Class Names


Class Discussion

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I know one of the designers already said that they do not want to change the names, but I disagree so much i want to make a thread anyway.

I feel like the names can be put into great, okay, and terrible.

Great

Slayer: I am a fan of this name. Assassin has already been taken and many other names that could be used have been used in archetypes. The name does not seem out of place and evokes Buffy. It also is pretty clear about what the class does.

Arcanist: I think some people will disagree with me here, but I like this name, especially because it is one of the few names for an arcane caster left to choose from. It is definitely a bland arcane caster name, but at this point this IS the bland arcane caster that gets spontaneous and prepared casting.

Okay

Bloodrager: I am a little confused by this because I remember paizo said repeatedly that they do not like combination names. This is a perfect example of mashing together to things to make a new combination word that did not exist before. However, I do think it is a good description of what the class is so I do not really have a problem with it.

Hunter: For some reason this invokes a noncaster to me but that may just be personal. I do not really see how this is more of a hunter than a ranger. In fact, I would say Hunter is worse at hunting than a Ranger. There are some other archetypes that have hunter in their name but they are usually niche specific hunters of things like bounty hunters and yokai hunter which are clearly different. At the end of the day, I would say it is worse than bloodrager but it does describe the class to some degree and has not been taken.

Terrible

The rest: In my opinion there is no worse name than one already chosen. It makes things incredibly confusing for new players and even experienced ones. It makes the game seem more complicated than it really is, and it makes the game play worse. People will get confused between the different classes and archetypes with the same name during play and outside of play. At the end of that day (an expression I am too fond of) I feel like names are just that: names. Their most important function is to label different options so people do not get confused. In the game world, classes I feel are always more nebulous. Everybody has classes but in character you do not walk up and say: "Hello I am temeryn the level 4 Barbarian." Class names are meant there for players to help distinguish the different options. If I am an urban ranger with the correct skill choices and that is my job, I could be an investigator for the city. The group, The Rangers of Awesome Forest probably has a druid or some other class that is a ranger but is not the class ranger. Class names are still important but it is mostly out of character. That being true, the rest of the names are bad because they already exist as archetypes. The savage skald has a slightly different name but it is still incredibly confusing because I would say the new skald is more savage. Swashbuckler is a great name for the new class but it already exists and so will be incredibly confusing to players. If I am picking my character and a friend says "swashbuckler" it could mean a rogue or this new class which fills a completely different role. The same problem with investigator. Brawler I feel is a little better because it at least does the same thing. While the druid archetypes do not say only shaman, but instead have an animal beforehand, it is actually as bad as the above examples because a bird shaman seems to be a legitimate archetype idea for the ACG shaman which will make it even more confusing because the player will think it is an archetype of shaman.

Does anyone else agree about the names?

Shadow Lodge

Didn't mention Warpriest. I am ambivalent about most of the class names, and I don't really care that the names that are already taken, since I always suffix the original class afterwords. Like savage skald bard, or brawler fighter, or saurian shaman druid.


Firstly, paragraphs please. Walls of text make it it difficult to follow your arguments.

Secondly, I thought bard-barian was an awesome name and wished they kept it.

All the rest I'm fine with, especially the slayer. I feel it fits an assasin/hunter quite well


I actively dislike the name Arcanist because it ALSO means Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, Summoner, and Magus. I accept that they're running low on words that mean the same thing here, but this class doesn't feel any more of an Arcanist than a Wizard or Sorcerer. I'd like something stranger and more flavorful. like... Thaumaturge. Can I vote we rename it Thaumaturge?

My second big complaint is Hunter. It's a good name, but the class features really don't support it. Hunter feels like less of a Hunter than Ranger does, which is an issue. Something like "Predator" might make more sense, as it's animal focused. Or, with such a high focus on fighting alongside animal companion, "Beastmaster" could work here, with perhaps some more animal companion tweaks.

Finally, I don't get Investigator. It's a good name I just... don't understand why an Investigator is a guy who makes potions and shanks people. At all. Can someone please explain it to me?

