|
So, Jason spills some beans on today's blog.
6 new base classes...and he keeps 2 of them secret. My money is on the Blackguard and the Witch.
Feats, spells, rages, songs... Now I see that Jason chose a modular approach to classes, allowing to expand them via class features and not just new feat-o-rama.
Items, Spells...here's to hope for updating and consolidating crunch from previous Paizo books.
Open Playtest... yummy. So this is how you roll with designing new sourcebooks, not just a marketing gimmick (like some PF critics claim), but the new wave of RPG design. Splendid.
I like. Heart the philosophy of a large book (no more "Completes" scattered everywhere!) and, at the same time, presenting new material that doesn't compete with previously published materials (e.g., the new classes).
|
I LIKE that name a LOT better than Oracle.I like the idea of the "Oracle" class, just not the name.
At one point in time I was considering putting "philosophers” into my homebrew game. There were going to be clerics without gods dedicated to a domain or two.
Maybe Exemplary would be a better name, than Oracle.
Ah who knows.
Me too, sort of...
Exemplary is an adjective: the noun is 'exemplar'.
A person who is exemplary is an exemplar, just give it a capital letter at the start to show it is a proper noun and you have got a name for a base class: Exemplar
Ah thanks for the correction, it was early.
Wes, I'm sorely missing my Archmage... any chance for PF RPG versions of the rest of the 3.5 DMG prestige classes?
This book will have some prestige classes, no worries about that. The archmage got canned in development because the thought was really, shouldn't every high-level wizard essentially be an archmage? So we might use the name again, we might not, but as far as expecting new high-level, prestige class options for wizards, you can betcha. You can also bet that rules "left behind" as it were will be the first places we're going to look. So as a very round the bend way of saying things, that's a very No-Yes-Maybe answer.
At this point, we've got ideas (not even final names) for four 4 classes and a peppering of we want this, this, and this in there. Give us a few more months and we can fill you in waaaaaay better on what the end product (still a year out!) is going to look like.
Creative Director
|
+1 to the idea of base classes from APG being open content (or maybe even the whole book !).
You guys are the last (major) bastion of Open Gaming out there, and having a pic of Ryan Dancey on your blog kind of obliges you to go with the spirit. Free the power to the masses !
The entire Advanced Player's Guide (or the vast majority, at the very least) will be open content.
|
|
There's totally going to be themes of that - lord knows I've been looking at similar fan-based conversions for enough years. But really, I think the PFRPG rules finally give us the frame work to really to this shtick right. So yeah, go for it! ^_~
I bet you won't make the iconic summoned creature a Mist Dragon. :P That would be just too awesome.
Hmmm... I'm not sure what to think.
I was particularly interested about this quote from the blog:
"You will not find them in every adventure, nor will they appear in every product." (Which, of course, implies that they will appear in adventures.)I am very curious to hear how much harder it will be to use Paizo's upcoming APs if I'm not interested in this book.
They can always just reprint the minimal needed material in the AP, without requiring you to buy the Guide to the Moon and the Psionic Player's Guide.
Oh, and in case I didn't say it before: Dwarven Defender and Anti-Paladin!
I like the use of title as titles (Arch-Mage) and the use of more descriptive names for PrCs.
|
The entire Advanced Player's Guide (or the vast majority, at the very least) will be open content.+1 to the idea of base classes from APG being open content (or maybe even the whole book !).
You guys are the last (major) bastion of Open Gaming out there, and having a pic of Ryan Dancey on your blog kind of obliges you to go with the spirit. Free the power to the masses !
That's how you roll. Thanks !
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Wes, I'm sorely missing my Archmage... any chance for PF RPG versions of the rest of the 3.5 DMG prestige classes?This book will have some prestige classes, no worries about that. The archmage got canned in development because the thought was really, shouldn't every high-level wizard essentially be an archmage? So we might use the name again, we might not, but as far as expecting new high-level, prestige class options for wizards, you can betcha. You can also bet that rules "left behind" as it were will be the first places we're going to look. So as a very round the bend way of saying things, that's a very No-Yes-Maybe answer.
