Does the Cleric need better class abilities


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Well now I'm interested in what goes on here.


You know... At this point I wouldn't even mind if Clerics got a (small) buff if that meant they became more interesting to build.

The Exchange

Clerics have spells. Spells are awesome and add flavor to your character. Is your cleric a pirate captain? Command, Murderous Command, lesser restoration (to never sleep), fog cloud, hydrolic push, command undead,create undead, etc

is very different than a Cleric that is a diplomat between humanity and outside forces. Commune/ all divination, SM I-IX, banish, sanctuary, see invis (cleric version's name slips my mind right now), protection spells.

is very different from a warrior of his god who takes self buffs and protection magic.

who is different from a healer

OK i've gotten lazy with writing out spell lists.

every splat book with cleric spells is a buff.


A issue with the view of clerics add flavour from the spells they use is that, the spells they use doesn't matter immensely to flavour in some peoples minds, if you can change what spells you use completely and utterly on a whim.


GeneticDrift wrote:

Clerics have spells. Spells are awesome and add flavor to your character. Is your cleric a pirate captain? Command, Murderous Command, lesser restoration (to never sleep), fog cloud, hydrolic push, command undead,create undead, etc

is very different than a Cleric that is a diplomat between humanity and outside forces. Commune/ all divination, SM I-IX, banish, sanctuary, see invis (cleric version's name slips my mind right now), protection spells.

is very different from a warrior of his god who takes self buffs and protection magic.

who is different from a healer

OK i've gotten lazy with writing out spell lists.

every splat book with cleric spells is a buff.

The issue is that every cleric changes his spells up to accommodate the task at hand. A "warrior" cleric is still going to bring sea related spells when boarding a ship. He gets little "warrior" flavor in this regard from his spells then.

The Exchange

Spells wont be changed that much. A warrior cleric wont have the High DCs needed to land offensive save or suck spells for example, but they could roll with summoning spells to bring in other totally metal support.

It is not like Players know what is happening every day or have time to find the best spells in random PF books if they do. Their go to spell list should be competent in most if not all situations.


Yeah... Spell selection isn't really a bud-defining feature for Clerics. They csn change it everyday and know all their spells. They don't even have a lot of offensive spells...

Clerics need interesting class features. Spells are fun and all... Bit they don't make character building any more interesting.

Even-numbered levels are extrenely Boring for Clerics. Nothing exciting is acquired at them... just a few more spells per day. The domain powers are obtaines at 8th level and thwn nothing cool ever happens again.

Verdant Wheel

Lemmy,
do you then advocate for simply adding powers to an already powerful class?


rainzax wrote:

Lemmy,

do you then advocate for simply adding powers to an already powerful class?

uNot really... Although in the Cleric's case I'd open an exception if the powers granted were not impressive, but fun.

I once had this idea that Domains would grant powers at 1st and 4th level and then every 4 levels thereafter... And once a Cleric reached those levels he chose what power he'd get (instead of getting both). This would add some variety to the class and make it far more interesting to build.

It's sad not having a capstone...

Sovereign Court

Capstones are not so great tho. Not many games reach level 20, all the final revelation of oracles are very nice but if your campaign ends at level 15, it doesn't matter.

But anyway, Clerics already comes equipped with everything that they need with their spells and being able to change their list everyday, make them prepared for most situations.

Currently playing a cleric(level 16), frankly the only thing that I would have wanted, was to make level 1 to 4 more fun. Level 1 to 4 was quite a drag to say the least, felt like there was nothing special to do, beside channeling.


Any capstone pales in comparison to miracle, which the cleric already gets. Most of the benefits of wish with no material component cost, or pay the cost and potentially get effects far outshining those of wish.

Shadow Lodge

rainzax wrote:

Lemmy,

do you then advocate for simply adding powers to an already powerful class?

While it is a powerful class, it's also a step below other powerful classes (Summoner, Druid, Wizard/Sorcerer, <Magus maybe>, dedicated archers, etc. . . ) and they get cool new shinny's all the time. So I don't really see the issue.


