Thomas, the Tiefling Hero!'s page

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

Harleequin wrote:

Well we will just agree to disagree... all I [s]know is 2 things:

1) They designed the Warpriest for a very good reason

2) I have never ever seen a cleric be simultaneously a "very strong martial" and a "very strong caster"... I have however seen many clerics who are simultaneously mediocre martials and mediocre casters - this becomes especially true past about 9th level.

It only takes one example to prove possibility, and I've played that example all the way up through the tail end of 11th level. Meanwhile, the warpriest is just a smaller cleric: same BAB, same HD, same saves, same spell list, and (in practice) nearly the same proficiencies.

That's reality. Believe as you choose.

It's possible to be a strong martial cleric, and also have strong spellcasting, but that spellcasting is going to have to avoid save-granting offensive spells (except for the odd Plane Shift on a gargantuan ooze or such).

Martial clerics can do just as well with healing, condition removal, and a lot of problem-solving spells, but they just won't have the offensive magical punch of a dedicated debuff/SoS/SoD cleric.

I already pointed out that if you try to play them like a dedicated SoS cleric, then of course the hybrid won't perform as well. Never tried to claim otherwise. I only claimed a cleric could simultaneously be a strong (not mediocre) combatant and a strong spellcaster, not that he could play identically to both types of specialists at the same time.

Well we will just agree to disagree... all I [s]know is 2 things:

1) They designed the Warpriest for a very good reason

2) I have never ever seen a cleric be simultaneously a "very strong martial" and a "very strong caster"... I have however seen many clerics who are simultaneously mediocre martials and mediocre casters - this becomes especially true past about 9th level.

It only takes one example to prove possibility, and I've played that example all the way up through the tail end of 11th level. Meanwhile, the warpriest is just a smaller cleric: same BAB, same HD, same saves, same spell list, and (in practice) nearly the same proficiencies.

That's reality. Believe as you choose.

...in an aspect of play that you will very quickly become poor at relative to other martials.

Not if you do it right.

By attempting to somehow have your cake and eat it, you end up losing out in both areas.

My experience was closer to "be very strong in both areas".

If you want to be a hybrid then there is an obvious answer that is set up from the start to achieve what youre looking for..... the Warpriest!!

Clerics are set up from the start to achieve it as well; you just have to be able to look at what the class truly has instead of just what the class is famous for.

I don't think cleric melee+cast builds are that great. If you do go for one you do have to sacrifice WIS and so it becomes less and less worth going for DC based spells.

Well, if you play it exactly like you would a "pure" casting build, then yeah, you're just worse.

That's why you play the hybrid version like it's a third type of build, rather than like it's two different characters at once.

If you were to pick on side over the other, which one would you choose?

Pick? You're a cleric in Pathfinder. Play your cards right and you don't HAVE to pick. I speak from experience.

I am in particular interested in playing an Asmodean Advocate.

What? Screw that guy.

Want to play the AC game? You gotta dump LOTS of cash into it. I spent probably 90% of my wealth on boosting my AC, yet even then there were certain specialists who got higher. (I could have gone farther too, but like you I wanted to preserve my move speed.)

...and went out of their way to make Clerics unable to realistically affect themselves with a lot of Domains, forcing them to play as background buffers and healbots a lot more.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Let me put it very simply for you.

You don't get mad at the fighter because he didn't breath of life you because he can't. You do if the cleric who can decides not to breath of life you.

-however-

If the fighter has a scroll and the UMD to use it, then yes, you are well within reason to be upset with that fighter.

If someone is capable in the moment of doing something significantly beneficial to the party and won't because it doesn't ''fit their character'' then either that character or that player is a jerk.

You know, it's funny, I was actually just thinking of bringing up a cleric I played (this alias, in fact) as an example.

See, he's a melee cleric, and spent most of his time in combat on the front lines. As such, my spells were mainly spent on self-buffs, and my actions were mainly spent ending fights.

