jasin's page

Goblin in more of an exception than the rule in that its weapons are martial and tagged [Goblin].

Look at Dwarven Weapon Familiarity. A dwarf cleric or rogue only ever gets trained in a battleaxe or a warhammer from it, because even though battleaxe and warhammer are typically dwarven, enough so to be listed in the Dwarven Weapon Familiarity feat, they're not [Dwarf] weapons, so they don't become simple.

Which is the kind of thing that's putting me off. I'd expect Goblin Weapon Familiarity and Dwarven Weapon Familiarity to give you the same kind of thing with different weapons: a list of typical weapons for the ancestry, you can now use them, enjoy.

Instead there's these tangles where advanced [Dwarf] weapons become martial, martial [Dwarf] weapons become simple (but don't exist), you get trained in dwarf weapons so you're as good with them as if they were simple, but they don't become [Dwarf] weapons so they don't become simple, so don't improve for the dwarf at the same time the weapons from the goblin feat list improve for the goblin...

I don't really want to be GMing, or playing on, a table full of twinks with flickmaces and bastard swords as far as the eye can see.

Neither do I, but I feel a better way around that is not to have silly weapons like flickmaces.

At least by making it a task to get other weapons, Paizo have ensured that it's not all cookie cutter armaments

From previous experience, I expect the twinks will work out that one optimal (even if silly) route anyway, that the people who are being left behind are people who just kind of wanted their dwarf rogue to have a warhammer because wouldn't that be cool.

I think this was meant to be the answer to your question.

I think this was what I expected (and wanted) to be the answer.

There has been much clamor for that to change.

Ah, has there? I did a bit of searching before I asked, but didn't really find much. That's encouraging, at least to the extent that future options might cater to this idea, if it's a commonly perceived gap.

I don't suppose you're in a home game?

I am, but it's (to be) our first 2nd edition game, so we're all still at the stage of trying to understand what the game offers out of the box.

I'm getting a bit frustrated with how paths to fairly common and apparently acceptable concepts seems unexpectedly convoluted...

A cleric who wants a (non-favoured) sword and shield can pick up Mauler (even though he's not really into two-handed weaspons) and he's golden. A cleric who wants a (non-favoured) hammer and shield is out of luck because there isn't a one-handed Two-Hand hammer. If he's into two-handed weapons, he's got both sword and hammer covered. But if he's into fencing weapons, Duelist, while seemingly on the same order as Mauler, only for dueling instead of mauling, won't help at all. Unless he's into Aldori fencing weapons, where Aldori Duelist, a completely different thing from Duelist, has him covered again.

Feels like "can I use a better weapon than normal?" should have the same answer for all classes and all weapons in principle, only with a higher cost for a bigger benefit. Instead, the answer seems to be "yes, probably... you just need to sift through dedication feats, general feats, ancestry feats, and try and trace a path to what you want... odds are there is one, but maybe not".

I knew Mauler existed, but hadn't realised the proficiency was scaling, nor considered that it also gets you some nice one handed weapons.

Fighter and ancestral weapons seem even less attractive now, and if Mauler Dedication is OK, it makes me think a single simple "this one weapon is now effectively a class weapon" feat wouldn't be a problem in most cases.

What are the options for a rogue who wants to use non-traditionally-roguelike weaspons, or a cleric who wants to use a weapon other than the god's favoured weapon?

I know of the fighter multiclass:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=714

and ancestral weapons:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=11

but both take 2 or 3 feats to leave you behind compared to the default, so don't really seem attractive.

Is there anything else, or is that it until an archetype comes up catering to the weapon you want (like Aldori Duelist)?

Kyra is my favourite iconic design all the way back to 1E, so looking for some inspirational imagery for a cleric of Sarenrae for our first 2E game, I was delighted to discover this:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ludwig_Deutsch-_The_Palace_Guard.jp g

https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2018/collection-pierre-berg e-pf1860/lot.24.html

Obviously art will be influenced by earlier art, but these guys look like they're literally wearing the same uniform as Kyra, including the positively WAR-like amount of equipment tucked into their belts.

I love tracing D&D's (and by extension Pathfinder's) influences and sources, and I've never seen this discussed before, so this was quite a find.

During a prepared caster's morning preparations, can they leave slots empty, and then fill them later during the day, like the could in Pathfinder 1E?

