Skill Monkey Cleric Advice


Advice


Looking to combine the Cloistered Cleric with Evangelist Prestige Class. The Cleric get 1/2 Cleric level to knowledge skills that have no ranks. Evangelist gets Multitude of Talents 5th level (or 10th Character Level) for a +4 sacred bonus to knowledge skills untrained.

Human, Fast Learner, Improvisation, and Improved Improvistion seem to be the way to go.

Any advice on ways to leverage the Cleric intellect concept in other ways. Maybe in combat, spells, whatever. I have a base idea, just don't know where to go from there or if I am missing something spectacular.


Bad idea.

Knowledge wrote:
Training You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.

You might have great effective skill, but without training, you cannot make that DC 11 check even with a 34 roll.

/cevah

The Exchange

Cevah: the Breadth of Knowledge class feature lets a Cloistered Cleric make Knowledge checks untrained.


Knowledge is a Trained Only skill, but allows untrained checks up to DC 10. Breadth of Knowledge does not remove the DC 10 limit, causing it to be nearly useless. If you want to houserule Breadth of Knowledge to make higher DC checks, than that is another matter.

/cevah

The Exchange

PRD wrote:
Breadth of Knowledge: At 1st level, a cloistered cleric gains a bonus on Knowledge skill checks equal to half her class level (minimum +1) and can make Knowledge skill checks untrained.

It does the same thing as the Bard's Bardic Knowledge class feature - for that character the Skill becomes 'untrained' - meaning no more DC 10 cap.


ProfPotts wrote:
PRD wrote:
Breadth of Knowledge: At 1st level, a cloistered cleric gains a bonus on Knowledge skill checks equal to half her class level (minimum +1) and can make Knowledge skill checks untrained.
It does the same thing as the Bard's Bardic Knowledge class feature - for that character the Skill becomes 'untrained' - meaning no more DC 10 cap.

Linked.

Making the check untrained does not remove the skill specific rule of the DC 10 cap. Had it said "as if trained", then you could go past the cap. It did not say that, so the cap remains.

Unless there is a FAQ/errata that states otherwise, that cap is still in play since you do not count as trained.
[There is no FAQ in the CRB or UM section, and the PRD does not indicate changed text.]

/cevah


Cevah wrote:
ProfPotts wrote:
PRD wrote:
Breadth of Knowledge: At 1st level, a cloistered cleric gains a bonus on Knowledge skill checks equal to half her class level (minimum +1) and can make Knowledge skill checks untrained.
It does the same thing as the Bard's Bardic Knowledge class feature - for that character the Skill becomes 'untrained' - meaning no more DC 10 cap.

Linked.

Making the check untrained does not remove the skill specific rule of the DC 10 cap. Had it said "as if trained", then you could go past the cap. It did not say that, so the cap remains.

Unless there is a FAQ/errata that states otherwise, that cap is still in play since you do not count as trained.
[There is no FAQ in the CRB or UM section, and the PRD does not indicate changed text.]

/cevah

It's clearly intended for the class features to bypass the DC 10 limit. Why on hell would it say that can make Knowledge skill checks untrained

I mean, I'm all for RAW, but you're taking the point to unnecessary lengths.

Edit=ok... I was re reading everything, I do think you have a strong point.

2nd Edit= Training You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.

So Bard only gets +10, this is RAW supported, after re reading/checking. I'm with Cevah on this one.

For clarity:

From skills:

Trained Only: If this notation is included in the skill name line, you must have at least 1 rank in the skill to use it

From Knowledge

You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.


The ability says you can make knowledge checks untrained.
If you have a DC15 you can't make that untrained.
But with this ability reaching a DC15 untrained is now possible, since you can now make all knowledge skill checks untrained.

Also because anyone can make an untrained knowledge check up to DC10 with no special abilities. So a special ability that says you can make all checks untrained should probably be different from normal people that already could make the check untrained.


Chess Pwn wrote:

The ability says you can make knowledge checks untrained.

If you have a DC15 you can't make that untrained.
But with this ability reaching a DC15 untrained is now possible, since you can now make all knowledge skill checks untrained.

Also because anyone can make an untrained knowledge check up to DC10 with no special abilities. So a special ability that says you can make all checks untrained should probably be different from normal people that already could make the check untrained.