Thanks to being good-aligned, I could cast cure spells spontaneously to heal up my allies. But I didn't; I always had something better to do. When I would talk about this character to people who hadn't played alongside him, I'd catch a lot of flak for not being a healbot. When I wouldn't foot the bill for cure wands for the whole party out of my own share of loot, folks on the boards said I wasn't being a team player. When I said that someone who refused to chip in for healing wands would not be getting my spell slots and actions, I was called a sociopath. And my favorite: after trying to get it through a guy's head that this cleric typically had the best accuracy and AC at the table and therefore I had better contributions to make than casting cure spells, he finally said "Fine! If you're gonna be stingy with healing, then if I'm ever at a table with you, maybe I'll just have my barbarian get behind you and pull out a shortbow while all the enemies fight YOU in melee! Maybe then you'll stop being so selfish and learn some teamwork!"

Meanwhile, in actual gameplay? Folks were always happy with me. Some even literally cheered when they found out I was playing Thomas the Tiefling Hero that day.

Even though I was a cleric who was neither party-buffing nor healing.

Basically, what I wanted advice on from the community, is do the types of gamers that make these characters do so because they want to be able to breeze through the content, or because they want the challenge of seeing what they can survive? I guess it could be both, or something else entirely. Either way, thanks to the folks that actually contributed something meaningful to the thread.

My favorite Pathfinder character that I ever made included content from, if memory serves, the Core Rulebook plus at least seven other books. I had fun playing him, others had fun playing alongside him (some actually cheered when I brought him to the table).

You want to know what kind of player makes a multi-book "flesh golem of rules" type of character? Click my name, read the backstory/log, and decide for yourself.

As a buff-reliant melee cleric played from 1st to 11th in PFS, I'll offer the following advice:

1) Assess the situation. Sometimes it's good to let allies/monsters go first so you know how serious the fight is (or isn't). You'll be sad if you win initiative, cast divine favor, and then watch the fight all but end before your next turn. You'll also be sad if you walk up and take a swing unbuffed, then discover over the course of the first round that you're in way over your head and have to spend your second turn buffing after already wasting your first turn flailing ineffectually. Learn to gauge the threat (Knowledge skills help here, as does judicious use of the Delay option).

2) One and done. Try to only need one round of buffing to get "online". For instance, I would cast divine favor on my first turn, and I was ready. At level 5+, I would capitalize on the duration of heroism (domain spell) to try and have it already running before combat started, and often for more than one combat. Starting at 8th, I could get it going as a swift action, so I always had access to it when I needed it but without spending a round casting it.

3) Forewarned is forearmed. As others have said, mind your durations. I pretty much never got to pre-cast the 1min divine favor, but in any typical "dungeon" type situation, things like heroism get cast before you walk through the front door and last the whole dungeon. Things like life bubble or overland flight get cast at breakfast. The minute-per-level buffs are trickier, but a solid Perception score and good use of divinations can help out a little.

Hope that helps!

"Being a good-aligned teifling" is not a character personality.

Never said it was. Just said it didn't imply bemoaning anything, despite what one might infer from the frequency of such characters being so angsty.

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

Exguardi wrote:

Man, it seems like every Tiefling is a Silver Crusader trying to redeem themselves for their tainted heritage. I feel like my Tieflings took a wrong turn somewhere in life.

I was an Iomedaean warrior before it was cool.

It was never cool. And never will be. Now quit bemoaning the loss of something you never had and hand me that skull, I have important work to do...

I don't recall bemoaning anything. You might be confusing me with the legions of knock-offs who thought that angst was somehow a necessary part of being a good-aligned tiefling.

Man, it seems like every Tiefling is a Silver Crusader trying to redeem themselves for their tainted heritage. I feel like my Tieflings took a wrong turn somewhere in life.

I was an Iomedaean warrior before it was cool.

"I keep people safe. Right now, I'm working on deciding whether or not that can be accomplished with you alive. Are you going to cooperate, or are you going to declare that your continued existence is a threat to innocent people?"

