|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I say read-between-the-lines because these are arguments and discussions I've heard from others, rather than something I'm trying to prove.
As far as I know the only reference to Christianity, and please note this is just one of multiple things I pointed out as lacking in PF, is an obscure reference in Artifacts and Legends. Oddly enough, its extremely vague and literally read-between-the-lines. :P
Theros Ironfeld wasn't included much in the novels as they had to trim over half of them, but he was a blacksmith that was forced into slavery after loosing his arm. It was through his dedication and mastery of hard work and the later acquisition of the Silver Arm of Ergoth that allowed to recreate the Dragonlances and present them in the time of greatest need.
Depending on your point of view, Tanis can be either a representation of bisexuality, caught between two very different worlds and not fully accepted by either, or the more common half breed. In the first, Laurana is the more feminine aspect while Kitiara is the masculine, and it also plays a great deal into how his character is least of all understood even by his closest friends. More of a read-between-the-lines case than an explicit one, as the character as presented is not bisexual.
There is also something to Tas being gay. Again, it's more read-between-the-lines, but there are a lot of comments like "when are you going to find a good Kender (Halfling) woman and settle down, start a family,. . ." and his reply is something like "I've tried. I just, well, I can't really related to other Kender anymore." The given connotation is that he has grown up, but it could also very easily be suggesting he doesn't have any attraction to females.
For the Christian part, Tracy Hickman is a devout Mormon (I believe), and he and other have included a lot of aspects in there, some as easter eggs and others as parables. For example, the Platinum Discs of Mishakal (that hold the greatest gift for mankind) is an allusion to the Joseph Smith's Golden Plates. Paladine is often presented as a carring father that wants mortals to make the right choices on their own, there are more than a few miraculous curings of the "get up and walk" style.
Both Gilthanus' and Silvara's as well as Huma's and Gwyneth are tales of interracial relationships, (as well as the more upfront Tanis and Laurana), and there is also something to be said for Raistlin being a metaphor for transgender.
Which is all fine and dandy, but you may want to actually look up "inclusiveness", and reconsider just how long Pathfinder/Golarion has ostensibly been in existence. It' either a "pick and choose" setting or a "a little bit for everyone" setting. Can't be both, and by it's very nature, Golarion is not a "a little bit for everyone" setting.
Don't get me wrong. I'd absolutely love for Pathfinder to catch up, and start seeing some awesome stories come from it. A single father caught between taking care of his kids and a life of adventure. A "half-breed", or heck a cajun offspring of as Mwangi and an Andoran seeing the corruption and mistrust in both their parent's peoples and trying to come to grips with life in a world that I not altered just to highlight their struggle. A classic Christian knight story. A jewish occultist. Native American Indians that are not some sort of beastmen alternate species. "The Orient" that is not some sort of secret mystic society of exoticism. There is so much ground not covered/allowed, it's insane.
What gaming setting is? Maybe d20 Modern? Nah, saying that the WoD is just an adaptation isn't going to cut it. Might be better to argue that it's a lot closer to the real world, with strong metaphors of addiction, religious persecution and extremism, personal believes vs freedoms vs security, but unless you want to argue that vampires, werewolves, mages, ghosts, and angels are both real and secretly hidden and controlling us since the start of time, I don't think that's going to fly. Or that racism is the direct result of a pair of elder's petty squabble, that religious persecution is the result of some dark pagan entity trying to corrupt mortals, and all human achievement is only possible because of the Matrix.
Well, if you count yourself as an "internet expert" than WoD basically goes without saying. So, lets just look at Dragonalance.
Dragonlance, in much the same way as the X-Men movie are an analogy for homosexuality, is an analogy for, well inclusion. It has a multitude of very important characters, ranging from black to white to asian to "green" and "purple". It presented strong and independent women, and men, and a broad range of motivations and personalities. Unlike Pathfinder, it didn't shriek in fear at including everyone, so there are things like Judeo-Christianity in there, or atheism, native americans, blacks, interracialism, heroes (and villains) of all sorts.
And the fact that it's over 30 years old says something. It also says a lot that Dragonlance's war cry I "We need each other to stand strong" while Pathfinders is more along the lines of "OH, pick me, I have a _____ as an Iconic. See how progressive I am. I must be the first one to do it." Well, minus the ". . . Oh wait, you don't agree. CLUB, CLUB, CLUB <over the head>. Like I said, I must be the first one to do it." part.