But you can't make an untrained check. It says so on the Skill Page:

Trained Only:

Spoiler:
If this notation is included in the skill name line, you must have at least 1 rank in the skill to use it. If this notation is omitted, the skill can be used untrained (with a rank of 0). If any special notes apply to trained or untrained use, they are covered in the Untrained section (see below).
Untrained: This entry indicates what a character without at least 1 rank in the skill can do with it. If this entry doesn't appear, it means that the skill functions normally for untrained characters (if it can be used untrained) or that an untrained character can't attempt checks with this skill (for skills that are designated “Trained Only”).

Knowledge
(Int; Trained Only)

Untrained:

Spoiler:
You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover.

I think it's pretty clear


Letric wrote:
I think it's pretty clear

Everyone else clearly thinks that it's pretty clear that you are wrong.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In any situation without a ruling whichever one is easier to justify is normally correct. The argument that Breadth of Knowledge doesn't remove the DC 10 limit for untrained knowledge skills requires a lot of rules lawyering and semantics and relies on the supposition that a class feature that has existed since the CRB has unnecessary terms and needs a FAQ but for some reason it hasn't been done yet. As opposed to the argument that it does remove the DC 10 limit which is attached to the Untrained descriptor that the ability modifies. This is also the first time I've encountered the argument in the 4 years I've used the boards, which says to me that it is likely an individual ruling and not the intended function, especially since it has been brought up in a multitude of threads without correction by the devs.

If that portion of the abilify doesn't allow you to make Untrained checks above DC 10 then it is superfluous, and given the word count issues with books I have a hard time believing they'd keep including it if it didn't do anything.


You ever hear of Prone Shooter or Elephant Stomp? [I think I have the correct names.] These feats were written in such a way they did nothing or made you worse. At least Breadth of Knowledge gives a bonus to untrained checks, and Bardic Lore gives a +2.

As to taking a lot of rules lawyering, it takes more to remove a simply worded restriction like YOU MUST BE TRAINED TO MAKE A DC > 10.

This is not the first case of writers not knowing all the rules when making up things to let people play with. Nor will it be the last.

I have seen this argument come up before, at least twice. Just check the boards. Found one post from 2011.

EDIT: threads about these worthless feats:
Prone-Shooter-Fixed-Today
Elephant-Stomp

/cevah


Letric wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

The ability says you can make knowledge checks untrained.

If you have a DC15 you can't make that untrained.
But with this ability reaching a DC15 untrained is now possible, since you can now make all knowledge skill checks untrained.

Also because anyone can make an untrained knowledge check up to DC10 with no special abilities. So a special ability that says you can make all checks untrained should probably be different from normal people that already could make the check untrained.

But you can't make an untrained check. It says so on the Skill Page:

Trained Only:
** spoiler omitted **

Knowledge
(Int; Trained Only)

Untrained:
** spoiler omitted **

I think it's pretty clear

Yes, is clear that a normal character with no special powers can only make a small subset of knowledge checks untrained, those that are DC 10 or less, and that they CAN'T make a DC11+ knowledge check.

BARDS have a specific ability that lets them make ALL knowledge skill checks untrained. That means that a DC11+ knowledge check is now something they can make. As normally it's part of ALL knowledge checks that you CAN'T make untrained, but the bard is removing that restriction of how high of DC's it can make with untrained knowledge checks.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:

You ever hear of Prone Shooter or Elephant Stomp? [I think I have the correct names.] These feats were written in such a way they did nothing or made you worse.

...

This is not the first case of writers not knowing all the rules when making up things to let people play with. Nor will it be the last.

If you are going out of your way to interpret a statement as erroneous / making no sense, when an alternate logical explanation is available, then you are undermining the basic foundation of shared communication.

Yes, sometimes people make mistakes (e.g. Prone Shooter). However, if you ASSUME mistakes then ANY communication can be twisted into any meaning. It is an inherently illogical approach. The base assumption has to be that the communication has some logical and valid meaning.

The writer(s) would not have written "...can make all Knowledge skill checks untrained" if they meant that bards CANNOT make all Knowledge skill checks untrained.

If you choose to believe otherwise then it is, quite literally, impossible to have a logical discussion with you... as you could take ANY statement and discard its most obvious meaning in favor of whatever you decide is 'correct'.