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

I am reminded of just how awesome it is to just cast greater magic weapon on a 30gp cold iron longsword each morning. :)

That is an awesome spell, but it does have the flaw that it doesn't let you get through DR like the real thing. That's why holy is so popular on ranged weapons. Or one of the reasons. In fact, that spell is most amazing in conjunction with magic weapons with lots of non-numerical enhancements like a +1 holy flaming bow.

Sure, the value will vary depending on the circumstances of the wielder. I'm just saying it's got some perks. :)

I am reminded of just how awesome it is to just cast greater magic weapon on a 30gp cold iron longsword each morning. :)

In case it helps, I was a melee cleric who also started with 16 STR, so my experience may be useful:

At lower levels, my go-to buff spell was bull's srength, to take me from 16 to 20. That's +2 to attacks and damage (in your case, since you're two-handing, add another +1 to damage). I'd cast that on my first turn unless I either desperately needed to do something else on Round 1 or the fight looked easy enough to handle without it.

Once I hit 6th level (I didn't have Fate's Favored), my divine favor's bonus reached +2, making it equivalent in power to bull's strength but for just a 1st-level slot. Thus, I started preparing about 3/day of that, and never prepped another bull's strength. (It was also about this time that I picked up my STR belt.)

Now, I also had the advantage of having the Heroism domain: this means I had heroism as a 3rd-level domain spell, and starting at 8th I could also get it as a swift action aura. So I'd either have it pre-cast (10min/level duration is nice) or if I was caught unprepared I could dip into my aura rounds. Either way, I was getting another +2 to hit without spending another round buffing.

You won't have that.

As a result, I highly recommend putting your level-based stat bumps in STR so you can take it higher than I did. You probably don't want to spend 2 rounds buffing, and you don't have heroism on your list anyway. Thus, you'll want higher STR, and probably Weapon Focus if possible.

So in a nutshell:
• Get used to 1-round buffing as SOP (BullSTR thru 5th level, then DF)
• Pump your STR (level bumps, belt by 6th level)
• Take Weapon Focus

I take no offense from their mistake. Powers do not make the man, the mindset does.

...Why would I take offense at being mistaken for a paladin?

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

But alas, even if I don't use the word "cleric" during introductions, marching around in a gleaming mithral breastplate and dripping with holy symbols and divine magic kind of gives it away. :/

I guess you have the wrong heritage to be mistaken for a paladin, brother.

On the contrary: on the rare occasion that my class is forgotten, people start calling me "paladin".

I found during my career that announcing my class often had an actively negative impact: people would forget that I had the highest AC and second-highest damage at the table (varying with table makeup, of course). But as soon as I said "cleric" it's all "oh good a healer" and "stay behind me even though your AC is 10 points higher than mine" and "you should definitely sack that spell slot to heal me for one round instead of literally teleporting the monster to Hell".

But alas, even if I don't use the word "cleric" during introductions, marching around in a gleaming mithral breastplate and dripping with holy symbols and divine magic kind of gives it away. :/

In my view, your first level character can't have had a bunch of stuff happen to them or else they would be higher than first level.

*blinks*

*plunks the head of a demon lord down onto the table*
I ended the 5th Mendevian Crusade about three months ago. You're welcome.

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I haven't had a single player reference their faction's annual goals. In fact, I would wager that I can count on one hand the number of players with whom I've played in the past year who even know or could tell me what their faction's goal is/was.

Silver Crusade's goal is grapple evil.

YOU'VE BEEN WARNED EVIL!

Or banishing evil.

Jiggy wrote:

I've had PC stat spreads ranging from 18/14/12/10/10/7 to 14/14/13/13/12/12. (That's pre-racial.)

Jiggy, what did you build with the second stat spread? I ask, because I'm looking at a Skald, and am stunned at what a MAD build that is. I really don't want to dump WIS, but I'm trying to figure out how to give the PC a decent strength and Charisma without doing so.

Hmm

It was for me, an oni-spawn tiefling and melee cleric of Iomedae. Stats after racial adjustments at level 1 were:

STR 16
DEX 14
CON 13
INT 12
WIS 15
CHA 10

I imagine building a skald is a bit different than a cleric, but I hope that helps. :)

I saved the world.

