KrispyXIV's page

First, I want to state this first, because it's important: if you present something as an obstacle, players will try and overcome it. If it looks impossible, most players WILL ASSUME the gm has provided some means of making it survivable, especially if you have not.

Second, as far as nightmare stuff goes... It's 90% in the description. But, what I've found helps is 'impossibility and expectation violation'. For instance, things that are apparently humanoid with extended reach and 'impossible' abilities like Swallow Whole can up the ante. Nothing like seeing your buddy swallowed by a Child sized nightmare, and struggling in its distended belly

How is item availability for you? Your gm seems pretty open from the looks of it.

Scrolls of Wish to get rid of the pesky immunities to sunlight from the vampires and then a final one to disintegrate their room at noon (Control Weather ensures a bright and sunny day) seems like it would probably be too easy, but it's well within your budget IMO.

Barring that, planar binding can whip up some potent allies, and much of that process can be attempted by your sorcerer buddy via scroll.

How's your alignment? A horde of burning skeletons with mirrors can pull some funny shenanigans with mirrors against vampires, bypass their Dr, and are immune to fireballs...

What is "legitimate authority"?

Is a ruler who is evil, legitimate in the eyes of the paladin?

Or is it an evil that must be changed?

Lets say that there is a remote town with a mayor who is LE. The town laws state that carrying weapons in town is punishable by arrest and death. The townies know this and stay within the law and are thus treated well, but outsiders are generally killed with in a day since the trip here is dangerous and most are carrying weapons. Is the mayor "legitimate authority" or can the paladin try to get rid of him? Especially since the paladin was already arrested for carrying a sword into town (their holy bond weapon).

Does the paladin have to follow the law there and accept their death, or fight against the evil ruler?

Did the paladin know about the law before going there? If so, he should have respected it, and probably looked into legal means of changing things, or failin that, maybe work out a way to warn travelers.

If he was entrapped, he should probably seek to avoid unjust punishment in the most lawful means reasonable. If he has to, to avoid unjust punishment, he should free himself.

Being lawful good is neither convenient nor easy, nor is it or should it be necessarily fair.

Note that I'd the law is simply an clearly a way to murder travelers, then he should obviously cowboy up and prevent such from occurring in the future... In the most lawful good way he reasonably can. That doesn't mean the easiest way though.

You're saying it would violate the paladin's code to then destroy the altar?

It's against his code of conduct to urinate on it while doing so, or to perform additional degradation beyond saving the sacrifice-ee and rendering the altar unusable. Being good and honorable does preclude such behavior IMO.

This is also a different situation, entirely, from a city or other social construct where the temple is operating legally and largely benignly in a non-evil society. A paladin must, by his code, respect the right of other faiths to practice in a lawful manner; it's kindof, I dunno, part of their point.

After all, if the asmodeans arent actively conducting evil (as most lawful societies will require) they're on the slippery slope that leads right into neutrality and mostly benign self servingness.

Wait a second. Just a thought, but wasn't there a recent discussion Bout Orcs being under CRed due to how Ferocity works and how dangerous it makes them relative to CR? Or am I crazy?

On topic, I ran a similar arc once, with similar levels and circumstances (it's actually weird, they were level 4 too. I used drow tho). Short story is, it worked great. I hinted ahead tho that they had a looong day ahead of them, which likely helped them play accordingly.

I would be fine with it in a home game, but this is going on the list of PFS-related Ultimate Equipment disappointments.

I'm guessing the reason it's so cheap is due entirely to its exclusivity with other belts.

This isn't a ring of evasion here; it's effectively subbing in for a 17th level barbarian class feature with a few extra perks and drawbacks.

If dipping oracle is still attractive in some (but not all cases) then this item is a win on design IMO.

I agree that a paladin has higher standard. I just disagree that the lawful execution by the paladin, the highest authority in the absence of established courts of law (not deemed evil by said paladin), is deemed an evil act, and part of the 'higher standard'..

