|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
This large, floating lump, on closer inspection is seen to be a grisly tangle of rusty chains flecked with old blood, and drooping with wicked blades of all shapes. Suddenly, the chains extend into a menacing cloud, and the air fills with the shriek of metal on metal.
The animated lumps of chains called chain rends are creatures designed to help the kytons inflict their pain on an unsuspecting world.
Elsa has cryokinesis. Or is homosexual. Or has brain damage of esoteric kinds. Or anything else, it seems. But it STILL doesn't make for a good story that she finally throws off the rules handed to her only to become a weepy wreck and do exactly nothing sensible from then on.
I just realized why I think Frozen is wonky. Two things stand out.
First, their childhood seems to be them sitting in their respective rooms forever. This is obviously idiotic.
Second, Elsa goes all GIRL POWAH (or at least ME POWAH) when she builds the ice castle. Let it go. Then as soon as anyone comes to visit, she goes all weepy and awful again. And doesn't really do anything to improve on this.
I apologize for calling them demented. English is not my first language, and it shows sometimes. That said, if you do not have a non-insulting adjective for "with dementia", you should get one. "Dement" in swedish is one.
But yes. I would consider a fifty-year-old with frontal lobe dementia a prime candidate for not getting to vote due to being mentally incapable. It takes far more than poor impulse control to get that diagnosis. Poor impulse control is something many people are born with, so that is not the issue. Frontal lobe dementia wrecks your entire personality. You lose insight, understanding, social skill, judgement, and oh so many other things. Such a person not voting would improve the democratic process. A certain level of progression is needed, of course, but someone who has the diagnosis already is pretty far gone. It sadly always seems to work out that way.
But it seems you missed the last part of what I wrote: It isn't worth it. The idea of stripping people of their vote is dangerous beyond anything someone mentally incapable voting could ever be. I find, for example, that I have very little sympathy for democracies that strip convicted criminals of their vote.
Age-related issues are thorny. Always will be. It stands to some sort of reason that a man of 96 probably should not have the same political influence as someone who is 20 - they aren't likely to stay around for long after the vote. In many countries, we have had old people dictating the conditions of pensions and such to a level that they get great pensions and everyone has to pay for them, while eventually the system collapses and then the younger people have to pay for their own pensions after having paid for the older peoples'. Sweden is a prime example of this. Fair? Not really. Nor will it get better with an aging population all across the West.
It is also obvious that demented people should probably not have political influence at all. In some places, convicted criminals are not allowed to vote. In others, immigrants get to vote before citizenship in general elections. It is not clear-cut what should be in this issue.
Finally, age also brings a discussion about the beginning of the right to vote. Eighteen is common, but so is sixteen. Many sixteen-year-olds are perfectly capable of understanding what they need to vote. Many forty-year-olds are not.
But... democracy is a sensitive beast. One man, one vote has been the best we could figure out. In the end, the right to strip someone of the vote is a very dangerous tool, and would be wielded with verve and cruelty. All the above, while real problems with democracy as it is, is really less important than a simple framework.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
No, that would be problematic. But the fact remains - if the UK is not going to be in the EU, it will need other allies. The Commonwealth nations would be an easy way to start up. Or else, of course, the UK could dig a hole for itself and suffer for the rejection from the EU?
Was there a point? Really? I heard it was best described as the chalk outline around the corpse of the British Empire.
But the structure is there. The other members are strong, interesting countries, many of them needing a little push to take their role on the world stage. It would probably not be impossible to make it something worthwhile. I have no idea really, of course.
Okay, time to make that shark.
This creature looks like a black furless and tailless hound of impressive size, but it has obscenely powerful jaws filled with serrated teeth. Its nose is a mere bulb, and its eyes are tiny. Instead of ears, it has a series of rifts behind the eyes. It is clearly built for speed, and for murder.
It loses the aquatic subtype, keen scent is replaced by scent, its swim speed is replaced by a land speed of 60', and it gets an intelligence of 3. Its swim skill is replaced by survival.
The slaughterwail is a terrifying predator. It lives in open areas, preferably with little high vegetation. Normally a pack hunter, it can follow prey for miles until it is isolated, or weakened enough to take down easily. Slaughterwails also coordinate their attacks with brutal efficiency through grinding, horrifying wails.
