I certainly agree that this is far closer to IRL shamanism than to IRL animism, insofar as either exist as real things.

My reading of the class is that they're connecting to local Apparitions every single day as part of their preparation. They *aren't* dragging one beloved old spirit around - that's a Summoner's thing.

Perhaps, but that certainly isn't how they described it in the stream, or at least they left the door on that one wide open. If I recall correctly, they hardly described such characters as you note at all, whereas ones about which they went into detail were such as had one particular spirit which took pride of place.

Oxford Dictionary is defining animism a 'the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.'

Encyclopedia Brittannica gives us 'belief in innumerable spiritual beings concerned with human affairs and capable of helping or harming human interests.'

I don't know that I've ever seen an understanding of animism that exclusively applied to inanimate objects, but the Animist playtest calls out Apparitions as "spiritual entities" of humans, animals, natural features (volcanos, rivers, etc), and man-made things (secrets, farmland). The Shaman name is dicey for a number of reasons; it's tied to a 1e class whose mechanical identity (a pet class) is nowhere to be seen here, while it exists conversationally as a North Asian term frequently misapplied to Native American cultures by white outsiders to both.

Certainly, I would be surprised to find any culture that ascribed a spirit to trees without ascribing one to animals. The problem I have with the playtest is that the lore seems to detach the spirits from that of which they are. For example, the animist can interact with the spirit of a grove. This makes sense to me. That they can do so when that grove is many thousands of miles away seems very weird. This being because it seems to me that it would be analogous with human spirits: certainly you can interact with them while you're in the same room, by talking to the person, but if you want to talk while they're a thousand miles away you'll need a telephone.

It seems to me that the lore/mechanics for the animist are much closer to IRL shamanic traditions than to animist ones. The acquisition of helper spirits, which inhabit a spirit world, which you can allow to possess you, seems fairly close to what I've read of shamanic cultures. Far more to the point it strikes me as very different from what I've read of animist tradition. While definitions of animism are hard to pin down, one reasonable one is the claim that non-human things in general, and particularly inanimate ones, have a spirit tied to them. By contrast, there seems to be no particular idea that the apparitions are spirits of things.
I don't know, but it seems a pretty odd decision to me. I know it might have been hard to persuade the fanbase to accept some totally new set of mechanics for a "shaman" class, but given that Paizo have already said they want to talk with actual members of a given culture before trying to represent it in game, I'm guessing that any shaman class would be considerably altered in the new edition.

I've mentioned this before, but it'd be really cool to have some more utility-y impulses, to support a more mystical type of character, sort of like fullmetal alchemist.

Amazingly, I think this class is pretty cool, and doesn't need a huge amount of change. That said, the lore sbout inner gates sort of reminded me of mediæval mystics, or of alchemists of the sort that existed before the scientific method. Perhaps another way to explain it would be to say if the kineticist is an avatar fantasy, I'd like to play morebof a guru Pathik type, though with more western or chinese influence than indian.
It'd be really cool to have some options for a more mystic kineticist. I don't really know what form that might take, and my own ideas are only half formed, but if you have any, it'd be great to hear them.

I'm not entirely sure of that. Certainly big things would, but if you drop the domain initiate as the first level and replace it with another type of thing, and then add a few more subtle differences, maybe in the saving throw progression.

49: A magnificent tasseled robe, possibly a magical garment in itself. The tassels themselves are many coloured and intricately knotted. The knots also encode the writing of the book, similar to the inca khipu.

50: A set of metal plates, each etched with a single, huge, extremely intricate logogram. They were for a long time used as parts of a makeshift suit of armour, revealing themselves by taking no damage when the others were heavily worn.

51: a book bound in humanoid skin, and similarly with the parchment. Each page seems to have a mind of its' own, and each violently resists be written on, seemingly contorting to frustrate the writer, and trying to persuade them to write on another.

52: A book that accurately transcribes the dreams of its' owner, yet to the same owner the writing appears illegible. It is set with a green jade on the spine, in the shape of a single eye, with the lid contorted such that it is open on the left half and closed on the right.

53: Three volumes, progressively smaller, bound in red leather, and gilded. Each is associated with one of the hags from a legendary coven, and has their sign on the cover. The contents of each are richly decorated, and as one progresses through them in order (being first the maiden, then the mother, then the crone) they become both more sickening, ugly and disturbing and yet also more beautiful and intoxicating. Similarly, the persona of the writer changes from a highly pleasant one to a deeply unlikeable one, yet at the same time becomes far more compelling. Each tackles their distinct subject matter subject with a combination of humour and cruel wit, sombre academia, mythology and personal anecdotes, and a fair drop of condescension.
The book associated with the maiden is the largest about birth, and coming into being. That of the mother is about growth and change in the world, and is the middle book. That of the crone is about death. The themes of the second are contained within the first, and those of the third in the second, but in both cases distilled.

Of all the classes, it seems least likely that the cleric will get more subclasses. The feature gives them their proficiencies and not much else, and given that it represents their role in the church or religion (sort of, as I say it hasn't really been explored) there isn't much room to expand.
Or is there? The answer is yes by the way. Basically, there are two major archetypes of priest in fantasy role playing, the warrior priest and the more bookish congregation leader, but these do not paint a very good picture of priesthood as a whole. Rather, they represent a highly christo-centric view of that role, particularly as it developed in Europe. Throughout the world priesthood takes on many forms, which very rarely coincide directly with the ones presented here, and there are a number of examples of roles taken even in christianity that are left untapped. To this end I will present some examples here, drawn from my admittedly limited understanding.

