|
I have yet to hear any player have their PC make such statements at the table, before, during or just after the briefing.
"Don't be a jerk" is on the player, not the character.
Also, please note that there are only 31 3rd level cleric spells in the core. Assuming that all players have copies of all of the Paizo source material is presuming a bit much.
Since the response to my previous post seems based entirely on my framing of it and not my actual point, let me put it this way:
There are no player characters in PFS based on creating undead[1]; it's merely one option among dozens that some spellcasters can use certain spell slots for.
Every single player of a character that can use Animate Dead is aware that such is highly offensive to characters of half the legal alignments, more than half of the core deities PCs can share an alignment with, two of the organized play factions, and every single member of a base class printed in the Core Rulebook.
Every PFS table I have played at has started with an OOC discussion of the characters in use. The player of the necromancer has the choice, right then, to cooperate/not be a jerk by simply chosing one of the numerous other spell options available to them in place of Animate Dead - without switching to a different character, and without altering the characterization of the one they wanted to play.
[1] With the Undead Lord archetype banned - for being thematically inappropriate for PFS, mind - the closest you can get is a character with the one PFS-legal feat related to creating undead AFAICT.
|
Now I wouldn't say that. There are still plenty of ways to build a very necromancy-centric character. What do we call a wizard whose school of focus is necromancy? A necromancer. Many builds out there, and I mean many of them (not just talking about wizards now) centralize on minimizing the cost of animate dead. It is not an unpopular choice as some would have us believe, and is in fact quite common. Moreover, most players of necromancers have not, as many keep accusing, chosen to make their character purely to cause problems.
I would also note that it should not be purely on the necromancer to completely disregard his own build purely for the sake of appeasing another, who is likely just as guilty for refusing to even make the ATTEMPT to find a reasonable solution that does not, in fact, force the aforementioned necro to nerf himself into the ground.
Side Note: There might only be one feat of particular import to the act of creation, but there are others that aid in controlling them once the deed is done.
There is also this major, MAJOR assumption being often made that X alignments hates X thing. Maybe someone of lawful good alignment wouldn't do it themselves, but I also don't think they would be compelled beyond all reason to outright hostility or violence. Mind you, that would also depend on their class and what deity has been chosen for that class to reflect in the case of some. Good people do/tolerate evil things all the time in service of the greater good. Likewise, evil people will often do good things to serve their own purposes as well. And neutral? Well, they usually don't care. Pathfinders have to work with people they don't like all the time. It's just part of obeying the decimverate.
|
There are no player characters in PFS based on creating undead[1]; it's merely one option among dozens that some spellcasters can use certain spell slots for.
People pick the dhampir race for the ability to make more undead.
People get school focus necromancy + undead master to be able to make more undead
People get negative channeling/pick their deity around the concept.
People pick their school specialization for it.
People get alternate channels for it.
Its not nearly as simple as swapping out a spellbook.
Not to mention players making the PERSON they're playing around it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every PFS table I have played at has started with an OOC discussion of the characters in use. The player of the necromancer has the choice, right then, to cooperate/not be a jerk by simply chosing one of the numerous other spell options available to them in place of Animate Dead - without switching to a different character, and without altering the characterization of the one they wanted to play.
Kind of the same way that the player of an intransigent and fanatical character has the choice right then to follow the core rule of the campaign and find a way to cooperate with the others they find themselves at the table with.
It's just not something I see my lawful good cleric of Torag being okay with. I guess this would probably be considered pvp, so I would just recuse myself or play another character.
This is the proper way to deal with this situation like a mature adult. If your character is built around disrespecting other character concepts which are perfectly well supported by the rules I think it is your job to keep that character out of situations where their personality would cause you to break the social contract of PFS. The correct solution is not to expect everyone else to sanitize your PFS experience of things which you do not like.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of the same way that the player of an intransigent and fanatical character has the choice right then to follow the core rule of the campaign and find a way to cooperate with the others they find themselves at the table with.
Half of the legal alignments consider it unacceptable. A clear majority of deities of allowed alignments considers it unacceptable. Every member of a core rulebook base class considers it unacceptable. Two entire Organized Play factions consider it unacceptable. Pretty much any normal person considers it completely horrifying unless they're from Geb or something. To describe someone refusing to cooperate in creating undead as "intransigent and fanatical" is utterly absurd.
It's just not something I see my lawful good cleric of Torag being okay with. I guess this would probably be considered pvp, so I would just recuse myself or play another character.This is the proper way to deal with this situation like a mature adult.
