Is There Enough Design Space For An Offense Driven Divine Melee Class?


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 100 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I'd love to see a return in some form of my favorite class from 4th edition DnD, the Avenger! It was essentially a holy rogue. Basically its a lightly armored 2h wielder that had some nifty holy tricks up their sleeves and light healing. Its very close to the monk but I can see it really differentiated with spells.


Honestly a class archetype for Champion (and Ranger) trading some class features (let's say Legendary proficiency in armors and the highest upgrade of their reaction) for bounded divine spellcasting would work fairly well. I think.

Do you think it'd be balanced ?
A Champion without Legendary armor, and only base version of their reaction, but access to divine magic baseline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:

So, first, I have to raise the flag and continue to be really severely against the idea of making either kineticist or shifter into a slot-caster. PF2 needs a way to have magic-wielding characters who aren't bound to daily slots. It's not that hard to balance. Martials are already dealing predictable amounts of damage all day every day and can serve as an easy starting point. It'll need to wait until the final version of the Psychic and Thaumaturge get out there in the real world so they can get feedback from those, but it should be quite doable. If anything, I suspect that at this point it might be easier to balance as a non-slot caster than as a wave caster.

That said, let's look at what a wave-casting "battle priest" might look like. I'm not trying to build an inquisitor here (sorry, @keftiu) but rather a completely different class that should give people some of that battle cleric feel without really stealing the inquisitor's lunch.

The basic idea here is a character who goes charging into battle, hitting the enemy with their deity's weapon of choice, with a heavy focus on both self-buffing and buffing aura effects that assist both themselves and allies.

/*************/

Looking at the general magus chassis... it looks about right, actually. A few tweaks suggest themselves. We can let the spell attack proficiency cap out at expert, and we'd like to have heavy armor plus shield block. Weapons would be limited to deity weapon plus simple weapons. If deity weapon is a simple weapon it comes with free deadly simplicity, Deity weaon would get its crit effect, and proficiency for other simple weapons lags behind and caps out at expert. Oh, and they get that whole "anathema" thing, just like champions and clerics.

The core class-defining ability is a self-targeted focus spell stance with a sustained duration, that progressively powers up if you self-buff (ie, cast a spell with a duration where you are one of the targets) while under the effects. It's one action, but you can also...

Wasn't PF2 specifically looking to get rid of the buff, buff, buff style of meta? How many good buffs could an optimized buffer even reasonably stack and how would trying to do this in the face of the enemy impact that? This sounds like jumping through hoops to be worse than a Fighter with a divine archetype.

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Verdyn wrote:
VampByDay wrote:
I think you could do this with magus actually. One of my favorite PF1 Inquisitor archetypes was the iron-bound tome. That person had the inquisitor spell list but essentially had a spellbook that they smacked people with, and they cast with Int. You could make a magus hybrid study called ‘Iron-bound tome.’ Which changes your spellcasting to the divine list (still uses Int to cast), and gives you some other divine abilities. You’d get everything else a magus has, just a unique hybrid study that gives you divine casting instead of arcane. Gives you what you want, right?
Not really because the Magus kind of blows chunks unless you go Starlit Span and do your damage at range. The main ability provoking AoOs, other damage booster being, by RAW, unusable kills, and damage still being worse than most melee-focused CRB material kills the class. It also lacks heavy armor and couldn't spellstrike and heal from the same tiny spell pool without being worthless at both options.

Wow, uh, hot take. I’ve been playing a laughing shadow magus and having a grand ol’ time and been doing some decent damage. And I’ve seen a lot of talk online about how maguses are fun and competitive, if not the best, with tips and tricks, and versatility they have.

Also, I mean, not to be a jerk her but was that supposed to be an inflammatory post? Because it basically boiled down to ‘your idea sucks because this class is garbage’ and that, uh, well it’s kinda just rude?

And, I mean, very few classes get heavy armor proficiency. And if your magus wants it that bad, a single feat, sentinel dedication, gives it to you and auto levels up with your medium armor proficiency. Also, medium armor + 12 dex puts you in the same boat as most other martials. Puts you 1 behind a fighter in full plate.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Verdyn wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:

So, first, I have to raise the flag and continue to be really severely against the idea of making either kineticist or shifter into a slot-caster. PF2 needs a way to have magic-wielding characters who aren't bound to daily slots. It's not that hard to balance. Martials are already dealing predictable amounts of damage all day every day and can serve as an easy starting point. It'll need to wait until the final version of the Psychic and Thaumaturge get out there in the real world so they can get feedback from those, but it should be quite doable. If anything, I suspect that at this point it might be easier to balance as a non-slot caster than as a wave caster.