This was my big disappointment with the ACG. Every other class got new archetypes that allowed them to borrow other class features. Except the cleric. The cleric got one truncated archetype. Why not a cleric that can have a bloodline, or a cleric with an arcanist style power pool?

Yes, cleric needs to have more interesting options.

Verdant Wheel

Lemmy et el,
I agree that 1/4/8/12/16/20, or even 1/2/6/10/14/18/20 (and despite that capstones are de facto flavor abilities), would create a few exciting milestones in Cleric's career, done right.

Done right?
I am willing to cede that Cleric is not the most powerful class... but of the 30+ classes available, he is certainly in the top 20% (even conservatively), and thus adding options to an already powerful and flexible class without drawback or restraint is, to me, a bad design decision.

idea 1:
what if God determined Capstone, and Domains determined Granted Powers?...

idea 2:
what if WIS only did spells, and CHA only did Granted Powers (including Channel)? - you know, have the 'take away' be the imposition of MADness (not the domain)...?


I don't mind any of those abilities... Although I'm wary of tying capstones (or any other ability) to setting-specific material. Although it'd be cool to see a setting-specific book with deity-specific archetypes.

I'm okay with Cha-based powers, even if I think it's unnecessary.

Honestly, the proposed 1/4/8/12/16/20 powers I mentioned should be mostly fun and flavorful stuff. They don't have to be anything amazing. They should be useful, unique and fun, but not necessarily powerful. I also wouldn't mind if they were more focused on healing/support than offense/utility/self-buff, although that would vary with domain.


Picture these class features with cleric spells instead of psionics.


One thing I don't understand well in cleric is why the channeling is so tied to charisma. That the number of channeling get higher with good charisma, why not? You're able to project your faith more often to heal your friends and harm your foes because you got a great strenght of character.. could be a reasonable explanation (as long as a fantasy game need reasonable explanation)

But why should the power of your channeling (DC) be linked to your Charisma, instead of your Wisdom, while your spells DC is Wisdom-relevant?

Consider a level 1 cleric, 12 Wis, 16 Cha: 6 channelings/day, DC 14
and his brother, level 1 cleric, 18 Wis, 10 Cha: 3 Channel/day, DC 11

The first is not much wiser than the common folk, but got great personality. He can heal a lot, and is a curse for basic undead.

The second is considered as a sage, but got as much character as a table. He can heal half as much as the first, and is the reason skeletons are grinning.
And it could be even worse if he had 8 Cha, getting only 2 Channels per day, for a DC 10 check.

IMO, there should be a Feat too to increase the damage/amount healed from channeling (+1/d6 maybe). But maybe it already exists.

Sovereign Court

Scythia wrote:

This was my big disappointment with the ACG. Every other class got new archetypes that allowed them to borrow other class features. Except the cleric. The cleric got one truncated archetype. Why not a cleric that can have a bloodline, or a cleric with an arcanist style power pool?

Yes, cleric needs to have more interesting options.

Must admit that was the first thing that I looked around for as soon as I got my copy of the ACG. But well, guess I'm at a stage where it doesn't matter my cleric is level 16 at the moment half-way to reach level 17, for miracle time. Still tho, I'll grab divine protection from the ACG...because frankly why not.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
But why should the power of your channeling (DC) be linked to your Charisma, instead of your Wisdom, while your spells DC is Wisdom-relevant?

Because Channel replaced Turn Undead, which was a Charisma check.


Yea, channeling is an either/or deal. You can either,

1.Heal your friends
2.Harm/Turn Undead

Vica-versa with negative channeling. I think it would be better to just roll the heal your friends/harm undead into one deal since you are sending out a wave of positive energy.

Silver Crusade

MannyGoblin wrote:
I think it would be better to just roll the heal your friends/harm undead into one deal since you are sending out a wave of positive energy.

I heard a rumour this was tried in an early Pathfinder playtest, and found to be too powerful/effective. E.g. For a wounded 5th level party fighting undead, the party cleric can channel (possible twice!), with each channel healing all allies 10 HP and inflicting 10 HP to every foe (who fails a save). A two-channel nova then inflicts 20 HP (more than a 5th level Fireball) and also heals the entire party +20 HP. Nope, that fails my 'Overpowered Sniff Test'.


