Know Direction Podcast featuring Jason Bulmahn - Notes


Advanced Class Guide Playtest General Discussion

101 to 150 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

nighttree wrote:
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".
*snip*

so the best class to match it would be something akin to the 3.5 binder?


Kekkres wrote:
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.

Well a fury is a crone, with snakes for hair, a dog's heads, a coal black body, with bat's wings, and blood-shot eyes. At least, in Greek/Roman mythology. :D

Also known as Erinyes.


nighttree wrote:
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".

Actually...I would be really keen to see your sources on this. Everything I'm finding either doesn't mention it at all, or says this has been debunked. If it warlock-as-oath-breaker was debunked, I would expect to find more people saying so. Weird.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Also known as Erinyes.

It was meant more as a joke. I was actually considering the Erinyes when I typed it out. Specifically because my wife is a magical woman capable of raging something fierce. She also grows bat wings on occasion and flies away on secret clandestine missions, but I try not to question every aspect of her.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
nighttree wrote:
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".

This makes since to me. I have never gotten the overall theme of the other version of the class from the Edition that Shall Not Be Named. I had wondered where "Oath Breaker" had come from and why the change from the previous write up and flavor.

Is it agreed then, Warlock is not the name we need for the (temporarily named) Bloodrager?

Good.


Kekkres wrote:
nighttree wrote:
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".
*snip*

so the best class to match it would be something akin to the 3.5 binder?

I think you could do the idea justice a number of ways....binder being one of them, although I always found it hard to like the vestiges...not the idea of vestiges...just the execution.

The Shaman class obviously has great potential...

A Bard archytype that focused on spirits....

The summoner can also work if you flavor it the right way.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Severed Ronin wrote:
Tels wrote:
Also known as Erinyes.
It was meant more as a joke. I was actually considering the Erinyes when I typed it out. Specifically because my wife is a magical woman capable of raging something fierce. She also grows bat wings on occasion and flies away on secret clandestine missions, but I try not to question every aspect of her.

You... ah, didn't let her see this post, did you?

Lantern Lodge

Not yet. I will later. She plays so she'll laugh.

Then cast unholy blight...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh this is cool! This claims that they mean the same thing. That the term warlock came from a word that originally meant something like "spirit caller", but was then changed to mean "oathbreaker", following a slightly different etymological path.

At least I think that's what it's saying.

It's pretty cool that there is evidence of 'loga', where the 'lock' in 'warlock' derived from, meaning 'breaker' in Beowulf.


Cheapy wrote:
Actually...I would be really keen to see your sources on this. Everything I'm finding either doesn't mention it at all, or says this has been debunked. If it warlock-as-oath-breaker was debunked, I would expect to find more people saying so. Weird.

Actually....so would I.

Let me see what I can find as far as links....

Like most academic stuff, it's not something you can just "look up" on the internet :)


anyway i dont feel etimology belongs in the picking of class names as much as the pop and fantasy culture take on what the name means, hense druid meaning nature magic shapeshifter rather than a celtic (i think) priest.

and in that sense of the word a warlock is a magic user with ties to demonic, eldritch or otherwise unnatural forces that fuel his abilitys, in a gaming sense they are generally sturdier and more competent in combat but are more offensivly focused when it comes to magic than other mages. and from THAT perspective i think the name fits this class.

Lantern Lodge

Kekkres wrote:

anyway i dont feel etimology belongs in the picking of class names as much as the pop and fantasy culture take on what the name means, hense druid meaning nature magic shapeshifter rather than a celtic (i think) priest.

and in that sense of the word a warlock is a magic user with ties to demonic, eldritch or otherwise unnatural forces that fuel his abilitys, in a gaming sense they are generally sturdier and more competent in combat than other mages. and from THAT perspective i think the name fits this class.

I'll back this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As an actual "modern linguist" I'd advance the idea that the etymology of "warlock" is mostly irrelevant, in terms of what sort of TTRPG classes should get that name. There's a bit of a fallacy amongst some nonlinguists that the oldest attested uses of a word (or the words from which a word is derived) are somehow privileged in terms of what a word means. In reality, of course, there are many words that people use every day that have evolved wildly from the use they appear to have in their oldest attested uses. That's not a bad thing, that's just how language works.

