Robert Carter 58's page

Hey Kuma, I hear you. Bo9S isn't your thing.

Actually, for everyone, my group is playing Age of Worms, and our melee characters are pretty well balanced with one another, one is a Bo9S character (a Human Cleric/Crusader/Ruby Knight Vindicator), another is a Dwarf Rogue/Psionic Warrior, and another is a half-orc vow of poverty monk with the Dirty Fighting feat from 3.0 Sword and Fist who is pretty melee effective- I didn't think an effective monk could be done, but this guy did it, he pumped all his ability increases into con and has a ton of hit points, and decent AC.

It's a lot of splat books to make it all work, I admit, but none of the meleers feels like second class citizens compared to the casters. But the casters still do their thing, and do it well.

The problem of fighters being ineffective unless full attacking has been solved. It's called book of nine swords. Yes I know everyone hates it, and no it's not wuxia (at least not the warblade).

You can do a single move and do a strike that adds +x dice damage, plus another interesting effect. It's easily reflavored. "Claw at the Moon"- call it Leap Attack. "Rabid Bear Strike"? Call it Total Offensive Strike. "Pouncing Charge?" (which allows a full attack on a charge by the way)- call it Warrior's Death Charge. "Adamantine Hurricane"-call it Improved Whirlwind Attack. Just requires a little creativity. Spellcasters still have their niche, but a "Fighter" aka Warblade can move, and do a powerful single strike. It's worked beautifully in our campaign.

We also use the reserve feats from complete mage for our wizards, who can do a useful blast or whatever at will- still not as good of their spells, but they have a little juice to fight the peons when they don't want to blow their spells, and everyone's happy. It does require some system mastery, but I help my less rules savvy players build their PCs and it works.

Yeah, I don't get you guys. It's easy to make anything you want within the rules. Back in the old days (1st ed)a "Ranger" had druid and magic user spells, and could use big heavy armor and whatever. This stuff is all easy to accomplish with the 3.5 system. It's clunky and whatever, but the thing I like about it, is that if you know the system well, I can create whatever I want. An old school bard with druid magic? Done. A Ranger who uses heavy armor, and can cast druid and wizard spells.. sure! Maybe with a little tweaking and stuff, but it's all doable. 1st ed Ranger never made much sense, guys, I must say. Why in the world would he cast wizard spells... but he did!

The bard too... start off as a thief, learn fighting (but don't practice your thief skills for god sake as a fighter, or you won't gain XP!), then transition into Bard with Druidic spellcasting.

As far as avoiding the heal-bot route, in my party, I make them pony up the cash to make or buy a wand of cure moderate wounds- then I give the wand to the ranger. He can use it because it's on his spell list, and he's an archer type anyway- so he shoots or heals depending upon what's needed. My cleric also happens to be a melee monster, and unless its an emergency, my heals are for after the battle...unless I happen to be injured, LOL.

There is the Savant class from Dragon Magazine compendium that is basically a loremaster, they get a few spells, and some other nifty things- a little of arcane, a little of divine, based on their research. Not very powerful, but at least semi-effective. Might be worth a look-see.

Also, if you take the Knowledge Domain Feat (IIRC) from Complete Champion it gives you a plus to hit and damage against various creatures based on your ranks in knowledge (creature type) is. Such as Knowledge (arcana) vs. Dragons, etc.

Hey James, I dig it. You guys have to go where your passion is. I have been hearing a lot of cool things about Golarion on these message boards. If my group ever decides to change things up from our ongoing Greyhawk campaign (currently using Age of Worms) we'll likely give Golarion a shot.

Alkenstar- after reading this thread, that's a concept that would actually make me consider buying a product, especially since I could possibly plug it into my existing greyhawk campaign, with devotees of Murlynd, Greyhawk's own gun-slinging quasi-deity. I have actually not given Pathfinder any money (though I have bought various other paizo products!) and consider me a potential customer should Alkenstar be fleshed out a bit. I like the kind of societal upheaval, even on a micro-level (rather than a macro-level affecting the whole continent) that tech vs. Magic brings up. So, James, I for one hope you reconsider your position!

