Arnakalar's page

Games where time passes and the world changes and develops can be the most rewarding experiences of any roleplaying game.

But it can also be really challenging - it is a lot of work to create a world with verisimilitude, especially if it's changing and growing through time. The challenges, choices, and consequences the PCs face have to feel real, and this can be hard when the PCs are supposed to be all but literally 'creating the world' - if a PC expects to be able to say "I found an order of elvish mage knights - they battle evil through the generations but also collect intelligence, do spell research, and make magic items all so they can give them to me when I come back" may not be happy when they reincarnate and are told that there's been a schism in the order, and three separate groups of knights are warring, each claiming to be the real and loyal sect, and the they haven't had any time to make her magic items at all.

I strongly recommend that you include various/diverse reoccuring characters across the ages - whether these are (demi)gods, immortals, time travelers/'stasis pod people', necromancers, or fellow reincarnateors. One of the best parts of an ongoing campaign like this is that the characters have time to grow and change, and to develop connections in the world - if the PCs only meet a batch of NPCs for a couple of sessions/levels before they reincarnate and everyone they ever knew is going to die again anyway, not only will they miss out on those cool interrelationships, they're more likely to treat the world/NPCs/etc as semi-disposable.

I'd consider using a mini-game/side game to handle the time passing, world changing, races/subraces appearing, etc - for example Dawn of Worlds is, in my opinion a really cool little game collaborative world building game - the game concept you describe would start more like the 'second age' of DoW, but you could pregen a first age - or let them do it with you!

Whatever you do, please give selective channel for free to clerics. It makes Amar for warpriests and paladins to have to take the feat. It's secondary for them. Clerics should get it free

Out of curiosity, do you consider all clerics having channel energy to be something that defines clerics and should continue to define unchained clerics? I mean, right now it defines clerics in that it's nearly the only class feature they have. But since this mental exercise is adding more class features to enable more variation between clerics, I'm curious if you see channel as something that should continue to define the unchained variant or not.

Channel energy needs work. W/r/t selective, etc - Clerics shouldn't need bonus feats to fix a mediocre ability. While Channel Energy is (at least to me), cool, one of the major problems with it is that on top of poor scaling/etc, it's not even *interesting*. Channel is almost never a cool or interesting tactical choice without disproportionate investment.

I love the idea of channel energy because it really strikes the cord of the cleric as a conduit for the raw, divine power of their god. Channel invokes for me from LoTR when Gandalf throws off the mantle of 'Gandalf the weird old dude' for that of an Istari, when Galadriel faces the ring, or when Frodo commands Gollum with the Ring - "and before [Gollum] stood [Frodo,] stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice. "Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom."

It is the point in myth when a mortal figure suddenly takes on a divine aspect.

What I would want to do is totally tear down and restructure the ability from the ground up - things I do like about channel are the AoE aspect, because abilities that interact with space/allies/enemies are more tactical, more party oriented, etc. While I wouldn't immediately write off uses of Channel to give yourself effects, I think the core of the ability should be a standard action AoE; Channel should be effective, it should be God/Domain specific; there should be support and offensive versions, but all gods should offer both as a rule.

Some channel powers will affect only allies/enemies, or only a certain number of targets, while others will be indiscriminate.

Talents/Revelations will exist that give you alternate uses of your channel ability, or alter it's function - for example making it a swift-action, single target power instead of an AoE.

There will be either talents/revelations, a subclass feature, or archetypes that let to totally swap out or alter your channel (as UnArcane mentioned) to support alternate builds/roles than you normally would - e.g. the 'subclass' roles I and others brought up above.

Channel will have no intrinsic relationship whatsoever to positive or negative energy - this makes no sense. They may or may not draw on the Variant Channel abilities (the interesting ones probably will, the stupid ones probably won't. Variant channeling was an improvement overall but ultimate a mess, and a fix tacked onto a broken ability).

Re:Dependent attribute: I like Cha. There is a clear move in Paizo's design philosophy of trying to make primary casters less SAD - every full caster that has been written since the APG that has any sort of pool power, or secondary feature, bases that feature off something other than their casting stat.

On that note though, what if instead of being Cha dependant, gods have a 'favored attribute' (or called whatever) - similar to Psychic Disciplines, that determines the secondary attribute for these effects. You could have Kn deities with Int as secondary... possibly physical stats, but the problem I see with both of these options is that it incentivises min-maxing for int or brawn or whatever. Thinking about it it probably wouldn't work - rather, different builds will likely invest in class features to a different degree just like any other class. A more 'war-like' cleric isn't going to need as high a wis or cha, and might not invest heavily in those - but also, for you 'All Caster All Day!' folks, requiring Cha dis-incentivizes martial, as a casty cleric can afford an ok cha, but if you *also* need str, dex, and con you're stretched much thinner.

Current prototype
Channel Divinity [to steal the 5e name]: A cleric possess a link to divine power they may use to unleash the powers of their god. At 1st level, the cleric chooses one of the channel abilities granted by their deity. Channeling is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. If a channel effect requires a save, the DC is equal to ½ the cleric’s level + their charisma modifier. A cleric can channel divinity a number of times per day equal to ½ their cleric level (minimum 1) + their charisma modifier.

Examples Here

Atarlost wrote:

A druid wears leather. An oracle is a cripple or a deaf mute or has severe cataracts or has some other pitiable weakness. We do not send cripples into battle. The two drawbacks are nothing alike. Cripples and deaf mutes and people with severe cataracts should not be sent into harms way. Occasionally people who are already high level have remained active, but a level 1 party is not going to get the adventuring equivalent of Horatio Nelson. And Nelson wouldn't have been permitted to continue serving in anything but a command or administrative role[...]

I just... disagree with everything you just said.

Everything.
That's quite rare for me.

I also complete disagree with the vast majority of this, and sort of feel like ranting about it, but instead I'll just say that we aren't talking about soldiers (though we *could* because disabled people have always fought just like anyone else), we are talking about adventurers and heroes - you are literally saying you do not believe disabled people can be heroic or contribute to a party - and the freaking oracle has phenomenal cosmic power!

I *do* however agree that code of conduct/RP is not game balance, but don't think that Oracle Curses and Armor and weapon restrictions are the same thing.

That said, back to Rash's original post - I like a lot of this, however I think you might be cutting a little too close to the Oracle itself. I don't think we're that well served by precisely duplicating the structure of the class in terms of revelations and a curse-like ability. I think that would both dilute what makes the oracle original and cool (which including revelations does regardless, really, which is one of my concerns about it)

Breaking down the 'revelations' per domain is something I have considered, however my worry is that Mysteries have an extremely strong flavor and focus - an Oracle of "The Heavens" is a very flavorful and specific thing.

While Godss are likewise interesting and specific, domains aren't, and I think mashing up revelations will make the cleric feel messy.

I think Shaman hexes might actually be a better point of reference for the 'revelation' ability - they get a core set of hexes that are available to all or most shamans, and then they get two 'half mysteries'+domain (5 revelations each, minor medium and major domain power-equivalents).

I'm thinking, what if each domain gives ~2-4 revelations (they might keep their domain powers, they might not) - clerics pick one or two domains at 1st/low level, and perhaps get an additional domain or two as they advance - perhaps a flexible/pledged domain, perhaps they just make fixed choices.

What if, for your primary domain you get the lesser & greater (and perhaps another high level power) automatically, as well as access to 3 revelations. At 4th(?) & ~12th you get another domain, and you get the 1st level powers of that/those domain(s), access to the domain revelations, and perhaps you can select the greater and supreme domain powers as revelations.

You get the 'domain spells' (to be expanded) of all your deity's domains on your list regardless.

Serhan, Belt of the Adamant Knight
Major Wonderous Item
Aura Strong Abjuration, Conjuration (Healing)
Alignment LG; Ego 19; Senses 30 ft
Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 12
Communication Empathy, understands common

This beautiful tooled leather belt is reinforced with adamantine bands, and was crafted for the paladin Isebrand by the silver dragon Freylaf after he was mortally wounded in battle against a great evil. Isebrand after serve the people of all nations, healing and defending all who needed it for eleven-thousand, one hundred and eleven days before he died. A remnant of his spirit stayed with the belt, guiding both future paladins and less noble souls who nonetheless seek to do good in the world.

When worn, the belt confers on the wearer DR 5/adamantine. If the wearer has the Lay on Hands ability, their paladin level is considered four levels higher for the purposes of determining the uses per day and healing provided by their lay on hands class feature - if the wearer is not a paladin, they gain the ability to lay on hands as a fourth level paladin 2 times per day plus 1/2 their Charisma modifer. Additionally, three times per day, the wearer can infuse a use of lay on hands with additional power, providing relief as a lesser restoration spell.

Serhan is lawful good, however unlike most intelligent items, the belt can be worn by anyone of non-evil alignment as long as they do not commit any evil acts. Serhan is stodgy, righteous, and opinionated, and he makes extensive use of his empathy ability to try to communicate those opinions, however he avoids contests of will, and does not try to control his wearer's actions unless they attempt an evil act, or otherwise directly and blatantly abuse his powers.

Hesupos, The Cipher

This unadorned ring of tarnished silver seems etched with intricate patterns, however when touched or manipulated it collapses into many interlocking pieces, revealing itself to be a puzzle ring of brain burning complexity. The puzzle can be solved as a full round action with a dc 25 disable device check, and once slipped onto a finger takes on an appearance appropriate to the wealth and style of the wearer's mundane equipment/clothing.

The ring can be solved in three ways, each corresponding to a different skill - typically Sense Motive, Perception, and Stealth. When worn, the ring provides a +5 competence bonus to the currently chosen skill. Additionally, the wearer is treated as if she had the Signature Skill feat for that skill. The competence bonus from Hesupos count as ranks for the purpose of this skill unlock, but not for any other prerequisites.

