T'Challa's page

Similarly, this feels you are putting too much mechanics weight onto the 'pistol' part of the feat name.

If it was supposed to only work with firearms in addition to melee weapons, then the feat could easily say that instead. But it says 'ranged attacks'. The shortbow should benefit. So would a ranged unarmed attack like Leshy Seedpod.

It's more that the feat is granted by a dedication which requires you to be trained in a 1 handed firearm, not a 1 handed ranged weapon. All of the archetype feats except Trick Shot (which comes from other archetypes) requires a firearm. It feels like an assumption was made when Pistol Twirl, which sounds like it's naturally about pistols, was carried over from Bullet Dancer.

The archetype was also made at a time when there was no Gauntlet Bow. Until TV came out, this wasn't possible.

I was having a friendly discussion today with a stranger on Reddit. His build for a ranged rogue was a scoundrel using Pistol Twirl from the Pistol Phenom dedication while wielding a Gauntlet Bow and a shortbow.

Would you allow a Gauntlet Bow to trigger Pistol Twirl? Can it even be twirled? I'd assume it was locked in one orientation on the gauntlet, otherwise it would spin on you when you were trying to fire it, or require a 2nd hand to lock the position/steady it.

Would you also allow a shortbow (not a loaded, 1-handed firearm) to benefit from "the foe is flat-footed against your melee and ranged attacks, rather than only your melee attacks." benefit of Pistol Twirl? This to me feels like it violates the spirit of a feat/dedication based on firearms/crossbows.

Do you stop wielding the gauntlet bow as soon as you use that hand to nock an arrow? I ask since the Free-Hand trait says "When you're not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand."

As I said, it was a friendly discussion. I'm not trying to "win the argument". I'm just wondering if I should change my outlook on the subject, or a ruling if I was GMing for a player who wanted to do this to build a ranged Rogue.

Storm Giant has an obscenely high attack modifier for rock throwing. It's +10 over their melee attack and 10 higher than other creatures of their level. It's on par with level 20 creatures to hit modifier, even though they are level 13 creatures. I'm sure it's a typo, but in the mean time they will likely hit/crit above level foes on their 3rd attack, and almost always critically hit on the first or second attack when throwing rocks.

While mentioned several years ago in the Typos/Mistakes of 2nd edition thread, there was never an errata for the Bestiary 1 which would address this first printing mistake. I hope this has been addressed in the Monster Core book, but in the mean time can this be added to FAQ so Archives of Nethys can be updated?

Agree.

This is the general principle. It needs to be explicit if it is going to inherit.

That would be my initial stance as well, but a LOT of people seem to want it to apply. Unfortunately designers can't anticipate every way we attempt to use language/mechanics.

If it catches fire (pun intended), I suspect this may become another Focus Pool disagreement.

Fire Gate-Aura Junction: Enemies in your kinetic aura gain weakness to fire from your fire impulses. The weakness is equal to half your level (minimum weakness 1).

Kindle Inner Flame (KIF): As a candle can light another, you awaken the latent potential to channel fire in other creatures. You shed faint, glowing embers, as do your allies while they're in your kinetic aura. Anyone shedding these embers gains a +1 status bonus to Reflex saves and Acrobatics checks and can Step as a free action once per round. When an affected creature takes a move action, its Strikes deal an extra 2 fire damage until the end of its turn.

Does passively generated damage trigger the aura's weakness?

I'm already seeing people on Reddit adopting the assumption that the fire damage from ally strikes benefiting from KIF will trigger the Aura Junction weakness to impulse generated fire. I understand the reasoning "the impulse initiated the fire damage, therefore it triggers the weakness aura", but that is counter to the strike being the cause of any damage. The level 12 heightened effect even removes the bonus fire, and grants the flaming rune instead. Would that still be "impulse generated damage", or is that a bog-standard flaming rune? Does/should any of that ally strike generated bonus fire damage trigger the aura's weakness to your impulses?

Despite what it seems, Crafter's Appraisal isn't a feat tax. It's a skill compression feat. If you want to be able to identify items, but don't want to keep pumping Recall Knowledge skills, then a Legendary Crafting PC is as good or better at ID for magic items. They don't have to raise up Arcana, Occultism, Religion AND Nature to cover those rare items which are skill traits instead of "Magical". It's similar to Unified Theory in Arcana or Chirugeon's research field benefit.

