I honestly don't recall older editions having Divine magic resistance, so it has always bugged me.
It goes all the way back to OD&D -- magic resistance was magic resistance, whether you were an arcane caster or divine caster.
Here is what I would like:
Edit:
new healing spells, protection spells, low level spells scaling, spells vs. undeads and outsiders, utility spells, etc. would all be nice, but doesn't really change the clerics flavor.
I really don't want the Cleric to be rewritten and becoming a caster with only 6 or 7 spell levels. I wouldn't mind an Archetype (or PrC) with only 7 spell levels but with more Divine Powers, Su, Spa or both as long as you can still chose the core cleric. I suspect the changes would be so drastic they wouldn't be called an Archetype. Perhaps a PrC would be better.
This thread has inspired me to expand the "quest spell" idea that I've been using for clerics for years now. [...]
Love that!
Spend a 6th or 7th spell slot to get a +2 bonus from flanking? Good buff, not. Spend a 7th spell level slot to create a wall that isn't a wall? I don't think so. Traps? You only need SM1, SM2 or SM3 at the most to deal with traps. SM is great at some levels but grow more useless at higher levels. Please read other posts in this thread.
examples Zark. and take a look to the (sp) high level summons have. And sometimes is just useful have a 15ftx15ft thing as a living wall. My players were 15 in the last campaing and managed to get the best from summons, in a non summoner-freindly setting.
WHY couldn't a cleric have an high wisdom?They are not wizards?To clarify, Cleric need a lot, (a lot) more good to decent stats than other classes. I personally, don't think they have a "Dump Stat", so in my opinion . . .
Str 12+
Dex 12+
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 16
Cha 14. . . is the minimum one needs to be an effective Cleric.
here we are again. You want the cleric being good at 4 things. You can't. Choose: being dedcent at 4, or good in 1, fairly good in 1 and so and so in other 2. Otherwise, why play another class I ask.
melee cleric? No SoS/SoD, spread stats. Caster cleric? focus wisdom. Channeler? Focus Charisma.
So we need no SR, no save attacking spells? High level fiends are immune to death effects? Or to gated planetars?I'm honestly not sure any Divine Spell should have S.R. You are calling down the power of the heavens, not casting an arcane spell. I honestly don't recall older editions having Divine magic resistance, so it has always bugged me. I also think this would make an excellent, Rules Reason for there to be a difference between Divine and Arcane Magic.
I think that fighters are so awesome that should always hit, and crit with a 12+. This could well fit with the fluff of how awesome fighters are.... seriously. SR, saves and stuff are there for a reason and every time they are not there, is because is useless or something wrote a wrong rule.
But other than that, yes, attacking creatures against their strongest (or close) save, and that have S.R. usually around a minimume of 50% chance of failure makes many Cleric spells pretty useless. Gate doens't work the same way it used to, and basically, yes, fiends are immune to death effects, with a few notable ARCANE exceptions. Especially if by Death Effects you mean the very nerfed direct minimal damage effects that have some cool Spell names but don't actually kill you, death effects. :)
Deamons are immune to death effects. Other fiends are not. 50% of completely defeat a monster, probably at renge, is huge. huge.
And 10 damages/level is quite a lot anyway. PF went in the direction of removing SoD. Is the arcane persistenf Flesh to Stone the problem, not clerical "SoDs".
I want not to personal attack you both, guys, but old cleric was... too much. Seriously. I can see saying paizo didn't nerf arcanes enough, but allow again to the claric to be "mr I'm a party by my own" is BAD. Bad, bad, bad, bad.
Deamons are immune to death effects. Other fiends are not. 50% of completely defeat a monster, probably at renge, is huge. huge.
And 10 damages/level is quite a lot anyway. PF went in the direction of removing SoD. Is the arcane persistenf Flesh to Stone the problem, not clerical "SoDs".
Here's a link to a discussion of save-or-die from a couple years ago. Look for a post from me that's spoilered for an analysis of save or die. It's about halfway down the page. At some point, I might need to do one for the Bestiary 2.
Deamons are immune to death effects. Other fiends are not. 50% of completely defeat a monster, probably at renge, is huge. huge.
And 10 damages/level is quite a lot anyway. PF went in the direction of removing SoD. Is the arcane persistenf Flesh to Stone the problem, not clerical "SoDs".
Here's a link to a discussion of save-or-die from a couple years ago. Look for a post from me that's spoilered for an analysis of save or die. It's about halfway down the page. At some point, I might need to do one for the Bestiary 2.
The regeneration point is a good one, but I don't agree with the spolered post.
The game is gone away from the SoD.moreover, you would anyway remove more than 50% of the HP of a supposedly relvant encounter. I guess that the rest of the party ins't there to just take a look.
About the meaning, i think in the same thread Set posted a good answer.
Deamons are immune to death effects. Other fiends are not. 50% of completely defeat a monster, probably at renge, is huge. huge.
And 10 damages/level is quite a lot anyway. PF went in the direction of removing SoD. Is the arcane persistenf Flesh to Stone the problem, not clerical "SoDs".
Here's a link to a discussion of save-or-die from a couple years ago. Look for a post from me that's spoilered for an analysis of save or die. It's about halfway down the page. At some point, I might need to do one for the Bestiary 2.
The regeneration point is a good one, but I don't agree with the spolered post.
The game is gone away from the SoD.moreover, you would anyway remove more than 50% of the HP of a supposedly relvant encounter. I guess that the rest of the party ins't there to just take a look.
About the meaning, i think in the same thread Set posted a good answer.
I agree. If you look at my analysis, it supports the idea that SoD isn't that potent anymore.
The blanket nerf on SoDs definitely hurt the cleric in terms of offensive spells. As someone that actually played a SoD caster in my last 3.x game, it already was something of a setup to get enemies to fail their saves anyway.
This post gives an idea of the math behind trying to get a 9th level spell cast by a 20th level caster vs a CR 20 enemy to "stick", and doesn't even take into account spell resistance (because that wasn't the purpose of the demonstration).
As a SoD caster, you needed to overcome spell resistance, bypass immunities ('cause Death Ward is your enemy), and spend a lot of time trying to "set up the bomb". It actually encouraged teamwork because everyone needed to work together to make it stick by stacking penalties to saves/spell resistance on the opponent. In a given round, to drop an enemy quickly, the Fighter would use his Life-drinker to inflict a few negaative levels (-X to saves/SR), and someone else would use something like bestow curse for -4 saves, and then the SoD-blaster would follow it all with a good finger of death or flesh to stone, and then move to the next enemy.
