As opposed to the snarky nerds...
or multitasking nerds...
I think it will be Monday or Tuesday.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone else noticed that today's blog is unusually... perhaps even tantalizingly overdue?
Nope, seems spot on for the late day miniatures reveal that we usually get on Fridays. :)
hey, i didnt say i wasnt gonna be one of them.
Erik Mona right on time.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to everyone who was looking for the episode. It uploaded to the wrong youTube account. Here Know direction 74 with jason Bulmahn. Expect the audio version this week.
Also, did the skald really not get mentioned? Bizarre.
YES. AM BEEN IGNORED. AM SAD.
|
Sorry to everyone who was looking for the episode. It uploaded to the wrong youTube account. Here Know direction 74 with jason Bulmahn. Expect the audio version this week.
Also, did the skald really not get mentioned? Bizarre.
Thanks for the update,Ryan, and no to the skald. A great broadcast nonetheless.
The Bloodrager should be called a Marauder or Reaver.
Warpriest is okay; any further thoughts I have will wait until I see the new version.
I still don't like Hunter because it has an everyday meaning that is completely different. When I hear "hunter" I think Expert 1/Warrior 1, Weapon Focus (longbow).
The Bloodrager should be called a Marauder or Reaver.
Warpriest is okay; any further thoughts I have will wait until I see the new version.
I still don't like Hunter because it has an everyday meaning that is completely different. When I hear "hunter" I think Expert 1/Warrior 1, Weapon Focus (longbow).
Or WoW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Bloodrager should be called a Marauder or Reaver.
There's nothing magical implied in either of those words.
I still don't like Hunter because it has an everyday meaning that is completely different.
Like "marauder" and "reaver"? :p
Well, Marauders and Reavers are hardly everyday words. =p
Hunter, on the one hand I agree ("Yeah, my dad's a hunter"), but on the other it just kinda fits so well it doesn't matter. I guess something like "Beastmaster" or something fits a bit better but since I can't say or hear the word Beastmaster without seeing, well, Beastmaster...
The Bloodrager should be called a Marauder or Reaver.There's nothing magical implied in either of those words.
I still don't like Hunter because it has an everyday meaning that is completely different.Like "marauder" and "reaver"? :p
When was the last time you hear the words marauder or reaver brought up in everyday conversation (not pertaining to Pathfinder/fantasy)?
I'm not a hunter, and neither are most of my friends, but the word hunter and hunting have been brought up 3 times in the last 5 days alone. At least for me.
Granted, part of that is due to living in Alaska, but I doubt 'Marauder' or 'Reaver' especially are all that common in every day conversation.
The Bloodrager should be called a Marauder or Reaver.There's nothing magical implied in either of those words.
I still don't like Hunter because it has an everyday meaning that is completely different.Like "marauder" and "reaver"? :p
On the one hand I agree - there is nothing magical implied by Marauder or Reaver. And both evoke dire-pirates, scoundrels and predatory types more than wild-abandon.
On the other hand, there is nothing rage-esque in Skald, stealthy in Slayer, animal bonded in Hunter nor combat-related in Investigator, so I'm not sold by that point.
I'm on the fence with Bloodrager. Partly my problem is it just sounds like someone said upthread, like something I would have thought was waaay cool when I was 13. BUT it also perfectly describes in part the source of the bloodrager's power.
I don't like Primalist, it evokes an arcanist sure, but not the primal ferocity evinced by the bloodrager, more an arcanist who taps in to Primal energy but is still a classic "wizzard" or "sourcerer" non-melee type with a pointy hat and a dress. Not that bloodrager's can't wear dresses, they just might be hampered in movement. A studded leather miniskirt or mini kilt (each equally applicable to any of three or more genders - don't get me wrong - I rock a mean kilt and did for three years straight living in the forest) might work…
Beyond that, I don't have any better suggestions and anyway I'm much more interested in seeing the Skald renamed, but the must-be-Viking invisible hand seems firmly clenched on the Skal'ds creative space...
Warpriest - Templar or Crusader
Bloodrager - Primalist or Primal
Hunter - Beastmaster or Beastlord
The Bloodrager should be called a Marauder or Reaver.There's nothing magical implied in either of those words.
