Paizo has asked for feedback on their books. If they don't like that feedback, they can go to a closed development cycle. If this is going to be an open development, then people who don't like (or who do like) need to comment. Nobody has told the people that like it 'Shut up! You are teh sux!'. So how about we don't tell people who don't like it to shut up until it's published and over with, ok?
Yes, you should post your opinion. On the other hand, there have been numerous other threads where people have posted their opinions. The same people and the same opinions, over and over again. Often times in threads whose topics only tangentially touched on the proposed Oracle class. At which point the thread, which only tangentially had to do with the Oracle, then turns into yet another diatribe on the name.
Paizo folks read their boards. If you post in a thread, especially one that a Paizo personage has posted in, its likely to have been read by someone at the company and noted. Said opinion probably doesn't need to be repeated more than a few times for it to be registered, and it really shouldn't be hammered into the ground in a thread that only briefly touches on the class in question.
As for the other classes, the Witch. I hate classes with separate spell lists. Because that means I have to analyze each and every spell outside the core books to see if it matches the class concept and it's not easy... Might I suggest the writers of the Witch please inform guidelines in the book of what sorts of spells can be added to the Witch's spell list? Or better yet, just have their spells grouped as schools of magic?
Yes.
What would be relatively simple, yet still allow a certain amount of specificity & uniqueness,
would be something like a blanket formula including "Arcane Spells of Schools A, B, C, D and Divine Spells of Schools B, D, E, F" with a rule that Witches gain their Spells at the lowest possible level for Core Full Casters - If Dancing Cat Zombies is a Wizard 7th Level Spell, Cleric 6th Level, and Druid 5th Level (hypothetically), it would be a 5th Level Witch Spell. It should specifically to refer to Wizard/Sorceror, Cleric, and Druid (Spell Levels) to hedge out "Partial Casters" like Rangers/Paladins who get some spells at lower Spell Levels than normal, as well as specific Domains or non-Core Class Spell-lists which don't conform to the Core Full Casting Classes.
For convenience, the APG could still include a "Witch Spell List" (covering the Core Rules and any other Paizo sources they might want to), but it would just be the APPLICATION of the general "Witch Spell" formula to the Core Spell Repertoire - In other words, future products/ 3rd party material is not excluded by this approach. What do people think of this approach?
Still don't like the name of "Oracle". What was wrong with "Favored Soul"? WotC doesn't own the name, just the statistics.
Ugh. Favored Soul is too bulky. I think I read somewhere that the developers want to keep class names confined to one-word titles (though admittedly, that might have been 4e designers who wrote that). I am a big supporter of the one-word class names. Otherwise, might as well call them "The Chosen One," or even "Spontaneous divine caster." For the same reason, the class name "Soul Knife" was lame.
The name SHOULD have some historical context, and should reflect (to some degree) the mechanics of the class.
On the Witch: I was wondering about Mystic Theruge as well... Infact, if you qualify for the class with levels in Witch alone, then you could take 1 level in any other caster class and use that as the other caster level bump. That'd at least save 2-3 levels in the multiclassing.
Personally, I'm looking forward to trying a Oracle/Sorcerer/Mystic Theruge.
Paizo has asked for feedback on their books. If they don't like that feedback, they can go to a closed development cycle. If this is going to be an open development, then people who don't like (or who do like) need to comment. Nobody has told the people that like it 'Shut up! You are teh sux!'. So how about we don't tell people who don't like it to shut up until it's published and over with, ok?
Yes, you should post your opinion. On the other hand, there have been numerous other threads where people have posted their opinions. The same people and the same opinions, over and over again. Often times in threads whose topics only tangentially touched on the proposed Oracle class. At which point the thread, which only tangentially had to do with the Oracle, then turns into yet another diatribe on the name.
Paizo folks read their boards. If you post in a thread, especially one that a Paizo personage has posted in, its likely to have been read by someone at the company and noted. Said opinion probably doesn't need to be repeated more than a few times for it to be registered, and it really shouldn't be hammered into the ground in a thread that only briefly touches on the class in question.
Ah,
I would please like for you to point out where I have 'pounded it into the ground' in any thread? That was my first post to this thread, unless I don't remember one.
STOP TALKING ABOUT THE CLASS NAME. YOU ARE BEING COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.