I never found SoD spells to be a matter of stealing the show. Honestly, unless you were wiping out mooks (who you could assuredly pierce any SR and beat their saves), it was a good way to waste your spell slots.
EDIT: While I mentioned only sor/wiz spells, clerics also had some nice ones like slay living and the ever-awesome implosion. Heck, Implosion is like a heightened finger of death every round. ^.^
I wonder if this is exactly the same after APG, with witches and persistent spell around here - or if at least things changed a bit.
I wonder if this is exactly the same after APG, with witches and persistent spell around here - or if at least things changed a bit.
I haven't used persistent spell, but I understand it's a BAMF feat. I can't comment on it from actual play experience (and my players haven't used it yet), but it looks amazingly powerful (and I'll probably combine it with a flesh to stone someday in the future).
However, Witches and Anti-Paladins (hereafter referred to as Blackguards) are idea party members in a group that desires using SoD tactics. Blackguards have a much more party-friendly aura than normal Paladins, as the -2 to saves for enemies helps monks, wizards, clerics, bards, druids, oracles, witches, and anyone with anything that causes a save DC; and it applies to enemies which they will already be meleeing with (the Paladin aura requires the Paladin to stay close to allies to help them).
Likewise, the witch's hexes can be a good combination for hurting saves pretty hard with their misfortune Hex. Combined with a Blackguard with Intimidate, the two can set up a ((2d20.takeLowest)-4) save penalty in 1 round, allowing the party's druid to drop a baleful polymorph to turn someone into a turtle.
If the Blackguard was also wielding a life-drinker while under the effects of death ward, he could skip the intimidate and go into a full-attack routine, inflicting a -2 save penalty per hit, which would essentially guarantee a failed save.
So the humorous thing is, save or dies are still in Pathfinder. They just nerfed some spells needlessly, without fixing the supposed "problem".
Spend a 6th or 7th spell slot to get a +2 bonus from flanking? Good buff, not. Spend a 7th spell level slot to create a wall that isn't a wall? I don't think so. Traps? You only need SM1, SM2 or SM3 at the most to deal with traps. SM is great at some levels but grow more useless at higher levels. Please read other posts in this thread.
examples Zark. and take a look to the (sp) high level summons have. And sometimes is just useful have a 15ftx15ft thing as a living wall. My players were 15 in the last campaing and managed to get the best from summons, in a non summoner-freindly setting.
- I Know SM can be good from time to time, especially at mid levels. Say 3 - 9.
- Using a 7th spell slot, spending a full round action to create a living wall, when you can cast wall of stone, a 5th level spell, as a standard action? No.- Most partys are not comprised of 15 playes.
WHY couldn't a cleric have an high wisdom?They are not wizards?To clarify, Cleric need a lot, (a lot) more good to decent stats than other classes. I personally, don't think they have a "Dump Stat", so in my opinion . . .
Str 12+
Dex 12+
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 16
Cha 14. . . is the minimum one needs to be an effective Cleric.
here we are again. You want the cleric being good at 4 things. You can't. Choose: being dedcent at 4, or good in 1, fairly good in 1 and so and so in other 2. Otherwise, why play another class I ask.
melee cleric? No SoS/SoD, spread stats. Caster cleric? focus wisdom. Channeler? Focus Charisma.
Cleric is a hybrid class and is most efficient if played that way. Even if you do crank your wisdom high you are still not a wizard. Spell list simply isn't good enough to be a caster only class. The class isn't built that way. Also they need their armor so they can't dump str.
Edit:
Sure you can dump your char, I never do. I like characters with charisma. All my clerics have had at least 13 or 14 char. Even if Channeling doesn't scale well I think a lot of players, or even most playeers, doesn't want to dump char and totally ignore one if the clerics main class features. But I suspect a lot of players keep char lower, boost Str and play a Codzilla Cleric. They are usually more fun and more powerful that a spell Cleric. But in a party of 15 you can have 3, 4 or 5 clerics. If one wants to be a wisdom cleric/caster cleeic and handles most spells, go ahead. Try it, but you will be bored, and that's what this thread is about. Not about power, it's about the cleric being a bit boring class, genericly
I wouldn't build the cleric the way Beckett suggested, but my point remains. Clerics are not wizards.
|
I'm not really suggesting that anyone build this way. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, to be a really functioning Cleric (generic), those are about the minimume one would need.
Str for carrying capacity and armor, dex for AC and defense, and because your job requires you to stay pretty near the front line. Same for Con, and because the Cleric most needs not to be affected by poisons and things like that. If the healer/curer goes down, everyone is in for trouble. Int, because there are so many skills a Cleric "needs" to perform their job/role correctly, Wis so that you can reasonably have enough to cast your highest levels eventually, and Cha because part of your job should also be as the party face in a standard group, but less for channeling that general impressions.
I'm not really suggesting that anyone build this way. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, to be a really functioning Cleric (generic), those are about the minimume one would need.
Str for carrying capacity and armor, dex for AC and defense, and because your job requires you to stay pretty near the front line. Same for Con, and because the Cleric most needs not to be affected by poisons and things like that. If the healer/curer goes down, everyone is in for trouble. Int, because there are so many skills a Cleric "needs" to perform their job/role correctly, Wis so that you can reasonably have enough to cast your highest levels eventually, and Cha because part of your job should also be as the party face in a standard group, but less for channeling that general impressions.
Of those you listed, Dex is the one a general cleric can get away with dumping, if point buy dictates such (by dumping I mean leave at 10). This can be fairly well mitigated by taking heavy armor proficiency and lightning reflexes. That's perhaps the thing frustrating players about the class, is that they need so many stats relative to everyone else.
Of those you listed, Dex is the one a general cleric can get away with dumping, if point buy dictates such (by dumping I mean leave at 10). This can be fairly well mitigated by taking heavy armor proficiency and lightning reflexes. That's perhaps the thing frustrating players about the class, is that they need so many stats relative to everyone else.I'm not really suggesting that anyone build this way. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, to be a really functioning Cleric (generic), those are about the minimume one would need.
Str for carrying capacity and armor, dex for AC and defense, and because your job requires you to stay pretty near the front line. Same for Con, and because the Cleric most needs not to be affected by poisons and things like that. If the healer/curer goes down, everyone is in for trouble. Int, because there are so many skills a Cleric "needs" to perform their job/role correctly, Wis so that you can reasonably have enough to cast your highest levels eventually, and Cha because part of your job should also be as the party face in a standard group, but less for channeling that general impressions.