A mature adult would change one of their spell slots to one of the dozens of other spells available to them instead of expecting another player to leave the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A mature adult would change one of their spell slots to one of the dozens of other spells available to them instead of expecting another player to leave the game.
I thought the mature adult thing was to accept that everyone is doing their own thing and that's just fine and you should probably accept others and do your best to have fun... or something. I don't want anyone to change for me or vice versa tbh.
|
|
Kind of the same way that the player of an intransigent and fanatical character has the choice right then to follow the core rule of the campaign and find a way to cooperate with the others they find themselves at the table with.Half of the legal alignments consider it unacceptable. A clear majority of deities of allowed alignments considers it unacceptable. Every member of a core rulebook base class considers it unacceptable. Two entire Organized Play factions consider it unacceptable. Pretty much any normal person considers it completely horrifying unless they're from Geb or something. To describe someone refusing to cooperate in creating undead as "intransigent and fanatical" is utterly absurd.
A mature adult would change one of their spell slots to one of the dozens of other spells available to them instead of expecting another player to leave the game.It's just not something I see my lawful good cleric of Torag being okay with. I guess this would probably be considered pvp, so I would just recuse myself or play another character.This is the proper way to deal with this situation like a mature adult.
Let's reverse this slightly. Some of the factions are either okay with it or don't really care. The ones that do have a problem with it can't do anything about it, and lawful good paladins in the society are oathsworn to obey the decimverate to the best of their abilities. Characters will not always be able to get along. That being said, don't you think that's a bit of a hardline approach to take? Being in a minority (which honestly, I'd say every third PFS player has some kind of controversial character in the wings) does not mean that person's rights as a player should be any less valid. They have as much right to play their necromancer, diabolist or fire crazed lunatic as <insert name here> has to play their cleric of Pharasma.
Kind of the same way that the player of an intransigent and fanatical character has the choice right then to follow the core rule of the campaign and find a way to cooperate with the others they find themselves at the table with.Half of the legal alignments consider it unacceptable. A clear majority of deities of allowed alignments considers it unacceptable. Every member of a core rulebook base class considers it unacceptable. Two entire Organized Play factions consider it unacceptable. Pretty much any normal person considers it completely horrifying unless they're from Geb or something. To describe someone refusing to cooperate in creating undead as "intransigent and fanatical" is utterly absurd.
Woah! Those are fake numbers there.
|
|
There are no player characters in PFS based on creating undead[1]; it's merely one option among dozens that some spellcasters can use certain spell slots for.People pick the dhampir race for the ability to make more undead.
Looking at the dhampir writeup in the ARG now - not seeing anything in there that helps make undead.
People get school focus necromancy + undead master to be able to make more undead
Undead Master is the "one feat" I mentioned in my post. Spell Focus (Necromancy) doesn't help you create undead, but it does improve many of the alternative spells you could cast.
People get negative channeling/pick their deity around the concept.
Channeling negative energy is useful in the majority of combats even absent friendly undead.
People pick their school specialization for it.
There are twelve 4th-level, PFS-legal wizard necromancy spells other than Animate Dead (4 in the CRB, 3 of which are very powerful). Not to mention dozens of non-necromancy spells for every slot other than the one specialist slot.
People get alternate channels for it.
What alternate channels effect undead?
Its not nearly as simple as swapping out a spellbook.
Yes, yes it is.
Not to mention players making the PERSON they're playing around it.
"Intransigent fanatics" who insist on creating undead willy-nilly despite the horror of the majority of their companions?
|
|
Woah! Those are fake numbers there.Kind of the same way that the player of an intransigent and fanatical character has the choice right then to follow the core rule of the campaign and find a way to cooperate with the others they find themselves at the table with.Half of the legal alignments consider it unacceptable. A clear majority of deities of allowed alignments considers it unacceptable. Every member of a core rulebook base class considers it unacceptable. Two entire Organized Play factions consider it unacceptable. Pretty much any normal person considers it completely horrifying unless they're from Geb or something. To describe someone refusing to cooperate in creating undead as "intransigent and fanatical" is utterly absurd.
Half the allowed alignments: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good
A majority of deities of allowed alignments: 7 good aligned plus Pharasma, out of 14 non-evil core deities. (PCs can technically follow evil deities but the majority of alignments allowed to followers of such are forbidden in organized play.)
