Know Direction Podcast featuring Jason Bulmahn - Notes


Advanced Class Guide Playtest General Discussion

51 to 100 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of the 1/3rd should be the 1/4th of it's BAB it's missing! Fun with Fractions!


But then it would have to lose 1/3rd of it's spells!


Dragon78 wrote:
Hopefully the 1/3 removed isn't the blessings:(

I hope that the Blessings they give us are so good that we never want new ones again then because the chances of additional supplements having domains/subdomains are pretty good but not Blessings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they lose 1/3rd of it's spells then they won't be so Cleric-ish. A full BAB with some new divine abilities would make me happy. Get a Cleric and a Warpriest together in the same party? Yes!


Then we get to add another 1/12th if it loses 1/3rd of its spells and gains 1/4th BAB.

Honestly, I'd like it if it went 4L Spontaneous casting and switched to Cha casting, make it a little less MAD and give it Synergy with the Cavalier.

Oh, and I totally called it


I really hope the Investigator's new ability isn't anything like the Martial Artist's Exploit Weakness.

Having to roll one more d20 every damn round and have your attacks rely on that roll's success or failure is a real bummer.

Then again, I'm a fan of Sneak Attack so I expect to be disappointed regardless. Without Sneak Attack the Rogue/Alchemist seems to have no Rogue so I'd rather just have the bombs or find someone who'll let me play a damned vivisectionist (not likely) than be Alchemist-lite.


ciretose wrote:
Hopefully the 1/3 removed/altered were the Blessings :(

Agreed.


Tels wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention that the Slayer will receive some changes too, though minor. They were going to try and build in some options for the Slayer to get his SA at range, and may include some feats to expand the option for range SA, though he doesn't want the Slayer to be able to SA from, like, 100 ft away.

Aren't there goggles that already allow that? I hate that an item can outdo even the best class features for this, especially if that limit is < 100 ft.


Davick wrote:
Tels wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention that the Slayer will receive some changes too, though minor. They were going to try and build in some options for the Slayer to get his SA at range, and may include some feats to expand the option for range SA, though he doesn't want the Slayer to be able to SA from, like, 100 ft away.
Aren't there goggles that already allow that? I hate that an item can outdo even the best class features for this, especially if that limit is < 100 ft.

Yeah but I think he meant more options for getting the Sneak Attack because right now once combat starts there really isn't a method for getting consistent ranged sneak attacks.

Shadow Lodge

Kairos Dawnfury wrote:

Then we get to add another 1/12th if it loses 1/3rd of its spells and gains 1/4th BAB.

Honestly, I'd like it if it went 4L Spontaneous casting and switched to Cha casting, make it a little less MAD and give it Synergy with the Cavalier.

Oh, and I totally called it

There is no reason to think or expect that it will either become a Cha based caster or a spontaneous one. The Cleric is Wis based, and so should this one be. The Cleric is a spontaneous caster, but only in a limited way, and again, so should this one be. This is not an Oracle, or a Inquisitor, and it is not a Paladin mixed with Fighter.

I personally hope that it gets some ability to self-buff as a Move Action or less, and that they can spell combat and spell strike with Cure and Inflict Spells, (and hopefully can spontaneous cast both unlike a Cleric that needs to pick).


DM Beckett wrote:
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:

Then we get to add another 1/12th if it loses 1/3rd of its spells and gains 1/4th BAB.

Honestly, I'd like it if it went 4L Spontaneous casting and switched to Cha casting, make it a little less MAD and give it Synergy with the Cavalier.

Oh, and I totally called it

There is no reason to think or expect that it will either become a Cha based caster or a spontaneous one. The Cleric is Wis based, and so should this one be. The Cleric is a spontaneous caster, but only in a limited way, and again, so should this one be. This is not an Oracle, or a Inquisitor, and it is not a Paladin mixed with Fighter.

I personally hope that it gets some ability to self-buff as a Move Action or less, and that they can spell combat and spell strike with Cure and Inflict Spells, (and hopefully can spontaneous cast both unlike a Cleric that needs to pick).