I still think the archmage powers should be made into a feat tree. This way an "archmage" can still get their specialist capstone ability and their full spell progression but also the flavor of the archmage, with their complete mastery of raw arcane energy.
The entire Advanced Player's Guide (or the vast majority, at the very least) will be open content.
I'm sold. Save a copy for me!
BTW, does the upcoming Gamemastery Guide also have open content?
There's totally going to be themes of that - lord knows I've been looking at similar fan-based conversions for enough years. But really, I think the PFRPG rules finally give us the frame work to really to this shtick right. So yeah, go for it! ^_~I bet you won't make the iconic summoned creature a Mist Dragon. :P That would be just too awesome.
LOL! How about a goblin with a green hat and tabard and a small dagger? Or maybe a size Large yellow bird reminscent of a chicken;p
+1 on a tengu Iconic. If you're going to spend the time and energy writing up a good version of the tengu, you may as well give it more love and support in upcoming books. (It's soooo good).
I have a thought on that... basically, we won't be doing a hundred different books that keep giving out new classes, feats, spells, prestige classes and the like. The hope and goal is to get the majority of the expansion stuff like this into the Advanced Player's Guide, to be honest. Then, with rulebooks beyond that, they'll have tighter focuses—we're unlikely to ever do a book like "The Big Bard Book" or "The Fighter Compendium" or something like that. Nor do we have plans to come out with sequels to these; no Advanced Player's Handbook II or III. We'll be turning our attention to other things, be they an Epic Book or an Asia Book or a Moon Exploration book or whatever, but these additional books' themes will be more focused. These books WILL likely have new spells and feats and prestige classes and base classes, but they'll be closely tied to that book's theme (and will be less numerous than the amount of stuff we're putting into APH) so that should really help in tracking down where things are.
If it DOES get too complex, we'll just make up some online index thing for folks to use for free.
Since the PRPG is open, there will be plenty of books along those lines from other publishers (such as the Tome of Secrets), in any event.
As a 3rd party publisher, I think this is great! It give us the ability to support PRPG with out have to directly compete with the products they are doing. It is nice to see a company that actually wants to help the small guys that support them. Thanks again Paizo!
With so much anxiety, I just want to say that I'm starting to be excited about this project. I'm especially piqued by the Alchemist.
Myself, I'm certainly looking forward to the APG. I'm not to sure about the name for the Oracle though. It evokes more the image of a diviner. Perhaps a name like the Savant would be more apropo.
I hope among the last two classes to be unveiled are a Witch/Shaman type class.
The entire Advanced Player's Guide (or the vast majority, at the very least) will be open content.
James, I think I might love you, just a little bit, after that comment...
For the cavalier are we talking Cavalier or Chevalier spelling?
What about Dargoon as another possible replacement name for the cavalier class. While first usage of the word is generally outside the scope most Pathfinderish fantasy settings (what with it involving guns) the concept of a part-mounted part-foot warrior seems work here.
|
Director of Games
|
Hey there folks,
Couple of notes here this morning.
1. The Oracle name is one that I really like. Oracle does not always mean the agent of a god specifically. It can mean someone who is the authority on a specific topic or sphere of influence, which is what we are going for here. The hercules example is a really good one. As the oracle of strength, he would be beholden to no particular god, but he would draw his power from the divine and would have relationships with all of the gods that carry the Strength domain. This can make for some very interesting rp opportunities in game. This, of course, is also my way of working a certain level of polytheism into the game, which I think is a good thing.
2. That said, the names are not, by any means, set in stone. We like some of them, and some of them will probably stay, but others will change. You can count on that. We are still working on a better name for the Summoner. I am open to suggestions.
3. The playtest will begin as soon as we are ready. I would expect a bit later this year. I hope to release some material from other parts of the book earlier through the blog for playtest and review, but this will be a less formal process. The new base classes will be getting the lionshare of the playtest time.
4. I would expect us to include a few prestige classes in the book to cover some of the ones we could not fit into the core rulebook. That said, I would not expect to see the Archmage. This class is really nothing more than "you are a really good wizard", which is what taking more levels of wizard should be. I would expect to see some feats or other mechanics to emulate some of the archmage's abilities. I find many of them to be rather cool and useful, which could make for some great feats.