Paizo has asked for feedback on their books. If they don't like that feedback, they can go to a closed development cycle. If this is going to be an open development, then people who don't like (or who do like) need to comment. Nobody has told the people that like it 'Shut up! You are teh sux!'. So how about we don't tell people who don't like it to shut up until it's published and over with, ok?
Well, right. But to be fair, It's also been well said that the name "Oracle" is not up for debate. "Summoner," on the other hand, is still indefinite. People seemed to think that because in the initial announcement of the new classes the Summoner name was not set in stone, that they had free rain to try and change ALL the names.
Somewhere in the messageboards at that time, Jason or Erik or someone at Piazo said quite plainly, "We're looking for playtesters, not game designers."
-Z
STOP TALKING ABOUT THE CLASS NAME. YOU ARE BEING COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.
STOP SCREAMING YOU ARE BEING COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE!
Ah,
I would please like for you to point out where I have 'pounded it into the ground' in any thread? That was my first post to this thread, unless I don't remember one.
I was making a general statement in response to your post, not accusing you of any specific behavior. That's part of why I pointed out that people should post their opinions if they have them. I also pointed out once you have posted once or twice, especially in a thread frequented by Paizo guys, you can probably be sure they noted your opinion.
There have, indeed, been people that have pounded their opinion into the ground despite specifically having Paizo folks respond to them, thus making it clear that their opinion was indeed noted. If this doesn't apply to you, then I would guess you were not in the group I was referencing.
I'm sorry if there was any confusion.
I personally can't wait to play test all of these except for the Inquisitor, on that one I'm not certain yet. It seems like it would be some sort of cross between a paladin and a ranger... not saying I won't like it or something inane like that, I'm just not moved by it. The other five are stuff I really want to see and try out.
There have, indeed, been people that have pounded their opinion into the ground despite specifically having Paizo folks respond to them, thus making it clear that their opinion was indeed noted. If this doesn't apply to you, then I would guess you were not in the group I was referencing.I'm sorry if there was any confusion.
Not at all, just hard to tell sometimes when people are specifically targeting you when they quote you or just using your post as a generic response.
I'm still pretty interested in the inquisitor as well. I've always liked the "Van Helsing" style character, and I've always liked the idea of having "monster knowledge" skills as well as perhaps some extra bonus to knowing about said monsters and their weaknesses.
I am wondering how limited of divine spellcasting we're talking about with the class, however. Is this going to be a roguish "half-caster" like the paladin or the ranger, or a 3/4 caster like the bard? Limited does seem to be more leaning towards ranger/paladin style casting, but a 3/4 caster would balance out by creating a 3/4 divine caster to go along with the 3/4 arcane caster.
I personally can't wait to play test all of these except for the Inquisitor, on that one I'm not certain yet. It seems like it would be some sort of cross between a paladin and a ranger... not saying I won't like it or something inane like that, I'm just not moved by it. The other five are stuff I really want to see and try out.
To be honest, I'm most excited about the Summoner (although I agree that's a pretty shallow name, I hope they come up with a better one, I have no suggestions though).
Then again, I envision it more like a Final Fantasy Eidelon summons. I hope it's like that.
I have to say that Dissinger is right.
I was at GenCon Oz and it was great, pathfinder society ect.
But I can say that there is a vocal minortity and they are not the majority, when we were there with Jason it was much more about what does it do?
It wasn't why is it named that.
People didn't give two toots about the name.
He did give a short talk about the name because perhaps he saw all this negative feedback on the name.
But honestly can you say that it matters at all?
Personally I am much more interested in how some of these things will be working, I love how pazio does that matching the flavour to mechanics of something.
If there is new space going to be explored some of the times things are not going to what you want exactly you want.
Take for example The Condor
Stan Lee wanted to make a latino super hero with a bird theme and the only unlicensed well known bird of prey.
He said he thought it was one of the best names and ran with it.
Now there are going to be times when Pazio wants to explore ideas which are have been explored before and they have there names licensed.
Take for example the Duskblade.
They want to explore the same idea, not a multi-class fighter mage but someone who channels there magical energy through thier weapon or self buffs, it doesn't really matter to much the idea is this person is a magical fighter.
Not a Fighter-Mage or Mage/Fighter.