The Exchange

Anyhow, back to the OP's actual question...

Maybe take a look at the Kirin Style Feat chain from Ultimate Combat? It uses Knowledge Skills and Intelligence to target creature weaknesses. Unarmed combat also seems like it'd be in-theme for an otherwise 'bookish' seeming cloistered type (who'd not be likely to carry big ol' beat-sticks around with him).


CBDunkerson wrote:
Cevah wrote:

You ever hear of Prone Shooter or Elephant Stomp? [I think I have the correct names.] These feats were written in such a way they did nothing or made you worse.

...

This is not the first case of writers not knowing all the rules when making up things to let people play with. Nor will it be the last.

If you are going out of your way to interpret a statement as erroneous / making no sense, when an alternate logical explanation is available, then you are undermining the basic foundation of shared communication.

Yes, sometimes people make mistakes (e.g. Prone Shooter). However, if you ASSUME mistakes then ANY communication can be twisted into any meaning. It is an inherently illogical approach. The base assumption has to be that the communication has some logical and valid meaning.

The writer(s) would not have written "...can make all Knowledge skill checks untrained" if they meant that bards CANNOT make all Knowledge skill checks untrained.

If you choose to believe otherwise then it is, quite literally, impossible to have a logical discussion with you... as you could take ANY statement and discard its most obvious meaning in favor of whatever you decide is 'correct'.

When you spend several years making a living by using the exact written specification as the rule, it tends to be easy to translate that style of thinking to other areas.

I did not look for an escape clause. I looked at what the rule actually states. That I come to a conclusion you do not agree with just means I don't think the way you do. It is not maliciousness. My pointing out the other feats was to show that mistakes happen, and that by my way of thinking, this was worded poorly. Would I have a problem houseruling it to work as you want? No. Do I think that is RAW? No.

/cevah


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cevah wrote:

You ever hear of Prone Shooter or Elephant Stomp? [I think I have the correct names.] These feats were written in such a way they did nothing or made you worse. At least Breadth of Knowledge gives a bonus to untrained checks, and Bardic Lore gives a +2.

As to taking a lot of rules lawyering, it takes more to remove a simply worded restriction like YOU MUST BE TRAINED TO MAKE A DC > 10.

This is not the first case of writers not knowing all the rules when making up things to let people play with. Nor will it be the last.

I have seen this argument come up before, at least twice. Just check the boards. Found one post from 2011.

EDIT: threads about these worthless feats:
Prone-Shooter-Fixed-Today
Elephant-Stomp

/cevah

So your two counterexamples are a feat that used to do nothing but was acknowledged and fixed, and a feat that came from an old companion book (even though the Companion line doesn't receive errata)? That's not exactly convincing. In that thread you linked the person making that argument wasn't even present and everyone else agreed that interpretation was wrong. The devs have made mistakes but we're talking about a core class that has been used for 7 years and a total of 2 people in that time have made that argument - that is far from a widespread opinion.

The argument that it doesn't let you make Knowledge checks Untrained over DC 10 relies on the assumptions that the developers don't know the rules of their own game, mistakenly added superfluous words to a new ability they themselves created, then saw people repeatedly referencing the incorrect interpretation (such as here, or a 4-star PFS GM referencing it as an example of Untrained knowledge checks, or hundreds of threads referring to the ability), then reprinted the ability with the superfluous language, and only 2 people in 7 years have noticed it. As opposed to the common sense answer "It seemed obvious so they saved on workspace by leaving out unnecessary clarifications". I know which answer I'm going with.

Liberty's Edge

Cevah wrote:
When you spend several years making a living by using the exact written specification as the rule, it tends to be easy to translate that style of thinking to other areas.

I've been a software developer for more than twenty years. I know all about writing and coding from specifications.

Do you imagine that is how the Pathfinder rulebooks were written? Or are you deliberately applying standards you must KNOW to be invalid for the situation?

Quote:
I did not look for an escape clause.

That is, you didn't look for a meaning which made sense.

Quote:
I looked at what the rule actually states.

Not really.

The rule states that they can make ALL checks untrained. Thus, your conclusion that they can only make checks up to DC 10 untrained clearly does NOT follow what the rule actually states. Even from a 'machine logic' standpoint.

