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?
In theory, to "invoke" something is to call on it, or call it to you. One can "invoke" an evil spirit, or one can "invoke" a rule or a powerful idea. So, not bad.
In practice, though, the term "invoker" in fantasy usually means an invoker of energy. In fact, in 2e, "invocation" was a synonym for "evocation" (i.e. the school of magic that blasts things).
The entire Advanced Player's Guide (or the vast majority, at the very least) will be open content.
I want to chime in here that Paizo's commitment to Open Content, demonstration of customer trust (unlocked PDFs!), and obvious love of the game are the biggest reasons I have become a Paizo fanboy. Oh... those things plus the fact that you put out amazing products!
I am very glad they are putting in alternate class tweaks. I love those, and it really does make for more diversity than just adding new classes.
I am also very much looking forward to the new classes too, I like the idea of them so far, the proof is in the final edit though. :)
I'm afraid you can tack me on to the list of Oracle dislikers though. I think Exemplar or Paragon work much better based on the description.
I like Summoner just fine for the name though (Woot! So looking forward to summoning Bahamut or Alexander on my players.) :)
I'm very interested by the Summoner, no matter what it's called. I am very interested in how you will make it playable and balanced. Hopefully I'll get a chance to playtest it (just need to find someone near me who's willing to DM).
"Chaplain" is an excellent idea for a name. I wouldn't've thought of that.
(It may not have the iconic pull of "cavalier", but I think that's a good thing: there have been several cavaliers over the years, and will probably be more of them in the future.)
On the other hand, "Exemplar" and "Paragorn" are both generic and over-used terms in tabletops rpgs, and they both basically mean "Person who's good at something".
Occorse, considering that the only name they seem to be open to suggestions for is "summoner"...
I find it interesting that we'll be a year into the game's release until a true "splatbook" shows up. I find that to be a good sign, since it means that the new rules will be well-playtested and is also a signal that we'll see more of a 1st edition style of game expansion rather than a 2nd or 3rd edition monthly overhaul of the game.
|
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.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.
I hear what you’re saying about the names but I'd like to offer my suggestions nonetheless.
Firstly, the Cavalier as you describe his abilities, like some have mentioned, sounds a lot like the knight class in the PHB II. I recently put together a Pathfinder RPG conversion for the knight but changed the name to Knight-Errant. I think this name fits the role you describe better than the cavalier.
The Summoner I’m guessing is linking too closely to a specialist conjurer which could cause confusion. The design sounds more like a creator of or master of his specific field of study or creation for example a master of beasts could be referred to as a beastmaster or beastlord. The name doesn't denote a single class however so perhaps Summoner is the best way to go.
The Oracle sounds more like an Aspect of a Deity or domain and a good title would be an Avatar although this too could be a 20th level ability name of the class :)
Finally the Alchemist is probably the only name I like and dislike at the same time - while i love the idea of an alchemist the idea that it’s related to spells makes me think more of a transmuter and the use of the transmutation school has similar consequences as the summoner. I think alchemist is probably the best way to go though.
Names aside I commend your 1 book approach and I’m sure my players will likely feel the relief as they have to cart around less books to my pathfinder sessions. If there’s one thing Paizo has shown it’s that listening to your audience and valuing their input is NEVER a bad thing.
The reason I don't like "summoner" is because, from what I've heard, there is no actual act of summoning involved. The monster just follows the character around, right?
It's a good placeholder name, as we all get that a "summoner" is a character who has critters to fight for him, but I don't think it's a good final name for the class at all. It just begs for missconceptions.
All I can think of for a name is "Master", which is bad because people who hear it will default to the 'supposedly-best-person-at-some-skill' meaning (i.e blademaster, i.e "master of what?"), not necessarily the lord-and-keeper-of-an enslaved-being meaning.
The summoner (work title) sounds like an interesting concept.
While it seems that the character himself will not be in the spotlight, remember that his "pet" is all him. It's not some critter he found and is proud like a daddy. He made the thing.
