War of Immortals: Old Friends and New Faces

One thing I do have some very minor concerns about regarding the Bloodrager is the specific nature of their Harvest Blood activity. Will using that ALWAYS involve hematophagy? Like, that's clearly going on with our new iconic, Trzikhun, and it's definitely something not out of the ordinary for dhampir or full-on vampire bloodragers, plus there's even instances in both fiction and folklore where consuming the blood of a slain enemy grants supernatural powers (Sigurd comes to mind, though the blood in that instance was bathed in, what was actually consumed was Fafnir's heart).

Like, I like that the bloodrager IS being more strongly tied to blood in a more literal way, making it more distinct than just "Barbarian with a Sorcerer Dedication," and there IS a certain macabre coolness to it. But I wonder if there'll be a way to roleplay a more "clinical" or "hygenic" bloodrager, to add some variety?

But I wonder if there'll be a way to roleplay a more "clinical" or "hygenic" bloodrager, to add some variety?

I want to play a leshy bloodrager who drinks blood with their roots. That seems cleaner than doing it with your mouth.

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

But I wonder if there'll be a way to roleplay a more "clinical" or "hygenic" bloodrager, to add some variety?

I want to play a leshy bloodrager who drinks blood with their roots. That seems cleaner than doing it with your mouth.

Unless they're a mean green mother from outer space! :P

"Feeed meee Seymour!"

If we are talking about potentiially renaming monk in a way that preserves the many different things it does, what about Cultivator? It covers the wide array of abilities monk has rather well and always had cultivation fantasy elements.

I do hope exemplars get medium armor

Cultivator is now an archetype in the Tian Xia Players Guide, and so wouldn't be on the table. (It's also really cool looking and I am definitely trying to figure out a good build for it.)

I noticed something curious:

With powerful focus spells like vindicator’s mark and vindicator’s judgment, the vindicator can mark their prey, hunting them down and dealing devastating damage.

If vindicator's mark and vindicator's judgment are going to be the vindicator's damage steroid it kinda means they have to be at least better than gravity weapon (one of the best damage steroids in the system IMO) which is a focus spells rangers, and thus vindicators, have access already. I doubt these would have similar effects because why bother reprinting a focus spell with another name. It also seems to be restricted to your hunted prey, which doesn't happen with gravity weapon, so I guess that restriction likely means the spells should be stronger in consequence.

Very happy to see Imrijka again, but disappointed by the color change... I thought it was interesting for different regions to have their own sacred colors, Ustalav in her case. More importantly though, red looked good on her. Oh well, glad she's back either way

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Count me as entirely skeptical of these archetypes. They essentially look like “classes by another name” - major narrative and mechanical changes to a class. Just make them classes already.

I mean - the bloodrager was always going to be a barbarian. The only question was whether it'd be a class archetype or a regular instinct, and whether they'd manage to jam sorcerer bloodline representation in or not. They are not going to make another class that rages for a fixed damage increase, esp since that opens up the potential to poach two rages via MC. I guess they could also make a completely new not-rage mechanic, but why?

Interesting. I mean the Blood-drink-power angle is pretty deep. It really doesn’t have to be rage at all. I certainly didn’t need a Bloodrager. But the steal powers via drinking blood? Sure.

Vindicator is a Ranger because it shares the hunt prey architecture and focus spells and wants to poach many of the ranger tricks like sharing prey anyway. They're not going to rewrite the dozen perfectly usable ranger spells for the divine martial that wants exactly the same numbers if they can just do this.

Hmm. Fair enough. Actually saves on wordcount etc. Good point.

They're all divine because first, this is a divine book (there's two, divine fans be eating good) and second, because Paizo has stated repeatedly that their design always revolves around strong flavour hooks (waiting to hear back from them about my weathercaller pitch) and it turns out divine swordsman is a very deep flavour well.