Earlier versions of D&D like Greyhawk has black gods (Touv pantheon) but has far less inclusion than Pathfinder, as Pathfinder has positive black characters, like Quinn the Investigator iconic.
Pathfinder is very far from inclusive. They might be more inclusive in some specific cases, namely gender and orientation, that's also about it in. But even for just those two, they are pretty far behind the curve, (considering thing like the WoD, oddly Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and many other similar settings). Don't get me wrong, they do a pretty good job in that sense, but there are a lot of groups out there that Pathfinder/Paizo have not touched or outright decided they will not.
Would love to see feats, items, and player options for eagle knight PCs.
Sadly, I did notice that the summary does not include something like: "and plenty of Feats/Archetypes/Player Options to help play a champion of Andoran/Eagle Knight", so I'm more inclined to think its just a fluff and DM book.
Item Creation Feats, including Scribe Scroll, are not allowed in PFS. All magic items simply spring into existence randomly, (not kidding) or are occasionally unique oddities. Said Wizard NPC likewise does not have Scribe Scroll, so can not just make a scroll for you. Being a new, uncommon spell doesn't change that.
PFS limits what you can buy, or rather what is available to be bought, though it is notably a very artificial way. In Core, as far as I understand it, those spells simply do not exist to your character until that character finds them. Its pretty clear for Wizards how that works. Not so much for everyone else.
As to the Spellbook on Chronicle Sheets, Absolutely Not!!! Its only good for about 3 classes, 1 in Core, and that is something that should be written in when it applies, and signed off. Plenty of scenarios have multiple spellbooks, too much possibility for error, and not to mention APs/Modules, and I need my extra room for trophies and other notes.
I think it might be better to say something like " If a creature with a space larger than 5ft is targeted by an area affect and the area is equal to or smaller than their space, the area of the affect radiates to reach 5ft beyond their space on all sides, unless it would normally extend beyond that point."
This wouldn't give larger creatures such a huge advantage with area spells and effects, but would allow them to still affect a small area around them.
It would also be much less wonky with Huge and larger creatures where the grid intersection which is the point of origin would not be the middle square(s).
Paul Trani wrote:
I was looking for an official clarification. I'm not sure if your response is speculation, inside knowledge that hasn't been released, answered in some random other thread, your personal preference, or what, but it's not clear in this blog.
I was actually trying to ask two separate questions that as far as I can tell, the Blog does not cover.
1.) can a non-wizard purchase something on the spot that they find, but is not listed on the Chronicle sheet and use that to add that spell to their list?
2.) can a non-wizard purchase scrolls that are listed on a Chronicle Sheet any time after that session, to add it to their spell list?
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If it isn't on the chronicle, they can't buy it later.
Assuming that your response was aimed at me, that doesn't help at all, or even pertain to what was asked.
Im a little confused, too.
Lets say a Druid finds a scroll in a game, but it is NOT on the Chronicle sheet. Can they buy it, at value, and then add it to their effective list?
If instead they find a scroll that IS on the Chronicle sheet. Can they later, (games later), purchase it and add it to their list?
Jesse Davis wrote:
I noticed that I have a game listed twice. #138 & 139 should only be one session, when you get to it. I'm not sure how that happened. It was a game I took over from DM Kim.
Assimar have a really nifty Favored Class bonus that helps keep maximized Channel Energy relevant, though I should point out that there may not be as much undead as you'd expect.
My understanding is that the AP significantly changes after part one, so don't use early play as a guide on what to build towards.
But, keep in mind that Channeling, even maxed out, just doesn't keep up well at all, for either healing or harming.
The Evangilist Archetype might be worth looking into, especially early on.
I highly recommend talking with the other players, especially the Rogue and Sorcerer, and dividing up your Knowledge skills to work best. You take History & Religion, Sorcerer takes Arcana, Nature, and one or two others, and the Rogue takes what's left (or something like that).
Dividing between Diplomacy, Heal, History, Religion, and Sense Motive, (and hopefully Perception) should have you spread pretty thin on skills, which kind of sucks for the Cleric that kind of needs more points to do their basic job description.
Most of the Campaign Traits, in my opinion, where very bad, so hopefully your DM is giving you a free one that has to be one of those, but if not, oh well.
Affable might be a great option. Blessed Touch, Birthmark, Exalted of the Society, and Fey Fondling are my goto Cleric Traits.
If you do go with Iomedae, Chosen of Iomedae and Divine Warrior can work pretty well for a +1 free damage plus always useful Light source, though you might need Extra Traits Feat.
I'd say the Affable Trait and high Diplomacy and Sense Motive.
There are also a few Feats and Traits out there that help in allowing you to deal Nonlethal Damage much easier, which I think would be mandatory.
A 1 or 2 level dip in Monk might also help, getting an AC bump (with a bit of mobility for no armor), you can use your fists for Nonlethal as needed, and Evasion.
It really depend I guess on what you mean. Pacifist, as in "I don't want to kill" or "I don't want to fight" or do you mean a Buffer Cleric?
In my opinion, Buffer Clerics tend to loose their steam at mid levels, when healing just doesn't keep up and other characters start getting their own permanent buffs via items. They are nice to have around, but as an extra. They are too reactive. But that also depends on your group.
Summon Good Monster would be a good extra Feat to consider, as might some of the newer Familiar Feats, which could allow you to stay back and send your pet in for long distance healing (3 Feat investment). But again, it sort of depends on what exactly you mean and want for a Pacifist.
I'd actually suggest against Sanctuary. It's far too inconsistent, and in my opinion, sort of trap spell. On the other hand, Shield Other should be a high priority, just make sure that whoever you are using it on doesn't go too far, or the spell stops.
Burst of Radiance and also Sound Burst are two good spells as well, though both are also a bit blasty. But the damage is not the key part as much as the short duration Stun or Blind.
Command is another good one, especially if you can coordinate with the party to maximize it's use.
As for Domains, (and I can't remember if the Archetype limits your options or not), but Charm, Community, Defense (Milani), Glory/Heroism Healing/Restoration, Liberation, Travel, and Trickery are all worth looking at.
Could Core Campaign influence Mike and John to be more confident in banning 'negative game options' in normal PFS?
I think the point is that the Core Campaign does not modify the standard PFS campaign in any way (with two small exceptions). The standard PFS campaign will continue has it has. The Core Campaign is a new and different thing. The Core Campaign need not influence or change anything about the standard campaign or how it is run.
This is inevitably untrue, unless they plan on presenting new Core Chronicle Sheets for each and every scenario/Module out there. If not, then it's going to lead to Core Chronicle material influencing Normal PFS Chronicles to make allowances for special rewards for Core Play. I guess we will see when Core becomes 100% official (the guide is out, all questions answered)?
Could Core Campaign influence Mike and John to be more confident in banning 'negative game options' in normal PFS?
"Companion" classes mean more things to keep track of, which I think leads players to eschew them a bit.
I'm not sure how that makes Players not use them?
As for gunslingers, I'm not sure they're as overpowered as people always say. However, lots of people also don't like guns in their fantasy, so that drives them away from that class. (I personally don't agree; Golarion is what it is, and it's different from the assumptions that came out of AD&D/1e that leads the hobby to thinking how D&D-like games are "supposed" to be.)
I'm not a fan of guns (or technology) in D&D/PF, but I think if the Gunslinger targeted normal, full AC, it wouldn't be as much of a mechanics issue. Also, keep in mind that while guns have always existed in D&D and in PF, even before PF became it's own game, actual guns hadn't been very present. They existed in this far off, unknown land, which allowed people that liked them to play there and use them and those that didn't to go on without them. Now, though, everyone and their little doggie has a freakin' gun or three, and the one small balancing factor against using guns (the price per shot) has been thrown out the window. It also doesn't help that Paizo's other fix to the DM problem was to make a terribly overpriced and highly ineffective defensive item, which sadly makes a DM's monsters even weaker just so it can be a tiny bit stronger against guns, and really doesn't apply to PFS.
This is, I believe, now how it works based on the new ruling. Only the first Diagonal ignores the normal rule on moving diagonal, (every second square counts as double movement).
10ft Reach = 2 Diagonals
If it is Natural Reach, then you would threaten all squares in between. If it is not Natural Reach, that is you don't normally have Reach, but are using a Reach Weapon, it is only the normal square you threaten. If it is a combination, such as Enlarge Person (Nat Reach 10) plus a Lonspear (additional 5ft), you threaten between 10ft and 15ft feet, but only the second square diagonally wit your Longspear. If said character also had another (non-Reach Weapon attack), with that attack, they would threaten between 0ft and 10ft, and again, 2 Diagonal Squares.
Alex McGuire wrote:
I agree. Wizards really shouldn't have any special advantage to add non-Core material, and it either needs to be disallowed entirely, or handled equally for each spellcasting class.