It seems obvious to me that spirit of the rules should be that these work together.

I was just writing how despite that, the first argument seems strained on its own merit, but reading p. 296 more closely I'd say that's what the letter of the rules says as well:

"An activity typically involves spending multiple actions
to create an effect that’s different from merely the sum of
those actions."

"An action, activity, free action, or reaction might call
on you to use a simpler ability—usually one of the
actions under Basic Actions on page 307—in a different
circumstance or with different effects. The dependent
ability still has its normal traits and is modified in any
ways listed in the more complex ability. For example,
an activity that tells you to Stride up to double your
Speed modifies the Stride action by changing how far
you can move."

... actually, reading p. 296 even more closely:

"An activity doesn’t count as any of its dependent actions
or other abilities. [...]
As another example, if you took an action that specified,
“If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that
includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing
you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike
basic action."

So it seems that Sudden Charge is a 2 action activity, that does indeed include a Stride dependent ability and a Strike dependent ability, but not a Stride or a Strike action?

So wording like "if you Stride" works with Sudden Charge, but wording like "if your next action is a Stride" doesn't?

I would expect that's not the intent, and even if it is, it's pretty obscure.

It gets even more weird when you consider retraining during downtime.

"I used to be able to see clearly in the dark but now I can't.
But those orcs won't stand a chance now!"

I thought this was going to be a problem when frequent retraining first appeared in D&D 4E, but in my actual experience, it never was: if something is an important part of your character, you just wouldn't retrain it away.

At higher levels that 7 point difference can be less than a 20% to hit difference.

Note that AC 10 and AC 17 against +4 attack is exactly the same as AC 40 and AC 47 against +34 attack. The 7 point difference has the same effect on the hit chances in both cases.

So it's the scaling DCs of 4e...but with a static DC table too. One based on a "how difficult is this?" back of the envelope question rather than a "let's add up all these modifiers and see what comes out" approach.

Honestly, that's so elegant I wonder why 4e never thought to use it.

What do you mean, "never thought"? Isn't this the same thing as the 4E difficulty table? Different numbers obviously, as it's a 20-level-by-5-difficulty-categories table, rather than 30-level-by-3-categories, but exactly the same in principle?

It seems to me that tags make a stronger case for the reading you dislike. The Book seems to be saying that ghorazaghs exist, but they are rare. Not common, not unique, not absent; rare.

I'm unclear whether things higher up the rarity scale are supposed to be higher up the power scale.

It mostly seems they aren't (longsword is common and katana is uncommon, but neither is better, and it might be swapped around in another pat of the setting), but the rewards bit suggests they are: if it's a reward to be allowed to use a katana, then presumably it's better than the longsword in some way?

I very much see the value in genre and style, but a group or a player either has interest in it (in which case they won't bring katana-wielding drow in what's supposed to be a musketeers-style game), or hasn't (in which case restricting access to katana-wielding drow won't help much, because they will easily bring in something common and inappropriate). And if the group or DM is supposed to exhaustively review the rarity tags of everything to match each new style of game, what's the value in the initial tags?

I feel the intent will easily become very muddled here between the original designers, DMs, and subsequent designers, with some treating rarity as a tool to describe the setting, some treating it as a tool to control more powerful toys, and unintended effects when one intent clashes against the other expectation.

The very well know Exotic weapons issue, only rather than being restricted to a handful of weapons, applied to most of the elements in the game.

I'm becoming skeptical of largely divorcing training from skill check odds, and requiring both for success. There's some interesting nuance there, but it seems little gain a a lot more work: setting difficulty is now picking a point on a two-dimensional scale.

If picking this lock seems like it should be somewhat harder than breaking it, does that mean I want a higher DC? Or the same DC, but more proficiency? Or more proficiency, but a lower DC, since only a seasoned locksmith would even know what to do, but it's then it's fairly easy for them to actually do it?

Setting difficulty, ad hoc, fairly, quickly, consistently, is something a DM has to do all the time. It seems this approach makes it a lot more demanding, of only a small increase in texture.

Maybe it's just because it's new. Anyone who actually played a bit: have you found this to be an issue?

In the Hunt Target class feature, the ability says that the accuracy increase happens if all attacks are against your chosen target. It doesn't specify whether or not the attacks need to be exclusively against your chosen target, or if your attacks must include your chosen target.

