Abadar

Luigi Vitali's page

27 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS


Cfoot wrote:


I 'm biased because I loved 3.5 and when PF1 came out I was like, "Wow this is 3.5 on steroids!". I was hooked immediately. PS1 was said to be like 3.75. I was hoping PF2 would be like 3.8.

A new edition is not just a new PHB. It's a chain of new products, and the change of rules must be deep enough to explain why the new books couldn't be made under the previous edition. Paizo, admittedly, had the chance to publish a 3.75 edition because of the schism caused by 4e, and pf1 came with a specific campaign setting (Golarion) and finally, as a third party publisher they could change what they wanted compared to WotC. But now they are going to be the successor of themselves and after so many books, it would be hard to justify, going with a "3.8" edition, much more than a new PHB, DMG, and, possibly, a new APG.

My main gripe is that pf2 seems to me more "Paizo 4e" than "Paizo 5e" or "Paizo 3.8". I liked, and still like, basic, 2e, 3e, pf1, 5e. Never liked 4e though. I hope I will change my mind about pf2.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kondenado wrote:

Dear All,

The question here is not about the game, but about the metagame.

You are absolutely right, one thing is the units used by characters and another the units for describing the game. As an example, Farenheit temperature was certainly not something used in the middle ages. It is used simply because Americans use that, not for any other reason.

Paizo could define a system of measurement for Golarion, and use a partial metric for the rules, but they will not do that.

The problem with the imperial units is that they are often a mess. This is an excerpt from the 3.0 "create water" spell:

Create Water

Effect: Up to 2 gallons of water/level

Water weighs about 8 pounds per gallon. One cubic foot of water contains roughly 8 gallons and weighs about 60 pounds.

In the metric system, the entire sentence above would be omitted. Capacity and volume is the same thing, and everybody knows that 1 liter of water weights 1kg. "4 liters/level" would be a good enough description.

You are however, completely out of luck if you think designers would ever publish an english version of the rules using the metric system, or even part of it. There is a higher chance of a 20km asteroid hitting Earth, than that.

First of all, Americans tend to ignore the outside world, and expect everybody else to adapt. Second, the difference between the two systems is VERY deep.

In the metric system you know that there are length, weight, time... and multiples. That's it.
In the imperial, every scope, every type of measure, every scale has its own label. Beer? pint. Milk? Quarter. Fuel? Gallon. Small length? Inch. Bigger? Foot. Football field? Yard.

This conceptual difference becomes rooted in your brain. You go to the USA, tell the taxi driver to move a few yards, and he looks at you as you are mad. They only knows feet, within the scope of "moving the car on the road". I did not say meters (heaven forbid) but yards. Don't even get me started on cookery recipes, it looks like science fiction: "cups" "teaspoons" "measure" because you cannot simply use weight (too complicated with pounds/ounces).

Do you really think that you'll ever see Celsius temperature on your PHB when even NASA tells you that sun temperature is measured in Farenheit? Not going to happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mournblade94 wrote:
Diffan wrote:


*Ok personal pet peeve* Please tell me you mispelled his name on purpose. It's spelled Drizzt and has been for the last 20+ years.

Well the original spelling was Driz'zt. But that is fine, spelling now can stay Drizzt. Still, go ahead and try to pronounce it. I Still here different pronunciations of it.

My pet peave is Drow pronounced like a bow and arrow. I have always pronounced it as bow being the front of a boat. Drives me as crazy as people from the west saying Soda is Pop. Can I have a POP? <Punch>

I think you meant "hear".

My personal pet peeve is that the international language of choice, namely English, has no clear rule for reading it whatsoever. Words with complete different spelling are pronounced the same way and viceversa the same letters or combinations of letters change sounds without any possible explanation.
I didn't even know that "bow" and "bow" could be pronounced differently.
Worse still, those non-existent rules are often applied when reading foreign words, with awful results. I really like that in FR, the pronounciation of gods is reported, so that let's say, "Selune" has a sound resemblance of the original "Selene" and not the English mockery of it.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
ProfPotts wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Almost. You can use those weapons modifiers IF the weapon is used for the maneuver. For trip this requires the property. Disarm and sunder do not require this property to be done via a weapon and gain the bonus. You never get those benefits if you are using bull-rush, reposition, steal, dirty trick, grapple, drag or overrun (though you might be able to argue that you do if it's done via the UC "strike" feats that give you those maneuver checks on criticals).