The others are good, with special shoutout to Swashbuckler, which had to exist and definitely feels like a Swashbuckler. I love Bloodrager, too. I'm not sure what the complaints about it are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thaumaturge is a really good name. If they don't want to use that for another new base class, I would be on board with that, though I am fine with arcanist.

My main issue is that the rogue archetype already has the name swashbuckler and it is confusing.

If you suffix the original name wouldn't it still be confusing because brawler and skald come from bard and fighter?


I'm okay with doubling up on names for classes and archetypes. Confusion happens, but Brawler, Skald, and Swashbuckler are the /right/ names and anything else is less right, even if the names were already used for Archetypes.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

Not a huge fan of the name "Warpriest" but I don't really have any great alternatives. It's the most boring and least interesting of the new classes to me, in any case. Really not interested in that one at all.

The other names are awesome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They are just terms to categorize and describe collections of game mechanics.

Be what you want to be, flavor your character however you want.

In the event of describing what you are playing from a meta perspective, just use your words and make it clear.

"Hey what are you playing?"

"Oh, I'm playing the new Swashbuckler class, from the ACG playtest."

"Oh cool, I'm playing a Rogue with the Swashbuckler archetype! We're swashbucklebuddies!"


Having a (really old) Dragon magazine flashback, I'd change Slayer to Bounty Hunter. I mean, who doesn't want to be Boba Fett (of course it also goes with the Fall Guy show from the 80s...).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The name is irrelevant. If you don't like it, scratch it off on your character sheet and pencil in something you like better/what your character calls himself in-character.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Adam Teles wrote:
I actively dislike the name Arcanist because it ALSO means Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, Summoner, and Magus. I accept that they're running low on words that mean the same thing here, but this class doesn't feel any more of an Arcanist than a Wizard or Sorcerer. I'd like something stranger and more flavorful. like... Thaumaturge. Can I vote we rename it Thaumaturge?

There's going to be overlap. A Witch can just as easily be a wizard, A Summoner is assumed to be a mage/wizard, and Magus is just a slight variation of Mage which is what they ALL are. I think Arcanist being a slightly general term is the point- he's part spontaneous part prepared, and thus is (in very broad terms) a broader user of magic. Mage would have been too generic, but Arcanist isn't bad. Before now very few if any people described their wizard/magus/sorcerer/bard as "oh I'm an Arcanist!" and I don't see it being confusing later.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I posted this in another thread which was locked as a duplicate, so reposting my thoughts/suggestions on names (with some edits/additions):

Arcanist: Warlock. Thaumaturge. Occultist. Magic-User (kidding). Too bad magus is taken because magos or mage would be far more appropriate for this class than the gish from UM.

Bloodrager: Tempest. Berserker. (""[Odin’s] men went without their mailcoats and were mad as hounds or wolves, bit their shields…they slew men, but neither fire nor iron had effect upon them. This is called 'going berserk.[2]'") Mengamuk.

Brawler: I am definitely in the camp that says don't repeat archetype names--it is just too potentially confusing, so I would like another name. Pugilist. Wrestler. Boxer. Pankratist. Bruiser. Fistfighter.

Hunter: A bit generic, but alright (same goes for the class, IMO). Would be nice if it had a name that evoked more of its mystical flavor though--hunter just evokes "outdoorsman who kills animals for food/sport." Can't think of anything off the top of my head though.

Investigator: Also an archetype name. Unfortunately, a lot of best equivalents are also archetype names. Best I can come up with off the top of my head that isn't already an archetype: agent.

Shaman: Fine. I know there's a something-shaman archetype but I don't think there's anything that's just shaman. Flavor appropriate.

Skald: Probably fine.

Slayer: I think personally they should come clean and call it the Stalker, since it's very obviously a Pathfinderization of that AD&D kit. But that one is also fine.

Swashbuckler: Archetype name again. How about.... fencer, swordsman (since it really is mostly going to be about swords), daredevil, rake. There's another one at the tip of my tongue but I can't think of it...

Warpriest: Templar, chaplain, zealot, sentinel

Dark Archive

I know I have read this at one point elsewhere in the threads, and I am just repeating it. But I tend to agree.