I actually don't totally disagree with this. But it's still a matter that deserves significant consideration, and paladin should probably still hear the other parties plea and at least seriously consider whether or not they can possibly be redeemed.

Executing them without that consideration, or while they're still unconscious... That's darker, and while I dont know if it's grounds to Fall the first time it happens, I think it could be. And it depends.

The hired sword, defending an evil bastard because he was paid to? Probably deserves a chance to plead his case. The demon who to this point has been a major threat and shown no potential for redemption? Best be done with it before it has a chance to recover.

.

I'm however a little taken aback by the supposition that we are required to give every monster, bandit and evildoer a fair trial. As if this is modern time justice with established courts of law. This isn't the modern world.

Most people aren't required to provide rights in these creatures, right.

Paladins aren't most people. They're explicitly held to a higher standard. The easy path? Thats not for you... Which is why you get to do things like manifest divine powers, and ignore the limits of mortal men.
.

What I find irritating about Paladins facing opponents who offer surrender is the Dungeon Master.

Probably a group thing. Most of the people I game with will generally offer to let foes surrender (few do, but the offer is generally out there), and any clearly outmatched for in games I run will ask for mercy if escape appears unlikely.

And believe me, even without paladins, prisoners can be a pain. But I mean... That's realistic right? Prisoners are a mess to deal with, but the alternative seems pretty barbaric.

Probably where a lot of my contention on this issue draws from; if non-paladins worry about the rights of prisoners and the proper way to deal with them, then paladins should definately be pursuing the most honourable/merciful course of action.

Apparently they do, with all the guys screaming they can't perform lawful executions.

How many cultures have a witness, judge, and executioner all be the same person?

Thats some fairly wild west stuff for most settings, and most of the time, paladins aren't the local sheriff... They're independent wanderers with a self-given mission.

Isonaroc wrote:

One of the problems I tend to see with people who play paladins, they tend to spend a lot of their time either bludgeoning everyone with their code or doing a lot of rhetorical and mental gymnastics to circumvent their code.

I have to agree. If you have to search in the core book to see if an action es evil, then probably that action is not Lawful good.

Additionally, if the thought line, "it'd be easier/more convenient just to..." then it probably isn't good for a paladin.

Paladins dont do 'convenient' or 'easy', they do what's right, even if it's difficult or risky to do so.

A paladin should never have to rationalize or justify his actions.

Do note, any way you do it, you can't get more than one swift action in a round.

They're very strictly regulated for a reason.

Mergy wrote:

Another example? The bandit king falls to his knees, begging for mercy. Are you required to spare him? Abadar protect us, no! Either tell him to pick up his sword or take him prisoner and execute him with all the righteous justification you possess.

That seems like a quick way to fall.

Right. He may end up being executed, but as a judge, the paladin whom he just stopped attacking is hardly impartial.

The paladin should deliver him to the appropriate authority for trial and potential execution, and stand witness to his crimes at that time.

Assuming absolute authority for judgement and sentence rapidly leads into that whole "absolute power breeds corruption absolutely" thing. Which is bad for paladins, who really should avoid that by nature.

Why should it be slotless?

The Fighters primary damage item (his weapon) doesn't compete for item slots with other items that provide stuff like defense.

Why should a monks primary damage item need to? Nobody is saying it should be hidable/sunder/steal-proof. Just that it'd be fair if it didn't detract from his defenses/utility even further.

Why should it be slotless?

I think he mean slotless in the same way a weapon is.

You can make a decent monk with weapons. The class is based around unarmed fighting, and that is not currently a competitive build.

I think this is the true crux of the issue. You can currently build an armed monk that isn't bad by any stretch; while full attacking, they're offensively reasonable and at a level that almost nobody should be disappointed with.

The issue is that you can't do that unarmed, which for the monk, feels wrong.

It would be nice if we could get acknowledgement that this is the primary issue most people see (if I am in fact correct in my assumption that this is everyone's primary issue?), and its been understood.

So how is only needing two stats maybe three being MAD?