In Magic of Faerun, there are magic bracers that grant a bonus to unarmed strike, like a magic weapon. Maybe he can find one of these in your next adventure, and presto, problem solved. Maybe a +2 flaming (or holy, or whatever) well help even the odds. Yeah, he may have a bit more magic than some of the other PCs, but it shouldn't be a big problem.

My party is going through the Age of Worms AP, which has been a lot of fun. We are adventuring in Oerth. Our party consists of:

Gideon Ravenwing, Human Cleric of Wee Jas/Crusader/Inquisitor/Ruby Knight Vindicator
Paerhroc, Dwarf Rogue/Psion/Fighter
Nimby, Half-Orc Monk
Xrinn, Pixie Beguiler/Mindbender
Killian, Half-elf Ranger
Kam, Human Rogue/Fighter/Invisible Blade
Ignatious, Illuman Cleric of Boccob/Conjurer/Mystic Theurge

The players of the Dwarf and Half-orc switch off GMing, so one of those is always missing from the group as he leaves for a period of time. It's worked well so far. We are a little expermiental, allowing psionics, savage species race progression and book of nine swords material. The half-orc has vow of poverty, and stinks something fierce.

to satisfy any

I agree. Boccob is the "uncaring". If the PC is at least interested in learning and lore, and the preservation of magic, that's all good in Boccob's book, he doesn't seem to care for or need an outpouring of emotion and devotion to him. Boccob may have a purpose for the PC that he/she is not yet aware of, which could make for some interesting roleplaying if the PC sees signs that lead him to this purpose.

The only thing I have concern about is that the article says Kitsune are a 4E race. Why wouldn't they have 3E stats as well? That's the reason I purchase Kolbold Quarterly issues, so I can continue my 3E campaign. To be honest, I don't even use pathfinder, I have a library of 3.5 stuff my friends and I use, it works perfectly fine for us, and I'd just like to keep that rolling the way it is. With the various campaigns we have, we can play 3.5 for years without breaking a sweat.

-Bob

I've had a very good experience playing a BO9S character in the Age of Worms campaign. My PC is a 4th level cleric of Wee Jas/1st level Crusader/2nd level Inquisitor/2nd level Ruby knight Vindicator.

He works well, and is very versatile, but the Vow of Poverty using Half-Orc monk keeps up with him in combat (and constantly brags about his nymph lover, that he has via Nymph's Kiss feat- which is always good for a laugh)

The other party members include a Pixie Beguiler, a Dwarf Rogue/Fighter/Psion and a Human Rogue/Fighter/Invisibile Blade. We allow pretty much everything official WotC game books and the game is enjoyable and still tough. My PC died once (with level loss when he returned) and there have been several other character deaths and setbacks (the Dwarf was taken away and replaced with a doppleganer unknown to the party for several sessions).

What Bo9S did was allow melee to be a good option, even if a full attack isn't possible or likely. My GMs (two players take turn) use good tactics when playing intelligent monsters and everything plays out very well.

I also hear a lot of people saying BO9S is over powered, but I haven't found it to be the case. I can see how it can be, but folks in my group value story and versimillitude as just as much as combat and tactics.

Kozaka! Human Barbarian/Psychic Warrior. Liked to Bite things by using a psy war power to change his head into the likeness of a tiger. Would always comment on how his enemies tasted.

KaeYos,

I've read Tome of Battle, and use a character built on it. There is a common misconception that all TOB warriors have a mystical flavor to them. While the Crusader (divine inspired warrior) and the Swordsage (mystic warrior) do have mystical flavor, the Warblade does not at all. He's close to the fighter in flavor and concept, and they don't have access to mystical maneuvers, not without taking special feats to pick up maneuvers from the other classes. Just FYI.

-Bob

Let me ask, the folks who take the "fighter is lame" argument... would Pounce (i.e. full attack on a charge) as class ability or Fighter feat make the fighter more playable for you? Paizo could certainly do that if they like.