I think a better name for the Warpriest would have been Templar.

But that is just my opinion on the matter.


Warpriest also annoys me because there is no priest class (which I would want eventually) so it sort of seems weird because there is no such thing as a 'priest' per se and now you are saying this class is a priest that goes to war. Also if they make a priest class you just stuck war in tront of it which is a lame name for a different class like warcleric, warwizard, warsorcerer, wardruid.

Well warwizard sounds good to me but probably because I read to many Forgotten Realms books.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Temeryn wrote:

Warpriest also annoys me because there is no priest class (which I would want eventually) so it sort of seems weird because there is no such thing as a 'priest' per se and now you are saying this class is a priest that goes to war. Also if they make a priest class you just stuck war in tront of it which is a lame name for a different class like warcleric, warwizard, warsorcerer, wardruid.

Well warwizard sounds good to me but probably because I read to many Forgotten Realms books.

The issue of "priest" is that it assumes you are ordained clergy, which I would think a divinely gifted person doesn't necessarily have to be. The problem is, "cleric" does the same thing, and that ship sailed decades ago.


I was thinking about how hunter evokes a sort of class without spells. A sort of version of a ranger with no spells and this class has even better spells than ranger.

I thought of a good name for the class that better fits the current flavor: equites.

Equites and druids were the too ruling classes in Celtic society with equites being the noble warriors as opposed to the more priestly druidic order.


DeathQuaker wrote:
Temeryn wrote:

Warpriest also annoys me because there is no priest class (which I would want eventually) so it sort of seems weird because there is no such thing as a 'priest' per se and now you are saying this class is a priest that goes to war. Also if they make a priest class you just stuck war in tront of it which is a lame name for a different class like warcleric, warwizard, warsorcerer, wardruid.

Well warwizard sounds good to me but probably because I read to many Forgotten Realms books.

The issue of "priest" is that it assumes you are ordained clergy, which I would think a divinely gifted person doesn't necessarily have to be. The problem is, "cleric" does the same thing, and that ship sailed decades ago.

Well the issue isn't the word priest in general for me, it is the fact that you just stuck the word war in front of another word that is basically a synonym for cleric and called it a day. It is exactly the same as warcleric. It does say what the class is but it is a terrible name. It is like just calling a magus a warwizard.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Bloodrager: Warlock.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forgotten Knight wrote:
I think a better name for the Warpriest would have been Templar.

I have to disagree. Warpriest at least feels generic. Templar is linked to a specific religion/church. I say stay away from specific links like that IMO.


Instead of the Bloodrager how about the Warchanter?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That sounds like a bbn/bard or ftr/bard hybrid.


danielc wrote:
Forgotten Knight wrote:
I think a better name for the Warpriest would have been Templar.
I have to disagree. Warpriest at least feels generic. Templar is linked to a specific religion/church. I say stay away from specific links like that IMO.

Cleric comes from the old french clerc which means member of the Christian clergy. It is just as specific to Christianity. And Templar I believe was used in a prior edition so it has some precedence as a generic divine fighter like cleric does in prior editions.

I said in the other post that I agree with bloodrager--->warlock with the flavor of someone's heritage being wild and uncontrollable causing them to sometimes go into rages enhanced by their magical lineage.

Liberty's Edge

I think Skald shoehorns the class too much. In its thread I suggested Warchief or Warchanter for it.

Warpriest could be Templar or Sohei.

Bloodrager is ok, though it could be better.

Slayer I am not a fan of, it is just another word for "murderer" which should not be a player class. Slayer should be called Hunter.

Hunter of course could be Beastlord, Beastmaster, Tamer, Animalist, Zookeeper...


Coridan wrote:

I think Skald shoehorns the class too much. In its thread I suggested Warchief or Warchanter for it.

Warpriest could be Templar or Sohei.

Bloodrager is ok, though it could be better.

Slayer I am not a fan of, it is just another word for "murderer" which should not be a player class. Slayer should be called Hunter.