Oh man if it could buff with a move action then it could spend it's ENTIRE turn buffing to epic levels. I can't believe I'm getting a little excited over that concept. Using your full action economy to power up heh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
Magic, got it.

More like VATS, really.


Scavion wrote:
Davick wrote:
Tels wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention that the Slayer will receive some changes too, though minor. They were going to try and build in some options for the Slayer to get his SA at range, and may include some feats to expand the option for range SA, though he doesn't want the Slayer to be able to SA from, like, 100 ft away.
Aren't there goggles that already allow that? I hate that an item can outdo even the best class features for this, especially if that limit is < 100 ft.
Yeah but I think he meant more options for getting the Sneak Attack because right now once combat starts there really isn't a method for getting consistent ranged sneak attacks.

I'm actually not sure what the intention is.

What he basically said, is there are options for increased range on sneak attacks with ranged weapons. They are exploring options to expand upon this, possibly as a built in class feature. But he doesn't want the Slayer to be able to sneak attack from, like 100 ft away. Then he made a joke about how a guy in full plate wouldn't even be able to run to the Slayer at 100 ft (run speed 80 ft total) so the slayer would be able to keep shooting him in the kidneys. Also, that it's probably really hard to run with arrows in your kidneys.

It might be that the Slayer will have options to sneak attack once combat picks up (like maybe a ranged flank ala Snap Shot feats) or something to that effect. Or it could be that the Slayer can sneak attack from farther ranges, which means that ranged sneak attack is still nearly impossible to achieve.


Rynjin wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Magic, got it.
More like VATS, really.

That would be really cool!

Though I think that mechanic already exists via Gunslinger/Swashbuckler Targeted Shot/Hit.

Considering the Gunslinger was based off a class from James Jacobs' Unspeakable Futures and he lists Fallout as one of his inspiriations, I wouldn't be surprised if Targeted Shot is actually based off the VATS system.

Grand Lodge

One of the things Jason talked about , was not being happy with the names of 2 Classes because they were names made from combining other classes : Warpriest and Bloodrager.

So , my suggestions would be :

Warpriest = Templar ( definition: skilled warriors of the church)

Bloodrager = Savage (definition : ferocious , untamed , primal )

Any more ideas?


Instead of Savage for the Bloodrager why not call then Primal(s)

I hope for Templar or Crusader for the Warpriest.


Raul "Wulfgars" Moura da Silva wrote:

One of the things Jason talked about , was not being happy with the names of 2 Classes because they were names made from combining other classes : Warpriest and Bloodrager.

So , my suggestions would be :

Warpriest = Templar ( definition: skilled warriors of the church)

Bloodrager = Savage (definition : ferocious , untamed , primal )

Any more ideas?

i still really like the idea of calling the bloodrager warlock, because lets face it, at this point we probably arnt going to see a 3.5 style warlock come up and even if they did make one they probably couldn't call it warlock for legal reasons.

beyond that the fluff ive always thought of when it comes to warlocks is that there is something "off" or "wrong" inside of them that sets them apart from normal people (generally demonic but not always). which describes a level one bloodrager quite well, he isnt slinging around spells and he looks more or less normal but... normal humans cant do THAT!

basically im seeing this class not as a spell-casting barbarian, at least not by fluff. im seeing someone who is at the same time more and less than a teifling or aasimar (or whatever mix) who has been givin more power than their body and mind are built to handle and.... things snap. people too occasionaly.

Beyond that the name is just too good not to use.


Templar would work.

Bloodrager is really hard to figure out. Berserker?

Slayer should also be changed imo to Stalker, which is really more what the play style is. Slayer just doesn't fit the class and probably would be better saved for a Ranger/Inquisitor hybrid.

Lantern Lodge

I watched the podcast and was blown away by some of the updates Jason Bulmahn dished out to us. I agree that many of them were very good.

I'm in agreement with a few of the mentions here talking about what the classes names should be changed to. I agree that the name of the Warpriest should be changed to Templar above all else because of the historical connotations of it. For the bloodrager, I'll agree with ArenCordial. It really is a difficult one to place. I don't think Berserker or Savage are decent enough names for the class. I'm sure Paizo will come up with something better than Bloodrager.