The ring has several other minor powers:
Hesupos provides a +5 competence bonus on all checks to solve riddles, puzzles, ciphers, and similar games & tricks - however, the ring is fickle, and if you fail such a check, ceases to function for 1 minute. It's wearer may use Burst of Insight and/or Detect Secret Doors 3/day in any combination.

Hesupos has an odd, and indeed, puzzling, affinity for hidden things, mysteries, and secrets. In the presence of such things, the ring may from time to time provide intuition or guidance, but perhaps not toward a result the wearer might expect. Additionally, minor puzzles and hidden information important to the ring from its past are outlined to the wearer in dark faerie fire when within arms reach. The ring provides no explanation for these things, but its favor is gained by their exploration.

Rumors & legends suggest (to the very, very small set of individuals aware of them at all) that the ring may be solvable in other ways, providing greater or more diverse skill benefits. Other rumors suggest that the ring almost certainly had other pieces, hinted at by the two worn areas where on the ring edge where its normal shade gives way to two incompatible sets of fine red teeth, visible only under magnification, when it is worn in perception.

I have a few to share! Feedback welcome, as is taking them for use in your campaigns etc of course.

Eyðendr, Blade of Ruin

This pitted, scarred, and massive cold iron greatsword was forged nearly a thousand years ago and served as the personal weapon of the stone giant Styrka, the Scourge of Golgora, the Conquering King. For decades this warlord led his army across the continent, and forged an empire the likes of which has not been seen since. What history doesn't tell us is that Styrka was a terrible ruler, who died of dysentery after an eating contest with his favored warriors. After, his empire fractured and little is left but ruins... and Eyðendr.

Eyðendr, blade of ruin is a Large, (relatively) intelligent, +2 mighty cleaving impact greatsword. Eyðendr is chaotic neutral*, has an intelligence of 12, wisdom of 8, and charisma of 8, and an ego of 20; he both understands and speaks common and giant; when wielded by someone with a strength of at least 20, he grants the bearer Enlarge Person 3/day (it is the bearers choice whether Eyðendr increases in size as well), and Form of the Giant I 1/day, (stone giant only, 15 rounds).

Eyðendr is loud, brash, impatient, misogynistic, and a giant supremacist. He has no formal special purpose, however he constantly desires to be wielded in battle, and to prove himself (and his wielder, if only by extension) better than all other combatants. If there are multiple plausible targets, he always wants to attack the largest and strongest, and as any intelligent item with 20 ego, believes himself superior to all other beings (with the exception of Styrka, who he reveres, and to whom he constantly compares his current wielder).

It all boils down to a couple of stumbling blocks:

If you want to keep cleric as D8,3/4 BAB.... etc etc etc class then any re-doing will be very restricted in order to keep overall balance. In addition any changes made will in all likelihood upset the apple cart in terms of existing archetypes, not to mention all the domains and rules for deity worship... etc. This general problem is manifested in the existing cleric archetypes which are on average fairly poor.

...I don't follow. For the first part: If you're saying the class has to be restricted because 3/4 bab etc and full cleric casting is 'too powerful', I just don't buy it. Magi, Warpriests, Inquisitors, Alchemists etc get *stacks* of class features to make them effective at what they do. Now, what they do is Gishy - but consider the Summoner (pre-unchained) which is basically a full caster in disguise - but even with medium bab and hp, they're still a wimp without their eidolon.

On the full caster side, both Oracles and Druids get 5x (i.e. any) of the features of the Cleric. The wizard has a better spell list and has more features (though obviously now we've dropped out of medium bab range).

As far as existing archetypes, apple carts, and all prior comments on 'what paizo is likely to do' - who cares? Who cares at all? Throw as much of it as you want in the trash - redesign the class, redesign the domains. Of course the archetypes aren't going to work. Who cares? No one likes them anyway - that's why it's called the 'complete cleric overhaul' and not 'an archetype to adjust the cleric' =P

And paizo isn't going to do anything, but that could not mean less to me - I realize a lot of GMs only allow core content or paizo content, though honestly that baffles me - but I assume those guys aren't hanging out on the homebrew forums.

DM Beckett wrote:

Lets put aside the d6 Cleric, please. This is a Cleric Overhaul/"Unchained Cleric" topic, not a "priest" topic, after all.

Ermmm.... settle down please soldier!!

This is not YOUR thread.... many people have discussed D6 options and so will I.

If YOU want to talk about D8 only then that's fine OK?

Thank you kindly for this

As the OP I can say (/have said) definitively that the thread was started as 'not about priest' - I think I said that in the original post even.

From my perspective, I *like* the cleric, but think it needs fixing - not that it needs to be thrown out of the window and turned into something else. I've said several times that I think a d6 priest would be possible, but isn't what I'm interested in - that said I'm less active on this than half of you, and as you said, a d6 caster priest class is obviously something a decent number of people really, really want.

I personally am still just working on the d8 options, but ultimately I think everyone's contributing to the conversation - if you want to talk about priest-types, go for it, as long as the conversation is still focused on what makes the 'cleric' special/interesting, not just divine wizard. If you want to talk bout the d8 cleric fix, do that too! What I will say is people need to stop s+&!ting on each others' ideas - you can say 'that's not how I would do it/what I'm looking for - don't say 'what the hell are you thinking? NO ARMOR/YES ARMOR.

On the topic of Wis-to-AC - I agree from a mechanical perspective this *is* actually a 'tankier' option than light armor in 80% of cases. Wis to AC gives them a powerful, untyped bonus to AC that can't be duplicated through armor or magic items... while not wearing armor can. For 750gp you've got a wand of mage armor and you've just overcome the primary 'weakness' of wis to ac, and have about as good armor as a cleric with light armor proficiency. Could a cleric with a chain shirt get +5 armor? Yes, for 25k. Wis to AC gets the same bonus, at first level, for free, except that you can stack magic vestments. A cleric who really wants heavy armor needs to spend feats or a dip in a martial class - fine, go for it, conventional wisdom is that spells are better anyway (and your squishy priest isn't going to be frontlining with poor bab and hp, even if they have a level in fighter).

I also just honestly do not fathom the motivation with getting adventurers into plain-clothes. Like honestly, light armor is fine - even wizards not being able to wear armor is stupid to me. Let them wear light armor too as far as I'm concerned. Just saves them a spell slot and their AC will suck anyway.

On the central topic - a really interesting point that was brought up is the question of what ARE the roles clerics fill, or that we can imagine them filling. Hiiamtom suggested "scholastic (monk-like), evangelist (leader), purifier/corrupter (strength cleric), and beacon (channeling)"

Some random thoughts I'd add to that:

The Leader/Evangelist - A largely dedicated support character - blasphemously I think this one could draw a lot from the 4E Cleric, Warlord, and Bard - it should have features or a way to spend their actions investing in their allies doing cool stuff, coordinating, or maybe even handing out something like teamwork feats. Maybe as part of a channel you can spend your action(s) to grant allies bonus actions? This could be a really cool playstyle, and the goal would be to make the 'support cleric' a more active/dynamic participant.

The 'Doomsayer' - "Truly, Banjo giveth with one hand, and taketh away with the other" - Fire and Brimstone, or Loaves and Fishes - this guy is a real old testament type, and he holds your fortune in his hands. Maybe gets a sort of 'prayer' ability that can help allies or hinder foes but either way specializes in buff/debuff dynamics.

The Thaumaturge - The miracle worker is the *serious* spellcaster - while all of the above are full casters and thus that's their ultimate focus, the thaumaturge should take this a step further - perhaps she gets a spell recovery method, divine metamagic, spontaneous spell slots or can learn wizard spells, something like that.

The Crusader - this is your battle cleric - it differs from the warpriest in being a full/primary caster first, with some mid-weight combat abilities and armor, to be contrasted with the warpriests extensive weapon and armor profs/enhancements, swift action buffs and combat focused blessings.

(There also needs to be an awareness of 'secondary roles' - the 'scholar' really belongs here more, as "walking encyclopedia", while an important function, is not a 'Role' in PF. Ultimately I think secondary role is going to be better shaped by deity - community/charm/etc clerics imply Face, knowledge/magic implies encyclopedia, nature/animal implies survival, etc...)

Can anyone think of others? I've broken these up as subclasses or archetypes, but I don't know if that's the best way to do it. The structure of my unchained cleric currently has more like revelations that you would use to customize and shape your role.

I've thought of just creating a pantheon of 9 gods, one for each alignment, but I don't know how to best assign the domains, so that idea just sits on the burner.

For my set of nine, gods have no alignment - they are above/beyond/to the side of it. Mortals have 'soft' alignment, and outsiders have 'strong' alignment - however they serve the ideals of their alignment and plane, rather than the gods. The exception to this are 'Angels', which are entirely removed from the 'good' outsider spectrum, and instead are divine 'constructs' that serve their deity.

Making the gods unaligned is part of the goal of making the gods more complex and multifaceted - I've tried to give every god contrasting/complicated aspects - rulership and liberation, life and death, creation and destruction, and such. It also includes a goddess of Law & Chaos and a god of Good & Evil.

Instead of alignment gods have their portfolios, edicts, and anathemas - however *Faiths* may have an alignment, and the domains a god grants can vary a little by faith, and some alignments lend themselves better to some gods. The servants of the goddess of law/chaos (and dragons) are almost always good or evil.

I've got all the domains covered between the 9, +2 homebrewed domains - each has 1-3 shared domains.

In my homebrew, I specifically tie all the monsters (any non-mundane evil creatures) I use to three evil deities, either directly or indirectly. For instance, the evil god of battles and destruction [think Khorne-clone] is the patron/creator of orcs and goblins, giants, and various beastmen/lycanthropes; the goddess of twisted creation for aberrations, dragons, magical beasts, and oozes; and of course, a god of death for undead. The point is, there are no "willy nilly" creatures that just show up with no reason - if it exists, one of the gods (or one of their servants) created it for a specific purpose (perhaps long forgotten). These deities are known by different names to the creatures worshiping them (the aberration-goddess may be known as "Big Mama" to the ogres, but is called "Lolth" by the drow), but they remain the same three gods.