I've been doing it that way for years and haven't found it to be overpowered -- especially past very low levels.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
But why should the power of your channeling (DC) be linked to your Charisma, instead of your Wisdom, while your spells DC is Wisdom-relevant?
Because Channel replaced Turn Undead, which was a Charisma check.

Yes, I know that. But I think that Turn Undead was flawed, because it was already too Charisma based in the last editions of Ad&D. In the first edition, only your cleric level was relevant, affecting what kind of undead you could rebuke/destroy, and their number

@Manny Goblins: I was thinking like you at start, but I understand it's too much powerful that way. You have to use it for your human allies or against your undead foes (or the other way around). Perhaps human and undead react differently to Positive/Negative energy, and you have to tune the energy to their particular chakras or whatsoever. ;-)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I've been doing it that way for years and haven't found it to be overpowered -- especially past very low levels.

Yeah, considering that trick burns up three uses of channel energy it comes at a pretty hefty resource cost: unless you're running a cleric with 16+ charisma you'll only have enough channels to do that once. Not to mention taking up a feat (which clerics are rather starved on) to use Quick Channel.

Sure, allowing channel to heal the living and harm the undead at the same time makes it a fairly useful ability when the party is fighting undead, but isn't it supposed to be exactly that? It's like complaining that Smite Evil is too good at smiting evil.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I've been doing it that way for years and haven't found it to be overpowered -- especially past very low levels.

Yeah, considering that trick burns up three uses of channel energy it comes at a pretty hefty resource cost: unless you're running a cleric with 16+ charisma you'll only have enough channels to do that once. Not to mention taking up a feat (which clerics are rather starved on) to use Quick Channel. Plus the save DC won't be all that great without charisma investment.

Sure, allowing channel to heal the living and harm the undead at the same time makes it a fairly useful ability when the party is fighting undead, but isn't it supposed to be exactly that? It's like complaining that Smite Evil is too good at smiting evil.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I've been doing it that way for years and haven't found it to be overpowered -- especially past very low levels.

Cyzzane nearly murdered our party with a pack of negative channeling undead. I don't want to consider what would have happened had they been healing each other at the same time they were harming us.

On the other hand, it was the first time in the campaign that my sohei/druid went negative.


DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
But why should the power of your channeling (DC) be linked to your Charisma, instead of your Wisdom, while your spells DC is Wisdom-relevant?
Because Channel replaced Turn Undead, which was a Charisma check.
Yes, I know that. But I think that Turn Undead was flawed, because it was already too Charisma based in the last editions of Ad&D. In the first edition, only your cleric level was relevant, affecting what kind of undead you could rebuke/destroy, and their number

I agree that Channeling should be at least partially Wis based. However, to me the deeper question is, why doesn't Cleric have a Channeling Pool (blah + blah per blah levels + WISDOM!) that they draw on to power all manner of cool abilities....like so many others. Ideally, there would be a common list to choose from, and then lists from the domains.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:
DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
But why should the power of your channeling (DC) be linked to your Charisma, instead of your Wisdom, while your spells DC is Wisdom-relevant?
Because Channel replaced Turn Undead, which was a Charisma check.
Yes, I know that. But I think that Turn Undead was flawed, because it was already too Charisma based in the last editions of Ad&D. In the first edition, only your cleric level was relevant, affecting what kind of undead you could rebuke/destroy, and their number
I agree that Channeling should be at least partially Wis based. However, to me the deeper question is, why doesn't Cleric have a Channeling Pool (blah + blah per blah levels + WISDOM!) that they draw on to power all manner of cool abilities....like so many others. Ideally, there would be a common list to choose from, and then lists from the domains.

I forgot to mention that in this proposal, channeling pos/neg would be only one of the possible choices. The alternate channeling rules in UM would be great fodder for other choices. But I'm also thinking of domain powers being powered by the pool as well....

Just a thought.


