is ecclesitheurge downright abusable to you?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


cause it is to me.

I literally never knew of its existence till 24 hours ago but I can already see abuse IF I understand it correctly. To put it simply I understand it to be able to 1) replicate the theologians ability to cast domain spells in non domain slots from ONE domain and 2) swap out your second domain when you set up your spells. Any one confirm this?

Now assuming im correct I can abuse this rather easily. Just one example is take ANY deity and when I wake up I want to talk to everyone. My solution is grab conversion inquisition to my high wisdom/low charisma cleric and now im the mouth. After doing my talking with the local quest giver I need to prep for battle so I take 15 minutes to change my empty spell slots AND my conversion inquisition to anything that makes me better. Did I go wrong here?

Another thing is theologian allowed a top tier blaster to come into the realm of divine casting (please don't mention flame oracle) that was based spells not class features with limited uses. Now we have a cleric that can do the same thing and still have a second domain.

I could go on and on about this and the combos ive already thought of. someone plz tell im wrong because this makes me sick. the cleric already had far too much power and this.... is wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, that's not how it works. That secondary domain change is only dealing with the spell lists, not the abilities. They also can't wear any armor or use any shields. They are just a cleric taking some pages from the wizard book (pun intended) and having some extra flexibility.


You're misreading it.

You pick two domains.

Your first domain you gain all the powers of it plus you can use the spells in your non domain slots.

Your second domain you gain all the powers BUT the domain spells can be switched out for the spells of other domains so long as they fall under that god.

Your domain powers do not get switched out. Ever.


good glad to hear it. just for the record I did post in rules but never got answer :(

now a new question. did this just replace theologian?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now if your question was.... "Has the Ecclesitheurge been abused?".... I would have said a resounding "Yes!"

Dont bother with it, it was an extremely poorly thought out archetype and consequently is dreadful.


Silver Surfer wrote:

Now if your question was.... "Has the Ecclesitheurge been abused?".... I would have said a resounding "Yes!"

Dont bother with it, it was an extremely poorly thought out archetype and consequently is dreadful.

Well, I'm curious how it's abused. I'm looking at it and nothing really sticks out to me as super abusable.


Albatoonoe wrote:
Silver Surfer wrote:

Now if your question was.... "Has the Ecclesitheurge been abused?".... I would have said a resounding "Yes!"

Dont bother with it, it was an extremely poorly thought out archetype and consequently is dreadful.

Well, I'm curious how it's abused. I'm looking at it and nothing really sticks out to me as super abusable.

I think that Silver Surfer is saying that someone abused the Ecclesitheurge himself.


leo1925 wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
Silver Surfer wrote:

Now if your question was.... "Has the Ecclesitheurge been abused?".... I would have said a resounding "Yes!"

Dont bother with it, it was an extremely poorly thought out archetype and consequently is dreadful.

Well, I'm curious how it's abused. I'm looking at it and nothing really sticks out to me as super abusable.
I think that Silver Surfer is saying that someone abused the Ecclesitheurge himself.

I believe alcohol was involved...


Renegadeshepherd wrote:

good glad to hear it. just for the record I did post in rules but never got answer :(

now a new question. did this just replace theologian?

The Theologian is marginally better as a focused caster with Domain Secret .


leo1925 wrote:

I think that Silver Surfer is saying that someone abused the Ecclesitheurge himself.

Corrrect... Paizo had a chance to create something decent as a caster cleric and completely and utterly botched it!!!

A mind blowingly bad archetype....


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:
Silver Surfer wrote:

Now if your question was.... "Has the Ecclesitheurge been abused?".... I would have said a resounding "Yes!"

Dont bother with it, it was an extremely poorly thought out archetype and consequently is dreadful.

Well, I'm curious how it's abused. I'm looking at it and nothing really sticks out to me as super abusable.

It's been abused like a red headed step child to misquote fallout.

Webstore Gninja Minion

4 people marked this as a favorite.

A warning to be civil in this thread, and provide constructive criticism instead of just saying "it's abusable!"


Silver Surfer wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

I think that Silver Surfer is saying that someone abused the Ecclesitheurge himself.

Corrrect... Paizo had a chance to create something decent as a caster cleric and completely and utterly botched it!!!

A mind blowingly bad archetype....

Specifics? What's specifically bad about it?

I haven't had a chance to actually read the class, but from what I heard it's similar to the Theologian but doesn't cast quite as well since it doesn't get the metamagic stuff. What makes it "a mind blowingly bad archetype?"


Zach Klopfleisch wrote:
Silver Surfer wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

I think that Silver Surfer is saying that someone abused the Ecclesitheurge himself.

Corrrect... Paizo had a chance to create something decent as a caster cleric and completely and utterly botched it!!!

A mind blowingly bad archetype....

Specifics? What's specifically bad about it?

I haven't had a chance to actually read the class, but from what I heard it's similar to the Theologian but doesn't cast quite as well since it doesn't get the metamagic stuff. What makes it "a mind blowingly bad archetype?"