For the opposing good pantheon, I broke out the remaining domains not assigned to the evil deities and grouped them logically, and eventually came up with nine deities (called the Lords of Light), each with three associated domains. I also specifically use the houserule that clerics spontaneously cast domain spells rather than healing spells, to give the pantheon and its associated characters some flavor.

While I am not personally a fan of the idea of 'always evil'/fundamentally evil sentient beings, and tend to go in the opposite direction when I'm homebrewing stuff like that, I think this is a pretty slick/more 'truthful' way of handling a world with monsters, which I like. It also very much reminds me of greek myth, where there's *Specific* things that are relating to and creating these dangers - especially Typhon & Echidna. Instead of the fantasy kitchen sink, there's a reason the monsters exist.

This is a nice little thread, I approve.

Recently:

- Hundreds of years ago, the world as we knew it ended, and the gods died/left/were bound. The only gods that still answer prayers are "kind of like Odin" (Knowledge, Magic, War, Strength, Rune), "Apollo" (Sun, Healing, Glory, Luck (Fate), Knowledge), and 'Medusa (but a full deity)' (Scalykind, Trickery, Law (Judgement) Darkness, Death). There's also some artifacts that hold remnants of gods.

- Total homebrew with three civilizations: Monotheists who worship a god of the sun, earth, and harvest, supplemented with several classes of angels, fiends, and fey. Total animists with no deities, who revere only the living forces/spirits of the world. Polytheists who mix a huge variety of gods with ancestor reverence/worship - the vast majority of gods are very 'human' in their identity, aspects, and portfolio (e.g. a divine king, a divine Doctor/Magician, a divine Hunter, a divine Warrior/Hero).

- For a pathfinder/3.P home setting - the world has exactly 9 true deities many of which are inspired by or reconstructed from the Core D&D gods, but repurposed or altered. All deities are meant to be complex and multifaceted; however they have different aspects and different cultures don't all view them in the same way. So 'The Wandering King', a god of sky, travel, and nobility is seen as the king of the gods in many human areas, but the god of storms in others.

3) I really like the idea of this, as it makes combat MUCH more interactive and back-and-forth, the way it actually should be (for both realism and fun). I'm not sure about execution.

The situation that would worry me offhand much more than the turtles are those 2h heavy hitters, characters with already low attack bonuses, and how swingy the game is in general due to d20s.

Let's say the rogue (or whoever) attacks an ogre... and rolls a 2. Their dex bonus helps but isn't going to be enough - the ogre AoOs the rogue for big damage, and then the ogre's turn comes around and they attack the rogue again.

The flanking rules/advantage system you suggest would help mitigate that a lot, but then just puts even more pressure on certain characters *needing* flanking and positioning to be baseline effective, while other characters can just wade in without so much risk.

I agree you'd need to test a lot of scenarios/math to figure out where the lines are. Does this empower battle clerics and warpriests excessively perhaps? I'm not sure.

1) & 5) I basically like as well. EDIT: I'll add that I actually prefer dropping combat expertise (as a feat) and including deft/powerful maneuvers.

2) I've actually been doing a version of this for... a while. When we played AD&D we always gave Player/heroic/villainous characters a final action on dying or going unconscious, and in 3.5/PF I like to give a fort save or con check to stay disabled for 1 round. I think it should be somewhat based on stats rather than just a static 50%, and I think 50% every round is gonna be a bit weird.

That said, I really appreciate games with levels of damage conditions, where combat might stop when people are dead, but disability/serious injury matter, and even 'blooded' conditions might be enough for some people. Hard to fit into the the d&d HP framework though.

4) is probably fine, but I'd want to see it in play. It seems like it might be awkward mixing in some conditions/situations that provide 'advantage', but leaving others as static bonuses.

This is very rough and needs fleshing out. Many ideas are half-formed.

There is nothing wrong with borrowing a magus element, but if you are going to do so then copy and paste the class feature and modify the wording to fit your new class. The way you have paraphrased leaves holes in the class feature.

I don't actually think it's that unreadable, though its definitely half-formed. I don't think I'm going to work on it more anytime soon, but I do think there's some cool ideas so I thought I'd share. This really was sort of a 'what can I throw together in 2 hours?' exercise.

The problem with borrowing the magus element isn't that it doesn't work, but that the inspiration for the class came from thinking that rather than making a 'magus with monk elements', it would be better to go to the source of the magus - Fighter/Wizard hybrid, and make a Monk/Full Caster hybrid (and psychic seemed much more thematic than arcane). Hybrids should have their own unique features, not just draw from another class that they resemble. It should just have something different in order to not be a mash up.

Beyond that, 'Spell Flurry' and such, while sort of cool don't really work - I just combined both features and changed the language to make it fit a little better, but it isn't elegant or balanced.

Also, you don't need Full Contact Casting. You can already deliver spells with an unarmed strike.

I thought the same thing, but if you look at the actual language, while you can deliver a touch spell through unarmed strike, you aren't *granted* a free unarmed strike. Thus by rules your options are standard action cast => make free touch attack

Additionally full contact casting as written does two things: it also fulfills thought components, which is necessary for ever effectively casting defensively with this class. This is the cooler part of the ability imo and actually considered making it even better somehow, either making your spell not provoke, or various other things.

[...]

Yes, that is how this would have to work if you wanted a viable class. Right now it wasn't worth the effort - if someone was actually going to playtest this (which I think you actually *could*, though I'm not sure why you *would*), the gm and the player would have to figure out what was fair.

Other things: I stuck the psychic discipline in there because it actually fit *so* well (especially self-perfection obviously), but if you were really going to build the class, what you'd want is unique disciplines/'traditions' for your brain monk that combine mind & body features.

I actually really like the concept of 'Physical adept' - the sort of wuxia/charles atlas superpower character is cool to me, and the idea of using extremely phyiscal magic that amplifies your abilities is cool.

I was considering breaking it out as 4+wis+2*lvl rounds of physical amplification, and then giving them a selection of improving abilities to do go things, but I think that'd be too short duration - min/day or spending ki points seems to work better. I bring up 5e a not insignificant amount, but what I think would really work is n rounds/short rest.

Well, I made this for whatever reason. It isn't really what you asked for, but it was inspired by this thread.

Well, this thread stuck in my head and in spite of my better judgement I have created The Esoteric.

It's horrible, it's a mashup, and while there are kind of cool things about it, it's basically a joke. But here it is!

If I was to revisit this in reality I think I would heavily subtract the magus elements and the ripped off class features and try to build out physical adept in an interesting way.

So I want to throw out a random idea I've been thinking about a while: can you scrap or edit the 6 d&d stats and keep - more or less - the same game? If you do so, what aspects of the game are going to be altered by a given change, and what are the upsides and downsides.
The main change I have considered making is to combine Strength and Constitution into a single stat - I would just call this strength, but to avoid confusion I'm going to call it Might.

This would be a strict upgrade for all martial classes, but also possibly opens the door for interesting/weird builds for classes that might have a reason to invest in Con but normally couldn't justify investing in str. Additionally, it reduces MAD across the board, and consolidates two stats, that while both do powerful things, are much narrower in scope than many others.

Classes that need strength basically always need con, but classes that need con but don't use str (such as casters) aren't really changing much except for outside case builds. Additionally, by improving Strength, it increases the fairness of things like Dex to damage, as dumping Might now also means having fewer hit points.

I can see there being some balancing issues, for example creatures with a huge strength needing to be revised. Some builds also might get weirder/more unbalanced - for example Alchemists popping strength mutagens and polymorphs. It's possible you could add rules text stating that temporary Str doesn't provide hitpoints, or by altering the text of those abilities, but either way it'd be a bit of a hassle.

If you only have 5 stats, point buy values probably need to change at least a bit.

Alternatively, you could possibly fit in a new 6th stat. One I have considered implementing is a 'Cunning' or 'Clever' type of stat, to contrast Intelligence - however this seems harder to break out. If there was a cunning, it could possibly absorb some int, cha, and dex skills, and would sort of increase MAD for certain casters, especially Int-based casters. However I'm not sure how critical/interesting Cunning would be.

Has anyone else considered such edits? Whether or not you like it or would use it, what do you see as possible problems or benefits? Do you think one could make a new stat interesting and relevant, or would it just muddy the water?

Esoteric Magus
Sacred Fist
Qinggong Monk

Bam, done. =P

Edit: Ninja'd by Secret Wizard

I kind of like the Other Cleric. Let me know when it's finished.

I really kind of wrote it as a joke - hence all the strikethroughs instead of, you know, actual edits. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you might have to wait a while. =P

^The Other Cleric -- actually a decent first shot at redoing the Cleric as a Shaman archetype (assuming that you make HD and BAB fair game for changing by archetypes, which really ought to be the case anyway).

I was actually kind of shocked how well it almost worked, to be honest - and I think I actually learned something. I will admit though, that when I went to start scratching it up, I thought shaman *was* d6, light armor, 1/2 bab. Whoops.

Something that stands out to me with this experiment is some serious hesitation about going with the Domain & Pledged/Wandering Domain idea. My main issue is that it makes the cleric much more one-note, as well as diluting the oracle's specialty. Conversely, when I've been working on giving gods 'Prayers/Hexes/Revelations', I've found that giving gods 5 domains worth of revelations leaves too many variant choices for a given cleric, muddying the waters greatly.

Even two might be too many - and I still don't know what role domain powers should have, but there's more work to be done in figuring out how to apply talents/revelations/whatever to the cleric.

