|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
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.
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.
Lava Child wrote:
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.
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.
And, generally speaking, the OP is on the right page.
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.
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.
But, I do have a question! Imagine this hypothetical if you would:
(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?)
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.
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
8) Taking control of characters away from players.
7) "Required items."
6) The perception skill.
5) Stuff you can't fix.
4) Required magic items.
3) Monsters with debilitating abilities on every attack.
2)"Save or suck"/1) Save or die.
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.
This person gets it.
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?
Clerics of Healing/Protection are easy to prepare spells for.
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.
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:
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?
Any FAQ hits are appreciated. :)
So the Whirling Dervish idea absolutely don't work unless you ignore RAW in your home game.
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.
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?
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:
-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.)
Reebo Kesh wrote:
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.
I should clarify that I don't think Clerics are a *bad* class (the only bad classes, IMO, are Fighters, Monks, and Rogues).
Divine Self-Buffer? Paladin, Inquisitor, and Warpriest are all superior to Cleric.
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").
•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.
•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.
•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.
How do you feel about this exploit?
Just can't decide if it's really worth it. Thoughts?
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.
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.
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!)
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?
When it all comes down to it, the most successful strategy for any encounter is going to be, "buff up and beat it repeatedly."
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.
To the initial question, combining the TWF line into a single, scaling feat is totally fine. Not broken at all. Heck, not even bent.
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
I can't support this idea that the Cleric/Oracle spell list is as amazing as people are saying.
•Most buff spells are overridden by magic item bonuses.
Granted, this is from the perspective of a good-aligned Cleric.
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.
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.