Is there some specific ability you're thinking of, that let's you target more than one enemy with a single attack?

jasin wrote:

the baseline has changed? Maybe Weapon Focus isn't there anymore, and +1 attack is considered more valuable?

This is precisely correct. To-hit bonus is very finely calibrated and very limited. All you ever get to it is Level + Proficiency + Ability + Weapon (ie: the up to +5 from a magic weapon, mostly)...and a few conditional bonuses like this one.

Whether that's enough to make Monster Hunter good is another matter, but Weapon Focus and Feats like it are as dead as disco.

So something like 5E's "bounded accuracy", as a rule no attack bonuses from broadly available feats, spells, and conditions? That's a pretty big change! Was this discussed in more detail somewhere?

I love the idea of Monster Hunter, someone who fight well not because they're strong or quick, but because they're smart... but +1 to 3-5 attacks (whole party) against 1 creature, and only on a critical skill check, seems awfully limited compared to Weapon Focus: +1 to pretty much all attacks you make. Maybe the baseline has changed? Maybe Weapon Focus isn't there anymore, and +1 attack is considered more valuable?

Snares are a fun idea in the abstract, but in the life of a D&D adventurer, vastly more time is spent on the offense. Can you count on being able to lure enemies into specific squares often enough to invest feats in it?

Again keywording seems a bit out of control. Once Snare and Trap are different keywords, but a given object is both Snare and Trap, it might be time to wonder whether there's too much granularity there.

I really liked the general section, where the ranger comes across as a warrior who's not as good with weapons as the fighter, but is even better than the fighter at focusing on one guy with a flurry of quick attacks. Yep, feels like a ranger!

Mark Seifter wrote:

Except for a particular time when my playtesters explicitly tried to see if they could get away with saving money on CLW wand spam despite being high level adventurers who could afford a better wand, and a few extreme stress test situations where I told them "This is the only fight today. Nova your heart out," my playtest group never really hit hard against the resonance caps, even the ones with lower Charisma.

Is that the primary purpose of Resonance then? To make sure high level adventurers heal up with a reasonable amount of high level wand uses, rather than trickle-to-full with a more hp-per-gp efficient wand?

Edit: Eh, replied before seeing this was asked multiple times already.

I have to agree with others though that the description of magic items has to become much clearer. The Cloak of Elvenkind is really hard to read. In the header it says "Activation: Focus Action, Operation Action" but in the text it says drawing the hood is an "Interaction Action"... what is it now?

Please seperate rules and flavor text. With the rules section as a bulletin list maybe.

I'm pretty confident it's:

* Focus Activation to cast ghost sound
* Interact to pull up hood and get +3 Stealth
* Operation Activation to pull up hood and get invisibility (and possibly +3 Stealth, if that matters for someone already under invisibility)

But I agree it's very hard to read as it stands. Embedding rules in description can work (I like "The shield floats in the air next to you, granting you its bonus automatically, as if you Raised the Shield") and can make the presentation less dry and more natural. But having the stat block/power card format, but then also putting some of the info you'd expect to be in the rules header in the description body (only!) is the worst of both worlds.

I think I can see the reasoning here: Activation is a specific rules term, meaning powering a magic item with Resonance (with as much Resonance as required, even if that's 0, to cover Automatic Activation). For the cloak, the Interact action is not Activation, it's just manipulating your cloak as you'd normally do, and then it grants you bonuses (although... why doesn't that count as Automatic Activation?)

But that's back to my keyword complaint: it seems there's at least 5 different activities you can do with an item, which all have different rules meanings, even though they sound pretty much the same in common language, or at least don't suggest the specific rules meaning:

operation
activation
action
interact
use

I think that needs cleaned up. The best keywords are those that fit naturally even for someone not familiar with the technical usage: a [Fire] spell is, in fact, a fire spell.

"Consumable, Enchantment, Fear, Magical, Mental, Trinket" So many keywords.

Keywords are good if they improve clarity, but if you ever need to write something like "A potion requires you to spend an Operate Activation action to drink it." it might be going overboard.

Overall, this article reads a lot like something from a late stage RPG, Book of Nine Swords, Pathfinder Unchained: mitigating complexity problems by introducing more layers of complexity. That's not always wrong (I loved Book of Nine Swords, for what it was), but it doesn't look encouraging for that part of the audience who like Pathfinder but are fatigued by the complexity and were looking forward to the new edition as an opportunity for a reset to cleaner, simpler position.

