War of Immortals: Old Friends and New Faces

I really like the term "benefactor" for the kobolds' power source. It's nice and neutral; a benefactor might be a master or an ally, or even an enemy, a prisoner, an unwitting host.

What are the other 2 Archetypes!?

This is totally off-topic, but this whole discussion about class names has kinda sparked my curiosity a little; what if in an hypothetical PF3e to fully distance from D&D the core 12 classes got renamed? Alchemist and champion being the exception since one doesn't have D&D baggage and the other one was already renamed.

Barbarian > Berserker
Bard > Minstrel (I'm not entirely sold on this one, but I can't think of a better name)
Cleric > Priest
Fighter > Warrior
Monk > Brawler (I'm not using Martial Artist because class names are always a single word)
Ranger > Hunter
Rogue > Scoundrel
Wizard > Mage

I can't think a name for druids and sorcerers though.

Bard -> Conductor
Monk -> Mystic
Druid -> Witch
Witch -> Adept
Mystic -> Sorcerer
Sorcerer -> Warlock

that oughta clear everything right up

Funny thing is I mentioned a Monty python joke on page 2 of this thread and no one’s noticed. Guess I misread how deep and stimulating the subjects this blog post was going to be.

Oh well I’m still no less excited for the war of the immortals book!

Also quick question for the devs if spoilers allow, will Exemplars be proficient in medium armor at least at 1st level or as a later class feat option?

I'm really hoping we finally get another armorless martial, at least as a subclass. The fact that the class was in part built around a character who is canonically shirtless gives me hope.

With Imrijka's color change, does that mean that *all* vindicators of Pharasma have that color scheme? Since it was canonized by Wes that her outfit was the standard uniform of Pharasmin vindicators?

Or that she switched Faiths? Since that's a sacred symbol of Desna she's rocking.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

pixierose wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

the thaumaturge is so good though aaah that's heartbreaking! We clearly need more thaumaturge content. We need to revive its image. We need to bring back the thaumaturge iconic, and bring them back hotter, sexier, more covered in insane paraphernalia.

I for 1 support this agenda!!!

cover them in candles! there aren't enough candles!

I maybe just be playing too much WoW, but this just made me think of the current Kobold questlines they have out now.So many cool Candle mogs.... Now I need Candle armor in pathfinder... hmm.

No such thing as too much Skitter.

Really jazzed about all these new archetypes! Bloodragers actively using blood sounds cool as heck, and I'm sure will go down well with some people I know who want to get into the more metal aesthetic that conjurs.

I'm also personally really digging the name change to vindicator, and their greater focus on being a kind of divine hunter. I like that inquisitor is still in the game for evil characters, and if I ever get to play in Prey for Death I'll definitely make one.
If they no longer have the ability to ignore divine doctrine that'll clear up all my discomfort with the class.

This is totally off-topic, but this whole discussion about class names has kinda sparked my curiosity a little; what if in an hypothetical PF3e to fully distance from D&D the core 12 classes got renamed? Alchemist and champion being the exception since one doesn't have D&D baggage and the other one was already renamed.

Barbarian > Berserker
Bard > Minstrel (I'm not entirely sold on this one, but I can't think of a better name)
Cleric > Priest
Fighter > Warrior
Monk > Brawler (I'm not using Martial Artist because class names are always a single word)
Ranger > Hunter
Rogue > Scoundrel
Wizard > Mage

I can't think a name for druids and sorcerers though.

I like Bard -> Rhapsode personally. Has a dramatic feel, isn't a well known enough term to have specific connotations to most people but still scans as the right meaning.

Wizard and sorcerer as names are so far outside of the claims of d&d that there is simply no point in changing those. The only thing I can say is that typically the term sorcerer is used for the same type of spellcasters as wizard is used for except with a slightly less positive connotation. Wizard has a pretty good reputation, but sorcerer almost always conjures something evil to mind. A person with innate magic should probably be the one called a mage if such a change is to occur. To which the wizard could be called a sorcerer instead

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Michael Sayre, Director of Rules and Lore wrote:

…For characters like Droven, Nhalmika, Samo, and Nahoa, we knew who they were and who they'd become visually before the classes were through development, so that allowed us to sync those classes and those characters together very tightly.