The short answer is lots of people have firm stances on both sides of the issue, yet Paizo doesn't think it's FAQ worthy. That could suggest they don't care about the matter, or they think the answer should be obvious (which it isn't to some people clearly).

My own personal suggestion is don't setup situations where taking feats in different orders gives you a different total amount. Just give the PC the same number of points, because they can retrain it (wasting their time) if you decide to fall on the side of Healing Hands doesn't give you a FP if you already have a pool.

Thanks for the replies

Are Skeleton (ancestry) PCs eligible for versatile heritages? It seems so weird to me that someone stripped of their flesh could still be a half-orc or Dhampir, even though they aren't a human/orc or Vampire/Mortal any more.

They were probably referring to the How It's Played ask a designer video on shoving or tripping while prone. The point made by Mark Seifter was that the attack penalty from being prone doesn't apply to maneuver checks that are skill checks because penalties to attack rolls only apply to attack rolls, not skill actions with the attack trait.

This just plain doesn't work, Familiars aren't able to use potions or alchemical items because they do not have the Companion Trait.

Furthermore, it also goes onto specify that animals can NEVER "Activate Items" in a manner that suggests is should even override GM discretion. I suppose if you have a Leshy Familiar or another type that's NOT an animal you can bypass that part but it doesn't help regardless due to the lack of the Companion Trait.

This would need a whole new Familiar Ability that carves our exceptions for this but that's homebrew territory, though it would be pretty easy to write up and I see NOTHING wrong with making an option for a player in a home game. Beyond that, it's not even ambiguous in this case, RAW does not permit this.

Nothing except Rule 0 and safety of the players would override GM discretion. If they want animals to activate items, so be it. Keep in mind that unless I am mistaken, the section you quoted is for Worn items. Does it apply to ALL items, or just worn magic items? That makes it ambiguous. Plenty of animals can activate objects through pushing buttons or using levers and pulleys.

If you want to get into house rules to fill in the gaps, there is nothing wrong with allowing an animal to drink an elixir, especially if poured in a bowl. There are plenty of unmodified animals (primates for certain) who could be trained to remove a stopper and drink or pour an elixir out, instead of doing it for them. However, it would likely be too complicated of an activity to have an animal retrieve a vial and pour it down another creatures throat. Oils would be the most reasonable consumable for a familiar or other animal to "activate" if someone wanted to see that happen.

my group came to the agreement that it does add the int bonus to the heal because healing spells deal positive damage, which heals living and damages undead.

when you throw a cure light wounds bomb it does 1d8+cl positive damage to everyone in the radius. just because living people are healed by it doesn't negate the fact is is positive energy damage.

Your group is welcome to come to whatever conclusion makes them happier, but that is decidedly NOT how it works.

Cure light wounds:

When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

Cure spells channel positive energy that restores hit points. They do NOT deal positive damage in order to heal living targets.

Yes, the two spell effects can work together.

I can see the advantage but if the target is the caster himself, I'd ask WHY? HTH Combat isn't a caster's thing and will only allow enemies to physically attack their low hit point total... It is good for touch attacks, particularly on your allies. Spectral Hand is probably better for adding range to touch attack enemies.
A specialized shapeshifting (brown fur) transmuter might use this for better reach.

Magus would be the ones most likely to want these effects.

Yes, the wording of Negative Healing is asymmetric.

It seems most positive/negative spells check to see if you're undead or living before determining the effect, so Dhampir trigger as living to no consequence because of their immunities. Except for negative healing.
It's weird.

Here's the breakdown of the phrasing:

-Damaged by positive damage: In play, these abilities/spells/effects seem to require being undead so won't trigger because a Dhampir's not.

Spirit Barbarian will have full effect with positive damage vs a Dhampir. Likewise creatures that deal negative damage like ghosts will do nothing to Dhampirs.

I don't know why they couldn't have just said "Dhampirs are treated as undead for targeting of positive/negative damage."

Thanks everyone for participating in this lively, and mostly reasoned debate. I'm pleased to be wrong in the conclusion. I never wanted the outcome to be what I thought it was as written. My stance was mostly that things seemed to indicate that negative energy attacks could heal ghosts, as there was no definition of Negative Healing.

