Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Yakmar

Neo2151's page

1,512 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,512 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Arachnofiend wrote:
Oh no, how unfortunate that the Summoner only gets a class feature instead of an entire other character now.

Sorry, but this is just a bad comparison.

It speaks MUCH more to the weakness of the Fighter than it does to the strengths of the Eidolon.
I mean, no one says that the Eidolon is better than a Barb/Pally/Ranger. Only better than the Fighter.


The obvious ways are, "be mounted" which comes with potential logistical problems (thos mount issues, tho...), or "get Pounce" which has the drawback of requiring a charge.

What are other ways to build a melee type that doesn't get totally shut down by movement?


A response to Lars Andersen's video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbqz_07dW4


Anzyr wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

What I find interesting though is that the spells you list for the Divine casters really aren't all that impressive.

Antilife Shell is a pretty impressive defense (when it works), but it does nothing to help you actually defeat your foe. And since hit-and-run tactics are incredibly expensive (feat-intensive) and not very good for the cost, most people won't take them, which makes dashing in, hitting someone on the other side of the shield, and retreating a non-option in most games.

Planar Ally is always touted as a great spell. And it is a great spell. But no one ever mentions the totally unreliable, up-to-the-GM, cost. Yes, maybe that outsider COULD help in this situation, but maybe you can't afford them.

Harm is, basically, the only really good offensive spell on the entire Divine list, and it definitely has it's drawbacks: It cannot kill your target and it must be used in melee.
It's basically the Divine version of Disintegrate, except nowhere near as good.

Greater Dispel Magic is an amazing spell, but is not Divine only (which is relevant to this particular discussion).

Spellcrash is an awful spell. It's like you counterspelled (which is an awful strategy in this ruleset), except you're guaranteed to remove only your foe's weakest spell option, because the spell lost is chosen by the target, not picked at random.

Read a guide on all the good divine spells there are then come back. Harm is the only good offense? I think you aren't looking hard enough.

I've read several guides on divine spells. Offense is just not that spell list's forte. Granted, when I was describing Harm, I was talking in terms of direct-damage. (I mean, what else do they have? Flame Strike? Weak sauce!)

Yes, Divine can be good at debuffing, but almost all the good offensive debuffs are touch range, and being in melee combat isn't where I want my spellcaster to be.


Look at the area covered in a 10ft radius centered on a grid intersection. It covers 12 squares total.

Now look at the area covered in a 10ft radius centered on a square (treated as reach because how else would you measure it?). It covers 21 squares.

Almost. Freaking. Double.

This question NEEDS an answer. The fact that it's been 4 years since it was asked and it has gone totally ignored is obscene.


What I find interesting though is that the spells you list for the Divine casters really aren't all that impressive.

Antilife Shell is a pretty impressive defense (when it works), but it does nothing to help you actually defeat your foe. And since hit-and-run tactics are incredibly expensive (feat-intensive) and not very good for the cost, most people won't take them, which makes dashing in, hitting someone on the other side of the shield, and retreating a non-option in most games.

Planar Ally is always touted as a great spell. And it is a great spell. But no one ever mentions the totally unreliable, up-to-the-GM, cost. Yes, maybe that outsider COULD help in this situation, but maybe you can't afford them.

Harm is, basically, the only really good offensive spell on the entire Divine list, and it definitely has it's drawbacks: It cannot kill your target and it must be used in melee.
It's basically the Divine version of Disintegrate, except nowhere near as good.

Greater Dispel Magic is an amazing spell, but is not Divine only (which is relevant to this particular discussion).

Spellcrash is an awful spell. You're using your action, and a spell slot, in order to stop their spell. It's just like you counterspelled (which is an awful strategy in this ruleset), except you're guaranteed to remove only your foe's weakest spell option, because the spell lost is chosen by the target, not picked at random.


You find it weak because the Divine spell list is very unexciting, and because even though everyone and their mother is on the, "It gets 9th level spells!" bandwagon, everyone and their mother is also ignoring that a HUGE majority of PF players will never reach levels capable of 8th or 9th level casting.

You're not entirely right, OP, but you're not wrong either.


