Just stop talking about the oracle's name. It's been argued to death. The name is fine and it's not changing. Change the name to whatever you want in your games, but PLEASE stop talking about it. You're beating a dead horse when he's down.Hi, Tom.
When people were complaining about the name Oracle last month, the word from Paizo was something like, "Look, you're reacting based on a single blog entry. We, who've seen the rough draft of the class, like the name a lot. Once you see the full write-up, we bet you'll like it, too. Right now, though, just throw some trust our way."
So, now that we've seen the rough draft of the class, it's exactly the right time to talk about the name of the class.
(And, of course anybody can change the names of anything in his or her home campaign. If that were a good argument against commentary, we might as well shut down the whole playtest thing.)
+5
four skill points clearly elevates this class above the other full-castersYeah, like druids.
Bam!
Just stop talking about the oracle's name. It's been argued to death. The name is fine and it's not changing. Change the name to whatever you want in your games, but PLEASE stop talking about it. You're beating a dead horse when he's down.Hi, Tom.
When people were complaining about the name Oracle last month, the word from Paizo was something like, "Look, you're reacting based on a single blog entry. We, who've seen the rough draft of the class, like the name a lot. Once you see the full write-up, we bet you'll like it, too. Right now, though, just throw some trust our way."
So, now that we've seen the rough draft of the class, it's exactly the right time to talk about the name of the class.
(And, of course anybody can change the names of anything in his or her home campaign. If that were a good argument against commentary, we might as well shut down the whole playtest thing.)
I do know that I've flogged this horse pretty thoroughly, but this name still really bugs me. "Oracle" may mean more than one thing according to the dictionary, but it immediately brings to mind one image amongst pretty much anyone who isn't looking for a justification for the name, and this class definitely doesn't fit with that image, at least as presented here. There've been several other options presented (mystic, avatar, Chosen, Blessed, Cursed, etc) that are certainly evocative, give you an idea of the class at least as well as "oracle" does, and don't have to butt against the preexisting connotations of the name. But Paizo also said that, while we should just take their naming on faith and shut up until the playtest, they also wouldn't be changing it at all, no matter what we said. So, while I'm in complete agreement that the name doesn't work as well as some people think, I also am resigned to the fact that we're stuck with it, because Paizo's decided on it. It won't be changing, no matter what we say or do. From what I can tell, the only class we'll have any chance of influencing the name of will be the summoner, so I'm interested in seeing what it's actually capable of so that I can actually provide some input that's going to maybe have an impact.
Ok, I absolutely hate to see this discussion come up again. I couldn't agree more with tom that we've seen too much of this.
But, that being said, I love the name Oracle. First of all, an Oracle is an actual name you'd use for a person, and not just a random noun like exemplar or factotum.
Second of all, it actually carries flavor with it, unlike some of the other terms you'd use for a person (A mystic feels like it would be something very different from an oracle).
Third of all, as is very important to me, the mechanics fit the fluff. The name Oracle has a very classic mythological feel, which really comes alive with the classic mythology concept of the Oracle's curse (achille's heel, blah blah blah). More than half the Foci (Mysteries) we've seen thus far have some kind of divination abilties, and half the curses we've seen deal with perception.
I honestly don't know why the discussion continues.
Hi, Tom.
When people were complaining about the name Oracle last month, the word from Paizo was something like, "Look, you're reacting based on a single blog entry. We, who've seen the rough draft of the class, like the name a lot. Once you see the full write-up, we bet you'll like it, too. Right now, though, just throw some trust our way."
So, now that we've seen the rough draft of the class, it's exactly the right time to talk about the name of the class.
(And, of course anybody can change the names of anything in his or her home campaign. If that were a good argument against commentary, we might as well shut down the whole playtest thing.)
Chris, my point in telling people to stop talking about the oracle's name is that it impairs actual discussion about the mechanical aspects of the class. People who are actually participating in the playtest and offering helpful suggestions are being drowned out by people whining about the name, and that's not okay.
Chris, my point in telling people to stop talking about the oracle's name is that it impairs actual discussion about the mechanical aspects of the class. People who are actually participating in the playtest and offering helpful suggestions are being drowned out by people whining about the name, and that's not okay.Hi, Tom.
When people were complaining about the name Oracle last month, the word from Paizo was something like, "Look, you're reacting based on a single blog entry. We, who've seen the rough draft of the class, like the name a lot. Once you see the full write-up, we bet you'll like it, too. Right now, though, just throw some trust our way."
So, now that we've seen the rough draft of the class, it's exactly the right time to talk about the name of the class.