A few notes before I begin: I will be talking primarily about cultures and religions alien to my own. If you belong to a religion or other group about which I talk here, and you feel I misrepresented your faith, please feel free to say so. That said, I am drawing on those faiths for inspiration for a fantasy game, rather than trying to produce an exact replica, so my primary aim is to present something that would be fun, at least when better polished. Second, I am leaving aside a number of traditions and faiths that might very readily be adapted to this, particularly a number of animist or shamanist belief systems as it seems likely that Paizo will give them their own distinct class. Without further ado, let's begin.

The missionary: this type of priesthood is one fairly specific to christianity (even though in many fantasy worlds many religions are evangelistic). It requires a very specific set of theological impetuses for a religion to want to go out and collect more followers. That said, a player might want to take on the role of a character who goes out into the world to bring knowledge of their faith to others to persuade them to join their religion. My mechanical thoughts are that your character should be given a proficiency in diplomacy automatically, and, each time they manage to persuade another character to take some action in line with their gods teachings they should gain some kind of blessing. I don't know exactly where the limits lie however, especially since it would depend very much on your game.

The religious lawyer: this type of priesthood is drawn from my understanding of priesthood in islam and judaism. My understanding is this: in belief systems with complex sets of strictures, edicts, commandments etc., one important role of the priesthood is to interpret the sacred law, to be able to make judgements, and to discuss that law, and also to put it into practice. My thoughts here are that there are two possible mechanical paths. Either way I think one should have some kind of legal lore proficiency, but the options are these: either, which was my first thought, you act primarily as interpreter, and have a feat which at some interval (say once a month) allows you to commit an act anathema to your deity and get away scot free, with a successful legal lore check to find a loophole. The second, which I like less, is as more of an enforcer, with a built in ability similar to the spell anathematic reprisal, to rebuke those who break the religious laws.

The final type I will cover here, though there are many others, is that of the ritualist priest. Tanking inspiration from a plethora of sources, though I am thinking particularly of the Japanese shinto priesthood, and also of traditions such as hinduism and confucianism, the role of the ritualist priest is less one of community leadership and more one of making sure the appropriate rituals are completed. In my conception of this role actual belief plays a relatively small part, though it is prerequisite. Rather, the priest job is simply, as above, to go through the appropriate motions and chants at the appointed times. Mechanically I imagine that, in addition to some specific lore on rituals, such a cleric would have on the one hand the requirement to stop their adventuring at certain predetermined(likely by a timetable composed by the player) hours of the day to perform rituals, but in response to that they would get some kind of blessing. This would again be dependent on the game for how well it worked, as it would require the GM to keep track of time, and for the player to keep track of the cycles whereby their precomposed timetable of rites would work. There would also need to be restrictions on said timetables of rites to prevent their being exploited.

Edit, as I clicked post too early: As you can see, these ideas lack mechanical polish, but I hope also that they demonstrated at least some of the possible variety and untapped potential of the cleric's doctrine. This list of ideas isn't even close to complete. Just on the christian end of things (which is where I am the most familiar), I might suggest the scholarly theologer, the monk (no, the other kind) who takes on a particularly strict set of tenets, and the pilgrim, who spends much of their time traveling between holy sites. Either way however, I hope this is interesting to you.

I'm going to bring it up again: I don't see why, if the fantasy of being a thaumaturge is being able to trick the universe into doing what you want, the thaumaturge is not a spell caster. That is literally the definition of what spell casting is (for whatever variation on the method). The charisma thaumaturge was a mistake, it should have been wisdom or maybe intelligence from the get go. There is a space for the class described, but it doesn't even come close to aligning with the mechanics for the thaumaturge.

It confuses me. If you are in favour of a thaumaturge that uses charisma as the key stat, please could you explain why charisma makes sense without making it sound like it should just be a spellcaster. That's what really got to me about all the arguments for charisma. All the 'I persuade the universe to bend to my will' stuff always made me think: that is just spellcasting, and that means that the class loses a degree of uniqueness. So, I would be willing to change my mind if you could make an argument for charisma that when looking at it didn't just look like a description of a sorcerer or similar.
Thanks.

To me, the idea is that you are interacting with magic without actually using magic. You are tricksy and cunning and RESOURCEFUL. You know what each enemies specific weaknesses are and can exploit them. You hoard every peice of esoteric stuff you come across, all this not because you want to but because you have to to hold your own. You are constantly seeking out every possible advantage, because you will probably need it.
The main distinction in my mind between you and the investigator is in the thought process. The investigator is about looking at all the discrete data and putting them together in a comprehensive synthesis like a neat library. The thaumaturge by contrast is as an ancient archive, vast, but with all the titles covered in dust, stacked in piles on the floor and organised not neccesarily without system but with one unapparent to any who haven't spent years studying it. They collect data, but do not attempt to combine them in a useful way, only hanging onto them until they may be needed.

True. If instead of Find Flaws it was something more along the lines of "Bind Energy" or something, where the thaumaturge creates a connection between something in their possession that's thematically ballparkish to the enemy, and uses it like a poppet or something to narratively weaken what they're looking at?

It mostly kills the flavor of the researching, learning trinket-master that's currently in the text, but it might be a smoother way to tie it all together.

Right now it feels like there are three ways to get this class narratively functioning:

1. Weaknesses are inherent (but not normally mechanically represented), and the thaumaturge studies and collects items to have a veritable trove of things they can utilize when they determine the weakness of the enemy in front of them.

2. Weaknesses are crafted by the thaumaturge's own power, utilizing an object in their position as a focus for generating the weakness.

3. Somewhere in the middle... monsters have inherent weaknesses, but the thaumaturge can manipulate, increase, or sometimes wholly create one. They utilize the inherent connection or metaphor of the trinket in hand to leverage these weaknesses.

