it's voice as they pour forth it's power, with it's light shining from their eyes. That would make the Domain-channeling Oracle 'feel right' thematically, sort of voodoo-ing it up, with the 'oracle' acting as the horse to the Domain-as-les-mysterie.
Not, 'I throw fire,' more 'Fire speaks through me, you are in the presence now, of Fire.'
|
|
It makes more sense to be a mouthpiece for a deity than a mouthpiece for an abstract concept.
Ah, but a diety can speak for itself, and doesn't really need a mouthpiece. If Lamashtu wants her will to be known, Lamashtu damn well makes her will known.
But who speaks for Fire?
And yes, I'm now suddenly defending a name I don't even like. 'Cause that's how I roll, for I am Legion, and contain multitudes.
|
|
Really... folks need to take a step back and exercise some patience. We'll be showing off all of the classes early, the oracle included. Trying to second guess what we've got planned based on a couple blog posts and a firestorm of messageboard posts (some of which were made before even we at Paizo had a good idea about what these classes were gonna be) isn't a very constructive way to tear apart new content that is still VERY much in conceptual stages. Once we reveal the class, if the name's still causing a lot of trouble and aggravation we'll listen to the complaints and concerns and make our decision then. Just try not to lose sight of the truth that even though we at Paizo are pretty open about our products with open playtests and the like, that's not the same as running the development and the design of the game as a democracy.
So again... try to be patient and wait a few months to not only let the name settle in, but in a few months we'll show off some early builds and playtest the heck out of the Oracle and, hopefully, folks at THAT point will see what we're doing with the class makes the name a really good fit.
For now, we're just not ready to show any of that stuff off.
Patience? This! Is! The Internet!!! *chestkick*