However, even with a ruling like this, I think divine casters would still be screwed, as Chronicle Sheets don't hand out much (if any at all) special spells on scrolls and there are no "prayer books" to be found. The base spell lists are already heavily skewed towards arcane casters, so I'd be more inclined to suggest that either any spell encountered is free game or NO Non-Core spells at all, even if it's on a chronicle sheet. Can't learn it from the book, and can't even purchase the scroll. If you find the scroll, you can use it, but only n that one scenario. The later, I think, would also stop any future issues that might come up round spells (or whatever) and unforeseen consequences down the road.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
It's unlikely, but what would be amazing is if Paizo did a sort of about face on how they normally do books like this, and basically ignore the classes that are already "wild" and instead focus on making other classes more playable in a "wild" setting.
my brain would explode if they did this.
In a good or bad way?
I really want to preorder this because I pretty much only play "wild" characters, but I'm also kind of leery. is there more wilderness than the jungle theme in this?
So, with that in mind, would you rather have a book that allows you to use more classes effectively as "wild characters" or more tools for a few existing "wild characters"?
I'd rather see, and this is just me, but I'd rather see, for example, ways to play a Cleric, Paladin, or Fighter in the wild than more Barabarian, Druid, or Ranger mechanics to help them do what they can already do.
Honestly, I'm not sure about Unchained, but I highly doubt it will be what you are looking for. It's ben said that it is NOT Pathfinder's Unearthed Arcana, and I don't know. The more I find out about it, (which really isn't much), the less it's what I was wanting. Similar to the Mythic thing (for Epic). However, what you might really be interested in, it's not "official" but it is a free houserule that's pretty in depth is the E6/P6 system.
The basic idea is that it takes the d20 system and limits it to 6th level(ish). E6 (Epic 6th Level) was originally done for D&D 3.5 and P6 (Epic Pathfinder 6) is just the Pathfinderized version. Because you never advance (in levels) past 6th, basically anything that is higher than a +2 doesn't exist. No one can make a +4 sword, (literally, no one can). 5th Level spells are basically nonexistent, though some can be done a rituals (of like 50 - 1 billion people). It heavily favors martial characters by design, as those are the level they are the strongest over all, but the stated intent is to make a more realistic, low-magic setting.
There is also the magic item treadmill: You're going to be running into problems because you need The Stupid Six (Magic Weapon, Magic Armor, Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, Belt of Physical Stat, Headband of Mental Stat), and you'll need to blow most of your rather arbitrarily-decided-roughly-fifteen-years-ago (!) wealth by character level on improving The Sextet of Stultissitude just to keep up with the monsters' steady improvement. (So much for setting some money aside to buy your castle stronghold, hundred score magi to guard the dump, and the hottest cleric of some quasi-evil deity to serve as your consort, I guess, but that +4 corrosive burst dragonbane/aberrationbane katana's not going to pay for itself.)
Honestly, a few simple tweeks could fix this. If you remove the rule that a cast needs to have their casting stat at a certain level to cast spells of a given level, and make DC's based on caster's HD rather than their Stat, that can remove a great deal of the "I need a Headband of ______".
Ring of Protection and Amulet of Natural Armor are also not at all required. They are just common due to their relatively cheap prices vs other more circumstantial rings and amulets. Especially the Ring of Protection, though, it' just a far too common bonus, so to me, it's not really worth it most of the time. I'd generally rather have other things like Ring of the Sublime, Feather Fall, or even Sustenance.
Very few things can compare to the amazingness of a Magic Carpet, so I'd rather just buy some backup weapons than try to maximize one main one, and even Fighters nw get bonuses for Weapon Groups to help out.
@ the OP, something that Paizo has changed and an official rule that may help are the Spell Masterwork Transformation and the ability for anyone (not just casters) to create Magical Items. So, to a certain extent, you can already do a limited form of Weapons of Legacy, especially if you view things like +1 and +2 items as less magical and more rare/uncommon.
Well, Pathfinder is not too unlike 3.5. It was, but not really all that true any more designed to allow for all the old 3E products to be crossed over. It's still possible, but with the amount of PF bloat, a lot of it isn't really as functional as it could be. For good or ill.