Yep. War of Immortals. I already noted that. Also I don’t think the Bloodrager is “divine”. I feel it’s in there becoz “other PF1 classes as PF2 class archetypes”.

I am curious if some way of accessing the class archetypes via MC would be available, though, it'd be a shame f you can't MC into these class archetypes, moreso than the existing ones. Well, actually, would be nice to MC into the elementalist version of a class, actually.

Well, I guess that is quite a clunky problem that *could* be solved by making these…Alternate classes, like in PF1?

Personally very happy to see class archetypes come into play. They could be an great implementation for a lot of reasons.

Making more and more classes means that extra feats per class get stretched very thin. Look at how many core classes get extra feats from aps, lost omens, or other books compared to more niche classes like inventor or thaumaturge.

I feel that is an actual structural problem, not a side-effect, but your point is a good one. I guess I feel the “success” metric as a reason to support a class is pretty sad, and that it definitely poorly serves folks that really like “niche” classes. Perhaps they wouldn’t be so niche if they were supported…Why bother making a class only to then deep six it? Because a class is really just a testing ground, and if it “underperforms” you drop it?

Adding vindicator to ranger means not only do you have less classes to make specific feat support for, but you also have a pretty hefty backlog of feats already available.

It saves space in other ways too, not having to add in all the regular text that have to be added to every class. Just pick the things you want to change up and you're golden.

This is akin to what Ryangwy said above. And something I hadn’t really considered deeply enough. Ok, I see the logic. Still want them to be their own class though. ;)

As pf2e matures, concepts people pine for get more and more narrow. Not to overly simplify as I know there are some with pretty radical wishes, but a lot of character concepts people want are simple things like 'magus but primal list' or 'kineticist but Shadow' or what have you. The class archetypes in this upcoming book are perfect examples of that sort of wish coming to fruition, with extra paizo flair to make them stand out even more than just 'ranger but divine'.

Yep count me as someone with, well not “radical” wishes, but definitely for more creative than “ranger but divine” or “magus but primal”. I mean magus-but-primal is an incredibly low narrative bar to jump, and says more about the restructuring of spell/lists/traditions and the overall effect on mechanics than it does about magus. But maybe you are correct in that low narrative bar having been leapt, and perhaps highly.

Thanks for the insights. I’m a little less skeptical about “class archetypes”, but still not sold on the repackaging of Inquisitor as a Ranger archetype. Alternate class, that I could MC? Sure.

But from my understanding Unholy or Evil Vindicators are considered Inqusitors. Those who don't sanctified as Unholy are just called Vindicators. So we didn't lose the name. There are different types of Vindicators. Inqusitors are the Unholy ones.

There's a confirmed new orc deity, so bloodrager (which has an orc iconic) makes sense in this book.

I feel like repackaging "Inquisitor" as the "Evil Vindicator" is because "Inquisitor of Asmodeus" is something they absolutely wanted to keep around (as someone you don't want to meet in Cheliax.)

There's a confirmed new orc deity, so bloodrager (which has an orc iconic) makes sense in this book.

Interesting contrast, now that you mention it: Trzikhun is specifically Matanji, while the new goddess, Mahja Firehair, was a Belkzen-born gal! Gonna be interesting to see some of the darker sides of the Matanji, while Mahja and the Triumph of the Tusk AP will show more of the bright parts of Belkzen. Yin and Yang and all that...

There's a confirmed new orc deity, so bloodrager (which has an orc iconic) makes sense in this book.

Honestly, seems like we're getting several new orc deities, if the fabled "orc challenges orc god to take their seat" is gonna be showcased for War of Immortals/Divine Mysteries. Mike Sayre had this fun little tease he gave on Discord about the very same thing:

Michael Sayre — 09/06/2024 12:54 PM

These are excerpts from one of my favorite pieces of lore in War of Immortals. They are not the whole piece of fiction and I have removed the most spoiler-ific spoilers but there's probably some stuff in there a few people on this server will squee about.