I mean, option 3 probably has the most ways it can work, and is mostly where it's at now between how the class is written and how Mark has discussed how he would want it to work instead. But options 1 and 2 are much more internally consistent, especially when it comes to the value of recalling knowledge about the enemy.

I dunno. I think the downside of leaning into CHA as the main stat really minimizes the ideas that they're researching, planning, and preparing for any of this on purpose. Leaning into INT somewhat weakens the idea that this is esoteric or occult power they're messing with and instead is just seeing the natural flaws in anything. Leaning into WIS removes their agency at creating or manipulating things at all.

So I would go with option 1. I would also argue that removing their agency at creating or manipulating things would be a more interesting option. As I've argued for a while now, for me the key idea of the thaumaturge for me is that although they interact with the supernatural, they do not directly use magic. It is far more interesting to me to have a character who has to be resourceful, making use of limited resources, taking advantage of any weakness in their enemy. This would be a far more distinct flavour than another variant on 'I use my power to shape reality so that it does what I want'. If I wanted that I'd play a sorcerer with whichever archetypes made it fit the specifics.

I have been reading everyone talking about how they want to use the thaumaturge to play John Constantine, but I didn't know who he was, so I looked him up and am unconvinced that he isn't some other class(though I wasn't able to glean much information about him). So:
Who is John constantine? What about this character makes him not some other class? What about him means that his so explicitly NOT A SPELLCASTER? What about him makes him a thaumaturge? Why is he so cool? Please explain. Thanks.

Again I'm just going to point out, that if the thaumaturge uses force of will to do their stuff, why aren't they simply a spell caster. It makes very little sense that they would rely on physical intermediaries if they are just using their innate power to do the things regardless, and yet with the thaumaturge I want not to be using true spells. If not that, what's the point of the class.

While it's true that, ideally, you are using the right esoterica, it's absolutely incorrect that you aren't creating weaknesses. The flavor of the class, as stated in the thread that Mark Seifter made himself, that, in the end, you are convincing the universe the esoterica you're using has some quality that exploits a fundamental flaw in your foe, and that you're convincing the universe that the esoterica you attach to your equipment gives the whole weapon and your body the same anathemic qualities as the esoterica. Hell, the thread is called "I am the universe, convince me".

This is also partly reflected in the mechanics; if you pass, you know the werewolf is weak to silver, and you clip a silver piece onto your sword and you're good to go; if you fail, you spend an extra turn kinda fudging a good enough connection to qualify

In this case, why do you need your esoterica in the first place. Yes it may speed things up, but why can't you persuade the universe that any which thing could trigger a weakness. Also, couldn't this be equally well explained by your use of the dubious knowledge feat: you get the information, you just have to spend extra time trying to work out which bit of it is true and which isn't.

It also comes down to a matter of personal preference. As I have said before, if your main thing was getting the universe to bend to your will, rather than relying on external objects to do it for you, then you may as well be a true magic user. I would feel disappointed if this class was essentially a magic user but with a different magic system, where it tries to define itself as a class that does not use magic directly. I would also be less interested in it conceptually. Where before we had characters who studied their foe to exploit their weaknesses, prepared for their fights, gathered esoteric tools to help them, we would have a character who is essentially bluffing and coercing their way to power. It seems far too much brute force and far too little sublty. While there may be room for such a character, this is not that class, nor is this that book. It's called an archive because it is a repository of knowledge. Why would your charisma powered class need to do research if they can just pretend they did it?

Edit: punctuation

I quite like them, though I can see why you'd dislike them. I think they fit very well with thaumaturge character types: dabbling in all sorts of magic adjacent territory, relying on external rather than internal factors. Perhaps they could work as general feats, but I think they work fine as thaumaturge specific feats (though because of this I am starting to have doubts: I can't think of a particular reason as to why another character couldn't make such a pact).

Imo, I'd rather keep cha, but sprinkle in more of the limited skill increases. Cha makes sense, in a mystical sense, it's well established as the "bend the cosmos to your will" stat, and while knowledge ia part of the class, the really big part is bending reality to your will in subtle ways, or, barring an actual match, convincing reality that you do

I'm not sure I can agree. I'd say that the knowledge is absolutely the main part, and if the main part was 'bending reality to your will' the class would be a true spellcaster (whether with full or magus style progression). Instead the class has no real spellcasting. They don't need to bend reality to their will, they've got items to do that for them.

While I’d be happy with folks using Int or Wis if they want, Charisma makes perfect sense to me. As willpower or a force of personality the Thaumaturge needs Charisma to enact the change they want to see. I can totally see an unwise or unlearned or dotty thaumaturge, intrinsically instinctual and devoid of the usual reason that makes sense to “smart” or “wise”.

But, again, I would argue that being a thaumaturge is not about enacting the change you want to see. That's why you have implements and talismans and scrolls and all that to do it for you. If it were that, why isn't it just a true magic user. Instead you have a character who acts through instruments and intermediaries to get what they want, and who has to understand them rather than make demands of them.

I don't think that 'getting the universe to play along is a reasonable thing to say of the thaumaturge that they do. The key principle of the thaumaturge is that they use external implements, rather than relying on internal power. Why do they need to get the universe to play along when they already have magic items/implements that will do what they want anyway. It makes far more sense to allow invested magic items to key off wisdom and call it a day, with some wisdom based social options like: 'I find out what you're afraid of so I can intimidate you better'.

By studying all the different stories, hypotheses, theories and beliefs, the Thaumaturge can find and use the connection they need.

They are not putting their faith in a greater power, like WIS-based Clerics or Druids do.

They are not analyzing and building a single encompassing model of reality the better to bend it to their need like INT-based Wizards and Witches.