Words that have the property that we can't be absolutely certain what their "original" meanings were are pretty common. Just as is the case today, words used in the past mutated in meaning and connotation as they spread around, and the fact that there weren't formal lexical resources (like dictionaries) didn't help stability. In many cases, there are only a small number of instances of a word spread over huge spans of time, multiple cultures, and vast distances, and we have to try to make judgements based on pretty thin evidence. Additionally, just as is the case with many words today, it might have been the case that "warlock" was applied to a family of related concepts.

"Warlock" is an word from Old English that we have a pretty good idea of the etymology of, but it's also a word in Modern English. Within Modern English - and even more specifically, within the most relevant subcultures - it means "dark or sinister mage," more or less. There are maybe some connotations of messing around with evil forces.

It's not necessarily wrong to try to tie classes to older meanings of words or to things suggested by their etymologies, but it's potentially confusing. People would be surprised if the "rogue" class was about being a beggar!

-----------

EDIT: Yeah, what those guys said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joyd wrote:

People would be surprised if the "rogue" class was about being a beggar!

But it is! It's begging to stop being gutted by other classes.

Lantern Lodge

Joyd wrote:
Awesome informational stuff that I enjoy

To heck with me! Yeah what Joyd said!

Cheapy wrote:
But it is! It's begging to stop being gutted by other classes.

Viva la rogue!


Joyd wrote:

As an actual "modern linguist" I'd advance the idea that the etymology of "warlock" is mostly irrelevant, in terms of what sort of TTRPG classes should get that name. There's a bit of a fallacy amongst some nonlinguists that the oldest attested uses of a word (or the words from which a word is derived) are somehow privileged in terms of what a word means. In reality, of course, there are many words that people use every day that have evolved wildly from the use they appear to have in their oldest attested uses. That's not a bad thing, that's just how language works.

Words that have the property that we can't be absolutely certain what their "original" meanings were are pretty common. Just as is the case today, words used in the past mutated in meaning and connotation as they spread around, and the fact that there weren't formal lexical resources (like dictionaries) didn't help stability. In many cases, there are only a small number of instances of a word spread over huge spans of time, multiple cultures, and vast distances, and we have to try to make judgements based on pretty thin evidence. Additionally, just as is the case with many words today, it might have been the case that "warlock" was applied to a family of related concepts.

"Warlock" is an word from Old English that we have a pretty good idea of the etymology of, but it's also a word in Modern English. Within Modern English - and even more specifically, within the most relevant subcultures - it means "dark or sinister mage," more or less. There are maybe some connotations of messing around with evil forces.

It's not necessarily wrong to try to tie classes to older meanings of words or to things suggested by their etymologies, but it's potentially confusing. People would be surprised if the "rogue" class was about being a beggar!

-----------

EDIT: Yeah, what those guys said.

OK..ok...consider me checked :)

I just get frustrated by all the "oath breaker" witch crap that get's tossed about ;)


Cheapy wrote:

Oh this is cool! This claims that they mean the same thing. That the term warlock came from a word that originally meant something like "spirit caller", but was then changed to mean "oathbreaker", following a slightly different etymological path.

At least I think that's what it's saying.

It's pretty cool that there is evidence of 'loga', where the 'lock' in 'warlock' derived from, meaning 'breaker' in Beowulf.

OOOhh....and that's one I have not seen....THANKS


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

how about, Ríastrader. I know it's not a real word or fancy but it's one idea i think works.


zergtitan wrote:
how about, Ríastrader. I know it's not a real word or fancy but it's one idea i think works.

um ... what? no offence but im not even sure what that's supposed to mean.


Kekkres wrote:
um ... what? no offence but im not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

Read up.

And no, let's not start using foreign words, please. Plain 'Murican was good enough for our ancestors, so it's good enough for us.


Hang on, is this about changing the Bloodrager's name now?

Lantern Lodge

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
Hang on, is this about changing the Bloodrager's name now?