Hold on... this...

help/FAQ wrote:

If you want to make a trip combat maneuver, do you have to use a weapon with the trip special feature?

No. Note that when making a trip combat maneuver, you don't need to use a weapon at all--for example, you can trip when you're unarmed, even though unarmed strike isn't listed as a trip weapon.
There are advantages to using a weapon with the trip special feature (a.k.a. a "trip weapon") when making a trip combat maneuver. One, if your trip attack fails by 10 or more, you can drop the trip weapon instead of being knocked prone. Two, you can apply the weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon-specific attack bonuses such as Weapon Focus, and so on to your trip combat maneuver roll.
For example, you'd add the enhancement bonus from a +5 whip to your trip combat maneuver roll because a whip is a trip weapon. You wouldn't add the enhancement bonus from a +5 longsword to your trip combat maneuver roll because a longsword is not a trip weapon. In effect, there's no difference between making an unarmed trip attempt and a trip attempt with a +5 longsword because the sword doesn't help you make the trip attempt.

—Sean K Reynolds, 03/15/11

... is what I was thinking of. Where are you getting the rest of what you say? Can you post a reference please?

It's basically in the Core Book. From the PRD:

"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."

Combat maneuvers are basically attacks. Bonuses and penalties to attack rolls apply to them, as long as it make sense. Bonuses that pertain to a weapon can be applied if and only the weapon is used to perform the maneuver. FAQ clarify that the TRIP property allows a weapon to apply the bonuses. It follows, although not explicitly stated, the only trip weapons (or no weapon at all) are used to perform trip attempts.

Note that the FAQ also says:

"In effect, there's no difference between making an unarmed trip attempt and a trip attempt with a +5 longsword because the sword doesn't help you make the trip attempt."

"Doesn't help" could still be interpreted that "but you are still using it", but it's applicable only as long as it does not have any relevant mechanic effects. Using a reach weapon like a spear to perform a trip attent at range would NOT be allowed.


Ashiel wrote:


Thanks. That's also plenty of reason for me. I know that LG clerics cannot cast Chaotic spells. RAW they can prepare them, but not cast them. However, if they were to activate a protection from law wand, or a scroll via UMD, there is no reason their deity should suddenly come down out of the sky and get pissed with them. Which was what that question was meant to contest.

Sorry but that's unbelievable. After pages of discussions, we are still at square one.

- Clerics can't CAST spells of opposite alignment. You agree to that. That's RAW.

- Using a scroll is like casting. You cast from a scroll. A scroll is basically, someone has prepared ahead the spell for you. You still must cast it. Quotes from the manual have already being given.

It follows that a cleric can't use scrolls of opposite alignment. That's RAW.

All this discussion about what is evil, what makes you evil, and what a deity gives a damn about a cleric is doing, is irrelevant to the original question. Even IF we assume that casting a spell with the evil description was evil, and even if that single act could make a cleric evil, and even if said cleric would become immediately an ex cleric AFTER casting from a scroll, that still would not explain why he couldn't cast it in the first place. So why bother?

Now, A developer has added that even spell triggers items should be forbidden, under the same rule. Imo, this is not by RAW, because using a wand is not like casting, so I consider this RAI, not RAW. Scrolls are however, a clear case.

Cheers


My opinion.

- The mechanic

Clerics can't cast spells opposed to their (or their deity's) alignment. This has nothing to do with their class spell list. You can read the cleric spell list on the manual. Whether or not the cleric can cast those spells is irrelevant. Otherwise, you could argue that a sorcerer couldn't use wands or cast spells from scrolls if he does not know them.

So, a cleric can certainly use wands or spell trigger items, even if they contain spells that are opposed in alignement (as long as they are on his spell list).

What about scrolls? According to manual, using a scroll is "basically the same as casting a spell". This is also proved by the fact that using a scroll

- You draw AOOs
- you must meet a certain caster level, or make caster level checks
- You must have a sufficiently high ability score

Yes, clerics are casters in their own right. They receive spells by praying, but use their own power, which is drawn from the spiritual forces they follow. If they weren't casters, they couldn't use scrolls at all (a divine scroll does not come from a deity, it's a piece of paper made from someone that could have a completely different faith) But they can't, of course, draw power from forces that are opposed to their beliefs!