Hunter of course could be Beastlord, Beastmaster, Tamer, Animalist, Zookeeper...

I think skald is good as a general combination but is is the same name as an archetype...

I really like slayer. I think it is the best name out of all of the new classes. A demon slayer is not a murderer I disagree. And The Slayer from Buffy is basically The Slayer of All Supernatural Predators.


This same discussion could be had with so many class names well before the ACG playtest.

Paladins were the knights of charlemagne, who in public represented "christian valor". But in the game no one has a problem divorcing them from their historical namesakes and make a paladin of any good-aligned deity.

Druids were priests of an early celtic cult, but no one has a problem with them being nature mages that commune with and turn into animals and plants.

Real life rangers don't cast spells and form supernatural bonds with animals.

Barbarian was strictly a roman term for the less advanced people of iron age germany and gaul. These people didn't go on frenzies in battle.

Inquisitors were people who tortured non-christians in the name of their faith, trying to convert them to it.

There are a lot of classes with "inaccurate" names already. I don't think it makes a lot of sense wasting breath over that.

Likewise a skald was a warrior-poet. A trained fighter who was also versed in the writing of poems and songs, who would tell of battles of the past, or record his own. Not someone who makes others fall into a rage. If you wanted to accurately portray a skald in Pathfinder, you'd have a fighter with perform and knowledge (local & history) as class skills.

-

Although I do agree that the name hunter would have been more fitting for the slayer class. And that "bloodrager" is lacking the elegance of the usual one-word class names (or if they are combined words then it is at least an established term, like gunslinger for example)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Bloodrager: Warlock.

i actually really agree with this, as stated in the barbarian class name thread, bloodrager evokes more of a gore brutality imagery rather than anything really magical, in addition warlock is an amazing name that is too good not to be used. plus i think its fairly close to how warlocks are generally seen; bulkier mages who can fight. A good match if you ask me.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Warlock makes me think of a bulky mage, the complete inverse of a Bloodrager.

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Ever since someone posted that the German translation of 'Warpriest' was 'Kriegspriester' I've wanted that to be the name of the class.

I mean, it's exotic, it's got the assonance going, and let's face it. Kriegspriest just sounds 150% mightier, don't you think?


I really want the bloodrager to be called the Inheritor. Class features could mention birthright. Or bloodlines could be renamed birthrights in order to differentiate them from sorcerer class features.

"I'm playing a human Inheritor with the Destined birthright. This clan of kobold Inheritors possess the fearsome claws of their Dragon birthright. My aasimar Inheritor takes flight as he his Celestial birthright grants him wings."

Yeah, sounds right to me.


I think Scion fits the concept for the bloodrager personally; but might be to "spellcaster" sounding and not "I'm angry and metal" enough.


Kekkres wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Bloodrager: Warlock.
i actually really agree with this, as stated in the barbarian class name thread, bloodrager evokes more of a gore brutality imagery rather than anything really magical, in addition warlock is an amazing name that is too good not to be used. plus i think its fairly close to how warlocks are generally seen; bulkier mages who can fight. A good match if you ask me.

I'm definitely apart of this camp. The name Warlock seems to gel with the concept of the class (much better than the Magus and it has that blood connection the 3.5 Warlock did). Also, like Kekkres says, the Warlock is a great name and sounds a lot better than Bloodrager.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Seeker of skybreak wrote:
I think Scion fits the concept for the bloodrager personally; but might be to "spellcaster" sounding and not "I'm angry and metal" enough.

yeah scion honestly makes me think of a calm psionic character more than anything. my current head fluff for the class is that they just doesn't have enough magical blood in them to be truly compatible with it. so when they try to access it they are overwhelmed with a power they aren't built to use driving them temporarily mad. At least, that's how it works in my head ^^".


Brawler: This is weak - brawling is not just to fight unarmed, it is to do so without formalized training. Pugilist is the best so far.

Hunter: Agree with the criticism that this sounds like a mundane class. Beastmaster or Packleader sounds better to me.

Investigator: Saboteur, agent, demolitionist, daredevil, bomber, tinkerer.