(And, of course anybody can change the names of anything in his or her home campaign. If that were a good argument against commentary, we might as well shut down the whole playtest thing.)
This is a first impressions thread. If peoples' first impressions are "Why is this class called 'Oracle' when it has nothing to do with Oracularness?", that's a valid first impression. You've detracted far more from the thread by whining about their valid feedback than they have by providing that feedback.
This is a first impressions thread. If peoples' first impressions are "Why is this class called 'Oracle' when it has nothing to do with Oracularness?", that's a valid first impression. You've detracted far more from the thread by whining about their valid feedback than they have by providing that feedback.
Chris, my point in telling people to stop talking about the oracle's name is that it impairs actual discussion about the mechanical aspects of the class. People who are actually participating in the playtest and offering helpful suggestions are being drowned out by people whining about the name, and that's not okay.
Just as a backup to Zurai's point, as far as I can tell, that was the first time it had been brought up in any of the feedback threads. So as far as 'drowned out by people whining', you're score on that would be a big fat goose egg.
We get it, you love the name, it's the best name in the world, and you take personal offense that anyone would dare question it in any way. Now, please allow the rest of us who are offering legitimate feedback on a wide variety of subjects regarding both the Oracle (blechy name!) and the Cavalier (meh name) continue to offer the requested feedback to the developers, both mechanical and fluff. Honestly, looking over the Oracle I still don't get the link between the name and the fluff and mechanics. It still screams 'Mystic' to me. A Bone Mystic, a Battle Mystic, a Wave Mystic. None of the shown focuses (or mysteries, which works even better with Mystic than Oracle, and that's the way the devs are leaning instead of Focus) in the least seem to have anything to do with an Oracle.
|
Wow, way to show you know absolutely nothing about hearing impairments. I'll give you the combat issue, but the can't communicate with anyone who doesn't know a non-verbal language, you might want to learn a bit about hearing impairments before you make statements like that.Wow, way to show you can't make an argument with anything but insults. You might want to learn a bit about debating before you make statements like that.
maybe it bothered me slightly as I actually have a hearing impairment and know others who also have it and have known people who are deaf. I gather that you didn't intend it to be offensive, sorry for being snide, but it did bother me for you to say that they can only communicate with people who have some kind of non-verbal language. That is both demonstrably not true, and perpetuates stereotypes of people with hearing impairments.
|
|
Lame Dwarven Oracles are the suck. Not only do they have their speed reduced to 10ft (they aren't small, so they don't get the reduced speed reduction), but they don't gain any further benefit from the ability to not reduce their speed further from heavy loads (as they already have that as a dwarf).
1) Change the wording of the speed so that it isn't size dependent, and is strictly a function of the creatures base speed.
2) Maybe throw lame dwarven oracles a bone in exchange for the heavy load ability. Maybe let them offset the speed penalty when they are moving across stone (not earthen) surfaces.
or just don't make a lame dwarf unless you're willing to live with the consequences. It's not like you can't make a dwarf oracle, just that they are boned if they are lame, which makes a lot of sense personally.
|
or just don't make a lame dwarf unless you're willing to live with the consequences. It's not like you can't make a dwarf oracle, just that they are boned if they are lame, which makes a lot of sense personally.Lame Dwarven Oracles are the suck. Not only do they have their speed reduced to 10ft (they aren't small, so they don't get the reduced speed reduction), but they don't gain any further benefit from the ability to not reduce their speed further from heavy loads (as they already have that as a dwarf).
1) Change the wording of the speed so that it isn't size dependent, and is strictly a function of the creatures base speed.
2) Maybe throw lame dwarven oracles a bone in exchange for the heavy load ability. Maybe let them offset the speed penalty when they are moving across stone (not earthen) surfaces.
And Clouded vision screws them over too because the darkvision is limited to 30'. You'll have to make an incomprehensible, haunted, or ugly Dwarven Oracle! Well, not "have" too, but if you choose lame or clouded vision as a dwarf you kind of get shafted.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I am going to be moving some of these away from their elemental damage ties a bit, but it will not be going entirely.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Yay, I'm a fan of this. The beauty of the oracle's revelations, vs. just picking spells for domain lists, is that you don't need to be tied to the traditional SRD spell list. It's hard to come up with a list of air spells that are AIR spells for 9 levels, f'rex, unless you go outside the SRD. If the APG is intended to add a bunch more spells, then you're on easy street. If it's not, though, you needn't worry, because you can make the oracle's relevations anything you want as a Su/Sp abilities, regardless of whether they map onto spells.
Keep a few of those 3.0/3.5 energy association spells? That's fine. But I'm happy to see movement away from overreliance on that as the only way to fill out the ability roster.