5. I am still working out a few different ways that we might include a certain evil-doer class into the book... some might even say it is the ANTIpathy of another class.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
LOL! How about a goblin with a green hat and tabard and a small dagger? Or maybe a size Large yellow bird reminscent of a chicken;pNow you're just being obvious. Although I totally need to have an NPC blackguard named Garland show up...
Good. You get to run the PbP when this is out. I'll be there. I haven't smote Garland in a year or two.
On topic, open content=win! When do we get it?
Edit: Jason answered my question. Oh, and I think the name "Summoner" can stick around IMHO. It's pretty much part of the lexicon of role-playing terms at this point, well-known and descriptive of what to expect of the character.
|
Creative Director
|
The entire Advanced Player's Guide (or the vast majority, at the very least) will be open content.I'm sold. Save a copy for me!
BTW, does the upcoming Gamemastery Guide also have open content?
All of our books will have a generous amount of open content. Open gaming is why Paizo exists, after all, and us making closed content products is hypocritical and silly.
There will be a lot of open content rules elements in the Gamemastery Guide, in other words.
Edit: Jason answered my question. Oh, and I think the name "Summoner" can stick around IMHO. It's pretty much part of the lexicon of role-playing terms at this point, well-known and descriptive of what to expect of the character.
Ooo..Oooo... Or he could be called a Theurgist. :o)
I am still working out a few different ways that we might include a certain evil-doer class into the book... some might even say it is the ANTIpathy of another class.
Begins the dance of the Bulmahnauts.
Edit: Jason answered my question. Oh, and I think the name "Summoner" can stick around IMHO. It's pretty much part of the lexicon of role-playing terms at this point, well-known and descriptive of what to expect of the character.Ooo..Oooo... Or he could be called a Theurgist. :o)
If that works for you. I can house-rule the name to "Summoner" in our campaigns, no problem;)
Not sold on the name (sorry, Jason), but I so want to play an Oracle. Sounds like a way to get back the cool domain powers from the Beta that fell to Backward Compatibility.
Here's a vote against new races. I hated goliaths and catfolk and all those things that got added in the WotC splatbooks unless there's some good reason why no one had ever heard of them before.
And: More Small iconics! I want a male gnome!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Jason,
Count me as another person with a strong dislike for "oracle". It's a word that already means something in English: a seer or prophet.
Calling Hercules an "oracle of strength" makes no sense to my ears.
He's a Champion of Strength. A Paragon of Strength. Maybe even a Maven of Strength.
--+--+--
For "summoner", howzabout basing the name on the flavor, either where the critters come from ("Dream Lord" for someone who hallucinates and brings his visions into reality) or else the means of drawing it ("Rune Sage" or "Mystic Chef")?
Here's a vote against new races. I hated goliaths and catfolk and all those things that got added in the WotC splatbooks unless there's some good reason why no one had ever heard of them before.And: More Small iconics! I want a male gnome!
Yeah, I concur. So many of those races felt like new races just to have new races (I also hate the furry thing. A few that are well-done are fun, but they get crazy in a lot of games).
But, since they aren't in the bestiary, but are part of the campaign world, I'd like to see half-giants get a new writeup, and some support within the rules. The innate psionics need to go.
Damn, too bad psionics took manifester and shaper.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Jason,
Count me as another person with a strong dislike for "oracle". It's a word that already means something in English: a seer or prophet.
Calling Hercules an "oracle of strength" makes no sense to my ears.
He's a Champion of Strength. A Paragon of Strength. Maybe even a Maven of Strength.
Add me to the list as well. While I get the concept and understand Jason B's rationale, I think "Oracle" is too tightly tied in common language to the seer/prophet meaning. Yes, "oracle" *CAN* mean "expert on a subject," when you say "oracle" and 99 out of 100 folks start thinking about flowing robes, crystal balls, incense, and blind seers at Delphi. If you have to explain the name every time it comes up and fight an already strong association, it probably needs a new name.
I think Paragon actually is not a bad name for a class at all, and absolutely seems to capture the conceptual meaning of "ultimate examplar of THIS particular thing."
