Research Field
Instinct
Muse
Deity and Cause
Order
Hunter's Edge
Racket
Bloodline
Arcane School
ya follow me?
Every time somebody attempts to discuss this common choice of class feature, they hesitate briefly, scrunch up their face and then after 3-5 seconds painfully refer to it as a SUBCLASS.
It hurts SO BAD to say SUBCLASS because this is not an official term, even though everybody says it.
Is there a reason SUBCLASS is not an official term? Is there a reason that there is NO official term for this type of class feature?
Ya'll are real-real-real good at words, so I figure there must be an answer to why you would forgo this opportunity to coin a phrase and label a thingy respectfully as itself.
Does Hasbro have some kind of trademark that I missed? Was Aroden the god of subclasses? Why? WHY? WHHHYYYY?!?!?
Thanks for your time. I love your games.
Bryan
Strictly guesses here, but:
Possibly because these things are sufficiently distinct from each other in how big of a difference they make to the character that they don't belong in one bucket. Possibly because referring to a more universal subclass would create a false expectation that every class has one of these. Possibly because it would make wording of multiclass dedications less convenient. Possibly because they don't want the baggage of thise feature selections being looked at as trying to fit the same space as 5E subclasses (one package deal choice that dictates such a large percentage of your character customization).
I don't see any problem with the term. Many other games use it effectively for corresponding mechanics (a build defining choice within a class made at low level).
I think it is because they don’t really offer the same things to classes universally. Cleric doctrines are just a completely different thing than rackets. The modularity of PF2 really encourages only using similar names for things that effect the game in the same way.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been calling them class paths ever since the game has been out.
After all, it's Pathfinder :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like one reason there's no standardization of nomenclature across classes is that class paths/subclasses are different sizes. We run the gamut from "literally nothing" (monk, fighter) to "access to a few feats" (bard, druid) to "basically defining everything about the character" (sorcerer, witch).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been calling them class paths ever since the game has been out.
After all, it's Pathfinder :)
I love it!
I think it is just to avoid the feeling that they might be using a cookie cutter design method.
Also flavour.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've definitely been calling them subclasses.
I've been going with class path as well, might've gotten it from person who mentioned it in here though.
I've been going with class path as well, might've gotten it from person who mentioned it in here though.
That sounds unlikely. Unless you were very active around here during playtest times. Or you do a lot of reddit. I sorta moved there after release.
I think Paizo wanted to avoid the comparison with the latest edition of the self-proclaimed "world's greatest roleplay game".
And subclasses are pretty mechanically distinct from class to class (and are non-existent in some cases), so the subclass word is not very accurate to the rules.
However, subclass is a relatively common and short term compared to things like Methodology, Arcane Thesis, Arcane Synthesis, Reseach Field, and it still mostly gets the same point across, especially with people who aren't too familiar with 2e books.
The fact that it makes explaining the game far easier to people whose background is in other TTRPGs or other kinds of games altogether means it took off regardless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think another reason there isn’t a universal name for the way PF2 handles optional class features is because those features are only ever available to MC characters through very specific MC feats, and many are not available at all. GMs might like having a universal word for them, but the game itself is never talking about those features collectively in any kind of mechanical sense. It is fine for GMs and players to create their own language to describe things, but there is no need to codify (as in, event a code for) what if relatively meaningless from the position of the game itself.
I've been going with class path as well, might've gotten it from person who mentioned it in here though.That sounds unlikely. Unless you were very active around here during playtest times. Or you do a lot of reddit. I sorta moved there after release.
Could be a game of telephone type of thing, because I was around during the PT and I definitely have only called them Class Paths.
In fact, I actually thought Class Path was the accepted term since it dated back to the announcement that Fighter and Monk would be the only ones without a class path.