They go with the flow, stay open-minded and alert to opportunities, with faith in themselves. CHA-based is an excellent choice IMO.

What you're describing is not a charisma based character, but a wisdom one. Your penultimate statement is pretty much a verbatim a description thereof.

As an aside, where does it say a wisdom based character must put their faith in a higher power, monks certainly needn't.

I don't think of the thaumaturge as imposing their will on the world. Otherwise, why would they need to acquire all these prices of esoterica. Having now seen the arguments in favour of the wisdom thaumaturge I don't feel that it should be intelligence, since I don't see them trying to unify the sum of their knowledge, or using the scientific method in a comprehensive way, but equally I think charisma is wrong. I would say that charisma implies that the character is defined by force of will or internal power, whereas the thaumaturge is defined by the collection and understanding of external implements and esoterica. This makes a lot sense from the viewpoint of them trying to comprehend the incomprehensible occult stuff etc.

I really love the class (notwithstanding it's having charisma as it's main stat where wisdom or intelligence would make more sense to me). I'd love to play one. It scratches a deep itch I have for magic that's less formulaic and more mysterious, harder to pin down to neat laws and equations. I'd seriously consider running a game where the spellcasting classes were banned, but the thaumaturge wasn't.

I also love the pact feats. I'd love to see them expanded to cover a greater range of outsiders and other creatures. I'd love to be able to make a pact with a hag or some proteans, and as a GM I think I'd have great fun running the player going on a quest to make this deal and the aftermath thereof. Influenced by Matt Colville, I really love the idea of PCs having their own goals and going put of their way to achieve them, as well as having character abilities that are defined by the stories you tell about them.

Also, multiclassing and dual classing with this class looks to be really fun. I'm thinking especially of witches and oracles here, but I can't think of a single class this wouldn't be awesome with (though a swashbuckler might take a bit of work).
Well done to the design team.

I'd really like to be able to play psi judge Anderson from judge Dress.

Bard is CHA-based too.

But the argument could be made that the bard has a direct link to performance as part of the class' lore, and has a much better reason for being charisma based. There is no obvious reason for the thaumaturge to use charisma particularly.

Yes, I felt the same way. Charisma feels quite weird for a class that's all about gathering knowledge. An int or wis based class would make a lot more sense (I'd probably say to go wis, as we're positively drowning in int classes)

Thanks.

Divs are lawful evil, which seems weird to me, as I find that the lore suggests NE. This idea is backed by the fact that Ahriman, their god, is NE, and they used to be NE in first edition. Does anyone know why this detail was changed?

I think that the primary distinction that defines arcane magic is that it, above all other magic, can be studied. It is said above that primal and divine magic resist study(even if it is possible to a legendary wizard). I think that this should also be extended to occult magic. Consider that the iconic occult caster, the bard, collects tales and scraps of magical knowledge, but doesn't seek to study them academically. Consider also the witch(which in my opinion ought to have been single list occult, but has been landed with that simply being the most common option). They receive knowledge of spells from their patron, rather than elaborating on the knowledge itself.

If you will allow me some flavour text: Occultism is the magic of secrets and half knowledge, lacking the fundamental, possibly mind breaking comprehension that would make it whole. As a result, it is not a cutting science, mastered by great mids pushing back the boundaries of the unknown, but an accumulation of scraps, undertaken by people who either accept that they are groping blindly forward in the dark, feeling for anything other than the base ground, or who have yet to go mad. Each scrap is unconnected to the last, and they form no great tapestry, but a monument to human ignorance. No wizard could study it for long, as the futility of their attempts at progress would drive them away, insane or both.

In short, if the arcane be magic from study, primal from one-ness with nature and the divine from faith, the occult is magic from harnessing the inexplicable, without seeking explanation.

And in less esoteric terms, the comparison is like that between a guy who uses the latest science to make a laser gun, and a guy in the middle ages who finds a death ray and knows how to use it but not how to make another. It may be possible to understand, but no-one yet has, and it would require an understanding of subjects that require so much more study to be useful that it's ridiculous to think of someone reaching that unified theory anytime soon. At best, the occult spell caster can use static electricity to perform some amazing party tricks.

To be honest, I'd be far more excited for a GMG 2, wihout much playerside stuff. The first one was amazing, but there's so much moe ground a second one could cover I think. Things like spell design, while there are some obvious patterns, are yet to have official guidelines. Also, some subsystems and variant rules would be cool, npcs, etc.. I'd also welcome some more stuff on relics. If that were rounded off with some more GMing advice in chapter one, I would be right on board.

Kasoh wrote:

if you have probable cause that a crime is going to be committed.

”Oh I’m not going to rape anyone, I’m just a humble faithful follower of the demon lord of rape who wants me to rape people in faithful service to him.”

And you’ll say that’s perfectly fine with a straight face?

It doesn't matter whether or not it's said with a straight face. If they haven't done it then there is no case against them, and they innocent of such a crime until proven guilty of it. There is no way of banning such worship without becoming oppressive.

There will always be people who disagree with your definition of evil, as can be shown by the sheer quantity of alignment debates on the internet. In enforcing any one view those who simply disagree with you become oppressed.

Got it, banning the worship of the demon lord of rape = evil

Worshipping the demon lord of rape = not evil

I never said that it wasn't evil to worship such a god, just that it is wrong for a government to intervene. Equally, after the end of any evil regime, such as the soviets say, there will be people who want it back. It is not the states place to punish them for that veiwpoint, only to prevent them from damaging society if they work to bring down the government. There will always be evil people in society or those who hold evil veiwpoints. It would be impossible to prevent this, and the state shouldn't try. Only if by acting on those veiws a person becomes a danger either to society or those around them should the state intervene.