(Making the shark a land creature makes for a horrifying monster. Which shouldn't come as a surprise...)
The brits are a strong people. It wouldn't surprise me if they fired up the old Commonwealth again, now that communications are far easier. It may just be a good idea too. If the EU won't give them decent terms in some misguided idea of punishment, they will go it themselves. Sure, it will be tough, but they have been through bad times before. London is what London is whether in the EU or not.
We'll see what happens. There is too much propaganda buzz to make a sound judgement.
But, interestingly enough, Britain leaving the EU will have gotten us one concrete step closer to the world map of 1984, won't it?
Well, congrats, UK. And EU. It will be very interesting to see where this goes. It's going to hit the UK hard, that's for certain. It will also probably dump the EU in a bad place. The UK has been a good part of it. The open question is if anyone in the EU will hear the message: Don't try to shift power from the national parliaments to the EU. So many in the EU joined a free trade union - and got an overbearing political union.
Before the Lisbon treaty, there was referendum after referendum saying no to further EU integration. The treaty shut down that option, giving the union the right to integrate without local consent.
On balance, the EU is probably a good thing. But it gives rise to some 50-80% of national laws, making it very questionable in democratic terms. It can come as no surprise that this was not going to be popular. I believe this result could have been avoided, but most did not see the danger, and many who did didn't care. It is a poor way to make policy.
Unless the EU starts listening to the message sent, expect more to follow.
Brilliantly. Thank you.
My interpretation is that the tier 1 class needs to be able to outshine any of the specialists a significant part of the time, as time is typically spent when playing PF. Which is not, I might add, naval combat. Divine favor doesn't get you more hp. It doesn't do jack for your AC. It only adds minimally to your damage. So, how does that make a cleric outshine a martial? No, you need more. Either more buffs (which will take time to come online), or other resources like feats or archetypes etc. I.e. stuff that isn't easily changed.
And no, proving that they "can function in melee at all" is far from the mark.
Again, which divination spells? Augury gets you "weal or woe". Divination gets you "yes, no or a cryptic phrase". Are you suggesting we go up to vision? See, clerics don't get clairaudience/clairvoyance. Weal or woe is definitely not good for specifics, same with yes/no/cryptic phrases.
And Skull and Shackles? Really? Well, in the rest of PF canon, ship to ship combat is exceedingly rare. Perhaps clerics are tier 1 in Skull and Shackles? Just like anyone able to go nova will have a brilliant time in Kingmaker's hex crawl?
Scry and fry is a valid tactic. Sadly, it is also one made largely impossible in most adventures written for PF.
So, given the definition of "able to do everything, often better than the specialists", a cleric can be tier 1 even if getting them equal fighting prowess to a fighter through buffs takes long enough that the fight is over when they have buffed?
Interesting idea, Orfamay. Interesting idea.
Or maybe "able to do everything" doesn't extend to melee?
The tactics suggested were all heavily dependent on feats, archetypes or (worst) several rounds of buffing. Why should I need to play up that?
Buffing is a complicated option in general. You can do it, you can get some mileage from it, but if someone is actually trying to beat a martial class in melee, you need to buff up seriously. That costs rounds and spell slots.
The rounds it takes are rounds you do not otherwise contribute to the battle. This shoots your action economy to hell. Tactically, the contribution you make on round 1 always matters more than what you do later. On average, combat lasts maybe three turns.
Your buffs expire. As soon as the GM says "fifteen minutes later", it is time to start buffing again before the next combat happens.
The spell slots are not a trivial cost, either. Each buff is a slot you could have been using for whatever else. Divination spells have been suggested. Sure, you have spell slots, but it is not the cornucopia that has been described in this thread.
Which of my arguments were inconsistent?
These guys have been harping about how clerics don't need to specialize in any way to be awesome at whatever they like. See, their spell list lets them do anything and be anything. When I tell them clerics can't do that, at least not as they are now, they said I was arguing in bad faith.