I also am not a fan of only being able to rain down destruction unless I full attack. But I also think being able to full attack and move my full movement all the time is a bit much. Now full attacking on a charge, which requires a few things going to work properly, seems to work okay for me. Makes the fighter's charge a scary thing to face, and properly dramatic as well. Although Dragonchess player's suggestion of adding damage to the charge may work as well.

What say you all?

That's just...weird. I may have to get some of these for my friends, LOL!

I wonder... I hesitate to enter such a heated debate without reading all the posts... but I wonder if there is a simple solution to some of this...

My group does not play Pathfinder, just to clarify, but we do allow anything that WoTC published, there's a lot of stuff for fighter types that Pathfinder could pinch and make par for the course, that would make a fighter work more like some of what others are looking for.

One example of this is in a Barbarian class feature in Complete Champion which basically gives Barbarians access to Pounce (i.e. full attack on a charge) at 1st level. Overpowered? I don't think so. Pathfinder could pinch this idea, make a fighter only feat, call it, oh I don't know, "Devastating Charge" or some such. To throw the other warrior classes a bone, maybe allow them to pick it up at X BAB. (I'd be of the mindset to make it the same as the fighter, but that's me). I do think that a warrior's charge should be actually frightening to a baddie, instead of "oh, I'll get a single hit at +2, whooptie do."

Maybe a few feats that do devastating "per encounter" hits, as a standard action would be nice as well. I'm curious as to how 3x develops, and Paizo is the only one still developing it. Though I'm here more to pick up some crap I can steal for my game, rather than going full boar into Pathfinder, as I like my Cleric of Wee Jas/Crusader/Inquistior/Ruby Knight Vindicator. Yes I like To9S, and it not every fighter is a wuxia type in it, but that's neither here nor there.

Cliff, Your suggestions sound interesting, but, maybe because I have a headache right now, seem a bit complicated. I'll have to take a closer look once my headache clears a bit.

What do people think of Bards having access to gain fighter only feats, though at 2 levels later than the fighter would have access to them?

And what about the expanded spell selection, I suggested. I'd probably call this "Bardic Spell Lore", and allow it at levels 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18- so they'd get 6 non-bard spells in total. The non-bard spell selected is considered one level higher for the bard, so Magic Missile, for example, would be a 2nd level spell for them. (The Bardic Spell lore they gain at 3rd would be a cantrip from another spell list and considered a 1st level spell for the Bard). Not too shabby, customizable, and non-game breaking, imho. Also fairly simple to incorporate, and I'm a fan of simplicity. Thoughts?

Another thought is, that if the Bard is truly supposed to be the "second best warrior".. which he clearly isn't, maybe though he should have access to fighter only feats, though 2 levels later than a fighter could get them. A 6th level bard with weapon specialization isn't going to break the game, and he'd still have to use his level based feats to get them. All of a sudden the bard has an option to gain some decent fighting ability, though he certainly won't outclass the fighter who has more feats, more hit points, and wears heavier armor.

In addition, I'd like to see a Bard who has, at a few points in his career "expanded spell knowledge", as a true jack of all trades, he might be able to pick up some spells from other classes. Say a bard gets this class feature at 4th level and every 4 levels there after.

Expanded Spell Knowledge: Choose a spell from any class list. This spell has to be of a level you can cast. Add this spell to your spells known. Even if this is a divine spell, for you it is an arcane version of this spell.

What this does is give the player some more options. One player's bard might choose Fireball (a nod to 2nd edition where bards were casting wizard spells) another might choose Entangle (a nod to 1st edition where Bards were closely connected to druids) and really gives a "Jack of all trades" feel to the character, still without overshadowing other classes. And they still have their specific niche as the performer/social/buffer PC. I actually really like these options for the bard. (As the Bard stands now, I find him unplayable.)

I will say this... I could play a Pathfinder cleric with splat book access for at least spells (just cause I find low level core cleric spells so dull). Some of the Pathfinder domain abilities give access to decent offensive capabilities, and I like Pathfinder's at will cantrip access.

Hey Skylancer, I don't consider myself a power gamer, but I do like for my PC to have power, so that I can do what I think my PC should be able to do.