Now they couldn't use the Name duskblade.
So what about dawnblade?
Well no they can't really use that because it brings about connotations of paladins or holy light warriors.
Moonblade is a elven weapon in FR.
So they settle with Kensei.
No one can own it because of blah.
So they call them a Kensei because there so good with there sword that that it's magical, they are the 'saint of the sword'.
Mechanics include kicking ass, taking names and not chewing gum.
Now would you seriously argue about the name?
I would be like what is this mechanic kick ass?
That sounds cool!
Or taking names thats something I want to do.
I would be like mdt if I didn't like the name.
Don't really like the name but can't wait to see wait to see what there like!
As for the summoners name because it is up in arms I looked at the latin.
(I am no expert in latin this is streight from a translation website)
Accersitus.
and I was thinking something like.
Accersuitist.
Being Accer-suit-ist
Accer being the stuff you you use, suit as in suiting it to your purpose and ist as in someone that does this.
Accer being the primordial soup that they draw from.
Even though some of them long since abbandoned that idea they still hail that as the origin of there profession.
Well anyway thats my thoughs :s
A possibility for the Summoner rename (since it doesn't sound like they actually summon anything, so much as constantly have a companion) would be, perhaps...
Beastmaster
Beast Tamer
Bonded
Bound
Binder
Pokemon Master
Beastlord
Monster Rancher
Digimon Master
Eidolon Lord
Of course, if they in fact do have the summon monster spells on their list, and they're really good at summoning, then the "Summoner" name would be perfectly appropriate.
Honestly, I have absolutely no problem with two-word class names, because that's the way language works - single words don't necessarily describe something accurately enough. That's why we have sentences in the first place. Two-word class names can potentially be more descriptive (but you'll note that it's "Soulknife" not "Soul Knife"). The trick, to me, is just a question of "does the name conjure to mind the things it can do?" If it's a made-up thing, like Favored Soul, I can get the flavor by looking at the class, and I don't have to really push against the name.
Do fighters fight? Yes.
Is the druid a nature-oriented caster? Yes.
Does the wizard command great magical powers? Yes.
Is the rogue roguish? Yep.
Does the Ninja do the things that I expect a ninja to do? More or less, but it's not perfect, so there's people all over the place complaining about the name. Rename it "Infiltrator" and see just how people complain about its abilities not matching (because it is very good at infiltrating).
Likewise, I'm not a huge fan of Barbarian, because it's not so much a type of character as a social category. Berserker would be a better choice, but 3.0 set it as Barbarian, so I don't expect Paizo to rename a class from the SRD for an SRD update. But classes that are being created now? I'd expect them to try and make sure that they matched with the images that are evoked by the name. I like some of the neat abilities of the Oracle class, and I may find myself using it in a game, but I'll probably have an entry in my campaign document like I did for the Infiltrator (Complete Adventurer Ninja) that says "Mystic (Adv. Player's Guide Oracle)" or something to that effect.
But I obviously am not going to convince Paizo about it, just like I couldn't convince them that Concentration was a skill that had uses beyond casters, or that Spellcraft should just become part of the Knowledges. It's not my personal rule-set, after all, and the things that I've seen and wanted to see cleaned up with Pathfinder seem to be the things that Paizo is seriously opposed to. The rules as a whole are fun, but I'm rewriting the entire skills chapter to encourage more ranks in knowledges, to get rid of the real skill tax for wizards (spellcraft just to learn spells), and to give fighters a little skill consolidation too.
I sometimes wonder if it's just the whole idea behind Pathfinder - I suddenly feel like I can go a bit further with my houserules than I did in 3.5. But I know I'm going to have a lot more houserules with Pathfinder than I ever did with 3.5 that are focused on changing how the system works. It could be experience, or it could be that the changes left me wanting to change them in different directions if I was really going to go with a revision at all.
The Inquisitor, though - I'm dubious of the "better abilities the longer the fight goes" approach. My experience is that most characters are built to end fights quickly. The longer the fight goes on, the more likely it is to swing poorly to you. Protracted fights also have the problem of feeling like the game is dragging when it shouldn't be. The Inquisitor's delayed gratification approach, while an interesting idea, makes me anxious because it goes counter to the general manner in which combats go. He wants to take his time, while the other characters are all trying to end it quick. I'll have to see the mechanics to see how it works out in game, though.