I still don't like Hunter because it has an everyday meaning that is completely different.Like "marauder" and "reaver"? :p
I would not classify either of those as common words, and secondly, they don't have meaning that are completely different. As far as I know, the planned Bloodrager will be capable of both reaving and marauding, that is to say, raiding, attacking, and destroying. It doesn't directly imply magic, but then, neither does Bard, Cleric, Monk, Paladin, or Ranger. Fighter doesn't necessarily imply heavy armor (in video games, it commonly refers to an expert of kung fu) and Barbarian doesn't imply berserking (no, it doesn't; not in the slightest).
But Marauder does mean someone that pillages, which is similar but not the same as what is implied by Barbarian. Reaver is similar. Destroyer is more general; the only common use I can think of is the type of ship. It is very unlikely a PC would say, "Let's go into the village disguised as marauders." Even in the unlikely event a group of Pathfinder characters is not involved in literal pillaging, I don't see how Marauder as a class name is more of a problem than Cleric for a character who is not a member of a religious hierarchy or a Paladin who is not a political enforcer.
And marauder and reaver aren't portmanteaus. Marauder also has a nice history with the Dark Side Marauder class from Star Wars d20.
If you want to use Beastmaster for the Hunter class you certainly can, although I will point out that I've already used it for an animal companion-oriented class.
They're not common words, but they are common words to a typical fantasy geek. Like "druid." Or "monk." Or "sorcerer." All of which have a general meaning and a specific, in-game meaning. So you can't argue that "hunter" has an everyday meaning that is "different," and ignore that bard, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard do, too.
All this effort on a class's name which doesn't have any impact on the game world at all. It's not like Valeros calls himself "a fighter" or Amiri calls herself "a barbarian."
If you want to use Beastmaster for the Hunter class you certainly can
Thanks for your... permission? :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry for interrupting the nomenclature war, but I'm surprised no one has commented on this tiny part of the Interview, so I will. There was a playstyle remark towards the end of the interview that made me feel extremely uncomfortable.
INTERVIEWER: [30:36] I remember a few years ago at PaizoCon when we were talking about towards the end of 3.5 when people were just multiclassing and someone would describe their character and it would be like a Fighter/Wizard/something/something and you'd be like "Oh, so you're nothing,"
JASON BULMAHN: [30:57] Yeah, you're a Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Paladin/Cleric/Bard/Swashbuckler/something/Assassin.
Interviewer:
That comment and Jason's reaction to it made me feel extremely ostracized as a Pathfinder player. When I design my characters, I love multiclassing. I have the system mastery to pick out a bunch of neat abilities that fit together thematically to create an interesting character that you don't elsewhere on the forums. For example, I have a sai specialist who bludgeons people into submission by distracting them with his singing (Versatile Performance [Sing] + Bludgeoner + Sneak Attack). My brother's magus is married to a fey ambassador with a passion for dancing who influences plant life through her singing (Treesinger Druid + Dawnflower Dervish Bard). Multiclassing has made them more interesting with unique powers and abilities. But according to the Know Direction hosts (and apparently Jason himself), they're nothing.
Look, I understand that the community is still a bit peckish about multiclassing, especially after the overload of base classes and prestige classes in the game, but carrying this sentiment into Pathfinder is ridiculous. Yet you see it everywhere; its echoed like a mantra throughout the forums and now its being built into the games very mechanics via the new Hybrid Class multiclassing restrictions. But enough is enough; we need to get over this irrational fear of multiclassing that everyone has. The prestige class mechanic and the ability to multiclass do not need to be slowly written out of the game because those rules did not lead to the abundance of multiclassing over single classing. That was born from week, undersupported core classes coupled with a new to constantly print new, more powerful classes and prestige classes to sell product. Paizo has not and will never make those mistakes, so these restrictions and hostilities are nothing more than the outdated relics of a younger game.
Alexander, they weren't saying multiclassing was bad, it's just that in 3.5 there was a tendency for characters to have half a dozen class levels. Not necessarily for flavor either, it was because those combos were pretty powerful, if not game breaking.
It wasn't even just a 'small group' deal, it was pretty rampant. It seemed like it was rarer to find a dual classed character, than a character who had less than 5 classes.
I knew a guy that was playing a Minotaur/fighter/monk/paladin/kensai, this same guy also built a character that had 27 attacks at level 6 or something like that, through multiclassing.
The point is, there was an overwhelming ridiculousness in 3.5 that, in order to play an effective character, you needed to multiclass in the extreme.
Alexander, they weren't saying multiclassing was bad, it's just that in 3.5 there was a tendency for characters to have half a dozen class levels. Not necessarily for flavor either, it was because those combos were pretty powerful, if not game breaking.