Needing three stats to maintain defensive and offensive viability is MAD.

In order to compensate for class weakness, you need to focus on Strength almost as much as a fighter does, and in order to remain defensively valid without armor, you need a good wisdom and at least a positive dexterity.

I'd like to stop here a moment to note that monks have a +5 AC bonus (what most other people would get from the enhancement on their armor) built right into the class. How about that? A similar mechanic for attacks would seem to be entirely reasonable, IMO.

Note that not needing Int and Charisma, and having them be dumpable, while ok for strictly stat related reasons, is terrible for people who like things like roleplaying. I can build a fighter with one good stat (strength), have positive dexterity and constitution, and not have to dump on my roleplaying stats. Why should all monks have to be stupid and unappealing to keep up?

I find it kindof telling about the monk unarmed situation that the best solution to it, currently, is... to use a weapon. My buddy playing a Temple Sword monk did pretty well, in no small part due to the extra attack/damage/threat range the weapon contributed toward his effectiveness.

While I think that an armed monk should be just as valid as an unarmed one, I think the opposite should also be true; for monks especially, fighting unarmed should be as effective as being armed.

As it stands, its not even really close..., in no small part due to the unavailability of competitive options for enhancing your unarmed strikes.

Bigger damage dice and maneuver resistance are fine for class bonuses, but they don't make a weapon a 'good' choice for combat.

Thats the issue I perceive.

Fnipernackle wrote:

At 4th level, ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Ki strike improves with the character's monk level.

At 10th level, his unarmed attacks are also treated as lawful weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
At 16th level, his unarmed attacks are treated as adamantine weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction and bypassing hardness.

whats that bout not bypassing DR?

that was the problem with monks in 3.0.

3.5 changed that. thank God

Sorry, but that's not really impressive. Impressive is something like smite evil, or at least letting the monk get through cold iron or silver DRs as he levels up.

Or the penetrating strike feats, that let fighters DPS a good portion of things like DR/epic, or DR/- (in addition to the ones monks ignore).

DPR is not the only part of combat. Mobility, defenses against magic, and a ton of other things play a huge factor as well.

And Paladins and Rangers (and some fighters, cavaliers, bards, etc) get a lot of that stuff too... or ways to duplicate/emulate them.

Heck, Animal Aspect (ranger 2) might as well be 'Monkitude - The Spell, now with Versatility!', and Paladins have monks beat hands down in the Saves department, IMO (not to mention the healing, support, and combat departments).

Other classes don't have (quite) everything the monk does, its true (or at least, all at once)... but its also a bad idea to act like monks have a monopoly on anything.

Here's a question: what do monks get that's wholly unique to them, and can't be found on another class, who gets more besides?

KrispyXIV wrote:

Just on base unarmed damage, where monks 'appear' to have an advantage (at cap, when monks have their best damage), a Brawler has a d3+11 built into the class (includes weapon spec and a free +5 to attack rolls), which is better than the 2d10 monks get by far.

Monks are not going to beat fighters at DPR. The class is not meant to be the king of DPR. They dodge bullets, leap 80 feet, zip across the battlefield at mach 7, ties the enemy wizard in a knot, trips 8 guys in a round, is immune to tons of stuff, has awesome saves, etc, etc... If those things sound cool then play a monk. If you want DPR... then play a an unarmed fighter because the unarmed fighter is going to win at DPR. All that cool stuff costs something in game terms.

I GM a lot of PFS and I see monks regularly marginalize encounters and bypass hazards that stump fighters and most martial classes. Their abilities are amazingly cool in game, but their strength is not DPR and when you use that as a yardstick all you demonstrate is that you place no value on the things that makes the monk cool and fun and really should be playing a fighter.

The expectation seems to be that monks should be everything they are and as good as the fighter at dishing out damage and that's just not a reasonable point of view. Fighters dish out damage, it's what they do and they do it well.

I think you misunderstood my post. Someone else had noted they had had difficulty making unarmed characters of other classes, and I was noting that if unarmed fighting is what you want, its easily had elsewhere.