Conversely, a parent who steals to feed their starving children should be punished as any theif, even though that is a good act(though the state should take action to make that unnecessary, for example by the provision of aid).

In short, good or evil is not the place of the state. Only the balance of freedom and order.

notXanathar wrote:

edit: Also, on the subject on the subject of banning evil gods, yes, I would say it's evil unless their doctrine specifically incites people to commit crime,

Which would be most of them, depending on how you define "crime". Evil gods aren't Evil because they're nice and get along with everyone.

So in your opinion it would be Evil to stop followers of the demon lord of rape? That's not a faith you can be devout to and not, ya'know, evil as all f*@*. Your suggestions only apply after the fact, which isn't much use to the victims. Try spinning "I know followers of Socothbenoth have a bad rap but he hasn't raped anyone yet so let's give him a chance".

Ever hear of the Tolerance of Intolerance paradox?

Crime for my purpose is something that would be a crime even if it weren't associated with a God. Also, whether or not following socothbenoth makes you evil, it is not the place of any government or other force to make you do otherwise. In addition, a very important point of punishment of crime is to dissuade people from commiting it. It only applies after the fact in the case of normal crimes, and it shouldn't be changed just for religiously motivated crimes. Also, what is paradoxical about the tolerance of intolerance, more so than being intolerant of anything except 'tolerance'.

If you apply the standard applied by the OP that banning faiths makes a nation evil overall, then almost 100% of real world nations where of an evil alignment a few hundred years ago (and by that standard, many still would be!) - this is obviously a very unfair standard to apply.

That doesn't make it any less evil, nor does the fact that up until a few hundred years ago most countries kept slaves, which is still absolutely evil, even though it was thought of as so at the time. Whether or not standards were contemporary, we should still hold the past to account, although leaving room for their accomplishments. Additionally, many countries did not place actual bans on religion. Across Europe for example, Jews and Muslims were allowed to practice. There were restrictions, which were evil, and there were few actuaactual bans. Mainly they had bans on other christian sects, such as Catholics. In any case, while these were nothing in comparison were you are a criminal for any faith of any kind, good or evil.

Finally, on the question of whether it would be evil of a state to ban wearing red shirts, yes, but faith is not like a shirt that one wears and can be discarded at a moment's notice. It is often a deep seated part of ones identity and to force a person to discard that is wrong at any level.

Finally, on the matter of designers pulling certain demon lords. It is the designers prerogative to decide that such things are inappropriate to allow players to do or that it could cause harm to others engaging with it. Preventing someone from creating a character who they plan to embody, and who is dedicated to such vile beings is not the same as requiring someone who has spent their life venerating this being because it is a part of their culture and identity to drop it because you dislike what that entity advocates is quite a different thing. People should be judged primarily on their actions, not their thoughts. In any case, it is certainly not a good act, and Rahadoum bans all faith in gods, whether good or otherwise. It would be equivalent to banning all Christianity on the basis that some interpretations (in my mind utter misinterpretations) would argue that homosexuality is wrong. Believing that is not an evil act, because it is not an act at all, but it is not unreasonable to introduce laws to stop them from discriminating on that basis. In any case the purpose of the law is not to prevent people from being evil, it is to protect people from other people.

I recognise that the political situation at the time made the removal of specific religious institutions necessary to preserve peace. However, that doesn't make what they chose to do any less wrong. There would have been better solutions, where what they did reminds me of the Japanese policy of sakoku, which sealesealed it off completely from the rest of the world because the Catholic church was trying to dominate their culture: a response was needed, but the one they got was disproportionate, and led to years of oppression.

Also, whether or not rights based thinking was around then is irrelevant in terms of morality. There was no such thinking in Roman Times, yet their keeping of slaves or persecution of Christians was still evil.

On the subject of worship being a dual loyalty more so than on earth: this makes little sense to me. On earth, since any deities that might be present rarely exercise their power if at all, loyalty may easily turned to an institution. This would be considerably more difficult where gods are self evident, so loyalty would tend directly to the God, with anyone taking advantage of faith likely sent a swift smiting.

I feel that your argument misses the fact that as a defensive tactic is many millennia out of date, and also that the laws of mortality focus specifically on not allowing people to submit to gods. Why shouldn't people submit to, thank, or otherwise worship gods if that's what they're into, and why should the thought police come after them for doing so.

In any case, pragmatism does not make an act non-evil. The ends only justify the means if you include all the ends, specifically all the people you imprison on the way.

I wasn't intending to start an alignment debate, only that the anti-faith laws seem oppressive, and couldn't help but harm people in the nation whether or not it has good intentions. While I understand that they don't hide their laws, neither does Cheliax lie about having slaves. Wouldn't that kind of dishonesty, and similarly witch hunting mobs be more of a neutral or even chaotic evil thing using the facade of law. I know that this looks a little like an alignment debate, but it just felt very off to me personally, and I wanted to say my piece.

edit: Also, on the subject on the subject of banning evil gods, yes, I would say it's evil unless their doctrine specifically incites people to commit crime, and even then I'd draw the line at only putting limits on preaching and associated crimes, like kuthites performing torture on some non member as part of worship. This is perhaps a personal thing, but I can totally see some beauracrat worshipping asmodeus just in hopes of career advancement or a midwife who pays homage to lamashtu just to hope she doesn't visit, and I don't think that a state should infringe on that.

So the whole thing with Rahadoum is that they banned the worship of gods. This seems irreconcileable with not being evil. It puts considerable limits on freedom of speech and even freedom of thought, in ways that simply are not inherently harmful. You can be fined simply for owning certain books or symbols (one wonders what happens to said books immediately afterwards). While the state has performed some good works, specifically the developement of non-magical healing, I cannot believe that that justifies the oppresion of it's people.