It's an interesting concept. In fact, you could say that the real character is the pet, and the summoner is just a familiar. We don't have that yet in D&D/PF.
The comparison to WoW doesn't hold here. (Remember, Pathfinder already has several classes with powerful single pets! The druid has one animal companion and one only).
The real comparison to be made here is with Pokemon! I'm not a Pokemon buff or anything, and I haven't played the Pokemon games themselves, but the concept reminds me of the Pokemon Trainer character from Super Smash Bros.
It is remarkably similar: While you "play" the trainer, you really control whatever he has summoned, and he's on the sidelines.
And while I don't like those -mon games, I do think this could work in D&D.
Of course, having one powerful pet doesn't mean you can't have summoning magic, too. It's just that they're regular summoned monsters in line with other spellcaster's options. The real power beast is your pet.
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)
The problem is that when I hear "summoner", I think of "specialist wizard focussing on conjuration. Sure, that's a conjurer, but it's close enough if you ask me.
Without knowing how exactly the class is supposed to work, it's a bit hard to come up with something else, but here's some ideas:
Well, I suppose I might as well give my impression of the new classes too.
Cavalier: Sounds really similar to the Knight class from the Player's Handbook 2. Still, the Knight was a good class, so I can deal with that.
Alchemist: I want this, and I want this now. I haven't seen a class that focuses on buffing itself at all, and it's about time alchemy got some time in the spot light.
Summoner: At first, I wasn't that excited about this class. A non-animal companion, mainly casts summoning spells, gives buffs to it's summons, it sounded like it would be a good class but nothing too interesting. Then I got to the part where you said the class could be flavored as anything from an angel summoner to Herbert West. With that one line, I have become sold on this class, if only because each example doesn't have to act like the same generic super-conjurer.
Oracle: Love the idea, hate the name. First off, this class fixes one of the bigger problems I had with the Favored Soul back in 3.5: the class abilities didn't have much if any connection to the god they're worshiping. (A Favored Soul of the god of knowledge doesn't actually become any more knowledgeable, but he does become very good at hitting things with a stick). I know Oracles may not actually end up associated with any god, but this way every one of them isn't automatically combat-oriented. I won't discuss why I don't like the name because people have already said what I would say, and they said it better.
We'll be turning our attention to ...a Moon Exploration book ...
Finally! A use for orbital mechanics that doesn't require ioun stones.
:)
In theory, to "invoke" something is to call on it, or call it to you. One can "invoke" an evil spirit, or one can "invoke" a rule or a powerful idea. So, not bad.
In practice, though, the term "invoker" in fantasy usually means an invoker of energy. In fact, in 2e, "invocation" was a synonym for "evocation" (i.e. the school of magic that blasts things).
I was running Summoner through a thesaurus and another word that popped up was 'convoker'. IMHO, there's too many -voker suffix titles running around where they all start to blend together.
EDIT: ninja by KaeYoss..
|
The summoner (work title) sounds like an interesting concept.
While it seems that the character himself will not be in the spotlight, remember that his "pet" is all him. It's not some critter he found and is proud like a daddy. He made the thing.
It's an interesting concept. In fact, you could say that the real character is the pet, and the summoner is just a familiar. We don't have that yet in D&D/PF.
I can't quite think of any flat out Fantasy equivalents to this, but there are some good Sci-Fi ones, like Giant Robo (which totally makes me think of one flavor of the class as a Golem Master).
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.
OK, understood. Still, FWIW, I'll throw my 2cp in with those who have suggested Exemplar, Champion and Paragon as alternatives to Oracle and also offer Incarnate (as opposed to Incarnation which was previously mentioned); a character could be described as a Strength Incarnate, a Fire Incarnate, etc.
For Summoner, well, is it actually the summoning part that's key to the class -- most spellcasters can summon creatures to serve them -- or is it the fact that the creature is (creatures are?) bound to the character (Binder?) and can be enhanced by him (Shaper?) Binder and Shaper are not very "sexy" names, but some variation on those might be -- for me -- more evocative of what the class does.