Quote:
That I come to a conclusion you do not agree with just means I don't think the way you do. It is not maliciousness.

No, applying machine logic to human communication is not malicious. Just an obviously faulty approach which will inevitably yield incorrect results.


LuniasM wrote:

So your two counterexamples are a feat that used to do nothing but was acknowledged and fixed, and a feat that came from an old companion book (even though the Companion line doesn't receive errata)? That's not exactly convincing. In that thread you linked the person making that argument wasn't even present and everyone else agreed that interpretation was wrong. The devs have made mistakes but we're talking about a core class that has been used for 7 years and a total of 2 people in that time have made that argument - that is far from a widespread opinion.

The argument that it doesn't let you make Knowledge checks Untrained over DC 10 relies on the assumptions that the developers don't know the rules of their own game, mistakenly added superfluous words to a new ability they themselves created, then saw people repeatedly referencing the incorrect interpretation (such as here, or a 4-star PFS GM referencing it as an example of Untrained knowledge checks, or hundreds of threads referring to the ability), then reprinted the ability with the superfluous language, and only 2 people in 7 years have noticed it. As opposed to the common sense answer "It seemed obvious so they saved on workspace by leaving out unnecessary clarifications". I know which answer I'm going with.

My examples were that bad writing happens. Or failure of the writer to check the actual rules. I could have come up with any such example, and the point would be the same. It is not about the feats, but about writing. Stuff happens.

As to your threads, they don't even address getting past the DC 10. They discuss what DC 10 gets you. Please try again. :-)

CBDunkerson wrote:
Cevah wrote:
When you spend several years making a living by using the exact written specification as the rule, it tends to be easy to translate that style of thinking to other areas.
I've been a software developer for more than twenty years. I know all about writing and coding from specifications.

I've been one for 30+ years. That is not what I was referring to. When you code from a spec, you modify the spec if it is broken and make the code work. Doing Validation and Verification is what I was referring to. This is Quality Control. Does the program do what the spec states it does? You are not allowed to modify the spec, only report if the code and the spec match. For this class feature, your expectations do not match its mechanics.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Do you imagine that is how the Pathfinder rulebooks were written? Or are you deliberately applying standards you must KNOW to be invalid for the situation?

No. But I do expect it to use language correctly. Common usage of the term "untrained" does not equal "trained", so I do not see that you can use a skill untrained and have it count as trained.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quote:
I did not look for an escape clause.

That is, you didn't look for a meaning which made sense.

Quote:
I looked at what the rule actually states.

Not really.

The rule states that they can make ALL checks untrained. Thus, your conclusion that they can only make checks up to DC 10 untrained clearly does NOT follow what the rule actually states. Even from a 'machine logic' standpoint.

There are two places that constrain the knowledge skill.

1) The skill's main description which states it is an intelligence based skill that requires training, and
2) The skill's exception that states you can use it untrained for DC 10 and below.
Bardic Knowledge eliminates #1 but not #2.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quote:
That I come to a conclusion you do not agree with just means I don't think the way you do. It is not maliciousness.
No, applying machine logic to human communication is not malicious. Just an obviously faulty approach which will inevitably yield incorrect results.

Being precise in language avoids confusion. Rules should be precise. If they are not, then these discussions arise.

/cevah


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cevah wrote:
LuniasM wrote:

So your two counterexamples are a feat that used to do nothing but was acknowledged and fixed, and a feat that came from an old companion book (even though the Companion line doesn't receive errata)? That's not exactly convincing. In that thread you linked the person making that argument wasn't even present and everyone else agreed that interpretation was wrong. The devs have made mistakes but we're talking about a core class that has been used for 7 years and a total of 2 people in that time have made that argument - that is far from a widespread opinion.

The argument that it doesn't let you make Knowledge checks Untrained over DC 10 relies on the assumptions that the developers don't know the rules of their own game, mistakenly added superfluous words to a new ability they themselves created, then saw people repeatedly referencing the incorrect interpretation (such as here, or a 4-star PFS GM referencing it as an example of Untrained knowledge checks, or hundreds of threads referring to the ability), then reprinted the ability with the superfluous language, and only 2 people in 7 years have noticed it. As opposed to the common sense answer "It seemed obvious so they saved on workspace by leaving out unnecessary clarifications". I know which answer I'm going with.