Beastmaster
Beast Tamer
Bonded
Bound
Binder
Pokemon Master
Beastlord
Monster Rancher
Digimon Master
Eidolon Lord
None of these really fit for a Dr. Frankenstein-like character, though.
None of these really fit for a Dr. Frankenstein-like character, though.Beastmaster
Beast Tamer
Bonded
Bound
Binder
Pokemon Master
Beastlord
Monster Rancher
Digimon Master
Eidolon Lord
Except for PokéMaster!
Ya know the summnor sounds more like a handler so a few names that mean something like a handler
*advocate,
*delegate
*emissary
*envoy
*factotum,
*intermediary
*proctor
Just a few thoughts
None of these really fit for a Dr. Frankenstein-like character, though.Beastmaster
Beast Tamer
Bonded
Bound
Binder
Pokemon Master
Beastlord
Monster Rancher
Digimon Master
Eidolon Lord
They fit about as well as calling a voodoo houngan a "cleric" or calling a nobleman with anger issues a "barbarian" or calling a ninja a "rogue" (etc., etc.).
(That's why I've given up on the whole "X is a dumb name for a class" argument.)
For renaming the summoner, I still say: Usher.
Not in the common noun sense (doorman/orderly) but as a backformation from the verb: to escort or direct.
Proctor is my favorite from the rest of what I've seen. Puppeteer might work, too.
|
I like Summoner, surprisingly (while I am coming around on Oracle, I think it will likely be called a Channeler in my game now that I see what its special abilities are like - I hope no one is offended overly-much if I use oracle(channeler) whenever I type the name.)
Anyway, I see a Summoner as a figure similar to the hero in the Summoner game for PS2, except more magical than combat-oriented: a specific creature (outsider or construct, likely) that is a permanent (or near-permanent) companion for the caster/summoner.
Warden could also work.
Or ward, depending on how you look at it. :)
|
Please do not give the witch armor proficiencies. Instead, let her have mage armor and barksin or shield for AC buffs. Witches were the old wise women and they should be hard to pick out of the populace. Witches in literature and myth relied on guile & cunning or the protection of other planar entities. Please don't rope them in with clerics and druid. Please keep them with wizards and sorcerers.
In my ideal view, withces should have access to enchantment spells, transmutations, abjurations (for curses) plus spells that relate to animals, plants and the weather.
In my ideal view, withces should have access to enchantment spells, transmutations, abjurations (for curses) plus spells that relate to animals, plants and the weather.
I think you meant necromancy for curses, but I can see a case for conjuration (summoning afterall) abjuration (protection from evil spirits and the like), and illusion added to your list (which witch is which... or invisibility, hiding her house being glamour and the like).
I've always seen the witch (in D&D) as a cross between the sorcerer and the druid.
Iconic witch powers (IMO) include:
Some shape shifting
Charming
Cursing
Protection/good luck charms
Divination (divining the spirits intent or reading the future)
Shape changing others,
plant, animal and weather related spells
Poison use
Luck/ fortune related abilities.
The main problem I've always had with a "witch" class in D&D has been the fact that it really just feels like a different spell list, or a variation on already existing classes.
Not to say it can't be done right and well, but that's what has always stopped me from doing anything with it as a class itself.
In my ideal view, withces should have access to enchantment spells, transmutations, abjurations (for curses) plus spells that relate to animals, plants and the weather.I think you meant necromancy for curses, but I can see a case for conjuration (summoning afterall) abjuration (protection from evil spirits and the like), and illusion added to your list (which witch is which... or invisibility, hiding her house being glamour and the like).
I've always seen the witch (in D&D) as a cross between the sorcerer and the druid.
Iconic witch powers (IMO) include:
Some shape shifting
Charming
Cursing
Protection/good luck charms
Divination (divining the spirits intent or reading the future)
Shape changing others,
plant, animal and weather related spells
Poison use
Luck/ fortune related abilities.The main problem I've always had with a "witch" class in D&D has been the fact that it really just feels like a different spell list, or a variation on already existing classes.
Not to say it can't be done right and well, but that's what has always stopped me from doing anything with it as a class itself.