Kolokotroni wrote:
But really if you think about it, without investment, how many combat maneuvers are actually better then this? Trip can be resolved with a move action (getting up), so can reposition or drag. Bullrush is only of greater consequence if there is something bad to bullrush the enemy into or off of. Disarm can potentially have greater consequences, but the default, disarmed weapon falling near them, again is resolved with a move action to pick it up (or draw a new weapon). Really only grapple has a greater potential consequence then dirty trick. And most people shy away from it because of how complicated it can be and how much it can slow things down.

All of them are inherently better, actually.

Trip - Standing provokes.
Disarm - Retrieving provokes.
Bull Rush - Only happens when there's a reason, like you said.
Grappling is just flat out superior of a combat maneuver.
But the recovery from a Dirty Trick doesn't mention anything about provoking, so the default assumption is clearly that it doesn't. :/

Edit to add: I am at least seeing usefulness in specific builds now though, so thanks all for that. :)


•Takes a Standard action, and can be undone with a move-action.
•Requires feat investment to avoid AoO.
•Penalties choices are all pretty minor and wear off quickly.

Yet I see people suggest it all the time. Am I alone in thinking this?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

It's also worth noting that by the wording of the spell, any attack, regardless of whether the attack roll is a success or not, strips away a layer of stoneskin.

So basically the solution to an enemy wizard that has cast stoneskin on himself it to throw a bunch of rocks in his general direction.

I've heard people say that you could throw a handful of sand and take 30 thousand layers off the spell. B*!#!%!+. As if you'd have to make 30 thousand attack rolls!

Now I didn't play D&D until 3.0, but Malachi's got a pretty hard-to-ignore point right here.

"I can only assume the enemy arcanist has a stoneskin spell in effect, so as I move in to attack her, I'm going to kick a bunch of debris, a chunk of grass, a pebble or two, and some hard dirt right at her, stripping her of at least 3 or 4 layers, right? And Then I'll attack as if she never cast the stoneskin in the first place."

No way the spell should be that pathetically weak. That's dumb. D-U-Double M, dumb!

(Also, where are you fighting? Pebble Beach? "I lean down and grab a handful of rocks." "Uh, you come up with a handful of dirt - this isn't very rocky terrain. Do you want to spend a few actions looking for enough pebbles to make a handful?" "Ugh, no.")


Black Tentacles is a great spell, but it's hardly an insta-win.
Ditto for haste.

I really still fail to see the problem here. Yes, with a handful of good spells you have an edge. You pay for that edge by having a very strict spell list.

More classes should be designed this way, honestly.

Because let's be real - When the Bard has early access to a thing, no one cares. Because Illusion and Enchantment are weak schools.
So really, if people have a problem, it's a problem with Conj being too good, not the Summoner being too good.


Lava Child wrote:

I believe the summoner spell list is out of balance, after having played a summoner, and after having GMed PFS for quite a while. Haste is arguably the best spell in the game, and black tentacles has been known as 'win the fight'.

Getting this many spells early is pretty powerful. More so, because the eidolon class feature can receive them and then become even more deadly. The summoner spell list my seem bad but not broken, until you look at the other class features.

Also, by limited wish having access to summoner spells, some powerful and broken effects become available to high level wizards as well, to great detriment.

All in all, the summoner's list has been widely looked at as a design mistake.

They get haste at level 4 instead of level 5. Not a huge deal.

THey get Black Tentacles at level 7, the same level a Wizard would be getting it. I fail to see how early access has helped here at all (cheaper wand? you aren't buying level 3 wands at this level anyway).

This is the perfect example of why I feel like people overreact over this spell list.


thejeff wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Getting early class access to spells is fine because, with the rare exception such as Haste, you're still getting them at the same character level - and as far as I know, spell strength is designed with character level in mind.
Except for the part where these spells can then be counted as lower level spells for magic item purposes.

But that breaks the game how exactly? Yes, you can afford some stuff slightly earlier than normal. Yes, a few things that otherwise wouldn't be a wand option become a wand option. It's still easy to control the market on these things, considering most caster's can't make them - So either said Summoner needs to be taking crafting feats (because you can *easily* justify saying, "Sorry, the wand merchant has heard rumors of said wands, but she's never actually seen one.") or you just won't see them.


