Bah. Compare strength scores. The guy with the higher strength score wins at arm wrestling. All this dice rolling stuff is BS.
Nah, too crunchy. The outcome should be decided by the GM based on what's best for the story; to do otherwise is to be a "cruncher" who ignores fluff. Take your "strength scores" and get out of my game, cruncher!
You don't need to multiclass to be a battle cleric. I have one in PFS, currently 9th level, and he's straight cleric.
His AC at 9th level, without buffs, is 32.
Under the hood, though, he's crazy complicated. Here's some basic tips:
• Just spend the feat on Heavy Armor Prof. The AC is worth the feat, but not worth the dip.
Hope that helps!
Andrew Christian wrote:
stop trying to robotify us.
There's probably half a dozen instances in this thread of you responding to a desire for a new guideline with an accusation of people trying to turn GMs into computers or robots. It's unhelpful hyperbole, and is more confrontational than most posts in this thread. Please stop. If you disagree with someone's point, fine. But all the "you're trying to do X to us" finger-pointing is really not helpful. Thanks.
Show me a real-world comparison, and I will happily handle a metaphor.
Spells are like things in pockets.
Someone's pocket could contain anything from a car key, to a piece of candy, to a knife, to a gun, to a remote detonator for the tactical nuke they already planted. You don't know. When someone reaches into their pocket, you know something's coming out, but you don't know what. You will make guesses or assumptions based on what you think is likely. Your guesses will vary based on circumstance (such as region of the bearer's body language/apparent attitude), but the norm in most cases is that the thing coming out is benign, because your experience your whole life has been that most things coming out of pockets are benign.
Someone's spell could be anything from light, to purify food and drink, to shocking grasp, to lightning bolt, to slay living. You don't know. When someone starts the babble-wiggle, you know something's coming out, but you don't know what. You will make guesses or assumptions based on what you think is likely. Your guesses will vary based on circumstance (such as region or the caster's body language/apparent attitude), but the norm in most cases is that the spell being cast is benign, because your experience your whole life has been that most spells being cast are benign.
I very often begin a character without any backstory ideas, but I always need to have a clear mental image of them. That mental image then combines with in-game experiences to inform me of the character's personality, and a backstory then usually follows.
For instance, my cleric started as little more than "I want to have a melee cleric whose spellcasting is mainly problem-solving rather than offense or healing" and a visualization of a tiefling with light(ish) armor and a sword. Soon, however, he became this:
Thomas the Tiefling Hero, cleric of Iomedae:
Thomas is not his real name.
In the eastern land of Tian Xia, a human family who greatly enjoyed the status afforded them by their prestigious ancestry was shocked when their firstborn child was an oni-spawn tiefling. After some discreet divinations, it was determined that the child was the manifestation of demonic heritage that had been dormant in the family's bloodline for countless generations.
While keeping the mother and child hidden at home under the pretense of being ill due to a complicated birth, the father wrestled with the prospect of losing all his social status to a tainted ancestry. Fearing he would lose everything and seeing no acceptable (in his mind) solution, he eventually resolved to kill the pit-stained child and keep the whole thing secret.
Fortunately for the young tiefling, his mother was more compassionate. Realizing her husband's intent, she fled under cover of darkness, taking her precious child with her on a desperate flight to the west. She had heard of Absalom, the City at the Center of the World, where people were diverse enough that perhaps her child would be a little less stared-at, a little less forced into constant self-defense.
And so she traveled. Sometimes walking, sometimes hitchiking, sometimes running. While her husband back home faked the death of both her and the child (thus retaining his beloved status), she trekked countless miles, sometimes staying for extended periods with generous (and open-minded) souls, sometimes sleeping on a forest floor and telling her toddler that he could go ahead and eat their only food because she wasn't hungry.