I've also GMed for monks, and watched them trivialize encounters; nothing quite like working up a complex chess-room with death floors and such only for the monk to ask, "So wait, its only how far across? I jump it."

So I'm not saying there is no point to monks, as it stands... but they're presented as a combat class. If they're a combat class, they should be good at combat.

Certainly, while they get cool monk tricks, I don't think they get more cool tricks than Rangers or Paladins, who get GREAT spell lists (at least, they're great relative to what they are) on top of powerful class features which are more than equal to a lot of what monks get.

I dont think its out of line at all to want the monk to be at least as valid a combatant as they are.

Ummmm...how exactly are fighters/barbs/rangers better unarmed fighters than monks? I'd really like to know, because I would love to run an unarmed fighter, but none I've ever built could hold a candle to a monk.

Then you weren't trying.

Just on base unarmed damage, where monks 'appear' to have an advantage (at cap, when monks have their best damage), a Brawler has a d3+11 built into the class (includes weapon spec and a free +5 to attack rolls), which is better than the 2d10 monks get by far.

A normal, base fighter can have unarmed at +6 attack/d3+10 damage with class features, fighter feats, and gloves.

Add in TWF, etc to taste. The idea that monks are 'better' at dealing damage unarmed is an illusion. They just get some fancy bonus feats early and some cool, flavorful tricks useful for gimmicks in and out of combat.

But seriously guys, why is this such a big deal?

I'm guessing it's because it comes so close to what people were wanting, then just barely falls short.

That said, I mean, it's not great, but it does work for some people. I'm actually planning a martial artist who fights with a Fighting Fan plus unarmed strikes (not optimal, sure) for whom this item is useful.

While its generally a bad idea to dilute spellcasters, enchanters can benefit a LOT from a level of crossblooded sorcerer.

Charm Humanoids/undead/animals/magical beasts/monstrous humanoids is a much better spell than charm person (serpentine/undead bloodline). I think you can get plants and Vermin, too, with the right bloodlines...

Choices like that can greatly expand the value of existing spells, and make them more valuable than otherwise :)

If you're attacking innocents it is well within the paladin's code of conduct to intervene. Exactly what happens at that point is a bit gray. If you're killing children I would expect a paladin to put you down hard (e.g. to death), for example.

Well yeah. I'd say those acts fall under "empowering" paladins though, and are a horrible start toward countering one :P

I was simply noting that in a PVP or vs neutral situation, the best counter to a paladin is to simply refuse to play by his terms; he's the one with rules he can't violate, so use that to your advantage.

Countering a paladin is trivial; simply refuse to fight him. If he attacks you unprovoked, he's broken any reasonable code. If his ally attacks you unprovoked, defend yourself and note that's all you're doing, strait to victory.

Alternatively, offer to resolve your dispute in a nonviolent battle of wits... He can't honorably refuse (again, non violence should be preferred by most paladins), and most paladins ain't geniuses.

Other than being a druid, does PF have any way yet to use Spontaneous Casting to cast a Domain spell, instead?

Actually, yes.

Heighten Spell followed by Preferred spell (feats) allows you to cast any single spell you can cast, spontaneously; without the normal metamagic penalties for sponataneous casters even.

This is very good for someone trying to run a Cleric as say, a Fireball spammer. Just prepare all 3rd and higher level slots as support/buff/SoD etc spells, and use them as fireballs as needed.

This a great solution in any case where you really just need one (or maybe two) of your domain spells more than once... which for me at least, was most of the time when I was looking at a domain and thinking, "Man, if only I got more than one of spell X!"

KrispyXIV wrote:

There are a few examples of such, and I strongly suspect most 20th level ability replacements are in place specifically to prevent certain archetypes from stacking.

So beware when modding things which work as is, just not how you like.