Unbreakable! They alive dammit! Grey Maidens are strong as hell!

I admit that I initially balked at Cat Fall due to the players at my table as well as myself really enjoying that feeling of “we could really, really, die due to falling off the cliff”

If you wanted to die falling off a cliff, wouldn't you just... not take the feat that lets you not die falling off a cliff?

Really? Cuz I awlways thought rougues were supposed to be scouts and skill monkeys rather than killing machines, but I guess my grognard is showing.

I agree the rogue's primary role is not (should not be) killing machine, but I don't think "skill monkey" is a role at all. "Skills" is just a 3E-and-onwards term for other skills, those not central enough to have their own cool subsystem like the combat system, spellcasting, powers, special abilities. No class should be defined by being the master of the "none of the above" category.

In practice, it's a minor issue, but aesthetically, the organisation of the spell list made me grit my teeth with frustration. It changes the key three or four times down the length of a five item list!

Why isn't it sorted by level?

7th plane shift (at will, to Elemental Planes, Astral Plane, or Material Plane only); 5th illusory object; 4th gaseous form, invisibility (×2), produce flame (cantrip); 1st detect magic (constant)

Or sorted by use limits?

Slots illusory object (5th); gaseous form (4th), invisibility (4th) (×2); At Will plane shift (7th, to Elemental Planes, Astral Plane, or Material Plane only); produce flame (4th); Constant detect magic (1st)

Okay so the things we've learned from so-called "trap options" in PF1 are:

1) (Whirlwind Attack) Avoid printing options where the investment far outweighs the benefit.

2) (Prone Shooter) Avoid printing options that do literally nothing because someone misunderstood the rule and no one caught it.

It seems like these are pretty easy to avoid- anything else?

1) is not easy to avoid at all, because it's sometimes not easy at all to correctly judge the investment and the benefit.

Seems like they fixed rogues. Hurrah!

What are you thinking of, specifically? To me it looks exactly like the PF 1E rogue. I'd expect that if you like the 1E rogue, you'd like this, if you thought the 1E rogue needs fixing, this doesn't do much to fix it?

Zaister wrote:

I disapprove of the term "trap option" because it implies malevolence on the part of the designers, which is highly disrespectful.

When it was coined in the 3.0 days it was actually accurate. Look up Ivory Tower Game Design and Timmy Cards.

Accurate in that the implication of malevolence was warranted? I think that would be a very extreme and uncharitable reading of what Cook actually wrote, and Magic is a competitive game which means choices are offered and made in a fundamentally different context.

Not to mention that Monte Cook is on record saying that part of the 3.0 design philosophy was to intentionally lay “less good” (read : trap) options in to the core of the game to reward system mastery with established players. And a large part of that core game is carried over verbatim into the PF1 CRB.

So like, yeah, I think it is possible that devs do it on purpose, because they explicitly told us that they did it.

Do you have an exact quote?

If you go and look it up, you'll find it a lot less strongly worded than you make it out, more like acknowledging that some options are better and being fine with that, rather than intentionally setting out to trick the players into choosing the poor option (as the word "trap" suggests).

Additionally, it's a very old article. I see little reason to expect Pathfinder designers now to be intentionally holding to the same design philosophy from 2000 that Monte Cook was reflecting on (and criticising!) in 2005.

*does some math*

The break even point is 40% hit chance (ignoring criticals, since I don't think we know the full rules there yet). Below that, and the better accuracy of a single attack is important to hit at all. Above, and the chance of scoring two hits starts to drive you damage up on a double-attack.

Taking a 75% chance to hit, though, at 11th, and you're looking at full attack giving about 50% extra damage in Starfinder, as opposed to 100% extra in Pathfinder- without Haste up. But since Haste is always up for important fights, that's going to be 200%. Dropping two-thirds of your damage so you can move up is an awful deal. Dropping one-third is better.

As I've said, it's a step in the right direction, a significant one, I should have added.

But it's trivial to solve the issue completely for mobility (always all of your attacks, 5E style), so I'm wondering if maybe the designers weren't prioritising mobility as highly as we seem to be.

But, there's another aspect. We've seen that some bulky weapons can't do multiple attacks in a round. Presumably, they get extra damage in exchange. That means that if you're willing to commit to a mobile, single attack lifestyle, you lose out on less.