This is illuminating. I find this a poor approach - it needlessly ties broad character concepts to singular individuals and informs the class from an incredibly narrow perspective. Look at the response to Nahoa’s class in the feedback to the Exemplar playtest - given not everyone wanted to play loincloth-Maui expies the lack of options for all kinds of different cultural “heroes” (like, medium or heavy armored) was to my mind completely a result of this design path.

Flipside-

Exemplar is one of the most popular classes we've ever created and right now ranks among the most popular classes for new characters built across almost every venue we have insight into.

Surveys, gaming platforms, and character builders both show it is more popular than even a lot of core classes. (The animist is not quite as popular but shares the distinction of being a playtest class that is more popular than several core classes.) Similarly, Guns & Gears is one of the most popular books of this edition cycle and has sold through multiple print runs faster than most books that don't have "Core" or "Advanced Player's Guide" in the title.

Conversely, a class that you'd think is popular based on the forum conversations around it, the thaumaturge, is dead-last on all those same lists. It's mechanically strong and has a whole lot of variety in its builds, but the broader audience doesn't really know what it is, the iconic doesn't help them understand that, and so only a small and very invested portion of the playerbase engages with it while the wider audience ignores it.

I don’t see that being a flipside. While all that may be true, it doesn’t really delve into the fact that basing a mechanic-chassis around a singular Iconic, while popular may not be the best design path. Popularity isn’t my measure of “good”, though it might be your measure of “success”. Note that I’m not trying to be coy or argumentative at all here - I guess I’m just skeptical of the scope of a chassis when derived in this way. Which is why I brought up the armored options for Exemplars.

I can see why Exemplars are popular. They are fairly simple, with a fairly simpe action rotation that you can, if you want, dial up to a medium level of complexity. There is a power fantasy, an imbued with bloodstuff fantasy, a cinematic smash stuff with cool power names fantasy and the just plain powerful physical specimen with cool artifacts fantasy. I get it. Between the Animist and the Exemplar, I would choose Exemplar, but only because I didn’t feel the Animist captured any kind of animism I could recognise, and also that it was a fairly complex caster.

Ultimately the built in Earth-cultural references also repelled me - I don’t play RPGs to vamp about in faux-Earth and the tight weave of Golarion and the ruleset frustrates me to no end. But again, I get it - it’s not going to go away - as evinced by Michael’s title - Rules and Lore. I find that rather than “lore” working to strengthem the narrative power and pull/meaning of rules, the rules are needlessly siloed into gatekept flavor-tanks - see my criticism of “want to wield a breaching pike? Be a hobgoblin” and other maladies.

As for Thaumaturges, I can totally understand why they aren’t popular. In direct contrast to the Exemplar, they aren’t actually that simple. Mechanically there are a lot of moving parts and interactions and checks and narratively some people aren’t interested in making narrative sidereal connections and arcane links between a Doctor Who-level “what have I got in my pockets” and a basic monster what needs it’s head caved in. I’m playing a thaumaturge here via PbP and I’m kinda over it. Yes, I should have chosen Mirror instead of Weapon, which to be honest is completely useless. As in, have never used it once. I like the visuals of the class, love the intent and the even the *idea* of the mechanics, but in practice I find it a little too complicated for its own good and in my current battle with a fiant spider I couldn’t have cared whether I could RK/EK and pull a dessicated spider carapace out of my jangly collection of incanabula and alarmingly waved it around while drawing arachnic connections between the eight cardinal directions while wigglingly waving my temple sword about. I just waved it about to get that sweet +2 to damage. And missed twice.

I honestly don’t think that Mios is at all to blame for any of that.