I pretty seriously doubt this, actually. It implies a level of coordination and balance way beyond what we normally see. This is not to denigrate Paizo, mind you. Just that with multiple freelancers and books and constant changes right up until publication, it would be very surprising if incompatibilities were specifically included as a subtling inter-archetype balancing trick and not just an artifact of the archetypes happening to switch the same toggles. Beyond that, I can't really think of any combinations that both would be particularly powerful AND are only incompatible in the capstone.

Do you have any examples where this might be the case?

Your point, in general is good and I think is generally probably true.

The one example I can point to atm though, where I feel like I'm on to something, is master of many styles. It's capstone feels really tacked on (it doesn't do anything but mimic half of a feat you either have or decided you didn't need; a fifth style on top of four others seems... Unlikely?), and it serves next to no function other than to prevent the archetype from stacking with other monk archetypes.

The degree to which I really want it combine with them, I consider a warning sign it probably shouldn't :)

But I'll admit the possibility the designer though the capstone was just really cool exists. Do we know who wrote it?

Ask nicely to your DM !

When the only thing limiting you is a common replacement to the 20th level ability, we are surely not talking about intended game balance anymore. I believe it is the only example in the rules of such occurence between two archetypes.

There are a few examples of such, and I strongly suspect most 20th level ability replacements are in place specifically to prevent certain archetypes from stacking.

So beware when modding things which work as is, just not how you like.

Catch off guard and Monk of the Empty Hand. Win?

Honestly, when compared to Heighten Spell + preferred spell...

Spellbinder isn't very good. It's not actually spontaneous, and preferred spell lacks all the drawbacks of normal spontaneous casting.

Familiar and 2 feats for spontaneously converting your favorite spell, is IMO the Best (most powerful) way to go, and it gets you very close to what you're aiming for anyways.

If you're looking for power, a familiar is almost unbeatable as a class feature. It'd effectively an extra set of actions that can think for themselves and carry you through any number of situations.

It's probably got spellbinder beat on flexibility too.

Spellbinder is pretty cool though.

I'm working on the assumption that her alignment is undetectable while in the mirror.

Also - I'm not actually planning this out as a major encounter or anything. The succubus is just one of a random assortment of people/creatures trapped in the mirror, so there's no story significance and no real reason to boost her CR. I'm just looking for a way for the encounter to consist of more than just "Detect Evil, True Sight, Splat."

They popped a frost giant out of the thing last session and he lasted just over 1 round. :P

I'm still a fan of giving the mirror an Aura of Overwhleming strength relative to the inquisitor. It sounds like a pretty serious tool of evil (what with the binding of souls for all eternity and whatnot), just establish that turning on Detect Evil in the vicinity is a bad idea.

Problem solved :)

I've got it. Give the mirror an Overwhelming evil aura and hide hers in plain sight.

Is the inquisitor good? If so, murdering her because of alignment is somewhat questionable... Who knows if she's been cursed with an Evil spell effect or not? Judging books by their cover and all that.

If he's neutral... Well, succubi aren't exactly without bargaining tools, and it sounds like she's at a disadvantage and possibly even liable to be thankful for a rescue...

Persistant and Bouncing spell metamagic rods are good for a witch, since so many of the spells are SoD or SoS, and these will increase the odds of one of those spells sticking to somebody.

Persistent on a Rod plus a Quickened Ill Omen will generally ensure they stick to exactly who it was you wanted dead :)

Its pretty scary, honestly.

Besides you can just buy a Pearl of Power.

Pearls only work for Prepared Spellcasters, as far as I know.

My witch Enchantress always dream of having a Symbol of Persuasion as a Permanencied Tatoo.

But barring that, I'd say the best Witch items are things like Persistent Metamagic Rods and the Witching Gown, which is ridiculous.

Well, the benefit of the feat is actually that Cleric (or other character capable of Channeling) doesn't have to commit all his 5th level spell slots to Breaths of Life, but can rather do the "oh s#!+" response as required (especially since Breath of Life doesn't qualify for spontaneous casting).