The journey was long and hard, made longer and harder by not knowing the way, or needing to recover from an illness or injury, or needing to hide from dangerously scared townsfolk. The tiefling was a teenager by the time they finally reached the Inner Sea. Unfortunately, his mother did not get to see him arrive safely at their destination. After one too many nights in the rain and too much distance between them and someone willing to house them for a while, she died unceremoniously in the wilderness. The tiefling, now nearly an adult, dug her a grave and mourned alone.
Or so he thought.
The goddess Iomedae had plans for him, and sent a startling vision to a devout paladin in Absalom: the paladin was to venture alone into the wilderness, encounter a tiefling, and bring him back with her to Absalom to be trained as a cleric! Despite warnings from her peers that this could be trickery of a demon, she followed the prompting of her vision and, upon reaching the appointed place, found not a snarling villain but a mourning teen in the process of placing a lovingly-crafted marker atop a fresh grave.
Moved by what she saw, she greeted the tiefling warmly - more warmly than anyone but his mother had ever treated him. Realizing that he could trust her (and that he had no choice, as a half-starved commoner is no match for a well-equipped paladin), he went with her back to Absalom to learn of Iomedae and the future he could have in her service.
Almost ten years later, the oni-spawn is starting to become known both inside and outside the church of Iomedae. Having assumed the name Thomas to shield his family (mostly his mother's memory) from shame, he now travels the Inner Sea as both a Pathfinder and an agent of Ollysta Zadrian's Silver Crusade. With the wisdom to differentiate between the evil and the desperate, and the strength to cut down the former and protect the latter; Thomas the Tiefling Hero spreads the holy light of Iomedae wherever he goes.
Thomas is strong and noble, willing even to throw himself in front of a blade aimed at his allies. Ever vigilant and always prepared, he strikes down evil with his goddess' favored weapon, using magic both to bolster his combat ability and to negate whatever tactics his enemies might use to confound him and his allies.
Though his life has never been easy, Thomas' biggest challenge is yet to come. There are murmurs of late; murmurs of trouble at the Worldwound. Though Thomas has faced a few demons in his career (even venturing once into hell on a rescue mission), the time is coming when he will be called upon to march against the mustered hordes at the worldwound. The danger will be great, but so is Thomas' courage and his faith that Iomedae will be guiding both his spells and his sword arm.
UPDATE: It has begun. The wardstones are failing, and forces are mustering for the Fifth Mendevian Crusade in an effort to hold at bay the surge of demons from which the wardstones no longer protect the Inner Sea. Though Thomas has not yet travelled to Mendev to engage the threat directly, he was influential in swaying Absalom's movers and shakers toward approving a bill to send soldiers to the Worldwound. Though the light of Iomedae shone through him, Thomas won't know for some time whether his work was sufficient. In the meantime, he's scheduled for a mission to recruit a troop of famous elven demon-hunters to the cause.
UPDATE: Despite a certain level of non-cooperation from their superiors, Thomas has helped secure the aid of a troop of elves. The only squad that the woman in charge was willing to spare was one that she had already left for dead in the Tanglebriar; disgusted with this callous abandonment, Thomas and a team of Pathfinders entered the demonic swamp and rescued every last elf from its darkest corners. But a single squadron of rangers won't end the Fifth Mendevian Crusade. Soon, Thomas will be embarking on a similar mission to enlist the help of the Riftwardens, though it will require venturing into Rahadoum, where everything about him is illegal.
UPDATE: By the blessing of the Inheritor, Thomas has ventured into and out of Rahadoum without being confronted by the Pure Legion. Sadly, the contingent of Riftwardens he was sent to retrieve had been captured and were being tortured by the Blackfire Adepts, making the mission a bit more complicated. Even so, Thomas helped his team ensure that every single Riftwarden was rescued as well as that every single Blackfire Adept (and their infernal accomplices) were killed. Thomas' efforts are continuing to procure allies against the demonic hordes of the Worldwound, but will they be enough?
Though the general idea is for traits to equal half a feat, that's not something that's useful to cling too rigidly to. As one or two people have already mentioned, not all feats are created equal.