Valid point. I think several of us latched on to something Jason Bulmahn mentioned in the podcast and went vastly off-topic. Apologies.


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
Hang on, is this about changing the Bloodrager's name now?

it seems that way.


Is there a way to offer suggestions for feats? There's a third party feat that has a prequisite of quickdraw that allows you to sheathe your weapon as a free action. Any chance of something like that making it's way to an official book?


Oh, I don't mind, I was just interested. I thought they were adamant they weren't changing any Hybrid names regardless of any uproar… :)

I'm sad to see so little mentioned for the Slayer and Skald… Ranged Slayers? What about TWF Slayers? That seems like an obvious choice for people and isn't helped by the economy of Favored Target...


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Oh, I don't mind, I was just interested. I thought they were adamant they weren't changing any Hybrid names regardless of any uproar… :)

I'm sad to see so little mentioned for the Slayer and Skald… Ranged Slayers? What about TWF Slayers? That seems like an obvious choice for people and isn't helped by the economy of Favored Target...

he mentioned not being entirely happy with the class names of the warpriest and bloodrager and that he was toying with possible alternatives. personaly i think "bloodrager" is abhorent and will happily push for another name if it increases the chance that bloodrager isnt the final name.

Dark Archive

Frankly, I don't mind warpriest at all, or portmanteaux really. Bloodrager is just such an awful, awful name. There are plenty of other portmanteaux that could work as reasonable alternatives: rage-seer, ire-mage, war-augur, etc. I admit that none of those really works universally without its hyphen, however.

I also think primalist (mirroring arcanist a bit), warlock, tempest, invoker, reaver, etc. are all fine choices.

A huge part of fantasy game naming conventions is taking words from mythology with broad usages and choosing which specific concepts to apply them to. You can't really argue with it unless you want a ton of made up names or little to no expansion of material for your game. Elves, goblins, faeries, gnomes, etc. were all at one point more or less the same thing, just as the terms wizard, sorcerer, magus, warlock, witch, mage, evoker, conjurer, etc. are all more or less synonymous outside of fantasy gaming.


Reaver sounds cool. I like Reaver.

Tempest isn't too shabby either.

I don't like the magey sounding names because spells are literally only maybe a 1/4th of the class.


Scavion wrote:

Reaver sounds cool. I like Reaver.

Tempest isn't too shabby either.

I don't like the magey sounding names because spells are literally only maybe a 1/4th of the class.

IIRC they mentioned that they had thought about ripping out some of the unneccicary barbarian copytext (damage reduction fast movement ect) and making the class a little more magical overall. Also depending on how the spell list comes out castinc could still be a major part of the class.


Scavion wrote:

Reaver sounds cool. I like Reaver.

Tempest isn't too shabby either.

I don't like the magey sounding names because spells are literally only maybe a 1/4th of the class.

Reaver is an awesome choice for Bloodrager.

Tempest immediately brings to mind a storm, not a combat medic.


I don't see Reaver for Bloodrager, but that may be because Dragon Age kinda ruined the name for me so all I can think about is people who mix death magic and melee combat.

That said, now I mention it, a class like the Reaver sub-class/Prestige Class/Whatever from that game would be pretty sweet.

Lantern Lodge

I threw Reaver out there partially as a joke and homage to Firefly but now that you reminded me of Dragon age, I think it totally fits.


reaver sounds good off the tongue but aside from sounding agressive and threatening there isnt any meaning in the word that im aware of. that said it DOES sound good and would be my second pick after warlock.


Scavion wrote:

Reaver sounds cool. I like Reaver.

Tempest isn't too shabby either.

I don't like the magey sounding names because spells are literally only maybe a 1/4th of the class.

someone's been playing Golden Sun recently.


Kekkres wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Reaver sounds cool. I like Reaver.

Tempest isn't too shabby either.

I don't like the magey sounding names because spells are literally only maybe a 1/4th of the class.

IIRC they mentioned that they had thought about ripping out some of the unneccicary barbarian copytext (damage reduction fast movement ect) and making the class a little more magical overall. Also depending on how the spell list comes out castinc could still be a major part of the class.

I hope fast movement is not one of the things they rip out. That would severely devaluate it for me.