Silver Crusade

Problem with calling Bloodrager 'savage', 'berserker', etc. is it's not indicative of their magic ability.
I like the Warlock idea, or Spellrager. Bloodrager kinda works still since it has to do with their rage going deeper than a normal barbarian and awakening primal powers in their blood, but maybe that too subtle to most players.


Less Lawful, More Good wrote:

Problem with calling Bloodrager 'savage', 'berserker', etc. is it's not indicative of their magic ability.

I like the Warlock idea, or Spellrager. Bloodrager kinda works still since it has to do with their rage going deeper than a normal barbarian and awakening primal powers in their blood, but maybe that too subtle to most players.

i agree that savage is just sort of a bad name for a class in general, assuming the class names are used in charicter, it just sounds condescending.

Lantern Lodge

As much as I'd like the Bloodrager to be the Warlock, I'm pretty sure that won't be happening. I think there's some legal issues in there somewhere. Come to think of it, I'm sure that may be the case with the Templar name as well. I can't be for sure because I don't know how the process works, but those would be my two top names if they're free to use them.

Templar and Warlock.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
i agree that savage is just sort of a bad name for a class in general, assuming the class names are used in charicter, it just sounds condescending.

Joe: I'm Joe the monk. This is Phill the bard, Edd the cleric, and Mitch the Savage.

Mitch: Well **** you too, Joe.


Severed Ronin wrote:

As much as I'd like the Bloodrager to be the Warlock, I'm pretty sure that won't be happening. I think there's some legal issues in there somewhere. Come to think of it, I'm sure that may be the case with the Templar name as well. I can't be for sure because I don't know how the process works, but those would be my two top names if they're free to use them.

Templar and Warlock.

WotC's warlock class is copyrighted which is the legal issues you are talking about, they cant copy that class no. however the blooodrager isn't anything like that and the word "warlock" itself is open domain. iirc the only reason that the magus isnt called the warlock is that they where worried there might be confusion between it and the vastly different dnd version.

Lantern Lodge

Kekkres wrote:
WotC's warlock class is copyrighted which is the legal issues you are talking about, they cant copy that class no. however the blooodrager isn't anything like that and the word "warlock" itself is open domain. iirc the only reason that the magus isnt called the warlock is that they where worried there might be confusion between it and the vastly different dnd version.

I knew there was something of that sort floating around. Thank you for the clarification.

Hope no one confuses the Bloodrager for the Rage Mage.

Side note: I know there won't be much if any confusion between the two. I just found it funny.


I so hope they do NOT call it a Warlock.....
It was bad enough what the 3.5 version did to build weird impressions of what a warlock is...this would just make it worse.


Raul "Wulfgars" Moura da Silva wrote:

One of the things Jason talked about , was not being happy with the names of 2 Classes because they were names made from combining other classes : Warpriest and Bloodrager.

So , my suggestions would be :

Warpriest = Templar ( definition: skilled warriors of the church)

Bloodrager = Savage (definition : ferocious , untamed , primal )

Any more ideas?

Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is, I was pretty sure there was near universal agreement that Templar is the correct name.


nighttree wrote:

I so hope they do NOT call it a Warlock.....

It was bad enough what the 3.5 version did to build weird impressions of what a warlock is...this would just make it worse.

well then what would you consider a proper warlock?

Scarab Sages

Joyd wrote:
All (or almost all) of the core races now have a male and a female of every core race.

So that's probably us dwarfs missing out then :(.


Balgin wrote:
Joyd wrote:
All (or almost all) of the core races now have a male and a female of every core race.
So that's probably us dwarfs missing out then :(.

For what it's worth, he was pretty sure it was all of them, he just didn't want to 100% commit to that in case he was misremembering.


Kekkres wrote:
nighttree wrote:

I so hope they do NOT call it a Warlock.....

It was bad enough what the 3.5 version did to build weird impressions of what a warlock is...this would just make it worse.
well then what would you consider a proper warlock?

If they where to use the name Warlock for any of the classes, the Shaman actually fit's its meaning (Spirit chanter)best.

However it is specifically a Scottish Gaelic term, and I suspect they would rather use a more generic term for the class....although the use of shaman is technically culturally specific as well....