War of Immortals Spoiler from Mike Sayre:

Long did the old gods sit upon their thrones of bone and blood. Verex the Despoiler. Zagresh the Destroyer. Lanishra. Sezelrian. Their cruelty and power spoke to our strengths and our failings. They marked what we had been and sought to claim what we could be. But we are orcs. We bow only on broken knees. When battle claims us and our lungs fill with blood, we warn the gods of our coming.

Verex was weak. The Despoiler became the despoiled, taken by Rovagug’s power. No one seeks the unworthy’s empty throne and no death rite shall free him from his torment, only a true and final death.

Zagresh fell to XX’s blade, and then XX planted that blade between Torag’s ribs to show the dwarves our wrath. Let Torag take the lesson learned as penance for pushing his children to harm our own, penance made full in his duty as YY’s second.

The old ways crumble beneath us. Dromaars play a song of new beginnings on drums that echo across Belkzen, our trial and our home. The weak gods fall. The strong rise. A new era for orcs begins. Let tyrants who whisper in crumbling towers tremble. We have not fallen and we have not forgotten. This age is ours.

Bad. ASS!

Interesting. I mean the Blood-drink-power angle is pretty deep. It really doesn’t have to be rage at all. I certainly didn’t need a Bloodrager. But the steal powers via drinking blood? Sure.

Well, the original class was called bloodrager, and without that hook there's not many blood drinking concepts that aren't some kind of vampire. Also, fairly certain it's in the book because a certain someone was bleeding all over the lawn.

Well, I guess that is quite a clunky problem that *could* be solved by making these…Alternate classes, like in PF1?

Sure, but that creates the 'lack of support' (and also the 'we need a yearlong playtest and a dedicated book to fit at most two of them') issue. Classes are expensive! They take forever to get out! I'd rather they fit a 4th level archetype feat that lets you switch to the class archetype than reprint 10 pages of barbarian and ranger feats.

@Ryangwy - my point is that by stepping them into an Alternate Class, or some other nomenclature, that still has access to all the feat support of the original, you can thus also sidestep the clunky nature of not being able to MC into/out of them.

Honestly, I’m kinda disappointed in the new blood rager. I have no desire to play a class based on drinking blood. I will, however, hold out hope that something similar to the 1e Blood rager will make an appearance. I thought that class was alot if fun to play.

@Ryangwy - my point is that by stepping them into an Alternate Class, or some other nomenclature, that still has access to all the feat support of the original, you can thus also sidestep the clunky nature of not being able to MC into/out of them.

I mean, that's just either an alternate MC class dedication or a 4th level MC archetype feat, something very doable (distinct from whether Paizo would do it or not, but then again if they wouldn't do that they wouldn't make it a full class either).

Maybe that girdle is PF2's equivalent of the mail bikini? Only time will tell.

They mentioned that there’s going to be a new light armor, Rattan Armor, to represent that “scant” armoring you’re referring to. I think they said it might be +1(+4 DEX).

Though, I’m looking forward to trying a “Loincloth” (Unarmored) 2H Exemplar based on 2 of the initial eikons.

My hopes for Bloodrager, at a minimum. are that it's either generic pick-a-tradition (like Eldritch Archer) spellcasting and scales at the same rate as a spellcasting multiclass or a full wave/bounded caster or you pick whatever non-wave/bounded spellcaster dedication you want. I know some people want it to specifically have Sorcerer bloodlines baked in but I personally find the options we currently have to be too thematically limited for the characters I would want to build.

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

But I wonder if there'll be a way to roleplay a more "clinical" or "hygenic" bloodrager, to add some variety?

I want to play a leshy bloodrager who drinks blood with their roots. That seems cleaner than doing it with your mouth.

Dracaena Cinnabari leshy, where your sap is blood colored. Or just any carnivorous plant I guess.

I really like the direction these seem to be going! I think the way these choose to play with the class mechanics should still hit the vibe, while still feeling like a pf2 class. I was actually a bit shocked to see slayer reprosed since the precision ranger has the whole "mark a target for death, then hurt them really well" shtick, but I like the holy assassin angle a lot.

Now, I know why Inquisitor had a name change (and imo it's a good reason), but I also just want to throw a little thanks for the specific use of Vindicator. I know it seems a lot of people either forgot or aren't aware of the Holy Vindicator prestige class, but it was one of my faves, and with the warpriest basically getting all of its cool stuff, it's neat to see the name live on, too! Also a class archetype is a pretty good analog for a prestige class!

I doubt these would have similar effects because why bother reprinting a focus spell with another name.

Tell me you haven't read the Red Mantis wizard school without telling me you haven't read it. That's exactly what they did with both the focus spells there. I gasped in horror before laughing at the pure, amazing laziness of it.

To be fair to them, they did at least add a trait to one of them. You can't say they literally did nothing.

I dunno, I think it's fine? It's not like the Inquisitions themselves were super principled. The Spanish Inquisition...

Nobody Suspects the Spanish Inquisition!

I don't think I could name a single thing I expect more in this thread than Spanish Inquisition jokes

To be fair to them, they did at least add a trait to one of them. You can't say they literally did nothing.

To be completely fair, they also wrote new flavour text and spell names!

I don't think I could name a single thing I expect more in this thread than Spanish Inquisition jokes

So then you don't expect anybody to make these jokes as completely predictable. And then ... somebody still does it! Nobody expects this!

I hope we get a few more Champion causes in this one - I'd really like to see a nature-focused champion (if Vindicator is a ranger but religion, why not a champion but nature?) Something about protecting the wilds, or guarding growth. Or maybe an archival Champion or one focused on banishing the undead - this seems like a great book to just put a few more in.

I love these ideas and want to see more of them in the game!

I hope we get a few more Champion causes in this one - I'd really like to see a nature-focused champion (if Vindicator is a ranger but religion, why not a champion but nature?) Something about protecting the wilds, or guarding growth. Or maybe an archival Champion or one focused on banishing the undead - this seems like a great book to just put a few more in.

I'd be all over a Green Knight-style champion's cause.

Since this book is giving us a divine rogue and a divine ranger, I guess I can hope someday for a non-divine Champion.

Like Primal Champion as a class archetype "Defender of nature" cause seems doable.

I hope this mean all the PF1e class's can come back as an archetypes in PF2e.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I dunno, I think it's fine? It's not like the Inquisitions themselves were super principled. The Spanish Inquisition...

Nobody Suspects the Spanish Inquisition!

But in Chelix: "Everyone suspects the Asmodeian Inquisition!"

...Its members are well paid for their work, and failure is punished by being sent to Rahadoum... where simply being a member of the Asmodeian Inquisition is punishable by death.

Since this book is giving us a divine rogue and a divine ranger, I guess I can hope someday for a non-divine Champion.

Like Primal Champion as a class archetype "Defender of nature" cause seems doable.

You can do that already by the right nature deity choice and role play it slightly differently.

I would love to see a primal defender as well, just different to a Champion.

Looking forward to an updated Guardian being released.

Honestly, I'd love to see a nature-defending champion. Maybe then people would realize that it's long past time to relax or vary the druid anathema a little and give them more room to roam.

Honestly pretty worried after that Vindicator preview, just based on the feat part:

"With feats like Call the Hunt, vindicators make their hunted prey off-guard if they and at least one of their allies are both adjacent to the target, and the vindicator can share their divine sanctification with their allies!"

It sounds like once again the ranger is being designed for melee. Which I get they CAN do, but martial ranged rarely get anything and the Howl of the Wild book is a prime example of that.

And funnily enough whenever a ranger is depicted in art they're usually always depicted with a bow or ranged weapon, yet they're rarely actually designed, mechanically, to favor a ranged weapon.