I'm glad to see there shouldn't be any more confusion on this subject. One disagreement done, 99 more to go?? /s

If something doing negative damage meant that it healed undead automatically, the harm spell would not need to say "If the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of hit points." because "deal 1d8 negative damage to it" from the prior sentence in the spell's description would cover that already.

Why would the negative energy trait bother to say "deal negative damage to living creatures" if negative damage is dealt to ALL creatures unless said otherwise? It's just as redundant then as your emphasis, unless harm's inclusion is just a reminder of how it works.

Following the logic that only effects that explicitly say they heal undead do so, how does a wraith recover from injury? They have no natural recuperative ability, they cannot be affected by healing effects. So they take 20 damage, the party runs away. Come back 2 days later and it's still missing 20 HP? A month later after they level up?

Does the wraith sit around waiting for a helpful evil cleric/sorcerer to use "Harm" on them? Or do they maybe stew in their anger and solitude, knitting themselves back together with the horrid energies that have cursed them to unlife?

Chill Touch

Chill Touch does not help your case. The spell has the Negative Trait and does ZERO damage to undead, circumventing the "negative energy heals undead" clauses. Undead aren't immune to the negative trait, just healed by negative energy.

Thanks to the Undead creature type entry, "Undead creatures are damaged by positive energy, are healed by negative energy, and don’t benefit from healing effects." There are no "some" limitors for those effects.

Note it doesn't say damaged by positive energy that heals, nor healed by negative energy that damages.

If anyone accepts that logic, then their party should be 4 Spirit Instinct Barbarians, as by the same logic, a Spirit Instict Barbarian can punch a living creature healthy.

I'm not saying I want or advocate for that line of reasoning, but follow your thought to it's conclusion. Why would a spirit barbarian ever choose to deal negative damage with their instinct specialty?

Positive damage will always be a better choice for them as nothing resists positive energy, unless resist all (at least nothing that a search on archives could find), incorporeal undead are resistant to negative damage by virtue of resist all, and many if not most undead are vulnerable to positive damage.

I would agree with Aratorin, yet it's not unreasonable to assume it means afflictions. Diseases operate in much the same way and "toxins" include infectious diseases. It should be corrected as there is no game terminology that utilizes Toxins, just flavor text.

Second what is the idea of this discovery. You have to spend a discovery which you get one every two lvl and then to use it you need to spend a bomb + a spell and not be able to add your feat to it, which you would add to any throwing object with splash. The price seem very high for not much.

Welcome indeed Aka450. Mr. Charisma did a pretty good job answering your questions. Just to clarify, the reason why Throw Anything doesn't apply to a healing bomb discovery is because healing is not equivalent to negative damage. Effects that increase damage whether that or point blank shot, do not affect healing.

You would need an effect that enhances healing like maximize spell metamagic. You can in fact get that ability and apply it to your healing bombs if you are of the brewkeeper prestige class.

No, even the strikes deal negative energy damage they don't heal undead. It's just that: damage.

If an effect can heal it will say so. ...Otherwise a Spirit Barbarian could also punch you to full health. :)

Despite not wanting it to work that way, Masda and Gentleman have both come to the opposite conclusion of the RAW. They heal each other.

CRB pg 451:

When an attack deals a type of damage, the attack action gains that trait. For example, the Strikes and attack actions you use wielding a sword when its flaming rune is active gain the fire trait, since the rune gives the weapon the ability to deal fire damage.

CRB page 634: Negative

Effects with this trait heal undead creatures with negative energy, deal negative damage to living creatures, or manipulate negative energy. Planes with this trait are vast, empty reaches that suck the life from the living.

CRB pg 637:

...Undead creatures are damaged by positive energy, are healed by negative energy, and don’t benefit from healing effects.