I mean, the single most common type of trait is "you get +1 to [skill] and it's always a class skill". That's a +4 bonus to a skill. That is more than the Skill Focus feat. Even once you have 10 ranks and Skill Focus goes up to +6, those traits are still giving you 2/3 of a feat, which is still more than half.
So for most of a PFS character's career, the most standard type of trait is worth more than a feat, and after that it's still more than half.
Conclusion? Just because a trait's power doesn't equal half of the most comparable feat doesn't mean the trait is overpowered. You've got to look at the trait itself and judge it on its own merits. Feats aren't consistent measuring sticks for traits.
Mike Franke wrote:
If someone in town can cast cure spells, you can bet it's getting cast; whether he's the only caster in his little village like a frontier town's only doctor, or the local temple selling cures to citizens much like a clinic. Either way, are you honestly going to suggest that getting cure light wounds instead of a Heal check is like using a gun instead of a can opener? Seriously?
For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever seen the GM have to get involved regarding PvP. It's usually a player-to-player conversation along the lines of:
P1: "I could drop a [whatever] here and get all these guys, but it'd get you too."
Typically resolved in about 10 seconds.
If we acknowledge as the books suggest, that most spells are in fact weapons, why should we expect any different flavored answer than we would to the question. "Is it socially acceptable to draw your weapon in public?"
Greater number in existence does correlate to more commonly used/expected.
One of my brothers has a (legal) concealed firearm on his person pretty much at all times. People who know this do not start flinching every time he reaches for his pocket. Why? Because even though the possible answers to "What could he be reaching for?" always includes "Gun", that's not what he's usually reaching for.
In any settlement with abundant spellcasting, people are going through their daily lives seeing the handful of harmless/utility spells being cast over and over and over and over again, but potentially going years without ever seeing a fireball.
People do, as you suggest, based their reactions to things on what they expect. However, they do not base those expectations on list of all the things it could be; they base them on what it usually is. If 95% of spells are offensive, but 95% of a person's experiences with seeing people cast are harmless, they're going to react to spellcasting based on the latter, not the former.
And frankly, it's a bit unsettling that I even need to explain this.
I was thinking recently about how there are certain topics/rules that are especially prone to table variation. Although it's fine to have table variation on some topics, it can be really nice for a player and GM to get "synched up" before a game. In particular, I know it's always jarring for me if, in-character, my PC is ready for a particular obstacle (especially if it's something he's encountered before), but because I didn't know out-of-character how my GM was going to run that obstacle, somehow my seasoned adventurer brought the wrong "solution", almost as though the laws of physics suddenly changed without him knowing.
That's annoying, and I bet players at tables I run would feel the same way.
So I had an idea:
What if when I GM, I hang a little note from my screen with quick-and-dirty explanations of how I run certain parts of the rules? Then players could see it, make decisions (what spells to prep, what consumables to buy, etc) before the game starts, and also ask me any additional questions.
So the point of this thread, then, is to gather suggestions of topics that would be handy to include on such a note.
What have you experienced variation with as a player?
My ideas to include so far:
Other ideas? Thanks!
Actually, I think we agree on its power. I think we disagree on how big of an issue that power is.
I certainly agree that a one BBEG fight is rough to impossible to pull off for most. But even on SoD spells, few things are as absolute and frustrating (not to mention boring) as getting counterspelled at every turn.
The party's martials might disagree with you there; when the caster ends the single-BBEG fight with a SoD, they don't get to play. When the arcanist goes all-counter, the martials get to be involved in a decidedly team-like fashion.
This seems okay to me.
But regardless! So far we've discussed how a counterspell-focused arcanist fares against an all-I-do-is-cast wizard BBEG. What about other types of encounters?
Even with your suggested change, how do we balance a single BBEG guy vs. a group with an Arcanist if this ability goes in as planned?
Same way you balance a single BBEG versus a group with a Slumber witch (or any number of other save-or-die options): you stop pretending that a single enemy can be a climactic final fight.