That said, let's look at what a wave-casting "battle priest" might look like. I'm not trying to build an inquisitor here (sorry, @keftiu) but rather a completely different class that should give people some of that battle cleric feel without really stealing the inquisitor's lunch.

The basic idea here is a character who goes charging into battle, hitting the enemy with their deity's weapon of choice, with a heavy focus on both self-buffing and buffing aura effects that assist both themselves and allies.

/*************/

Looking at the general magus chassis... it looks about right, actually. A few tweaks suggest themselves. We can let the spell attack proficiency cap out at expert, and we'd like to have heavy armor plus shield block. Weapons would be limited to deity weapon plus simple weapons. If deity weapon is a simple weapon it comes with free deadly simplicity, Deity weaon would get its crit effect, and proficiency for other simple weapons lags behind and caps out at expert. Oh, and they get that whole "anathema" thing, just like champions and clerics.

The core class-defining ability is a self-targeted focus spell stance with a sustained duration, that progressively powers up if you self-buff (ie, cast a spell with a duration where you are one of the targets) while under the effects.

...

That is why the Barbarian is the right fit for this build request. You can already do it with the spirit instinct but maybe a celestial and fiendish instinct could be released as well and you have a great divine ranger with temp hp, damage boosts and thematic flavor.


I agree about Kineticist not being a slot caster.

Disagree about the Warpriest design. It seem too troublesome when it would just be easier to add in Fervor as it was in PF1 with modified cost.


Unicore wrote:
That is why the Barbarian is the right fit for this build request. You can already do it with the spirit instinct but maybe a celestial and fiendish instinct could be released as well and you have a great divine ranger with temp hp, damage boosts and thematic flavor.

No smite, no healing, no anathema, no special relationship with a diety, no ability related to undeath. It's exactly like a cleric!

Next!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
That is why the Barbarian is the right fit for this build request. You can already do it with the spirit instinct but maybe a celestial and fiendish instinct could be released as well and you have a great divine ranger with temp hp, damage boosts and thematic flavor.

The barbarian has some issues here.

- It's not slinging spells. It's not burning slots. The barbarian goes pretty much exactly as strong every fight they're in. Fill those HP back up and give them enough time to recover from raging, and their tank is all the way back to full. Having a character based on spell slots means that you're actually making decisions about how much of your juice to throw into any given fight. I mean, I personally hate those kinds fo decisions. It's why keeping the shifter and kineticist slot-free is such a big deal for me - I desperately want magic-wielders that aren't tied to slots. There are those that do like it, though, and handing them a barbarian won't give them that thing.

- Again, it's not slinging spells. The barbarian gets the same thing, every fight. Having a class built around spellcasting gives you a lot more flexibility in what effects you pull. Even if you're dialed in on the buffs, there's more flexibility, from one fight to the next, on which buffs yo're going to apply. Admittedly, making this version of the class shine might require another option or two for buff spells at each level. I don't think that woudl necessarily be a terrible thign anyway.

- The barbarian class feats are largely done. You might add a few mroe here and there, but they're pretty much locked in, which means that much fo the shape of "how can I customize my barbarian" is locked in... and it's not about spellcasting, or sharing your buffs with your friends, or any of that stuff.

At best, a build off of the barbarian chassis is going to feel about as magical as the Champion does now... and part of the problem here is that the Champion just isn't magic enough.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verdyn wrote:
Unicore wrote:
That is why the Barbarian is the right fit for this build request. You can already do it with the spirit instinct but maybe a celestial and fiendish instinct could be released as well and you have a great divine ranger with temp hp, damage boosts and thematic flavor.

No smite, no healing, no anathema, no special relationship with a diety, no ability related to undeath. It's exactly like a cleric!

Next!

The spirit totem barbarian has anthema, a relationship with undeath, and a mechanic that might as well be smite. Healing is but a single feat for Blessed One (Lay on Hands is one of the rare spells that works with rage) and the relationship with the deity can be reflavored from the spirit of your ancestor.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
VampByDay wrote:
Verdyn wrote:
VampByDay wrote:
I think you could do this with magus actually. One of my favorite PF1 Inquisitor archetypes was the iron-bound tome. That person had the inquisitor spell list but essentially had a spellbook that they smacked people with, and they cast with Int. You could make a magus hybrid study called ‘Iron-bound tome.’ Which changes your spellcasting to the divine list (still uses Int to cast), and gives you some other divine abilities. You’d get everything else a magus has, just a unique hybrid study that gives you divine casting instead of arcane. Gives you what you want, right?
Not really because the Magus kind of blows chunks unless you go Starlit Span and do your damage at range. The main ability provoking AoOs, other damage booster being, by RAW, unusable kills, and damage still being worse than most melee-focused CRB material kills the class. It also lacks heavy armor and couldn't spellstrike and heal from the same tiny spell pool without being worthless at both options.