Virulent Afflications says:

You must succeed at two consecutive saves to reduce a virulent affliction’s stage by 1.
A critical success reduces a virulent affliction’s stage by only 1 instead of by 2
Is intent for CritSuccess to bypass two consecutive save requirement, or count as 2 consecutive saves?
As is, it seems functionally identical to normal Save, yet if intented for CritSuccess to be identical to normal Success why not directly say so?
Or state that one cannot Critically Succeed on a Virulent Affliction, instead of tweaking it's mechanics to "effectively" be equal to normal Success?

a critical success vs a virulent poison reduces its stage by one step (instead of the usual 2 steps vs a normal poison). A regular success vs a virulent poison reduces its stage by effectively 1/2 a step since you need to succeed twice in a row before reducing the affliction stage.

The problem I have is The SRD Archives of Nethys doesn't have "damage plus grab" linked to the general grab ability. I own the Bestiary cards, but not the book. I couldn't afford both. I wanted to be able to use the great art on the cards and have the reference material in an easy, quick to pull out format.

There are NO general monster ability cards in the deck, nor a glossary etc. How am I supposed to make use of this accessory if all the information isn't there in the individual entry?

And your maths are wrong. I'm raising awareness against this fallacy: -6 attacks are not good attacks.

If -6 attacks are not good, are they really all that worse than the second shot from a Precision hunter? AS NN 959 just mentioned, why would a Precision ranger take Hunted Shot if a -6 attack is bad and therefore a -5 shot is almost as bad.

If -5 shots are worth taking on their own, then all you need is Inspire courage and the potentially 2 additional -6 attacks are now ALSO worth taking. If -5 shots aren't worth taking unless part of Hunted Shot, then why would a martial without agile weapons ever use more than 1 action to attack?

This really makes me think that it was more a reaction to people "despising" that 4ed called every class' limited use ability a "power." "Why does my paladin have 'powers', they should be miracles or prayers"?

BTW, despite those complaints, the abilities always were called spells, prayers, or martial exploits. People really just didn't like the gamist terminology of "powers", and that is likely a consideration here.

There is a core assumption about TTRPGs and randomness. Randomness/chance favors the adversaries if they are disposable. The more randomness you add to a game (like critical hit decks paizo offered early on), the more it benefits an NPC as they are unlikely to continue interacting with the party/living after meeting them. If you do horrible things to them, they don't have to worry about healing up afterward. They have no other encounters to prepare for. They have no resources to manage.

Taking randomness away favors the PCs. This means when you strip away basic boundaries about fighting capability (like AC and HP targets), you are making things easier for your players. Each side may make equally tactical decisions, but only one team has true consequences to their actions.

This also minimizes or negates any benefit to scouting in the classical sense of observing your prey. The same applies to divination rituals and effects.

Again as others have said, play whatever style you like. It is in fact the First Rule of P2. There are still consequences to the choices, even if you don't see all of them.

Haven't run the AP, but as far as Dragons go, consider Outer Dragons (Lunar, Any), Primal (Umbral), or Planar (Rift). You could still include some "underwater" scenes here and there utilizing low gravity pockets.

That's goofy. Why would you write a novel if you don't know the basics of the class you're writing about? If a paladin has detect evil at level one, then that's what they get in the book. I detest authors (like Salvatore) who use a system to sell their work but don't even follow the most basic of mechanics in their narrative.

It's pretty reasonable to assume the reason a writer might shy away from an ability like "Detect Evil" as being a beginning level ability of a protagonist is for narrative reasons. If your protagonist can KNOW without a doubt that someone trying to influence them is nefarious (while not necessarily out to get them), it leaves less room for suspense/surprise.

In other words Almost ALL divination spells break dramatic tension unless used carefully and infrequently. It's why portent reading and seeing the future is usually fraught with failure or ambiguity in literature. This is fine for a game, but less so for the media of books.

I actually brought this stuff up during playtest, and it never got handled.

You are doing the Lord's work Shain Edge!

Again, I'm presuming that the design assumption is meant to be like wizards cantrips in P1. If every craftsman has knowledge of all recipes of most types, then they are without value. It doesn't make sense that every craftsman knows the schematics for every device for every trade, so maybe the formulas should be for only 1 craft skill per book?

Snagging Strike does not actually involve a grab. The first sentence simply says, "quick grappling moves," which does not necessarily mean a sustained grab.

If Snagging Strike actually does occupy the fighter's hand mechanically, then the einhander fighter is a bit of a soup sandwich with its core class feats being mutually exclusive with one another, no?