In short: using a scroll is like casting, so no, I wouldn't allow a lawful cleric to use a chaotic spell on a scroll. A point could be made about a spell which oppose the deity's alignment and not the cleric's, but it would be a house rule, and to keep things simple, I would disallow that as well.

- Role playing

A cleric become an ex when he grossly violates his code. What "grossly" means is not specified, and it's pointless, imo, to debate it on a forum without other specifics. Depending on circumstances, DMs, the type of violation, the deity, the intent, it could mean "A hundred times" or "just once".

Cheers


Phasics wrote:


killing an evil NPC regardless of the circumstances is a good/neutral act not an evil one, such are the clear cut ways of PF

Not in the rules, and not in practice in most games I played/witnessed.

Good people kill out of necessity, and circustances, such as protecting the innocent or to bring justice. Killing someone JUST BECAUSE it's evil, it's evil or chaotic, not good. Otherwise, a paladin entering a town would just turn on detect evil and slaughter anybody that signal as evil.

Quote:


if you want to argue morality then adventures who slay ANY monster who just happens to cross their path is an evil act.

If the monster is attacking them, whether the critter it is evil or not it's irrelevant (I mean, they are acting in self defense). If the monster poses no threat, killing it just because "just happens to cross their path" does not sound goodish, unless is a type of monster which is always evil and known to be very dangerous anyway or is not sentient and it's killed for food etc.

Let's not confuse playing styles with alignments issues. I know that often, games are played without much moral concerns and are about killing the bad guy. There's nothing wrong with that. You just quickly label the opponent according to type (Goblin --> kill, bandit--> kill etc).

However, when someone opens a thread about a specific situation, it means that moral concerns are important for the game is in and wants detail. In these cases a more articulate answer is needed. Good and evil ppl act differently.

As to answer the OP, It depends on circumstances, and especially, whether it was necessary or not to kill the guy after him being charmed. Also how much the NPC was dangerous is also a factor. A brute that enjoys killing and has already escaped from prison is the primary candidate for such tricks.


Interesting thread. I can see reasons for both interpretations, and game style have a lot of weight here.
Still, I would favor the "character will get a save when drinking a harmful potion".

Here's why:

I think that almost every DM on earth would not ask a player to save against a beneficial spell because their character is unconscious. In the same circumstance, they will grant a ST against a harmful spell.

In case of resurrections, you may think about the "soul" deciding, but the rules do not say anything explicit for the other spells. The simplest interpretation is the the default for harmless effect is no save and the opposite for harmful effects.
Let's assume, however, that there's not a default action, but that the "body" or the "soul" or the "inner whatever" may still take decisions when you are agonizing on the floor. In this case, that would apply even when the character is awake: It would be absurd, to me, that an unconscious body could make better decisions then the awaken character. I don't see the typical non-caster always be required to decide whether the spell cast on him is harmful or not when he could just sleep the thing over: "Wait to cast your spell until I'm snoring, my body will know". What would normally happen, is that the player will let the "inner whatever" decide what to do. He does not need to decide anything; however, if willing, a character may go against his own instincts and can be tricked in doing that.

In the case of a potion, the character is not deciding anything while drinking. He expects a beneficial spell, so he is not willingly deciding to forgo the save. He just will make the save, albeit unexpectedly.

It would be possible however, to cheat someone by describing let's say, that the potion contains an evil spells that will cause temporary death, when actually the death is permanent: in this case, the player/character may decide to not make the save (and die :P).


Kvlt wrote:

Hey guys, well as the title says I'm new to the Pathfinder game and universe and trying to decide on what character I'll roll first.

I'm currently considering a Chaotic Neutral Half-Elf Inquisitor of Groetus.

I know Groetus doesn't have a formal church, but as Half-Elves are fairly solitary/outcast kinds of people, I see my character as a slightly unhinged zealot, dedicated to speeding along the coming of the end times (maybe due to something that's happened in his past to make him lose faith in life and believe it would be better for the world to end.)

What are people's thoughts on this idea?

Cheers,
Kvlt.

For some reasons, I see inquisitors more on the lawful side rather than chaotic. Probably because of their dedicated zealotry. But that's just me.

As chaotic, I'd probably go with the Oracle class, but again, that's just personal preference.


booger=boy wrote:

Were talking about the Weapon and not the Fighter class and all the amazing Feats he can take which are two different things.

The Fighter is not the Two Handed sword
The Feats are not the Two Handed sword

You forget that in earlier editions, only selected classes were permitted to wield a THS. So the "feats" were intrinsic in the weapon.