Before you have the money to buy mithral medium armor the fast movement is all that makes wearing medium worthwhile.

Uncanny dodge - can go
Imp uncanny dodge - can go
damage reduction - would miss it
fast movement - need it!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah Reaver is a kind of great one word name. It's evocative without being tied to too specific a trope. Reaver sounds warriorish and mystical without being a portmanteaux.


As a nice bonus, Paizo's never used the term "Reaver" for anything outside of the "Sea Reaver" archetype.


Just chiming in on all the posts about ranged sneak. It does work and it's broken. I'm honestly surprised they are worried about extending the range out to 100' since they've introduced two items that utterly break the game: sniper goggles. I speak from experience. I have a player who maxed initiative, maxed dex, maxed stealth, and took clustered shots. He always goes first, does a full attack and destroys at least one enemy with his sneak attack archery, usually the toughest enemy in the fight. Then he's typically either using stealth to snipe on subsequent rounds or someone has made him greater invisible.

All the advice in the world about wind walls and throwing in enemies that can see invisibility or have ridiculous perception checks or are immune to precision damage means nothing when you prefer to run adventure paths close to as written. Just how many enemies need to have fickle winds/wind walls/deflect arrows for them to survive round 1? Makes the game not fun.

I will likely never allow sniper goggles again and probably not clustered shots either. But rest assured that as written, sneak attack archery works just fine and ruins the game for everyone else in the archer's party.

Shadow Lodge

AndIMustMask wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Reaver sounds cool. I like Reaver.

Tempest isn't too shabby either.

I don't like the magey sounding names because spells are literally only maybe a 1/4th of the class.

someone's been playing Golden Sun recently.

Not at all a bad thing =D

Shadow Lodge

drumlord wrote:
I will likely never allow sniper goggles again and probably not clustered shots either. But rest assured that as written, sneak attack archery works just fine and ruins the game for everyone else in the archer's party.

I'm not sure what I'm doing differently but I have a sniper archer (Tripod Machine Hunter) in my party doing pretty much exactly this, armed with sniper goggles, and she usually takes out an enemy on the first turn with sneak attack + Improved Vital Strike, especially if she crits. So she's pretty much doing exactly the same thing. There's still usually quite a bit left for the rest of the party to tangle with when their initiatives come up. I've not yet run into an issue of "ruining the game for everyone else in the party".

You do realize that APs and such are written for a bare-bones, 15-point-buy, not-very-optimized party, right? If your players have this kind of skill, you should probably up the challenge some. Otherwise cakewalks like this are going to happen.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:

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

Primal Rage?

Shadow Lodge

Let's not open that debate can of worms here, please. There's opposing sides to this issue that disagree strongly on that point Cheapy, both of which have good enough evidence for the rules supporting their position one way or the other, and this isn't the place to fuel that particular fire.

Shadow Lodge

Not if they go first and get to full attack. The enemies have not acted yet, so are still flat footed. Usually with a high dex/init, they will get a surprise round sneak attack, and then go again before the enemy can act, getting a full attack, all of which gets sneak attack.

After that point is when it generally becomes an issue to get further sneak attack.


Even though I'm all but certain that those sides are wrong, you make a good point, so I'll delete the post.

I'm excited about the possibility of my investigator receiving new abilities mid battle for the PbP I'm in.

Does anyone know which feats were causing the design team to look at the counterspelling exploits again?

Shadow Lodge

Cheapy wrote:
Even though I'm all but certain that those sides are wrong, you make a good point, so I'll delete the post.

I'm sure they think the same of your side =) Hence why I want to head that eventual pages upon pages of debate off at the pass.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Cheapy wrote:
Does anyone know which feats were causing the design team to look at the counterspelling exploits again?

Parry Spell was the big one, I think.

Liberty's Edge

Reading both this thread and the week 2 thread brings a lot of complementary info. I am now eagerly waiting for the new document.

On the name topic. I agree with Templar for the Warpriest.

For the Bloodrager, I could go with Reaver or Primalist, though I did propose Einherjar in the thread dealing with this specific topic ;-)

101 to 150 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.