My apologies for being careless. I wasn't referring to the grabbed condition, hence why I emphasized flat-footed as the condition gained. It is fairly reasonable to conclude that "until it’s no longer within the reach of your hand" means you aren't holding them anymore and therefor your hand is now free. That hand is tied up impeding the opponent when using Snagging Strike.

There is good plates for a Wizard to use, specially if you care about defense or sometimes helping allies.

That's a reasonable point, but whether or not there are good plate options for a support wizard doesn't change the fact that the gear wasn't designed for those archetypes. It will never be as streamlined in use as for a class it was planned for.

Weapons are not as good as staves on PF 2E, but they scale as well as your cantrips if you do the math. Hell, in fact a crossbow is very competitive with the cantrips that we have right now at late levels.

With no bonus to damage from modifier? Hmm, maybe but I doubt it fells like the magical savant that many people have in mind when playing an arcanist. I suspect that is why they made Cantrips more viable in P2. Reverting to a crossbow when you don't want to burn spell slots feels degrading for many Wizard players.

I am a RAW abiding guy. I care about what is written. =D

That's great, but then you are forgetting the First Rule of the CRB. You get to chose which rules to use as a group, and which to modify to tell the stories you like. That's why I said Talk to your GM, it's almost always the best answer.

Not in fact. Gandalf shows high skill with the sword both in the movies and in the books.

In fact Balrog, in the books, is defeated by Gandalf using his sword , so i am pretty sure he was very skillful with it. ;)
And i am pretty sure Balrog is not something you want to hold your spells against. He had Glamdring, a legendary sword, and he made good use of it.

Oh and he also fight orcs with...

I see your point, he used it to disguise his Maiar heritage so it seems important. From a RPG class perspective it wasn't all that prominent. He did after all use a generic wooden rod to blend in with other mortal sorcerers. It does however grant imagery that defies the archetype, which makes it useful for many.

Keep in mind that a PC of any class that isn't DEX primary won't earn their full AC potential in Explorer's clothes until level 15 (with a starting 16 dex), where as a Wizard in leather armor (via general feat) will reach that potential at 5th level. That's 11 or 12 levels where your PC has more AC in leather than in unarmored thanks to that feat.

13th level comes around and now you are down 1 AC in Leather compared to Unarmored if your character/campaign hasn't retired already. Is that important? Maybe. Is it game breaking? Not likely. Did you sacrifice some mechanical advantage for story? Possibly, but only for a few end game levels. Do you have more options on what to wear into battle or what to claim from a treasure hoard? Yes, you definitely do.

I've come to think of feats outside of Class feats as more options/choices/avenues of play, yet having little battlefield consequences. Canny Acumen, Toughness and Diehard are the ones which stand out as having a noticeable impact mechanically, the others are flavorful, yet minor modifications.

Class feats are about the only way to dramatically change a PCs capability.

This is EXACTLY the problem. You spend resources to get access to something, and then it becomes sub-optimal at a point down the line and you don't get to do the thing you bought into anymore if you want to be the best character you can be.

This is so easily resolved by making bought proficiency increase at the same time as class proficiency.

Excluding magical properties that are limited to certain types of armor, armor is NOT an improvement over other types of armor or none at all. Armor training/feats are thematic, and from a game mechanic sense, are there for more STAT options. This in no way changes your maximum AC except when you chose to wear armor with worse proficiency.

Wearing leather armor starts being sub-optimal when your Dex goes to 20 or higher. If you are a rogue with a 22 or 24 Dexterity, should you go back to wearing nothing at all? You get more AC that way, but miss out on Runes. Your investment didn't become sub-optimal upon reaching a new level, you grew out of it naturally because your STATS improved beyond the armor.

If having 1 less AC via class improvement than a feat choice gave you is "not playing to your character's fullest potential", or "sub-optimal", then I feel like it's a mechanical issue, not a story/background issue. If wearing a certain type of armor matters to you for your PC, then talk to your GM. I'm sure they will be reasonable and allow you to have exactly the same AC as unarmored.

And yet apps like this often don't even have a way to manually override your heritage and put in something like that...

This was my favorite aspect of the Character Builder (CBLoader) for 4ed D&D. It was pretty darn easy to edit the files and make custom arrangements.