In 3rd ed. any cleric can take a martial weapon prof. and start swinging.
To allow a clear distinction, the focus has shifted (a bit) from the weapon itself to the way you can handle it.


Maddigan wrote:
Sayer_of_Nay wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:

BTW, Bulmahn murdered my monk character in yesterday's Weekly Grind session, so monk fans no longer have a "man on the inside," as it were.

It was beautiful while it lasted...

Damn. This is genuinely disheartening. :(

Disheartening, but not at all surprising. It was a monk, afetr all.

Snark aside, I've never witnessed a monk thrive in a D&D game. I'd like to see this, truly I would.

I've seen two monks thrive. One a Zen Archer monk and one a Monk of the Sacred Mountain. They don't do comparable damage to fighter types, but they are effective. And they stand up to spellcasting a whole lot better than the fighter types.

Then again we don't do 15 point point buy. That may be the reason.

We are playing with a monk, sorcerer, druid and a fighter, and the monk is doing just fine. He has good saves, fast movement, deflect arrows, evasion, ki points, stunning fists and bonus feats. He has more HP than my fighter, he is rather stealthy, has good perception and initiative, and hits like a truck (he's strength based). He takes less damage from falling and now at 5th level he is also immune to disease.

I dont' know how good he will be at higher levels, but so far so good. He actually contributes to the party more than the fighter.

Granted, he got lucky with his rolls (we don't use point buy, but rolled for our stats instead).

Regarding VoP, I'm sorry but I fail to understand why a gearless character should be as powerful as characters with powerful magic items. If it was the case, then everybody would take this vow because you'll have much less to worry about, you just level up.
Gear, loot, and magic items are a good portion of this game. This vow should never have existed in the first place.

Also, why so much stuff about monks in a book devoted to magic?


RunebladeX wrote:


While it MAY be balanced when compared to a magic item there is INTENT. I feel the intent of the feat was to provide an extra casting of the spell, not infinite

I agree. I already espressed that I think this was the intent. Just look at the feat name: ECHO.

RunebladeX wrote:


First off, the echoed spell comes back but does NOTuse a spell slot on the SECOND casting. Since it does not use a spell slot you couldn't even apply metamagic feats to the second casting of an echoed spell even with perfect spell. If this was the case you could apply metamagic feats to spell like abilities, and if you could do that Paizo wouldn't have created the spell like ability feats in the first place...

Yes. As I've already written, in the Ravingdork interpretation, spontaneous spellcasters would also be able to apply echo spell first, and then cast the spell again with different metamagic feats applied. That would not be an echo.

RunebladeX wrote:


If the echoed spell comes back with metamagic what happens when you use metamagic rods!?

Good question! :)

I'd say: It could go both ways. The feat "self create" an echo of the original spell cast. The first cast is spent as normal.
The echo can be spent as a second identical cast of the original spell and the echo is of course destroyed in the process.

It's like the spell caster is actually casting the same spell twice, with the second casting delayed until later.

So you could say that if the first cast was meta-magicked with a rod, the second cast would be too. On the other side, you could argue that the meta magic rods act after the feat is echoing the spell and so the echo would not have the meta magic effect on it.

Just my 2c.


Ravingdork wrote:


It's logical to believe that metamagic on an echo spell does NOT carry over to the second casting. If it did, than echo would carry over as well and you would have an infinite loope even without Spell Perfection.

That can't possibly be the intent of the game designers.

As such, it is reasonable to believe that the second casting of the echoed spell is pure, without metamgic of any kind. Then we add it back in using Spell Perfection, which we can use any time we cast a perfected spell.

Hence, the infinite loop.

Even if you don't agree with that logic, surely some of you guys must at least think it unclear enough to warrant official clarification/errata, no?

I get that you think that an echoed spell, being normally memorized on a higher level slot, is in a special state before casting. That special state is lost after the first casting, so normally only a second cast would be allowed.

With spell perfection, you apply this special state only during casting, and so you could repeat the process over and over again on the original spell that is sitting in its normal spell slot, unaware that is going to be echoed upon cast.

That does not match RAI and description. At least, I think, since I do not own the book yet.

If things were as such you are describing, then the result of casting an echoed spell would be always a spell slot with the original spell still there, which opens a can of worms, and spell perfection is only one them. Any class that can apply "on the fly" modifications of any type to a spell would be able to cast the same spells (at least) 2 times with different conditions. That's not an echo!

No. An "echo" of the spell is created in your memory, which can be released later. the description say the original spell is "not entirely" lost from memory, it's not the same as having the original spell slot with the original spell still on it.

Removing any interpretation and just trying to apply mechanic to D&D will bring its doom as a game, IMO. You can't be perfect with RAW, unless you write rules with the language of simbolic logic and axiomatic set theory and even that could be debated (legalese? not enough, there are judges and tribunals because even written Law can not always be interepreted unambiguously).

Cheers


Drillboss D wrote:

Variant. Channeling. Worship something different? Do something different with channel.

Yay, Ultimate Magic.

I won't get UM before 18th, so I'd like to hear your impressions on the product: does the cleric get many new options and a fair treatment compared to the other divine classes?


I actually think that Holy Aura is fine, but it should scale, at least somewhat.
SR25 is decent at lvl15, not so much @lvl20. That does not sound right for a level 8 spell. Admittedly, it remains useful for minions.

I can't see huge issues about "overpowered" protecting spells, especially those that are creature or alignment specific. Any member of the party will enjoy them. So, why don't make them powerful? Unless of course, we fear that a cleric may do something (very specific) that other classes can't.

Diego Rossi wrote:


What you pretend from...

Lolz. That is sooo italian. ;)


Tks everybody for your contributions.

I actually think that one of the issue of the cleric is that there are too many, and far too specific, domains.

You may think that this helps customization, but I think that the opposite is true.

Assuming you do care about roleplaying, the number of options, where you take into account deities and alignments, is much less than you think. We must realize that overspecific domains will be assigned only to very specific deities. And each domain only add a couple special abilties at most (as powerful as they might be).

If you don't care about rp, then you have a VERY long list of possible combinations between domains, subdomains, races, deities and alignments. Many of these combinations are actually subpar where it comes to power, so that an inexperienced player may not be satisfied with the outcome, while an optimizer may end up again with a much shorter list of "recommended cleric builds".

Balancing out many domains is difficult, and the fact that other classes may take them only makes things worse.

My idea is that the number of domains should be trimmed down, in line with the number of bloodlines or misteries or school specializations that others classes get.
Cleric should be able to choose only ONE domain, but each domain should have a much longer (and level spread out) list of powers/spells for a cleric to choose from.

All of this would make much simpler to choose and differentiate clerics, and deities would share a broader percentage of domains, so that players would be more free to choose a particular deity/domain combination for rp. It would also make things easier both for designers and DMs that have to customize domains for settings other than Golarion.

If you absolutely like the idea of domain specialization, we could divide domains in subdomains, with the option of choosing them as a cleric progresses in level, something like Nature(Animal, Plant...), elemental (Fire, Water, Earth...), each with a specific power attached. I can even see subdomains shared between different domains, perhaps according to deities.

Paladins and rangers should NOT get any domain, no matter what (unless they PrC or multiclass). They are not full casters and have a host of other powers.

Druids, I can see them be allowed to take a Nature domain (with proper balancing), and even specific druid-only subdomains.

Unfortunately, this can't be done now. We can't call back already printed material. Maybe a "variant cleric" could be possibile?
I'm writing this because I think this is one issue with this class, I want to share my opinion and I hope that Paizo may mitigate the issue in some way with future releases.


ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
~More domains: Give them access to more domains over time. This actually allows the cleric to represent more fully what his/her god is all about and represent all aspects of that god it also gives them more toys.
Count me in on this one.

Only as a variant, but I'm not sure what to swap out for it.

I find it amusing that the Cleric is now considered underpowered...

Where is CoDzilla when you need him?

Pls, read carefully the thread, nobody is discussing a supposed "underpowerment of the current class", although certainly, every proposed modification to the cleric must be carefully balanced out.

As for "CoDzilla", the druid class has nothing to do with the powers of the cleric, you can't play a cleric and use the abilities of a druid, so assuming the a cleric is powerful "because also the druid can..." has no logical merit whatsoever, so I can't understand why this word should be brought into the discussion of the current thread.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Luigi Vitali wrote:
Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:
Luigi Vitali wrote:


And yet an urban druid can spontaneous cast his domain spells all day long.
And he only gets one domain from a small list; has to give up an animal companion to get it, and gets wild shape very late for it. Moot point.

I already explained my point. Not a really small list of domains. And clerics never wild shape nor usually have an animal companion to begin with, nor they get the immunities of an urban druid. But comparing the druid with the cleric was not my intention. I was specifically addressing the point that getting to cast domain spells more than once was something not to do in itself, according to the developer. I gave an example of another divine class getting this very ability. I never wrote that urban druids are overpowered compared to clerics.

Why don't give the cleric the ability to spontaneous cast one domain spells in excange of, I don't know, channel energy?

I can see a cleric of a deity of magic suitable for such an option.

Quote:

Spontaneous Casting: An urban druid can channel stored spell energy into domain spells that she has not prepared ahead of time. She can “lose” a prepared spell in order to cast any domain spell of the same level or lower. This ability replaces the ability to spontaneously cast summon nature's ally spells.

Nature Bond (Ex): An urban druid may not select an animal companion. Instead, she must choose from the following domains, rather than those usually available to druids: Charm, Community, Knowledge, Nobility, Protection, Repose, Rune, or Weather.

So to have the same "cost" it would replace the ability to spontaneously cast cure spells.

And the druid has to pay a second cost to get the domain.
Vedi un po' te.

Druids pay more but gain more (cleric already has access to domains). Still, removing the ability to spontaneously cast cure spells for the cleric would be fine. In any case, I'm not actually advocating any specific proposals - which must be carefully balanced out of course - I'm just pointing out that the "clerics can't step into other classes" should not be an absolute.


Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:
Luigi Vitali wrote:


And yet an urban druid can spontaneous cast his domain spells all day long.
And he only gets one domain from a small list; has to give up an animal companion to get it, and gets wild shape very late for it. Moot point.

I already explained my point. Not a really small list of domains. And clerics never wild shape nor usually have an animal companion to begin with, nor they get the immunities of an urban druid. But comparing the druid with the cleric was not my intention. I was specifically addressing the point that getting to cast domain spells more than once was something not to do in itself, according to the developer. I gave an example of another divine class getting this very ability. I never wrote that urban druids are overpowered compared to clerics.

Why don't give the cleric the ability to spontaneous cast one domain spells in excange of, I don't know, channel energy?

I can see a cleric of a deity of magic suitable for such an option.


Matrixryu wrote:

What is the difference between summoning a creature and calling it? Yes, I know that when you call a creature that it is there for real and will die if it is killed. I also know that summoned creatures reform after they die. However, what exactly is different about summoning a creature that allows it to reform?

I've read in a few places that a summon is really just a 'mirror' of the creature that you are summoning, but I haven't been able to find anything official about this in the Pathfinder core rulebook.

I'm asking about this mostly for roleplaying purposes, because I'm wondering about whether or not my good aligned character should worry about curing my summons of diseases and curses before dismissing them. I had always assumed that diseases and stuff would go away when a summoned creature is dismissed because it isn't there for real, but my rp group is giving me a hard time about it ;)

I don't remember how exactly it is supposed to work, whether it's a mere copy that you summon (meaning that the original stays on its own plane)

or if it's something more tangible, BUT the fact remain that the monster goes back unescathed.
Remember that you are requesting the presence of a creature from another plane of existence. With summoning, the creature can manifest and act, by the sheer force of magic, but it's only a temporary conduit and as soon as the link is broken, things goes back as they were before the spell went into effect. That's how I see the process, at least.

Like others have said, you can rp as you see fit, personally I wouldn't bother, but if you care for the summoned creature and cure it, you might as well question the summoning in the first place (you are making something suffer for your own goals).


sunshadow21 wrote:
Luigi Vitali wrote:
Anyway, I'm not asking for clerics to be able to spontaneous cast every domain spell. I was merely pointing out that there's so much concern that a cleric might step into other classes, but nobody cares if other classes do the same.
This tends to be the trend that I see. No one cares if an arcane caster attempts to cross over to the divine side, but have a divine caster try something similar, and everyone screams broken. It makes me think the whole arcane/divine thing should be reconsidered.

Well, to be fair, there are reasons. Divine magic can be cast in armor. And divine classes tend to have better BAB and HPs.

So, I'm fine with arcane casters having a better spell lists. What I don't understand, however, is all this attention to the cleric, when just about every class get the ability to do something pertinent to other classes. On the opposite, clerics have nothing unique to them, but this I already discussed in another thread.


Sangalor wrote:
Luigi Vitali wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

This rule prevents a cleric with access to an awesome non-cleric spell from filling up all her spell slots with that awesome spell and outshining the guy who actually took levels in the class that actually gives full access to that spell.