In that case, it sounds like neither is a problem on its own, but rather there's only a problem when they combine. As Amaranthine Witch above me suggests, simply adding a clause in the Counterspell exploit saying it doesn't work with Parry Spell (or categorically with feats modifying counterspells) should fix the issue.
That's a nasty story about Karzoug, but...
How was the arcanist, with the same(ish) number of spells as the enemy wizard, able to counter every spell of a given level AND cast his own spells? Was he only casting lower-level spells or something?
I mean, an 18th-level arcanist has what, two 9th-level spells? Unless your INT is crazy high. A specialist wizard has 3 (again, before INT bonus spells) plus potentially an arcane bond. So even in the Karzoug fight there should have (I haven't seen the statblock, though) been 2 uncounterable 9th-level spells even if the arcanist never casts a 9th-level spell.
At every spell level, the wizard has more, and the extras are basically uncounterable if the wizard "casts from the top". Any high-level spells cast by the arcanist only increase the number of uncounterables, including any cast earlier in the day compared to the BBEG's usually fresh spell complement.
So how was the guy with fewer spells managing to spend those spells to counter while also casting spells of his own?
2). Immediate action counterspells, effectively at will. I probably sound like a broken record, but that is incredibly strong. Arcanists will effectively dominate any caster vs. caster encounter if this makes it to play. Sometime later when I have time, I will tell the story of how our 18th level playtest went with our Arcanist vs. Karzoug in Rise of the Runelords.
I guess I'm missing something, because I don't understand how the Counterspell exploit is overpowered.
First, you have to successfully ID the spell. Yes, this is eventually guaranteed, but not until several levels in. At lower levels, it's hit-and-miss.
Once you ID it, you have to spend both a point AND a spell of sufficient level. Doesn't that make the lower spells per day a bit of an issue?
After you've paid your cost, you then have to make a dispel check, with a DC of 11+CL. Given that the enemy probably has a comparable CL to your own, you're looking at about a 50/50 shot of success.
Sorry, but this doesn't look that strong to me. What am I missing?
Eric Saxon wrote:
Logic, however "simple", starts with facts. Hence the question.
Based on the fact that I need to make a spellcraft roll to recognize lvl. 1 spells.
That is a fact, yes.
I would imagine if 1 in 20 people can cast CLW or most other lvl. 1 spells, then lvl. 1 spells would be common knowledge DC 0. My PC would recognize them instantly.
That is not a fact, it's a conclusion (that you're in turn using as a premise for your larger argument). One for which you've given no premises at all, therefore there's no "logic" involved.What causes any spell that someone in town is capable of casting to become instantly recognizable by anyone in that town? Show me your logic on that point.
And quite frankly, if its that common, it ceases to be magic(al).
Sounds less like logic and more like "This is what I picture in my head." Your imaginings are not canon, I'm afraid.
And besides, why would you need a Heal Skill if 1 in 20 people can cast CLW and CMW on a daily basis. What's the point of having a doctor, if every shlub in a settlement of 20+ people can get access to CLW and CMW.
Because that caster lives somewhere, and may not have accompanied you on your hunting-trip-turned-disaster.
So my suspicion is that someone wrote those numbers into the GMG and no one else considered the implications of what those numbers mean.
My suspicion is that you brought some assumptions into your game and the rules don't match, and you're more willing to throw out the rules than your own assumptions, but your assumptions feel self-evident enough to you that you think they're logical.
Unless, of course, you have additional premises to present?