What a mess we have made of words since the internet :(


Templar sounds a bit more fighty, whereas the warpriest is a bit more clericy (I am so sorry for the use of those terms)

Chaplain seems a better fit with where they are going.

Lantern Lodge

I just honestly can't think of something better than Warlock to describe the character despite the fact that little of the word itself has to do with the Barbarian side of things. I just think it sounds better than Bloodrager.

My thought on the Warpriest is that they were going for a more "fighty" type of class which is why they mixed the two. I'm still of the mind as some others have stated that I'd like to see him as more of a divine magus but I don't see that necessarily happening. Not because its not cool or people are actively against it, but just because it could be considered unoriginal as being a divine ripoff of the magus.

Anyways, I like the Templar name the best as well as Warlock but am at least open to the idea of changing the Bloodrager to something else.

Scarab Sages

Joyd wrote:
Balgin wrote:
Joyd wrote:
All (or almost all) of the core races now have a male and a female of every core race.
So that's probably us dwarfs missing out then :(.
For what it's worth, he was pretty sure it was all of them, he just didn't want to 100% commit to that in case he was misremembering.

Hmm. That means one of two things:

1: Female dwarven Swashbuckler! You know you want it baby.

or 2: They're going to recycle that picture of the dwarven woman with a large animal pet from one of the Pathfinder Society sourcebooks (and the dwarven chapter in the Advanced Race Guide) as the new iconic Huntress.

Probably option 2 although option 1 would certainly catch a few people by surprise :p.


Severed Ronin wrote:
I just honestly can't think of something better than Warlock to describe the character despite the fact that little of the word itself has to do with the Barbarian side of things. I just think it sounds better than Bloodrager.

I haven't really looked at that class much.....does it call and control spirits ?

If not, then it really does not fit the meaning of the word warlock.
Calling poop "candy" sounds better....but it's not what it is :)


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Balgin wrote:
Joyd wrote:
Balgin wrote:
Joyd wrote:
All (or almost all) of the core races now have a male and a female of every core race.
So that's probably us dwarfs missing out then :(.
For what it's worth, he was pretty sure it was all of them, he just didn't want to 100% commit to that in case he was misremembering.

Hmm. That means one of two things:

1: Female dwarven Swashbuckler! You know you want it baby.

or 2: They're going to recycle that picture of the dwarven woman with a large animal pet from one of the Pathfinder Society sourcebooks (and the dwarven chapter in the Advanced Race Guide) as the new iconic Huntress.

Probably option 2 although option 1 would certainly catch a few people by surprise :p.

Nope. All iconics are Wayne A Reynolds originals. It's Pathfinder tradition.

Grand Lodge

The connection to Warlocks being more "spellie" is to strong to give it to the Bloodrager , that´s why i said Savage or maybe Primal ( like someone suggested , and the definition of a savage means) . Either way , it has to be connected , i think , to someone who taps into his inner self ( bloodties) to augment himself in battle .
That´s why in my opinion, Savage/Primal/Berserker would be more "suited"...

Lantern Lodge

Raul "Wulfgars" Moura da Silva wrote:


That´s why in my opinion, Savage/Primal/Berserker would be more "suited"...

I must've missed the mention of Primal. I rather like the title itself, but it also reminds me of the Primal Magic 'subsystem' in the Inner Sea Magic sourcebook.

Nighttree, I pretty much agree with you. My argument for warlock isn't a strong one. It's just my opinion as I've yet to concoct or find something better.


Here's the history of the word 'warlock' if anyone is interested.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
Here's the history of the word 'warlock' if anyone is interested.

Cheapy, I don't think I've ever said it before (and if I have, feel free to compile a table or whatnot) but I love the times you drop in with really awesome stuff for me. Well, for everyone, but my wife says I've deluded myself into thinking it's just for me.


:D

You didn't have a table until about 2 minutes ago

Lantern Lodge

Cheapy wrote:

:D

You didn't have a table until about 2 minutes ago

I'll be sure to say it more this way your efforts aren't in vain.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

OH,. oh... I know!!

Lets call it Psionic Warror...