My examples were that bad writing happens. Or failure of the writer to check the actual rules. I could have come up with any such example, and the point would be the same. It is not about the feats, but about writing. Stuff happens.

As to your threads, they don't even address getting past the DC 10. They discuss what DC 10 gets you. Please try again. :-)

My threads were not intended to address how the ability gets past the DC 10 limit, they were intended to show that developers and high-ranking PFS GMs know that people think the ability allows Bards to make Untrained Knowledge checks over DC 10 and despite that have not commented otherwise. Thus we know the intent is for the ability to bypass this particular limitation of untrained checks. Given that we know the intent we now must look at the ability itself - it allows bards to make all knowledge checks untrained. Does it say just knowledge checks with DC 10 or lower? If not, then we should assume that this encompasses all checks even if they have a DC higher than 10 since the language is all-inclusive.

There are two interpretations - 1) "All" includes checks with DC >10, or 2) "All" does not include checks with DC >10. Common sense says the first is probably correct, but on occasion the answer that makes sense isn't right. Despite that, developer intent backs up interpretation 1. Therefore, in lieu of further clarification, we should assume that the specific of "All" in Bardic Knowledge and similar abilities trumps the general DC 10 cap.


LuniasM wrote:
Cevah wrote:
LuniasM wrote:

here

a 4-star PFS GM referencing it as an example of Untrained knowledge checks
As to your threads, they don't even address getting past the DC 10. They discuss what DC 10 gets you. Please try again. :-)
My threads were not intended to address how the ability gets past the DC 10 limit, they were intended to show that developers and high-ranking PFS GMs know that people think the ability allows Bards to make Untrained Knowledge checks over DC 10 and despite that have not commented otherwise. Thus we know the intent is for the ability to bypass this particular limitation of untrained checks. Given that we know the intent we now must look at the ability itself - it allows bards to make all knowledge checks untrained.

Since the only post to even imply access to DC > 10 was a single post with misstated rules and not a PFS 4 star poster, I don't see that as PFS blessing the view. Yes, they acknowledged that bardic knowledge exists, but they never commented one way or the other about the interaction. Also 4-star poster is not an official PFS rules person. Going from no comment to getting an official PFS "opinion" is too much of a stretch for me. Also, we know that PFS does its own thing and does not always line up with actual PF rules, so it is more in line with a developer's opinion and not a FAQ/errata.

/cevah


Lol, this thread started off soliciting advice about how to leverage the cloistered cleric's ability to perform untrained skill checks.

I already agree with those who say that it works. Cevah argue just doesn't ring as true. The specific rule overcomes the general rule. If an ability allows you to make all knowledge checks untrained, then that would include knowledge checks with a DC below and above 10.

In any event, maybe this conversation should be moved to the rules section. Until then I will just move forward believing that Cloistered Cleric works as stated.

ANY ADVICE ON HOW TO LEVERAGE THE ABILITY?


Yeah I've been interested in the advice here but it sure took on a life of it's own...of course now it seemed to dry up.

Deific Obedience of Irori will grant a +4 sacred or profane bonus to all knowledge skills. Not sure if it is worth 3 feats and loss of spell power (from going into the prestige) Another possible route would be going a oracle with lore...then your main caster stat (cha) could be added to all knowledge checks add in sidestep secret for cha to dex you are in a good spot...not to mention 4+int skills and if you go psychic searcher you can add 1D6 to knowledge skills..So rough idea is put at least one point in each skill since it is trained you would get 1+3 add in +4 from cha and 1D6 for inspiration finally with the boon from irori add +4


Driver 325 yards wrote:

Looking to combine the Cloistered Cleric with Evangelist Prestige Class. The Cleric get 1/2 Cleric level to knowledge skills that have no ranks. Evangelist gets Multitude of Talents 5th level (or 10th Character Level) for a +4 sacred bonus to knowledge skills untrained.

Human, Fast Learner, Improvisation, and Improved Improvistion seem to be the way to go.

Any advice on ways to leverage the Cleric intellect concept in other ways. Maybe in combat, spells, whatever. I have a base idea, just don't know where to go from there or if I am missing something spectacular.