Magda Luckbender wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:
I think it would be better to just roll the heal your friends/harm undead into one deal since you are sending out a wave of positive energy.
I heard a rumour this was tried in an early Pathfinder playtest, and found to be too powerful/effective. E.g. For a wounded 5th level party fighting undead, the party cleric can channel (possible twice!), with each channel healing all allies 10 HP and inflicting 10 HP to every foe (who fails a save). A two-channel nova then inflicts 20 HP (more than a 5th level Fireball) and also heals the entire party +20 HP. Nope, that fails my 'Overpowered Sniff Test'.

Woah, a Cleric being useful against Undead? Insanity. Let's take it a step further and remember that it's a Will Save for the Undead Damage Dealing and that Will Saves are an Undead's best saving throw.

The Exchange

Scavion wrote:
Magda Luckbender wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:
I think it would be better to just roll the heal your friends/harm undead into one deal since you are sending out a wave of positive energy.
I heard a rumour this was tried in an early Pathfinder playtest, and found to be too powerful/effective. E.g. For a wounded 5th level party fighting undead, the party cleric can channel (possible twice!), with each channel healing all allies 10 HP and inflicting 10 HP to every foe (who fails a save). A two-channel nova then inflicts 20 HP (more than a 5th level Fireball) and also heals the entire party +20 HP. Nope, that fails my 'Overpowered Sniff Test'.
Woah, a Cleric being useful against Undead? Insanity. Let's take it a step further and remember that it's a Will Save for the Undead Damage Dealing and that Will Saves are an Undead's best saving throw.

It is flavorful that they are useful, which they already are (spells, domains, and channel), adding more seems excessive. Especially for free. Channel energy already has a ton of support feats and options, adding damage and healing could be a huge multiplier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's really not that big of a deal. All it does is provide some healing in combat. Been using that in my games for quite a while... Even in an undead infested city, it doesn't really break anything. Channel is pretty meh, anyway, and has very limited uses per day.

I suppose it can be pretty powerful if you add two evil undead clerics using negative channel energy round after round... But for the PCs? Really not that big of a deal.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
xavier c wrote:
My stance is the gods don't really add anything to the Cleric.
Then Paizo has wasted a lot of wordcount on writing information about religious practices, holy days, and tenants. Including deity-specific domain and spell list adjustments.

Xavier reminds me of all those Living Greyhawk player clerics who didn't bother taking Knowledge (Religion)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think clerics have plenty of power and utility.
People tend to underestimate them because arcane spellcasters are better at eliminating opponents.
But clerics are not inferior, just less dramatic. The cleric's ability to replenish hit points may not seem game breaking, but try getting bye without it for a while.
Chanel positive energy does that. It can be great if you have lots of injured allies or lots of undead enemies. Most of the time its just useful.


Joynt Jezebel wrote:

I think clerics have plenty of power and utility.

People tend to underestimate them because arcane spellcasters are better at eliminating opponents.
But clerics are not inferior, just less dramatic. The cleric's ability to replenish hit points may not seem game breaking, but try getting bye without it for a while.
Chanel positive energy does that. It can be great if you have lots of injured allies or lots of undead enemies. Most of the time its just useful.

This topic (despite the title) is not about making Clerics stronger. We've already been over how top-tier Clerics are. What he meant was that Clerics should have more class features/options, and I think some people are willing to just make the Cleric stronger to accomplish that anyway, because it'd be interesting.

Silver Crusade

Yes, the subject title should properly read, "Do Clerics need more interesting class abilities". The first 50 posts work this out.


LazarX wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
xavier c wrote:
My stance is the gods don't really add anything to the Cleric.
Then Paizo has wasted a lot of wordcount on writing information about religious practices, holy days, and tenants. Including deity-specific domain and spell list adjustments.
Xavier reminds me of all those Living Greyhawk player clerics who didn't bother taking Knowledge (Religion)

Cleric: 2 skill point + Int.

Wis and Charisma are primary stats
Str, Dex, and Con are wanted stats

Guess that leaves Int as the dump stat, which might explain, why you might not want to take Knowledge religion, if your an adventuring cleric, vs a NPC Preacher.

Shadow Lodge

One rank never hurts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
One rank never hurts.

My clerics tend to leave int at 10. I put ranks into every class skill, then bump the ones no one else uses (like Heal). There are usually other characters with way more skills, anyway.