The argument about Bards spells was a bad one. Let me just apologize for pushing that one. (It really just stemmed from the, "Summoners get Haste as a 2, Bards get it as a 3," and I didn't think before posting. >_<).

I do still think spell lists are screwy (mostly from school assignments) and I do still support the idea that the Summoner is fine, power-wise.
Yes, it's a class that essentially weeds out most of the bad options for you, and that makes it seem incredibly strong - but it's not the class's fault that most of the options the game offers are generally weak and not worth taking, feats and spells being the worst offenders here.

And, generally speaking, the OP is on the right page.
Getting early class access to spells is fine because, with the rare exception such as Haste, you're still getting them at the same character level - and as far as I know, spell strength is designed with character level in mind.
Just look how awful the Bloodrager spell list is. You could throw 80%+ of it right out the window considering how late you have to wait to get otherwise weak spells. That, IMO, is more damaging to the game than anything you'll find in the Summoner list.


Ashiel wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
NerfPlz wrote:

Throwing this out there, because it infuriates me specifically...

Haste is a 2nd level summoner spell.
Haste is a 3rd level bard spell.

Things like this are so backwards that it makes me want to slap whoever designed that class. There's many instances of Summoners getting crazy good spells far above the casting curve, with many of them having no real thematic justification. Of course, keep in mind this is in ADDITION to gaining a pet which will invalidate any tier 5 class without much effort. The class is a mess, and even the developers are aware.

The class is fine. It's the Core material that's screwed up (weak classes due to backwards compatibility, screwy spell lists, etc).

Just imagine if they redesigned the Core rules with the same ingenuity they used with the Advanced Players rules.

I really don't think Bards, Clerics, and Wizards are weak due to backwards compatibility and screwy spell lists.

EDIT: Further, I think all but the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue work very well from the core rulebook. Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Wizards all look pretty good in a mixed party with a few different options for how you want to play your role.

I won't disagree that most classes do, in fact, work fine. But you don't see another Fighter/Monk/Rogue in Adv Players Guide, do you?

Also, compare Ranger (a perfectly fine class) and Inquisitor (a spin on the same playstyle); Inquisitor is arguably the better designed class.

As for "screwy spell lists," what I mean is that classes like Bard share spells from other classes' spell lists, they should have the same sort of early access that Summoners do but for the most part they don't because they didn't in 3.5.
Or that Sorcerers are still stuck with halted progression for, what is apparently, no reason.


NerfPlz wrote:

Throwing this out there, because it infuriates me specifically...

Haste is a 2nd level summoner spell.
Haste is a 3rd level bard spell.

Things like this are so backwards that it makes me want to slap whoever designed that class. There's many instances of Summoners getting crazy good spells far above the casting curve, with many of them having no real thematic justification. Of course, keep in mind this is in ADDITION to gaining a pet which will invalidate any tier 5 class without much effort. The class is a mess, and even the developers are aware.

The class is fine. It's the Core material that's screwed up (weak classes due to backwards compatibility, screwy spell lists, etc).

Just imagine if they redesigned the Core rules with the same ingenuity they used with the Advanced Players rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello!
So I just stumbled upon this thread:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s1lz?Clerics-of-Razmir-Why-Not
and all the included links taught me why Clerics worship only one god always in Golarion.

Right on.

But, I do have a question! Imagine this hypothetical if you would:
•Party is about to take a voyage across (ie: not costal) the Inner Sea and said party includes a Cleric of, oh let's say Torag. Obviously, the party wants a blessing for safe travels across the treacherous waters, and as always, they turn to their holy man (cleric) for such a thing.
Does the cleric:
1) Pray to Gozreh, God/ess of the sea, because this is his/her domain and they don't want to incur his/her fickle wrath, potentially putting Torag in a foul mood with his devoted servant?
2) Pray to Torag, his chosen diety, even though Torag has nothing at all to do with the sea, potentially inviting Gozreh's fickle wrath for daring to shun him/her in his/her very domain?