Just for the record:

I'm a LG follower of Iomedae.
I've finished my PFS career.
I've never committed an evil act.
I've never lied.
I've never failed a mission.

I guess, I don't understand why a Paladin would join the Society. Pledging themselves to a completely amoral entity, seems... off.

Perhaps to be a good influence on them? Perhaps because as a field agent you would often be faced with difficult situations and could be an example of a better way of handling those situations? Because you'll encounter lots of different people and can use that exposure to show them the path of goodness?

All too often I see PCs drop a held item (usually a wand) in favor of action economy, with the intention that they'll pick it up after the fight is over.

But then they run from the fight.

Sometimes, it's no big deal. If the opponent wasn't intelligent, the item will most likely be there when the PCs return.

But sometimes it won't.

Sundered items can be repaired. Lost items cannot. Just keep in mind that's always a possibility when your tactics are to free action drop rather than move action stow.

*smiles at my 30gp cold iron longsword with greater magic weapon running*

I was found in the wilds by a paladin. I don't think she was fey.

...when after a battle you look to your companions, beaten, bloodied, exhausted, and victorious.

...when after a battle I look to my companions, all of them safe, healthy, undefiled, and still victorious.

So I have come across this a few times in random threads. What I have been wondering is how would this work? I think from what I have read it seems interesting but I would like to know me.

Thanks

The cleric is an interesting class; unlike many (most?) classes, it doesn't "build itself", with most characters of that class being pretty similar with just a few outliers.

I mean, if you play a fighter, your class pretty much tells you "You're going to hit things with weapons". There's mostly just two fighters: melee and archery; then if you want to be different you could do maneuvers or something.

Or if you're a wizard, your BAB prohibits you from being an effective weapon-user without trying really, really hard. Mostly all you do is cast spells, with most of your decision-making centering around what spells you decide to cast. (And even then, there's essentially two categories: buffing and offense.)

But the cleric? The cleric's base chassis sits in the middle of everything, without pushing you in one direction. You have medium BAB, so maybe you hit things, maybe not. You have medium armor, so maybe you stand in the front, maybe not. You have variable weapon proficiencies (based on deity), so maybe you can deal some damage, maybe not. You have a spell list with a mix of offense, defense, buffing, utility... And then there's domain powers...

The cleric can be built more different ways than almost any other class. One of those ways is "healer", but that's in no way a default. There IS no default cleric.

I was at a level 10-11 session just yesterday where I was one of THREE clerics in the party (alongside a barbarian, a fighter, and a gunslinger), and not a single one of us was a healer. Being clerics meant we COULD heal, but we weren't HEALERS. The best healing any of us could do was just cast a vanilla healing spell with no bells or whistles.

All three of us consistently had better things to do in combat than to heal anybody. For instance, I dismissed some demons, I trumped some magical darkness with my Nimbus of Light domain power, attacked things at +18/+13 for 1d8+17, and so forth. The others used Versatile Channeling to blast enemies (when there were large groups), or cast buff spells on everybody, etc.

Keep in mind that none of us was staunchly against EVER healing in combat. I myself had heal prepared and was carrying two scrolls of breath of life. Totally would have used them (or even spontaneous cures) if at any time that had looked like the most helpful thing I could do to help the team succeed.

It never was. I finished the scenario with that heal still prepped, and those scrolls still intact.

I'm 11th level, played up from 1st, and in all that time I can think of exactly ONE combat in which the thing to do was heal. And in that combat, I was healing myself as I tanked an alchemist on a ledge, keeping him busy until the rest of the party could get through the mooks and climb up to help.

One time, in 10 levels of play. Because despite being a cleric, I'm not a healer. Cleric =/= Healer. A cleric could choose to be a healer, and I've met a pretty effective one, but a cleric is only the thing he's built to be, and just like any other character, any option outside that purpose is going to be a backup option.

For most clerics, cure spells are like the barbarian's bow: something you pull out in exceptional circumstances where your main schtick isn't working.