And this one is no different!

Honestly pretty worried after that Vindicator preview, just based on the feat part:

"With feats like Call the Hunt, vindicators make their hunted prey off-guard if they and at least one of their allies are both adjacent to the target, and the vindicator can share their divine sanctification with their allies!"

It sounds like once again the ranger is being designed for melee. Which I get they CAN do, but martial ranged rarely get anything and the Howl of the Wild book is a prime example of that.

And funnily enough whenever a ranger is depicted in art they're usually always depicted with a bow or ranged weapon, yet they're rarely actually designed, mechanically, to favor a ranged weapon.

And this one is no different!

??? Rangers are great at range, what are you talking about. Flurry loves not moving, Precision has a big damage bump that doesn't care about being in melee, they have plenty of ranged feat support and animal companions.

I presume the Vindicator feat being shared is meant for people whose conception of the Inquisitor is teamwork-oriented, because that's a good part of that class's fanbase. Presumably you can just not pick that feat.

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.

Bard > Minstrel (I'm not entirely sold on this one, but I can't think of a better name)

Troubadour?

I'll say I am looking forward to seeing how the new Class Archetypes work out. I've been looking forward to the successor of the Inquisitor ever since second edition came out and the successor of the Paladin focused on being the Heavy Armor Paragon. Given, out of a half dozen Paladin characters I've played in the past, only one would have willingly donned heavier than light armor given their own choices, the new take on the class obviously wasn't the most well fitting for those concepts. As it became quite clear the developers took a very different meaning for Holy Warrior than I wanted, I realized that what I probably wanted in Second edition for these concepts would be viewed more as a Holy Striker instead of Holy Defender, which was what Champion was.

So for some time after that I have looked forward then to a Successor to the Inquisitor, who despite the secret agent feel they had, was otherwise seen as something of a strong case for a Divine Striker. When the Thaumaturge was coming, i definitely got the Monster Hunter vibe from it, so had some hope maybe it might fit that concept but it really it just not really tied to divine, which is perfectly fine for the concept it is meant to be, but again left me wanting for these concepts.

I think some of these class Archetypes could very easily give me what was missing. (not that I couldn't have potentially squeaked something out with a Cleric or Oracle multiclass archetype to get the flavor I want, especially on a free-archetype game, but this hopefully will be better suited)

I will admit that I was surprised that the inquisitor(vindicator) wasn't coming out of Investigator, but I see the reasons and they make sense, and it sounds like future books may have a divine Investigator, so I'll look forward to seeing that one too.

Just noticing now, the mention of the Vindicator sharing their Divine Sanctification with their allies, and honestly, that sounds like a neat ability, as well as being a sort of _Nod_ to the old Inquisitor, without shoving too many abilities into one package.

magnuskn wrote:

I'll just point out that there also was the quite popular game Dragon Age: Inquisition and you were playing The Inquisitor. That game was about kicking demon ass for the church, so no relation to the historical inquisition.

The writers actually specifically mentioned that their intent was to reference the historical office of Inquisition.

Which, by the way, is still operating and active to this day, albeit under a more discreet name. I think it says it all that the historical connotations are so strong that even the currently active operations have less to do with how that word is perceived than that specific historical incarnation.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

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.

For Druid, I thought Tempest, but that's too weather-y and not enough animal-y, so I settled on Fury, for now. Fits for weather. Fits for 'nature, red in tooth and claw.'

Sorcerer is kinda fine for what it is.

D&D did stuff with Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, etc. that feel a bit too 'D&D' to me, but some classes, like Rogue or Wizard, I'm totally fine with. Gandalf was a wizard. Merlin was a wizard. Both were wizards long before D&D changed the name of 'magic-user' to wizard, so it's not like they popularized the name.

But yeah, Cleric -> Priest, Ranger -> Hunter, Monk -> Brawler are all choices I totally agree with. And especially Fighter -> Warrior. Warrior sounds badass. Fighter? No badass detected.