(Or, tl;dr - If you live in a world where the existence of multiple gods is simply a fact of life, how do you totally devote yourself to just a single one without constantly stepping on the toes of the others? How does a Cleric cope with this?)


Sorry, should clarify that by "converting" I mean 3.5 stuff is out and only PF stuff is in. So the class itself needs to go, but I have no clue how to emulate it with PF options - unless I'm missing something.
:)


Near-epic 3.5 game is converting to PF and I really have no idea how to even approach this, lol.
Any tips or suggestions are highly appreciated!

IotSFV = Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, for those who don't know.


Goddity wrote:
Do you mean roleplaying ideas and builds or stats for a build?

Either or. Preferably the former. :)


It's only banned in Society play, and this GM tends to run more 3.5 than PF, so "power-issues" aren't really issues at all.
Go wild! ;)


Just looking for unique and interesting ideas on how others would build their Eidolon for a Synthesist Summoner.


When you say, "that actually works," what are you looking for?

Just a class that can do good damage? Paladin and Ranger/Slayer would be your best bet.

A class that can actually TWF and isn't just an essentially reskinned 2H character? Anything that will let you get more than a single attack even after a move: Mobile Fighter, Two Weapon Warrior, Battle Oracle if you can make it to lvl 20, anything that will get you Pounce such as Barbarian, etc. This way is more fun, but does less damage because of being reliant on a high Dex.


Then what's the point of listing the parent class?


Both playtest releases included rules that you could not multiclass any Advanced Class with it's Parent Class.
Did they remove that rule in the final product?


Optimize it to do/be what?
Need more info, OP.


wraithstrike wrote:
Neo2151 that Rage-Pouncing Barbarian(paladin smiting BBEG into oblivion also) vs the spell has been explained. If you do not agree with the assertations then explain why.

Can you give me a link(s)? I'll get back to you after I've read said explanations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm...

8) Taking control of characters away from players.
I feel like this is essentially an argument for, "If I'm not winning, then I'm not having fun," which is a nonsense point of view, IMO. (Applies equally to GM or Players). D&D/Pathfinder is a simulation storytelling game. It's about telling exciting stories and overcoming challenges. Sometimes those challenges involve putting characters into situations where they do what the sheet says they do, instead of what the player says they do. If you don't like that, then there are TONS of video games where you don't have to deal with such consequences.

7) "Required items."
This really isn't an issue unless your GM is being bad. As someone mentioned earlier, "theme" should be a very important part of a game, and your in-game foes are no exception. Sure, you *can* just throw random unrelated encounters at your players, but that's just lazy storytelling.

6) The perception skill.
I disagree that this is a problem. I actually think it was a mistake to combine the old Search/Spot/Listen skills, honestly. Yes, from a power-gamer's pov, it's a godsend, but maybe my character has great eyesight but lost a lot of their hearing from *insert backstory.*
I think there's a lot of flaws in PF Skills (some class lists are bad, no one really has enough points to make a 'real' person, etc.), but, "Perception isn't free" isn't one of them.

5) Stuff you can't fix.
I'm not totally convinced that this is such a problem, but I'll admit I do see the merit of your argument. Probably a much bigger issue for PFS than for home games.

4) Required magic items.
Totally agree. "Required" magic items are stupid, and the Devs are bad for designing encounters with the assumption that you *will* have certain items in favor of others. This is probably the biggest reason I hesitate to play PF these days instead of other games, like DDN.

3) Monsters with debilitating abilities on every attack.
Much like #5, I'm not sure how much of a problem it really is, but if someone came along and added rules like, "if you make your save you're immune to this creature's whatever for the rest of combat," it wouldn't hurt my feelings any.

2)"Save or suck"/1) Save or die.
This one. Oh man, this one. I will NEVER understand the community and their tears about this one!
So it's totally fair and okay for the Rage-Pouncing Barbarian to one-shot the enemy, but if a Wizard does it with waggly fingers the rules are somehow broken and unfair?
Oh please, such hypocrisy!
Look, we all know that Magic is stronger than Melee, but the fault doesn't lie with magic being too good - it lies with melee having too many senseless restrictions, based on the framework of the game.
"I can move and still cast a spell, but if I move I sacrifice most of my attack potential." That's not magic's fault, it's the fault of faulty combat rules.