** spoiler omitted **...
I absolutely couldn't have said it better myself. A cleric needs feats and rounds buffing to equal the specialists in melee and ranged. Summoning works, but only well if you invest in it, perhaps even going so far as to CHOOSE AN ARCHETYPE THAT GIVES UP ALL HOPE OF MELEEING. And yes, clerics CAN help out in other areas even if they can approach or even match the specialists in their chosen field.
I love playing clerics. It's just that the cleric class has become far more balanced than you guys think.
Honestly, drop the burning and just use Desecrate to cancel the doubling from bloody, and you'd get some plenty good few minions in no time, that almost can't be lost. There, no investment past the gold expenditure (and by mid levels it won't compare to equipment costs). Spend a mere one feat (Command undead) if you enjoy them enough to want another.
Sounds like a better idea, yes. And by mid levels, of course, the skeleton with 20 HD is a CR 8 creature. Sure, they have fast healing. Sure, you can get them back. But is that going to worry a CR 15 creature? Ultimately, skeletons are like channeling, a tactic that won't scale well. And as you say, this is another tactic that comes into its own with a bit of feat investment...
Denmark, known in Sweden for a very liberal view of alcohol, possibly unfairly so, has a Health authority that suggests the following:
A man who drinks more than 21 glasses of alcohol, 14 for women, per week, probably has alcohol issues.
I find these numbers ridiculously high, of course, but it's a hint of some kind.
The good news is that if you stop drinking, your body will get itself into shape pretty well over a few months, and so many of its systems will be well calibrated again. Stuff that didn't work properly in metabolism, neurologic activity, coordination, and so on.
...which is what the description of tier 1 linked Before actually said. "Able to do everything, often better than people specialized in it". That is a sodding tall order. And yet, it WAS possible in 3.5. That things have changed now did nothing for the definition of tier 1, did it?
Or if it did... does tier 1 now mean "With heavy investment in non-changeable resources like feats, the class is able to match specialists in one particular area, and still be able to contribute on some level in other areas"? Sure, I can buy that. If so, cleric would be a poster child for tier 1.
If you go by the definition linked earlier, then it probably doesn't anymore, no. I maintain that the closest you will get is with a wizard, possibly some archetype of it.
The problem with summoning something that is Amazing at melee is something I have gone through too many times here already. With the feats, you can. Without them, don't even try. By the level you get the creatures, they will not really make a significant contribution to the fight. Such as the aforementioned CR 4 hound archon, which you can summon as a lvl 7 cleric.
Four feats, yes. All the feats you get until level 7. Do you know why Power attack and Combat reflexes are in there? Because it's a way to get at least some combat capability for a relatively small feat investment. I mean, your BAB remains what it is, so Power attack isn't going to be all that fun after a few levels, and you have no better hit Points to match the damage you will take as a meleer, but you can at least do some damage if someone provokes an AoO. It helps your action economy a bit.
Minimum wisdom would mean 13, right? Animate dead is a 3rd level spell. That is all well and good... but how is your save DC coming along? Yes, SF (necromancy) helps. But you have put yourself in a situation where your plane shifts probably won't send off very many monsters. And in Exchange, you have combat ability that CERTAINLY isn't going to win you any prizes.
Oh, indeed. It is possible to make those. It is not clear if you can have both templates, but if you can, that is four times the cost in HD. So, a tenth level cleric animating a burning, bloody skeleton could animate twenty HD, divided by four, which is five hit dice. It is then normal when counting control, meaning the cleric can have eight of them. Note that each of these then has 33 hp, using the higher charisma of the two templates. I sincerely doubt that will be more than a bother in a fight between two groups at EL 10, let alone the EL 14 the level 10 group will be expected to encounter. Yes, very embarrassing.
A few good burning bloody skeletons do make a good replacement for the frontliners, and clerics make the best necromancer as far as I can see, so I think they've got that covered. (Well, in neutral-to-evil parties at least, depending.)
Considering that bloody skeletons are CR 1/2, and burning skeletons are CR 1/2, I doubt the skeleton, even if a bigger skeleton, will be able to replace a frontline fighter.
Because there was a tier 1 in 3.5. Things CHANGED with PF, you know?