As for the Summoner, I think it's a little on the bland side but it works just fine; names needn't be florid to be useful. Besides, Fighter? Rogue? Wizard? Yeah, class names can be simple and to the point.
The mechanics remind me of the psionic astral construct rules from 3.0, very much a "build your own monster" power (seems like in 3.5 you had to choose from a set of prebuilt monsters). I think it sounds neat.
""They are called base classes because they go from level 1 to level 20, but they are not core classes. Confused? Allow me to explain. We are making an assumption that these new classes will take a role in our world (and possibly yours) that is less common. You will not find them in every adventure, nor will they appear in every product. That means that you can introduce them to your game in a more limited fashion, without having to retcon them into every facet of your campaign.""
These lines made me so happy.
I don't want to read too much into it (nor drag in any of the "this should/shouldn't be a core class" debates that were sparked by the initial announcement), but it seems to show a much more free-wheeling, less puritanical attitude towards the varied elements of game design.
|
1. The Oracle name is one that I really like. Oracle does not always mean the agent of a god specifically. It can mean someone who is the authority on a specific topic or sphere of influence, which is what we are going for here.
Yeah, but it also has the entire connotation to it of divination that kind of confuses the issue. Oracles don't have to be diviners, but I think for the majority of people, divination is one of the first things they think about when they hear the word.
2. That said, the names are not, by any means, set in stone. We like some of them, and some of them will probably stay, but others will change. You can count on that. We are still working on a better name for the Summoner. I am open to suggestions.
I guess it depends on the exact flavor of the class for the Summoner. Is its companion created by the caster or is it an existing creature that is bound to the caster's will? Personally, I like the idea of them creating the creature, building it up with magical energy as they increase in power, a reflection of their own spirit and soul. A class that creates their own companion (or maybe call it an avatar), could be called a Genesis.
Yeah, it's a great quote, Hydro. One of the good things about people getting a little too worked up in this thread was that it got paste-posted so many times...just in case you missed it. :P
See, Oracle always makes me think of a character in a wheelchair for no good reason.
OT @MM
When I think "Oracle", I think of a mystical and mysterious person dwelling in a hard-to-reach place (isolated island, baren mountain top, etc) whom a hero approaches for councel and guidance.
Oracles know stuff. Not necessarily "the future", but definitely stuff (and stuff of an arcane or spiritual nature; not at all the same "stuff" that a loremaster knows). You go to them for advice, particularly when you don't know where else to go.
If your spontainous divine caster knows stuff, the oracle sounds great. If not I would probably change it.
"Summoner", of course, is a perfectly awful name for the concept you've envisioned, but I fully expect that one to change eventually. Just don't ask me what to.
Naming things is hard, isn't it?
Yeah, it's a great quote, Hydro. One of the good things about people getting a little too worked up in this thread was that it got paste-posted so many times...just in case you missed it. :P
Really? That's what I get for posting before reading the 40-something posts that've been made recently. I honestly was not trying to feed flames in either direction.
Suppose I should actually read the thread now, huh? ^^;
Calling Hercules an "oracle of strength" makes no sense to my ears.
He's a Champion of Strength. A Paragon of Strength. Maybe even a Maven of Strength.
A Pundit of Strength... A Strength Wonk.
I like these new class ideas. As a certified Old Fart I'm happy to see the return of the Cavalier to the game. (Will a high Comeliness score be required?)
At first glance, it seems like the Summoner's role would be to summon a monster or group of monsters, then sit back and read a magazine or something while those summonees do all the fighting/trap springing for him. Hopefully it will be constructed so the Summoner can benefit by keeping himself in the game the whole time... maybe he can establish a mental link with his monsters and direct them somewhat in combat, so they fight smarter than they normally would... or maybe he has a way to remotely buff or even heal them in mid-combat.
Would a Summoner gain experience points for enemies defeated by his summoned creatures?
|
Director of Games
|
Naming things is hard, isn't it?
Yes. In fact it is one of the trickiest parts of design. I can write mechanics all day long, but when it comes to an important name, such as that of a class, everything slows down as I search for the one that best matches my ideas and concepts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I absolutely hate the idea of the summoner class.
First of all I don't like single pets. This isn't WoW, if something works summon more then one.
Secondly, it seems like the entire class is based around a entity other then the character. In combat the summon creature is the big deal and the PC is simply a spectator/buffer.
Let me make a suggestion. Put the summoners creature on a point based system. The summoner can either put all his points into his creature, split them among multiple creatures, or use them to summon "imps" who basically pop into existence, cast a spell from the summoner and leave. Maybe throw in a system where the Imp needs to do a will save against the summoner each round, or it sticks around and can be commanded again on the next round.
While I don't share Forgotten's opinion's in the slightest, allowing the summoner (as an option) to have multiple weaker creatures rather than a single strong creatures is a cool idea. It would greatly add to the class' versatility, presuming you can hammer such a rule out and make it work.
The class could then represent the evil arcanist and his three or four deformed minions, rather than a single frankenstein's monster.
|
|
While I don't share Forgotten's opinion's in the slightest, allowing the summoner (as an option) to have multiple weaker creatures rather than a single strong creatures is a cool idea. It would greatly add to the class' versatility, presuming you can hammer such a rule out and make it work.
The class could then represent the evil arcanist and his three or four deformed minions, rather than a single frankenstein's monster.
While I agree with the idea for terms of versatility and a variety of concepts, I dislike the idea of multiple companions for reasons of paperwork and table-time. The more companions the more information that has to be tracked and the more face time that one character/player requires (basically the same reasons that Pathfinder Society puts limits on the number of pets/companions a character can bring in the scenarios).
Hydro's confession -- hee-hee!
Jason, are the names going to be open to the play-testing process as well? Because we do have a lot of creative namers bouncing around these parts who could contribute to that aspect as well.
We are still working on a better name for the Summoner. I am open to suggestions.
Now, English is NOT my first language, so this suggestion may be totally wrong... but what about Invoker?
|
Creative Director
|
Hydro's confession -- hee-hee!
Jason, are the names going to be open to the play-testing process as well? Because we do have a lot of creative namers bouncing around these parts who could contribute to that aspect as well.
Not really. We'll listen, but again, we're asking for playtesters, not designers. We're pretty locked in on the concepts for these classes and for most of their names (the summoner's the one we're a little iffy on still, but each day, that name grows on me), and aren't really looking for advice on how to design them. We'll be looking for feedback on how they play, how they're balanced against each other, how they're balanced against the 11 core classes, and if they're fun and if not what needs to change to MAKE them fun.
On the idea of a name for an alternative name for the summoner, I suggest Soul Binder, he's taking a part of his soul, applying a template to it, and sending it out to do battle. The discription evil soul binder sounds like a great villain concept.
I think one of paizos strong points in class design is variation, found first and foremost in the sorcerer with the bloodlines. The summoner and the oracle seem to go in the same direction. If paizo were to do a witch, I think going that direction again and designing a basic witch with various "setups" (say, fay; infernal; charming; brewing, just to name a few ideas) might be a good idea, if perhaps not too easy to make playable. And a witch is an all-time classic for the game, nearly as old as the game itself (hint, hint).
That said, Alchemist? Interesting to see how that works. Cavalier is a classic, and the focus on mounted combat is indeed problematic in the game. Summoner has again that variation in it I like, but I´m not too excited about it right now - could turn out to be something of a one-trick pony. The idea of the Oracle (I would also prefer Exemplar or something in that vein) is nice, and new takes on divine casters are sure a good idea.
If one of the Obscure Two is the Blackguard, I´m not too hot about it. I can see the merits of the idea of an Evil opposite, but this is perhaps too much of a niche class.
But overall, I fully trust paizo to develop all their ideas into something good (no, nobody is trying to build any pressure here...)
Stefan
Not really.
Got ya.
While I don't share Forgotten's opinion's in the slightest, allowing the summoner (as an option) to have multiple weaker creatures rather than a single strong creatures is a cool idea. It would greatly add to the class' versatility, presuming you can hammer such a rule out and make it work.
The class could then represent the evil arcanist and his three or four deformed minions, rather than a single frankenstein's monster.
*starts pondering the idea of a swarm being my chosen summoned creature.*
EDIT: Imagine it.. splitting off portions of the swarm for specific duties.