+1
I would propably have dex 10. You could even dump it to 8, but I wouldn't. Apart from that I pretty much agree with Beckett. Sure you can have char 12, but that doesn't change much.
@ Ashiel: in fact, my last campaign had a 15-level diviner wizard with FtS perfection and persistent. A pain. That feat is one of the 3-4 OP things in the APG IMHO. bad choice by paizo part. Higher average int, more feats for spell focus and this is too much.
@Zark: I do not say that you cannot play hibrid claerics. If you ask me, it's like i play them! But in that case I cannot complain if someone else is better in a specific task, am I wrong? ths SoS will bi cast on an add, not on the boss, as an example.
And I meant 15 level for my players (they are actually a lot sometimes, up to 12, but is not the point). the living wall, as an example, was moving with them in a fight versus the drow (many monsters and NPC vs many PC). Synergized well with a tower shield wielding fighters. And walls of stone don't yell if someone comes back.
summoning needs sometimes out-of-the-bos thinking, but can be really awesome. I said level 15 because you said spells don't scale well. IMHO you are wrong.
|
|
+1
I would propably have dex 10. You could even dump it to 8, but I wouldn't. Apart from that I pretty much agree with Beckett. Sure you can have char 12, but that doesn't change much.
In 3.5 I would agree, but in PF, so far I have found it more beneficial to actually have a better Dex than Str. For one because a Cleric can pump their Str, if they really need that, but with the CMD/CMB, and just general defense, at mid levels I find Dex more useful than Str.
Especially with Feats like Dervish Dance, but in general as well.
I am concidering building a Cleric with 16 Wis at higher levels, and just seeing how playing using 7-9th level slots for lower level spells works.
|
|
By Cleric spells do not scale well, I think what we all mean is that many of the "minor" changes to spells in PF where to try to force spellcasters to rely more on lower level spells rather than always their "big guns". Specificaly like changing SoDs, the screwing over of Concentration and casting defensivly, and a lot of nerfs like making many spells full round castings.
But most Clerc spells offer the exact same benefits as higher ones, which PF made far worse, and no only do they not stack, but also higher level spell offer very little benefit that lower level ones do, except their cap may be higher. They do not increase at the rate they really need to to remain as effective as they should be, in general.
Obviously, there are exceptions, and that is the reason so many players pick the same spells over and over. They are just better overall than others of equal or even higher level spells.
Lets take Cure spells. CMW heals roughly twice as much as CLW. (1d8+ vs 1d8+). But by the time you get it, characters are three times as strong as they where for CLW.
That's what I am thinking when I see "Cleric spells scale poorly".
Also, having that many players in the group, (12?), and with 4 or 5 being Clerics, I believe, you also do not have the same issue because they are not really forced to choose carefully what they need to prepair, well not in the same sense. They have so many others that can cover minor bases, that spell selection reallyisn't a big issue as long as they al go with a few different spell. I think if it here 1 Cleric (and not many other casters of any type), it would be a very different story.
Also, having that many players in the group, (12?), and with 4 or 5 being Clerics,
Beckett, I'm sure it's my fault because english is not my native language.. but where I said I had 5 clerics? I just said I had sometimes up to 12 players (most times 6).
Ashiel had a full cleric party, IIRC. They had just 1 oracle OR 1 cleric in the whole multi-party adventure.
@cures: at that level, PCs have more spell slot, and more way to build items. moreover have several ways to AVOID being harmed, by summons, better skills, instakilling attacks and so on. When combos with feats and spells start to kick in, the game changes.
IMHO this should be considered in adjudicating if the spell scales or not.
|
|
Beckett, I'm sure it's my fault because english is not my native language.. but where I said I had 5 clerics? I just said I had sometimes up to 12 players (most times 6).
No, I had confussed what you said with what someone else had said, it is my fault. One of Zark's responses (to someone else) said you can have 4 or 5 Clerics in a 15 man party, and I assumed I had missed you saying that you did.
Beckett, I'm sure it's my fault because english is not my native language.. but where I said I had 5 clerics? I just said I had sometimes up to 12 players (most times 6).No, I had confussed what you said with what someone else had said, it is my fault. One of Zark's responses (to someone else) said you can have 4 or 5 Clerics in a 15 man party, and I assumed I had missed you saying that you did.
no problem ;)
@ Ashiel: in fact, my last campaign had a 15-level diviner wizard with FtS perfection and persistent. A pain. That feat is one of the 3-4 OP things in the APG IMHO. bad choice by paizo part. Higher average int, more feats for spell focus and this is too much.
Considering what an optimized fighter is now capable of, I really don't see it as too much of an issue. The caster is still better off controlling the environment and letting the fighter and the rogue do the work.
Considering what an optimized fighter is now capable of, I really don't see it as too much of an issue. The caster is still better off controlling the environment and letting the fighter and the rogue do the work.@ Ashiel: in fact, my last campaign had a 15-level diviner wizard with FtS perfection and persistent. A pain. That feat is one of the 3-4 OP things in the APG IMHO. bad choice by paizo part. Higher average int, more feats for spell focus and this is too much.
Not comparable sorry. the fighter, barring archers, must go toe to toe. The higher is the level, the more difficult this becomes.
FtS is a ranged attack, the save can be ludicrous if perfected, and the higher is the level, the greater is the chance the wizard has action economy on his favour with quickened spells and cojured creaures to overcome potential problems.
And remember that fighter.. do that mainly. Th wizard has other spell slot usable for other stuff. Even less comparable situation.
I don't say this makes the game unplayable but IMHO is a little bit too powerful (even if I managed to reflect the spell once to the wizard with a trick, in a fight vs an high level EK boss - fun!).
@Zark: I do not say that you cannot play hibrid claerics.
It's cool. I know you didn't.
If you ask me, it's like i play them! But in that case I cannot complain if someone else is better in a specific task, am I wrong?
I'm not sure what mean, but If you mean you like playing clerics that rely on spell, then you are not wrong doing it. It's a game where you can play the game anyway you want as long as GM says "That's fine."
ths SoS will bi cast on an add, not on the boss, as an example.
Good example, but some people find it frustrating you don't have spells or abilities dealing with the boss, unless going the Codzilla route. Some see it even more frustration that the only thing happening past level 8 is more spells and channeling getting one more d6 every 2 levels.
And I meant 15 level for my players (they are actually a lot sometimes, up to 12, but is not the point). .
Oh, I see. I misread you,
the living wall, as an example, was moving with them in a fight versus the drow (many monsters and NPC vs many PC). Synergized well with a tower shield wielding fighters. And walls of stone don't yell if someone comes back. summoning needs sometimes out-of-the-bos thinking, but can be really awesome.
As I said. SM can be good and also used as a utility spell. I just don't think clerics get many good spells at some spell levels. 7th spell level is one such level
I said level 15 because you said spells don't scale well. IMHO you are wrong.
IHMO I'm not. Most spells actually don't scale at all and those that do scale don't scale well. Resist energy and some others spells are exceptions. That's another reason gaining levels as a cleric isn't much fun at higher levels. Your lower level spells doesn't get better or more useful. On top of that when you hit level 13 and look at the list you don't exactly go: Hey I got Heal, Greater Dispel Magic, Wind Walk and Find the Path. It's just one more alignment spell that even isn't good when fighting a boss, one more SM, one more Cure mass, etc.
IHMO I'm not. Most spells actually don't scale at all and those that do scale don't scale well. Resist energy and some others spells are exceptions. That's another reason gaining levels as a cleric isn't much fun at higher levels. Your lower level spells doesn't get better or more useful. On top of that when you hit level 13 and look at the list you don't exactly go: Hey I got Heal, Greater Dispel Magic, Wind Walk and Find the Path. It's just one more alignment spell that even isn't good when fighting a boss, one more SM, one more Cure mass, etc.
I'm a little curious...why isn't an alignment spell good for fighting bosses? Most of the alignment spells are hellish against their chosen target, so if you're a good cleric (like you professed was most often the case) then you are actually already set up for the majority of the high-end monsters in the Bestairy. Stuff like Balors, Pit Fiends, and the like.
Holy Smite deals damage with a save or be Blinded (this sucks), for example. Holy Word and Dispel Evil are crazy good against evil creatures, and they do scale pretty good, I'd say.
But again, I'm a bit confused. Most of the spells you mentioned are actually pretty amazing, and spells like heal actually scales pretty darn well (+10HP/level and removes almost all status effects is nice).
However, the cleric archtypes you mention could be done very well. It would indeed be nice to include variants allowing for domain powers. For the record, the [url="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloisteredCleric"]cloistered cleric[/i] variant is pretty much what you describe by a clothy-styled cleric with more emphasis on casting.
It gets more skills, 3 domains (2 of choice + knowledge), more class skills, a bardic knowledge clone, and some extra spells on the spell list. Rounding it out with a d6 HD and Wizard BAB. The ironic thing? They tended to be stronger than normal clerics, even in melee situations.
IHMO I'm not. Most spells actually don't scale at all and those that do scale don't scale well. Resist energy and some others spells are exceptions. That's another reason gaining levels as a cleric isn't much fun at higher levels. Your lower level spells doesn't get better or more useful. On top of that when you hit level 13 and look at the list you don't exactly go: Hey I got Heal, Greater Dispel Magic, Wind Walk and Find the Path. It's just one more alignment spell that even isn't good when fighting a boss, one more SM, one more Cure mass, etc.I'm a little curious...why isn't an alignment spell good for fighting bosses? Most of the alignment spells are hellish against their chosen target, so if you're a good cleric (like you professed was most often the case) then you are actually already set up for the majority of the high-end monsters in the Bestairy. Stuff like Balors, Pit Fiends, and the like.
Holy Smite deals damage with a save or be Blinded (this sucks), for example. Holy Word and Dispel Evil are crazy good against evil creatures, and they do scale pretty good, I'd say.
But again, I'm a bit confused. Most of the spells you mentioned are actually pretty amazing, and spells like heal actually scales pretty darn well (+10HP/level and removes almost all status effects is nice).
However, the cleric archtypes you mention could be done very well. It would indeed be nice to include variants allowing for domain powers. For the record, the [url="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloisteredCleric"]cloistered cleric[/i] variant is pretty much what you describe by a clothy-styled cleric with more emphasis on casting.
It gets more skills, 3 domains (2 of choice + knowledge), more class skills, a bardic knowledge clone, and some extra spells on the spell list. Rounding it out with a d6 HD and Wizard BAB. The ironic thing? They tended to be stronger than normal clerics, even in melee situations.
Those alignment spells don't work well on creatures that are tougher than you. Holy smite? Damage is poor, and the bad guy will make that save to prevent blindness. Holy word? BBEG is higher level than you, so status effects will fail. You might banish him...oops, there went his loot. They can be improved if you can heighten your caster level, to be fair.
As for the cloistered cleric, I'm playing one now. You do NOT want to be in melee necessarily. Those hp will fade fast, and your AC is limited by light armor only. Sure you can burn feats for heavier armor-which means you're using up feat resources that you didn't have to, you could have been a standard cleric. Those extra spells are divinations mostly, situationally great, but adding them to a class with great divinations doesn't do much overall. Extra domain, helpful, but not necessarily all that. I like it, but the minor adjustments to my spellcasting don't make up for the fact that the cloistered cleric wants to cast spells...and doesn't have a spell list well-suited to it at higher levels. Your 7th level spells are too situational, 8th isn't bad, and 9th is also hampered by situational magic (not as much as 7th level though). If you wanted to be in melee, it really begs the question of why didn't you just be a standard cleric. Now, having said that, I'd like to see an archer cloistered cleric build....
Not comparable sorry. the fighter, barring archers, must go toe to toe. The higher is the level, the more difficult this becomes.
You are ignoring the fact that said fighter isn't in a vacuum, but has a supporting cast of healers, controllers, buffers, debuffers, and flankers.
Furthermore, an optimized fighter will always have higher dpr than an optimized wizard. Yes, a wizard who focuses his entire build around save or lose can end a fight prematurely about 30-35% of the time. The other 65-70% he's just wasted a high level spell slot that could have been used to the tactical advantage of his tank and strikers.Will the wizard with the save or lose fetish occasionally win out? Yes, but over the course of a campaign, more often than not, the npc will save and the wizard will have wasted valuable resources against poor odds. The only instance where I could see this not being the case, is where the DM is not sufficiently scaling encounters to the power level of the pc's. In that case, the fault rests with the DM not the players or the game.
|
|
. . . However, the cleric archtypes you mention could be done very well. It would indeed be nice to include variants allowing for domain powers. For the record, the cloistered cleric variant is pretty much what you describe by a clothy-styled cleric with more emphasis on casting.
It gets more skills, 3 domains (2 of choice + knowledge), more class skills, a bardic knowledge clone, and some extra spells on the spell list. Rounding it out with a d6 HD and Wizard BAB. The ironic thing? They tended to be stronger than normal clerics, even in melee situations.
I just fixed the link for you. You had " "around the link, and ended is with [/i] rather than [/url]
:)
|
|
As for the cloistered cleric, I'm playing one now. You do NOT want to be in melee necessarily. Those hp will fade fast, and your AC is limited by light armor only. Sure you can burn feats for heavier armor-which means you're using up feat resources that you didn't have to, you could have been a standard cleric.
Because a Cloistered Cleric dipping into either Monk or Fighter, sometimes Paladin gets stupid fast. Especially if you can take any two Domains you want besides Knowledge. It doesn't say you have to be a Cleric of a deity of Knowledge, but most are.
In my opinion, Cloistered Cleric is moe responcible for all the "Clerics are Broken" stuff than most other things about the class combined. It was meant to make the Cleric more like the White Mage type from FF, but it doesn't actually get rid of much that they can't easily regain in addition to whatever else they gain. 6+ Skill Points, then just look for Feats or abilities that grant you your desired Class Skill. Low BaB, HP, and AC, take a level of one of many classes, and you are less stat dependant than the normal Cleric already. Then you can self buff with spells that improve your BaB, AC, or size.
Because a Cloistered Cleric dipping into either Monk or Fighter, sometimes Paladin gets stupid fast.
In my opinion, giving up caster levels on a cleric is almost always nerfing yourself, even if it seems like you're getting ahead. Ditto with wizard and druid, honestly.
*Post*
If you assume that enemies are definitely going to beat your save DCs, then you're absolutely right. Holy Smite does only deal a small amount of damage, with a carry-on effect; and Holy Word does indeed only affect enemies of an equal or lower level. But here's the kicker...
I've ran a lot of games where those spells are quite good against bosses, because you generally want to do things like 1) Strip buffs/defenses, 2) Apply Debuffs, 3) Lay Into Boss, in that order. The stronger the boss is, the more appropriate this strategy becomes.
Inflicting conditions (like shaken), aura of despair, negative levels (life-drinker), and stuff like that makes it pretty good. See, with a Cleric, you can drop spells on enemies if it's a good option, and beat them with a mace if it's not. However, there's really little stopping a Cleric from casting death ward on the party's Fighter and letting him beat the badguy into submission while you blind-bomb or stun-lock him with repeated castings of holy smite and/or holy word. Now if the Cleric is in a Vacuum, and is fighting a "Boss Worthy" monster by themselves...then yes, they suck and shouldn't be used.
I would recommend planeshifting to a different plane, in that case.
As for the cloistered cleric, you're right. In Pathfinder, you really probably don't want to be in melee much. However, I noted that it tended (IE - past tense) to be stronger in melee than a normal cleric, at least in 3.5. There are several reasons for this, but the major one was probably the fact your poor BAB didn't matter with you casted Divine Favor (which is nerfed in Pathfinder).
Likewise, the Knowledge Domain qualified you for some combat abilities from the Complete Champion (IIRC), which gave you bonuses to Hit & Damage against enemies. Stuff like that. However, the -20 HP sucked but it was also somewhat ignorable by using spells and options wisely.
The cloistered cleric would definitely be much less impressive in core Pathfinder. :P
EDIT:
I just fixed the link for you. You had " "around the link, and ended is with [/i] rather than [/url]
:)
Thank you. ^-^
Because a Cloistered Cleric dipping into either Monk or Fighter, sometimes Paladin gets stupid fast. Especially if you can take any two Domains you want besides Knowledge. It doesn't say you have to be a Cleric of a deity of Knowledge, but most are.
In my opinion, Cloistered Cleric is moe responcible for all the "Clerics are Broken" stuff than most other things about the class combined. It was meant to make the Cleric more like the White Mage type from FF, but it doesn't actually get rid of much that they can't easily regain in addition to whatever else they gain. 6+ Skill Points, then just look for Feats or abilities that grant you your desired Class Skill. Low BaB, HP, and AC, take a level of one of many classes, and you are less stat dependant than the normal Cleric already. Then you can self buff with spells that improve your BaB, AC, or size.
Pretty much this. :P
What sort of Outsider do they turn into? Native, with Alignment subtypes as their Deity, other?
Native
What happens if they don' worship a deity? Normally I am all for godless Clerics, but this even I think is easily broken, if they can choose whatever Domains.
I'd say outright ban a godless cleric
A few sidenotes you may want to concider. About Sainthood, most Clerics will already have all the Domains their deity offers, (I think), so being able to choose another may not actualy be any benefit. Even with SubDomains, I just don't think this is really anything. Also with the ability to use Domain powers as a Swift Action, Some Domains already have this ability, or some powers do not require actions to use at all. Maybe some alternatives for these tyoes of powers?
Hmmm figured Deities generally got more than 5 domains. Will have to look into something a bit different.
What happens if they don' worship a deity? Normally I am all for godless Clerics, but this even I think is easily broken, if they can choose whatever Domains.I'd say outright ban a godless cleric
That's kind of a cop-out isn't it?
Good example, but some people find it frustrating you don't have spells or abilities dealing with the boss, unless going the Codzilla route. Some see it even more frustration that the only thing happening past level 8 is more spells and channeling getting one more d6 every 2 levels.
See, the cleric in the example above, has a low wis, because is built do bash or channel at best. Hence, uses the SoS on adds. If he was a caster cleric, could have done it on boss. And it's fine in this way - otherwise a 4 cleric party would be the best. And is damn good already!
Moreover, several bashy powers are wis-based, like the ones adding half level to damage wis modifier/day. So I'm not sure you cannot be a support basher and a decent caster.
For the rest, let's just agree to disagree ^_^
(side note: I'm not saying class features for clerics are necessarily bad - let's see these ones in UM).
You are ignoring the fact that said fighter isn't in a vacuum, but has a supporting cast of healers, controllers, buffers, debuffers, and flankers.
Furthermore, an optimized fighter will always have higher dpr than an optimized wizard. Yes, a wizard who focuses his entire build around save or lose can end a fight prematurely about 30-35% of the time. The other 65-70% he's just wasted a high level spell slot that could have been used to the tactical advantage of his tank and strikers.Will the wizard with the save or lose fetish occasionally win out? Yes, but over the course of a campaign, more often than not, the npc will save and the wizard will have wasted valuable resources against poor odds. The only instance where I could see this not being the case, is where the DM is not sufficiently scaling encounters to the power level of the pc's. In that case, the fault rests with the DM not the players or the game.
In fact I'm not saying "lol fighter suxx". My players a lot of times BASE their strategy on the group meleers in offensive attacks.
But even in that case, an invisible mind blanked flòying wizard spamming FtS at a ridiculous save DC is safer, from a party resource standpoint.
Try the FtS combination in your games, as I did. there is something wrong in persistent spells.
(about DM fault: the campaign worked fine with persistent spells and falcata, I'm quite experienced, but that does not mean that both are a little bit too powerful compared to other options).
I'm a little curious...why isn't an alignment spell good for fighting bosses? Most of the alignment spells are hellish against their chosen target, so if you're a good cleric (like you professed was most often the case) then you are actually already set up for the majority of the high-end monsters in the Bestairy. Stuff like Balors, Pit Fiends, and the like.
Holy Smite deals damage with a save or be Blinded (this sucks), for example. Holy Word and Dispel Evil are crazy good against evil creatures, and they do scale pretty good, I'd say.
Lathiira answerd this already. "Those alignment spells don't work well on creatures that are tougher than you." = They are immune to the spell/and or to the effect, they have SR AND great saves, they have resistances, etc.
Holy smite is not a good spell vs. bosses and there are so many great spells at that spell level holy smite isn't worth it even if you're up against critters. Better just to beat them up and save that slot for something else. It's not a bad spell. I've use it myself, but 3d8 at level 7 isn't good enough even with a rider effect. 3d8 +1d8 per two caster levels max 5d8 is not good scaling. Using it at level 13? No never. There are far better 4th level spells.
Is it me or you that should check out the dictionary? One of us is using the word scaling wrong. Neither Holy word nor Dispel Evil scale.
Best spell to deal with bosses are spells cast before the fight, buffs. Once you're in the fight the best anti boss spell is probably greater dispel magic. Sometimes Dispel Evil can be good to. I suspect you should read Dispel Evil again. It's good but does not dispel all spell casted by evil creatures. If you already know this, my bad.
But again, I'm a bit confused. Most of the spells you mentioned are actually pretty amazing, and spells like heal actually scales pretty darn well (+10HP/level and removes almost all status effects is nice).
Yes, they are good spells. Read again.
Before hitting the reply button A) read the post first, B)Take a pause and contemplate on what the poster intended, C) then answer. I have the same problem myself, so takes one to know one. ;-)
It gets more skills, 3 domains (2 of choice + knowledge), more class skills, a bardic knowledge clone, and some extra spells on the spell list. Rounding it out with a d6 HD and Wizard BAB. The ironic thing? They tended to be stronger than normal clerics, even in melee situations.
Thanks for the info. I'm sure Paizo could create a cloth cleric that could work. Let's say that they are prohibited from using weapons against all native living creatures. That would leave, undeads, outsiders (unless the outsider is native) and constructs. Or make that all mindless creatures and outsiders that are not native.
See, the cleric in the example above, has a low wis, because is built do bash or channel at best. Hence, uses the SoS on adds.
Ah, now I see. I misread you. That's actually a good tactic.
Moreover, several bashy powers are wis-based, like the ones adding half level to damage wis modifier/day.
Yes, but that and other powers grow useless at higher levels. One of the problem with this power, and others, is that it only last for one round and it takes a standard action to activate. If it was a free action or swift action, but a standard action?
For the rest, let's just agree to disagree
Let's do, even though I'm not sure where we disagree :-)
I do hope UM will fix some of the problems, but I suspect it won't fix the generic problem. ....if there is a generic problem.
But even in that case, an invisible mind blanked flòying wizard spamming FtS at a ridiculous save DC is safer, from a party resource standpoint.
Invisibility and mind blank should not be sufficient to keep said wizard safe at what, I'm assuming, are CR 14+ encounters. That's generally speaking of course, however I'm sure there are circumstances that do not spring to my mind right now.
As for my DM scaling comment, I wasn't finger pointing, just making the point that the types of BBEG's one faces at these levels are usually quite prepared for any strategy the party has traditionally employed, having most likely scouted or scryed them at some point. However, every gaming table is different, and unforeseen circumstances can arise for even the most prepared DM.
I'm a little curious...why isn't an alignment spell good for fighting bosses? Most of the alignment spells are hellish against their chosen target, so if you're a good cleric (like you professed was most often the case) then you are actually already set up for the majority of the high-end monsters in the Bestairy. Stuff like Balors, Pit Fiends, and the like.
Holy Smite deals damage with a save or be Blinded (this sucks), for example. Holy Word and Dispel Evil are crazy good against evil creatures, and they do scale pretty good, I'd say.
Lathiira answerd this already. "Those alignment spells don't work well on creatures that are tougher than you." = They are immune to the spell/and or to the effect, they have SR AND great saves, they have resistances, etc.
Holy smite is not a good spell vs. bosses and there are so many great spells at that spell level holy smite isn't worth it even if you're up against critters. Better just to beat them up and save that slot for something else. It's not a bad spell. I've use it myself, but 3d8 at level 7 isn't good enough even with a rider effect. 3d8 +1d8 per two caster levels max 5d8 is not good scaling. Using it at level 13? No never. There are far better 4th level spells.
You say this, but give me some reasons. Holy smite is effectively fireball with a rider effect when used against outsiders (pit fiends, balors, succubi, vrocks, glebrazu, kytons, ice devils, shadow fiends, planetouched, half-fiends, fallen angels, etc). Furthermore, it targets Will, which is generally a slower progressing saving throw for most creatures.
Most importantly, holy smite deals untyped magical damage. Unlike the vast majority of blasty-spells, this damage cannot be prevented. Spells like fireball and cone of cold can be hosed by resist energy or natural resistances. This spell, however cannot be.
For example, a maximized holy smite deals 40 (save for half) or 60 (save for half) nonelemental, DR-ignoring, damage that also blinds enemies that fail their save (thus applying a harsh debuff that makes them flat-footed, halves their speed, gives everyone a bonus to hit them, denies LoS for spells, etc). There's pretty much no way to prevent this damage, at all. None, nada, zilch. The best you got is absorbing it through Temporary HP, but that doesn't really stop the damage.
Is it me or you that should check out the dictionary? One of us is using the word scaling wrong. Neither Holy word nor Dispel Evil scale.
The effects of holy word do scale, as per the dictionary definition. It progressively grows better ("a succession or progression of steps or degrees; graduated series: the scale of taxation; the social scale"), as with each Caster Level you gain, the effects become progressively harsher against higher level enemies. A 20th Cleric with a +1 Caster Level Ioun stone has a no-save vs Blindness for 1d4 rounds when casting Holy Word.
I did put Dispel Evil up there, out of habit for listing it as an awesome spell. It doesn't scale itself, but continues to auto-dispel spells like unholy aura, it's still a nice spell.
Best spell to deal with bosses are spells cast before the fight, buffs. Once you're in the fight the best anti boss spell is probably greater dispel magic. Sometimes Dispel Evil can be good to. I suspect you should read Dispel Evil again. It's good but does not dispel all spell casted by evil creatures. If you already know this, my bad.
Depends on your team, really. If you just run into a fight and just start dropping your spells without rhyme or reason, then you should expect to lose. If you're not going to get your rider effects to pierce their defenses, then you desire not to.
When your party's fighter (protected by your death ward spell) strikes a Balor thrice with his life-drinker, inflicting a -6 on all saves, only for you to drop a holy smite on the balor, hitting him for 35 average damage and blinding him for a round is pretty nice. Dropping a holy word to render him blind and deaf is a cool deal as well. Heck, this might even be a good time to run up and cast harm and inflict a solid 200 damage on the Balor.
Yes, they are good spells. Read again.
---
That's another reason gaining levels as a cleric isn't much fun at higher levels. Your lower level spells doesn't get better or more useful. On top of that when you hit level 13 and look at the list you don't exactly go: Hey I got Heal, Greater Dispel Magic, Wind Walk and Find the Path. It's just one more alignment spell that even isn't good when fighting a boss, one more SM, one more Cure mass, etc.
Destruction, ethereal jaunt, symbol of stunning, the good alignment spells (holy word, dictum, word of chaos, blasphemy).
And then you also have additional options for meta-magic feats.
But here's the kicker. You cannot have low level spells scale but just so high. The reason that spells like greater magic weapon, divine favor, shield of faith, and magic vestment scale as well as they do is because they are mild bonuses that remain mild bonuses.
Meanwhile, if you're able to successfully fight Balors while using scaling 3rd and 4th level spells as some of your primary offensive strategies, then you have a terrible problem.
Hence, again, why I like Psionics. Lower level spells do not stay relevant without metamagic. This is true for wizards and sorcerers too. You ever see a CL 20 scorching ray versus a high level creature?
It would be 3 * 4d6 = 42 damage if they all hit. However, fire resistance applies to each, meaning FR 10 drops the damage to 12. Fire resistance 20 negates it completely.
|
|
I just don't think a 20th Level Cleric's height of power should be to Blind for 1d4 Rounds. . . It reminds me of the advice the 3E developers gave about high level or Epic games in regards to letting players enjoy their powers. The only times I can see Holy Word being "useful" is walking through a 1st level commoner vlliage and just destroying it. I hae never sen the CL -5 or lower effects ever work, ever, so it leaves me thinking, why are they even there? To trap you into thinking its a good spell.
I also think spells like Holy Smite need to be more along the lines of 1d8 PER LEVEL, (no per 2), and max out at 10d8 (15d8 for Outsiders). It has a fairly small area, only targets certain things, and is to easy to resist.
As is, it only scales twice, once at 8th (next level), and once at 10th, where it maxes out.
Other Spells, like Holy Aura are just plain bad.
*+4 Deflection to AC, useles 99% of the time and doesn't scale
*+4 Resistence to Saves, useless 99% and doesn't scale
*25 SR, (but ONLY against EVIL spellcasters or spells), so around 30% to 0% chance of working against such a small selection of things. And doesn't scale.
*added on very limited 1st level spell, doesn't scale or add anything tht Prot from Evil already has.
*Fort save if attacked to Blind the target. DC 22+, not a problem for most bosses. Doesn't scale, but potentually up the DC, which is an Abjuration.
|
*25 SR, (but ONLY against EVIL spellcasters or spells), so around 30% to 0% chance of working against such a small selection of things. And doesn't scale.
And it's one of the best SRs you can get, because you don't have to blow an action to drop it in order to benefit from your allies' spells. Unless they are Evil, that is :)
|
|
And it's one of the best SRs you can get, because you don't have to blow an action to drop it in order to benefit from your allies' spells. Unless they are Evil, that is :)
*25 SR, (but ONLY against EVIL spellcasters or spells), so around 30% to 0% chance of working against such a small selection of things. And doesn't scale.
In what sense do yo mean? In that it is nearly impossible for PCs to get a worthwhile SR, (yes 25ish at near Epic is a waste of money), or that you really don't need to worry about dropping it? :)
|
|
In what sense do yo mean? In that it is nearly impossible for PCs to get a worthwhile SR, (yes 25ish at near Epic is a waste of money), or that you really don't need to worry about dropping it? :)And it's one of the best SRs you can get, because you don't have to blow an action to drop it in order to benefit from your allies' spells. Unless they are Evil, that is :)
*25 SR, (but ONLY against EVIL spellcasters or spells), so around 30% to 0% chance of working against such a small selection of things. And doesn't scale.
A CR 17 Marilith needs 9+ to penetrate SR 25, a CR 17 ancient green dragon needs 12+, a CR 19 ancient red dragon needs 10+. Those ain't bad numbers for a component effect of a buff spell which you get at level 15.
You say this, but give me some reasons. Holy smite is effectively fireball with a rider effect when used against outsiders (pit fiends, balors, succubi, vrocks, glebrazu, kytons, ice devils, shadow fiends, planetouched, half-fiends, fallen angels, etc). Furthermore, it targets Will, which is generally a slower progressing saving throw for most creatures.
LOL. Using Holy smite fighting pit fiends and balors?
Good will saves? Not bosses, usually not. Bosses usually have lots of HP and good will saves AND some have good will saves and SR.
Casters: all casters have good will saves. Some have good fort saves too.
Dragon: "Good Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves".
Outsider: "Two good saving throws, usually Reflex and Will."
Undead: "Good Will saves."
Most importantly, holy smite deals untyped magical damage. Unlike the vast majority of blasty-spells, this damage cannot be prevented. Spells like fireball and cone of cold can be hosed by resist energy or natural resistances. This spell, however cannot be.
I didn't say I like fireball did I?
At level 7- 10 not all creatures have fire reistance and if you use fireball when fighting bosses with fire resistance you are stupid.Holy smire is indeed a OK spell at level 8-10 when fighting evil rogues or any low CR creatures with bad will saves and no SR. I'm not denying this.
For example, a maximized holy smite deals 40 (save for half) or 60...
LOL. Using a 7th spell slot to cast a 4th level spell with a suck DC? A bad tactic fighting high CR enemies with good saves an SR.
Meanwhile, if you're able to successfully fight Balors while using scaling 3rd and 4th level spells as some of your primary offensive strategies, then you have a terrible problem.
?
fighter (protected by your death ward spell) strikes a Balor thrice with his life-drinker
Is life-drinker core?
Your example is highly constructed. Fighter hitting 3 times and no miss. Ye right.
|
I also think spells like Holy Smite need to be more along the lines of 1d8 PER LEVEL, (no per 2), and max out at 10d8 (15d8 for Outsiders). It has a fairly small area, only targets certain things, and is to easy to resist.As is, it only scales twice, once at 8th (next level), and once at 10th, where it maxes out.
Untyped damage (so no resists), can be cast in a area with friends without troubles most of the time, decent to good secondary effect.
And you want a basic damage output higher than fireball, with even higher damage against outsiders?
Other Spells, like Holy Aura are just plain bad.
*+4 Deflection to AC, useles 99% of the time and doesn't scale*+4 Resistence to Saves, useless 99% and doesn't scale
*25 SR, (but ONLY against EVIL spellcasters or spells), so around 30% to 0% chance of working against such a small selection of things. And doesn't scale.
*added on very limited 1st level spell, doesn't scale or add anything tht Prot from Evil already has.
*Fort save if attacked to Blind the target. DC 22+, not a problem for most bosses. Doesn't scale, but potentually up the DC, which is an Abjuration.
For the level where you get it he cover a whole party, their cohorts, animal companions and added random guys.
All of them have +4 gear?To get 0% chance of spell failure your enemy to have a caster level of 24.
30% failure require a CL of 17.
Balor demon, CL 20 for spell like abilities.
Marilith, CL 16
Devil, pit fiend CL 18
Your players are constantly fighting this kind of guys?
What is your idea of a cleric? The guy that can fight the hordes of hell alone?
|
|
A CR 17 Marilith needs 9+ to penetrate SR 25, a CR 17 ancient green dragon needs 12+, a CR 19 ancient red dragon needs 10+. Those ain't bad numbers for a component effect of a buff spell which you get at level 15.
Ok, you have a point on the Green Dragon, sort of. But against the Demons/Devils, and the Red Dragon, what spells are they really going to protect you against? Telekenisis and the majority of spells are either unaffected by SR, or are buffs or something you don't really need to worry about so much like Bleed, Magic Missile, Fear (Frightful Presence).
I just realy don't see this as being an appropriate 8th, (or 7th, or 6th) Level spell. And it certainly doesn't scale. Even for a group buff, most of it's effects are near pointless by that level, as they offer the 2 most common bonuses that all chaacters probably already have better.
|
|
Is life-drinker core?...
fighter (protected by your death ward spell) strikes a Balor thrice with his life-drinker
Yes, it is an ability of the Balor Lord, but it is not a Death Effect, so Deathward doesn't help at all. Basically, when the Balor does kill someone, it gets a free Heal spell, 1/round.
They might be refering to the Balor's Vorpal strike, (which at most would ofer a save at +4 to not die?) depending on the DM, but probably will not do anything, either.
|
|
A CR 17 Marilith needs 9+ to penetrate SR 25, a CR 17 ancient green dragon needs 12+, a CR 19 ancient red dragon needs 10+. Those ain't bad numbers for a component effect of a buff spell which you get at level 15.Ok, you have a point on the Green Dragon, sort of. But against the Demons/Devils, and the Red Dragon, what spells are they really going to protect you against? Telekenisis and the majority of spells are either unaffected by SR, or are buffs or something you don't really need to worry about so much like Bleed, Magic Missile, Fear (Frightful Presence).
I just realy don't see this as being an appropriate 8th, (or 7th, or 6th) Level spell. And it certainly doesn't scale. Even for a group buff, most of it's effects are near pointless by that level, as they offer the 2 most common bonuses that all chaacters probably already have better.
Telekinesis is affected by SR (except for the "hurl an object at someone" part).
Also, I've pulled those monsters out without even looking at their spell loadout much, honestly. And still, it's just one part of the spell - if an 8th level spell would give you a selective SR 25 I would sure as hell call it underpowered, but that's not the case.
And finally: Blind effect. If you say that a level 15 Cleric has DC of 22+, I really begin to question your ability to run a high level Cleric. Any remotely competent Cleric player has his DC's for 8th level spells at very least 25-26+ at that point, if not more.
|
|
To get 0% chance of spell failure your enemyto have a caster level of 25.
30% failure require a CL of 18.Balor demon, CL 20 for spell like abilities.
Marilith, CL 16
Devil, pit fiend CL 18
I think you misundrstand how SR works. You add your caster level to 1d20, and need to overcome 25. I said 30 - 0% because it does not improve at all. A creature with a Caster Level of 16, only need to roll a ( or higher, if they don't have any other abilities to increase their CL or to overcome SR, which is not unheard of.
In adition to that, many of the spells of abilities that mosters have either get around SR or are weaker that it really isn't an issue to worry about in most cases.
And I would say that at 15th or so level, yes Dragons and Demons/Devils are not uncommon. But no, not constantly fighting them.
I do think that a Cleric should be much better armed to stand against "the hordes of hell" than they are, though. Not alone, but they need to bring more than that poor excuse fora spell, yes.
Telekinesis is affected by SR (except for the "hurl an object at someone" part).
You are right, I didn't catch that part in the last section, which is what I was mostly tinking about an enemy trying.
|
|
Is life-drinker core?...
fighter (protected by your death ward spell) strikes a Balor thrice with his life-drinker
Yes, it is an ability of the Balor Lord, but it is not a Death Effect, so Deathward doesn't help at all. Basically, when the Balor does kill someone, it gets a free Heal spell, 1/round.
They might be refering to the Balor's Vorpal strike, (which at most would ofer a save at +4 to not die?) depending on the DM, but probably will not do anything, either.
3.5 Life-drinker , one of the special weapons. Inflict 2 negative levels every time it hit.
Drawback, it inflict a negative level to the wielder every time it hit. Hence the Deathward.
Edit: alredy corrected the minimum CL.
You're adding a flat 'miss chance' to spells. It may only be 30%, but who cares?
Mages love to argue that miss chances are better then AC. In the same vein, SR is as good as saves or better, they operate on the same principle. Unless you've got Arcane Mastery where you always roll 10 on the CL check, a 40% chance that most spells are just going to NOT AFFECT you is awesome.
===Aelryinth