Two Organized Play factions: Andoran and Silver Crusade.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good alignment does not mean they CANNOT cooperate with necromancers. Within the confines of PFS, they may well need to do so. I will concede that some clerics, all paladins (Though it is specifically noted that paladins CAN work with evil aligned creatures or those known to commit evil acts in the interest of their mission for a time), and characters whose players just wanted to give them an overwhelmingly zealot-like outlook would have issue with this. However, there's also no reason the lawful good fighter can't swallow his pride and his shame for a short while to complete the mission he was given.
You are correct, Dave. Taht favored bonus assists everything in the necromancy school. However, it still proves the point. Dhampir are just particularly good at necromancy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good alignment does not mean they CANNOT cooperate with necromancers.
Taht favored bonus assists everything in the necromancy school. However, it still proves the point. Dhampir are just particularly good at necromancy.
Necromancy and necromancers aren't the problem. It's the insistence on creating undead, when they could be doing any number of other things that are also effective, and that aspects of their build such as that dhampir class bonus are effective in aiding.
Again, it's far less intrusive to ask the necromancer to prepare Fear or Vampiric Touch or something instead of demanding that the rest of the party put up with having the walking dead shoved in their faces. (Again, there's basically no human society other than Geb that's cool with the undead walking around outside their tombs.)
(And now that I think about the "shoved in their faces" thing, I think the problem isn't so much creating undead in the heat of combat - it's the insistance that the rest of the party hang around with them afterward that's the issue.)
|
|
Well, the pathfinder society has necromancy labs, and it really ain't exactly much of a secret. As for Geb, there are other countries that are cool with the undead. Not many, mind you, but there are such countries. In fact, there is an Osirion faction trait that expressly states a character is brofist with undeath.
Besides that, the game is meant to be as inclusive as possible, and knowingly robbing another player of their fun isn't exactly being inclusive. There has been no indication what so ever that the society, as an organization, has any issues at all with the use of necromancy. Individual members might, but they are not granted the right to abuse their fellow pathfinders as a result of this. Should they do so, it's on their own head, not that of the necromancer.
As a bit of an aside, most of the necromancers I know have invested a lot of their time, skill points, feats, spells and money into maximizing that character's ability to raise and/or control the undead masses. This ranges from making sure casters that don't rely on charisma still have a high charisma score to burning spell slots on blood money to help mitigate the price, to purchasing a specific magic item that stores extra blood in order to help mitigate the harmful after-effects of the aforementioned spell. Yes, they CAN cast other things, but in many cases they have gone far out of their way to optimize a character for the express purpose of ruling the dead, so to speak. There are a /lot/ of magic items required to make a controller of the dead that is actually reliable in doing what it was designed to do, not to mention a handful of feats that you absolutely have to have.
|
|
Kind of the same way that the player of an intransigent and fanatical character has the choice right then to follow the core rule of the campaign and find a way to cooperate with the others they find themselves at the table with.Half of the legal alignments consider it unacceptable. A clear majority of deities of allowed alignments considers it unacceptable. Every member of a core rulebook base class considers it unacceptable. Two entire Organized Play factions consider it unacceptable. Pretty much any normal person considers it completely horrifying unless they're from Geb or something. To describe someone refusing to cooperate in creating undead as "intransigent and fanatical" is utterly absurd.
Yes it is reasonable that many characters would not like undead. However those character are Pathfinders and have to cooperate with other pathfinders. Only a tiny minority of those people who dislike the undead would have the pathological hate of the mere existence of the character options in question that you do. Since the Pathfinders in game, as has been pointed out have at least one necromantic laboratory in which undead are actively created I don't see why necromancers are less worthy of being pathfinders. In fact I see the paladin or cleric who categorically refuses to cooperate with other legal characters to be less likely to hack it as a pathfinder and thus to be a less appropriate choice for a PFS PC.
Seriously. If cleansing Golarion of the undead and thier necromancer creators is integral to your character's conduct then why is your character a pathfinder at all (besides the fact that they have to be to be your PFS character). Why are they not taking their vicious crusade all the way to the doorsteps of the rulers of Geb or something along those lines. In other words save your chraacter concepts that involve murdering other people's charcters
It's just not something I see my lawful good cleric of Torag being okay with. I guess this would probably be considered pvp, so I would just recuse myself or play another character.This is the proper way to deal with this situation like a mature adult.A mature adult would change one of their spell slots to one of the dozens of other spells available to them instead of expecting another player to leave the game.