I'm really hoping we finally get another armorless martial, at least as a subclass. The fact that the class was in part built around a character who is canonically shirtless gives me hope.

I’d like to see a P3 “Barbarian” that functions like a monk - I guess in PF2 terms, Expert in Unarmored at 1st level. Schwarzenegger-Conan style, and motes of semi-historical/mythical baresarks etc.

We also wanna say, we are super excited to see these types of class archetypes to be expanded on. Spellshot and runelords were neat but a bit miss for us aesthetically personally but we did enjoy what they did for the classes. But these recent suite of class archetypes feel like they are really testing exploring the potential of the concept and it reminds me of what I felt like pf2e was missing. There was a special feeling in pf1e archetypes that we felt were missing in the more broadly applicable archetypes.(Even if we do like those as well and think they are over all a net positive to the system.)

KoriCongo wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

Damn, all of these sound wicked. I'm especially happy for my good friend who's favorite 1e class is Inquisitor, both the vindicator and avenger sound right up his alley. And bloodrager sounds perfect; can cast spells while raging and get to add damage to them?! Sign me up.

Would anyone remind me (if it's been teased already) what other class archetypes are to come in this book?

It's 5 Archetypes total in WoI, with the remaining two being Warrior of Legend (Fighter CA where you get to be Achilles, Achilles' Heel and all) and Sneaschel (unknown).

Divine Mysteries have 2 more known, Battle Herald Cleric and Palatine Detective Investigator.

Please let at least ONE of these be a divine wave caster chassis with some mechanic other than spell strike!

I didn't see an answer to this, but I can offer hope. The Battle Harbinger (cleric archetype) is embodied by the 1e Warpriest iconic, Oloch, and is said to trade spellcasting ability for weapons.

I misremembered that it was confirmed as a wavecaster, but I do like the odds, considering that 'wavecaster cleric who fights for their god' seems like such an obvious idea even in a world where finally any god can have a Champion.

(For that matter, if anyone's listening I love the idea of a wavecaster bard that fulfills the 'warrior poet' archetype... would be good for the classic skald but also more generally applicable to a broad cross section of war-music that Bard, even upgraded to martial proficiency, doesn't quite answer for)

---

As an aside to the topic of Imrijka, I did so very much love her old outfit with it's bold and striking reds, but I have to admit the Carmen Sandiego look never really quite meshed with Pharasma's holy colours... On the flipside, the blue coat and hat do actually look really good on her, even if it'll take me a while for my brain to agree that I'm seeing the it right.

I don’t see that being a flipside. While all that may be true, it doesn’t really delve into the fact that basing a mechanic-chassis around a singular Iconic, while popular may not be the best design path.

They're not built around a single iconic, the iconic and the class are made to ensure that the iconic is a fully realized version of the class, a character you can actually make using the class rules and have a satisfying experience with.

The opposite of this would be PF1 Harsk. Harsk's art was developed with the idea that a bigass crossbow looked super cool, which it did, but crossbows were simple weapons and weren't really weapons a ranger should have been using. Even with an entire ranger subpath trying to make the PF1 crossbow more satisfying, it was just mechanically hard to reach a point where Harsk as depicted felt like a good representation of what it felt like to play a ranger. When the class and iconic don't support each other, you end up with negative experiences.

In the best-case scenario when you've got enough time and planning to have a firm visual of the iconic while the design window is still open, an artist as talented as Wayne can also open the door for cool new design space (I'm pretty sure that dwarven clan daggers come from lore born from Wayne's visual imagining of dwarves.)

In that vein, the exemplar doesn't have light armor because Nahoa wears Polynesian-inspired armaments, Nahoa wears Polynesian-inspired armaments because that's an excellent thematic fit for a class inspired by Hercules, Gilgamesh, Maui, and other loincloth-clad divine brawlers.

Tangential, at the end of the day the point of a game is to bring fun and recreation to the widest array of people possible. From that perspective, "good" is whatever inspires the largest number of people to play a given game and find enjoyment in it. It can be easy to argue that "popular/successful" are not the same as good, but...