Played this on Sunday. I loved how thoroughly it drove home the "YOU ARE A FIELD AGENT IN THE SOCIETY; THIS IS PART OF YOUR BACKSTORY WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT" idea. The flavor was excellent. :)
Also, I learned that burning hands does not require 5 caster levels in order to kill a mosquito swarm. But hey, it scared me, so I went all out. Which I guess means Kyle succeeded at his feint to get me to blow my single arcane reservoir point for the day so I didn't have it later when it might have been more useful (like to up the DC on grease against the minotaur). Curse you, Baird! *shakes fist*
Also, super-stoked to have a Pathfinder who actually got a wayfinder when he became a field agent! That was a long time coming. :)
<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
I wonder how many people are going to fail to read the arcane reservoir carefully and playtest this class with a maxed-out pool every day, then come back and cry OP.
Getting exploits at odd levels instead of even seems, er, odd. Everyone else gets their tricks at even levels, so there's precedent. Plus you get feats at odd levels, and "something at every level" is more fun (to me) than "twice the stuff on some levels, nothing at others". On the other hand, you get new spell levels at even levels, so I guess you're alternating between spell levels and new capabilities. Hrm. I dunno, still feels off, but I haven't played it.
Just as long as it doesn't become a better idea to play a STR-based swashbuckler than a DEX-based one. I don't need a DEX swash's DPR to be above a certain number, it just needs to be above that of a STR swash.
Usually, when someone says "Thanks for proving my point," (at least around here) it's a sarcastic way of implying that the person they're talking to is an example of whatever flaw/failing the speaker originally described. Thus, KramlmarK thought you were saying that PoK is of the camp that you're now saying he clearly isn't part of. (That's how I originally took your comment, as well.)
Thomas Graham wrote:
Or he honestly believed his predicament was both normal and common, earnestly expecting the mainstream GMing community to feel the same and have pointers for how to weed his garden.
My name is Thomas. I'm a cleric of Iomedae. I—
Hm? No, I wouldn't exactly call myself a "healer"...
Well, yes, I can cast cure spells, and will certainly do so if necessary, but—
No, what I mean is my healing spells aren't that strong, not like some Sarenites I've m—
Yes, I can channel, but my channeling is far more potent against undead than as healing, and—
Be aware that I can't exclude enemies, and I can only even channel three times anyw—
No, trust me, in my case it's best to keep them as a back-pocket option against undead than to use them for healing—
Yes, I promise I'll still be pulling my weight in comb—
...So I take it you've never heard of Iomedae, then?
Mechanics support and foster roleplay to match; removing the mechanics to make something as far-reaching as alignment into "pure fluff" allows people to play things that couldn't even exist in the setting, shattering any pretense of immersion.
You know how devils are lawful and demons are chaotic? That actually means something. It means that the devil will honor the contract, so as long as I'm clever and know what I'm doing, then this is probably a good idea, right...? Welcome to Cheliax. The whole premise of that nation is built on the idea that devils are creatures of their word, and people know it (even though it's still dangerous to deal with them). Being lawful corresponds to a certain type of behavior.
When a monk claims to also be lawful, and registers as such under detection spells, and so forth, people will expect him to act that way. If said monk is an NPC, and the players determine he's lawful and make a deal with him, and he breaks said deal and otherwise acts unlawful, the players would be (rightly) enraged. If he's the sort to do things like make a deal/promise that he has no intention of keeping, then he shouldn't register as lawful under detection spells (without misdirecting magic, obviously).
When we fail to apply these same rules to PCs, it shatters immersion.
If you want to play a morally-gray character, great! Go right ahead, just put your money where your mouth is and write an alignment on your sheet that actually matches your concept, and make your mechanical choices accordingly.
A man so obsessed with his research into undeath that he'll risk self-corruption through the use of dark magics to learn its secrets, and who has to take deliberate precautions to preserve his soul against the darkness, is very interesting and morally-gray concept.
A man so obsessed with his research into undeath that he'll... well, do really nothing risky or questionable at all, because a spell is just a spell... That's not morally gray. Not even close.
Played Ocarina of Time in my youth. Provoked the chickens.
They were swooping from everywhere, and from nowhere. Looked for the nearest cover: the empty well in Kakariko Village.
Took a dive, took some damage.
Stood up, held my breath a moment.
Looked up, saw a circle of clear sky.
Kept looking, saw a dot.
Dot got bigger.
Dot brought friends.
Chickens came down the well.
Scrambled for the ladder, had to find a real building. Had to get out.
Chicken knocked me off the ladder, less than halfway up.
Died in a haze of feathers with only the dimmest view of open air above me...
The Beard wrote:
...if the game mechanics are going to penalize a character for using an evil spell in a good way regardless of the outcome.
Then it's a good thing no one's suggesting that.
What's being proposed is "it's an aligned action to cast an aligned spell". The additional rider of "in a differently-aligned way regardless of the outcome" is something that has only been mentioned by those either trying to set it up to look worse than it is or trying to ward against jerkface GMs.
No one at all is proposing that the actual rule should become "no matter what you're doing or why, any aligned spell involved will determine the overall alignment of the entire process". I would appreciate it if you would stop representing the topic as such.
The Beard wrote:
A.) Many people's characters will need either retirement or a complete rebuild. This is due to having been built near exclusively around utilizing these handful of "evil" spells, the necromancer and diabolist sorts being two prime examples.
See my "people working with hazardous materials need to wash their hands" bit, above. Roleplaying gold, unless the person's character concept is actually evil and they just put "N" on their sheet to skirt the rules, in which case I'm fine with putting a stop to it. But for actual neutral necromancers, it creates roleplay opportunities.
B.) It will strip away access to at least one prestige class (and probably a few others that I haven't caught yet).
Which one's that?
C.) There is at least one tiefling variant (one of the better ones, at that) that would become unplayable in the event of a decision such as that.
No. You either misunderstand or are misrepresenting what's being talked about to make it look worse. The tiefling (and all variants) get a 1/day SLA. NO ONE is talking about a single casting of ANYTHING forcing an alignment shift.
D.) The list of available summons is already somewhat lackluster in a lot of ways. The evil outsiders you can call upon are probably the most useful ones, with some of the celestial types being a close second.
And now you have to think about what you summon, and whether the risk to your personhood is worth the power you think you need. Roleplaying opportunity! :) Unless, of course, you're again suggesting that someone's talking about a single spell instantly shifting you, which is not the case.
E.) Neutral clerics of evil deities would probably need to be looked at again. If evil descriptor spells start making you evil, I'd imagine drawing your "divine" powers from an entity such as Asmodeus would also be putting you at serious risk. Well, I guess on could argue a slow corruption on that one, like being lured down the dark path bit by bit.
See my earlier post about the roleplaying opportunities with this one. "Don't want to piss off Asmodeus by being too good, but I can't let myself slip all the way to evil either! Tension!"
F.) It would fail to take into account variables. Yes, that person just cast hellfire ray. However, they saved innumerable lives by doing so. Their willingness to risk condemnation of their own soul in order to safeguard the masses, in the eyes of many, would be an /exceedingly/ good act. However, removal of the exemption turns this from a intriguing question of morality to a case of "too bad."
Again, no. No one is suggesting that the casting of aligned spells become the ONLY metric of morality for a PC's actions, which your example suggests. Including aligned spells within existing PFS alignment rules actually takes your example from "Of course I'll cast it; why wouldn't I?" to the roleplaying gold of "Is this dark power worth the cost? I have to decide! Tension!" That seems like something we would want, right?
So this would effectively be a ban would it not?
Not unless GMs counted castings of aligned spells as pretty "big" aligned acts (which admittedly is a risk that would need to be addressed, and might be worth not doing as I suggest).
What I'm thinking it would accomplish is to make character decisions more realistic:
On the other hand, maybe that's all just wishful thinking to think any of that would result. :/
You should give a randonm non-PbP online game a try and report back what you experienced personally.
I've played some online games of that nature before. It was pretty much exactly like playing in-person, except that a strong wind near my apartment could make me suddenly teleport away from the table.
See my last post before yours for more details.