A wizard needs Intelligence, as much of it as early as possible, all the time. So long as that save DC is ahead of the curve, and his ability to overcome spell resistance is up to specs, the wizard can be confident that everything he does will be pretty much awesome. A standard loadout of the most powerful and versatile spells means he can do pretty much everything. He will outdamage the fighter, he will outsneak the thief, in short, pretty much everything except heal. Feats and equipment give him options BEYOND this. The cleric has to choose, and needs to specialize to be awesome.
You have to be able to do everything, and often better than the specialists at it. That was the definition touted. Clerics can't do that, since they require too much guesswork in preparing them. The ability to respec doesn't matter if you don't have the time needed to do so, nor the action economy. A cleric can become a great meleer, a great summoner, a decent blaster, and so on - but they need to invest (primarily in feats) to get there, and that specialization doesn't change once taken. The description of why clerics in 3.5 were tier 1 depended on stuff that did not transition - and let them, yes, be huge in melee, blasting, summoning and everything else AT THE SAME TIME.
A wizard is as close to tier 1 as anyone will get. The party hangs on your actions. If you want to do something, you can find a way to do it even with a pretty rough complement of spells. The feeling is entirely different from playing a cleric.
Well Sissyl... According to your argument no one is tier 1, since there's always the possibility of picking the wrong spell. That's a sign you either misundertand the tier system or, more likely, is beinv intentionally obtuse for some reason... Maybe you don't lime seeing a class you like being called overpowered?
I have played enough wizards to know what a tier 1 class is. And no, I know a cleric can be massively powerful, but as I have repeatedly said, that requires them to focus. I don't mind anyone saying clerics are powerful, I mind them basing that on doubtful information and making it a buzzword. I also mind people saying I am intentionally obtuse.
Saying he won't always have "the perfect spell" is also disingenuous. Rarely, if ever, a caster need the perfect spell... Often times all you need is a good enough spell, and that's far easier to have prepared...Indeed. But with that comes a loss of power, wouldn't you agree. A good enough spell is not as good as the perfect spell, I would think that is obvious.
You don't have Air Walk prepared... But you can summon a monster to carry you where you want. You don't have Purge Invisibility, but you have Dispel Magic. You didn't prepare Freedom of Movement, but have Liberating Command... Maybe you don't need to go to another plane today... But you can still use Plane Shift as a SoD effrct... And so on.
Dispel magic is one of the spells that usually makes it into the prepared list. It still requires a caster level check, and you often meet casters more powerful than you, giving you a less than 50% to succeed. Plane shift, again. requires getting up close and without a maxed out save DC, often doesn't help at all. And yes, freedom of movement is great - if you go underwater, or fight something that grapples etc. Otherwise, it is dead in your list, and could be used to cure serious wounds at best.
Not to mention there are spells that are incredibly versatile and/or so useful that they'll rarely go unspent. Summon Monster alone add grest versatility to a character (No. You don't need a whole build to make SM good). Stone Shape, Dispel Magic and all of Stone are other spell that can be prepared every day with little risk of not being useful. Freedom of Movement and Air Walk last a long time and not only are amazingly useful in combat, but also give the character the ability to deal with countless out-of-combat obstacles. Animate Dead has permanent effects...
No, SM can be useful. You can send your celestial dire badger into what you believe is a trap. That is always useful. If you want them for combat, please tell me how a CR 4 (with SM 4, CL 7) or 1d3 CR 3 creatures will effectively impact a battle appropriate for a level 7 party, i.e. against an encounter EL 7-11? With std action summoning, Augmented Summoning and Superior Summoning, sure. Without them, don't bother. I suppose I don't see the sheer power you do in Wall of stone, but I admit it can be useful at times.
And PC usually have at least an idea of what they'll be fighting that day... They aren't randomly teported to completely unknown scenarios.
They might. In my experience, the unknown opponents outnumber the known. The first real chance you have to learn about them is when you're in physical proximity. At that point, sure, take your fifteen minutes to respec. I am sure your party will manage 150 rounds without you. Augury, Divination and whatnot gets you yes/no answers or cryptic hints (yaaaaay) at best. So, at a cost of 1 spell slot each, how many such questions do you put? But, perhaps this is a GM style issue. What I do know is that as soon as the boxed text in a scenario ends with "they draw their weapons and attack", you're hosed.