As the director of the team that makes all the Pathfinder rulebooks and Lost Omens books, I've watched my team double in size, their wages go up, and mandatory overtime disappear. The success of PF2 has helped create a world where my new employees have not had to work long hours with no overtime like I did coming up, and where more people are talking about and playing Pathfinder than ever before. I think we always have room to keep getting better and refining our craft, but I can't really think of a better metric for "good" than a game that is giving the largest audience we've ever reached exciting and lasting memories while supporting more creatives and providing a higher quality of life than at any point in the company's history.

What are the other 2 Archetypes!?

Warrior of Legend, for the Fighter. Seneschal, and we don't know which class or classes it's for yet.

If we're going with title-as-what-they-do, then vindicator has many more issues than inquisitor. So a vindicator of Cayden Cailean...vindicates what? If Inquisitor is a clear yet inappropriately named servant for some of the Gods, then Vindicator is an unclear concept for any God. IMO. I'd also argue it's not inappropriate for almost any God. Any faith organization, no matter how vague or hippy dippy, can use an employee whose job it is to investigate threats to the faith, the faithful, or the church oganization. And it's easy enough to draw other inquisitor missions from their domains (Hey Cayden Cailean Bob, we're getting complaints from our followers in Exampleton that the city's mayor is suddenly cracking down on everyone's rights and becoming more despotic. Go investigate, inquire why. Question the local officials, figure out if there's any sort of supernatural threat to freedom here or just bog standard corruption...either way, respond as Cayden Cailean might wish you to...).

A vindicator of Cayden Cailean vindicates people to win their freedom, vindicates the principles of their god by exemplifying them, and vindicates those who suffer injustice by taking action against it. They gather information over a drink with someone, go about things in a very adventurer-y fashion, and bravely take direct action when it's needed. When I picture a vindicator of Cayden Cailean, it's somebody pretending to be a good deal more drunk than they are, with a few empty mugs around them that didn't actually have any alcohol.

Also personally, I very much like the backstory/concept of a decent person (unknowingly) working for a corrupt organization. Very common movie theme, with loads of plot hooks the GM can bring in. A bright-eyed, believes-in-the-mission inquisitor fits the bill. Calling them a vindicator does not resonate. So I'm not a huge fan of the name change.

But...I also don't think it's a big deal. If 'vindicator' lets a wider variety of players feel comfortable playing the class archetype, I get it. Good reason for a name change. Besides, let's face it, home games are their own thing. The tables that prefer the inquisitor name can continue to use it, or allow players to use it to describe their own characters when they wish.

I'll admit, the "does the name really resonate" thing is less of an issue for me than "does the name actively get in the way". If I tell somebody I'm playing an inquisitor of the goddess of art and beauty, they're going to think the character goes around locking up ugly people. A "vindicator of the goddess of art and beauty"... demonstrates the importance of art and beauty, which may not form as specific of an idea, but it's not forming the wrong one. But, that bias is partly because it's not a full class anymore, it's a class archetype. "I like a lot about a Ranger, but not the nature stuff" is always going to be the big selling point, rather than needing the name to reel people in.

Also quick question for the devs if spoilers allow, will Exemplars be proficient in medium armor at least at 1st level or as a later class feat option?

I had a similar question about the Avenger, given that if you're deity's FW isn't finesse, you would probably not be Dex-based, no?

Funny thing is I mentioned a Monty python joke on page 2 of this thread and no one’s noticed.

I noticed. But the 2020s are not a decade where gallows humor is considered more playful than painful, I guess. A large number of Python skits would not get aired today.

Oh well I’m still no less excited for the war of the immortals book!

Me too.

A vindicator of Cayden Cailean vindicates people to win their freedom, vindicates the principles of their god by exemplifying them, and vindicates those who suffer injustice by taking action against it.