That's... odd. So someone with a light pistol or vibroknife is probably better off standing fast and full attacking, while someone with a huge autocannon or a heavy chain axe is better off flitting about? That seems about opposite of how it should be.

Still lots we don't know, so that might not be how it all works out, but it seems odd at first blush.

Finally, for melee, the five-foot-step being made into a special move action means that a single-attack fighter can prevent an opponent from getting to double attack.

That's true!

Spoodles wrote:

Not exactly sure how I feel about the removal of Iterative attacks. Suppose I will have to wait and see how it plays.

How can you feel different than "oh, a mobile martial is finally exactly as effective as someone who just stands there"?

It's still better to full attack, no? It's not as vital as with +0/-5/-10/-15, but you're still missing out if you move.

It's not iterative attacks that discouraged mobility, it's the fact that you have to forgo mobility to take multiple attacks, and that's still there.

It's a step in the right direction, but if the point is to encourage mobility, it'd be even simpler to go all the way in the right direction and just say you get all of your attacks regardless of how far you move.

Isn't this exactly the kind of thing 4th Edition D&D tried to do that everyone hated?

No, it's the kind of thing that all the 4th Edition fans loved.

What's a celelarian?

The question is, what's the point of having a piece of information (such as the artifact's backstory) in the game, if it's so super secret there's no way for the players to experience?

9th level is the level where you can visit Heaven and Hell, bring the dead back to life, or beat a grizzly bear in a fist fight.

By those standards, being famous with 1/10th of the entire population of a sizable city seems paltry to me, not awesome.

It's not that the characters can't be well known, it's that the BONUS is applied within the confines of the renown. You can have a character be well known, but only the vigilante gets a bonus. The mechanical widget doesn't preclude other classes from being well known.

Again, that's exactly the criticism leveled by those who think 3E is too bound by its own rules: you can have renown, but it doesn't actually do anything unless you have Renown (Ex).

I think abilities like this are bad not only for the class that has them, but make the game as a whole weaker because of the implication. I think class abilities should primarily be not traits you'd certainly expect characters to have ("I'm a socialite who's secretly a masked vigilante, so I'm famous"), but, literally, extraordinary or supernatural things, beyond the expected and reasonable: "I'm a socialite who's secretly a masked vigilante, so even people who cannot have reasonably heard of me will be impressed when my vigilante name is mentioned", for example.

A 9th-level vigilante can be renowned in two small towns.

This is the level where characters, literally, bring back the dead, and on the other hand, kill mighty beasts, or normal soldiers by the dozens.

One would expect that any character who can do these things could be renowned, beloved, or feared if they even remotely cared to be. But a vigilante, whose social identity is all about fame and connections, is renowned in two small towns. What does that say about the vigilante in fiction? Is a 9th-level vigilante truly just a local small town hero? What does it say about non-vigilante characters? If a vigilante, who gets an explicit special Renown ability, is only renowned only in two small towns, how about a 9th-level wizard or rogue? Are these people, who can travel to Heaven and Hell, and disappear while you are looking at them, even less impressive and not really famous even in two small towns?

This is a prime example of what the 3E family is being (mostly unfairly, in my opinion) criticized by the "rulings, not rules" proponents: a specific mechanical widget that does something most people assume they could do anyway, clarifying by implication that, no, they can't, they need that specific mechanical widget to do it, and then they can only do it poorly or with difficulty.

Multiclassing calculus, for when you need a little more winter and a lot more witch in your winter witch:

Female human (Jadwiga) witch[APG] (winter witch[ISM]) 5/winter witch[POP] 3

Benefit(s): If you are wearing medium or heavy armor and are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, as a free action, you may give your ally a circumstance bonus to her AC equal to half the armor bonus provided by your armor. This bonus lasts for 1 round. During this round, you gain no bonus to your AC from your armor.

Can two allies grant this bonus to a third?

Can a single ally grant this bonus to two different allies?

Have you considered paladin? He can be dedicated to Aroden, provide healing, and be built similar to your cavalier idea too. Inquisitor might work too.

I loved paladins in 3E, so the Pathfinder paladin kind of feels like cheating. That's why I'm considering the cavalier: it's a lot like the paladin on hard mode.