If you want to prep more than one domain spell, use a higher level domain spell slot for the second one.

And yet an urban druid can spontaneous cast his domain spells all day long.

But then again an urban druid loses the spontaneous casting of summon nature's ally and he only has one domain from a much more limited list, not two from dozens of domains two choose from.

If you include subdomains, the list of domains available to druids is not that limited. Ultimate Magic will also increase the number of druid domains, if I understand correctly the advertisement.

Cleric can choose 2 domains, but they have a single slot/level available for both domains, while Urban druids can choose 9 spells to cast as they see fit.

Anyway, I'm not asking for clerics to be able to spontaneous cast every domain spell. I was merely pointing out that there's so much concern that a cleric might step into other classes, but nobody cares if other classes do the same.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

This rule prevents a cleric with access to an awesome non-cleric spell from filling up all her spell slots with that awesome spell and outshining the guy who actually took levels in the class that actually gives full access to that spell.

If you want to prep more than one domain spell, use a higher level domain spell slot for the second one.

And yet an urban druid can spontaneous cast his domain spells all day long.


Interesting thread.
Just for fun, I counted all the classes choices given so far to see which were the most favorites.
Of course, I know that this sample has no statistical significance, and the preferences were expressed in many different ways, so it's not a significant test. I tentatively decided to weight the votes like this:

- 3 points for single classes that where chosen as N. 1 favorite
- 2 points for first choice groups or a second single best choice
- 1 point for second choice groups or third rated single classes

I also counted each time a given class was included for any reason, as long it was liked. I excluded comments that were too generic: "I like all martial classes!". Finally, I counted archetypes and specialists as a base class.

Examples:

I like the fighter first and paladin second: 3 points for fighter and 2 point for paladin

I like paladins and fighters: 2 points each (group)

I prefer paladins, but I also like fighters, inquisitors and oracles: 3 points paladins, 1 point each for the others (second choice, group).

Here are the results:

Class Score/Nominations
Sorcerer 29/11
Inquisitor 26/11
Bard 24/12
Paladin 23/12
Fighter 20/10
alchemist 20/10
Oracle 17/7
Magus 16/7
Monk 15/7
Cleric 13/7
Wizard 13/6
Rogue 12/7
Barbarian 9/6
Ranger 9/5
Witch 9/4
Summoner 8/4
Druid 8/3
Cavalier 1/1

Some trends seem to emerge:
- cha based classes are chosen often.
- Inquisitor is the preferred new class, but alchemist is also liked
- cavalier is not appreciated (my guess: mounted classes are too "niche")
- wilderness classes (Barb, ranger and druid) are less liked than I thought

There are of course, many ways to count and to make a list. It was just for fun and should not be taken seriously.

My best class? I like them all, actually, but Cleric for the role playing, fighter for the mechanic, and I also like inquisitors and oracles and most of the new classes, but I have not played them yet. These where NOT included in the above list, to avoid bias.

Happy Easter...


Thanks everybody for your replies. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to spare to post, but I'm reading the thread and I'm greatly appreciating your input, especially from those that are actually playing the cleric.

I just want to clarify that I CAN role play the cleric (I did so for many years and nobody has ever said that I lack "imagination"), I just think, especially after the APG, that it is a bit lacking in detail compared to the great work that went into the other classes. Maybe I'm just underestimating domains. In any case, I think that domains should have stayed cleric only, but now it's too late.

I'm glad to hear that a lot of people is playing the cleric and find it enjoyable. Still... I keep thinking that the oracle is what Paizo think the cleric should have been since the beginning. I hope I'm wrong and I'm looking forward future material from the company.

A lot of good suggestions, too:

- specialty priests
- Spheres, a la 2nd edition
- Spontaneous casting of domain spells
- Domain feats and skills

I favor specialty priests, because it could be an option, so people that favor a "generalist" would not be disappointed.
..And ProfessorCirno, I actually agree with you in your cleric vs oracle analysis.


Hi everybody.
I was looking at the APG recently, and I was starting to wonder whether it makes any sense to play a cleric in Pathfinder.
I wanted to play a divine class, and right now, all I can think about are inquisitors and oracles. They seem more intriguing, and less bounded, for their powers, to the tenets of a faith, while maintaining a strong "divine link".
It's not a matter of POWER. I think it's ok, and I wouldn't even dare to start a "underpowered clerics?" thread, giving the amount of the heated discussions that would follow. Moreover, I don't know why, but every time that someone speaks about the power of a cleric, the druid comes in. CODZILLA and all that. It's like druids and clerics are the same thing. I read things like "the cleric is not nerfed! druids can outdamage a fighter!". Anyone has a rational explanation for this?