"Vindication" does not mean taking violent action against something. It means demonstrating some point to be true or reasonable. Now that IS a type of 'righting a wrong,' but in a more academic sense than what PCs typically engage in.

So the name makes the archetype sound more like a PR gal or lawyer than a ranger. There's an innocent locked in a corrupt king's dungeon. The Vindicator vindicates him! Which means she proves they are innocent. Um, yay? But they're still in the dungeon after being vindicated, unless the King chooses to release them out of embarrassment or legal requirement. As names go, the title is only action hero-y if you close one eye, look at it funny, and ignore the dictionary.

Which I guess is okay. As I said, I get the value of the name change in making the game more enjoyable for a wide audience. But my inner editor keeps telling me that Church Legal Defense or Church PR gal just isn't as cool and doesn't have the pull of Church Police Detective. I have no argument though against the counterpoint, which is that if Church Police Detective is at the top, Church Legal Defense is still much cooler for some people than Church Torturer or Church Fanatical Murderer, which is how the original title may feel to some players. I'm not one of the players that immediately goes there, but everyone's mileage may vary.

KingTreyIII wrote:

Quote:

a Matanji orc who is part of a tradition of orcish demon-slayers who drink the blood of shadow demons to gain magical power.

Wait...shadow demons didn't get the OGL axe??? Interesting.

Technically, they're envy demons, aka invidiaks, these days. They don't have "shadow" powers anymore either, but they do remain bodiless demons who envy the flesh of the living and seek to possess them. We'll have remastered stats for them showing up in an upcoming adventure...

** spoiler omitted **

A little sad that the Invidiaks are no longer shadow based, but excited to see them return though. They are one of my favorite demons.

Legowarrior wrote:

Although I am excited to see the archetypes, as a huge fan of playing a Bloodrager in WotR, I can't help but be a bit sad for the new Bloodrager.

I guess we are no longer channeling our sorcerous might into fueling our rage and sparking new abilities.

The new Bloodrager has some cool ideas and abilities, but I will miss the old Bloodrager. RIP buddy.

It is true that this means the Incredible Hulk would no longer quite be a Bloodrager (Daemon bloodline, I presume). That's basically how I myself understood Bloodragers--their blood trace sometimes takes over when that blood power is needed...

(Now we need a post-Player Core port, I suppose, of Stand Us--sorry, Summoners.)

It was more than that. It was channeling that bloodline to fuel their rage in a way that can't be done with a Sorcerer Archetype in PF2e.

It was taking that potential to be a Sorcerer, and instead of casting spells, it became powerful transformations, or the ability to dispel magic, or become invisible, depending on the bloodline.

I guess I was hoping for something closer to the Elemental Instinct, but with Sorcerer Bloodlines. Sadly, that doesn't work, because Bloodrager Bloodlines were distinct from ability to the Sorcerer Bloodline.
Where the Sorcerer got caster related abilities, the Bloodrager received abilities appropriate for a martial class.

Cori Marie wrote:

With Imrijka's color change, does that mean that *all* vindicators of Pharasma have that color scheme? Since it was canonized by Wes that her outfit was the standard uniform of Pharasmin vindicators?

Or that she switched Faiths? Since that's a sacred symbol of Desna she's rocking.

Perhaps she is undercover?

So the Bloodrager's spellcasting, is that gonna be focus spells or more like the limited spellcasting seen with Magus? Or the kind archetypes give?

The article mentions having a repertoire and being able to cast *wall of thorns*. So they have slots.

Cori Marie wrote:

With Imrijka's color change, does that mean that *all* vindicators of Pharasma have that color scheme? Since it was canonized by Wes that her outfit was the standard uniform of Pharasmin vindicators?

Or that she switched Faiths? Since that's a sacred symbol of Desna she's rocking.

Nope

As part of her update to Pathfinder Second Edition, Imrijka’s outfit is now done in Pharasma’s holy colors

Also not sure where you're seeing a holy symbol of Desna? The angel on her belt has been there since 1E, and isn't particularly butterfly shaped.