Herolab does a decent job of allowing custom content/input. My big issue with them is paying the licensing fee when I own the books. I prefer books for general perusal and content absorption, but apps/spreadsheets for character organization and building.

Yeah, I later learned that. On the plus side... weakness:good seems like it would be one of the common ones on some of the targets that likely given a weakness in return for being beefy. Demons, devils, undead, etc.

Undead not so much. Demons and Devils are likely, but only 1 critter comes to mind outside of Fiends who are vulnerable to "good" damage.

This skill reminds me of Darkest Dungeon, where the party actually settles down to rest. The survivalists can forage some food, craftsmen can repair gear and medics can patch the party up as the casters refocus. Isn't this the best case scenario for immersive adventuring?

This exactly! It is another example of maintaining usefulness to skills alongside magic. It also helps with verisimilitude. In our worlds where we tell our stories, which is more believable, common, and approachable by the common peasant or hero to be: A field medic patching you up with sutures, painkillers and poultices; or a hermit using rare and powerful magic to neatly and efficiently knit your gaping wounds shut?

They both exist, but one is ever present, encourages anyone with an interest and aptitude, and yet effective despite how long it takes. The other reminds us that we are playing a game. A metaphorical slap on the ass and "get back into the game, fighter".

Unless peasants are coming up to your PC clerics, sorcerers and Druids begging for miracles, I think Doctors need to be effective, otherwise casters will be mobbed, impressed upon or abducted.

My friend and I were in pretty solid agreement that the campaign was not going to work out in the long run as the GM wasn't adjusting the difficulty to account for the lack of magic and was more or less running a pre-written adventure with a quarter of the loot and not allowing spellcaster PCs.

The idea was nice, but the execution...didn't work.

yeah, that Gm was a jerk or ignorant of how big changes like that work. You are still playing a game, which has expectations and limits. If you remove magic, a GM in P1 needs to use Automatic Bonus progression, or dramatically reduce the encounter difficulty. A standard difficulty encounter should be thought of as Hard or worse. Baring those choices, a GM needs to allow their players to rest naturally for Days or Weeks.

Thanks for sharing Elro. As I was thinking the rewards are fairly fiddly to adjust. I had forgotten about DC guidelines for skills in the CRB. My first few read through attempts have been as a player, so I had skimmed over those parts.

Using the skill DCs as written is certainly doable for book 1 if we need to. I'm interested to see how they compare. +7 is likely the highest level 1 skill modifier a PC will have, compared to potential +8-12 (+16 theoretical stealth) from P1.

Honestly, that specific trap does not make sense in that environment, since the place has been flooded only recently, and such leeches should have been actively be put there and kept alive for long periods.

I'd say , to make it work, that Caromarc himself has been experimenting on those leeches, possibly to drain and sell that specific poison, and dear mr V has found them, and decided to utilize them in some creative way.

Yeah a lot of living traps/monsters don't make sense in a dungeon "holding pattern". I appreciate that the designer points out that many of the critters are starving after having been abandoned thanks to the WW. I was under the impression that the leeches were there for awhile (before flooding) as the pit traps were designed with water in them. That's what I remember at least.

It would suggest that Caromarc had been feeding them until he was imprisoned.

In my personal experience, groups that don't meet religiously every week with few interruptions take 2-3 years per AP anyway. This isn't an unusual situation. If your groups cohesion doesn't hold together well thanks to scheduling problems, I'd recommend sticking to Modules or your own adventures. AP are NEVER finished quickly without some serious dedication.

The design expectation would be that your party has 1 or 2 people with Delay Poison active, or several having consumed Anti-Toxins. Most PCs have a +3 minimum Fort save at level 6. That means you only need a 12 or higher without Antitoxin, and only a 7 or higher with Antitoxin (which would be assumed at that level).

That's honestly not that bad by 1ed. save or suck standards. If your PCs aren't using their gear/consumables, that isn't the encounter designers fault. My suggestion would be to remove the poison if they never use alchemical gear, or they can suffer from the effect until they level up and can remove it themselves at level 7.

This AP is overflowing with alchemical items even if the party doesn't have a PC alchemist/investigator. They should be able to make, find or buy all of the necessary consumables in anticipation for tracking through a swampy region.