Which if the ability in question takes longer than the normal spell (which is a standard action), and the range is touch... well, its not so much of a 'Oh snap!' button as a wasted feature, because most of the time people aren't dropping within arms reach of the cleric.

Considering Cleric has to be 11th level to qualify for this feat, it's reasonable to assume Cleric likely has -at least- 6 Channel Energy uses a day, possibly as many as 10+. This gives him 2-3+ bonus 5th level spell slots if needed. That, by itself, is a major benefit.

2-3 spell slots which may not (and indeed, should not) ever be needed is a terrible trade for a feat.

Regarding range: touch...

I'll note again, the ability in question does not mention range. It mentions the effect 'as if you had cast Breath of Life...', which is pretty explicitly telling you to skip all the things like Range, Spells Prepared, etc., and go strait to 'What does Breath of Life do?'

Which just so happens to be the DC of "Activate a scroll".

Interesting conicidence, don't you think?

Bobson, I dont think its a coincidence at all!

*scare chord*

But seriously, I'm 99% certain that the listed DC for activating a scroll is reminder/clarification text included so that you dont have to ask "Can I emulate Spellcasting as a class feature for emulating scrolls?", because thats definately how the DC appears to be determined, and is a slightly disguised DC for emulating Spellcasting as a class feature. Though of course, UMD doesn't actually say this...

Which to me, makes this whole thread particularly ironic.

Umbranus wrote:

But as for it's only level 2. No full caster can cast it. Only magus and bard. So (like other bard spells) it is ok, when it is a little stronger than wizard 2nd level spells.

It's pretty darn good for Magus. Compare it to the 3rd level, Force Hook spell. Both let you close to an enemy and then full attack (spell combat), the 3rd level has longer range, but this one means you don't provoke unlike the 3rd AND you get an extra attack! AND it can double as a means to full attack, attack again, and then retreat away so the enemy can't full attack you back!

Range really isn't worth all those other benefits, and even if it were, aren't higher level spells supposed to be better than lower level ones, not just equal?

Great Magus spell. Needs no additional "help."

While I agree with your general assessment, I feel like it should be noted that Force Hook Charge is a great spell because of the fact that it does things like allow you to change elevations, and cross chasms. And it allows you to do those things out of combat (because it functions on a miss), as well... meaning it can sub in for things like levitate for climbing sheer surfaces, etc.

Both spells have their places, and both are great as is.

SRD wrote:

Benefit: As a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity, you can expend three uses of your channel energy class feature to restore a dead creature to life as if you had cast the breath of life spell (Core Rulebook 251).

Given the lack of any other qualifiers or specific descriptors, I'd say that, as written above, the feat basically allows you to spend three uses of channel energy to cast the Breath of Life spell, and follows all the guidelines of that spell - range of touch, 5D8+CL hit points cured if target creature died the previous round, incur one negative level for a day if raised etc.

Which makes it next to useless for the intended purpose of Breath of Life (and implied purpose of the feat), which is to save someone who just died. It would require them to have died while within 10" of you, where you could five foot step to them and use the ability.

If the intent were to just turn three channels into a big heal (which is a use of breath of life that doesn't even work here), I'd expect it to have been based on a different spell and have a different name.

While I think Bobson's second theory is reasonable, I think that RAW (and possibly RAI), the third idea has the best support.

The text of the Benefit requires three things: A full-round action that provokes, three uses of channel energy expended, and a dead creature. That dead creature is then restored to life as if you had cast breath of life on it. (Note: the ability simply compares the effect to Breath of Life, not the ability itself)

There are no restrictions beyond what I mentioned noted in the ability description, so why add extras to the ability without a very good reason to do so?

To break it down a little more...

When calculating your bonus to hit, at any time including Flurry, you should follow a few steps.

First should always be to determine your Base Attack Bonus. This applies to all attack rolls. Normally, you'd check your class progression (a +3 for a level 4 monk I believe), but Flurry is a Special Case.

When using Flurry of Blows, you use your class level as your Base Attack Bonus (BAB), so thats a 4.