I really like the term "benefactor" for the kobolds' power source. It's nice and neutral; a benefactor might be a master or an ally, or even an enemy, a prisoner, an unwitting host.

On that note, I didn't take long to think of the adsorptive properties of kobold eggs in Player Core 2 as being a magical extrapolation of real-world reptilian ectothermy (i.e. drawing in more ambient things than heat). Wonder if the iruxi are raising their eyebrows about that.

Granted you're also talking to someone who entertains the idea of halflings being at baseline low-echelon, unconscious psychics, courtesy the description of the Psychic feat Foreseen Failure (i.e. my explanation of choice for Halfling Luck is in its vein--subconscious sense of causality being Unpleasant soon, and equally subconscious psychokinetic nudge to make causality less Unpleasant). So you might need some salt. But I found it also makes the halflings' own Support Race culture less onerous--that unconscious psychic sense makes them driven to becalm others if only to lessen their own stress. Not so much Servant Race as Therapist Race???

I am SO excited for all these changes! I had an idea for an aiuvarin Ranger/Cleric worshiping Tsukiyo and Ketephys syncretically for the Season of Ghosts AP, and Vindicator sounds like everything I wanted for the character without needing to multiclass! I can't wait!

exequiel759 wrote:

This is totally off-topic, but this whole discussion about class names has kinda sparked my curiosity a little; what if in an hypothetical PF3e to fully distance from D&D the core 12 classes got renamed? Alchemist and champion being the exception since one doesn't have D&D baggage and the other one was already renamed.

Barbarian > Berserker
Bard > Minstrel (I'm not entirely sold on this one, but I can't think of a better name)
Cleric > Priest
Fighter > Warrior
Monk > Brawler (I'm not using Martial Artist because class names are always a single word)
Ranger > Hunter
Rogue > Scoundrel
Wizard > Mage

I can't think a name for druids and sorcerers though.

I like Bard -> Rhapsode personally. Has a dramatic feel, isn't a well known enough term to have specific connotations to most people but still scans as the right meaning.

Sorcerer -> Adept, since you're, y'know, adept!
Druid is a tough one; the whole nature mage angle is arguably entirely rooted in this sort of RPG, largely divorced from the word's Celtic origins. Shaman might fit but has just as much cultural baggage. Might just have to make something up, like Primalist or somesuch.

I agree making up a name if you were going to rename Druids is the way to go. Primalist specifically I dislike for reasons, though objectively it’s not bad. But Warden or Anchorite sound more appealing to me.

I am SO EXCITED for the bloodrager, i was hoping for something with a more flexible theme, but this blood theme is so g$%!&#n cool that i do not mind

I need to know what sort of casting it has so badly, it sorta seems like it is like eldritch trickster where you get a caster multiclass archetype, which is sorta disappointing because it means less spells and progression is behind, but on the other hand that would allow not just picking a tradition but also picking a casting stat, which would allow for alot of flexibility in terms of what sorts of characters can be built which would be cool

zergtitan wrote:

Funny thing is I mentioned a Monty python joke on page 2 of this thread and no one’s noticed.

I noticed. But the 2020s are not a decade where gallows humor is considered more playful than painful, I guess. A large number of Python skits would not get aired today.

folks it's just 2024 and we've all heard the same references 10,000 times unaltered at this point ;-;

Also not sure where you're seeing a holy symbol of Desna? The angel on her belt has been there since 1E, and isn't particularly butterfly shaped.

oh wow good catch, I honestly never noticed that. Guess cause of the angle.

Explanation for Vindicator stuff.

That makes sense. Took me a little, but I think I see it now. Also, as someone else pointed out, the 1e class was Wisdom based, much like the Ranger, which for some reason I completely forgot about. And Ranger does seem like the most potent shell to use for a class archetype to represent that. At least, better than most other classes currently present. I think I'd still have preferred it becomes its own class, akin to a divine Magus, and will probably mourn the probable loss of Judgements, but this is a fine enough adaptation to satisfy an Inquisitor character concept for 2e. Will be interested to read War of Immortals in a little over a month when it releases.