Look, no one likes getting one-shot (and I will agree with the idea that SoL are much preferable to SoD), so let's at least be honest about the argument yeah? The problem isn't SoS/D, the problem is one shot mechanics. And in that vein- Pouncing Barbarians, Charging Cavaliers, Smiting Paladins, etc. are all also equally part of the problem.
Either that, or there is no problem, and people should quit griping over magic.


Either 2x Effortless Lace or the idea is a bust at such a low level.

That said, I'd go with rorek55's suggestion, just swapping the Wakizashi feats for Scimitar feats (maybe turning the exotic weap prof into Two weap rend?)


Weirdo wrote:

Some themes are in short supply on the cleric's spell list. They do not get a single first level trickery-themed spell.

Inquisitors don't make fantastic divine tricksters, either. Their spell list is much more focused on finding things out than concealing things. They get Disguise Self, Invisibility, and Nondetection, and that's about it. They notably lack charm/suggestion, Glibness, the entire line of Image spells, and higher level illusions like Mislead and Seeming (or indeed any illusion that can target something other than themselves). Really none of the 5th or 6th level inquisitor spells strike me as suitable for a trickster. Domain spells don't fix this because inquisitors don't get them.

Druids can fill in for some elemental clergy but they come with their own baggage that might not fit the deity in question. For example, a forge-god might appreciate the fire and earth spells on the druid list but not the prohibition against wearing metal armour. Not to mention that Wild Shape, the class's signature ability, doesn't make sense for all deities. The huntress deity in my current campaign is a sworn enemy of shapechangers. A clergy member who used wild shape would be heretical and executed by their own church, but the cleric & inquisitor spell lists lack the nature magic she should grant. Until the Hunter came out she didn't have great options for clergy.

And while your clergy don't have to be divine casters it doesn't make sense for a deity not to invest their chosen servants with some form of divine power.

This person gets it.


The question is how to make the spells match the Domain/Mystery, not how to make the character match the theme.
I'm just using character examples to illustrate the point, not to say, "I don't know how to make a devote follower of X god."


I think the point is being missed.

Consider you are a cleric of the god of Thieves. Maybe you read the Erevis Cale series and really want to emulate the character? Who knows.

So midnight arrives and it's time to prepare your spells. What do you prepare?
Bless? Protection from X? Summon Monster #? Divine Power? Righteous Might?
Cleric spells can be very good, but your list of options is in zero ways thematic with a shadowy character who is a devoted Cleric of the god of thieves, so what do you do?
Do you go "Bad Touch" and pretend that it makes sense?

Clerics of Healing/Protection are easy to prepare spells for.
Clerics of Destruction are as well.
Cleric Necromancers too.
Cleric Summoners even.
But if your god is Umberlee? Silvanus? Thor? How do you make your daily spell picks fit, or do you just ignore every domain that doesn't already fit with Cleric list options?


I fully understand it's all just a mess of terminology (hand vs "hand"). I'm just curious to see, officially, how deep the hole they've dug because of it goes.


Gisher wrote:

I don't think that is his intent, BadBird. If I understand his question, the scenario is something like this.

"I have a scimitar in one hand and my other is empty. I also have armored spikes. If I attack with both my scimitar and armor spikes, I can't use the Dervish Dance feat, because wielding the spikes counts as using a second hand (even though my actual hand is still empty).

But if I only attack with my scimitar, not using the spikes at all, then can I use the Dervish Dance feat? That is, do the armor spikes fill my 'hand' even if I am not actively using them?"

But I could be misinterpreting him.

Nope, that's exactly what I'm asking. :)

Because your armor spikes/boot blade/whatever are always "prepared" to be used in the offhand, there is a really good argument to be made that you're "carrying/holding" them in your off hand.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Many abilities come with the phrase, "may not be used when holding/carrying a weapon or shield in the off hand," or something similar that implies carrying and does not mention wielding.