Next, calculate your other bonuses to this roll. Start with your stat (all attack rolls use some stat or other) which is strength for melee attacks unless something changes this (weapon finesse). So thats a +2. Now, if you've got feats (weapon focus), enhancement bonuses (from weapons or Amulets of Mighty Fists), or other bonuses (there are a lot of potential sources, like spells), add all these too. In this case, you've got your +2 strength. So add that to your Base Attack of +4.

Which brings us to +6 for your attack bonus.

However, Flurry also works similarly to Two Weapon Fighting. This gets you an extra attack, but applies a -2 penalty to attack rolls.

At this point, subtract any penalties you have to attacks from your rolls. This includes Two Weapon Fighting for flurry, but in theory can also include things like being Sickened, Cover, being prone, etc. In this case, just subtract the -2.

That leaves us with a final total of +4 for your attack bonus.

Note, most profiles would actually list your attack routine, that is, your attacks while flurrying, as '+4/+4', which would indicate you have two identical attacks at +4.

Hope that helps!

For comparison, see the spell Burst of Speed. It explicitly allows you to move through larger creature''s spaces.

As such, if Bladed Dash does not include a similar clause, its pretty clear it should not allow you to do so.

Is a Dark Tapestry Oracle an option? They don't get tentacles, explicitly (other than Black Tentacles as a mystery spell, which is better IMO) but they do get creepy shapeshifting, cleric spells, and the ability to drive people insane as a Supernatural Ability.

Druid can be a option, I was looking at Urban druid.

Anyway to blast without Fire? I looked at Air, water and weather and was not impressed blasty-wise.

Weird idea was to do Gnome and Clouded Vision with oracle, Blindsense is very handy. But only 60' sight with Darkvision makes Fireballs kinda scary.

One problem with Fire is that it's Sarenrea only, I think.

Seperatist Archetype can get you any domain you need.

I think the reason fire works best, is that fireball really has a lot going for it.

Its got incredible range, a good AOE (in a useful shape, too), and decent base damage. As well, its low enough level that you can apply some metamagic to it early on (such as elemental spell to get around it being the weakest elemental type).

Most importantly of all though, its third level, meaning it can be affected by Lesser Metamagic Rods. Thats huge.

Note if you're willing to dip a level of Admixture Wizard and have an OK intelligence score, you can do some interesting things with elemental damage.

That's assuming that the main fire spell you want is fireball

Are you going for "my god smites thee!"? If not, is druid an option?

Well, AFAIK Fireball +meta magic is the 'best' option for nuking. Oracle is more flexible with 'fire spells' for sure.

And I totally agree on Druids. They have a great list of cool nukes.

I should probably elaborate on the superiority of Fire Domain plus Prefered Spell (fireball).

First, it allows you to keep the Clerics superior spell progression. This means faster access to meta magic, which lets you exceed the limits of d6/level spell damage.

Second, you aren't limited at all on which spells you have access to. Huge benefit.

Third, and this is key... You are versatility incarnate. Prepare utility stuff which may not come up, and don't worry about it. No need for Protection from Energy? That's cool, it's a fireball. That extra blessing of fervor? Empowered fireball, without spontaneous meta magic penalties. You'll never need to prep a nuke above third level, because every 3rd level slot and up is a potential fireball of whatever meta magic variety you want (or need).

Oracles can get benefits, it's true, but as a offensive spellcaster I feel like its better to have options, which clerics can do worlds better than an oracle.

Also, you've still got a second domain too. That can give you access to spells an Oracle would dream of. For instance, a seperatist with Travel domain gets all sorts of awesome stuff not open to Oracles.

Reread the rules for oversized weapons. Each size above normal increases the 'handedness' by a category. A large dagger is a one handed weapon for a medium creature, and a huge dagger is a two handed weapon.

No one uses collosal great swords because... You can't.

Cleric of Sarenrae and fire domain. Take magical lineage for fireball, meta magic for fireball, and most importantly Preferred Spell Fireball (it make everything work).

Season to taste.