No, what I am talking about is that this class does not appear to be interesting, at least mechanic-wise. Admittedly, I didn't play one yet, so I'm asking for opinions.

My main problem: Nothing unique about a cleric.

- domains? druid, urban druid, paladin, inquisitor (and urban druid can spontaneous cast domain spells!)
- channel energy? life oracle, paladin (and charisma based, so they are better than a cleric!)
- cleric spell list? Oracle

There's nothing, nada, zit, niente, special about it. It's like the designers wanted to make sure that nobody has ever any need to play this class.
Don't get me wrong, I know that no class in PF is necessary. You don't "need" a barbarian. However, if you want rage, you must play the barb. Favored enemy? Ranger. Special fighter feats? Fighter. But a cleric? what for?
There are no archetypes in the APG for the cleric, only subdomains, and to add insult to injury, subdomains are available to many classes! It's like giving the barbarians new rage powers, and then allow a fighter to take them.

Some more problems I see:
- feat taxed. Selective Channel? do I have to choose a feat to use a class feature in any useful way? Turn Undead? Seriously? what about a feat so the cleric can swing a mace?
- front loaded. The cleric is the only class in pathfinder that screams "prestige class" to me
- few options. 2 skill points/lev (and many useful skills), no bonus feat, no special power besides domains, which can't bee choosen freely. Want the demon domain? no way if you are not chaotic evil.

I know, giving the cleric more "options" would probably make it too powerful. I think that's the problem: you can't add too much, but you can't even remove, or you loose too much backward compatibility.

I've been reading many threads in this forum to understand if these issues are perceived by the community too, but it seems I am alone. However, I did notice a few oddities:

- Every time someone asks for advice for any build type, someone else suggest a different class (oracle especially)
- if not a different class, multiclassing or prestige classes are usually suggested (ex: fighter/cleric for a battle cleric)
- healing and spontaneous cast of healing spells are strongly discouraged, so a possible cleric role is not useful, and the only specific cleric class feature is considered not optimal.
- channel energy is not considered to scale properly at high levels

I could just leave Clerics alone, but they are supposedly, however, icons of D&D, together with wizards, rogues and fighters. Letting them go into oblivion does not seem fair.

I don't have a simple solutions for this issues (assuming that they ARE issues), but if really necessary I would even give 2 levels of spells away, like 2nd edition, just so that we could finally put all this "they can cast lvl 9 spells, so they cannot be improved any further" in the trash bin.


I think that whirlwind is misunderstood. It may be sub-optimal, but it should not be compared to Cleave.
Cleave/Great Cleave is chain made specifically for an offensive character. It gives a -2 penalty to AC to underline that you are giving priority to offense over defense. It's a standard action, because again, you are supposed to move and choose what enemy to strike. It's basically another option offered when you move+attack.

On the other side, whirlwind is actually a defensive move. It's at the end of a chain that increase your AC, it's supposed to be the choice of a defensive character. It's a full round action, because is meant to be used when your character is surrounded by enemies by their own volition. I'm not necessarily seeing a warrior using a reach weapon with whirlwind. On the contrary, I see a heavy tank with a shield and 1-hand weapon that pummel at enemies when they try to bring him down, with the occasional lunge when offense becomes a better option then defense.

The advantage of whirlwind is that you are always offered on roll to attack for each enemy. With great cleave, you must hit to gain another attack. Example:
Let's say that you have 4 enemies around you. Let's suppose that each enemy has a 50% chance to be hit. With great cleave, you have a 50% chance to hit the first opponent, 25% for the second, 12.5% for the third and finally only 6.25% to hit a fourth. The average number of hits you would get is 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 + 0.0625 = 0.9375 or LESS than 1.
With whirlwind, you can make one attack for each enemy so you get an average of 4 * 0.5 = 2 hits. Big difference.
With great cleave, a very good chance to hit is mandatory. Whirlwind can be decent even with reasonably good AC targets.

The reason why whirlwind is considered to be poor, is because for most people, an offensive build is better than a defensive one. I can understand that, but it's good to have options.