PF has changed a great deal of some of the basics of the game, and a lot of the time you really need to read into things to spot it. Some of the big ones are that Prestige Classes are not very good most of the time, and have kind of been replaced with Archetypes, which are just the 3E variant Classes, or older edition Class Kits. They have the strength that they allow a class to better fit a concept from early on, but they also have the weakness that they are specific to a single class and start to step on other's toes, especially kind of ruining Prestige Classes.
Pathfinder tends to have a sweep it under the rug/band aid policy for a lot of rules issues, not really wanting to give definitive answers so that individual groups can rule on things as they want to.
The Skills system has been altered, both good and bad. It's simpler, but also a little bit less customizable at the lower levels where you kind of need it for classes with less skill points and Class Skills.
The wealth by level and Christmas Tree effect is still very present, but it also depends on hat exactly you mean. Having certain specific items is not required to play like it as in 4E, and in PF there are a lot of extra ways to make do, from the extra class features most classes and races get, to consumables. On the other hand, buying better gear is a part of the game.
For me, and I'm not really a fan of the setting at all, I think that 3.5 was a better overall game, more balanced and more customizable. I prefer WotC's Errata/Faq system to Paizo's, and in general I like the 3.5 system over the Pathfinder one. But, it's not too different, and Pathfinder has done some really good things. So I don't at all mean this to bash Pathfinder, just giving my honest point of view.
There are a few really important selling points for Pathfinder, though.
I'm sure others might be able to point a few things out I've missed, too. I'd suggest, as a first step, just looking through the PRD and seeing what you think. If you are interested, and your group is at least willing to give it a try, pick up the Core book and APG, and give is a shot a few times. From there, I'd start looking at the Bestiaries, (which are much easier to try first and use from the online page).
Personally, I find that Cavaliers make particularly terrible knights, but it really depends on exactly what you mean by knight. Cavaliers are good at mounted warrior, but not terribly effective outside of that. Not terrible, just not better enough to make it worthwhile, in my opinion.
A Fighter with a decent Cha tends to do a better job, if they can take a Trait or two for Diplomacy+. Heavy armor mobility I find better than most Mounted Combat perks combined, just because the Cavalier's mounted specialty is not particularly a common circumstance for many fights.
Jeff Merola wrote:
You've missed the several scenarios where having a low Swim score can very easily get you killed, then.
Several might be exaggerating a tad, but I've seen maybe 2 or 3, and even then, it wasn't something a character that knew they couldn't swim couldn't avoid relatively easily.
The only two I can think of that it is even an honest threat are a single part of Song of the Sea witch and a particular part of The Hydra's Fang Incident (where listed tactics specifically say they attempt to push characters in the water).
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ah, I took that as an invitation and didn't realize that some had been hinted at. Please keep it up.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Since we met and discussed these already, the rest of the team agreed that it would be OK if I gave spoilers for some of the most asked.
1.) Does the Sacred Fist Warpriest Archetype retain it's Monk-like abilities when wearing Armor? Specifically the Flurry of Blows ability?
Flurry of Blows (Ex): At 1st level, a sacred fist can make a flurry of blows attack as a full-attack action. This ability works like the monk ability of the same name. This ability replaces sacred weapon.
2.) What does the Ecclesitheurge Cleric Archetype's "Blessing of the Faithful" ability do?
Ecclesitheurge’s Vow: At 1st level, an ecclesitheurge makes a vow to his deity to be protected solely by his faith, not by armor or shields. An ecclesitheurge who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to use his blessing of the faithful ability, use cleric domain powers, or cast cleric spells.
3.) Can the Shield Champion Brawler Archetype use Shields as weapons proficiently?
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A shield champion is proficient with all simple weapons. She is also proficient with light armor, and with bucklers, light shields, and heavy shields. This replaces the brawler’s weapon and armor proficiencies.
4.) What does the Feat Undersize Mount actually do? There is no rule in Pathfinder requiring a mount to be one or more size categories larger than the rider, and the Feat does not increase the mount's carrying capacity nor does it allow for classes that get a special Mount to choose a different option, so it seems to do nothing at all.
Actually, no, you do not have to be smaller than your mount. Like others have said, it was true in 3.0/3.5, but it doesn't exist in PF. It was pointed out when the above Feat fist came out.
Essentially the Fat doesn't do anything. You can normally ride a mount of any size, and because the Feat doesn't A.) allow a Cavalier (who is restricted with their Mount) to ride a smaller Mount, or B.) boost a smaller Mounts Str/Carrying Capacity, it really doesn't do a dang thing.
Except for the Cavalier, all you really need is Muleback Cords.