One example is the Dervish Dance feat:

Quote:
When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.

Bolded for emphasis.

So the question is, if you are carrying a weapon that doesn't require a hand to use (such as a boot blade or armor spikes), then are you always considered to be "carrying a weapon in your off hand" even when not wielding that weapon?
If not, then how does it work, considering the RAW on "off hands" doesn't actually have anything to do with using the body part "hand?"

Any FAQ hits are appreciated. :)


So the Whirling Dervish idea absolutely don't work unless you ignore RAW in your home game.

Quote:

Dervish Finesse (Ex)

A whirling dervish can treat a scimitar as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for the purposes of the swashbuckler's finesse and all feats and class abilities that refer to such a weapon. She must not be carrying a weapon or shield in her off hand to gain this benefit.

This ability alters swashbuckler finesse.

If you try to actually use that Boot Blade, it counts as your "off hand" and denies you the ability to use Dervish Finesse, which throws the whole idea out of whack.

If you DO ignore RAW, then go for it and have a blast! The RAW surrounding anything dex-to-damage is stupid anyway. ;)


This question applies to Oracles and Mysteries as well.

For example, the Trickery domain is wonderful and fun and the god(s) of thieves, assassins, etc. do all have their clergy, but the generic divine spell list is AWFUL for a stealthy, murderous assassin/thief type character.

Or Fire/Sun Cleric having only a tiny handful of fire based options.
Or a Water Cleric having even less than a tiny handful of water/ice based spells.

The Domain/Mystery bonus spells can only go so far. How do you reconcile the "few-trick pony" divine list with the various supported archetypes that don't fall in line?


Reference: http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/Zabuza_Momochi

Kneejerk assumption was Ninja/Oracle of Waves, but I can't get over just how awful the divine list is for an offensive character.

The bonus skills, spells, revelations, are all great, but the Cleric/Oracle spell list has so very few offensive and/or Ice/Water spells to complement the character.

Would a Sorcerer be a better fit maybe? I'm not sure.

Any advice is appreciated!


Based on your limitations, you've only really got two options:

•Slayer
•Urban Ranger + Skirmisher (Possibly +Guide as well)
Personally, I'd go the Ranger route.

-Rogues/Ninjas are going to be awful at TWF, regardless of what the fans of the class will tell you. (Mid-level BAB and no class to-hit bonuses? You'll be missing A LOT.)
-Bards/Investigators/Alchemists are also going to be bad at TWF and are likely too magical to boot (especially Bard.)
-Urban Barbarian could be fun, but probably won't be "rogueish" enough for the concept due to a serious lack of skill points.
-Swashbucklers are ~another~ class that just won't do the TWF for you, and are also skill point light.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Reebo Kesh wrote:

Are there any players out there who do not plan out their characters level progression?

I've grown tired of players who have every skill and feat planned to 20th level. It leaves no scope for the character to grow and develop because of the encounters and experiences they face.

A common example is the "I must wield one type of weapon and commit all my feats to it!" then a nice piece of gear is found and they PCs just sell it.

I'd love a game system where you don't know what you get at the next level, of course this would only work once per player per class.

Maybe a more gestalt approach would work. You build a base character who can fight and as she progresses in levels she seeks out things she'd like to do - become a mage, a rogue, join a church etc

Thoughts?

Personally? I'd love to play a character like this. To totally ignore any sort of planning/meta-gaming/etc and just "roll with the punches" when it comes to build decisions.

The problem, is that Pathfinder is HORRIBLE for this kind of play. Absolutely awful.
There are literally thousands of really bad character options in this game, and a small handful of good ones. If you don't pre-plan your character, you're likely going to either spend WAY too much time leveling up, or picking awful options because, at the time, they seemed like a good idea.


I should clarify that I don't think Clerics are a *bad* class (the only bad classes, IMO, are Fighters, Monks, and Rogues).
I just think if you're looking to fill any of the roles they can fill, you'll always have a better option available.