Errr... wait, forget I said that.

For me, the term Warlock really didn't fit the class in that other game, a name more like blaster or something mage would have been better. The Warlock in the next iteration was nothing like the previous one except, of course, for the name.

I think that the name should fuel others with caution when around the guy, but not be about being primitive like the Barbarian part of his dual classes.

I liken the term Spellwringer, or perhaps Spell Auger. I would avoid having "blood" in the name at any cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could just make up a name. Like Arcanimger. Part arcane, part armiger.

Kinrager.


Raul "Wulfgars" Moura da Silva wrote:

The connection to Warlocks being more "spellie" is to strong to give it to the Bloodrager , that´s why i said Savage or maybe Primal ( like someone suggested , and the definition of a savage means) . Either way , it has to be connected , i think , to someone who taps into his inner self ( bloodties) to augment himself in battle .

That´s why in my opinion, Savage/Primal/Berserker would be more "suited"...

my problem with those is that there isnt really anything savage or primal about the class, he is super angry and he casts spells but none of the fluff or mechanics give any indication that the class is especially primitive. and as was mentioned earlier, calling it a savage is both kind of condescending and sounds like it has nothing to do with magic.

Lantern Lodge

Continuing with the whole 'savage' and 'primal' theme of the barbarian while keeping the sorcerer's powers in mind, what about Cabalist or Ritualist. Both invoke the thought of arcane fury.

Heck, why not just call it the 'Fury' or 'Invoker'?

Summation: Cabalist, Ritualist, Fury, Invoker (maybe Reaver because I like that word and it reminds me of Firefly).

Okay, I'm just throwing words out now...


nighttree wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
nighttree wrote:

I so hope they do NOT call it a Warlock.....

It was bad enough what the 3.5 version did to build weird impressions of what a warlock is...this would just make it worse.
well then what would you consider a proper warlock?

If they where to use the name Warlock for any of the classes, the Shaman actually fit's its meaning (Spirit chanter)best.

However it is specifically a Scottish Gaelic term, and I suspect they would rather use a more generic term for the class....although the use of shaman is technically culturally specific as well....

What a mess we have made of words since the internet :(

well speaking in that sense i would say more than half of the current classes are in desperate need of new names, being named after things they only distantly resemble if at all.


Cheapy wrote:
Here's the history of the word 'warlock' if anyone is interested.

Debunked....

The term Warlock is a Scottish Gaelic term, but of obvious Germanic/Scandinavian origin.

NO WHERE...in extant lore is it used to describe an "oath breaker"...not once...zip....nill...
It is ALWAYS used to describe either....
A) a specialist who calls on and binds spirits to his will.
B) a place that is haunted by spirits...as in it's use "a warlocked glenn".

The first person to theorize that it was related to the term wærloga was Tolkien...who although a skilled linguist for his day, was hardly infallible, and had only limited knowledge of the languages involved to draw from.

He placed it in a dictionary reference he was contracted to do (Oxford if memory serves)

American Neo-paganism picked up the idea in the early eighties, and has hammered it into peoples heads on the internet ever since.

Modern linguist have based on it's actual usage in all extant lore, found another Germanic/Scandinavian term that DOES match language drift..AND it's usage...VarYlokker....which translates as "spirit chanter".


Cheapy wrote:

Could just make up a name. Like Arcanimger. Part arcane, part armiger.

Kinrager.

i think we should avoid made up words, that is after all the reason this descussion is happening in the first place

Severed Ronin wrote:

Continuing with the whole 'savage' and 'primal' theme of the barbarian while keeping the sorcerer's powers in mind, what about Cabalist or Ritualist. Both invoke the thought of arcane fury.

Heck, why not just call it the 'Fury'? The furyan! =P

both of those sound much more........ subdued and slow, bringing to mind circle binding magic more than anything at least to my mind. fury could work but its also sort of... vague i guess is the word. if someone said "oh im a fury" i would have absolutely no idea what to picture. I hold that warlock is the best name so far.


You should contact the website then, and give sources! I'd like to see it get corrected.

51 to 100 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / General Discussion / Know Direction Podcast featuring Jason Bulmahn - Notes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.