RotBot's page

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.

ive heard a lot of griping that the npcs dont tend to do much the further into the campaign you get, especially aside from ameiko. i havent had much of a chance to look through much of the content yet, but i want to keep ameiko for the plot, Sandru so they have someone around that knows caravaney stuff, and the old woman, mainly because I'm probably going to be running with a small party and extra support magic is always handy. i was wondering just how vital Shalelu is to the overall plot, and if some fiddling on my part would allow things to run smoothly without her? maybe i could give sandru a ranger level so he could take on some of her responsibilities, and maybe impart some of her knowledge to the party druid?

thanks for any insight.

Hey all, I'm currently playing in an E6 campaign, with the magus(kensai) class. (more on E6: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?206323-E6-The-Game-Inside-D-amp -D

The DM in general has been cool with making small allowances- letting me treat my scimitar as a finesse weapon, etc. I try to be very transparent and polite with DMs about what my goals are with my build.

I went into the class thinking its only redeeming quality, beyond the cool arcane pool buffs, was its ability to get two attacks with spellstrike + spell combat, considering in an e6 game it will never get third level spells, or a second normal attack. The kensai dervish seemed like the only setup that even made the class really worth it compared to the damage a normal level 6 barbarian, rogue or even fighter can pull without concentration checks(still very risk at level 6) and expending limited resources and etc.

Anyway, while I was pretty proud of discovering the dervish combo on my own after finding the guide on this board, using arcane mark as a "flurry" attack hadn't occurred to me at all. I just moved up to level 2 and gained spell strike, so I figured I would shoot the dm an email asking if he was okay with that, or if I'd have to wait and learn close combat to use ray of frost/etc to "flurry" with 0 level spells.

His response totally blindsided me. He feels like the arcane mark flurry isn't even an issue, because spell strike and spell combat are two totally separate actions, and you can only use one or the other, not both in tandem.

So.....I know there's plenty of threads discussing the finer points of spell combat + spell strike, and have found the comment from the lead designer saying he doesnt the the arcane mark thing is OP, but I was wondering if there is maybe some actual article where a paizo dev flat out states in simple terms that there is no reason why these two abilities should be exclusive, and/or that they were designed to function in unison. I know it just seems like common knowledge on the board, but I'm not sure if common knowledge will be enough for my dm to say "okay, thats cool". I think he's just having a kneejerk reaction to being able to get two attacks and a spell attack on a class that normally has a single attack or attack + spell, without looking at how limited my resources to actually use the abilities are compared to more standard damage dealers. I'd like to be able to just give him a very clear official statement about how the abilities work rather than have the whole thing devolve into an argument. If he houserules that the abilities don't work together, my character is basically relegated to being a gimpy bard instead of a gishy blade master. D:

I'm also curious if anyone has any points to discuss on an E6 magus in general, it seems like a lot of the "good" stuff comes into play between 9 and 12. Magical lineage loses a lot of appeal with such limited spellslots, combat casting suddenly seems practically mandatory, arcane strike still seems handy, expeditious retreat suddenly seems really good, since fly and haste are off the table. I'll probably look into expanding my arcane pool and arcanas known to give my magus more overall oomph and flexibility. Thanks for any feedback!