I would still suggest going for Divine interference (great use of swift actions!) or furious focus (huge dpr increase)

I'm seriously considering D.I., but Furious Focus is out because I'm not two-handing.

Assuming you have the gold for a +2 weapon upgrade your weapon to keen.

I'm using a 30gp cold iron longsword and casting greater magic weapon on it. Going to +1 keen would over 10,000gp, so no.

All of the metamagic abilities are optimized if you are a caster. yes a quicken or persistent rod (or feat) would be nice, but I get the impression that you are a warrior and so they wouldn't come up a lot anyways.

I'm either, as needed. Sometimes I use every last divine favor, sometimes I use everything BUT divine favor, sometimes somewhere in between. Being able to quicken the DF or make sure the dismissal sticks both seem like worthwhile benefits.

Thomas,

First, Buy a quicken rod, three a day of 1-6 level spells is more than enough for you. the feat won't be worth it.

Second, Divine interference will give you versatility and action economy, in my opinion it is a automatic for most divine casters.

Third if you would prefer to bump you fighting skills instead I would take Furious Focus. Removing the power attack penalty to your first hit is a huge boost.

I wouldn't take any of the three feats you listed, as a general rule of thumb: never take a feat for something you can buy (keen weapon, persistent rod, quicken rod, etc). You probably can't afford all but pick one up (I recommend the persistent rod because persistent holy smite and dismissal is awesome) and take a feat so something you can't otherwise get.

All your advice seems to be predicated on the assumption that I'm drowning in cash. I'm not. I have a couple thousand that I'm saving so that maybe after my next scenario, I'll have accumulated enough to get some boots of speed. Even a minor quicken rod is 35,000gp.

Have any suggestions for someone who doesn't have nearly half his WBL just lying around waiting to be spent?

Bumping this, as I'm finally scheduled to play this character this Sunday, and haven't actually made a decision about a feat. :/

I've renamed this trait from "suicidal" to "heroic".

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Party tank absorbs 100 damage during combat. If you spend 10 charges (and 10 minutes) off a wand of infernal healing to heal the tank, what's the difference if you're using that 150 gp (or 0.4 PP) on the tank or yourself? That 100 hp of damage is going to be absorbed by someone..

What if that party tank is me, and I *do* spend my own charges on that healing, and then other party members want me to spend some on them as well?

So what? It's 15 gp or 0.04 PP per charge.

So to be clear:

If I'm the tank, and you're playing say a wizard or magus, and I turn to you and say "Hey, I saw you had a healing wand; could you patch me up? I'm down about a hundred."

You'd be cool with that? Burn those charges without a second thought?

Sure, why not?

Great, no worries then. :)

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Party tank absorbs 100 damage during combat. If you spend 10 charges (and 10 minutes) off a wand of infernal healing to heal the tank, what's the difference if you're using that 150 gp (or 0.4 PP) on the tank or yourself? That 100 hp of damage is going to be absorbed by someone..

What if that party tank is me, and I *do* spend my own charges on that healing, and then other party members want me to spend some on them as well?

So what? It's 15 gp or 0.04 PP per charge.

So to be clear:

You'd be cool with that? Burn those charges without a second thought?

Party tank absorbs 100 damage during combat. If you spend 10 charges (and 10 minutes) off a wand of infernal healing to heal the tank, what's the difference if you're using that 150 gp (or 0.4 PP) on the tank or yourself? That 100 hp of damage is going to be absorbed by someone..

What if that party tank is me, and I *do* spend my own charges on that healing, and then other party members want me to spend some on them as well?

However, it's completely unreasonable for a healer to refuse to spend any of his expendables healing others, ever. This is what I'm objecting to, and yet I'm seeing this attitude here in this thread.

This is why it looks (despite your claim to the contrary) like you assume clerics are supposed to be healers: because you attribute to "healers" that which I've only seen posted by non-healers. When a non-healer (such as a melee cleric, or whoever else for that matter) says "I'm not going to spend my consumables healing you" and you reference that statement as "A healer said he wouldn't spend his consumables healing me", that means you're pigeonholing him into being a healer when he's not.