Yes. It would, (depending on the creature), be a DC 15 or DC 20.
It would draw at least 2 AoO's, one for moving into the threatened square and another for moving through multiple squares, as it's likely going to take multiple actions and you are moving at 1/4th speed, (or 1/2 if you want to take a -5 to Climb).
You loose your Dex, and are restricted to a single, one handed or smaller weapon. Every hit you take is a penalty on your Climb Check.
You can attempt an Acrobatics check as well, but it's going to be tough, as is Grappling. You can also use a rope/lasso to make it easier.
Well, to be honest, neither does strict adherence to lack of imagination. Is there any logical reason that a person that's a master of the hand crossbow couldn't shove one into the other arm armpit, reload the other, then swap? Or use a few fingers of the one hand to pull back/wench the string, drop a bolt in, and then repeat?
A spell caster can swap a weapon to the <light> shield hand, cast a spell, crab some components, and then grab their weapon.
Or if your playing with a DM who doesn't bother to read it and lets things fly. :)
However, I'd actually say the Paladin might be better at this than the Cleric, or anyone else really, just for the fact that they might actually have a decent DC.
@DM Beckett - How high was the hardness which gave your party problems?
Off the top of my head, one was 10 and the other 15. In one case, though, it was severely compounded by the fact that the creature had specific weaknesses, but Hardness applied even to those, and some issues with the Tech Guide's new rules involved.
I'm not sure I agree with that, as generally speaking, spellcasters have even more things to worry about from monsters than non-casters do, between energy resistance, SR, and the many ways through magic, items, racial abilities, etc. . . to be immune to spells. Also, what I'm more talking about is instead of having DR/ Magic, it returns to DR 5/+1, or DR 20/+4. (A +3 Flaming sword doesn't help, but a +4 sword does).
Not really. For Eidolons, and moreso with most Animal Companions, it really only applies a lot of times if they focus on going for multiple attacks that deal low damage over less attacks that are stronger. Not really sure that's a bad thing.
TWF not so much. It actually rewards them a bit more than others if they play smart and diversify, making them more likely to be able to overcome DR with at least one of their weapons, than the Sword and Board or Single Weapon types who it's generally all or nothing. They both take a hit if they don't have the right tool for the job, but the TWF has a better chance of having that tool in most cases, and also tend to take less of a hit if they opt to fight at less than there max, (so just using that one weapon that works, for example).
William Ronald wrote:
It is a good idea to make players bring resources with them. Indeed, it is required.
While that's partially true, it doesn't really help that the main issue tends not to be if the source material is available as it is the need to read it fully in the middle of the game, and likely to cross reference with other material, again, in the middle of the game. And the more and more bloat there is, the more there are various options to interact differently than was originally intended or planned for.
The other side is that, especially with books like the ACG, there is no definite answer as to how a lot of things are actually supposed to work, so reading the source is not a solution, as it's the source that's jacked up.
PFS is kind of caught between a rock and a hard place on that account, and well, should be "interesting times".
Zone of Truth!!! Worst spell ever.
In the best case scenario, (target fails save) it leaves you exactly where you would have been otherwise; unsure if the target is actually telling you the real truth or finding a way to lie without literally lying or telling you what they think and having it be false. Worst case, they know you are using magic that affects their mind, but are not bound in anyway to tell the truth, again, leaving you exactly where you would be had you not cast a 2nd level spell at all, minus the sense of false security this spell offers.
It either needs to be change to not offer a Save, or be a targeted buff that gives the Target a +20 (or higher) to Sense Motive or something.
Holy Smite (and similar) should probably be a lot more beefed up against Aligned Outsiders. No SR allowed, and Save only removes the status effect, not reduces damage. As it, it's pretty worthless against it's primary intended targets, and just doesn't scale well.
Death Ward was inadvertently nerfed to heck/uselessness as PF changed the way some many of the nastier Undead and Necromancy abilities work. For how little it actually does now, needs to be at least 1 target per level and probably a 10 Min/level spell.
Instant Armor is so close to being cool on many levels, but too many stipulations make it garbage. 1 Min/Level. It's a Force Armor, but it replaces your existing armor, and if you are a Cleric that's likely to cast this, that's probably an overall downgrade most of the time. Needs to either be 10 Mins/1 Hr per level or just a straight up Force Armor Bonus to AC that increases by level (+5 from 1st-5th, +6 from 6th-8th, etc. . .)