Another obstacle I've come across is trying to revisit domain spell lists. I'd like to rework the cleric spell list so there are more - and more diverse - options depending on your god, but I've had trouble coming up with reasonable, interesting lists for even a few domains - and when you get to similar domains, what do you do? For example, assume that war, strength, and protection are all viable 'battle cleric' domains: do they ALL get Divine Favor, Magic Weapon (?), Shield of Faith? What about Bulls Strength? (Clearly a 'Strength' spell - but also, stat buffs should possibly stay on the universal cleric list). And so on.

Also. Channeling has gotten tossed around a lot without a lot of detail - some have said it's fine, some say more dice, some say less dice, some say make it all about undead again. UnArcane has suggested channeling is just a domain power for Life/Death domains, which is much more in line with how I would like to see it, however rather than making it a domain power, I'd like each cleric to get a channel ability based off their deity and domains. Channel type is not dependent on alignment.

Two examples:

Channel Flame - [Negative] - With a shout and a raised hand, fire and smoke explodes outward in a 20’ radius from the Cleric, and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per two cleric levels (rounded up) to every creature within the area (reflex half). Creatures that fail their save are shaken for a number of rounds equal to ½ your cleric level (minimum 1). Already shaken creatures cannot be frightened by this ability. The Cleric ignores Fire Resistance equal to their level.

Channel Swiftness [Positive] - Allies in a 20’ radius may immediately take a 10’ step, and ignore the same distance difficult terrain each round for a number of rounds equal to ½ your cleric level (minimum 1). These distances increase by 10’ for every 4 cleric levels you possess. Any target may move choose to move half this distance - if they do so, they do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Strongly reminds me of where Mutants and Masterminds took Afflictions when they moved off d20 open game license.

I've made a handful of minor edits and cleanups wherever I've come across setting weirdness I don't like, but I think the main thing of any substance I've tried to do with it is rehabilitate some of the 'monstrous' races by assuming they are actually, you know... people. I think the only one I have handy is orcs:

Millennia ago, the Orcs were natives of the upper reaches of the Darklands, a vast underground realm of darkness and deep magic. They lived there in a mix of clanholds, city states, free realms, and the occasional kingdom; they had very hostile relations, overall, with the dwarves who emerged even MORE millennia ago from deeper in the darklands.

All of that changed about 10kya with earthfall, when the starstone fell and began the age of darkness. Earthfall also had an effect on the Darklands below the surface of Golarion. The orcs, living not too far beneath the surface were devestated, with massive earthquakes causing immense destruction. Entire cities/civilizations were destroyed, the known ways wrecked - But they survived. However, there were other consequences of Earthfall. A remnant of the elvish empires on the surface descended into the darklands (to later become the drow) - these elves possessed incredibly powerful wizardry, and began a war of conquest, claiming a large swath of the underground realm. This was the first of many conflicts with mortal wizards that would shape the orcs for thousands of years. At the same time, the dwarves took earthfall as a sign from their gods and began what became known as 'the quest for the sky' - The majority of the dwarven race turned to a crusade to press up to the surface lands, straight through the beleaguered orcs. Caught between the elves and the dwarves, there was an attempt to completely eradicate the orcs that nearly succeeded.

The gods, however, intervened. Amongst whatever else, an elvish goddess Sezelrian, saw the attempted elven genocide of the orcs and intervened. She was a god of fire, of magic, and of the spirit, who sacrificed herself and gave a tiny fragment of herself to each orc - one result was that orcs have a significantly higher incidence of 'natural magic'- oracles and sorcerers, primarily. The end result is that the orc peoples fractured, some being pushed/escaping deeper into the darklands, and some exploding up to the surface, just ahead of the dwarves. The orcs, like the dwarves, managed to thrive in the age of darkness, at least at first. Though in many places they would eventually find equilibrium (that they have mostly never found with the dwarves), the orcs warred immensely with many groups of humans, including the Shadow Lords and servants of Zon-Kulthon. Roughly a thousand years later, still during the age of darkness, the orcs of Belkzen were nearly destroyed again when the last Thessalonians tried to resurrect/claim the power of the runelords. The orcs became a conquered & occupied people, along with many others, and fought a guerrilla war for hundreds of years. Along with the people who would become the shoanti (themselves ex-slaves of the original thassilonians) and the giants, they overthrew and destroyed the second thassilionian empire(which most humans (and many orcs, to be fair) don't remember even happened).

The chief god that orcs (amongst others, of course) worship, the one who's said to have created the orcs, is One-Eye. He is a god of sacrifice and exchange, struggle and survival - Blood for Victory, War for Spoils, Life for Death, and Risk for Glory. He advocates a bloody way, but for the sake of that which blood brings. He is a god of trials, willpower, hard won and pyrrhic victories. He has harsh relationships with the Fey God, due to their removal from the cycle of loss. While he is not a loving god, he is a fairly consistent one - if you didn't get what you wanted, it was because your will and means to sacrifice was not great enough.

In modern-day Varisia/Avistan, Orcs live in real numbers primarily on the distant Storval plataeu and the mindspin mountains, a harsh and unforgiving steppes-land with little of the richness of the lowlands. The majority of these orcs live in The Holds, also called the clanholds and the Hold of Belkzen. The orcs of the region see themselves as a constantly beset, but triumphant people - beyond this the holds are a loosely affiliated set of clans, bound by kin-bond, blood, and necessity. Things are mostly peaceful within the holds, and outside of it as for the last two hundred years, there has been a pretty serious culture of territorial isolationism. The other large population of orcs are the orcish and half-orcish Shoanti, the other people of the plataeu. Orcish society is as complex as any, with a very strong vein of duty, and a sense both that reality is impossibly hard, and that we can and will be harder - this is exemplified by the ritual of One-Eye's Blessing, a rite of passage that every young orc in the holds undergoes. It's a harsh, 'survive in the wilderness' sort of thing, with those same themes of sacrifice and will.

Those that pass become adults and get a full say in the goings on in family and clanhold (the word for adult is literally "voiced" or "a voice to listen to"). At the same time they love their family (especially the family-you-choose), stories, poems, song, and music, you name it. They are often mischaracterized as 'ancestor worshipers' - while this is incorrect, they do deeply revere those that came before them - and this gives them very real magic. It's believed that the shoanti taught the orcs to commune with, be guided by, and channel the spirits of the dead. Orcs have a very real suspicion and scorn for 'learned magicians' - especially wizards by a wide margin, but also others, such as clerics. It is felt that those who seek out magical power of their own accord are dangerous, at best, evil at worst - always missing the understanding that power has costs, and all too frequently exacts that cost from others. At the same time, it is considered deeply disrespectful to the sacrifice of the gods in giving the orcs natural magic.

Within orcish culture, magic is a deep gift, and a responsibility that is bestowed - Symbolized by the death of the god to gift that magic to the orcs and save them. To lack that gift, and then seek to take it and claim it as your own right is anathema, or at least frowned upon. Orcish Shoanti usually follow the ways of their own people, but sometimes spend a time amongst the clanholds, gain an understanding of the orcs there, and even take one eye's blessing, etc.

I think the above post speaks to a lot of the arguments in favor of *why* the cleric is different from a squishy wizard, why I called it a 'boring wizard', and why Atarlost is calling it a 'poor imitation' etc etc etc - what we are seeing is that the cleric (and frequently divine casters in general) do not have the direct power or flexibility of the wizard. If you don't want to make it into a wizard (or archivist, which would be fine I suppose) it needs *something* else.

Everyone in this thread seems to agree with this. The question is what. I don't think the answer is d6/light armor/slow bab... HOWEVER I have heard you, and so, I present: The Other Cleric!

PART I - Since you want counters on your specific points

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere.

Right now it is, but why should it ? Why shouldn't a cleric Nethys be good in divination ? Why shouldn't a cleric of shelyn be good in charm ? Similarly, why should a cleric of Rovagug good in healing ? If we want to reinforce the identity of the cleric as a servant of his god, it pass by reinforcing the impact of the domains on the spell list .

Agreed.

On Arcane versus divine, specialization, and the 'Boring Wizard
I think these are fair powers, however to say the Cleric needs to be more like a specialized wizard and the wizard needs to be more like a specialized wizard does two things: First, it makes both classes more generic. Second, it requires a restructuring of the entire magic system of d&d.

To the first part, I think this is mostly bad for the game only in that having more variety is one of the joys of the game.

To the second part - well I may have been exaggerating. However, the underlying point should be taken seriously: in D&D/PF, the difference between the wizard and the cleric is that the Wizard is the unfettered and the cleric is the fettered. The wizard (and arcane casters in general) are the source of their own power - wizards use knowledge and skill to 'hack' the universe, to break the rules, and to be little gods in and of themselves. Clerics, conversely, work in the exact opposite way. By restricting themselves to a god, to a code, to a specific power, they can get easy access to that power - but that power is limited in scope. It plays by the rules.

This is why arcane magic is more flexible and more powerful than divine magic in the system and setting we are talking about - there are only a very small set of things clerics can do with magic that wizards can't. In exchange, wizards give up more.

Now of course as you said it doesn't have to be this way - but this requires a much more substantial revision than just an adjustment of a class. In my opinion, if you are looking for something different, this is better served with either Spheres of Power as has already been mentioned, or playing a different game.

On the Squishy Cleric being unviable

Er. Fair. That was stupid of me, and I didn't really intend to suggest that a 'priest' type is necessarily unviable as I've said before.
What I was going for with this was saying that there should be *space* for the 'Tough' cleric, a step down from the warpriest but a step up from the priest/mage - and I think the point I made about bards and such remains valid. From a game design and structure stand point, the question 'what makes real world sense' doesn't mean anything - what makes sense in the game work, and what works mechanically and is fun is what matters.

PART II...