My last character was an inquisitor, so I don't want to go there again so soon.

jasin wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Don't hate the spellcaster's purse.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, I think you might be adapting a phrase I'm unfamiliar with?

I am joking about your "purse spite" comment.

Ah, so it was a phrase I'm unfamiliar with. :D

Don't hate the spellcaster's purse.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, I think you might be adapting a phrase I'm unfamiliar with?

Also, I suppose I didn't mean to disagree with how you addressed Atheism in Golarion, but to clarify.

Ah, OK, fair enough.

In the above case, worship of Aroden may be not so much out of spite towards all other deities or rejection of what all deities stand for (which I would consider akin to atheism) but because the character espouces the Arodenite dogma as life philosophy, a positive rather than a negative reason. I do not think this would make this character an atheist - his/her is simply a faith in a philosophy and concept that is valid even without the miracles and trappings most other religions have access to. It is one thing to not venerate them yourself, it is another to deny their power and worthiness in general. On the other hand, would it really make you a priest, if you actually believe Aroden is dead, or are you simply a religious scholar or philosopher?

Well, if I had all those answers, I wouldn't have to play the character, right? :)

The dominance of spellcasters in the responses just makes me want to go with either the lore warden or the cavalier, out of purse spite for the dominance of spellcasters in the game. :)

Also, that's not how Atheism works in Golarion:

Atheism is the rejection of the gods. Rather than outright disbelieving in gods (whose existence is a matter of hard fact), atheists in Golarion instead deny that the gods are truly divine and thus not deserving of worship or blind faith. Thus, atheists may be classed as dystheists or misotheists.

I don't think that's incompatible with what I wrote? A priest of Aroden presumably doesn't think (the other) gods are deserving of worship, which is why he's a priest of Aroden.

We're starting a new game, and I (as usual) am having trouble deciding what to play, and I'm hoping discussing the options might clear it out for me.

First: a priest of Aroden. Aroden being dead for several generations, this would be a lore warden fighter with lots of knowledges and Orator, a sort of monk-like figure, studying philosophy and swordsmanship in a lonely crumbling temple to Aroden until circumstances call him to adventure. I think it might be interesting to consider whether, in manifestly theistic Golarion, it might be atheism that requires the most faith. This is the most engaging option for me in terms of concept.

Next: a young noble returning home from the border wars with Qadira. A Dragon cavalier with the Helpful trait, working towards Swift Aid, and so on, going for a role like a D&D 4E warlord: a party facilitator. Again a somewhat scholarly guy, with the Improvisation feat and a decent, and hopefully, growing travelling library. This is probably the most mechanically engaging option, and most fun for the group (everyone likes being given bonuses).

Last: a divine spellcaster, because we're lacking one. The least interesting option, as is obvious from the amount of effort I'm spending to consider it, but possibly the most useful one.

What do you think?

What I'm up to: Players often claim to be after some fluff. But in reality it is the crunch they want. You see that well when you offer them the fluff without the crunch. Suddenly they are not interested in the fluff anymore.

Why would you wonder that people want function and not just form?

And why would you purposefully offer your players what you seem to know they don't want?

You're missing all the stuff that makes it a pretty strong class.

Then where the hell did flurry and smash come from?

The fighter's biggest jump in power is at 6th, but the cleric gets and even larger one at 8th when he effectively goes from one attack to three: divine power becomes commonly available, and BAB reaches +6. Flurry keeps up with that.

Smash is just a generic damage bonus. Attack bonuses are folded into BAB and weapon training, damage bonuses into weapon training and smash. It actually adds up to a bit less than the cleric would get, but I didn't want to have to do something like weird +3/5 levels for a couple of points of precision.

Destructive smash is another +1/2 levels to damage, mimicking Destruction domain's destructive smite.

Just, why?

As an experiment! :)

My knight is, as exactly as I could follow, a fully buffed selfish War/Destruction cleric, with all the buff bonuses baked in.

I'm assuming four fights per day, so at the levels where the cleric can cast divine favour four times for +2 to attack and damage, the knight gets +2 to attack and damage, always on (sometimes included in BAB, sometimes expressed as other bonuses, as appropriate to keep the scaling of each individual ability as simple as possible).

He gets stuff like Unavoidable Strike and Words of Inspiration when the cleric has no more simple combat buffs he can stack, but still has slots to spend, so he prepares true strike and prayer.