As a sidenote, this does make me cautiously optimistic in seeing other 1e classes return in the future with a Class Archetype coat of paint. Skald in particular stands out to me as something that could be possible under this framework, and probably Hunter. I'd go as far as saying that *most of the 1e classes that needed to be full classes have been ported now (with Animist filling the shoes of Medium and Shaman), and the rest could just appear in forms such as these, or that of Cavalier.

*All except the Shifter, who I still hope we'll see make a return one day as a sort of polymorph based martial. I still remember being very excited to see the iconic Shifter make a cameo in the Mwangi Expanse book.

Are avenger, bloodrager, and vincidator mythic paths? Or they are just non-mythic archetypes, and mythic paths are not revealed yet?

Are avenger, bloodrager, and vincidator mythic paths? Or they are just non-mythic archetypes, and mythic paths are not revealed yet?

They are not mythic paths, they're an example of another type of character option included in War of Immortals.

The Bloodrager adding the rage trait to their spells while raging is good design.
It's also effectively my house rule for the Elemental Instinct Barbarian, for Impulses which match the Barbarian's Elemental Instinct.

So i understand better, Vindicators are Holy and Inquisitors are Unholy? So Vindicators have to choose a deity with Santification.

I have just conducted an experiment on Michael Sayre's observations on the thaumaturge and exemplar. I showed a bunch of non pathfinder players both iconics, and asked them what they did. People thought the thaumaturge was a tank, and maybe a cleric or self healer, while the exemplar was very clearly a magical warrior of some sort.

So i understand better, Vindicators are Holy and Inquisitors are Unholy? So Vindicators have to choose a deity with Santification.

Vindicators won't require sanctification, otherwise Imrijka there would be an illegal option as a vindicator of Pharasma.

James Jacobs wrote:

KingTreyIII wrote:

Quote:

a Matanji orc who is part of a tradition of orcish demon-slayers who drink the blood of shadow demons to gain magical power.

Wait...shadow demons didn't get the OGL axe??? Interesting.

Technically, they're envy demons, aka invidiaks, these days. They don't have "shadow" powers anymore either, but they do remain bodiless demons who envy the flesh of the living and seek to possess them. We'll have remastered stats for them showing up in an upcoming adventure...

** spoiler omitted **

A little sad that the Invidiaks are no longer shadow based, but excited to see them return though. They are one of my favorite demons.

Same. They're one of the cleaner maps of sin-to-powers, and their name is really fun to say.

But, that bias is partly because it's not a full class anymore, it's a class archetype. "I like a lot about a Ranger, but not the nature stuff" is always going to be the big selling point, rather than needing the name to reel people in.

This is honestly one of the biggest reasons I'm excited about the class. Nature theming is something I've just never really clicked with, nature and me don't get along at all, so I'd always looked to build investigators rather than rangers before, assuming I wanted a character to focus on one enemy and mess them up.

Am I correct in understanding you can't multiclass into class archetypes?

Like, you can't play a Ranger with the Bloodrager dedication, can you?

Am I correct in understanding you can't multiclass into class archetypes?

Like, you can't play a Ranger with the Bloodrager dedication, can you?

I don't think so, since the Class Archetypes have a requirement of "must take [insert name of class archetype] specialization], which wouldn't be covered by a multiclass dedication.

Also quick question for the devs if spoilers allow, will Exemplars be proficient in medium armor at least at 1st level or as a later class feat option?

I had a similar question about the Avenger, given that if you're deity's FW isn't finesse, you would probably not be Dex-based, no?