It wasn't even just a 'small group' deal, it was pretty rampant. It seemed like it was rarer to find a dual classed character, than a character who had less than 5 classes.
I knew a guy that was playing a Minotaur/fighter/monk/paladin/kensai, this same guy also built a character that had 27 attacks at level 6 or something like that, through multiclassing.
The point is, there was an overwhelming ridiculousness in 3.5 that, in order to play an effective character, you needed to multiclass in the extreme.
You didn't address my point, and I noted that multiclassing was ridiculous in 3.5. The fact remains that it was the power of new content and not the power of multiclassing itself that made multiclassing too strong.
For example, let's pretend that when designing the Core Rulebook, the Design Team decided to make Smite Evil a passive, always active benefit and change nothing from how it works today. The paladin becomes ridiculously powerful, and everyone goes single class into paladin as a result. Then the Advanced Class Guide comes out and the same choice is given to the Cavalier. And the Ranger's Guide Archetype trades Favored Enemy for something similar. So those classes become ridiculously powerful compared to the others and Cavaliers, Rangers, and Paladins run rampant on the threads. Does this theoretical situation make single classing too powerful? No, because it is the result of poor class design. Same thing in 3.5. In 3.5, all of the base classes had bare-bones class features. As more products were released, the new classes slowly worked their way up to a power level that could be comparable to Pathfinder's core classes. Options drastically outshone older content by design.
My original point, however, was the comment that you were "nothing" if you were a multiclass character. You cease to lose that identity and the exploits of your character are meaningless if you cannot attach a specific, singular label to your character. That philosophy and its leaking into the Advanced Class Guide via the Hybrid rules was my original point.
|
They're not common words, but they are common words to a typical fantasy geek. Like "druid." Or "monk." Or "sorcerer." All of which have a general meaning and a specific, in-game meaning. So you can't argue that "hunter" has an everyday meaning that is "different," and ignore that bard, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard do, too.
All this effort on a class's name which doesn't have any impact on the game world at all. It's not like Valeros calls himself "a fighter" or Amiri calls herself "a barbarian."
Or a Cleric, Oracle, and Wizard all calling themselves "priests"?
:)
I did think that the comment was at least ironic, since the ACG will certainly increase the extent to which creating characters with a bunch of dips is the norm, not decrease it. The reason that people made characters with tons of classes in 3.5 isn't that there wasn't a base class that perfectly realized the concept of a Fighter 2/Ranger 2/Barbarian 1/Pile of PrCs 6, it's because the system threw candy all over you for doing it that way. In 3.5 it's the case that for a huge number of classes (basically non-spellcasters), there tended to be very little reason to stay in-class, rather than to take a bunch of the first few levels of a bunch of classes, because they tended to be frontloaded (and designed without even a speck of thought being given to how multiclassing worked in the system.) By adding a bunch of new potential dip targets, ACG will most likely increase the frequency with which the bunch-of-classes route is the most mechanically appealing way to realize a character.
Calling the slayer class, hunter, that would make more sense since to me a slayer class would be a more specialized ranger that hunts one kind of creatures like dragons, demons, undead, etc..They would not have any nature themed abilities. They also would have better defenses against there favored enemy as well as offensive abilities. Man I wish that was what the slayer class was really like.
honestly i find hunter too confusing with ranger--since the two tend to be interchangeable between diferent video games, tabletop games, etc.
I'd like a change of that merely for the sake of ease of conversation.
Calling the slayer class, hunter, that would make more sense since to me a slayer class would be a more specialized ranger that hunts one kind of creatures like dragons, demons, undead, etc..They would not have any nature themed abilities. They also would have better defenses against there favored enemy as well as offensive abilities. Man I wish that was what the slayer class was really like.
It seems to me that the slayer fits what you describe rather well, although I will concur that it could be more elegant in its execution.
|
|
The Bloodrager should be called a Marauder or Reaver.There's nothing magical implied in either of those words.
I still don't like Hunter because it has an everyday meaning that is completely different.Like "marauder" and "reaver"? :p
I don't like Hunter because he isn't a very good hunter compared to Ranger or Slayer.
They're not common words, but they are common words to a typical fantasy geek. Like "druid." Or "monk." Or "sorcerer." All of which have a general meaning and a specific, in-game meaning. So you can't argue that "hunter" has an everyday meaning that is "different," and ignore that bard, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard do, too.