I, for one, think giving up the ability to use armor ever, regardless of multiclassing, should be enough to give the domain spontaneity and bonded holy symbol. The archetype as a traditional 'white mage' type shouldn't have to take that hit to channeling at such a low level.


Eh, I don't care enough about channeling to care what happens to it. I don't see it as a white mage. There are other archetypes for that.

Dark Archive

I wanted it to be the ultimate caster Cleric. Dumping the weapons and armour is fine by me, I'd have preferred d6 HDR and 1/2 BAB, but divines don't do that.

I would have liked significantly better spellcasting though. It's a bit lackluster. Who is the best deity for it? You need domains with a lot of non-cleric spells that do interesting stuff. The Fire domain is the classic example.

I'd like Besmara because she is non-evil and has two superb domains, Trickery and Weather which have lots of useful effects.

However, I'd prefer one of the main 20 gods because for a Cleric I believe the Deification Obedience paths are much better than not taking them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain K. wrote:


I would have liked significantly better spellcasting though. It's a bit lackluster. Who is the best deity for it? You need domains with a lot of non-cleric spells that do interesting stuff. The Fire domain is the classic example.

Any of the neutral/half-neutral gods have a good number of domains not alignment fixed.

The best primary domains are ones where you want to mainline a lot of the spells but you don't get much benefit out of Theologian. Travel and Luck are a couple of examples of this. Trickery adn MAdness are a couple of my favorites.

The best secondary domains are ones with solid domain powers but lack luster lists. Good and Healing fit the bill perfectly. Chaos is a favorite too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One last thing: Subdomains are still a thing. So having a god with a lot of subdomains actually helps expand your capability further.

I'm sure more would have been done with a bigger word count. I'd been happy as a clam to rid myself of 3/4 bab and d8 hit dice for bonus feats. But alas the writer is bound by the constraints of contractual word count.


TarkXT wrote:

One last thing: Subdomains are still a thing. So having a god with a lot of subdomains actually helps expand your capability further.

I'm sure more would have been done with a bigger word count. I'd been happy as a clam to rid myself of 3/4 bab and d8 hit dice for bonus feats. But alas the writer is bound by the constraints of contractual word count.

Sadly those kind of changes would warrant an alternate class or even a new class altogether, that means even more space required.


Sort of the opposite to what was initially suggested above (which wouldn't work)...

Could the ecclestheurge choose an inquisition (which have no domain spells) as their secondary domain and then use Domain Mastery to add spells from another domain?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

My first attempt at making an ecclesitheurge.

The no armor bit is a SERIOUS nerf, I find. It is terribly hard to work around, even with a good Dexterity score. I ended up building the entire character several times, ultimately ending up with a companion riding flyer who entangles those below before hurling lightning down on their heads. All just so I could better keep her well away from harm (hopefully).

Might have an easier time of it at higher levels when one can afford an amulet of natural armor, bracers of armor, a dusty rose prism ioun stone, a jingasa of the fortunate soldier, and a ring of protection.

That's still only about 30 + Dex mod at said high levels.


Honestly I seriously feel like the Ecclesitheurge is meant to have a Oracle like temporary armor ability...


I made this priest of Nethys for a pbp.....idea was he looked and acted like a mage, and while I had no plans to ever go MT he had a 1 level sorcerer dip which was a lot about flavor (he was a tiefling with the Empyreal bloodline) and a little for function (I loved the idea of heavenly fire for Nethys, plus a few Magic Missiles are nice to have at low level).

For him the archetype is a perfect fit - certainly not optimized but it fits very well with the notion of spell versatility, and Mage Armor isn't 'wearing armor' so works for the character as well.

He'd never survive 2 rounds against any of Ravingdork's awesome builds but he's been fun to play so far.


Its a spectacularly bad archetype..... horrendous.

What a lot of people miss is that the ecclestheurge can basically never wear physical armour which is a very different concept then not being proficient in it... something that can be rectified through feats.

Now I dont actually have a problem with this per se but it is a massive hit that in no way shape of form has been balanced. I mean FFS even arcane classes can pick up arcane armour mastery!!!

What is truly hilarious is that a basic cleric is in fact a better "caster cleric" than the ecclestheurge.... sure he doesnt have quite the spell versatility but the difference is negligible to be honest. If the ecclestheurge had permanent 3 domains that would be something at least but he doesnt even get that!!

Allow me to elaborate...

I once had a basic cleric build that when buffed had an AC of 48..... he used to stand in the middle of battles buffing/debuffing/zapping and healing with his spiritual weapon and spiritual ally flying around doing whatever the hell he liked....safe in the knowledge he was very difficult to hit!!!

The ecclestheurge doesnt ever have this armour option so has to cringe at the back being generally crap!!!


I suppose I would use the Ecclesitheurge as an entry to Mystic Theurge, since as an arcane caster I won't be able to wear armor...

Oh, wait, even THEY can wear mythril bucklers, silken ceremonial armor, armored kilts, etc.