Shaman: This is nitpicking, but a shaman tome is more community-oriented and protective than this class is. Witch doctor is my obvious suggestion.

Skald: Probably fine.

Slayer: Agree with Stalker from above. Slayer is so-so. But can Pazio risk using any name used in D&D that is not in the SRD? They might make themselves targets of lawsuits that way.

Swashbuckler: If the swashbuckler can actually have a buckler (or small shield, since the Pathfinder nomenclature is wrong), this name is just too good not to use. Rogue AT, please move aside for the bulldozer...

Warpriest: Templar is good, but see my comment on Slayer.

Temeryn wrote:
...Equites...

Equites also means horseman in latin, which makes it a knight/cavalier type. It is just applying the closest latin word to a celtic phenomenon. Not spot on. Try to dig up some gaelic word instead.


Starfox wrote:

Brawler: This is weak - brawling is not just to fight unarmed, it is to do so without formalized training. Pugilist is the best so far.

Hunter: Agree with the criticism that this sounds like a mundane class. Beastmaster or Packleader sounds better to me.

Investigator: Saboteur, agent, demolitionist, daredevil, bomber, tinkerer.

Shaman: This is nitpicking, but a shaman tome is more community-oriented and protective than this class is. Witch doctor is my obvious suggestion.

Skald: Probably fine.

Slayer: Agree with Stalker from above. Slayer is so-so. But can Pazio risk using any name used in D&D that is not in the SRD? They might make themselves targets of lawsuits that way.

Swashbuckler: If the swashbuckler can actually have a buckler (or small shield, since the Pathfinder nomenclature is wrong), this name is just too good not to use. Rogue AT, please move aside for the bulldozer...

Warpriest: Templar is good, but see my comment on Slayer.

Temeryn wrote:
...Equites...
Equites also means horseman in latin, which makes it a knight/cavalier type. It is just applying the closest latin word to a celtic phenomenon. Not spot on. Try to dig up some gaelic word instead.

So apparently the original word for equites appear to be:

guladach or uladach
and aetheling was the Anglo-Saxon version

Dryht and dryhten might also be names that work but I am not sure if they also mean the exact same thing.


Hunter as guladach or uladach sounds pretty good for the hunter - the word(s) tells me nothing except it is some kind of ethnic thing, but the present hunter class is sort of strange anyway, so it fits.


Yeah the issue is that these names are so obscure that even though they would fit really well, they probably are not good names either.


Starfox wrote:
Hunter as guladach or uladach sounds pretty good for the hunter - the word(s) tells me nothing except it is some kind of ethnic thing, but the present hunter class is sort of strange anyway, so it fits.

It would probably leave a lot of people asking "The whatnow?", I find it a bold move on paizos part already to call one of the classes Skald.

If you want the name to be descriptive of what the class does, it should be a name that people understand, otherwise it beats the purpose.


Crusader would be okay for Warpriest. Slayer is fine, although Stalker works, too. The only one I really don't like is Hunter. There are too many NPC "hunters." This kind of Hunter is something else entirely. It's definitely not a name I think would be used in-universe, unlike wizard or cleric or druid.


The class names should be assigned completely independently of their in-universe use anyway.

A rogue would never call themselves that, neither would its previous incarnation, the thief. If you would call your barbarian friend a barbarian you will more likely insult them, than give what they would feel to be an accurate one-word description of their abilities.

The class names are all just mechanical terms before anything else, which is why I don't think there is much point in discussing how accurate they are. As I said earlier a lot of the older classes even as far down as core don't make a lot of sense either when compared to their origin.


pH unbalanced wrote:

Ever since someone posted that the German translation of 'Warpriest' was 'Kriegspriester' I've wanted that to be the name of the class.

I mean, it's exotic, it's got the assonance going, and let's face it. Kriegspriest just sounds 150% mightier, don't you think?

Och nöö...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No foreign languages stuff please.

(this isn't permission to spam the thread with "Ya know, the word sorceror is from the Maori for "dynamite fishing", so..." kinda stuff...and yes I'm aware that ninja and samurai aren't english words.)