Hence, it looks like you think clerics are supposed to be the healers.

Obviously, it's a horse of a different color if someone who actually self-identified as an actual "healer" (rather than someone who identified as a tanky cleric, or didn't identify themselves at all, etc) said they wouldn't spend resources on healing. Maybe I just missed those posts. If you can link me to posts like that, I'll retract what I said in a heartbeat. :)

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

"The healer should heal" is fine. "The cleric has to be the healer" is not.

No one has contested the former, only the latter. But you're too rage-blind to see the difference.

I'm curious as to why you think I'm rage blind. You seem to have a lot of confidence in your insight into the emotional states of others. Pretty amazing, really.

You talk about people's gaming preferences with terms like "sociopathic". That implies some degree of anger.

I'm also curious as to why you think I'm talking about the cleric and insisting that the cleric must be the healer. Where did I say that?

You said that a cleric who doesn't spend his spells on healing is equivalent to "refusing to cast spells to support the team's mission" (your italics, not mine). You called a non-healer cleric "going way too far".

You may have never literally stated flat-out that clerics are supposed to be healers, but every mention of a cleric refusing to be the party healer is met with "Not contributing to the team! Going too far! Sociopathic!"

So yes, you said clerics are supposed to be the healers.

And what is the healer supposed to do?

Heal.

This is not what folks are protesting against.

If the tank is really able to do his tank job well, he's going to need a lot more healing than everybody else. Sucks to be the tank in your sociopathic "nobody gets heals unless they can pay for them themselves" each-man-out-for-himself world.

You're putting the "blind" into "blind rage". Calm down and read.

It's not "each man out for himself", it's "each person contributing to the team according to their role".

Pretty much exactly what you want, except for not allowing you to tell other people what their role is.

"The healer should heal" is fine. "The cleric has to be the healer" is not.

No one has contested the former, only the latter. But you're too rage-blind to see the difference.

Zrinka Twilight wrote:

I will share my wand with you if you'll share your armor with me. ;)

Translation: the tank is expected to go to the front and take the majority of the damage so the rest of the party doesn't get hit as much, but is being selfish if he doesn't also provide for all of the his own healing himself.

Honesty'd that for you.

The tank is expected to go be tanky, and cover his own healing.

The archer is expected to be good at archery, and cover his own healing.

The evoker is expected to spend spell slots blasting, and cover his own healing.

The debuffer is expected to spend resources debuffing, and cover his own healing.

And so forth.

So a Healer who demands you do your role and also theirs is being co-operative?

No, but a cleric who chooses a role other than healer is.

That is a pretty big difference, and that is also very different from:

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

I don't even give them that. If they don't provide their own healing wand, they get my stabilize cantrip. If I do a group-hug channel after the fight, I'll be courteous enough to include them in the radius. But that's it.

which is what I was responding to. In fact, you did say you would never cast cure spells.

Context is a thing. See how my first sentence there says "I don't even give them that"? What does "that" refer to?

It refers to the thing I was replying to (which you quoted the first time, but not this last time), which was someone talking about using their spells "until they run out" specifically in the context of replacing the functionality of the wand they didn't bring.

"Stabilize cantrip, participate in party channel healing, but that's it" does not at all say the same thing as "not use up all my spells to make up for lack of a wand."

It does when the whole statement was made in the context of "what do I do in place of wand usage". In place of wand usage (which is always patching up after fights), they'll get stabilize and be included in channels, but that's all they get in place of wand usage.

That which happens in combat has nothing to do with wand usage and is therefore outside the scope of what I said I'd do in place of wand usage.

Context is a thing. The meaning of words depends on their context. If I say "I am not a gorilla", it would be a true statement that I said the words "I am a gorilla". But the presence of the word "not" in that particular place in the sentence means that it would be false to claim that I made the statement "I am a gorilla" even though I said those words in that order.

Next time read thoroughly with an eye for comprehension before you start attacking people, instead of just skimming through and making assumptions. Thank you.