I think it would've been better if they said that Ecclesitheurges suffered from arcane spell failure.

They do seem like they'd make decent Theurges, though. I wonder, if you chose bonded item for wizard, would you get one using both levels, or two bonded items, one for each class?


I feel like the Blessing of the Faithful ability is what was supposed to make the archetype pretty decent...

Shadow Lodge

PIXIE DUST wrote:
I feel like the Blessing of the Faithful ability is what was supposed to make the archetype pretty decent...

At least we got a nice picture of a dwarf (sarcasm)


thegreenteagamer wrote:


Oh, wait, even THEY can wear mythril bucklers, silken ceremonial armor, armored kilts, etc.

Somehow I've managed with none of this cheese on so many arcane casters.

SilverSurfer wrote:
I once had a basic cleric build that when buffed had an AC of 48..... he used to stand in the middle of battles buffing/debuffing/zapping and healing with his spiritual weapon and spiritual ally flying around doing whatever the hell he liked....safe in the knowledge he was very difficult to hit!!!

Build a wizard or a sorcerer correctly and having AC is the least of your needs.

The same applies here.

The complaints here particularly in Ravingdork's case is that armor is needed where it's not really required. We're thinking cleric when we should be thinking wizard with cleric list.

I do agree the archetype could be better. But it's hardly the worst.


I'm not sure why this archetype didn't get some sort of holy bonus to AC... Is the idea here to die at 1st level because your AC isn't higher than 14?


Lemmy wrote:
I'm not sure why this archetype didn't get some sort of holy bonus to AC... Is the idea here to die at 1st level because your AC isn't higher than 14?

actually no, the AT mkes perfect sense. you're supposed to pray REALLY hard while you're playing the character, and hope that some divine intervention can keep you alive and protected through 1st level.

or really pump that WIS and spam sanctuary/protection from evil/etc. all day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
I'm not sure why this archetype didn't get some sort of holy bonus to AC... Is the idea here to die at 1st level because your AC isn't higher than 14?

It's blatantly missing an ability, which the original author stated was cut to add explanatory text to the other abilities that were needed for clarity.

That's why we have a wasted page with a dwarf instead of a functional archetype.


I see no problem with this archetype, you cast at range and therefore does not need armor when you can cast spells (or your partys wizard/sorc) to protect urself like Shield of Darkness, Mage armor, Mirror Image (through trickery domain), etc. You will need armor if you plan on standing in melee delivering touch attacks yes. As long as you fight positionally with reasonable intelligence you should be just fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
I see no problem with this archetype, you cast at range and therefore does not need armor when you can cast spells (or your partys wizard/sorc) to protect urself like Shield of Darkness, Mage armor, Mirror Image (through trickery domain), etc. You will need armor if you plan on standing in melee delivering touch attacks yes. As long as you fight positionally with reasonable intelligence you should be just fine.

I'm betting that the people of 3+ years ago aren't caring about anything you say. It's polite to no post in old threads.


I have brought back to life a number of old threads. First I've heard about it being impolite to reply to old threads


well has everyone said "my what a necro" that line is referring to how it's not enjoyed.
the reason it's not polite (at least in this forum) is that the information could have changed, and many people aren't interested in reading an old thread for the context of this last post. read old threads for info, but further questions or discussion should have it's own thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A repeat customer is good for business...


I figured while we were on the topic, to continue it. If a new thread was made some ppl may say "please refer to this previous post" and they would link this thread. Everyone is different I guess.


Atalius wrote:
I figured while we were on the topic, to continue it. If a new thread was made some ppl may say "please refer to this previous post" and they would link this thread. Everyone is different I guess.

If a question is answered in a thread someone will reference it maybe. if you want to discuss something and there's nothing recent for it then people wont say that. I for sure don't see anyone say "gosh you want to talk about that? here's an old thread, talk there" like I'm pretty sure I've never seen that in my 4? years on this forum. But on basically every thread that has a necro to it you'll get one if not more people commenting on how it's a necro meaning to tell people not to necro threads.

EDIT: like for serious, I have no idea currently what's been said in this thread, nor what you've said in your necro post to this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
I figured while we were on the topic, to continue it.

Things often change drastically in 3 years and what was true and good advice might be horribly wrong because of new material, FAQ's, errata, ect. You also have the issue of replying to people that aren't even here to reply in some cases or to those that don't even recall what they were thinking that long ago.

So it's MUCH, MUCH better to start or add to a current thread than 'bring one' back from the dead: I know I normally don't even read a 'necro' over a few months old for these very reasons.

PS: When people link to a former thread it's mostly a situation when a writer, developer, editor, FAQ, errata, ect posted a reply or answer to the topic or when they are linking to one of their own posts on the subject because they don't want to take the time to make a new post.


I don't know what a necro is


To raise a thread from the grave; that is thread necromancy, or a necro for short.


LOL oh. Just call me Atalius the Necromancer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
LOL oh. Just call me Atalius the Necromancer.

or you could stop necroing threads

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / is ecclesitheurge downright abusable to you? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.