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Krzybyn wrote:
No foreign languages stuff please.

First: this is coming from someone named "Kryzbyn."

Second: This is a message board participated in by people from all over the world. Pretty sure I've chatted with Japanese, French, Finnish, Brazilian, Polish, and Swedish persons and I'm sure others from many other non-English speaking countries. So in light of Pathfinder's global, multilingual audience, what does "foreign language stuff" mean?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think he means for class names.

And I agree. Speaking as a German, seeing "Kriegspriester" in the english book as a class name would make me laugh before anything else. People in other languages using german words, especially if it involves the word "Krieg" (because i has become such a cliché) always just ends up looking extremely silly to native German speakers.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Kryzbyn is a made up word for a DnD character name.

As for the rest, same thing as it does for the messageboard guidelines.
There may be a problem with direct translation stuff that looks ok to us, but to someone that speaks it natively, there could be issues.

I'd prefer not to stumble over foreign language named classes, unless theres a better reason than "I know! What's fighter in German?"

I speak a little German, so it's not a problem for me, but wouldn't it also cause a problem in a German PF book where the fighter is already called a Krieger most likely?

I'm in no way bashing all of the foreign people who play PF. It certainly wasn't meant to be taken that way, or to imply that English is superior.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Oh and...

Arcanist: Channeler.

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Threeshades wrote:

I think he means for class names.

And I agree. Speaking as a German, seeing "Kriegspriester" in the english book as a class name would make me laugh before anything else. People in other languages using german words, especially if it involves the word "Krieg" (because it has become such a cliché) always just ends up looking extremely silly to native German speakers.

Point taken.

The thing is...Warpriest is at least as silly a construction in English. :)


Kryzbyn wrote:

Kryzbyn is a made up word for a DnD character name.

As for the rest, same thing as it does for the messageboard guidelines.
There may be a problem with direct translation stuff that looks ok to us, but to someone that speaks it natively, there could be issues.

I'd prefer not to stumble over foreign language named classes, unless theres a better reason than "I know! What's fighter in German?"

I speak a little German, so it's not a problem for me, but wouldn't it also cause a problem in a German PF book where the fighter is already called a Krieger most likely?

I'm in no way bashing all of the foreign people who play PF. It certainly wasn't meant to be taken that way, or to imply that English is superior.

While I agree the names I gave are too obscure and therefore not very good. It is different to just translate warrior into German than it is to give the name of one of the ruling castes of Celtic society that is not just a translation of warrior or noble. This is especially true when we already have a class named druid which is the other ruling caste already. They are the priest caste for the Celts.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Savant
Debonair
Chaplain
Pugilist
Fury
Terminator
Rogue Prime
Wild Thing
Hermit
Warbringer

Some of these are serious


pH unbalanced wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

I think he means for class names.

And I agree. Speaking as a German, seeing "Kriegspriester" in the english book as a class name would make me laugh before anything else. People in other languages using german words, especially if it involves the word "Krieg" (because it has become such a cliché) always just ends up looking extremely silly to native German speakers.

Point taken.

The thing is...Warpriest is at least as silly a construction in English. :)

Back in the late 3.5 days, I remember it becoming something of a joke. You had Warmages, War Hulks, War mounts, so people would joke about the Warlock. Also, war llamas, war daggers, warterskins, ... In keeping with that theme, I give you: the best little warhouse in Cheliax.


pH unbalanced wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

I think he means for class names.

And I agree. Speaking as a German, seeing "Kriegspriester" in the english book as a class name would make me laugh before anything else. People in other languages using german words, especially if it involves the word "Krieg" (because it has become such a cliché) always just ends up looking extremely silly to native German speakers.

Point taken.

The thing is...Warpriest is at least as silly a construction in English. :)

It's not that the construction is silly. I wouldn't mind the class being called Kriegspriester in the german book. What is silly however is the completely out of place use of a foreign language "because it's cool". From the perspective of a native speaker that always looks ridiculous.

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / Class Discussion / Class Names All Messageboards