I'd keep Wizard and Rogue.

Bard stumps me. Minstrel, Troubadour and Skald all are different versions, but none of them really sing out to me. (I like Skald best, but it's pretty darn culturally specific?) Performer is just bleh. Tasteless gruel.

And yes, Barbarian -> Berserker. So much better.

I'm delighted that the whole Barbarians and Bards can't be Lawful and Monks can't be Chaotic nonsense has gone away as well. I never saw any mechanical or narrative use for those arbitrary limits. Bring on the snooty perfectionist OCD court herald who has memorized everyone's titles, order of importance and gossipy scandals and swaggering seat-of-her pants drunken master martial artist who closes her eyes and spins before picking her destination!

As for the topic of the thread?

*Jazzed* to see a Matanje orc iconic.
Bummed to see Imrijka wearing something other than her *striking* red outfit (Zadim's outfit also looks a little blander to me?).
Amused that 1.5 of the new Iconics are orc. :)

D&D did stuff with Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, etc. that feel a bit too 'D&D' to me, but some classes, like Rogue or Wizard, I'm totally fine with. Gandalf was a wizard. Merlin was a wizard. Both were wizards long before D&D changed the name of 'magic-user' to wizard, so it's not like they popularized the name.

Aragorn was a ranger long before d&d as well. The class is modelled after Aragorn and the PF2E ranger is more Aragorn than the D&D 5e one

For Bard, I would prefer a name that either convokes their jack-of-all-trades nature or their new occult focus (assuming they keep that for a 3rd edition). Polymath, factotum, esotericist or occultist sound good to me. Throw out all that tacked-on performance stuff and make that a subclass/archetype or whatever that edition would call a class variant.

Everything revealed in this blog is cool.

Feels like Paizo is starting to really "play" with the engine they built.

I am hyped for this book!

Bluemagetim wrote:

"...only vindicators of evil deities are called inquisitors."

Nice touch.

My contrarian side feels the urge to make an Inquisitor named David Hume.

But could David Hume out consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel?

I just noticed that it says the bloodrager only gives the rage trait to spells from the bloodrager archetype itself, which is rather disappointing, I was hoping to supplement their spell slots with other casting archetypes.

I just noticed that it says the bloodrager only gives the rage trait to spells from the bloodrager archetype itself, which is rather disappointing, I was hoping to supplement their spell slots with other casting archetypes.

It could give the caster Archetype standards the way spell shot does, so there's a chance

Set wrote:

D&D did stuff with Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, etc. that feel a bit too 'D&D' to me, but some classes, like Rogue or Wizard, I'm totally fine with. Gandalf was a wizard. Merlin was a wizard. Both were wizards long before D&D changed the name of 'magic-user' to wizard, so it's not like they popularized the name.

Aragorn was a ranger long before d&d as well. The class is modelled after Aragorn and the PF2E ranger is more Aragorn than the D&D 5e one

I suspect I knew that. :)

Kuroshimodo wrote:

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

Santification? Santafication? I don't think Santa has much to do with it. :-)

Inquisitors are Vindicators who choose Unholy sanctification. Vindicators do not necessarily have to choose any sanctification.

. . . But Santa DOES have something to do with Inquisition, as alluded to by this song about Santafication, the 1934 version (for kids) of Big Brother is Watching You.

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.

So . . . for vindication, you vill vant your Avenger to vipe your vindows vith Vindex . . . .

I think I had better hurry for the exit now . . . .

For Bard, I would prefer a name that either convokes their jack-of-all-trades nature or their new occult focus (assuming they keep that for a 3rd edition). Polymath, factotum, esotericist or occultist sound good to me. Throw out all that tacked-on performance stuff and make that a subclass/archetype or whatever that edition would call a class variant.

Emotionalist

Or some such.

But yes, less emphasis on the singing thing.