Agreed, and I like your list of iconic powers. I would hope for some difference beyond the spell list, a different mechanic for magic maybe. A reliance on potions, items and rituals maybe. A more strategic use of magic, although a dependence on these might weaken the class as an adventuring class. Or not. Depending on how it's done.
*edit* Incidentally, I find all their choices interesting except perhaps the Summoner. We'll see how that one turns out.
The name Oracle is misleading. When most fantasy gamers hear the word, it immediately springs to mind "Seer", "Visionary", "Diviner", and "Prophet". It's someone that's been blessed (or cursed) by the gods to foretell events.
That's my only reason for not liking the name.
I've been taking apart the Oracle example a bit, as spontaneous divine casters are a central class in our setting (Dragonlance/Mystics) and I need to be able to homebrew until the final version is officially out.
Couple of things that "appear" to be going on with the example.....
Charisma based casting instead of wisdom based ? (not that I dislike that, it was just a bit of a surprise, but fit's the "faith in self" based casting of a Mystic perfectly).
D8 hit dice, and BA as cleric.
Looks like they based the revelations on the same type of progression as a bloodline, except that what would be called “Bloodline arcana” in a bloodline is the first level ability (with some kind of drawback included as the Oracle curse), then 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th level gains an ability....so they fall at slightly different levels than a Sorcerer's bloodline powers.....does that sound about right ?
Can't really tell from the example, but I would suspect the focus also includes bonus feats just as a bloodline does.
I can't seem to see save's …...but Fort and Wis as good saves sounds like a safe bet.
Do I appear to be missing anything ?
I just get tired of all the Divines automatically being better than the arcane.
Without even looking at the sheet I knew that Oracles would have a d8 and medium BAB, armor use, and two good save throws.
It's sicking really.
Without even looking at the sheet I knew that Oracles would have a d8 and medium BAB, armor use, and two good save throws.
If bards were divine they'd be paladins.
Mind you, I don't see anyone crying for wizard buffs.
Without even looking at the sheet I knew that Oracles would have a d8 and medium BAB, armor use, and two good save throws.If bards were divine they'd be paladins.
Mind you, I don't see anyone crying for wizard buffs.
For univerisalist? Maybe. However my main gripe is simply the divines still get everything.
However that is the game and I don't have to play divines anyways... wizards, bards, and sorcerers are just fine for me, when I'm not doing any of the martial classes.
However my main gripe is simply the divines still get everything.
Except weird. ;) Among the core classes I think the differences in spell lists make up for the stronger base features enjoyed by the cleric and druid. Everyone's got a place.
I definitely agree that it's important to keep a close eye on the cannon/glass ratio of any new divine class, though... especially one called an "oracle of fire."
Yeah but they can get Shades, power words, Wail of the Banshee, Implosion, Foresight, weird (madness domain), mage's disjunction, prismatic sphere, teleportation circle, crushing hand, time stop, and power word kill.
Domain spells for the "I-can-do-what-the-wizard-can-do".
Looking at the sample Oracle, I'm wondering if the progression for revelations is stated correctly ?
I kind of assumed the progression would match the Sorcerers bloodline, but if the comments on the blog are correct, they fall at slightly different levels (1st, 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, & 19th).
So what do ya think....typo....or deliberatly different ?
Also, any word on the playtest version ?
I don't think its a typo
I am certainly reserving judgment until the final class is released, but my initial impression of the Oracle is that it is hard to justify how this is balanced with the sorcerer class. It looks like is has a divine version of sorcerer spell progression, with higher HP dice size, access to armor and also limited access to arcane spells based on aspect. It also has a suite of special abilities, but as we know little of those just now, let us assume that they are roughly balanced with the sorcerer bloodline powers.
So, it appears that you have a sorcerer-type class with various bonuses on top of the sorcerer baseline. I don't think this tiny little "curse" mechanic could be the balancing mechansism.
I hope I am missing something. I know I don't have all of the relevant info, so I mean this in the spirit of inquiry rather than of snark: How is this class not just a "sorcerer-plus"?
One of the things I have seen brought up on a number of occasions is that the nature of the lists spells are drawn from acts as the balancing factor.....but I'm not really sure I buy that ?
Supposedly the spells on the divine list are more of a “buff” line, and not capable of the kind of damage output that spells on the wizard/sorcerer list are capable of.