I would like to understand something about your position on this matter. In-game arguments about necromancy in Golarion aside, why does the player of the necromancer have less right to play their character than the player of the undead-ophobe? Given that there are numerous feats and spells geared towards undead-creation legal for PFS play not to mention an entire nation on Golarion as well as one of the original factions in PFS that potentially have a less vehemently negative view of the undead. The problem I have with your side of the argument is that from a purely player-player perspective the player of the necromancer is in the right by just doing his thing and not trying to tear down someone else's character. At the end of the day this game is about players sitting down and playing with each other and to achieve that meta-game goal certain in-character things are going to have to give way.
Also I have very little tolerance for "divine code of conduct" based disruptive f$#~ery aimed at other players and their characters, but that is just me.
|
|
The rule, the only one that applies, is don't be a jerk. If you would prefer another PC do/ not do something, ask, and if they don't recognize its their character. It is a game, a social one, for the enjoyment of all.
Indeed, it is a social game. Now with that in mind, it is a two way street. The person wanting to utilize the concept they built their character around is just as welcome to so as a cleric of Pharasma is to rain hell down on the undead legions of Geb. It is not a matter of minority versus majority, which is something it seems a lot of people are missing. Yes, people using necromancers would be a minority, but their rights as players of PFS are every bit as valid as the swarms of paladins in play.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure you are. Surprised you remember what winning feels like.See that's just it, we don't remember, so it's like discovering it all over again and we are summoning unicorns and rainbows n' stuff.
But not summoning undead; that would be controversial :p
Heh.
I'm pretty certain a team of zombies could have put up a better performance than England though...
|
|
I need to answer this post in multiple parts. I think this is the most important one.
I would like to understand something about your position on this matter. In-game arguments about necromancy in Golarion aside, why does the player of the necromancer have less right to play their character than the player of the undead-ophobe?
It's not about the character, which the player has every right to play. It's about sitting down at a table, and hearing that someone is playing a follower of, say, Pharasma or Sarenrae (and knowing that hanging around with zombies would be a violation of their faith, since such is not at all fanatical but a basic tenet of those and many other religions.) And then looking across the table at your fellow player, and choosing a specific action that you know will upset your fellow player, in place of numerous other, equally effective and in-character options. Because it's "what [your] character would do." And then, when they want to do what their character would have to do, you hide behind the PVP rules, under the dubious idea that a spell effect that goes away at the end of the scenario anyway is a "character resource" that they're "destroying". Forcing the player to either invalidate their character's choice of religion, or walk away from the table mid-game.
It's not the character. It's the choice to be deliberately antagonistic. It's looking across the table at a fellow human being, and choosing to be a jerk to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The character who's playing the follower of pharasma is doing something that upsets his fellow player too though.
It's not the character. It's the choice to be deliberately antagonistic. It's looking across the table at a fellow human being, and choosing to be a jerk to them.
Your doing the exact same thing to the other person though.
The guy who chose to play the necromancer did it to have fun, not to be antagonistic. Same for the follower of x who hates y.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at the dhampir writeup in the ARG now - not seeing anything in there that helps make undead.
The class bonus.
Cleric Add +1 to the caster level of any channeling feat used to affect undead.
Undead Master is the "one feat" I mentioned in my post. Spell Focus (Necromancy) doesn't help you create undead, but it does improve many of the alternative spells you could cast.
Its a requirement for undead master. My Gnome has the feat (because he's trying to collect a Banshee singer with an undead zombie dance troupe)
Channeling negative energy is useful in the majority of combats even absent friendly undead.
Not without selective channel (since you can't aoe your party)
There are twelve 4th-level, PFS-legal wizard necromancy spells other than Animate Dead (4 in the CRB, 3 of which are very powerful). Not to mention dozens of non-necromancy spells for every slot other than the one specialist slot.
People make a necromancer to do NECROMANCY.
What alternate channels effect undead?
Undeath: Heal—This works like a standard channel (not halved). Harm—The healing effect is enhanced for undead creatures and those with negative energy affinity.
Yes, yes it is.
I think i've shown its not. You're talking about rebuilding characters.
"Intransigent fanatics" who insist on creating undead willy-nilly despite the horror of the majority of their companions?
or the philosopher who likes questioning the basis of morality, the lonely son of an under taker who had no way of making friends, the desperate groom left on the altar by his brides sudden illness who vowed to conquer death herself if that's what it took to get her back...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I need to answer this post in multiple parts. I think this is the most important one.