Additionally, I cannot believe either that the forcing out of religion was accepted unilaterally when it was brought in. Certainly, in any nation there is bound to be disagreement on such matters, and it is not an unreasonable assumption that when this decision was made there was a considerable number of people who dissented, or were worshippers, even if they didn't constitute a majority. I also don't believe that Rahadoum was a nation founded on those principles. If you look through history I don't believe that you will ever find record of a nation founded on an ideal that managed to survive without bloody conquest. Edit, having read the wiki: I now know that they did it to stop a holy war, but there are many better ways to deal with this sort of thing than just to ban worship. It reminds me of the japanese sakoku.

I recognise that Rahadoum is against human servitude to gods etc. but what about people who are quietly living their lives and giving thanks to their god of choice that they weren't born in Cheliax or Nidal. They are harming no-one, but the government has made their actions illegal and punishable.

In short, the country is built on the pure legion, who are literally thought police, and yet this is not considered evil. Please explain.

I'd like to see a Bard that was a Bard and not an Occultist. A bit fighter, a bit rogue, with a few songs, but very little spells.

I'd quite like a return to before the bard was a confusing anomaly of tropes and magic rock and roll, and when instead it was more like a travelling historian/loremaster with bits of druidic spells who just happened to record and distribute their knowledge in the form of songs. I don't know how well that aligns with your ideas, but the bard has always felt like a mistake to me until I finally found out what was going on when it was originally introduced. I know that designers have tried hard not to play into it mechanically in various ways, but it's never really worked for me.

I would love any class that manages to do rune magic properly, without just being an alchemist with different item types, or just using reflavoured spellcasting(though a little of that wouldn't go awry). It's such an evocative idea in my head, but it's rarely been made to work. Of the innumerable problems any idea faces, it is chiefly made difficult by the fact that runes are a system not balanced for use as a class feature, unlike alchemical items, although this could be sidestepped with abilities similar to a clerics emblazon feats. Also, once they've placed the runes on an object, they then don't have much to do in combat; the idea is really just good for a prebuffing thing. I know that it could be done with an archetype like the talisman dabbler, but I don't want to feel like a dabbler: I want to be able to play someone who dedicated their life to mystic calligraphy. I don't know if paizo is able to pull it off, but it would be great if they could. Edit: for reference, I have tried and failed to do so repeatedly. Good luck to anyone else who gives it a go.

I am unsure of whether tenets of balance are really necessary. The way I see it is that balance is an inherently lawful neutral thing, but one can be a lawful neutral supporter of virtually anything if you set your mind to it with sufficient gusto and disregard for collateral damage and personal safety. Remember also that Law and Chaos are equally far apart as Good and Evil. Given which I've written a few neutrality specific tenets, based on my interpretations of these alignments. Note that these are pretty extensive, and not at all polished: they are just suggestions.

Crusader[lawful neutral]
edicts:
-commit yourself fully to causes.
-do whatever it takes to fulfill your promises.
-act without compromise, based upon your beleifs and commitments above all other things.
-broker disputes between your allies accurately, based on evidence and agreed law over perceived or actual slight.
-Respest lawful authority, whether good or evil, without commiting crimes.
anathema:
-give up in pursuit of your goals.
-break any promises you make, or moral principles you set yourself.
-hold yourself to anything but the highest standards.
-decieve.
-interpret law in any way other than that in which it is written.

Pragmat[neutral]
edicts:
-make difficult decisions and accept the outcomes.
-be humble.
-know who you call a friend and treat them as such
-assess all results of an action.
-live and let live.
anathema:
-take oaths which bind you to take actions when you may not wish to.
-put the principles over desires.
-act without regard for outcomes.
-act against your better judgement.
-unreasonably constrain your emotion.

Wanderer[chaotic neutral]
edicts:
-act as your whim dictates.
-never sleep in the same bed twice.
-seek to subvert rules as you come into conflict with them.
anathema:
-bind yourself to a cause.
-make a promise.
-constrain your emotion.

To be fair, any build for the doctor would need at least to have the investigator multiclass, unless you got a planar ranger archetype with a recall knowledge build.

true, but the fey is all about weird intangible things. You are right that it is hard to force the planes to fit traditions, but given the strong illusion magic stuff, I still think that the fey sorcerer should be occult with primal bonus spells, given that the sorcer is sort of intuitive anyway.

Yes, I imagine non-lethal weapon proficiency, or an inverse of the monks powerful fists to allow non-lethal attacks with anything sans penalty. I would probably say this: like a wizard uses weapons when spells fail, so too do you use them, albeit more proficiently, when negotiations inevitably fail.

If one looks at the sorcerer bloodlines list, it is fairly obvious that different groups of planes are associated with different traditions of magic. The aligned planes are associated with the divine, the elemental ones are associated with primal (with exception given to genies specifically), the outer spaces between worlds ia! extra-dimensional entity of the week are occult, the material plane is arcane (sort of, for obvious reasons it's not exactly reliable), and the astral and ethereal have yet to be seen(I'm banking on occult for ethereal and either occult or arcane for the astral).

For the most part these are fairly obvious. The aligned planes are important to the whole 'where does one go when one dies', so of course they are integrated into religion. But why oh why is the first world primal where the plane of shadow is occult.