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Those who refuse to buy their own wand, tell them they don’t get charges off yours, but you’ll use your allotment of spells and channels as necessary until they run out.

I don't even give them that. If they don't provide their own healing wand, they get my stabilize cantrip. If I do a group-hug channel after the fight, I'll be courteous enough to include them in the radius. But that's it.

Obviously newbies or anyone who doesn't know better gets a pass. :)

So... you won't cast healing spells on somebody who doesn't give you a wand.

I didn't say that. I said I wouldn't run myself dry to cover for someone's refusal to pay for their own wand.

In combat (just about the only time someone with a cleric's wisdom would consider using spells instead of wands), if a well-placed healing spell seems to be the best tactical option at the moment, that's what I'll do, no matter who it is.

After combat, when we're patching up, I won't "substitute" my spells/channels for their lack of a wand. (As an aside, if someone's only healing wand is infernal healing but I'm the only one who can activate it, I will actually voluntarily use my own wand on them instead.)

What would you say to a fighter who refused to attack the monster that was attacking your character? What if the fighter says "You didn't buy me a magic sword, so you don't deserve to have that monster attacked!"

I'd probably say something like "Sorry, what was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of me killing the monsters."

Just because I'm a cleric doesn't mean I'm a healer. "Healer" is not my role. I'm a tank. And a spellcaster. And a diplomat. And a scholar of more than one topic. But I'm no more a "healer" than Valeros, Ezren, or Lem.

I can understand and respect the argument that the healer shouldn't have to spend charges from his own wand to heal other people, even if that's not the approach I take with my own characters. But refusing to cast spells to support the party's mission? That's going way too far.

Couple of things here:

Second, again, I didn't say I would never cast cure spells. I said I wouldn't use them all up to make up for someone not bringing a wand. That's a pretty big difference.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Nothing wrong with that, as long as nobody starts taking that to be an obligation that comes with having the word "cleric" on the character sheet.

Any character who won't heal a superstitious barbarian had better be ready to take his turn in the front rank while the barbarian hides in the back and shoots his bow.

That's what I was planning on anyway. Honestly, anyone who thinks the above is some kind of threat is being laughed at behind their backs by entire legions of clerics.

I've just hit 11th level in PFS with this tiefling melee cleric of Iomedae. If you click my name, you can get an idea of how I looked at 10th.

The quick run-down is that I'm a flexible, versatile combatant. With a high AC and some buffs, I can do frontline melee with just one round of buffing (divine favor) if it looks like it'll be that type of fight.

I also carry a dismissal or two because I've got kind of a demon-hunter thing going on. My save DCs are neither spectacular nor atrocious (20 WIS), but it's nice when it works. Similarly, I usually have a couple of plane shifts chambered for taking out a big beefy monster with uber STR/CON but a crappy Will save. Again, far from guaranteed, but it's saved the party's bacon more than once by using it on the right kind of target.

The rest of my spells are mostly problem-solvers, like invisibility purge, air walk, stone shape, etc.

So! Now I need a feat to use for my final 3 sessions. Again, you can click my name for more details, including existing feats.

Some feats I've thought of:

• Quicken Spell - Is getting that round 1 divine favor off as a swift action worth a 5th-level spell slot? Seems like most of the time it's not an issue to spend a round casting it, but once in a while it's a pain.
• Persistent Spell - Using a 6th-level slot for a Persistent dismissal seems like a good way to take out a high-profile demon.
• Improved Critical (longsword) - Threatening on a 17 doesn't sound half bad.

That's all that's come to mind so far. Any other suggestions, or does one of those seem good?

No team I'm on ever has a gaping hole in capabilities, except possibly for arcane casting. Teams I'm on get stuff done.

And we'll do it without murdering everything that moves, too.

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that spending my first turn giving myself +4 to attack and damage is typically more effective in "supporting the group" than using Aid Another.

And I would go out on a limb that giving yourself +4 to hit and damage and then watching a party member die because you weren't in position to be a target is heartbreaking. and I've seen it happen quite a bit.

Moving into position and using Aid Another are very different things. ;)