Heal-bot is an under-appreciated role. Channeling works well, even in combat. My PFS half orc cleric of Sarenrae was referred to as the "kick-ass cleric."

He is, too. Last I played him, he was 11th level and utterly ridiculous. Always welcomed at any table, and sometimes the only guy with any melee chops.


Magda Luckbender wrote:
Yes, the subject title should properly read, "Do Clerics need more interesting class abilities". The first 50 posts work this out.

It should have,But i can't change it now.


I appreciate heal-bots. I just don't always want to play a cleric. The shortage of skill points is one of the reasons why.

Having to play a religious fanatic is another reason. The inquisitor has this same downside too, of course, and the oracle's curse just turns me away from that class.


Waterhammer wrote:

I appreciate heal-bots. I just don't always want to play a cleric. The shortage of skill points is one of the reasons why.

Having to play a religious fanatic is another reason. The inquisitor has this same downside too, of course, and the oracle's curse just turns me away from that class.

Sounds like life shaman is right up your alley!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Waterhammer wrote:

I appreciate heal-bots. I just don't always want to play a cleric. The shortage of skill points is one of the reasons why.

Having to play a religious fanatic is another reason. The inquisitor has this same downside too, of course, and the oracle's curse just turns me away from that class.

A cleric is NOT a fanatic unless you want it to be. being religious does NOT make you a fanatic.


xavier c wrote:

I am not saying the cleric is weak i am saying the is cleric boring

channel is BORING!!!!! domains are BORING!!!!!

IF you don't like channeling you can take a step back in time, give it up and take the original "turn/rebuke" ability?

Channel was supra interesting in comparison when it came out.


Pendagast wrote:
xavier c wrote:

I am not saying the cleric is weak i am saying the is cleric boring

channel is BORING!!!!! domains are BORING!!!!!

IF you don't like channeling you can take a step back in time, give it up and take the original "turn/rebuke" ability?

Channel was supra interesting in comparison when it came out.

You're completely correct. I played a cleric in a 3.0 game into the high levels. I only used turn undead once in the whole campaign.

When I first got Pf, I was excited to see they had replaced turn undead. I was less impressed that they hadn't done too much else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The correct use of Turn Undead (and as many variants as you can get onto your build) in 3rd Edition is purely to power Divine Metamagic.


xavier c wrote:
Waterhammer wrote:

I appreciate heal-bots. I just don't always want to play a cleric. The shortage of skill points is one of the reasons why.

Having to play a religious fanatic is another reason. The inquisitor has this same downside too, of course, and the oracle's curse just turns me away from that class.

A cleric is NOT a fanatic unless you want it to be. being religious does NOT make you a fanatic.

Uh, yeah. Sorry. poor choice of words on my part, I guess.

Being religious does not make you a fanatic. I would expect a cleric or similar agent of a deity to pursue that entity's agenda with fiery zeal, if not fanaticism, though. Would vary by deity, of course. I imagine that Cayden Cailean's clerics would be pretty relaxed.


Scythia wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
xavier c wrote:

I am not saying the cleric is weak i am saying the is cleric boring

channel is BORING!!!!! domains are BORING!!!!!

IF you don't like channeling you can take a step back in time, give it up and take the original "turn/rebuke" ability?

Channel was supra interesting in comparison when it came out.

You're completely correct. I played a cleric in a 3.0 game into the high levels. I only used turn undead once in the whole campaign.

When I first got Pf, I was excited to see they had replaced turn undead. I was less impressed that they hadn't done too much else.

The original purpose to PF was "you can still play 3.5, only better and without CoDZilla"

I mean really, that was it's whole thing, Core reflects that, it's basically 3.5 but better, and it really was/is.

The game didn't really "change" until the "Ultimate books" at which point most of the blander Core choices became less desirable.

There is a HUGE following of players these days who weren't even playing ANY game when core and APG were new books… so to look back now they don't even understand some of the core choices or why they are even there.
It's a semi draw back to a version of the game that has out lived many of the previous versions of the game and has attracted more uninitiated players than ever before.

I shutter to think what these new critics would think if they were forced to play with basic or 1e rules sets.


