
RotBot |
Hey all! long story short I'm starting a new game at level one and the party is lacking in healing and blasting.
So, I wound up settling on cleric even though I've played battle clerics to death. They're fun, they're awesome, but I still wanted to get away from using a traditional weapon buffed to high hell by strength-infusing spells. The idea of a heavily armored blaster caster came to mind, but that's no good in pathfinder for some reason, even thpough there's plenty of ways to become just as survivable with minor spell use.
I then came up with the idea for a death and ice domain cleric that used a mix of some offensive ranged/aoe spells, some touch spells when things get too close, and a healthy dose of offensive channeling. I love the concept thematically, but:
*As it reads, offensive channeling is going to hurt *me* too, at least until 8th level? That aside as cool as (offensive) channeling is thematically, it seems like they threw it in the trash right after coming up with it-the core ability scales terribly, and the feat support is horrible as well. I'm waffling on whether quicken channeling is worth it or not and would love to hear feedback. This ability is also fueled by charisma, which does basically nothing else for a cleric.
*death and ice domains have some nice spells but they're primarily down the road, and their low level abilities seem pretty weak. I'm starting at leveling one.
*melee touch attacks are based on strength, ranged ones are based on dex, and traditional save inducing spells are based on wisdom. I also need three separate feats to increase all three by one measly point. If I had to settle for one, it would probably be aoe blastey effects, but this is of course clerics weakest point out of all three.
So, what seemed like a cohesive idea in the heat of the moment is unraveling into a huge mess now that I'm stepping back and looking at it, leaving me saying "oh yeah, that's why I always just make battle clerics" everything just comes back to strength with them, not a bajillion separate stats and feat requirements.
Anyway, I'd really appreciate advice on if any part of this concept can be salvaged without turning it into something it isnt(please, no weapon builds or pet/summon builds). If it's as messy as it seems to me I'd be willing to go back to the drawing board on other ways to build the core character concept of someone who can just heal and deal magical damage while wearing armor. I've glanced over oracle but it also seems pretty disjointed in its abilities(the seeker archetype seems like it could be really strong toward the end if anyone has feedback for good caster oracles), and read a bit about unarmored fire domain clerics theologian archetypes, but fire is like the least interesting element and theologian loses all armor ANYWAY, so why the hell not just be an actual g~*&~!n wizard at that point?(healing spells I guess). Shaman and witch just look like they're getting further away from the raw energy effects sort of caster I wanted to roll but maybe I'm overlooking some variant that makes them awesome.
Sorry if I sound frustrated, but...I am. I feel like the whole game is designed around either never wearing armor and just using super magical defenses, being lightly armored and super melee oriented, or being heavily armored and melee oriented and hopefully you can figure out a way to get flying or something. Why is mixing martial offenses with magical support/defenses such a big thing, but mixing magic offenses with martial defenses is so atrociously taboo? It isn't just a sacred cow, 3e had classes that could do it even if they were somewhat lackluster. Is it specifically due to legal issues of not wanting to make anything too similar to 3e's classes? I really wish "just go play 3e if that's what you want" was an option, but I'm playing this with my friends to play with them, not playing it with randoms just to play an rpg.
I truly appreciate any tips on how to salvage something that seemed cohesive until I looked at the mechanics.