To deal with the obvious counters, the basic symmetry argument doesn't hold up, since either it applies to all transitive planes, or it applies to only those 2. If all transitive planes have it, then one of them has to be divine, but that feels very out of place, at best you could shoehorn it in for the ethereal. On the other hand, if it's only shadow and first world then why does the first world get primal. It is the obvious first choice to be sure, but the fey magic is also almost entirely defined in folklore as being mind affecting, with the background of trees being little more than coincidence. It feels a little off to me that the focus is more on the fey's ability to have pretty flowers than to get inside your head and make you beleive that there are pretty flowers, and also that said flowers are far more interesting than whatever thing is trying to kill you.

At this point or before you should have looked at the title and asked yourself 'didn't this person say that it was only a minor annoyance?'. To you, dear, astute, intelligent reader I can only apologise for having you read through my mad ramblings and say this. I was yanked out of my blissful ignorance a few nights prior, and if I'm going down I'm taking you all with me in a way that is hopefully coherent and well reasoned. Sorry again.

Now that my irrational anger at seeing someone who deigned to disagree with me has died down, I am reminded of a mistake I made when I was being introduced to the hobby, when I couldn't remember the class list and posited that one might be able to have levels as a merchant. While this wouldn't work for The Doctor, the fact that the game balances for gold to such a degree that it might be a viable design.

EDIT(remebered an idea just as clicked submit post): I would very much be in favour of the occultist being renamed warlock, and something similar happening for arcanist. If nothing else it would free the devs from having to have the class define their homonymous traditions to the point where the arcanist is trying to out do the wizard. However, it would also please me more on the aesthetic level in that I have very specific veiws about what is a valid name for a spell casting class.

I'm hoping for a number of single tradition classes that really solidify what it means to cast from that tradition. I feel like the tradition system was introduced perhaps without the devs really thinking through the implications enough, and now, whenever they have a class that can have a number of different flavours, especially planar ones, they automatically assume that it's a pick-a-list.

[rant]
Traditions of magic aren't defined simply by their source. There is no force in the world that could just give you arcane magic. Arcane magic is not defined by being dragon magic, but by being the set of spells that can be acheived by study. No class that studies their magic should be given divine spells, because, conversely no amount of study is going to give you those spells.

For example, I am one of those maniacs who thought the witch should get only occult magic, not because that was a flavour thing, but because witches are defined by beig taught esoteric secrets by mysterious patrons, and, in my book at least, no amount of ancient secrets can unlock the magic of faith, nor give you the mathematical precision recquired to master both mind and matter.

I feel that by reducing the tradition system to different colours of outsider cheapens the whole thing, and makes it much more bland. Ifthe only difference between different types of magic is whether it's from fey or fiends it becomes a far less interesting character decision than whether you got it through hard work or great faith. In the end there becomes no real point distinguishing between them at all, since if you want some different spells you just go to the guy with butterfly wings instead of bat ones.
[/rant]

So in light of all that, and of whether or not you now think me insane, I would like a number of classes which get tradition right. The magus at least seems a step in the right direction in that regard, but it would also be great to see a class that really showed off the defining features of primal magic while not just being a druid clone, and one for occult magic as well(because the devs didn't realise that divinity was not the defining feature of the oracle, but curses and mysteries, anyone hearing occult alarm bells going off, insane grumble). I think that setting a good precedent for the responsible use of the tradition system in the earlyish years of the games would be a really good idea.

I am all for the Arcanist as a sort of mad scientist mage, but I can't say that I agree that it should span the different traditions. If nothing else, I don't beleive that study of magic can get you to anything but arcane magic. The arcane spell list is the set of spells that it is possible to reach through study. The Unified theory is such a high level feat because it requires a supernaturally gifted genius to be able to draw real comparisons between the different traditions of magic. Without such legendary insight, magic of different traditions is utterly impenetrable between users.

While it may be possible to study different traditions of magic through their own lenses, to try to make progress in divine casting through the lense of the arcane would be like trying to study art through the lense of physics. It is an error, I feel, to treat the different traditions of magic as simply different flavours, from which one can pick and choose. They are totally different ways of looking at the world, reached in totally different ways.

I don't think that I would accept any arcanist class that wasn't purely arcane.

As for the matter of mechanics. The basis of all classes are its mechanics. While the lore rounds out the class and grounds it.

This is blatantly untrue. If this were the case then there would be as many classes as there were ideas for cool mechanics, and the number of classes in ODnD would be much greater than the current number, since the idea of balance is something that developed more recently. Gygax would simply have thrown in anything he thought cool, whereas modern designers would have thrown out those concepts that couldn't be made to be balanced. There were not because a classes mechanical identity must develop to at least to some extent from its lore, rather than the lore being a layer on top. Lore defines the lines within which class abilities can operate, and without it there is no reason not to have a Gurps style grab bag of cool things, without the long term progression that a class system provides.

For example, without the lore of having a patron, a witch would simply be a set of wizard class feats giving you a better familiar. Instead it has some cool and flavourful feats defined by it's being a witch with a patron, and only there because of that. Without lore as a guiding principle of design there would be no pure tradition casters, and there would be no traditions because casters would just choose the spells they liked. The system on having class relies on the idea of strong lore that a player commits to to some extent, that then guides their long term progression.

Class feat pools exist because within lore there is some flexibility. A highly trained warrior may want to charge into battle quickly and strike their foe, but they may also want to learn about their foe the better to take them down. However, the reason that these feats are able to progress as they gain levels is because the designers can be sure that by the time that they reach 14th level they are still a highly trained warrior, and have thus been able to develop their skills in the same direction.

Additionally, whether or not character precedes class for you, for at least some portion of the playerbase a great advantage of the current system is that any character that one wishes to play will be supported. Classes without narrative justification serve only to confuse and bloat the choices they have to make. Such options require a top down underderstanding of what makes them tick, and decrease a players freedom to develop who their character is by being forced to pigeonhole their character, rather than picking a broad archetype, because the subtle differences mean that classes jostle for their attention.