Pendagast wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
xavier c wrote:

I am not saying the cleric is weak i am saying the is cleric boring

channel is BORING!!!!! domains are BORING!!!!!

IF you don't like channeling you can take a step back in time, give it up and take the original "turn/rebuke" ability?

Channel was supra interesting in comparison when it came out.

You're completely correct. I played a cleric in a 3.0 game into the high levels. I only used turn undead once in the whole campaign.

When I first got Pf, I was excited to see they had replaced turn undead. I was less impressed that they hadn't done too much else.

The original purpose to PF was "you can still play 3.5, only better and without CoDZilla"

I mean really, that was it's whole thing, Core reflects that, it's basically 3.5 but better, and it really was/is.

The game didn't really "change" until the "Ultimate books" at which point most of the blander Core choices became less desirable.

There is a HUGE following of players these days who weren't even playing ANY game when core and APG were new books… so to look back now they don't even understand some of the core choices or why they are even there.
It's a semi draw back to a version of the game that has out lived many of the previous versions of the game and has attracted more uninitiated players than ever before.

I shutter to think what these new critics would think if they were forced to play with basic or 1e rules sets.

I would argue that Pf changes (aside from the obvious mechanical differences), began in the APG, with the introduction of both Base classes and archetypes. Yes, the basic concept of archetypes had been done in both the kit books of 2nd edition, and touched upon in the final years of 3.5, but to see it done on such a scale was new.

It is true that previous editions offered a much different cleric experience, down to having less overall spell levels, and access to spells limited by domains, rather than expanded by them. It doesn't change the belief that in this edition, clerics could use a more developed or customized approach to class abilities, rather than a marginally adjusted version of what 3.5 offered.


Scythia wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
xavier c wrote:

I am not saying the cleric is weak i am saying the is cleric boring

channel is BORING!!!!! domains are BORING!!!!!

IF you don't like channeling you can take a step back in time, give it up and take the original "turn/rebuke" ability?

Channel was supra interesting in comparison when it came out.

You're completely correct. I played a cleric in a 3.0 game into the high levels. I only used turn undead once in the whole campaign.

When I first got Pf, I was excited to see they had replaced turn undead. I was less impressed that they hadn't done too much else.

The original purpose to PF was "you can still play 3.5, only better and without CoDZilla"

I mean really, that was it's whole thing, Core reflects that, it's basically 3.5 but better, and it really was/is.

The game didn't really "change" until the "Ultimate books" at which point most of the blander Core choices became less desirable.

There is a HUGE following of players these days who weren't even playing ANY game when core and APG were new books… so to look back now they don't even understand some of the core choices or why they are even there.
It's a semi draw back to a version of the game that has out lived many of the previous versions of the game and has attracted more uninitiated players than ever before.

I shutter to think what these new critics would think if they were forced to play with basic or 1e rules sets.

I would argue that Pf changes (aside from the obvious mechanical differences), began in the APG, with the introduction of both Base classes and archetypes. Yes, the basic concept of archetypes had been done in both the kit books of 2nd edition, and touched upon in the final years of 3.5, but to see it done on such a scale was new.

It is true that previous editions offered a much different cleric experience, down to having less overall spell levels, and access to spells limited by domains,...

If it stopped at APG the game wasn't that much different.

MOSt of the archetypes were kind of underwhleming, with the exception of the fighter and ranger which got the best archetypes (i.e. most changes of effect to the class)

Archetype wise (with the exception of fighter and ranger again) the later books pretty much made this book obsolete.


Waterhammer wrote:
I imagine that Cayden Cailean's clerics would be pretty relaxed.

Why do I suddenly see the opposite? Someone forcing people to chug booze like a fratboy initiating a pledge.

"Suck it down, wimp, we ain't got time for you to cough like that, and there's still six more shots to go!"

I know this is against his "don't drink to excess" asterisk he throws in, but come on, the guy got so wasted he attempted the riskiest dungeon on the entire planet by himself as a bet. It's a bit hypocritical of him to tell others to drink responsibly.

151 to 200 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Does the Cleric need better class abilities All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.