The only "specialization" a Cleric needs is a little Str or Dex and taking a few combat feats like any other character if they want to be warriors... But even without that they can use Guided Aeapons, summons and/or undead minions to effectively fulfill the front-liner role... Even if they aren't the ones swinging the sword.
As a cleric, you have NO class options beyond medium armor that boost your melee capability. Depending on your definition of "want to be warriors", I would argue they need quite a bit more than "a little Str or Dex and taking a few combat feats". A guided weapon lets you hit better, but doesn't give you wis to damage, resulting in your standard 1d8+2 or so, which generally fails to be impressive at level 3 or so. Summons, we have already discussed. Undead minions... well, I don't know what to tell you if you believe zombies are any sort of good solution for front-line fighting.
As written, channel energy stinks. Sure, it's great healing at low levels, but it scales terribly. Taking the feats to improve it only makes sense in a campaign that lasts only for low levels.
Yes, they can change the spells they carry. People make MUCH of this. Yes, if a player knew what would happen, say, if they read the adventure beforehand, this would be an unbeatable advantage.
But if you don't, other mechanisms enter into it. You have a very finite number of spells per day, particularly at low levels. Due to action economy, only the highest few levels are really relevant in combat. As you guys have repeatedly stated: Clerics have spells useful in combat. They have spells useful before combat. They have spells for divining the future. They have spells for generic problem solving (such as the mighty water breathing...) They even have the option of leaving spell slots open, so they can sort-of respec given 15 minutes.
In other discussions, there is a term called Schroedinger's wizard. Whatever the situation, such a wizard always has exactly the right spell prepared, no matter how obscure. The Schroedinger's cleric is, naturally, utterly tier 1.
By the same token, the cleric is not going to have the perfect spell for every situation, as it happens. In fact, all those divinations are going to cost a significant number of slots (and at best it gives you yes/no/cryptic phrase answers). EACH COMBAT is going to cost a significant number of buffs, plus of course the spells used IN combat. And... if you do leave spell slots open, which IS a powerful option, those slots are slots you don't even have accessible in combat. It isn't something you can do a lot of, except for slots significantly lower than your higest, without losing a large part of your combat staying power.
Sure, not every problem is thrown right at you. Every now and then you get one of the two scenes that give you the option of resting those 15 minutes: Travel montages and research episodes. Take a look at the module of your choice. Is there, really, a significant number of scenes that do allow you to take 15 minutes off? I would say that in general, no, there is not. Most published modules put you in action scene after action scene, combat or not. And if they do, and your cleric needs to buff, you will need to cast those spells again to have them on if combat happens.
Given this... I find it to be arguing in bad faith that clerics are so hugely powerful because they can respec. Yes, to some degree they can. But for most people playing clerics, the situation remains: You choose a standard complement of spells, possibly with a few slots open and most of them at a lower level, and you focus on what you want to do. You will not be able to know everything that will happen to you, not even close, even if you use a lot of divination spells. You certainly can't do that, buff yourself, buff others, heal, condition removal, general problem solving, in-combat spellcasting and have open slots with the slots available. Add to this the simple fact that action economy doesn't really let you do all of this at once either.
So, I still don't see that the cleric spell list is going to let you compensate for a lack of focus. Not without a specific type of scenario where you get long stretches of time to respec at will, or a very 15 minute day.
Addiction is a complex beast. The basics are: When you drink too much, you start needing more eventually. Part of it is that your body learns to handle more alcohol, but your brain also produces more receptors for it. When you quit, all those receptors are what gives you the urge to drink - you get anxiety if you don't. After a few weeks or months, this stops. The receptors are hidden away, but they remain. They always do.
And they stay away, until you next get in contact with alcohol. The truly sad part here is that the mechanism is extremely sensitive. As little as the SMELL of alcohol could potentially trigger all the receptors coming back online. See, since alcohol is a low-weight liquid at room temperature, there are clouds of it everywhere people drink, and it always smells. And if you do smell enough of it, or if you take a drink, you WILL end up exactly where you were before you quit last time.
So, the only way to be safe is not to be even close to it.
The compassionate part of the message is that it's biochemical. It doesn't happen because you're a weak or bad person. Alcohol addiction is a medical condition.