I basically agree with all of this. I don't think we're that far apart in what we'd like to see - only in how to execute it.

Giving them a claws race trait is totslly reasonable - or, if you want, two claws is a reasonable feat. 1x natural attack (bite) appears as a race trait, and there are multiple feats for a pair of claws. On that note actually, I consider a bite racial often better than two claws, because claws are much easier to get from other sources.

On the topic of other races that get natural attacks skin walkers get lots.

Silver Surfer wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

If you're expecting Paizo to adopt a homebrew option, I think you have all the time in the world to work on it.

But by that logic all discussions on class modifications are irrelevant?

That's a rather large leap you're making there. I wouldn't want to roll Acrobatics on it.

Just a quick note on this tangent (emphasis on tangent =P) - For my part I couldn't care less what Paizo is likeliest to do - for me this is about homebrew, and what I and other players may want to bring into their own games. Others' mileage will vary.

This doesn't totally mean that questions of Paizo's design process (or whether they'd be more likely to make archetypes or avoid d6 divine casters, etc) are irrelevant. But I think it might be worth trying to define why those design choices seem to be in place (optimistically assuming there are reasons for things, which I'll admit is often a stretch).

On Pure Caster Cleric/Priest
Silver/Aralicia/Etc - this point has been brought up in half the comments in the thread, but I honestly don't see a lot of new information or points being made. I think we are approaching zombie horse territory.

I'd love to see a response to my points about why the full caster cleric is not promising, though. For everyone suggesting the cleric should be a robed priest-guy: If Cleric should be the 'Divine Wizard', how do you solve the 'boring wizard' problem? I assert cleric needs something different and more than just casting, because by definition divine spells are narrowing and more restricted than arcane spells.

On the point of "real life priests" - I cannot emphasize how irrelevant this is to me. Real life priests don't live in a world with magic, with hostile gods and cultists, undead, whatever. Real life bards/minstrels aren't elegant blends of fighters, rogues, and magicians. They're entertainers.

Additionally, we're talking about 'adventuring' classes - your friendly neighborhood friar can easily be a cloistered cleric or Acolyte.

I agree wholeheartedly that the base cleric has too much Fighter in them as I've said already, and it's a point to which everyone is agreeing - but 'medium bab' or a martial weapon are not fighter exclusive features. You don't need to completely annihilate the cleric chassis in order to create interesting options.

What I've done in my home game is to restrict spells beyond Core according to domains. So Clerics still get the full "core assumption" spell list, but there's a chunk of spells that are deity- (well, domain-) related...

Core spells: c. 290 that all clerics get
Rules hardbacks (not incl. OA): c. 230 specialised by domains
Others in my index (incl. some 3PP): c. 340 specialised by domains

This might be a bit more extreme than I would go. More than that, automatically making all splat spells 'non-core' is rough, but it simplify the book keeping, and conversely there are CRB spells I'd probably want to break out. Still, this is definitely in line with one of the changes I would try to make. If you have that list anywhere online I would love to see it!

Essentially, the cleric selected only one domain at 1st level from his deity's portfolio; this was his "devoted domain,"... 4th level, once per day when he prepared spells, he could choose a second domain... his "pledged domain,"

I am doing the same thing, but these names are 1000x better than anything I came up with. Do you mind if I borrow this terminology?

My other thought was to make domains more like oracle mysteries, but then you might as well just play an oracle, who honestly fit the feel and theme of "cleric" better than clerics do.

I think there is a middle ground - something a bit like Shaman spirits again, and the earlier comment on 'mini-mysteries'. This is how I'm approaching talents - with a list of 'universal' talents and a list of deity/domain specific talents.

Arnakalar wrote:

...

It would be a big undertaking, and it's also a reason to stick with domains. Domains are well established in the rules and people are familiar with them. In my cleric variant, a deity's 4-5 domains collectively make up a pool of domain spells. The cleric isn't restricted to two domains and variety improved (somewhat). No, it is still not a perfect system, but it is a rework of what already exists and there are probably other things you would prefer to work on. If you are still unhappy with that, instead of writing out each deity's spells and powers, revamp each of the domains to be more user friendly. Some of the existing ones are just sad.

I agree with all of this.

And pick up a hybridizastion funnel for added silliness - you could combine alchemist fire & acid, sneezing powder or tangleburn bags.

It also brings up the question: if "the mixture has the effects of both component substances and creatures are affected as if hit by both" do you add your +Int for the splash weapons twice?

Sorry for the bump - just a note for anyone finding this - the link is closed as I work on revisions and clean up.

Wow, this thread has gotten a lot of response!

Trying to respond to some of these points somewhat as they come up:

Drop Domains, worship gods!
Mentioned by Ciaran & Shiroi, I think the idea of really rebuilding gods with mechanics and features to support their clerics is a pretty fantastic idea, however I personally feel like it's unworkable for several reasons.

Ultimately, I think the problem with this boils to do completely building a unique set of class features and boons for every god is a HUGE amount of effort, and is extremely difficult to balance. Actually, this is where I started with my unchained cleric, but quickly got totally overwhelmed. Working from a campaign setting of a friend's and mine, which has only 9 major gods, it was enormously difficult to find a good mechanical and thematic balance, as well as come up with interesting spell lists, class features, etc for more than a couple of gods. Then another friend said that was stupid, he liked Golarion and didn't want to play with our gods. Well damn, if I want to do Golarion too, that's ~14 major dieties, plus 40 more minor ones - and what happens if paizo adds one, or the GM wants to build a demigod?

This is the reason domains exist in the first place in my opinion, to operationalize gods. You switch from Golarion to Greyhawk? It'd be easy to figure out how Kord works even if he wasn't already built.

I feel like assigning each diety a list of rules, benefits for following rules, and penalties for not following these rules, would be a neat trick... Divine classes would then provide a stronger version of these benefits... Your choice of diety now matters for any class

W/r/t to this point, this is the whole idea of the deific obedience feats and features, and the evangelist et al. prestige classes. I do think those subsystems could stand a rework, but I don't think it's a good reason to throw out an entire system of classes and spellcasting. I don't think it's *that* broken =P

The cleric should be a proper caster/priest, dammit
There is a huge sentiment for improving the cleric's spellcasting and taking out a lot of its martial abilities - I think literally every cleric reworking I've seen goes this route, and though the battle cleric has it's fans (including me!), the main question is not 'do or do not', but to what degree? A *lot* of people strongly feel the cleric should be a d6, no armor no Fight class (Silver Surfer, UnArcaneElection, dozens of people on this forum and in previous cleric variant threads) but I personally disagree with this dramatically for a few reasons:

- The Cleric is NOT a wizard. Divine casting is not Arcane casting. As we have been discussing in this thread, the cleric list is good for 2.5 things: Buffs, debuffs, and healing. Even if we dramatically upgrade the cleric's domain utility that will still only expand their versatility in one dimension (by necessity domains/gods should give focused gifts, or what's the point) - by contrast wizards can do ANYTHING. That's the whole point of arcane casting! Phenomenal COSMIC POWER... itty bitty HP pool. Taking away the cleric's HP, AC, saves, and BAB leaves you with a really s++*ty wizard.

- As a corollary to that - d20 does not provide enough functionality or awesomeness for a dedicated support caster. I don't know if their *can't* be a priest class - I've seen some decent dedicated divine casters/classes like that, though nothing that blew me away - but I think it is not well supported with the mechanics of the game.

I agree the cleric should be toned down, but I don't think this needs to be a really dramatic step. As Silver Surfer pointed out, the expansion of Warpriest, Inquisitor, Paladin, potentially even classes like the cavalier (or maybe even the evangelist/sentinel/exalted!) fill a lot of that play space.

Here's what I'm thinking on that front: Clerics get light armor, shields, and simple weapons; many but not all of the battle cleric spells become domain spells for Strength/War/Protection/etc.

At the same time, you give clerics something like revelations, which include the ability to invest in different playstyles - clerics of warlike deities can take a Talent that gives medium armor and all martial weapons. You can still pretty easily become significant combat powerhouses, but it is both less overwhelming, AND it requires investment.

I think you should keep favored weapons (they are cool, they are handy) - I am inclined to even expand them to a small set of weapons (say 2-4). First off, a couple of weapon profs isn't a huge deal, but it is nice to have, and this, along with other features, could lead to some interesting, more mixed clerics - what about a skirmisher cleric of a travel god with light armor and a glaive, who can make significant contributions without being a juggernaut/frontliner?

I've already written an essay so I think I need to stop - UnArcaneElection - you have a TON to say, and I'll try to really go through it and reply - what I've got to start is that I 100% agree about removing cure/inflict from the core dynamic and a lot of the related ideas you propose. I think this is part and parcel of recentering and expanding the impact of domains.

Rather than removing channel energy, what I am looking to do is rebuild it from the ground up, with an eye toward a more functional version of Variant channeling - ideally every domain would offer a custom/mostly custom channel that is significant and tactically relevant. Then cure/inflict just becomes a domain/god thing. (Silver Surfer - this goes with what you said about channeling being lame also. I love the *idea* of it as a class feature, but it's so non-functional).

Keep it up with the interesting suggestions/discussion! Next time I will try to post about the chassis I'm working on for the unchained Cleric

So I've spent some time on this, and I do feel like there are promising components - I like the idea of a character that can flexibly enhance or alter their weapons/combat abilities, and I think there should be more/more effective martial caster types.

My biggest feeling though, is to agree with some of your earlier commenters that it really does seem to lack focus. It isn't clear to me at all what the classes 'thing' is - what does it do that is different than what other classes can do? What makes it unique and worth having a class built around it? I think you have some good abilities, and with your last update you added more, but what will make the class shine is having a focus, both thematically but also mechanically.

If it is a more martial magus, is there a reason you don't want to stick closer to the magus chassis, give it full bab and minor casting?

If it isn't a more martial magus, what is it?

It seems like you really like the idea that the class summons/enhances their weapons - if this is the class you want to make, really go for it - invest in that and make it a major focal point. A couple of abilities to summon weapons won't really do that for you, imo.

Take a look at other classes that might inspire you or give you a sense of what the design space looks like. Have you looked at the Soulknife? This class - which is a lot of fun - seems *very* in line with what you want to do, and in fact, psionics work rather similarly to the way you've structured your arcane pool. If you don't want to go minor spellcasting (which I *would* strongly recommend as well), consider looking at the scaling and design of psionic power points and manifesting. Or what about converting the soulknife from psionics to psychic magic or arcane magic? The Aegis is a very similar and also very well thought out class that sort of falls between the Soulknife and the Synthesist.

The Runeblade might be another homebrew to take a look at - and might get you looking at 3.5 material that might be worth converting or redesigning. Maybe a mageblade or a hexblade?

All that said, I don't have too many specific comments on the design, but I have a few minor critiques.

The name isn't my favorite - magnus doesn't mean anything - it's a dude's name? I prefer War Magus of the one's you've mentioned.

I am leery about the arcane pool as you've structured it. Consider that literally every class that gets 4+stat + 2*level uses that pool to represent rounds using an ability: this is how rage and bardic performance work. Every other class uses one of two static pools: the standard pool is 1/2 class level + stat. Arcanists and Psychics get a different pool which they can use to cast spells, so might be worth looking at for you, but these are largely very limited.

This doesn't mean you can't have a non-standard pool, but this is a very tricky thing to design and balance.

I like the creating and enhancing weapons, but as I've said I think it's somewhat lackluster. If you want this to be a core feature, it needs to be taken more seriously. It should be a LOT more powerful, but also more critical to the function of the class.

Finally incidentally, automatically getting 11+ SR (or +5 to an existing 11+!!) is crazy high. Like, that is a LOT of SR, which is really out of nowhere. It stands out as weird to me in a class that isn't focused on antimagic. I could see 6+level, or something. Oh man, and also, regaining off of your super high SR, while awesome, is a really, really powerful ability.

Sorry if this all seems negative - I do think you've got some good stuff going for the class, and encourage you to keep working on it!

On the topic of spell list:

I agree not every spell needs to be kept, and I also agree that not every cleric needs to be able to cast flame strike/etc.

While I disagree that if you take away the battle cleric spells all clerics suck (there are some cleric builds that don't smash face) - but I do think that most of the basic bolstering/buffing spells can probably afford to stick around.

That said, I *don't* think every cleric needs to be a battle cleric, or that there necessarily *should* be battle clerics of every deity. Part of this project would be to diversify and improve the options for clerics to specialize into different roles.

I went through every spell from the CRB as a place to start, and out of 224 spells I found about 25-35, including some major ones, that I would say definitely say don't belong on every cleric's list. I think ~50 more are somewhat questionable, but many of those are still basic bolstering spells that I wouldn't really mind sticking around. I count only ~5 movement spells like air walk and wind walk.

Obviously there's splatbooks for miles, but what this exercise + instinct tells me is that the core cleric list isn't really the problem, though it could afford to be cleaned up. Rather, I think expanding the domain lists would be a big first step and improvement.

The way I'd do it, I think, is clean up the core cleric list a bit (maybe cut 15-25%), and then review the domain lists - each domain should have ~2-3 spells per level, as MySelf suggested, however rather than getting domain spell slots or spontaneous casting, you'd add all the domain spells of all your deity's domains (5 domains, maybe some sub-domains, for a total of about 15 spells per level) to your cleric list.

As far as battle clerics and such, I don't think you need to strip all the Fight out of the cleric - as I said I think the fact that they're tough is part of the design I like, and if what you want is just a Priest or Cloistered Cleric you should go elsewhere. But I think it should either take significant investment and a specific sort of character to build a true battle cleric.

No more battle clerics of Erastil or Torag or Sarenrae or Abadar or Asmodeus or Norgober.

Correct. Instead, you'd get a cleric with moderate combat abilities (if that's what you're aiming for), but better/more interesting secondary abilities, more & more useful spells. And if you absolutely want to be wading into combat in heavy armor and worship Erastil... play a Warpriest. Or there could be an archetype similar to Heretic, but less lame, that let's you modify your granted/available abilities.

It's come up before, and will come up again, that the cleric could use some revision. Hell, it's come up now.

I've been working on my own cleric rewrite for quite a while, but I'm curious - what do you think about the cleric? Does it work? What do you like, what don't you like? How would you change the cleric, or how do you think it should be changed?

Things I like

- The Theme. Clerics are a cool idea - gods and domains add a lot of instant flavor and a strong sense of character.

- The cleric is a badass. Not every cleric needs to be smashing someone in the face with a hammer, but even the most retiring cleric is still *tough*.

- Subtlety/mix of abilities - I'm not sure I've put this well, but in any role they fill, clerics are usually fulfilling that role in an interesting way. Battle Clerics/C-zilla aren't just melee monsters; they're blending spells into their combat abilities. Caster clerics aren't just wizards with a holy symbol.

Things I don't like

Little diversity, little customization.

Ultimately almost all my complaints boil down to every cleric being almost exactly the same. While there is some variation in the focus of a character (a battle cleric with strong melee, a debuffing lord of the dead), these characters are basically built on the same chassis. Domains and gods have fairly minimal impact on the structure of the character, and beyond that, there's nothing to decide.

(As a corollary to that, every ability/choice you make as a cleric is decided at level one. What's my god? What domains? Positive or negative energy (if not decided by my god).)

Bland spell list - Cleric spells are *alright*, but certainly nothing to write home about. Most clerics are taking the same spells every time, unless they know they need some situational buff/restoration.

I also think the cleric suffers somewhat from pigeonholing - in 1st & 2nd ed, a cleric was really 1 thing. A beefy dude in plate armor casting heal spells in between hitting things with a mace.

How I'd like to improve the cleric

Bring Domains/Deities to the foreground. I'd like to see many of the cleric's features derive from their god or faith. Your choice of deity/domains should ideally be build defining.

Improved Channel Energy - personally I think channel energy is a really cool feature, except that it's fairly narrow, it's useless in most cases but overpowering in others, and ultimately scales in usefulness poorly. As a feature I think it stems from the same old idea of the classic cleric. I'd like variant/domain channeling expanded on, and for channeling to be a viable and interesting tool in many encounters.

Customization, and customization across levels. Clerics should have something like revelations - fairly powerful talents that can be build defining or give them cool and interesting new abilities as they advance.

More interesting spell list - specifically, I'd like to expand on the 'Domain spells' idea. Cleric's spells are directly granted by their god, and should reflect their god. There may be a good number of spells any cleric can cast, but spell lists should be more in line with their source.

Thoughts?

I think you can probably get by at low levels at least with potions of enlarge person, or relying on your friendly neighborhood wizard. There aren't that many huge things.

If you take Animal Soul you qualify for animal growth - oh, they errata'd it. Nvm

This thread on getting access to various spells in various ways may be of use to you.

It's not clear to me at all that the OP just 'wants someone to mindlessly maul face'.

What he said is he *wants* to play a magus, and is looking for advice on how to deal tons of damage with the magus. He didn't say he only wants to deal huge damage, or doesn't want to deal with complex actions or spells.

Anyways, the Magus.

Walter's magus is definitely the canonical Nova Magus, with huge elemental damage, spell crits, etc.

Kensai is powerful and worth it - I personally don't like it because I don't like diminished spell casting (or losing spell recall, but what can you do). If you like it, it can definitely be worth it.

My personal favorite magus, rather than Walter's, was a Bladebound Hexcrafter Whip user, though this would also work pretty well with Kensai (for ewp and weapon focus).

The whip magus focuses on strength, positioning + reach, and more sustainable damage buffs to make numerous painful debuffing attacks rather than nova.
Defensively, between Flight Hex and 15' reach there is very little reason you should ever be attacked. W/ enlarge person you have 30' reach, 20ft threatened (at 7+).

The way I did it was Half Elf (Ancestral Arms (Whip)), 1: Enforcer, 3: Weapon Focus, 5B: Whip Mastery, 7: Imp Whip Mastery.

Key spells are haste, elemental touch, frostbite, brand (for extra attacks when you aren't casting frostbite). Bestow curse is fun and horrible. Arcane Pool for +elemental damage dice. With magical lineage (Frostbite) & Rime Spell (which I don't think is necessary, but there you go), at 8th you could be making 4 attacks/round (3 at full bab-2), that deal ~1d4+8 (shaken)+ 1d6+8 nonlethal cold (fatigue, staggered)+ 1d6acid|electricity|cold|fire (Sickened|staggered|fatigued|on fire)+2d6 elemental. For something like 33 damage per hit + shaken, sickened, fatigued, staggered
And you can do that ~8 rounds (if you choose to imagine something is still alive).

Caster level boosters are of little concern... those don't constitute a good reason to not use caster level as equivalent to hit dice. Arnakalar mentions prayer beads, but pfsrd says those have absolutely nothing to do with caster level. Perhaps he's confusing them with a 3.5 item that does not exist in Pathfinder?

Re: Prayer beads - I honestly didn't even look it up. Just referencing

Caster level is extremely easy to boost - prayer beads alone is a +4 CL and thus +2 DC.

Sorry, but concerning 5e, the advantage system alone sets me in a very disfavourable stance towards it. That said, I've taken a look and there are some interesting ideas it introduces. Not much that - at this point - I could really see co-opting for d20/Pathfinder, though.

Advantage is whatever, but, are you looking at the magic system? Because that's what I'm referencing. I think it is easily the best modification/version of the Vancian/d&d magic system that has been created far and away.

Specifically what I was talking about was the idea that many or most spells can be 'overcast' (not a 5e term) - wherein increasing their spell level also increases their effect. e.g. Hold Person is a second level spell, that can be overcast as a 3+ level spell. Each spell level adds an additional target (and by PF, would increase the save. 5e already has saves based off the Caster, not on the spell level).

This would be an expansion of the 'heighten' spell idea, where you actually get something from the higher spell slot. For example a fireball might increase in size and damage as you heighten the spell. Polymorph spells and summon monsters could be a single spell that can be prepared or spontaneously heightened to the appropriate spell slot.

It would take significant reworking of the spell list though. I don't think it's realistic, but worth considering in theory.

Mage Knight -> Eclectic

Blade School -> Arcane Practice
Blade of (the)... -> Practitioner of (the)...

BS/AP names

Yes, help naming! I'm not a big fan of Eclectic - it's euphonious but doesn't really say anything about the class. Just looking at the name I'd think they were some sort of monk/bard/rogue.

The BS/AP suggests are cool, but I'm not sure they work/fit for two reasons. The first is that I'm not sure they match the schools - what do Divination & Tranmutation have to do with Deities or Wards?
For the second reason, see below!

Spellstrike [...]

I'd say the ability to cast wizard spells while hitting things with a 1h or light melee weapon is the Magus "thing". Spellstrike is one of several core Magus features. What makes it iconic to the nova magus is how it relates to spell combat & their spellcasting abilities in general. The mage knight doesn't intrinisically get the same benefit from spellstrike because they are limited in their ability to cast spells at all (as minor casters); they have no arcane pool, no spell recall, and plainly just fewer spells in general - of course the class isn't done but I'd be a bit surprised to see someone pick up the mage knight more or less as it stands and say 'yeah, scimitar + shocking grasp is the way to go'.

It would be like if I made a gish class that has a talent that says "You can sneak attack as a rogue of your level."

Well, not as a rogue of your level, because Spellstrike is contingent on your ability to cast spells - it'd be like a class that gets sneak attack, but at a different progression based off their other abilities - say like a slayer.

If you want the class to have an ability to channel spells through attacks, it should be a class feature. And it doesn't have to work the same way as spellstrike.

This is a fair point though. I will think on it.

I strongly feel spellwoven strikes should restrict to melee attacks, require you to sacrifice your highest BAB attack, and mention you can only cast 1 spell.

Maybe melee attacks, certainly only one spell, definitely disagree about losing highest bab. The other variation I was considering was making it a unique full round action that let's you make 1 melee attack at your highest bab + cast a spell. My concerns there are that the ability gets worse every 5 levels, and then also disallows any other sort of full attack effects you might reasonably have or want - though maybe this is a good thing. Is ok to be able to use it with haste, or with twf (assuming you have some way of getting around needing a free hand), etc?

I don't understand blade school combinations and how they work. I'd just keep it simple...

Definitely, definitely agree on trying to few a few right rather than work on all 28 combinations at the same time. I disagree that it's equally good or better to just drop the combinations and do the 8 straight schools. Right now I am aiming to get a set of 4 blade schools such that all 8 schools are represented.

Thank you guys for the feedback.

@Cyrad
I definitely agree it's pretty rough - what specifically do you think lack's cohesion - are you specifically referring to the talents & feats?

[Ramble Ahead]

W/r/t throwing in magus class features - you're referencing the Arcanas? The only directly 'magus' thing is an optional spellstrike, though Spellwoven strikes is 'spell combat'-like.

I agree blade schools are the core part of the class - my only concern there (beyond getting them balanced, interested, flavorful, etc) is tying too many features into your blade school.

As I see it, the class has ~2.5-4 core/original abilities, depending on how you count: Arcane Assault, Blade School (+Blade powers), and minor spell casting. Bonus Feats, Spells, Forceful Caster, and Spellwoven Strikes are all just buffs to make those other features more effective. Really arcane assault is just a buff to incentivize/synergize casting the spells you do have in combat, but as it's a little more central to other features, and a little more complex I'd count it as core.

Now, whether they should have talents at all is a good question - on the one hand, classes with multiple axes of customization are, I think usually more interesting. On the other hand talents can just be a hodgepodge of abilities, and people usually just take the best ones anyway.

Blade schools could get some 'revelation'-like talents, which are specific to the Blade school or a few schools. That would tighten up the focus of a given character, and let you customize how you use your blade school, but it would take away an axis of customization.

@Ciaran

FORMATTING

[...]

Agreed, and sorry for the mess. I try to be a little more consistent in format, pronouns, and terms before I post something but decided to throw this out a little rare.

SKILLS
I would drop Perception and add a couple of Int-based skills.

Reasonable. Profession gone, linguistics added. I'm not sure they need more knowledges.

PROFICIENCIES

Done.

BLADE SCHOOL
The name is fine (but not great). Maybe something will come to you. I really love the concept though. I'll have to see how it plays out later.

BONUS FEAT

[...]

I've removed the bonus feats from the class entirely, as clutter - I'll consider whether I need to revise the Arcanas, or if I can replace them with a tighter class feature.

BLADE POWER

Since it appears on your table, it should also appear in writing. It can be brief, as long as it is clear.

Fair. In my defense, I structured the Blade School/Blade power language on cavalier Orders, for whom 'Order Ability' is on the table but not text.

CANTRIPS

I don't see this on the table.

Presently cantrips are not a class feature.

FORCEFUL CASTER

Is there a limit on uses per day? This seems like a very potent ability to have at-will.

It's more powerful in the abstract than in context - Minor casters invariably lag behind in the ability to get spells off. This can be fine, but I want the mage knight to be able to relevantly cast offensive spells. I would expect their DCs to be an easy 2-5 behind the curve before forceful caster. Additionally, in theory the swift action should interact with other things the MK wants to do.

It might be too powerful but atm I'm pretty comfortable with it. They can get off their few best spells with something close to the success of lazy wizard. Adding it to SLAs is possibly a bit much though - I'll have to see what SLAs they end up with.

ARCANE ASSAULT
Needs more work. Each ability is kind of too different. For example, the necromancy power is almost always useful, whereas the abjure toon and evocation abilities would not stack with the abilities of certain magic items he is likely to have.

I was thinking about this as well w/r/t Abj & Evo. My thought was it's easy enough for them to skip the RoP or Flaming sword if they're Abj/Evo. I personally like that they're different, and I'm not sure they need to be more homogeneous, but they definitely need a second look or two, and some general balancing.

SPELLWOVEN STRIKES
Interesting variant on Spell Combat

Thanks! I think it somewhat works for a more martial character. Powerful but not overpowered.

I've thought about altering DCs or boosting low level DCs too, for the same reasons you've stated.

I've also tried boosting DCs to a flat 10+CL (or 1/2 Class level if you prefer. Or you could disallow/alter prayer beads, or you could call it 'base caster level' to be distinguished from effective caster level/etc) - and I think it worked ok, not great.

To add another angle to this discussion though, I think you should consider characters that *only* get lower level spells. Minor and Medium casters are screwed when it comes to spells with DCs, dramatically reducing their options for magical awesome.

If you imagine a hypothetical minor caster who gets something like Stinking Cloud - great and awesome control spell, but they get it at 10th level, 2.5 levels behind the curve. Add to that that their casting stat is a secondary stat that's going to be ~ -2-4 from the DC compared to the wizard. And they're sure not casting persistent spell.

I think medium casters frequently fall on the same side of the line (though to a lesser degree obviously) - which I think is a shame. They're already getting fewer spells, lower levels, slower progression. In my ideal world partial casters wouldn't have "weaker" magic, just more narrow magic, or fewer uses, etc.

Just random thoughts. I like the heighten idea though - or to rip off 5e or the 'undercast' able spells, if spells scaled with spell slot level. Actually really that might be what you want. And you sound like you don't like optimization too much as a philosophy. Perhaps yet another case of '5e is a better game'! =P

Behold, another full bab mage knight/magusy sort of class.

This dude started out as an 'Eldritch Knight' Fighter archetype/variant with minor casting and paired wizard school combos, before going way out into the weeds.

Take a look!

Feel free to rip it apart - criticism appreciated (though preferably more specific than 'I hate it' or 'x is way too powerful ;P) - all comments are appreciated, but in particular I am looking for:

- feedback on existing abilities, balance, adjustments to features
- brainstorms for Blade Schools, 'Arcanas', missing Arcane Assault Powers
- general feel
- NAMES! Class name? 'Arcana' names? 'Blade School' (in general), or names/themes for specific blade schools.
- whatever else

Thanks!

I'd more or less second the suggestions made above - and especially that the GM and player should strongly consider doing at least some basic retraining/rerolling.

A couple of builds that we're really touched on at all, however, that I think would perhaps speak to your friend's desire for a high damage, dex based slayer are TWF build & Natural Attacks build.

TWF: Commonly frowned upon on the boards as inferior to 2H or archery, twf can still be a lot of fun, and slayer is likely the strongest contender for best twf. To do this, your friend will want to ideally trade out Crossbow combat style for either TWF or Weapon and Shield (probably superior). For the former, dual kukris or her Rapier + Kukri are both viable. I recommend she get a quick runner's shirt, and otherwise will have to try to coordinate with other PCs (glaive guy for example) to try to lock down enemies so she can get off full attacks. As she gets to higher levels, it strongly behooves her to pick up critical feats - keen weapons or imp. critical, and even critical focus/critical <status>. There are TWF ranger and slayer guides she could take a look at for ideas.