I feel like the rewards and skill DCs are the biggest changes I need to undertake. The monsters should be easy enough with monster building and just using something with similar difficulty/Theme

18 WIS on a warpriest? No way man. Gotta keep that stat pretty low! STR and CHA are going to do a lot more for a "normal" melee-oriented warpriest than WIS. Stick to buffs and cure spells and your spell DC is irrelevant. They can easily meet the multiclass requirements, but do agree MCing Champion it's not for every Warpriest.

I'm pretty sure Aservan was talking about cloistered cleric there. It's not easy, useful or a guarantee that a closeted cleric will want/have 14 Str at level 2 for MCD champion. Folks keep talking about how easy it is to replicate warpriest's benefits as a cc, but are not taking into account the stat costs.

To start with a 14 Str as a CC, you'll either have to forgo 18 in WIS, 16 in CHA, or take extra ability flaws in DEX and INT. All that so you can have an armor check penalty and a speed penalty until level 5 when you can increase STR to 16.

It's it doable, sure. Is it worth while, eh...maybe?

There is actually a gp cost to maintain a healer's kit. It's part of "cost of living" just like a spell component pouch. You can't replenish your supplies (which all characters are assumed to be doing during down time) on a subsistence standard of living unless supplementing with survival and a feat. We don't make spellcasters track their reagents, nor expect them to directly pay for each bit of bat guano. Alchemists don't have to pay for their charcoal and baking soda individually. They moved healer's kits to that same idea.

As others have said, treating wounds is more than bandages. It's disinfecting and stitching up cuts, pain killers and poultices to reduce swelling and bruising.

Natural healing is ridiculously unhelpful in a game. An intentional cut with a kitchen knife isn't closing up on it's own just by sleeping. You need liquid skin, bandages, or stitches to keep that from reopening. Even a pulled muscle from swinging your mace too hard might take days or weeks to recover without medical intervention.

If you want your game to have more realisim, just keep those things in mind. You are either relying on magic or weeks of bed rest. Neither of which is fun for most people.

Divine lance seems like it might be the hardest to avoid, since it is 'alignment' damage.

Keep in mind that Divine lance only works if your deity is "aligned" and only affects a Target of the opposite alignment. A "good" Divine lance only affects evil targets.

Is there an iOS version?

You can use an emulator like blue stacks to use it on desktop

Seisho wrote:

...those ridiculous big damage dice...

Anyone remember the D&D 3E Monk (not 3.5)? They jumped straight from a d12 to a d20 for damage rolls! Only time I can recall seeing a d20 for a damage roll in any edition of D&D.

There was the NoDachi in 2ed which did 1d20 vs Large creatures, but yes ridiculous.

I'm curious what folks who want their wizards to have expert all armors and/or expert all weapons are willing to give up for it?

The Cleric is a good outline of design expectation. Warpriest gives up legendary spell casting (which can't be recovered with any feats), and delays spell proficiency by 4 levels each rank. They also have to wait until level 2 to allocate a class feat for a focus pool.

This grants them light and medium armor at level 1, which encourages more stat arrangements, but offers no direct defensive increase (General feats can duplicate). They later gain light and medium expert at 13 (MC Champion can duplicate).

Then they are Trained in Martial (can duplicate with 1 general feat, never improving without MC-Fighter), Expert in one weapon, and Mastery of Fortitude saves (duplicate with 1 general feat).

It seems like a lot of stuff that Warpriests gain by giving up some spell casting proficiency and delaying it on all levels. However, everything that a warpriest gains can be duplicated with 1 general feat, 2 or 5 class feats (MC devotions), and one extra class feat for a domain spell.

That being said, it's probably too big of a difference for anything that doesn't have a core expectation around that class. Cleric has always been assumed martially/defensively capable since D&D's origins and only recently seen caster only/clothy specialties in 4ed, 5ed and to a lesser degree a few archetypes in P1.

I would fully expect it to cost more than general feats (likely costing spell casting prowess) to acquire martial weapon expertise and/or armor expertise. Only Class/Ancestry feats allow this, likely due to deeply rooted cultural reasons of the ancestry or frequent class imagery/focus.