All this effort on a class's name which doesn't have any impact on the game world at all. It's not like Valeros calls himself "a fighter" or Amiri calls herself "a barbarian."
Well, a hunter is a person in your neighborhood, a person that you meet each day. If someone were described as a "sorcerer" in the game world, I imagine they would in fact be a sorcerer, or at least some kind of arcane spellcaster or spellcasting creature. "Druid" doesn't really refer to anything general, while sorcerer does refer to something general, and reflects a character class that is actually pretty general. "Druid" says, "This is what a druid is in Pathfinder," but that seems weird to me for a "Hunter," because I think of hunters as collecting fox pelts.
And "warrior" vs. "fighter" means?
Basically, you're splitting hairs. Some words we use in the game mean things to us because they've been assigned to things for 30 years. That's the only reason. "Sorcerer" didn't have a specific game meaning in D&D until 2000* when we created the sorcerer class, but nowadays every D&D/PF gamer knows what you mean when you say "sorcerer" as opposed to "wizard."
* I'm ignoring that "sorcerer" was the name for a 9th-level magic-user** in the 1E AD&D Player's Handbook.
** Yes, I said "magic-user," because that was the name of the class in 1E AD&D. Which means I should point out that "wizard" in 1E meant "a person of the magic-user class who reached level 11," and didn't mean "arcane spellcaster class" until 2E AD&D. So you're already used to the game definition of things changing over time, and not meaning what they mean in outside of the context of the game. Also e.g. summoner class, magus class, cavalier class, witch class...
|
|
The Sorcerer was, in 3.0, the Wizard lite. Never quite understood the reasoning behind having both classes in the book when they were only separated by different Mechanics of spellcasting.
Now, when the name "Sorcerer" is mentioned, everyone remembers the later additions to the class, the kobold "bloodlines," the draconic backgrounds and the excellent beefed up entry that PF has introduced in the Core Rulebook.
Names evolve and change, but the Bloodrager class really still needs a better namesake than the two words put together from his alternate classes.
Honestly, I'm still not used to magus, which makes me think of Simon Magus. Summoner, cavalier, and witch are all absolutely intuitive. "Hunter" pretty much does have a specific game meaning; it is already used to refer to a common NPC profession, and a Ranger is a Master one. I'm not asking you to agree with me if you don't, but I don't think I'm splitting hairs. "Hunter" is just not the most general way I would describe a spellcaster with an animal companion. If Bloodrager is a good name because it suggests a spellcaster, then Hunter clearly needs a lot of help. If anything, Hunter sounds like a base class of which Ranger might be an archetype. I just don't agree Hunter, for this class, carries the same meaning that marauder or tempest or even warlock would do for the Bloodrager class, and I don't think Bloodrager is an instant fit in the same way that Summoner is. You may believe that Hunter sounds like exactly what the Hunter class is, but I'm letting you know that I don't. You may believe Marauder doesn't sound like what the Bloodrager class is, but I think it could.
I still cry little tears that the Magus is called the Magus and RGG's Magus is now the Magister. A magus is a mystical astronomer, and as nearly as I can tell, was pulled at random from the wizard level charts of early editions of D&D. Obviously, the Hunter is called whatever you want it to be, but since the name is going to be stuck with us a long, long time, I'm making a last ditch effort to get it changed. If the Hunter turns out to be a really cool class, and I think it has that potential, I just want it to have a truly fitting name. Salud.
A made-up word or a portmanteau name is still better than an inaccurate one. There just isn't a real word for somebody who fights and casts spells. The reason that D&D has a dozen [fight word] + [mysterious word] classes and PrCs isn't because that's the exact sort of thing that you want to name a class, but because there just isn't a real word for that. I don't think that adding the idea of raging into the mix suddenly makes a perfect word appear. Even the Magus just went with what's really just a spellcaster word, and just kind of forced it.
There's a nice elegance to base class names being all one-word, real-word names, but there's a point where "This is a pretty new concept that doesn't really exist, so there's not a word for it, so we're making one up" is okay too, I think. Some of the names suggested in the thread are okay: I think "Tempest" isn't bad, depending on what sort of spell list the Bloodrager gets. Some of the synonyms for berzerker are things that I can at least imagine calling the class, even if they don't represent the spellcasting side all that well. I don't think that unrecognizable foreign words or names that reflect only the spellcasting side are good fits at all, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And "warrior" vs. "fighter" means?