My personal preference would be to either........
A) give sorcerers a bump in BA, and light armor capabilities (like warlock).
OR
B) drop the Mystic....I mean Oracle.....to the same BA progression as the Sorcerer.
As it pertains to the summoners name, I always like occultist.
Since it does suggest some summoning capabilities it would fit, but it would also work for someone who gathersDark/otherwoldly lore/secrets/knowledge.
That would be cool, it could also be a very different take on the warrior/wizard concept. The summoner is a full fledged wizard, with a buddy whose a decent fighter.
Acctually demonologist would work too.
As it pertains to the summoners name, I always like occultist.
Since it does suggest some summoning capabilities it would fit, but it would also work for someone who gathersDark/otherwoldly lore/secrets/knowledge.
Yeah, I could live with that. Most universally applicable name I've heard for them yet, anyhow.
I prefer summoner over occultist, to be honest.
Binder would be perfect. Sigh. :)
I could live with Binder, too, but then it'd get confusing when someone wanted to play the only viable class from the Tome of Magic... :p
EDIT: Or heaven forfend, play a gestalt Binder // Binder. Hmm... <starts writing up a new character concept>
Continuing this parallel conversation about the Oracle's power level, I suppose the thing that worries me about it is the access to some of the arcane spells. Apparently, the theory is that the Oracle can have higher HP, BAB, armor, etc (in comparison to the Sorcerer) because the arcane spell list is more powerful than the divine one. I am not entirely sold on that idea (that arcane is more powerful than divine in general) but for the sake of argument let us suppose that it is true.
Now, to take another case of divine classes using arcane magic, let's look at the Cleric. The Cleric has access to some arcane spells through domains, but they have only one spell slot per level through which to use these spells. That is, it isn't terribly unbalancing to give a fire-domain Cleric access to Fireball (for instance) because he can only ever cast it once per day.
However, giving Oracles access to Fireball is uglier. As spontaneous spellcasters, they will be able to spam the same spells over and over again if they want to. An Oracle with access to Fireball is stepping on Sorcerer toes much more than a Cleric is intruding on the Wizard's domain because each arcane spell said Oracle can access is an arcane spell he can use all day long.
So, restricting opurselves to issues of fire-spell access (because that is all we have to go on) a Fire aspect Oracle looks a heck of a lot better than a fire-blasting sorcerer. Both of them can blast offensive fire magic many times per day, but the oracle enjoys a better statline, better BAB and better HP. Assuming that the special abilities are otherwise roughly balanced between the two classes, Oracle sure looks like "Sorcerer-plus".
As the Sorcerer is already released, substantially buffing him is not really an option. Probably a better solution is to keep the Oracle out of the arcane magic game entirely. For instance, you could give him Continual Flame as his 3rd level bonus spell instead of Fireball. Sure, its not nearly as sexy a combat option as Fireball is, but then, with the Oracle's superior statline, hit points and armor options, that's the only way to keep things balanced. Just keep the Oracle to the Cleric spell list entirely, and it should be more or less OK otherwise.
Thoughts?
|
As it pertains to the summoners name, I always like occultist.
Cabalist is a decent choice (from Dark Ages of Camelot, where they are golem-conjurers who specialize in life and death magic).
I like the sound of Diabolist as well, but it's pretty devil-centric.
Occultist, for me, would be someone whose magic is heavily shadow-themed.
For starters, fireball is one of the least effective arcane spells, so my thoughts begin there.
Apparently they end there too.
Anybody else?
Yeah, definitely. That being the case, it should be reasonable enough to keep the Oracle to divine magic, then, and buff it in special abilities relative to Clerics (it seems that this is where they are going with it already, at least in terms of special abilities). I am just saying that you don't need to do that by making it a sorcerer, plus more stuff besides.
I'd quibble with what you said to the extent that the Oracle actually needs to be balanced against BOTH Clerics and Sorcerers. As primary divine magicians, they will be competing with Clerics in terms of that particular kind of niche definition. I agree. But as spontaneous spellcasters, they will be competing with Sorcerers for that niche as well. They need to be balanced along both axes. If the result of balancing the class against the Cleric makes the Sorcerer class look less attractive, then you have solved one problem by causing another.