AFAIK Exemplars don't use their deity's weapon, they use whatever weapon they want since their "deity" isn't alive anymore. In regards to armor I think they probably won't have medium armor based on one of Michael Sayre earlier comments:

In that vein, the exemplar doesn't have light armor because Nahoa wears Polynesian-inspired armaments

I assume he mistakenly said "light" instead of "medium", but since he's otherwise saying "the exemplar doesn't have light armor" in present tense kinda implies the class isn't going to have it because we are just one month away from release so we are beyond the phase in which this could be changed.

I could be wrong though and he probably meant "heavy" instead of either "light" or "medium" or probably he was indeed correct saying "light" which probably means exemplars have something that boosts their unarmored AC (it could be expert to unarmored AC or something more meta like replace Dex with your KAS for unarmored AC).

As for Thaumaturges, I can totally understand why they aren’t popular. In direct contrast to the Exemplar, they aren’t actually that simple.

I kind of think the Thaum suffers from nibbling at both ends in the worst way. The class is complicated enough both in design and even just its elevator pitch that I think a lot of people get turned off right out the gate.

But that means some of the remainder are drawn in specifically because of how esoteric it appears, and from my anecdotal experience a lot of them end up frustrated with the class because of how much they end up not actually being that esoteric. Because at the end of the day you're a martial which means you hit things with your stick a lot.

Not to mention that Exploit is kind of tedious in play.

What I don't like about Thaum (and the others that are also like that...) is not using the key attribute to hit...

Redblade8 wrote:

I had a similar question about the Avenger, given that if you're deity's FW isn't finesse, you would probably not be Dex-based, no?

AFAIK Exemplars don't use their deity's weapon, they use whatever weapon they want since their "deity" isn't alive anymore.

Avenger is the rogue class archetype mentioned in this blog post, nothing to do with Exemplars.

I have just conducted an experiment on Michael Sayre's observations on the thaumaturge and exemplar. I showed a bunch of non pathfinder players both iconics, and asked them what they did. People thought the thaumaturge was a tank, and maybe a cleric or self healer, while the exemplar was very clearly a magical warrior of some sort.

I do love the iconic themself, but my ideal thaumaturge for simply conveying the class's potential would be wearing way less armor, the better to show off their esoterica and their "utility martial" focus. They'd have tons of paper talismans and other trinkets, and they'd be wielding a lantern or bell in one hand and a pistol in the other, to really convey the idea of "dual-wielding a weapon and a weird trinket". And they'd be wearing 360 gp of lit candles.

Also, it might be blasphemy, but I think the old "class art is just a picture of a guy staring at the camera" model is a shibboleth. I think the iconic class art should always show them *doing* something. Draw them parrying a vampire's attack with their bell!

EDIT: And as long as I'm bullying my second-favorite class, rename it to "esoterician".

Also, it might be blasphemy, but I think the old "class art is just a picture of a guy staring at the camera" model is a shibboleth. I think the iconic class art should always show them *doing* something. Draw them parrying a vampire's attack with their bell!

I wouldn't call it blashphemy, just "not the purpose" of that art. Remember that a big part of the job this art has to do is also to provide other authors with models to reference when they're illustrating them doing other things, so anything extra is just distraction from that viewpoint.

Pretty much all the other times we illustrate the iconics in our books they're doing things, though!

exequiel759 wrote:

Redblade8 wrote:

I had a similar question about the Avenger, given that if you're deity's FW isn't finesse, you would probably not be Dex-based, no?

AFAIK Exemplars don't use their deity's weapon, they use whatever weapon they want since their "deity" isn't alive anymore.

Avenger is the rogue class archetype mentioned in this blog post, nothing to do with Exemplars.

Lol I misread that as exemplar. Mb.

Esoterician? Not Occultist? {teleports to safety}

As to Druid, I was also thinking of Warden for an alternate name. One part D&D 4e's Warden (which was more like our Forester, mind), two parts Everquest II's Warden (the yin Druid to the Fury's yang Druid in there).

And on a more humorous note, "Vindicate" and "Avenge" are roughly the same thing, as they're ultimately both derived from the Latin "vindex". "Avenge" just went through Old French as well.