But if you still believe that we should be tracking use of aligned spells, could you answer the questions of how this will make the game better, and will it make the game more fun?
It's a stated goal of the campaign to diverge from the base Pathfinder game rules as little as possible. The sanitization of aligned spells is such a divergence. Therefore, the default stance would be to NOT sanitize them unless there's a good reason TO do so.
Also, it hurts my brain to watch allegedly good or neutral PCs spam infernal healing like it ain't no thang, just like it hurts my brain to see a paladin going all murder-hobo or seeing the barbarian protest the breaking of a law for convenience or seeing the LN Asmodean cleric say we should sneak past some hellknights to save the orphans at great risk to ourselves.
To me at least, the game is more fun when people don't piss all over my sense of immersion by claiming to be/serve X type of person and then acting completely contrary to that. Making aligned spells be aligned spells would help mitigate that.
It's a long thread so maybe you missed my earlier post, but I specifically pointed out that (even under current rules) we should be watching non-evil aligned acts as well, especially when it comes to monks, barbarians, druids, and neutral clerics of evil deities. They all have things to lose from doing too much law/chaos/good, and we should be enforcing that. Monks who put enough gusto into Severing Ties should risk needing an atonement before leveling up. Barbarians who have to behave themselves in Fortress of the Nail should be chomping at the bit for the chance to clean all the rulesiness off them when they get out. Neutral clerics of evil gods, who risk their own lives to rescue/protect NPCs (I could name several scenarios), should fear their evil patrons getting fed up and revoking their powers.
That should already be happening now.
You know, typing all that makes me realize: this issue about aligned spells is actually a bit like the introduction of the ITS. When that came out, people moaned about the extra work it would create, which revealed how often people weren't doing what they were supposed to already be doing (tracking their purchases). The ITS just made it harder to ignore that element of the campaign.
So with that thought in mind, I'd have to say that I now DO support removing the PFS houserule that "sanitizes" aligned spells. Taking the alignment infraction rules that we're already supposed to be enforcing, and adding something that's more concrete and straightforward than the rest, seems pretty trivial to add to the mix.
And I guess it's time for me to step up my GMing.
Alright, I haven't followed this thread, but I want to throw out a question about the warpriest.
This account is my 9th-level PFS cleric. He's built as a frontliner: unbuffed AC of 32. I generally cast divine favor on round 1 (who wants to move+attack and hand the monster a full-attack?) and either have heroism pre-cast or (via domain powers) can activate an aura of heroism as a swift action on-demand; either way, I pretty much always have it up while attacking, without having to spend a round casting it. Oh, and I pre-cast greater magic weapon each day, since it lasts 9 hours.
So as a melee cleric, I spend one round buffing/positioning, and then have the following attack routine (with Power Attack) at 9th level:
So that's me in melee as a cleric at 9th level.
The warpriest, in theory, is more martial than a cleric.
Does it beat me?
Because if not, then no thanks; I still have full move speed, two Knowledge skills in the teens, something like +19 Diplomacy with touch of glory, channel 3/day for 5d6+9 vs undead (and they get no channel resistance on their saves) and I'm casting up to 5th-level spells. If I'm going to give up all those perks in order to be a warpriest, I sure hope said warpriest can at least out-melee me.
The Morphling wrote:
More or less where I'm at. Loved the casting system when I read it, but it felt like that's all there was. So now we get to keep that and gain some brand-new class features! Sweet!
You normally get the choice between (+1 HP or +1 SP) or +1 Alt [note: the parentheses are important, pay attention to them].
Where are those important parentheses coming from? I presume you can back up your claim that it's "(+1 HP or +1 SP) or +1 Alt" and not "+1 HP or +1 SP or +1 Alt"? Because if you can't, that's gonna be awfully hard on your rigorous and unbiased theory.
EDIT: Also, drawing parallels between "people who disagree with me" and "people who think Sol orbits Earth" is pretty high on the dick scale.
Jason Bulmahn wrote: