>tfw_no_pf's page

Organized Play Member. 30 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 3 Organized Play characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Victor Zajic wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Why wouldn't the heritage feat grant you a tail? You are part kobold. Koblolds have tails.
Does the heritage feat make you small sized? Kobolds are small sized.

This is probably the best, most poignant post in this thread and it's a shame it hasn't gotten more attention. Just because kobolds have certain features, and you "have the blood of" a kobold, doesn't mean you necessarily inherit all the features of a kobold. If you did, you'd just be a kobold. And if you don't inherit all their kobold features, how do you determine which you do or do not inherit? Where do you draw the line?

RAW, Tail Terror does nothing for a half-orc, kobold heritage or no. Your GM might give it to you, though, to talk to them about it.

RJGrady wrote:
If you can find a feat with the prerequisite "human" that says, "You use your six arms to attack," and the feat is called You Attack People With the Six Arms You Have, then I have absolutely no problem with saying your human has six arms.

You've got to be kidding me.

Even after the update, this class is still kind of disappointing. I love the concept, especially as a gateway to Dragon Disciple (assuming they stack), but I wish it had more unique features as opposed to reusing so many of the barbarian's features. It's an awesome idea, but it doesn't look very different mechanically.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Naw, Zealot implies a disconnect for whats appropriate.

Templar is nice, or Hospitaler (since theyre supposed to heal as well)

Hospitaller is already a paladin archetype, though, and we're trying to distance the class from the paladin if possible (and it would just create confusion). Crusader is a cleric archetype, so naming a hybrid class the same thing as an archetype for one of its parent classes will probably get confusing.

I think Templar should be avoided too, considering they were a real world order (also like Hospitaller) with a lot of connotations (which isn't to say paladins weren't as well, but they are much less widely known; then again, that might be a nice parallel).

Craft Cheese wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

The most obvious being that feats, no matter how many, will never overcome slow casting progression and the loss of the top three spell levels.

Feats are not good. You can't replace good magical class features with feats and expect some sort of equilibrium. If this class got two feats a level for every level I would still choose a cleric. Better spells at earlier levels that will, in some instances, outstrip a feat by several orders of magnitude cannot be so easily stripped off the cleric chassis.

Especially combat feats, because they seem to be balanced with the assumption that only Fighters will be taking them. Notice how much more powerful in general caster-oriented feats are than combat-oriented ones?

While I agree that feats can never match the flexibility of full-casting, I think restricting the warpriest's bonus feats to combat feats wouldn't be too big a deal. It would help to emphasize his martial talents, and he still has all his normal feats to pick up channeling/casting related things. Besides, we've established that the warpriest's casting is gimped and feats aren't that great; it might not even be worth taking casting-related feats in the first place.

Starfox wrote:
I see the war priest as being targeted at the player who would play a crusader cleric, but gets bored having to spend rounds out of combat buffing. For a limited buff/melee class, buffing just takes too long if it has to be done before combat. The cleric and bard are buffer primary. They too suffers from this, but at least their buffs are powerful enough to turn a battle more or less on their own.

I agree with this 100%. I'd like to see something for the warpriest's buff spells like how the summoner gets improved summoning spells, as well as some way to apply them to himself as either a series of swift actions (meaning he can ramp up his buffs while in combat) or a single swift action (set it and forget it for the player who gets bored constantly buffing). As for buffing others, do you think people will be relying on the warpriest for buffs? I think it would make him much more useful than just another martial damage-dealer, but he'll need a way to do that quickly too. Maybe a feature that lets him cast buff spells on x number of allies within y yards?

On another note, is anyone else hype to see the revamp of this class? I'm really, really hoping the blessings have gotten some love and that channeling is no longer CHA-based.

LazarX wrote:
If you were expecting all warpriests of all dieties to be equally optimised in their choice of weapon, that's not going to happen. But most of that reason will be the fault of the player, as a certain dual dagger wielding priest of Pharasma has already amply demonstrated.

I'm going to disagree here. Not all favored weapons are favored for the same reasons, and Pharasma is a great example of this. Do you really think she expects her followers to be hunting undead with daggers? I'd say it's more likely the dagger is "favored" for ritualistic purposes. Why do we all jump to the conclusion that all deities favor weapons for the same reasons, and why do we assume that reason is always combat?

So why are we talking about martial vs caster, BBEGs or SoD spells? Shouldn't we be talking about the Arcanist?

To that end, I've got to say I don't really want the class to be any more MAD than it already is. Sure most of its class features only rely on one stat (INT) but as Excaliburproxy said above, you'll need other stats just to survive. Making the class more MAD just for the sake of it is only going to make them less survivable, which they aren't any good at already.

I'd like to see more exploits that don't have to do with weak blasting and make the class more versatile. My kneejerk reaction is something along the lines of adding exploits that let you select a basic wizard hex, a bloodline power, a wizard school ability, etc. similar to Eldritch Heritage, but this could be wildly imbalanced.

N. Jolly wrote:
As for people talking about the elemental lines, I REALLY like the idea of both removing the save (for the damage portion at least) as well as making them not cost a resource. One of the biggest issues with being an early level caster is running out of fun things to do. With this, you get a weak blast (maybe include Cha to damage for these) that you can use instead of picking up a crossbow and feeling like a commoner. At no point do you stop feeling like a mage with this, which is what the class should go for. Give it that old Warlock feel.

I love this idea! One of my least favorite parts of playing low level casters is running out of spells and having to make believe I'm a ranger. Would it really be so imbalanced to give a weak on-demand blast as a sort of "auto-attack"?

Lord_Malkov wrote:
No other method really works that well... and it doesn't make a bad character (See cleric or battle oracle), but it does make a character that casts OR fights, not a character that casts AND fights.... and I think the Warpriest should be the latter.

Agreed, but I'm not sure how it will get there sans full BAB. Surely, there is a way to have a martial divine character with full BAB and fourth level spells that is not a paladin; perhaps the blessings, bonus feats, better channeling and lack of smite evil, lay on hands, etc. will help? Still, that is only a start.

I think a few things ought to happen going forward:

  • Make the bonus feats combat feats only, like the fighter. If we need to make sacrifices and emphasize martial ability, this is a good place to do it.
  • The action economy has to absolutely be improved. The warpriest is hobbled by its reliance on buffs to do much of anything, let alone accomplish its melee/ranged goals.
  • Make the blessings more exciting, and improve Sacred Weapon and Sacred Armor to move them away from the paladin's Divine Bond.

Those changes would be a decent start toward making a much more fighter-flavored character, without it being too close to paladin. But honestly, if the only difference between the warpriest and the paladin is 3/4 BAB and two levels of spells, and changing that makes it too similar, maybe that's the biggest problem with the class: All that differentiates it is its BAB and sixth level spells.

sowhereaminow wrote:

OK - to summarize the major themes running through this thread so far (in no particular order):

1. Some people wonder why this class exists, since warpriest role is already filled quite well by the paladin, inquisitor, several varieties of oracle, and this little known class called the cleric.
2. Some people are looking for this class to be full BAB to increase it's martial ability.
3. Some people want a 1/2 BAB, armorless full caster.
4. This class appears dependent on nearly every ability score to function (it's Multiple Ability Dependent; aka MAD). Looks like this is being addressed.
5. A few people have noted some imbalances in the Blessings, and that the mechanic as a whole could use a boost.
6. Several people don't like the class being tied to the deity's favored weapon, feeling it may limit deity to a few choices deities with "good" weapons.
7. Some people feel this class has too many abilities requiring tracking - spells, sacred weapon uses, sacred armor uses, blessings, etc.
8. Several people see the class as is as a great 1 level dip class. It's very frontloaded - it's gets a ton of stuff at 1st level.
9. There's is confusion over whether the class counts as a fighter and/or cleric for the purpose of qualifying for feats.
10. And the usual complaint about not enough skill points. :-)

I'm sure I missed a few, but that should catch any late arrivals up a bit. Most of these topics have been discussed thoroughly (50+ posts).

Keep the topics coming!

I'd say your third item is a little unfair, considering vastly more people seem to want full BAB melee/ranged powerhouse than they do 1/2 BAB full caster. Other than that, I'd add:

11. Lots of back and forth about Spell Combat; should this character be a divine gish?
12. Some talk of spontaneous casting.
13. Does the class really need Channel Energy or sixth level spells if it comes at the cost of full BAB?
14. Sacred Weapon and Sacred Armor are a little ho-hum and more or less identical to the paladin's Divine Bond sans penalty upon destruction.
15. The capstone is kind of boring.

Great post, by the way!

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Full BAB is riding the crazy train to OP city, imo. 6 levels of spell casting and full attack is unheard of right? If people were somehow okay with this then spell combat would be an "unnecessary evil" so don't worry about that.

Charisma and spontaneous casting makes me feel like this is a fighter oracle gish at that point (which could be fun but is definitely not a cleric/fighter).

Well, what are your suggestions? He could definitely be dropped down to 4th level casting, or we could omit spell combat. Either way, he'd start with spells at first level, unlike the paladin. I just wanted to emphasize his martial nature over his spellcasting ability.

We can switch him over to WIS casting, but then it's a fighter/inquisitor gish so there's really no winning. Still, it might be thematically appropriate to use WIS.

So, I took about twenty minutes to revise the warpriest entry in the ACG playtest. It was a rushed effort and I don't homebrew often, so this might be massively overpowered or just plain tripe. Still, I thought it would be useful to put down some of the ideas discussed here in a single place on Google Drive.

Change Log:

  • Hit dice changed to d10.
  • You can't see it, but pretend he's at full BAB.
  • Handle Animal removed from class skills.
  • Knowledge (engineering) switched to Knowledge (geography).
  • Perception added to class skills.
  • Spellcasting is now based on charisma and is spontaneous in the same manner as the oracle, using the cleric spell list.
  • Special text was added to clarify whether a warpriest may use inflict or cure spells.
  • Unlike an oracle, a warpriest must use a divine focus.
  • Blessing DCs now work off of charisma.
  • Changed Bonus Feats to only use combat feats like the fighter to emphasize the warpriest’s martial prowess; keep in mind that the warpriest’s regular feats can be spent on non-combat feats!
  • Warpriests may now use weapons with which they have Weapon Focus as divine focuses and holy symbols.
  • Eliminated the Spontaneous Casting feature.
  • Sacred Weapon and Sacred Armor have been reworked. Warpriests may now bequeath their weapons and armor, among other things.


  • I couldn't think of a good way to phrase his role.
  • I wasn't sure about the class skills, but I thought geography might be more important to a soldier/general than engineering; where would he even learn that? Perception was added because I hate playing classes who are always a step behind in perception.
  • The reworked Sacred Weapon and Sacred Armor might be too powerful. My thinking was that you sacrifice flexibility for permanence. I didn't yet move the bonus options to the individual blessings.
  • I couldn't get the chart onto Drive, so there's no way to show the warpriest's BAB or spell progression yet. I might just make a spreadsheet and provide a separate link.
  • I didn't have time to come up with a Spell Combat or similar mechanic.

Those with the link can read and comment directly on the document, so please feel free to provide feedback!

Alceste008, I think you're right. One of the biggest problems with the class right now is that it is way past MAD, but I think it's because the warpriest tries to do way too much without really bringing anything to the table. This guy is supposed to be the ass-kicking warrior whose crusades are fully endorsed by a powerful deity. He is all about the war, whereas a paladin is (generally) more of a noble protector and champion of justice. If we narrow down what this character is about and what he does, we can narrow it down to what stats he needs.

Personally, I think the warpriest should only ever need three ability scores: Constitution, Charisma and Strength or Dexterity depending on whether his weapon. His spells should work off his CHA score (like the paladin) and he has no more need for INT than the fighter. This way he'll be no more or less MAD than most other classes.

Let's open up another can of worms: What if he were a spontaneous caster? It might be an idea worth exploring to further differentiate the class. Maybe instead of learning divine rites and prayers to cast, like the paladin and cleric, he is a font of holy energy (like the oracle) shaped into righteous destruction?

ciretose wrote:
@>tfw_no_pf - It isn't bad, but it is already done by the Magus. I do think there may be some interesting mechanics to dig out of there that could be moved around a bit.

Thanks. I agree it's a little like the magus, but honestly that's part of why I like it. I want a divine magus that leans more toward fighter than caster. Also note that I intended that to be a core part of the warpriest, not an archetype like the bladebound magus.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
I like making the class more like magus. *begins chanting for spell combat but only for harmless spells*

I think the warpriest will need some way to use his spells more fluidly in combat, but I don't think spell combat is necessarily the answer. Some solution to make his casting more integrated into his melee/ranged combat (which is supposed to be his main draw) would really help set him apart from the paladin, but I don't want to make it a TWF-style solution that implies he needs a hand free. I know if I were going to play a warpriest, he'd definitely be using a crossbow (because Abadar is cool) or a shield.

Also, if it's only for harmless spells, what will negative energy/evil warpriests, or those who worship evil deities do?

Golo wrote:

I'm finding the low level blessing vary in power quite a bit from each other. Also I would like for the blessings to feel more active.

The Warpriest should be out doing things to their enemies, swinging their weapons, or pronouncing judgements or something along those lines. They seem like a very active class in concept "warpriest". The standard action to buff someones weapon or give a person a bonus is too passive. It doesn't feel right to me.

Yes there will be buffs, I just wish more of them were more active or more immediately warlike. I also think a warpriest should get more of them.

This guy gets it! I want to be a melding of divine and martial skill different from the paladin; more militant. I want it to be seamless like the magus, but more on the martial side. I want to be up in my opponent's face, I want to be crusading, I want to show them what happens when they defy my god and I want them to know that my god is on my side and, through me, is actively destroying them.

I do not want to be standing around for several standard actions buffing up and doing not-fighter things. Also intimidate is such an appropriate class skill.

Gherrick wrote:
Arazyr wrote:
Arcanovore 8^)
Atronach...too bad it can't be used due to IP issues.


Matthew Trent wrote:
Time for a dash of reality. The look of iconics is most dependent on art. Art orders have gone out long ago (most likely). This thread is pointless.

If discussing speculation and others' opinions is pointless, why do you go to an online forum in the first place?

I wasn't aware that the art orders had already gone out, but the point of this thread wasn't necessarily to change Paizo's plans or opinions; it was more to share speculation and ideas about what the iconics will be and what people want out of them.

With that in mind, what kind of characters do you hope comes out of the new batch?

Why not make the warpriest more like the bladebound magus? The warpriest shares a bond with their weapon and armor strengthened by their deity's favor. As he garners more of his god's attention, his god will in turn grant him innate skills (spellcasting, channeling, blessings), as well as boons for his equipment. Examples of divine will and instruments of righteous fury, these hallowed tools will live on in sacred legend.

Each blessing or deity could come with a list of thematically appropriate bonuses for your weapon and armor, and you can select one every so many levels. Maybe a warpriest of fire can make his longsword flaming at will, or a warpriest of Sarenrae could make her shield/armor shine brightly enough to blind enemies. There are more creative possibilities, these are just examples.

I don't think there is another class that becomes so attached to its weapon and armor; it's like the current iteration of Sacred Weapon, which is more or less identical to the paladin's Divine Bond, turned up to eleven. The weapons and armor aren't powerful because they belong to the warpriest, but because they have become artifacts of the church, imbued with godly power.

Think of it like Iron Man; Tony Stark's "power" is his intelligence, but without tools borne of that intelligence, he is just a really smart guy. That doesn't mean he can't solve problems without the Iron Man armor, but that he is most powerful while using it. Similarly, the warpriest is a fighter of great skill no matter his equipment (and he has his own divine abilities), but he is at his best when working with the products of his godly devotion.

This setup not only gives the warpriest a more unique, flavorful feel, but it might also solve the whole favored weapon debate rather elegantly; maybe certain empowerments are only available if you use your diety's favored weapon, or something.

What do you guys think?

Joyd wrote:
I feel like it's hard to honestly say that the current group of iconics is too stereotypical unless your standards are that every single iconic should violate every possible stereotype.

No, not at all, but look at the numbers:

Human Iconics (14):
  • Antipaladin
  • Barbarian
  • Cavalier
  • Cleric
  • Fighter
  • Gunslinger
  • Monk
  • Ninja
  • Oracle
  • Paladin
  • Sa murai
  • Sorcerer
  • Witch
  • Wizard

Non-Human Iconics (8):
  • Alchemist
  • Bard
  • Druid
  • Inquisitor
  • Magus
  • Ranger
  • Rogue
  • Summoner

Even excluding the antipaladin and alternate classes, it's still pretty imbalanced when you consider that there are three gnomes, two elves, one dwarf, one half-elf and one half-orc.

It's not about going out of the way to "break stereotypes" but just offer up some more variety and show what other characters you can build. As this is the Advanced Class Guide, it's an excellent opportunity to show off some more exotic and advanced character concepts (which isn't to say the other iconics are somehow less advanced, but you get my point).

For example, what if we had a tiefling abyssal bloodrager, able to Hulk out and make his heritage fully apparent (and terrifying)? Or maybe for the warpriest we could have a divine character that channels negative energy; maybe a lawful neutral devotee of Zon-Kuthon or something?

There's a lot of potential out there to demonstrate that not all characters are human, not all divine classes have to channel positive energy, etc. There are a lot of player options not shown in the current iconics (which is great for introductory characters), and that's the sort of variety I'd like the new iconics to demonstrate; not necessarily to "break stereotypes" but to show less experienced players some of the other choices they can make.

Will we be seeing a new set of ten iconics for the new ACG classes as the playtest progresses? This is a great opportunity to add variety to the established iconic crew and take the classes in less-expected directions, such as a warpriest of Zon-Kuthon or a draconic bloodrager. It could also be an opportunity to use races not as common in the current batch such as the half-elf, tiefling, oread, etc.

What do you think? What sort of iconics would you like to see?

magnuskn wrote:

I'm a bit sad that nobody of the Paizo devs seems to be able to formulate what their intended role for the Warpriest really is. Even the defined role in the playtest document makes the class sound like a worse Cleric.

"Although not as capable as a cleric, the warpriest can still serve as a capable healer or spellcaster,..."

I wonder if any other class already declares in its flavor text "Yo, you better play a Cleric, son!". ;)

I cringed at that too. The introduction reads like it could be swapped with the paladin except for the last sentence that basically says, "This is pretty much exactly a paladin, the only difference being that it doesn't have to be lawful good."

MrSin wrote:
>tfw_no_pf wrote:
I get that the warpriest isn't alignment-restricted, but I feel like this design space has been thoroughly explored already.
Actually, he's restricted quiet a bit. He's going to be highly restricted based on what deity he chose. Deity determines the weapon he wields, blessings, alignment, spells... etc.

My point is that the warpriest is not restricted to being lawful good. He still has to follow his deity, but he personally does not have to be lawful good (or choose a deity within one step of lawful good).

So what is this class supposed to be and do? If you give it a melee weapon, it's a paladin sans auras, lay on hands, smite evil and divine grace, but with two more levels of spells, bonus feats and watered down domains. It has better spellcasting than the paladin, but if you want a paladin with more emphasis on spells, you can play a sacred servant with magical knack and multiclass cleric or oracle.

If you give it a ranged weapon, it's an inquisitor without judgement, bane and teamwork feats; the blessings aren't too terribly different from domains. The warpriest has better martial skills than the inquisitor, but if you want to play a more martial inquisitor you can just do that without too much trouble.

I can see that, mechanically, the class is a fusion of the fighter and cleric, but that has already been done, conceptually, multiple times. I mean, isn't the original idea of the paladin a "warrior of the faith, skilled at arms and armor ... capable of calling upon the power of the gods"? I get that the warpriest isn't alignment-restricted, but I feel like this design space has been thoroughly explored already.

Excellent ideas, MechE. I've taken some of them into a new build I'm working on in PCGen now. Unfortunately my DM doesn't allow crossblooded, so I'm just sticking to dragon there. For weapon master, what should I choose as my weapon focus? A regular or natural weapon?

lantzkev wrote:
Why not just go with bard or summoner for your spontaneous class with the paladin? You could wear light armor then without ASF.

I played a bard already recently and didn't care for it. I'm not interested in the summoner - eidolons weird me out.

Hello! I'm starting a new campaign tomorrow and have decided on a dragon disciple. We'll be starting at seventh level with 23,500 gp and 25 point buy, so that gives me a fair bit of wiggle room when building. My problem is, I can't decide what to do!

My DM and I have come up with two builds:


This build takes two levels of monk and two levels of ranger, before a level of sorcerer and two levels of DD. It focuses on natural weapons.

Human Master of Many Style Monk 2/Natural Weapon Style Ranger 2/White Dragon Sorcerer 1/Dragon Disciple 2

STR 20 (15+1(level)+2(racial)+2(DD))
DEX 10
CON 15
INT 12
WIS 15
CHA 12

Magical Knack (Sorcerer)

Arcane Strike
Aspect of the Beast (Claws of the Beast)
Dragon Ferocity
Dragon Roar
Dragon Style
Improved Natural Attack (Claws)
Power Attack
Weapon Focus (Claw)

HP 70


AC 14

Claws of the Beast
Hit +11
Damage 1d6+6
Crit x2


This build takes four levels of paladin before a level of sorcerer and two levels of DD. It focuses on using a two-hand weapon.

Human Paladin (Oath of Vengeance) 4/Silver Dragon Sorcerer 1/Dragon Disciple 2

STR 20 (15+1(level)+2(racial)+2(DD))
DEX 10
CON 14
INT 12
WIS 11
CHA 16

Magical Knack (Sorcerer)

Arcane Strike
Intimidating Prowess
Power Attack
Sorcerous Bloodstrike
Weapon Focus (Greatsword)

HP 60

FORT +10

AC 20

Masterwork Greatsword
Hit +13
Damage 2d6+9
Crit 19-20/x2

The monk build is spread a little thin, I feel, and lacks AC. I'm worried I'm going to get into combat and just get my shit slapped first thing. The paladin build, on the other hand, could turn out to be just impotent. Neither build has much spellcasting potential, which is expected, but I'm not sure how big a detriment that will be. I'd be interested in switch-hitting, but I'm not sure how to build it.

What do you think?

As someone working on a similar character, would you mind sharing your build? I can't offer much help, but I'm considering taking Superstition, Witch Breaker and Spell Sunder for my viking. Knockback also looks cool depending on your stance on the Shield Slam feat. Roaring Drunk and Good For What Ails You are flavorful options. Renewed Vigor might also be useful.

You probably already know this, but I found this list to be really tidy and helpful.

How does Eldritch Knight work, exactly? I've considered it for other characters, but I'm not sure how well it would fit here. Like I said, I'm not trying to be a 50/50 swords 'n' spells guy, more a 70/30 sword and board with a few ice puns.

I have seen the awesome effects of skills like Inspire Courage, so I just might go into bard. I hadn't thought of it and since the class has had no prior appeal to me, I don't know much. I'll have to do a little research.

Are you sure lame would be a good curse? I get that it lets me ignore the fatigue induced by raging, but gosh, that's five levels in and a significant blow to my movespeed. Tongues may not give me as awesome a bonus, but it also doesn't give me as big a smack, either. 'Specially if someone else knows Aklo. Legalistic might also work.

I'll have to do some research when I get home from work...

My trusty paladin (and first Pathfinder character) has reached level four in PFS. My girlfriend and I are ready for something new, and while she seems to have her inquisitor nailed down, my designs are lagging behind. My current plan is to go with the new viking archetype for fighters in People of the North. I learned my lesson on not planning my characters from the start, but I'm not sure my take on a first level human viking would wind up being competent:

STR 16
DEX 13+2
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 14

Traits: Reactionary and Glint-Tongued
Feats: Toughness and Iron Will
bonus Feat: Two-Weapon Fighting

I went with Reactionary because, well, how can I pass that up? Glint-Tongued is cool too, and enhances the Fearsome class feature. I went with Toughness to round out my HP and Iron Will because it seems to be the most immediately useful non-Combat feat; TWF is obvious, and Improved Shield Bash would be my second level feat. I also want to do a little multiclassing, but I'm not sure where to go... I've narrowed it down to a few options:

  • Oracle: My first thought was to take a couple points out of CON and put them in CHA, then pick up Winter mystery Oracle for my fourth level. I like the idea of a frost viking but I'm not sure how effective this would be. I'm not looking to blow peoples' minds with my ice powers, just give them a little chill while I beat them to death with my shield and spear/ax. Curse of Tongues could also be cool if I took Aklo.

  • Sorcerer: Again, I could put a little bit into CHA but go with sorcerer. Both the Ice Linnorm and Rime-blooded bloodlines are really awesome and fit what I want to do, as well as grant me a little utility. Still, I'm not too sure how useful it'd be or how it stacks up versus oracle. Linnorm makes perception a class skill, but Rime-blooded has a really cool arcana.

  • Ranger: Rangers are always cool. I could drop the wintry theme and invest in an animal buddy. I'd probably go with the Falconer archetype, since that's the kind of pet I imagine this guy using. Maybe a wolf. From the looks of it, though, this represents a bigger investment than the other two options. I also wonder what kind of possibilities next month's player companion might have in this area.

What do the revered experts of the Paizo forums have to say? As I mentioned earlier this is the second character I've ever built, so there are probably some pretty grave oversights somehwere. Still, I thought it might be able to work. Thanks in advance!

This is kind of related to the thread, and I wasn't sure it was worth creating a whole new one.

If I make a character that is ethnically Chelaxian but who has spent half his life lost in the Mwangi Expanse, he shouldn't receive any extra bonus languages, right?

I guess what I'm asking is this: Are a character's "ethnicity" languages tied to their genetic heritage, or their cultural/geographic heritage?

I'll definitely be going with human for all of these, both for the extra feat and the favored class spells bonus.

I won't be taking levels in paladin for this character as my other character is full paladin. Does bard satisfy the spellcasting requirements for DD? I haven't really looked into them too much and aren't familiar with how they work.

nate lange wrote:

i'm clearly in the minority, but my vote would be for the rime-bloded viking. you could easily pick up the eldritch heritage feats for the draconic bloodline too, if you wanted.

if you do decide to go the dragon disciple route...
straight sorcerer is not optimal but it's not so bad that you'll be a burden (by 12th level you'll be bummed that you're just finally getting 5th level spells, but you'll be a lot more durable than most sorcerers)- if you're gonna do it you could really embrace the theme and pick up eldritch heritage[arcane] and improved familiar, so you can have a pseudo- or tidepool dragon familiar.
the barbarian build is much more effective, but a lot less caster-y. if you decide to go this route think about taking Archaeologist levels for the spontaneous casting (its a bard archetype that can self buff while raging), and making him/her a human with the Heart of the Fields trait- that allows you to just not become fatigued when you should 1/day... couple that with the moment of clarity rage power and you've got a couple options if the need to cast during combat arises. in that build you don't need more than 13-14 cha and you'll learn buffs and maybe some healing instead of offensive/control spells (cause your DCs will suck). if you want to do a lot of natural attacking, you might want it slighlty higher (for more rounds of claws) but the real trick is to take eldritch heritage[draconic] to double the number of rounds you have claws (both the feat and the Blood of Dragons ability grant you bloodline powers, but not the bloodline so the ability does not rule out the feat, but they don't stack levels- so if you took improved heritage you'd get another breath attack but wouldn't combine any levels to determine damage dice).

I definitely considered the improved familiar pseudodragon. I'm not sure if I'd go that route with DD or if I just went with a normal or crossblooded sorcerer.

I'm more familiar with melee anyway, so a less caster-y caster doesn't scare me much. When I get off work I'm gonna make a few builds in PCGen and see what happens.

While you're all here, is there some source I could peruse that gives advice on what spells to pick? The list is huge and I'm not sure which ones are useful or not. I've just been making thematic picks and hoping it works alright.

Hello! I've not had much experience with tabletop games before joining up with the local PFS. I made some mistakes with my first character, so I'm planning ahead for my next attempt. I'd like to make a sorcerer, but I just can't decide how to go about it. I've got it narrowed down to four possibilities:

  • Crossblooded: Protean and Arcane:
    My first choice was a Nethys-worshiping crossblood with protean and arcane bloodlines focused on battlefield control and some versatility. I like the protean bonus spells and themes, plus arcane gets a familiar. I'd probably take Indomitable Will to half the Will penalty.

  • Rime-blooded or Draconic:
    I really like the idea of a viking-style sorcerer, and rime-blooded has such a cool arcana. Then again, I think it would also be cool to have the white dragon breath weapon (dragons are also cool, needless to say). I'd consider going crossblooded boreal and draconic, but it's not a huge priority. I think they'd be cool together but can also stand alone.

  • Full Sorcerer Dragon Disciple:
    I think the dragon disciple is a really cool prestige class, but I'm not sure how useful it'd be in PFS considering you don't get Form of the Dragon until thirteenth level. I'd take five levels of sorcerer before going into Dragon Disciple, no multiclassing. If I did this I'd probably pick rime-blooded or boreal.

  • Barbarian into Dragon Disciple:
    If I did this I'd be holding off till my FLGS has People of the North - I'm betting there'll be a sick barbarian archetype in there. Then I'd take my fifth level as rime-blooded sorcerer and put the rest into DD.

I realize these are all pretty embryonic, high-concept ideas; I don't want to be some super-optimal megadestroyer, but I don't want to be a burden to the rest of the party, either. I'm looking for critique and asking, "Is this moderately viable?"