I would like to understand something about your position on this matter. In-game arguments about necromancy in Golarion aside, why does the player of the necromancer have less right to play their character than the player of the undead-ophobe?It's not about the character, which the player has every right to play. It's about sitting down at a table, and hearing that someone is playing a follower of, say, Pharasma or Sarenrae (and knowing that hanging around with zombies would be a violation of their faith, since such is not at all fanatical but a basic tenet of those and many other religions.) And then looking across the table at your fellow player, and choosing a specific action that you know will upset your fellow player, in place of numerous other, equally effective and in-character options. Because it's "what [your] character would do." And then, when they want to do what their character would have to do, you hide behind the PVP rules, under the dubious idea that a spell effect that goes away at the end of the scenario anyway is a "character resource" that they're "destroying". Forcing the player to either invalidate their character's choice of religion, or walk away from the table mid-game.
It's not the character. It's the choice to be deliberately antagonistic. It's looking across the table at a fellow human being, and choosing to be a jerk to them.
How are you not doing the same thing when you whip out the priest of Pharasma? You are expecting the other player to change their chracter concept to avoid offending you while simultaneously playing a charcter which contravenes the first rule of the campaign. I'm sorry but that is far more jerkish behavior than someone wanting to play a minion master.
That is why when this happens at my table both characters get vetoed.
|
|
Nobody is suggesting that one persons rights at a table are any more or any less than another. The dont' be jerk rule applies to everyone equally.
Your right to play a necromancer doesn't mean others at the table should have to play lawful stupid...
Playing some classes and concepts requires maturity and a willingness to recognise that some PC choices are going to attract more attention than others in normal situations - just remember you are all on the same team working to achieve the same goal.
The Beard How do you reconcile being the PC wandering about with undead...the "not-tame" death machines...
p.s for the record two characters in society of mine were; a dhamphir undead lord and a human undead scourge paladin... they might have had an interesting conversation if they'd met.
That's pretty easy. Undead created through the animate dead spell are 100% under the control of their creator. There is absolutely, positively no chance that they will break free aside from the VERY unlikely event of an NPC necromancer trying to seize control. Besides that, you don't go marching into a town with the undead. You can command them to stay behind if your mission is taking you to a populated area after you've acquired them, or you could simply force them to coup de grace themselves if that's not likely to work. Admittedly, the latter option is one I would really prefer to avoid due to the cost of spawning them. That being said, you can make the spell functionally free to cast with a single spell and an only moderately expensive item. Necromancers doing that, and I honestly feel most of them should, can just raise more dead if they really need to destroy whatever minions they've already acquired. The fact that there is no maximum range to the control function of animate dead means you could just stick them somewhere far from man in the first place, and that they would wait until you came to retrieve them. Sooo yeah, not really any excuse for anyone to slap on their derp hat march through town with the dead. Truthfully, that should negate the need to destroy them prior to the mission's conclusion in most cases.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of player will get offended when their character does? Looks like somebody needs to remember that their character is a fictional entity. Hell, I'd be thrilled if I got to roleplay some inter-character conflict at the table, since I'm able to remember that even if my make-believe character is annoyed at someone, I'm still able to be friends with the person playing their character.
It's about sitting down at a table, and hearing that someone is playing a follower of, say, Pharasma or Sarenrae (and knowing that hanging around with zombies would be a violation of their faith, since such is not at all fanatical but a basic tenet of those and many other religions.)
Could you please point out where it states that, for either clerics of Pharasma or Sarenrae, that it is a violation of their faith to even be around undead?
I have looked through the entries that SKR wrote on them that appear in the APs (as they are the longest entries and appear to be the most comprehensive) and cannot find that.
Pharasma's entry talks about it be forbidden to create undead for her clerics, and that it frowned upon when her evil clerics control undead.
Sarenrae's entry says that her priest find them to be beyond redemption, but doesn't say that they have to be immediately destroyed.
It's just not something I see my lawful good cleric of Torag being okay with. I guess this would probably be considered pvp, so I would just recuse myself or play another character.Your cleric wouldn't see any benefit over trying to convert (or redeem) the necromancer?
Or in trying to limit their negative impact on things?
Isn't there a saying about that, something like:
All evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing (or turn a blind eye)? or something like that?