This is why, instead of having separate classes for mystic hunter, trapper and warrior with animal companion, we have a single class: ranger. There could be separate mechanical support for each, but instead a player is able to choose to play a survivalist tracker type, and elaborate from there.

In short: the reason that pathfinder and othe class based games are able to be what they are(and not give way to truly nightmarish feat trees) is because that class design is guided by lore, and not the other way around, and asserting otherwise will lead to a bloated mess of a game.

I'm sorry to all the people who read this essay and think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but it's my molehill and I'm willing metaphorically to die here.

A question that kind of follows on from this is: in what sense is the summoner a summoner in the literal sense of the term. Instead of summoning your eidolon as your main means of having them about, which would seem a much more hierarchical, it seems that the summoner has more of a symbiotic relationship with them, and is more of a conduit, by which means they are able to manifest. I recognise that originally they had summoning spells built in, but I would question whether that was necessary for the key idea of the class.

Perhaps, it would be better to have it as something like a paladin or monk. Their key mechanism of power might be their eidolon, with a bunch of focus spells and pseudo-magical abilities focused on enhancing that. This might perhaps work better with the idea that they focus more on god-calling (in golarion at least). That also would give them the power budget to have a really powerful eidolon.

In any case, the lore around doesn't to me seem to support the class being called the summoner. It seems more like the focus of the class is more summoning adjacent, and that it might perhaps be constrained by the notion that it is only summoning. I think that it may have been this name is part of what confused me about the class to begin with. It is not dissimilar to calling a class the polymorpher. While it might reasonably be written as a class, it might require a slight departure from being only 'the person who casts spells that change their form' to allow for more distinct stories (IDK, they cut off ties with their identity and original shape), and yet at the same time may be constrained by it(why do they actually need to cast spells).

Squiggit wrote:

notXanathar wrote:

I didn't at any point question that it had mechanical justification, but I was hoping that there would be a more natural reason for their existence than an assertion in lore that they do. Thanks anyway.

I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for. You say "narrative justification" but if the narrative enabled by the mechanics doesn't count, and the narrative created by the lore doesn't count, what narrative are you referring to?

Maybe something like: The summoner is a conduit for a powerful being called an eidolon, allowing that being to manifest physically in the summoner's world and granting the summoner and eidolon a unique relationship in the narrative much different than a familiar and master or conjurer and summoned creature have.

Thanks. That does make a good case for the class. I'm not sure whether that constitutes enough of a difference for my personal preference but it is about as good as I originally felt about the oracle (which I have come to love).

1. Your post presumes the viewpoint that streamlining into as few classes as possible is a good thing, this is not a view that Paizo or it's community shares. To understand why, consider that something that is a part of another class typically gets less support than something that is it's own thing. In this sense a class doesn't have to "justified" as a last resort as it is in 5e, making it a class is just another tool in the toolbox, one that's often right for the job.

2. Its an entirely different type of magic, "god-calling" as it's described in Golarion is very much its own thing to do with calling such entities into existence. In the same way a Sorcerer is different from a wizard, and a witch is different than a sorcerer, a Summoner is different from whatever other class.

3. It's mechanically diverse enough to justify it, with paths based off different types of eidolons, a desire to dial back other parts of the chassis to make the summoned creatures powerful enough to be the meat and potatoes of your budget, and all kinds of crazy feats that allow you to do things like merge with your eidolon for enhanced fighting and casting abilities.

First, I do not feel that it is necessarily better to have fewer classes. I am coming at the question in terms of how you get to it from not having it. I elaborate on this later.

Also, if it relies on a different type of magic, especially one specific to a single setting, perhaps it would be better as an uncommon class. It may not fit so well with lore of other worlds a GM uses, or may be restricted to those whose characters have a specific link to that system. Additionally, that doesn't make it different to the witch in the same way as as wizard or sorcerer is. The difference there is in the source of their magic, given a common set of assumptions about how magic works, ie. in spells. By contrast, what you're suggesting is that the summoner operates primarily on different assumptions about how magic works.

On your final point, I will not dispute it. Equally I will not accept it. I feel, personally, whether you agree or, as in this case, disagree, that mechanical diversity is not reason enough for a class to exist. I feel that character and story should precede mechanics, and that I should naturally find characters of all different classes as a result of thinking about their stories. I will not be persuaded otherwise on this count, just as a person who likes apples will not be persuaded not to by force of reason. In any case, if that were a requirement I would question whether the wizard had enough mechanical diversity, or whether they were better served by a sorcerer who wrote their spells down. However, the fantasy of the mage academic is more significant than fact that, as we can see by feat count, it is hard to think of what you can do as one of them.

I didn't at any point question that it had mechanical justification, but I was hoping that there would be a more natural reason for their existence than an assertion in lore that they do. Thanks anyway.

I have been struggling to get my head around why the summoner is it's own thing rather than a class archetype of something like the witch.

My problem comes from this. Classes should fill a narrative niche not filled adequately by another class. So what role does the summoner fill? The witch gets magic from a patron; the sorcerer from their magical ancestry; the bard fills the character archetype of the supernatural musician; the barbarian rage gives them superhuman powers. By contrast the summoner seems defined by their mechanics: getting good with summoning and having a magical companion.

What makes them different enough narratively from a witch who says that their familiar is their patron. Why could the class not be achieved by rites of convocation and a few feats that let your familiar be an animal companion or similar as well.

Please explain why this is it's own thing. I recognise that it may have a very different feel to what I described above, but I don't believe that should inform whether it's a class. It might require fairly radical archetypes, but, as I say, I think that that makes more sense than having an entirely new class.

Thanks for any replies,