I have a great many splat books, and I use them as I see fit, and usually don't hesitate. The Bo9S is powerful, to be sure, but not terribly so. It gives meleer's more options, that's for sure. My cleric could be best described as a warrior/cleric as I'm sacrificing a few caster levels, for the power boost of the manevuers and such.

My group just uses what we want, and we don't consider it abusive, so long as there is a legitmate reason for it in game. We have a dwarven rogue/psychic warrior who is potent in melee and recon, with a variety of fun abilities he uses, and stuff from Races of Stone (Earth Sense for recon, and he wears a psicrystal in his beard). Our Pixie Beguiler player is a fantastic trickster, though she pays the hit die cost of her race, and our half-elf ranger frequently uses the Hunter's Mercy spell from Spell Compedium/Magic of Faerun to practically get Auto-Crits a few times per day. Our halfling evoker/blood magus frequently uses Fiery Burst from Complete Mage as a standard magical attack. All of us are using splat books. I think core only there are just as powerful options, though their number is more limited, and I like the flexibility provided by the splatbooks.

I don't like 4th ed, flipped through the books and felt like I'd fall asleep, but with some of the late 3rd ed options, I feel like my party gets the best aspects of some of the 4th ed innovations, without sacrificing any of the greatness that is 3rd. You might think we are mopping up the opposition, but not so! We just fought the dopplegangers in the latest Age of Worms scenario, and got our asses kicked but good. We lost a PC, a henchman, and another PC was captured and tortured by the dopplegangers for days. When we recruited a few new PCs (as mercenary backups) those two characters bit it as well.

Back to cleric, I guess the other issue I have if I was just core, is that the first 6 levels or so of Cleric, would be boring as hell for me to play. No divine power yet, I get to go into melee and do a standard attack... whoo hoo! Pathfinder seems to help out with the healing/turning combo, I'm sure, but many spells would likely still be needed for healing, my attacks would suck, my skill points would be nothing spectacluar, and yeah maybe once a day or so I could get an interesting spell off... but even then I'd need spell compendium to get a cool one off. My current favorite spells for my PC are Summon Undead III (skeletal trolls have a lot of uses), Ring of Blades, Cloud of Knives, Ebon Eyes and Blade of Blood- from PH2 or Spell Compendium. I do my research and have all my fun spells at my fingertips, its a blast. The core spells bore me before we get to fourth level or higher, ugh!

Any cleric I would play would have to be somewhat splat book heavy, Pathfinder or no. When I was GM, I helped construct my group to be splat book friendly (within reason- my party wouldn't allow crazy multiple prestige classes that isn't feasible story wise.) so it's all good for us. The thing I like best about Pathfinder was their innovations to the skill point system, but I'm not sure if my group will be converting or not (due to backwards compatability, as we are using a lot of splatbooks!). I'll have to play around with a Pathfinder only cleric to see if there I could make one "playable" by my (admittedly subjective) criteria.

In general, I keep my eye on Pathfinder, to find things I can incorporate in my game without using the whole system. Several of the feats seem really nice, and I particularly like the revamped Paladin.

Skylancer- to answer your question as to whether I'd play a core only cleric: No. Not me.

A little background:
My gamer group had a cleric player, but then he moved to Utah. So we kept his PC around as an NPC to have the healing, but the GM got annoyed with it. We passed that cleric around between the players like a two dollar hooker. (BTW, I was the former GM for this particular group, then we ended my campaign, and I decided not to run this new campaign: Age of Worms)

So, one day when bored, I said to myself- is it possible for me to create a cleric that I would have fun with (i.e. is proactive)? And the answer is Yes- but I needed to use Bo9S, Complete Champion and Complete Divine to do it. My cleric needed to be good in battle as well, since the PC I was replacing was the party's warrior, and the new Cleric/Crusader/Inquisitor was able to fill both roles adequately. The GMs knew that I wouldn't abuse Bo9S material, I abide by the spirit of the fluff. As GM I would never allow a PC to spar with another PC and get healing, so I wouldn't even try that kind of nonsense. It doesn't fit the spirit of the stance, and I'm a stickler for that kind of thing! Though I can totally see other players pulling that kind of garbage.