Basically, you're splitting hairs. Some words we use in the game mean things to us because they've been assigned to things for 30 years. That's the only reason. "Sorcerer" didn't have a specific game meaning in D&D until 2000* when we created the sorcerer class, but nowadays every D&D/PF gamer knows what you mean when you say "sorcerer" as opposed to "wizard."
* I'm ignoring that "sorcerer" was the name for a 9th-level magic-user** in the 1E AD&D Player's Handbook.
** Yes, I said "magic-user," because that was the name of the class in 1E AD&D. Which means I should point out that "wizard" in 1E meant "a person of the magic-user class who reached level 11," and didn't mean "arcane spellcaster class" until 2E AD&D. So you're already used to the game definition of things changing over time, and not meaning what they mean in outside of the context of the game. Also e.g. summoner class, magus class, cavalier class, witch class...
I get where you're coming from, Sean, and I appreciate it. However, I have to agree that the name "Hunter" just makes me think of the NPC profession and not a beast-taming class.
That being said, I kind of like Beastmaster.
What was the date of this podcast? I don't see it on youtube or3.5 sanctuary.
I really hope that the Warpriest turns out okay. Right now, it's kinda of a cleric-lite with bonus feats and some paladinesque abilities that's basically forced to use it's favored weapon. But I look forward to them update.
...Oh, btw. I think if they change the name, it should be called the Zealot. A fanatical warrior of his religion.
What was the date of this podcast? I don't see it on youtube or3.5 sanctuary.
Sorry to everyone who was looking for the episode. It uploaded to the wrong youTube account. Here Know direction 74 with jason Bulmahn. Expect the audio version this week.
Also, did the skald really not get mentioned? Bizarre.
A made-up word or a portmanteau name is still better than an inaccurate one. There just isn't a real word for somebody who fights and casts spells. The reason that D&D has a dozen [fight word] + [mysterious word] classes and PrCs isn't because that's the exact sort of thing that you want to name a class, but because there just isn't a real word for that. I don't think that adding the idea of raging into the mix suddenly makes a perfect word appear. Even the Magus just went with what's really just a spellcaster word, and just kind of forced it.
There's a nice elegance to base class names being all one-word, real-word names, but there's a point where "This is a pretty new concept that doesn't really exist, so there's not a word for it, so we're making one up" is okay too, I think. Some of the names suggested in the thread are okay: I think "Tempest" isn't bad, depending on what sort of spell list the Bloodrager gets. Some of the synonyms for berzerker are things that I can at least imagine calling the class, even if they don't represent the spellcasting side all that well. I don't think that unrecognizable foreign words or names that reflect only the spellcasting side are good fits at all, though.
the funny thing is, in myth at least, it was the norm for sorcerers, wizards and magicians to be adiquate to excelent fighters. the frail weak concept was introduced as a balancing mechanic and nothing more. think of gandalf as a good example of that. so the fighting mage of yore would just be called a mage. which is where the problem comes from.
I like beastlord better than beastmaster...
I think it fits better for this class.
I feel it should be noted that Jason said the only names they were *thinking* about changing were warpriest & bloodrager and tgat all the others were locked. So I'm not sure there's a point to debating about any other names. I don't like "hunter" either as it sound way too generic, but then again,it doesn't get much more generic than "fighter." :-)
I still cry little tears that the Magus is called the Magus and RGG's Magus is now the Magister. A magus is a mystical astronomer, and as nearly as I can tell, was pulled at random from the wizard level charts of early editions of D&D.
Back when they were asking people to come up with names for the new fighter-caster hybrid class, many of the people who suggested Magus did so because of the associations with This Guy. I must have seen him mentioned five or six times in that huge thread of suggested names.
Hunter sounds just fine to me... Then again, I did write for a World of Warcraft blog for over a year and WoW has a class that focuses on a ranged weapon combat, slight spell casting and an animal companion. They call theirs a "Hunter" as well.
The point is, there was an overwhelming ridiculousness in 3.5 that, in order to play an effective character, you needed to multiclass in the extreme.
Druid 20
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is, there was an overwhelming ridiculousness in 3.5 that, in order to play an effective character, you needed to multiclass in the extreme.Druid 20.
See also Warblade 20, Wizard 20, Sorcerer 20, Cleric 20...
Casters didn't PrC to be effective. Casters PrC'd because they wanted cool thematic class features and it didn't cost them spells to get 'em.
In place of Bloodrager, what about Wreaker, Maelstrom, Furor, Havoc, Fury, Frenzy, or Stormblade?