Honestly, if you don't have a Wizard or an INT guy with knowledges, I'd go with it. But you're giving up so many feats.

Is the campaign more like investigative one? Then yes: can the other members of the party make up for your lack of combat capabilities?

I really HATE C. Cleric. You give up spellcasting for just some skill points. You're weaker, can't be on the frontlines.
If you can mix it up with UMD or some arcane spells, then do it. You need Arcane spells to get those "oh crap" spells to save you.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cevah wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Cevah wrote:
LuniasM wrote:

here

a 4-star PFS GM referencing it as an example of Untrained knowledge checks
As to your threads, they don't even address getting past the DC 10. They discuss what DC 10 gets you. Please try again. :-)
My threads were not intended to address how the ability gets past the DC 10 limit, they were intended to show that developers and high-ranking PFS GMs know that people think the ability allows Bards to make Untrained Knowledge checks over DC 10 and despite that have not commented otherwise. Thus we know the intent is for the ability to bypass this particular limitation of untrained checks. Given that we know the intent we now must look at the ability itself - it allows bards to make all knowledge checks untrained.

Since the only post to even imply access to DC > 10 was a single post with misstated rules and not a PFS 4 star poster, I don't see that as PFS blessing the view. Yes, they acknowledged that bardic knowledge exists, but they never commented one way or the other about the interaction. Also 4-star poster is not an official PFS rules person. Going from no comment to getting an official PFS "opinion" is too much of a stretch for me. Also, we know that PFS does its own thing and does not always line up with actual PF rules, so it is more in line with a developer's opinion and not a FAQ/errata.

/cevah

Look, the devs know we think it removes the cap. PFS knows we think it removes the cap. Neither have attempted to clarify, so we can assume that the intent is to remove the cap. Even if there are two possible interpretations, do you honestly believe the correct one is the incredibly strict reading just about everyone disagrees with that makes it do nothing? As opposed to an interpretation with years of reprints, rulings, and developer intent backing it up?


Sometimes people just love playing Lawyerball.


Really admit that argument to pick up again huh? Really though the original poster asked to refocus


If the cap at 10 is the case then the trait eternal understanding is far superior to the feat/class combo......

link

Eternal understanding

Though you haven't been traditionally educated, you're blessed with potent observation and discernment.

Benefit(s) You can attempt Knowledge checks with a DC of 15 or lower untrained.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you want to talk about whether bardic knowledge and breadth of knowledge remove the cap on knowledge checks, Letric kindly made a separate thread here.


Cevah wrote:

Bad idea.

Knowledge wrote:
Training You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.

You might have great effective skill, but without training, you cannot make that DC 11 check even with a 34 roll.

/cevah

Completely irrelevant to the build at hand. The Improvisation feat allows you to use trained only skills as trained at all times.

Improvisation:
You gain a +2 bonus on all skill CHECKS for skills you have no ranks in. Furthermore, you can use all skills designated “trained only” untrained.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If you want a more skill-focused cleric it might be a good idea to forego melee or focus on buffing so you don't need as many high ability scores. Something like 8-14-12-14-15-13 would work for a casting-focused cleric with skills, go human for the bonus skill point and put the +2 in Wisdom. That'll give you 5/level as a normal cleric, or 7/level as a Cloistered Cleric (which I highly recommend for skilled clerics). You'll have 1 less spell per level but it's arguably worth the trade.

If you're going melee as a Cloistered Cleric you'll definitely want a reach Weapon and might consider taking Medium Armor Proficiency and Heavy later on, otherwise your AC will be horrible. For this I suggest something more like 14-12-14-14-13-10 and a Strength racial bonus. Focus on buffs and AoOs for damage, you'll be more of a backup melee guy. You can sacrifice Intelligence for other scores but you'll lose out on skills by doing so.

I didn't dump on these builds because some people don't like that. The first doesn't really need to but can afford to dump Strength if you want. The second could dump Charisma without many issues and could use higher Strength.

Dark Archive

You can take Fast Learner, Improvisation, and Improved Improvisation to get an additional +4 on all untrained skill checks.

I don't know how that necessarily helps you use the Knowledge checks but at least it builds on a theme of 'guy who doesn't actually know anything, but anything he makes up turns out to be right!'

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Skill Monkey Cleric Advice All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice