Aspis Agent

Gavmania's page

Organized Play Member. 2,372 posts (5,316 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 40 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,372 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

dotting for interest


ok, I'm looking to get into a game after a long hiatus, so here goes:

I'm thinking of playing a con-artist Sorceror of the shapechanger Bloodline, a follower of Areshkagal who ended up in Alyushinnyrra by unlocking a portal to there in one of Areshkegal's Temples when he needed to make a run for it after conning a Wizard out of a load of treasure. Finding a good place to operate from (and hide from said Wizard), he decided to stay.

In RP terms, he would act as a face/dealmaker for any (or all) of the Group activities, and spell back-up in the event things go south, although his inherently selfish nature means he would think of himself first and others second (although if they have proved helpful in the past, he might make more of an effort to keep useful "Help" around)

I am considering VMC Oracle to boost his versatility, and variant tiefling (Rakshasa) as his Race. Will try to put the build together tomorrow.


Ok, well I’m in the uk so I’m out unless you are doing standard pbp


I have an idea of a character that would be cool to play in spheres of power, so I’m interested.


4d4 + 2 ⇒ (3, 2, 2, 3) + 2 = 12
4d4 + 2 ⇒ (2, 4, 1, 2) + 2 = 11
4d4 + 2 ⇒ (1, 3, 1, 1) + 2 = 8
4d4 + 2 ⇒ (1, 1, 2, 3) + 2 = 9
4d4 + 2 ⇒ (3, 3, 1, 3) + 2 = 12
4d4 + 2 ⇒ (2, 2, 1, 3) + 2 = 10
That’s dire. I think I’ll go with the standard array

Have an idea for a monk quarter staff master. I’ll see what I can build.

Do we have any idea of what creatures have been attacking the settlers? I’d like to make it part of my background


Dotting for interest


Just realised I put 4d4 instead of 4d6. Lol, what a mistake-a to make-a! Trying again:

4d6 - 3 ⇒ (3, 6, 3, 5) - 3 = 14
4d6 - 4 ⇒ (6, 5, 6, 4) - 4 = 17
4d6 - 1 ⇒ (4, 6, 2, 1) - 1 = 12
4d6 - 1 ⇒ (2, 1, 3, 1) - 1 = 6
4d6 - 1 ⇒ (1, 2, 5, 1) - 1 = 8
4d6 - 1 ⇒ (4, 5, 4, 1) - 1 = 13

Much better. I shall be playing a fighter (Eldritch Knight)


Ok, I’ll bite.
4d4 - 1 ⇒ (1, 4, 4, 2) - 1 = 10
4d4 - 1 ⇒ (1, 1, 3, 1) - 1 = 5
4d4 - 1 ⇒ (4, 1, 4, 2) - 1 = 10
4d4 - 1 ⇒ (2, 3, 1, 1) - 1 = 6
4d4 - 3 ⇒ (3, 3, 4, 4) - 3 = 11
4d4 - 2 ⇒ (3, 2, 4, 4) - 2 = 11

Can I reroll these. I can’t see being able to make a valid character of any class with a high score of 11


Dotting for interest


DM Mathpro wrote:
Established party

Do all characters have to be part of the established party? I only ask as I am considering a background where my character would have compelling reasons to go to Korvosa and seek the prize, but would then seek a party to go with. It is important that he has been elsewhere until recently.

2d6 + 6 ⇒ (1, 5) + 6 = 12
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (1, 5) + 6 = 12
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (4, 4) + 6 = 14
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (4, 1) + 6 = 11
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (6, 2) + 6 = 14
2d6 + 6 ⇒ (5, 6) + 6 = 17


The essential problem with random encounters is that the poor overworked gym is forced to come up with a cool encounter on the spot. The best way round this is to have a series of pregenerated encounters, either using a card system (encounters tied to a deck of cards, draw one at random and play the encounter associated with the draw) or predetermined (first encounter is with a war band of orcs, second with a gelatinous cube, etc.)

I can see the idea of a tension pool working, although 1 dice every hour seems a bit high (though it would depend entirely on the area). Assuming the pcs are wandering in the wilderness, encounters with a potentially deadly creature would occur about 1/day (if you add 1/hour at night too, there would be another 1/night). While this is fantasy, that seems a high preponderance of potentially dangerous creatures. Most expeditions in the modern world will go days between such encounters, if they ever have one.

Of course, if you are wandering around the local orc tribal lands, encounters should be more likely. If you include terrain hazards (rivers, gorges, cliffs, quicksand, marshlands, forest fires, etc.) you can maybe dial up the rate.

The most obvious use for a tension pool is where the party is trying to achieve something and failure doesn’t automatically mean an encounter. For example, the pcs are trying to sneak onto the aforementioned orc tribal lands. They roll stealth every hour, failure means another dice in the tension pool. Or maybe they are climbing the dragons mountain, every hour they try their climb roll, if they fail they add another dice to the tension pool. Or maybe they are working to a deadline, where the longer they take the more likely the BBEG will complete the ritual.


I have used a similar system before, and it works ok. There are essentially 2 potential problems with it: if it is awarded for getting lucky, lucky players will get the lion’s share of them and if it is awarded for cool actions, more imaginative players will get the lion’s share. If you don’t have a player who is especially lucky, or you don’t have a player who keeps coming up with cool ideas this system works fine. Even with these types of players, there are ways around it. Rewarding normally unimaginative players for any slight idea or making the hero points a team pool that anyone can use are both ways around potential problems, or just scrapping the system if it doesn’t work.
In terms of game system, it’s a useful way of getting around unlucky rolls (some players are just unlucky all the time, most players are unlucky some of the time), and in narrative terms it just sucks if you can’t seem to fight your way out of a paper bag. In pf2, as has been pointed out, the increased chances of the BBEG getting a critical means a mechanism is needed to alleviate the effects of a critical. If you scrap the hero points, you either have to reduce the power of the encounters or come up with an alternative system.
As always, the key is to use what works for you and your group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cool concept, but I would change the name. Anyone familiar with Eberron will have an idea of what an artificer is, and this only covers part of it. Not sure what you’d call it, though. Talismaner? Enchanter? Magical Craftsman?


Surprisingly, there is little difference between crossbows and longbows in practice. I used to think so until I saw a documentary a couple of years ago which compared actual users of the two weapons competing against each other in a variety of contests. The results were rather interesting:

Speed: traditionally, the bow is considered the clear winner here, with the need for a crossbow to be drawn. In practice, the difference was minimal. Something like 25 to 23 shots in a fixed time.

Accuracy: with the fletching on an arrow spinning it to give it stability in flight, it has always been considered the winner, however the crossbow is surprisingly accurate with no real discernible difference between the 2 weapons in practice.

Penetration: with its famed ability to penetrate armour, the crossbow was always my favourite here, but in practice the longbow proved just as capable.

Ease of use: with longbowmen famously having to start practicing as children, while crossbows could be picked up in a matter of minutes by anyone, the crossbow should be the winner here. In practice, however, the longbow could be picked up by an inexperienced person and used immediately (albeit less effectively than an experienced bowman).

All in all, the longbow was the winner, but the difference was minimal. How you would reflect that in the rules is difficult to say.

On the other hand, this is fantasy, not reality. I see no reason not to have our Legolases and William Tells, and it is fun to have a meaningful difference between them.


BellyBeard wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I agree that accuracy is important, but it's also important that a Rogue racket isn't straight better than multiclassing Wizard.

Best solution is probably, like I suggested, giving progression only in attack rolls and not in save DCs.

Even then, I'd be tempted to set them back a couple levels just so that they aren't getting increases at the same time as a wizard - it's not like they lose their normal proficiency, after all.

They only get cantrips, so they won't be equal to a wizard or MC wizard at all. They may have good accuracy, but won't be able to put it to as good of use with much less powerful effects.

If they multiclass as a wizard, they will get spells, and with faster proficiency progression will be better at them than other mc wizards.


Eoni wrote:
I think it's very well balanced for caster classes and Champions but Monks get the shortest end of the stick. You can never be a real ki based Monk because of everything running off this small pool so you're relegated to once an encounter tricks. I kind of feel like some Ki abilities should've become Cantrips. A two action Ki Strike would've been great.

Or focus abilities that cost 0 focus points, and can be used so long as you have focus points remaining. This retains the same idea but is closer to the flavour. Otherwise it’s just monks with spells - which is a bit weird (unless you are going for a multi class)


Not sure I agree that it needs to be better than mc wizard, but it does need to be different.
If the aim is to replicate Arcane Trickster, giving mage hand as a focus spell, followed by a number of class feats that replicate Arcane Trickster abilities (e.g. ranged legerdemain, tricky spells, etc.) should do it. If the aim is simply to make an alternative to mc wizard, I’m not interested.

One thing that should be noted is that the original Arcane Trickster assumed you were a standard Rogue (I.e. one with the thief racket) without allowing for other styles. Adding further feats that allow for these styles would allow better customisations.


Seisho wrote:
Quote:


Thirdly it’s not limited to elves. By a quirk of the rules, half elves would also be able to pick up the ability.

That is not correct, half-elf is an heritage, the possibility to pick up a dedication at level 1 also

Not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Yes, half elf is a heritage, but one of their 1st level feats (Elf avatar) enables them to pick up the heritage of their elf parent, including the ability to get a dedication feat at first level. Depending on the gm, their other race could possibly be any other race, meaning that any race could theoretically get it, though not all gms would allow it. At the very least, humans with the half elf heritage would be able to get it - which was the point that I made: it’s not limited to elves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All good stuff. The arcana will need a lot of work. For example, touch attacks don’t exist, so Accurate Strike should probably be changed to give flat footed to an opponent, while Arcane Accuracy shouldn’t give int as a bonus (maybe an alternative?). Which would alter the flavour of them while keeping their intent I think


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Minor monk fix here - alternatives to the Core monk included by trading out Flurry of Blows for other "1st level only" abilities, designed to open up the space a little more.

Early Path to Perfection
At first level, a monk chooses their path to perfection from among Body, Heart, or Spirit. This choice determines which key ability scores they may choose from, which ability they receive at first level, as well as which possible tradition their ki powers may arise from. The Monk depicted in the Core Rulebook is assumed to have chosen the path of Body, and in all ways functions identically:
** spoiler omitted **...

I like your ideas Rainzax. I made a few changes for myself though. It is a small increase in power because it includes 1 free feat for each type of Monk. Let me know what you think:

** spoiler omitted **...

Interesting ideas, the only thing that concerns me is how powerful these abilities can be. A well built monk using ki defence could be adding +3 to ac at 1st level, on a chassis that is only just behind an optimal fighter. Add in access to the shield cantrip (from ancestry feat) and 20% miss chance from ki rush and suddenly they’re untouchable. While my concerns may turn out to be unfounded, it does seem a little op. And at this stage, the build hasn’t even used a class feat.


K1 wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

But if you are homebrewing, there is nothing to stop you from giving any heritage to any ancestry. That is how we can have nonh-human half-elves and half-orcs, for example.

That goes for everything.

My point is "why would only an elf be able to be proficient in his class and very slightly in another one by lvl 1 ?".

Let's set apart the fact that we can modify a base the way we want.
It's not like having darkvision, or the blood of the dwarves.

It's simply saying that you are a former XXXXXXX which happened to learn about some other activities in the past Y years.

Consider it like a job in real life.

Elves live a very long time. It is not unreasonable to assume that even a very young elf would have had time to pick up the basics of another class.

Also, Elves traditionally blend arcane and martial ; an eleven warrior is often seen to cast basic spells in most fantasies. While that’s a more specific multi class, it does pave the way for the idea.

Thirdly it’s not limited to elves. By a quirk of the rules, half elves would also be able to pick up the ability.


Storm Dragon wrote:
If you wanna duel wield katanas, make sure to take Daisho Expertise. And yes they're still heavy blades even if treated as Light weapons.

I intend to ;)


I’m interested. I’ve never used path of war, and it looks interesting. I’m thinking about a dual katana wielding mystic build, plumekith (Garuda blooded Aasimar variant) if you’ll allow it, possibly tengu if not.
Do katanas wielded one handed still count as heavy blades?
For what it’s worth, I am a big fan of Automatic bonus progression (even though it’s not good for dual wielding characters) simply because there are a lot of interesting magic items ( e.g. wings of flying, boots of zephyr, pipes of the sewers, horn of summoning) that parties end up selling to buy the next increment of the big 6. I remember a time before the big 6 when adventures were made interesting by the use of such items, but since the advent of the big 6 such items are wasted (i’ve Done it myself) and I would like to see them return.
Assuming you’re happy, I will probably make my submission tonight for final approval.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Karissel wrote:

I don't really understand why they thought that critical's time had come again?

I wasn't aware that it had ever gone.


ok, I've read the character creation rules for random rolls, and I don't get as many bonuses as I'd like so I will roll again:

4d6 - 3 ⇒ (3, 3, 4, 3) - 3 = 10

4d6 - 2 ⇒ (6, 4, 4, 2) - 2 = 14

4d6 - 1 ⇒ (5, 3, 1, 1) - 1 = 9

4d6 - 3 ⇒ (5, 3, 4, 3) - 3 = 12

4d6 - 4 ⇒ (5, 6, 5, 4) - 4 = 16

4d6 - 1 ⇒ (3, 1, 1, 1) - 1 = 5

Man, that sucks. I'd go with it if I could swap the 5 for an 8, but I can't see a character with STR 5 being effective under the encumbrance rules. Even boosting it to 7 it's still sucky.

I'm gonna have to bow out. Shame, I was really looking forward to trying the system.


4d6 - 1 ⇒ (1, 6, 2, 3) - 1 = 11
4d6 - 1 ⇒ (1, 1, 5, 4) - 1 = 10
4d6 - 2 ⇒ (2, 2, 2, 3) - 2 = 7
4d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 5, 4) = 15
4d6 - 1 ⇒ (6, 5, 1, 1) - 1 = 12
4d6 - 3 ⇒ (3, 4, 4, 5) - 3 = 13

OK, Id play a human Noble Sorcerer. Stats could be better, but they're not bad once you add bonuses for ancestry and background.

Might go Half-Elf, haven't decided yet.


Use Headbutt!! wrote:
That being said, a lot of sorcerer players in PF1 felt punished for wanting to play sorcerers. These rules are there to help add a little flexibility and bring sorcerers more in line with wizard versatility. They did so by making the sorcerers feel more wizardly. Does it feel a bit odd? Yes most certainly. Do I understand why they did it? Absolutely.

Wizard versatility?

As a sorcerer, I can cast any spell I know on the fly, without having prepared it beforehand. Can a wizard do that? Why would I want to have to prepare beforehand? The whole point of playing a sorcerer is that he is more versatile than a wizard!


Sure. You get fewer spell slots than a school wizard or sorcerer, but get some flexibility on reusing some of those spells.

Of course, sorcerer has better flexibility and more spells.


The issue I have is that while some classes are SAD and getting 16 in a secondary stat is easy, some are MAD (e.g. Monk, Cleric, Fighter, possibly paladin) and it is more difficult for them to multiclass without weakening the build. Reducing Stat requirements to 14 would make it easier for them, so I would be happier with a 14. I want to see what multiclass versions of these can do, so encouraging them seems like a good idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is similar to what I have been advocating.

Right now, Arcane sorcerers are ok, but Divine, Occult and Primal are all lacking. While returning to Arcane lists only is an option, I don't think it'll be a very popular one.

If this gives options to Divine, Occult and Primal sorcerers that make them viable then I'm all for it.

One of the things that concerns me is the constant demand for channel energy for divine sorcerers; I don't think this is an option (although currently some alternative to Cleric healing is desirable), for the following reasons:
1) Channel Energy is a Cleric thing. It's not right to be stepping on their toes.
2) Divine sorcerers still won't be as good as Clerics (No domain powers, worse weapon proficiencies, worse armor proficiency)
3) Other ways to provide healing may be more thematic

Case in point: Angelic Bloodlines could possibly exude a healing aura (all within 10' heal 1hp/turn). This wouldn't do much in combat, but it would ensure that allies can heal up between encounters in a relatively short time. Thematic, solves the healing problem and doesn't step on the toes of clerics.
Perhaps Demonic bloodlines could have some kind of infernal healing; a spell like power that provides powerful healing, but takes a little time to cast (1 min?) that way, it's not useful in-combat (for that you need spells), but it will cover out of combat healing without using up spells.

Another thing I thought may be a possible innovation is to allow sorcerers to recover a spell slot by spending resonance. (say 1 resonance per level of spell slot?) That would give them a resource to gain extra spells (giving them back their extra spells when compared to a wizard) without having to resort to scrolls (which should primarily be a wizard thing).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
Wolfism wrote:


Also the tight math really helps the idea that my roleplayed combat ideas might actually mean something so that I'll actually use them more often. If climbing a chandelier and jumping on an opponent gives me a circumstance bonus on my one attack that actually matters in the round I get a significant higher chance of getting a crit, and vice versa for flipping a table for cover. That means it feels good to do as a player and I'm actually a lot more likely to actually do interesting actions that interact with the world. I love that.
While that sounds truly horrible to me, like an even slower more cumbersome version of 4e's diseased combat engine, I'm far more curious why/how people are correlating combat tactics with roleplaying? The two are concepts are almost completely unrelated as far as I can tell...

Swinging on a chandelier is more of a trope than an actual combat tactic. What swashbuckling adventure isn't complete without the hero swinging on a chandelier (or rope, or curtain, etc.)? In the real world, doing this would mean placing yourself in an unbalanced position with little control and an inability to shift in response to your opponents moves - in other words, it's a horrible combat tactic. It is however a powerful roleplay moment and should rightfully be rewarded for getting into the spirit of the game.


Captain Morgan wrote:

I don't remember, do any monk features stop working with a shield? If not, a general feat on shields could be worth taking. All though, it might effectively lower you unarmored proficiency.

I guess there are Parry weapons, which I think should work without monastic weaponry, but they still don't use a reaction. I agree a defensive reaction seems like a big thing they are missing.

Monk features don't stop, but you take the lower of Shield or armor proficiency when using a shield (or unarmoured proficiency in the Monk's case), which means AC bonus goes from +2 (Expert unarmoured) to 0 (-2 untrained Shield proficiency, +2 using a shield). Not really worth it.

Parry weapons work, and you don't have to have proficiency to be able to parry.

I think the best way to emulate Dodges, blocks and Parries would be to give them better than average unarmoured proficiency...which they already have done. There you go, Dodges, parries and Blocks already baked in!

Seriously, though, at low levels, Monks do have low AC. You either have to invest heavily in DEX (not a bad idea anyway), or use maneuvers to hit and run. At Higher levels, AC improves a lot (I believe it's generally better than anyone else?, plus TAC is better, as are saves)


SuperSheep wrote:
There's a lot of wiggle room between freely heightening 2 spells and All spells. Perhaps upping the baseline to 4. Or increasing it regularly. Say 2 to start and 1 for every other new spell level leaving you with 5 free by level 19.

Sure, If the consensus is that sorc's are underpowered that can be done.

So far, only non-Arcanes seem underpowered, most people seem to be reporting that arcane sorc's are ok.

That being so, I don't think extra heightenings will help. It might beef up non-arcanes, but arcanes would also get boosted (and because of their better spell list it would probably boost them more).


houser2112 wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
Free heightening improves sorcerers way more than it does wizards.
Free heightening is thematically appropriate for the sorc to have. The current heightening rules double down on the wizard's strength, and the sorc's weakness.

Not really sure what you mean by that, in what way does it double down on the wizard's strength and the sorc's weakness?


Free heightening improves sorcerers way more than it does wizards. While the wizard has to hope he has the exact spell prepared or 10 minutes to spare for quick study, the sorcerer can just cast it. He doesn't even have to worry about spell obsolescence, since he doesn't prepare ahead of time.

The devs tried free heightening on all spells, it made the sorcerer OP. They tried heightening on bloodline spells only, but some bloodlines have lots of spells with heightened versions and some had none, making bloodline choice very swingy.

I'm guessing that the choice to remove the class feats in favour of bloodline powers came about as a way to try and balance sorcerers. I'm also guessing that different spell lists were not tried (or perhaps they were a last minute change and were not available), hence Arcanes are ok, but Primal/Divine/Occult all have problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanoskazi wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Zorae wrote:
Although, if you go the Demonic bloodline you effectively get to spend 2 actions and then get an finesse attack that gives you 1d4 Temp HP every time you hit a living creature (scaling with level). Which is pretty neat - you could effectively prevent as much damage as a single channel with just a few rounds.
My reply is "WTF is a sorcerer doing in melee?"
Biting people.

What else would a sorcerer be doing in melee?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Bear in mind that even if you nerf cleric, you STILL need to give the sorcerer "more toys" to bring it up to par. The sorcerer gets less feats, less hit points, less gear proficiencies, less flexible spellcasting, less flexibility in advancement due to being locked into one bloodline, and only one power compared to the two a cleric or Bard gets. While one power is on par with wizard and druid, the powers THEY get are universally better than the bloodline power a sorcerer gets. The only class as bad as or worse than the sorcerer is the Alchemist; it needs major improvements.

I agree. The only thing the sorcerer gets is more spells and bloodlines. If the spell list is unexciting, they have to rely on bloodline abilities to make an impact, and right now they don't cut it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

As I understand it, the clerics healing abilities are pretty much a must have to survive encounters. nerfing them means nerfing the chances of survival.

But giving divine sorcerers equal healing power would cut in on the cleric (and they still wouldn't be as good as a cleric who gets armor proficiency, weapon proficiency and divine powers); they really need something different but cool to give them back their mojo.

That's why I think some kind of advanced bloodline feat chain would work. Angel bloodlines be coming pseudo angels or demon bloodlines becoming pseudo devils would be cool and give sorcerers something to do besides just cast (lame) spells and be a poor cleric substitute.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They definitely need something. Outside of arcane casters, the spell lists aren't strong enough to support a sorcerer. Who would play a divine sorcerer when a cleric can do so much more? Ditto primal sorcerer and druid; and occult sorcerer and bard.

It is obvious that the idea of different spell lists depending on bloodlines is very popular, so I would be reluctant to abandon that, but whatever is chosen to improve the sorcerer has to be both flavorful and must cost the arcane sorcerer something to implement. I suggest some kind of advanced bloodline chain of feats; taking these would eat into the arcane sorcerers metamagic feats but give other sorcerers something other than second rate spells that they can use.


Nothing stopping you from going the other way; take Monk class (or fighter, or paladin, or...) and get the wizard multiclass dedication feat.
Monk with mage Armor would work extremely well


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignment doesn't restrict roleplay. It doesn't dictate what your character wouldn't do, only what they are unlikely to do. If the character acts outside their alignment too often, their alignment changes. For some classes (e.g. Paladin or cleric) this may have consequences, but for others it is about the growth of the character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been giving this some thought while the forum has been down. While regenerative healing is an interesting idea, it doesn't solve the wider problem, which is that the non-arcane sorcerer doesn't work very well. While they get more spells than their counterparts, all of their various counterparts (Cleric, Bard or Druid) get powers and weapon/armour proficiencies which simply make them a better choice.

That's why I am more than ever convinced that sorcerer needs something that will cost class feats (so it will cost arcane sorcerers something) but which is thematic and unique to sorcerers. I still think advanced bloodline Feats are the best fit for this, such that e.g. angelic bloodlines can become more like an angel or draconic bloodlines can become more draconic, but at the cost of metamagic, etc.

Needless to say some thought needs to be given to when such Feats become available and what they are, but it seems like the basis of a solution.


I'm not sure giving divine sorcerers channel energy would work. Firstly, it is treading on the toes of the cleric (which is contrary to the design ethos for class design) and secondly, clerics would still have access to better armour and hp, so I think people would still play cleric by preference.
Sorcerers need something unique that only they can do that provides a theme to build around. Bloodlines make a good start, but more would need to be done to make them viable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems to me the divine sorcerer needs some kind of theme it can excel at when compared to a cleric. At the moment, the cleric is better at combat builds and healing, and the divine list doesn't have enough oomph to make
the sorcerers extra spells/level count. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but maybe some more bloodline feats to make them more angelic/demonic might be thematic?


The problem is you don't need to make an attack to use the parry trait so, RAW, you can use it untrained.
Personally, I agree that RAI you should have training to use weapon traits, but it needs to be made clear.


Shield cantrip is not a good choice for a monk. Your armored proficiency is the lower of shield or armor when using a shield, and you are untrained in shield use...so it actually tanks your ac. (Though if you get proficiency from cleric dedication, it would work. It also reduces damage from one attack).
Without the shield cantrip, your ac seems a little low, though I am not used to looking at higher levels than 1st so it could just be me.


Congrats guys, have fun


Well, I couldn't see a potion. what page is it on? but yes, that would work better (except maybe for cost)


I don't see that Monks have too much of a problem with ac at 1st level, after all it's possible to have 20ac at level 1. Of course, it takes your entire build to do so, but:
get crane style as your class feat (+1ac)
play as human and use Natural ambition to get Monastic weapons, then carry a Bo staff for parry (+1ac)
get trained in Knowledge (arcane) and get the skill feat trick magic item so you can cast Mage armor. 2nd level scrolls cost 8gp (you start with 15, but have not much else you need to buy apart from some gear and a Bo staff) and will give +2ac.
So that's: level (+1), Dex (+4), proficiency (+1), Crane style(+1), parry (+1) and Mage Armor (+2).

There is no rule saying you have to do all this, so if you wanted to drop one of the feats, or reduce the investment in Dex in favour of STR or Con (or anything else), it's possible. Also if you want to play a different race (so you can't get 2 class feats), your ac will still be good.


ok, this was mostly thrashed out in the sorcerer blog thread.

The complaints seem to boil down to the following:

1)Flexibility
2)Number of spells

so, 1)flexibility: A wizard can take 10 min. to learn any spell he knows, beating the poor sorcerer hands down, right?
Wrong. A sorcerer doesn't need 10 min, he can already cast any spell he knows. That's what spontaneous casting means.
Ah, but...a wizard knows so many more spells!
So? for a wizard, knowing a spell does not mean he has it prepared. He is limited to what he has prepared...and what he can get in 10 min.

I can't see any encounter waiting 10 min while a wizard learns the perfect spell, so both wizard and sorcerer rely on what they have available, which really favors the sorcerer. Sure, given time the wizard can rejig his spells, but time is not always available.

Then too, my arcane sorcerer can have access (if he so chooses) to the complete list of heal spells (or e.g. cure spells). Can a wizard do that?
But how?, I hear you say. Easy. Sorcerers can pick up the Arcane Evolution Feat at 4th level. That means they can add a spell from a scroll to their repertoire. Any spell. It doesn't even speify it has to be an arcane spell.
So, If I have a scroll of Heal1 (which is cheap), and get trick magic item so as to be able to cast it, I can add it to my repertoire for the day.
Now, spontaneous heightening says I can pick a spell I know - such as heal1, and heighten it to know all the heal spells. I'd like to see a wizard do that.

2) Number of spells. Granted universalist wizard is an exceptional case, but outside of that there isn't too much difference between sorcerer and wizard. At higher levels, chances are you won't use all your spell slots anyway, so I can't see it making a huge difference.