Hello all, my post about my Cleric/Crusader (from Bo9S)/Inquisitor seems to have gotten some comments, lets see if I can respond.

As far as keeping a troll in a sack to provide healing, the opponent has to provide a legitmate threat- the fluff describes it as inspiring myself or others when I land a blow, empowering them to last longer in battle (i.e. more hit points). So troll in a sack doesn't work!

We don't actually use Pathfinder, I'm curious about the system and have looked it over, but the backwards compatability thing seems to have some glitches. We have Psionic PCs in our party, and a Pixie Beguiler, so switching over might be problematic.

As far as playing a straight pathfinder cleric, it would be difficult because I like to be proactive rather than having a primarily support role. I could see playing a negative energy channeller with Tomb-Tainted Soul feat from libris mortis. I could heal myself with negative energy, and blast away, and if the others are lucky maybe I'd prepare a cure spell every now and then and favor them with my touch. Maybe.

I generally HATE playing clerics, but I'm playing one that is palatable to me in my current group. I understand that many people hate Tome of Battle, but I have a Cleric of Wee Jas 4/Crusader 1/Church Inquisitor 1 which has been the bomb.

Crusader strikes and stances let me do some in combat healing, and I have a stance lets me heal 2 hp every time I land a blow. I also took the Healing Touch feat from Complete Champion- it's a reserve feat that allows me to heal by touch, without expending a spell, a certain number of hp up to half the character's max hp. I do that after the battle though. So I can still cast most of my spells the way I choose, and get a good amount of healing in there, without feeling like a heal-bot.

I also traded out the Inquisitor domain for a Domain feat from Complete Champion which lets me excel in combat- its the Knowledge Domain feat- which gives me pluses to hit and damage based upon the ranks I have in knowledge skills about that particular creature. Which is legal according to Complete Champion. With those options, I am doing substantial damage in combat but still fulfilling my clerical role. I plan on taking this PC into Ruby Knight Vindicator upon 8th level, which will continue my spell casting, allowing me to heal well, and give me more maneuvers and stances to excel in battle.

I just had an interesting notion.. I hadn't thought of this before, but I think that its OK if the Paladin's class abilities are a bit stronger than the fighters, and here's why: The Paladin is balanced in Pathfinder because he needs both Strength and Charisma. The fighter only needs Str and Cha is a dump stat. What this means is that the fighters 2nd and 3rd highest ability scores will generally go to Con or Dex, while the Pally's third highest score may go to Con or Dex. So MAD is a part of the design balance of the Paladin, and it's okay for a little power creep to set into the Paladin, not much, but a little.

Rather than smite for +1d6 per 2 levels vs. undead and evil outsiders, how about just +1d4 per level? And I also agree with DR 10/- , otherwise it's not a very good benefit. With those changes, I think the paladin is pretty rocking, but still not overpowering fighter or barbarian.

I'm also for throwing mettle in there, it's an ability that will see only a small amount of use, but it does feel pretty "paladiny" if you will.

And as far as another posters concerns about limiting the enhanced smite to undead and evil outsiders, it would be simplicity itself to create a "Dragon Slayer" feat, for example, that uses the enhanced version of the smite against dragons to create specialized paladins. Which is actually pretty cool.

I might actually forego the divine weapon bond option, and even the proposed deflection bonus, for the reliable smiting, reliable damage reduction, and feat options to use the improved smite vs. specialized enemies. The lay on hands as a swift action for themselves is very nice, however.

Maybe there is a simple solution. It seems Paizo Domain rules boost the power of the cleric, encouraging continued single class progression. I get that. But wholesale changing the domains does really screw up backwards compatability. So... A suggestion. Paizo could easily do a plug in system where the Cleric gains a bonus feat related to Domains at levels- lets say 4, 8, 12, etc. These bonus domain feats would have a prerequisite of say Sun Domain, and could grant additonal powers or abiliites to the clerics, and encourage them to stay with the class if the feats are good. We could call them Domain Feats or some such. Otherwise the granted power and bonus spells of the domains stay the same. The DM may have to do some work if a Cleric with say the Domination feat wanted to continue from 1st to 20th, but its less work than the alternative.