Divine Self-Buffer? Paladin, Inquisitor, and Warpriest are all superior to Cleric.
Party Buffer/Healer? Oracles and Shaman are both superior to Cleric here.
Debuffing? It's a risky strategy for anyone, but Arcane tends to do it more reliably.
Summoner? Arcane just simply does it better, whether it's a Conjurer, a Summoner, an Arcanist, etc.
Necromancy? You're pretty good here, but get to deal with all the roleplay issues. Aaaand Oracle does it better.

And if the default argument in their favor is that, "you can do all those things!" Well, you really can't. It's possible, sure, but being unfocused in your goal tends to increase the odds that you won't have prepared the right tool for the job when you need it. (It's why Wizards automatically have Scribe Scroll, after all.)


I'm clearly in the minority, but I don't agree Clerics are all that great. Let me explain:

•Buffing - In a low/no magic game, Cleric buffs are *amazing.* But most people don't play those games, because the game isn't good at supporting it without a LOT of modification, and most GMs aren't looking to make their hobby into their career. So what you more often find is that you have this huge spell list with tons of options that are majorly bad because most buffs you can throw out will not stack with the magic items that everyone is going after (namely, the "big 6").
Also, cast times are a real pain when your job is buffing. Standard Action spells are fine, but if you have to stack a few to really matter, then half the combat is missed because you were busy prepping for combat. Buffing your party means lots of spells burned and actions used. Buffing yourself requires at least 2 rounds of sitting there chanting instead of actually participating. And, finally, the few spells that are actually really good and always worth casting to buff the party? Not Cleric-exclusive. You could be doing these buffs on a stronger caster.

•Debuffing - Given the Divine spell list, this option is stronger than buffing as a strategy. Clerics have a lot of really nice offensive spells to choose from.
Here's the problems: Your alignment can very easily cut you off from a lot of this offensive goodness. Yes, most people typically "cop out" with a Neutral alignment, but most groups aren't looking for a Negative Energy channeler - they want the Positive Energy for potential healing.
Here's the other problem with being a "Bad Touch" Cleric; most of your good debuffs are SoS/D spells, which means they do nothing when the enemy makes their save. No one likes watching their entire turn wasted because of a fizzled spell, and the game does not support strong ways to increase your save DCs.

•Healing - You *can* do this role, and you can do it pretty well. But as other have said already, "active healing" is a poor tactic, as killing the enemy faster is always the best way to prevent damage done. Healing up after combat with stupid-cheap wands will always be superior to preparing and/or converting spells into Cures.
Also, as others have said already, Life Oracles are much better at emergency heals than Clerics are. Much much better.

•Summoning - This is a pretty solid tactic, but you aren't great at it. It requires going through lots of specific hoops in order to get your Summons down to a Standard Action cast time, and even then, your list of potential summons is butchered by your alignment restrictions. A solid tactic that you are totally capable of doing, but is always done better by another class.

•Necromancy - Finally, the one thing you can do well. Very well! But you must channel negative energy instead of positive (already covered that this isn't what most people who want a Cleric in their group are looking for) and it can be very hard to deal with all that undeath following you around in role-play situations if you're not willing to totally hand-wave away the awkwardness it should (rightfully) bring to every situation.
Also, it can be expensive to boot.
Also, Oracles arguably do it better.
/headdesk


How do you feel about this exploit?
On the one hand, it's one of the few reliable ways to recharge Arcane Reservoir without resting.
On the other hand, this seems like a really *expensive* ability to use. Destroying single-use consumables for a single point. Eating up 5 whole charges from a wand? (That's 5 spells for one point! [rarely 2 points]).

Just can't decide if it's really worth it. Thoughts?


I feel like the OP was saying the GM complains when a player has AC higher than 18, or an ability that causes them annoyances (like negating crits).
Because the very next sentence starts with, "But as a DM, my minions..."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the problem with using tactics in Pathfinder: It's almost always the worse choice.

Debuffing? Why would you bother? There are some good, reliable debuffs in the game, but the large majority of them are going to be either terribly unreliable (poisons, for example) or spells that are SoL/D, and those have a tendency to just... fizzle.
Slow is an incredibly potent spell, but there is a reason most Wizards leave that one on the shelf and prepare Haste instead; Haste won't be saved against.