Considering all the complaints about buffed clerics outfighting warriors, I wanted to see what it would look like if the warrior class was a buffed cleric.

This is an experiment with base class intended filling a similar role as the cavalier, a primary melee combatant with a bit of party-boosting capability.

It only goes to 10th level so far. A complete version would be a standard 20-level base class, but just haven't done the math beyond 10th.

Would you play this as a player? Would you allow it as a DM?

Hit dice: d8
Weapon proficiencies: simple weapons, martial weapons
Armour proficiencies: light armour, medium armour, shields (but not tower shields)

BAB: good (as paladin)
Fort: good (as paladin
Ref: weak (as paladin)
Will: good (as paladin

1st Tactical initiative, smash
2nd -
3rd Forceful rhythm +2d6
4th -
5th Forceful barrage +3d6, superior weapon training +1
6th Unavoidable strike 1/day
7th Forceful barrage +4d6, Heavy armour
8th Tough (1), words of inspiration, adaptable combatant, shielded +1, cry 'havoc!', weapon flurry
9th Forceful barrage +5d6, Superior weapon training +2, Tough (2, fortitude), far-reaching, DR 1/-
10th Tough (4), shielded +2, DR 2/-

Tactical initiative (Ex): Whenever a knight and his allies roll for initiative, the knight can grant one ally within 30 feet the ability to roll twice and take either result. This decision is made before results are revealed.

Smash (Ex): A knight's blows are extraordinarily powerful, adding 1/2 knight's level to all melee weapon damage rolls. Additionally, once per combat the knight can perform a destructive smash, a single attack which benefits from a doubled smash bonus (i.e. adds his full level to the damage roll).

Forceful rhythm (Ex): At 3rd level, once per combat, a knight can time his blows with forceful rhythm, directing and redirecting momentum like a smith striking an anvil. A swift action, the knight's weapon attacks gain a +2d6 bonus on damage rolls. This extra damage is force damage. This lasts for the knight's next three weapon attacks or until the end of combat, whichever comes first. The bonus damage increases by +1d6 for each two knight levels beyond 3rd (5th, 7th, 9th etc.).

Superior weapon training (Ex): A knight trains extensively with all weapons. Starting at 5th level, he gains a +1 bonus on weapon attack and weapon damage rolls. This bonus increases to +2 at 9th level.

Unavoidable strike (Ex): At 6th level, a knight can prepare an unavoidable strike as a standard action once per day. His next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus, and is not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.

Heavy armour (Ex): A knight gains proficiency wth heavy armour at 7th level.

Tough (Ex): A knight's toughness is legendary. He gains Toughness as a bonus feat at 8th level. At 9th level, he gains Great Fortitude as a bonus feat, and another instance of Toughness (this is an exception to the general rule about taking the same feat more than once). At 10th level, the knight gains Toughness two more times, for a total of 4.

Words of inspiration (Ex): A knight's exhortations can inspire his comrades in arms to great deeds, and stir uncertainty among his enemies. As a standard action once per day, an 8th-level knight can speak words of inspiration. The knight and each of his allies within 40 ft. gain a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saves, and skill checks, while each of his foes within 40 ft. takes a –1 penalty on such rolls.

Adaptable combatant (Ex): At 8th level, as a swift action, the knight gains the use of one combat feat for a number of rounds per day equal to his knight level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive and he can change the feat chosen each time you use this ability. He must meet the prerequisites to use this feat.

Shielded (Ex): Knights heavily favour weapon and shield fighting. When using a shield, a knight's shield bonus increases by +1 at 8th level. This bonus increases to +2 at 10th level.

Cry 'havoc!' (Ex): At 8th level, a knight can incite such destruction on the battlefield that all attacks made against targets within 30 ft. (including the knight) gain a morale bonus on damage equal to 1/2 his knight level and all critical threats are automatically confirmed. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.

Weapon flurry (Ex): At 8th level, a knight can make a flurry of weapon attacks as a full-attack action. When doing so, he may make one additional attack at his highest attack bonus, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls for the rest of the round.

Far-reaching (Ex): At 9th level, the knight controls the battlefield around him. This effectively increases his reach by 5 ft.

Damage reduction (Ex): At 9th level, a knight gains damage reduction. Subtract 1 from the damage the knight takes each time she is dealt damage from a weapon or a natural attack. At 10th level, this damage reduction rises by 1 point.