With weapon and shield, she can go kukri & heavy spiked shield or keep the rapier and go light spiked shield. Ranger combat style gets her Shield Mastery at 6th level (!). This route is potentially more powerful and she can also get cool stuff like free shield slams and a better AC, but it is feat heavy. (Incidentally, I have a friend who suggests a Dual Klar build for extra powerful, double shield slams/shield mastery cheese. I think it's kinda dumb but ymmv ~shrug~)

Natural Attacks: for this you have a couple of options, but ultimately won't be strong without some more substantial retraining/modifications to the character. Specifically, you need a way to get at least 3 primary attacks (claw claw bite) - you can get claws via Catfolk or Aspect of the Beast, but it's going to be tough to get a bite.

You have two main options here that I see: the first is appealing to the GM to let you take cat's claws, natural weapon ranger style, and house rule Aspect of the Beast to get a Bite attack instead. There is also the Adopted -> Tusked trait which I think wouldn't be unreasonable to allow, however this is a secondary NA which is lame.

The second is more extreme: if the GM let's her reroll to a Skinwalker (Weretiger kin) - she keeps almost exactly the same stat mods, abilities, and flavor but can a) hide as a human, and b) get some very powerful shifts in her cat form - namely a bite attack (though see in darkness is super-good! And +10 base speed is nothing to sneeze at). Then she takes ranger style natural attacks, aspect of the beast.

In either of these cases she's *ok* with her stats as they are, but the best option is to reduce her str (to put points elsewhere, or whatever), and pick up weapon finesse and an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists asap (WBL she should be able to afford this as of 3rd level - 4th at the latest). For a conversation on what goes into a high damage natural attack build ranger/slayer (and some comparisons to TWF) see this old thread.

Whatever she does, as she advances, I recommend she pick up UMD (she can get this as a class skill via traits if retraining) to get her some magic - she'll want buffs especially for the natural attack build and unless you have a druid or summoner or some such, she may have to get those herself. Beyond that magic is extremely powerful and versatile and she benefits from having access to it in some way. Similarly, if the GM allows unchained rogue talents, minor and major magic are worth it.

Stygian Slayer archetype might be worth it for her. She definitely needs either power attack or piranha strike to make her damage relevant, however it's important to note that especially with TWF, you can't always use power attack.

Flanking is your friend - more +hit = more reliable use of power attack = significantly more damage.

Dotting. I am also working on a full martial 'arcane knight' sort of class - I'll take a look at this later!

As others have said, daring champion cavalier or swashbuckler synergize well with martial bards - that said, fighter 1 is perfectly serviceable insofar as you get weapons, some feats, etc. (Fighter or daring champion gets you med armor Prof, which qualifies you for mithril breastplate, swashbuckler gets you panache, but you won't have anything spectacular to do with it).

Either way I would recommend a 1 level dip, 2 max. If you go the first route, use finesse to pick up fencing grace or equivalent. It's feat taxy but as a small & low str bard you don't get much out of pursuing whip focus which is a common strategy.

Don't discount your spells as a martial bard - the bard spell list is amazing and will dramatically (heh) improve your combat abilities.

I would start with as high a dex as you can afford, possibly 8,17,14,12,8,16 (after racial), or 6 str if you don't want to lower wisdom.

I agree to some extent that the combat roles don't totally mesh for me. Perhaps just a larger, "Combat Role" field that can be filled out as appropriate for the character?

A question about traits:

I have two traits in mind that seem particularly suited to Raven: Mercenary (to give a nod to her years of mercenary work) and Bruising Intellect (to show Raven's prickly, dry wit, as well as the fact that she's really damn scary, despite the fact that she has a low Charisma). However, they are both "Social" traits, and by PFS rules, I can't take two traits from the same category. Can I take them anyways?

Looking for work, world traveler, imperial soldier, and survivor all have some of the same sort of flavor/mechanics as Mercenary. It looks like they're all just about regional traits, too - I feel like you could probably reskin one of those, or justify Mercenary being a regional trait.

So first off, I think this is a cool idea - it's thematic, it's creative, and it is definitely a sort of character you see in martial arts movies, etc.

That said, it is rough mechanically - Barbarian doesn't really cover any of the weaknesses of Monk - your guy will still be MAD as hell (heh) - barbarian needs str and con, but without any armor your AC is going to be low even with a decent wisdom. So you still need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis.

- If you're only going to be immune to fatigue at very high levels, what levels are you expecting to play at, and how will the character function there?

- You're going to have very few rounds of rage unless you start spending feats on extra rage, which is already pretty suboptimal.

- Some GMs might rule that using your ki powers or monk abilities requires focus and patience, and can't even be used while raging. I think that'd be dumb but check with your GM.

- Alignment restrictions as has been pointed out - this is dumb, your GM should just waive it. That said,

Would've liked to do (un)monk/(un)barbarian that only took one level of monk. However the trait to get around that alignment restriction would require me to be an aasimar and they are frowned upon at our table.

Monks don't lose any abilities when they cease to be Lawful - if you were a monk 1, went berserk and dropped out, you'd keep all your powers and be nonlawful, fulfilling the Barbarian requirements.

The reverse is harder as Barbarian explicitly loses rage if you're lawful.

- I'm not sure you actually *get* that much from rage - Unchained, you'll get some temp HP (not helpful when rage cycling - in fact, you'll lose them on the first cycle and not get them back) and some bonus damage. In fact, I'm not even sure what you get from rage cycling with unchained barbarian. It seems like they removed most of the 1/rage powers anyway.

If you aren't super attached to actual barbarian levels, your best bet might be VMC barbarian. You'll get rage and a decent number of rounds, at higher levels you'll get a rage power and if you want you could use feats to get a few more. No alignment restriction, no delaying Monk abilities. I'd do perhaps a dwarf monk with high str, con, and wis - make friends with a wizard or get a wand of mage armor, some barkskin, and you'll probably be fine.

Can you tell us a little about magic items in your game? Specifically, are they fairly commonly available, or rare? Is a 1st level wand something you can buy in a shop (and will we have access to such things - I know in early kingmaker you're out in the wilderness, and in the kingdom building rules you can build magic shops and such). Are players going to be able to purchase specific/custom items? e.g. Dr'z'ez the drow ranger really wants a +1 Keen Frost Scimitar and has the cash. Can he 'put in an order' to get it made, does he have to take whatever is 'on the rack', or are magic items rare and powerful and you don't just go walking into the mall to get a magic sword?

Is retaining allowed, and how good a reason would you need to consider it? For example: Character A took a feat to make his character work at 3rd, but at 7th got a class ability/magic item/whatever that makes it obsolete. Can he retrain it? Or, Character B is a cleric of Gorum, however over the course of the game and hanging out with half a dozen paladins of Erastil, has a change of heart after significant RP, and changes faiths - can she retrain as seems appropriate?

Thanks for the regular updates!

I would like to use the idea of a hobbit goodwife turned paladin. Auras on arrow will be the theme.

This is a great character concept in my unsolicited opinion and you are probably super cool. (I was also considering a mother-turned-adventurer but perhaps I'll leave that to you.)

I second third fourth background skills, I think.

This sounds fantastic - The AEther seems cool , but particular your plans about in game time. I completely agree that PF/D&D games in general, and kingmaker-type stuff in particular suffers from a lack of significant passage of time.

The AEther actually makes several other character concepts I've had more interesting/viable for this campaign, I think.

Trying to avoid one off character questions, BUT: Do you think a AEther mystery Oracle would be viable in your game? I'm imagining reskinning a dark tapestry oracle (or, if you recruit her, possibly working together to make an editted 'AEther mystery')

Say the noble daughter of a modest but respectable house, haunted by madness and powers none of her family can understand or explain away who makes herself scarce by joining the expedition to the stolen lands.

W/r/t actually damaging the watchtower Ravingdork has the best answer, and I think these mechanics dominate the actual situation you describe. As has been noted fireball ignites combustibles, but there's a big difference between igniting some papers or even logs and, you know, burning down a *building*. Lighting a tree-trunk on fire is a *huge* amount of work - speaking as someone for whom wildfire is a part of the job.

That said, I think this sort of clever play is fun, and you weren't actually asking about the damage. How I would handle it, probably, is use the HP from the structure guidelines, and say after a few fireballs and perhaps about 1/4 of the tower's HP (perhaps 200 or so), you could get it burning decently. At this point I would deal at least 1d6 fire damage/round to the tower and anyone in it, increasing as the fire grows in strength. Hmm, perhaps for every 20hp of damage the fire does to the structure, it goes up a d6? Could do 10 if you want it to turn into a conflagration quick.

W/r/t to crushed glass - I realize we're playing a game about, conventionally, murderhobos, but I find this sort of play extremely distasteful. Tell your player to come up with a new plan.

I'd like to express my interest in joining! I have some minor kingmaker experience, though I've also used the kingdom rules pretty heavily. I'd be extremely interested in a more original/'off-the-mod' version of Kingmaker like you talked about.

I have something like three characters I'd be interested in playing, all of which straddle the nature/civilization divide in some way - I'll save details and builds for if you're interested in recruitment.

The gist of it is:

Moiche Bycopse - Halfling Ranger/Alchemist ('Borderland Chemist')

Yemu, Huntress of the Pride - Half-Orc Packmaster Hunter (& honorary lioness.)

Ojana - Inquisitor or Warpriest of Erastil

Question: are you open at all to homebrew material, or making allowances/interpretations for your game in general?

I was thinking of Fanglord too, though the stats weren't what I expected.

I personally would make a tiger-race +Str/Cha or maaaaybe Str/Int. I think the charisma makes sense because they are creatures with extremely powerful and compelling presence. I personally try to avoid + to two physical or + to two mental with custom races. I think the division in standard of one phys/one mental tends to add a bit more depth than when it's too heavily weighted in either direction.

As far as Standard versus Flexible... I suppose it's upto you (and your GM), but I think usually having a -2 somewhere, in PF, can also add a little bit of depth. That said it may be that there's nothing obvious to stick on a tiger-dude, because tigers are too cool!

Re: -wis it's just "curiosity killed the cat", in stat form.