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.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.
So um if you want me to stop tinkering with your rules on the forums, where are your writers guidelines?
Kobold Quarterly submission guidelines:
http://www.koboldquarterly.com/k/submit
Also, if you're interested in writing for 4e:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/submissions
Finally, a few gamers trying to start up an "oldschool" (which I presume to mean, among other things, non-4e) 'zine:
http://www.dragonroots.net/
Wizards pays semi-pro rates. KQ pays token rates, and dragonroots doesn't pay. I should note that KQ is specifically interested in Pathfinder material (though, much to their credit, they run 4e articles right alongisde them if they get good submissions).
These are the only publications that I'm aware are currently taking unsolicited manuscripts. If someone thinks I've missed any (very likely) please speak up. :)
|
|
To me, I've not seen a single suggestion for the "Oracle"'s name I didn't like about a thousand times better for the concept. Exemplar may be my favorite, but that's mostly because the concept is basically the same as Marvel's Exemplars. :) It's a great class idea, though, and I'll be making one as soon as the rules come out!
Alchemist is another concept I like a lot. There was a pretty decent attempt to do this at White Wolf in one of the Ravenloft splatbooks, based via feats, and if the core class is half as cool as that, I'm in.
The Summoner's a great idea for a class, with genuinely awesome potential, although I'd hate to see it steal the name from the Conjuration/Summoning specialists.
Lastly, the Cavalier is iconic and needs to be in existence, although it'll be hard-pressed to beat the Knight in the Book of Secrets. Looking forward to seeing Paizo try though!
See, Oracle always makes me think of a character in a wheelchair for no good reason.
I guess the capstone ability for the class shouldn't be DR 15/clowns then, eh?
In theory, to "invoke" something is to call on it, or call it to you. One can "invoke" an evil spirit, or one can "invoke" a rule or a powerful idea. So, not bad.
In practice, though, the term "invoker" in fantasy usually means an invoker of energy. In fact, in 2e, "invocation" was a synonym for "evocation" (i.e. the school of magic that blasts things).
And in 4E Invoker means "just like a wizard, but with the divine power source." ;)
We'll be turning our attention to ...a Moon Exploration book ...Finally! A use for orbital mechanics that doesn't require ioun stones.
:)
What are you talking about, the moon book is going to reveal that the moon is in fact an ioun stone for Golarian.
"Chaplain" is an excellent idea for a name. I wouldn't've thought of that.
(It may not have the iconic pull of "cavalier", but I think that's a good thing: there have been several cavaliers over the years, and will probably be more of them in the future.)
But if we are on the topic if connotations, chaplain reminds me of a religious person in military service, rather than an inspirational leader type that doesn't have any particular divine ties.
Exemplar, incarnate, binder, savant, and paragon are all names of (or parts of names of) one or more WoTC core class and/or PrC.
So was cavalier, for that matter, but at least it means something (even if it doesn't mean exactly what it's used to mean here. =p)
"Binder" really makes me think of the Tome of Magic, but it's not an awful name for the summoner. Incarnate isn't actually a bad name for the oracle, all considered, but I like oracle too.
Please not exemplar, please not savant, and please not paragon. I could not be more sick of classes whose name directly translates to "exceptional person".
|
|
Cavalier :
- Concept is so-so, but why not
- Name is a big NO-NO. Cavalier in French means horserider. Absolutely no way around it
Suggestion : Drill sergeant ? The french word Estafette, which is a military messenger riding a horse might be appropriate. Apparently it can be translated in English with relayracer or relayrider. Maybe relay (or relayer ?) might be appropriate
Oracle :
- Concept is great.
- Name is also NO-NO. Oracle comes from the latin word oraculum = word of the god. It speaks of wisdom, supernatural knowledge and a specific deity. It does not evoke the idea of following a single concept and be inspired by its divine aspect Or did you get inspiration from L5R's Oracles of the elements ?
Suggestion : Avatar sounds nice to me. Or maybe Follower or Inspired or Aspect.
Alchemist :
- Concept is okay, especially if execution is done with the usual Paizo quality
- Name : perfect, though other names (like blender) might be okay
Summoner :
- Concept is great
- Name is so-so, sounds too much like a wizard specialist.
Suggestion : Shaper is nice. I also thought about Creator, since the class is based on a creature. On the same line of thought, Maker might be okay
I really hope one of the new classes will be a Black guard(dark paladin) type. pehaps as a prestige class... but hopefully as a 1-20 lvl class.
on an other note i really like that all the stuff goes into 1 book instead of 100+ splat books.
I don't know, I like cavalier precisely because it does have a history in the game, and even if the literal translation doesn't describe what it does, lots and lots of words, literally translated, have different connotations. Knight, for example. And on that train of thought, I tend to kind of think of Cavalier and Knight in the same circles.
Summoner is kind of iffy if the point is to have a stable companion that can swap out its components on the fly.
Heh, I like alchemist, but to distance it from the more mundane profession, how about some D&D-esque prefix? Dire Alchemist . . . Dread Alchemist . . . ;)
Oracle doesn't bother me, if there is some kind of "communion with the gods" but I do get that it does have some divination like feel to it. On the other hand, I really don't like Avatar, because while it may be descriptive, the term has a specific meaning in several editions of D&D, and while Pathfinder is its own thing, its is its own thing owing to old traditions, so I'd rather go a different route.
|
Apropos of nothing, what's up with the image of Ezren on today's post? Did Kenny Rogers serve as the model for that one? With his mouth slightly open, I can imagine him singing as he works.
"You got to know when to hold'em . . ."
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Cavalier is probably not going to change names. There will be some mounted stuff for the class, we're just not going to pin everything to that concept.
Feel free to suggest alternate names, but please note that not a single class in the core list has a name that includes more than one word, and I'd like to keep it that way for every single base class in the game.
Cavalier is probably not going to change names. There will be some mounted stuff for the class, we're just not going to pin everything to that concept.
Feel free to suggest alternate names, but please note that not a single class in the core list has a name that includes more than one word, and I'd like to keep it that way for every single base class in the game.
Couldn't the Cavalier be modeled quite well by a fighter, perhaps with a cavalier feat chain? If Paizo is going to do more base classes, I'd prefer they cleave to strong archetypes that can't be well modeled by feats. In fact, I've often thought WotC didn't really explore the full potential of feats for this very reason.
Or am I just missing the hook?
Feel free to suggest alternate names, but please note that not a single class in the core list has a name that includes more than one word, and I'd like to keep it that way for every single base class in the game.
Sorry, Erik, I was just kind of goofing around with the whole "dire, dread" thing . . .
Although you guys could have totally gotten away with "Mega Smiter" as a new name for a paladin.
;)
|
|
I think I'll call my first Summoner "Rydia" or maybe even "Yuna". At last!
Nah name him Ash and he can have a summoned creature from the elemental plane of lighting and he could name it Peekachu then. :D
Oracle is the only name I am a bit iffy on but depends how it is done. If it is more like a Sorc but with divine magic and pays homage to all the gods with their domain then I am ok with it. I am assuming their domain will kinda be like Sorc boodlines a bit.
I also am one that hopes Witch is one of the two unnamed classes.
Also for the record I would like to see some non-core races used for the new inconics. maybe a tiefling for example. hint hint
The entire Advanced Player's Guide (or the vast majority, at the very least) will be open content.
Most important sentence in the entire thread.
|
Summoner + Alchemist multiclass = mad scientist! Once upon a time wotc had rules on their website for shapers to embed their psi-crystal in an astral construct. As you gained levels you could increase your construct's size and choose niftier and niftier abilities. They also had an option for a druid with a plant companion that let you shape the companion as you wish. One of my favourite characters was a necromancer with a skeletal companion (unearthed arcana) hollow graves esq. and sir clackers were mad fun. All of these classes excite me, hopefully we'll see at least two of these classes be decent healers so that not every party need include a cleric.
|
|
The summoner (work title) sounds like an interesting concept.
While it seems that the character himself will not be in the spotlight, remember that his "pet" is all him. It's not some critter he found and is proud like a daddy. He made the thing.
It's an interesting concept. In fact, you could say that the real character is the pet, and the summoner is just a familiar. We don't have that yet in D&D/PF.
*SNIP*
The problem is that when I hear "summoner", I think of "specialist wizard focussing on conjuration. Sure, that's a conjurer, but it's close enough if you ask me.
My thoughts exactly; while I like the concept, the first that comes to mind is "a Wizard specializing in the Conjuration school". And it doesn't help that there are feats like 'Augment Summoning' in the game.
So this is a sort of "artificer", if I understood correctly? A guy that summons/creates monsters and improves their abilities? Hmmm... how about Caller? Something-weaver? Beckoner? I dont know... I don't have any good suggestions of my own for this one. EDIT: Out of the suggestions posted on this thread, I find the Shaper to be the best and most fitting for this class.
As for the Oracle, I'd probably go with Exemplar (I really liked that suggestion). :)
|
|
Alchemist is another concept I like a lot. There was a pretty decent attempt to do this at White Wolf in one of the Ravenloft splatbooks, based via feats, and if the core class is half as cool as that, I'm in.Not to go off-topic, but quickly - which book was this? I'd like to check it out while I wait for the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide to come out next year!
I want to think Champions of Light maybe? It's close to that, at any rate. Got my copy for a dollar fifty at a used book sale, so I can honestly say I didn't expect much, but the True Alchemy feats were sixteen different kinds of awesome.
I am hoping that the Oracle can replace the Cleric and Druid, or (at least) be modded with them. I like the idea of divine magic being both totally different from arcane (cleric = armoured divine Wiz ATM) and also having all their divine magic at will. You ask your god (etc) and they grant it, sort of like the Warlocks powers. SO I am really looking forward to see if this can be done with the oracle :-)
avatar or exemplar are better names to me than Oracle
what about Paragon or Paradigm for Oracle
|
|
Aw, my post got eated.
I think maybe for the Summoner a couple of names come up:
Maester, Meister, Maestro, Creator, Maker, Builder.
I like Meister because the prefix can tell people your speciality:
Doctor Victor Frankenstein - Fleshmeister (Novel)
Dar - Beastmeister (Television)
Ash Ketchum - Monstermeister (Animation)
Overlord - Minionmeister (X-Box 360)
In the same way one can't just be a Cleric, they need to be a Cleric of Cayden Cailean or Cleric of Asmodeus.
Also I'd like the option of having a bunch of hilariously creepy minions rather than just one big one. If you adapted the swarm/mob rules I think it'd work quite nicely so that the Summoner's turn doesn't take up too much time.
As for Oracle, the word's connotations really are too firmly enmeshed with knowledge/future prediction and the like. Champion/Exemplar or Paragon is probably more appropriate.
Cavalier would make a great PF Knight and I'm very much looking forward to it.
Alchemist is something I'm very excited about.
If there's an Alchemist/Summoner prestige class that gets chocolate and peanut butter working together that would be the ultimate sauce.
Also can't wait to see the Half-Orc iconic!
As for the Summoner...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.
Just a small correction. 3.5 was still "build your own monster", but the "prebuilt monsters" came from Complete Psionic and the Ectopic Adept prestige class. Not everyone was a fan of this particular book, as you might have heard.
Anyway, my 1st thought on hearing "Summoner" was pretty much yours. If they could translate the psionic Shaper class to an arcane Summoner class, I'd be quite happy. Rather than just an enhanced version of a wizard specializing in summoning. And D&D really does need an excellent Summoner class.
Wes, I loved all your comments about how to flavor the many variations possible for a Summoner!!!
Last note: yeah, Oracle is just a bad choice of words for this class, as many posters have already pointed out.