The typical argument against sunder is bad. Things aren't just destroyed when they're sundered - they're broken. Broken things are still valuable, but they don't work as well while they're broken.
Seems like a good idea, right?
Except the good argument against sunder is that it costs quite a bit of character investment to be reliable, and actually sundering a thing requires more than a single hit in most cases. Which means multiple rounds just to give a small penalty. Which means it's generally not worth it.

Tripping is very powerful, but most GMs are not going to spend their week stating out a bunch of humanoid NPC enemies for the party to fight (kudos to those GMs who are so dedicated!)
No, instead most GMs will turn to the trusty Bestiary which means monsters which tend to come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, sometimes with multiple legs.
It's a VERY uphill battle. Usually not worth the effort. (Yeah, it's nice that Mr. Lore Warden decided to be a tripper, but the gargantuan dragon just doesn't care.)

Grappling tends to have all the same problems that tripping does. If you play the class JUST RIGHT to be a grappler, you can pull it off. If you're just using it as a tactic, it's more than likely going to fail you most of the time.

Disarming only works when the enemy has things to disarm. Remember how most GMs pull from monsters? Monsters that tend to use natural attacks/spell-like abilities/etc instead of manufactured weapons?
Yeah, it's another losing strategy for the most part. (Great when it works, just hardly works.)

When it all comes down to it, the most successful strategy for any encounter is going to be, "buff up and beat it repeatedly."
It's a pretty boring and unimaginative playstyle, but that's how Pathfinder rolls. Unfortunately.


FoB is still "free" in the sense that it doesn't cost you a feat. It also allows for more freedom of attack choices than traditional TWF does. (Flurry - Hands are bound? No problem. TWF - Offhand was disarmed/sundered? Too bad, no more TWF for you.)


Why keep the Dex requirements? The style itself has enough built-in negatives that it's never really going to compete with 2H style, even with the additional feats like TWR.
I'd keep the initial Dex 13 requirement (mostly for flavor) and just forgo the higher Dex requirements.

To the initial question, combining the TWF line into a single, scaling feat is totally fine. Not broken at all. Heck, not even bent.


And if you do, how long do you manage before it gets tiring and campy?


PrinceRaven wrote:
We have been infiltrated by that most dreaded of monster, the D&D 5th ed. player! Beware, for this encounter has a high Challenge Rating and strange abilities... In all seriousness, being able to just pick up a Rapier with a high DEX character and use it without having to spend valuable resources to become competent at doing so is one of my favourite things about 5th edition, along with full caster Bards.

To be fair, I've felt this way long before 5th Edition was even announced.

But yes, I've been enjoying the heck out of it in 5th. ;D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't support this idea that the Cleric/Oracle spell list is as amazing as people are saying.
I just recently rolled with a Cleric and had constant issues picking spells to prepare:

•Most buff spells are overridden by magic item bonuses.
•Most buff spells come at such a slow progression that you're getting a VERY minor use out of them (ie: this spell grants a +3, which doesn't stack with his/her +2, so this 4th level spell only amounts to a +1... why did I bother again?)
•The powerful restorative and/or planar spells usually come with a hefty monetary cost.
•Most people never make it to the Miracle levels.

Granted, this is from the perspective of a good-aligned Cleric.
But even Bad Touch Clerics have their issues.
•Most spells are SoS/D which are awful when they fail.
•Spells that maintain an effect even on a failed save require an attack roll, usually melee, which you aren't awful at, but aren't great at either.

Which takes me into Battle Clerics, which really shouldn't exist anymore thanks to Warpriests getting rid of their traditional hurdle: buffing time.

It seems like the only really good Cleric options are Minion Necromancy (VERY niche and doesn't work well in many groups) or a Channel Specialist, which requires heavy feat investment, something you are weak on as a Cleric.
[Edit - Forgot to mention you get some good Divination stuff, but you still can't hold a candle to Wiz/Sor Divination options.]

tl;dr - I think Cleric would be WAY more fun if you play it in a game with very few/no magic items. But doing that on the Pathfinder chassis is SO problematic that it's largely not worth it.

1 to 50 of 1,512 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.