Turning a blind eye is what Society rules say that the wide variety of characters who would like to do something about necromancers running around creating undead have to do. They aren't allowed to do something to limit their negative impact (i.e. put a permanent stop to them).
|
It's about sitting down at a table, and hearing that someone is playing a follower of, say, Pharasma or Sarenrae (and knowing that hanging around with zombies would be a violation of their faith, since such is not at all fanatical but a basic tenet of those and many other religions.)Could you please point out where it states that, for either clerics of Pharasma or Sarenrae, that it is a violation of their faith to even be around undead?
I have looked through the entries that SKR wrote on them that appear in the APs (as they are the longest entries and appear to be the most comprehensive) and cannot find that.
Pharasma's entry talks about it be forbidden to create undead for her clerics, and that it frowned upon when her evil clerics control undead.
Sarenrae's entry says that her priest find them to be beyond redemption, but doesn't say that they have to be immediately destroyed.
I can still choose not to play at that table for roleplaying purposes, however.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed you can, and it is admirable that you would do so rather than stomp around on someone else's fun. Being willing to take one for the team is nothing that anyone should ever frown on. One might occasionally question why a character is so zealous as to not even be willing to tolerate a necromancer's presence, but I dare say it's not in the wrong to run one like that in a mature fashion, as it appears you do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually have three by complete accident. I thought playing an undead hunter spirit ranger would be a little different, but in this case, it's a bit restrictive. I didn't even think about necros when I made the character.
My LG cleric is just a no brainer to me.
And my GM baby summoner is a fanatical follower of Sarenrae. In fact, he believe that his Eidolon is an avatar of Sarenrae and he serves the Eidolon.
For these three, adventuring with a necro is likely right out. Maybe the summoner, if the GM has the Eidolon convince him its okay.
I'm not sure how happy the party will be if the level 10 cleric leaves the table, though.
|
|
That's a pretty good point about losing the cleric. Still, it's probably better than raining on someone else's parade. My one lawful good character is willing to cooperate with the likes of a necromancer on a limited basis. He might not like it, but he'll do it in part due to being oathsworn to uphold orders handed down by the decemvirate. None the less, I can see where those characters would be vehemently opposed to it.
|
|
Unfortunately for the decemvirate, if Torag decreed that they were enemies of Torag, guess who my cleric is taking out next? His boss is Torag, not the decemvirate.
Fair enough. My lawful good character is a follower of Torag as well, a stonelord paladin, actually. People underestimate them to such a great degree. The fact that he is a flavor of paladin pretty much forces the whole upholding his oath thing. Unless that party is actively doing something for the purpose of evil, he is not at liberty to defy those orders.
He doesn't like it, but he would work with a necromancer for a short period of time in service of something seen as the greater good. Would probably do a lot of repenting afterward, but it's still a thing.
|
|
I figured my cleric's on loan to the Pathfinders from the church. Or something like that. But the upside is that I've got a level 8 magus who uses infernal healing like its candy and is more than willing to have a teammate have throw animated dead at his enemies. Of course, the downside is that he's a magus, not a cleric. :)
|
|
I figured my cleric's on loan to the Pathfinders from the church. Or something like that. But the upside is that I've got a level 8 magus who uses infernal healing like its candy and is more than willing to have a teammate have throw animated dead at his enemies. Of course, the downside is that he's a magus, not a cleric. :)
I think I'm okay with having a mobile weapons platform with no morality issues about the use of darker spells in a party, just sayin'.
|
|
Ahh yeah, I feel you there. I did a lot of research before building my own magus. What I arrived at was sickeningly overpowered, and I didn't realize how bad it was until it was too late. I'm told they level out shortly after you've left the normal PFS level range, but it doesn't much matter by then. I ultimately chose to refrain from using my magus based on its ... yeah. Those things are nasty. If you do retrain, I might suggest taking a couple suboptimal things here or there to prevent making your GM want to strangle you.
|
|
Well, all the magical lineage shocking grasp magi certainly don't enjoy the demonic content much. I'm going spell pen, then greater spell pen on an elf and then gonna run force punch and force spells. That's the new plan.
I'm actually loving fighting all the demons with my magical lineage shocking grasp magus, because there is finally, finally something out there that can go toe-to-toe with her for more than two rounds before being fried to an electrical crisp. I actually have a reason to do something other than "shocking grasp, move, kill the boss with a 72 damage crit" on round 1.
Building the stupidly overpowered magus was a knee-jerk reaction to a GM who tried to kill our entire party of level 1s in my first-ever PFS adventure. I'd assumed they'd all be like that... and walked back in for round 2 ready to solo the module.