Wow, uh, hot take. I’ve been playing a laughing shadow magus and having a grand ol’ time and been doing some decent damage. And I’ve seen a lot of talk online about how maguses are fun and competitive, if not the best, with tips and tricks, and versatility they have.

Also, I mean, not to be a jerk her but was that supposed to be an inflammatory post? Because it basically boiled down to ‘your idea sucks because this class is garbage’ and that, uh, well it’s kinda just rude?

And, I mean, very few classes get heavy armor proficiency. And if your magus wants it that bad, a single feat, sentinel dedication, gives it to you and auto levels up with your medium armor proficiency. Also, medium armor + 12 dex puts you in the same boat as most other martials. Puts you 1 behind a fighter in full plate.

You're wasting your time engaging with Verdyn. He's only here to troll. He's played half of Plaguestone, doesn't play or plan on playing further, and just parrots back whatever negative opinions he reads here regardless of their veracity while looking to get a rise out of people.


Captain Morgan wrote:
The spirit totem barbarian has anthema, a relationship with undeath, and a mechanic that might as well be smite. Healing is but a single feat for Blessed One (Lay on Hands is one of the rare spells that works with rage) and the relationship with the deity can be reflavored from the spirit of your ancestor.

Look at it this way, in PF1 would you ever have told a player who wanted a smite-focused Paladin to play a Barbarian? If not, why are you doing that here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ruzza wrote:
CrimsonKnight wrote:

Let's try looking at it another way. Instead of a more melee warpreast, a Devine magus or a holy barbarian.

They rage I mean enter a spiritual trance give them alignment or positive/negative bonus damage Instead of a dragon barbarian element damage. Instead of turning into a dragon they gain attributes and eventually shape of an appropriate being.
Please pardon the pun. The get possessed by a holy spirit.
Is this not battle-mystery oracle?

It is not, actually. I've found my battle oracle extremely powerful and fun to play. My teammates are convinced it is overpowered based on some of the damage spikes it deals. It is a pretty great offensive class despite low proficiency, thanks to various damage and accuracy increasing abilities. I haven't even bothered casting heal in combat.

But it doesn't play like a barbarian despite the major curse. Playing a melee caster is all about being dynamic and engaging foes at every possible distance. You need to actively use your spells. You need to blast enemies and make them come to you, rather than wasting actions trying to close the gap. At the point melee occurs, you've either softened the enemy up or buffed yourself, and either way the enemy doesn't survive long enough to dig too far into your d8 HP.

The best way to play a divine barbarian is to use the divine barbarian. Spirit totem covers most of what Crimson Knight talks about, and what it is missing is easy to bring in.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verdyn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
The spirit totem barbarian has anthema, a relationship with undeath, and a mechanic that might as well be smite. Healing is but a single feat for Blessed One (Lay on Hands is one of the rare spells that works with rage) and the relationship with the deity can be reflavored from the spirit of your ancestor.
Look at it this way, in PF1 would you ever have told a player who wanted a smite-focused Paladin to play a Barbarian? If not, why are you doing that here?

Because PF1 was a different game? Plus, you can also just... Play a smite focused paladin. There are a fair number of offensive feats and features available, and while the reaction has a protective bend it is still ultimately about striking the enemy.

You won't get the boss melter that PF1 smite was, but nothing does that in PF2. And you still get the crazy durability that PF1 paladins had by default.


Captain Morgan wrote:
The spirit totem barbarian has anthema, a relationship with undeath, and a mechanic that might as well be smite. Healing is but a single feat for Blessed One (Lay on Hands is one of the rare spells that works with rage) and the relationship with the deity can be reflavored from the spirit of your ancestor.

While your statement is more correct than the one that it is in response to, there are still some issues.

- They have anathema, but it's all the same anathema. They don't have any sort of deity-based anathema, or other particular mechanical association with a single deity. I mean, they work just fine if you wanted to play a follower of Pharasma in the first place, but....

- The relationship with undead? Okay, yeah, that one's pretty solid. I'm not going to deny it. Spirit Totem absolutely hits the "relationship with undead" checkbox, and does it with style.

- Smite? Cleric smite is kind of a weird thing to get hung up on, but the barbarian doesn't really have it. At least, I'm not seeing anywhere that gives them the ability to attack extra-hard X times per day.

...and the healing you've more or less admitted.

Now, I don't necessarily think that all of these this are necessarily critical to the image. (Smite? Really?) but it's still the case that the barbarian as written, even the spirit barb, has some issues when trying to be the Divine Melee Striker character in general, and even more when trying to swap in for the cleric as part of this rather specific character idea.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nephandys wrote:


You're wasting your time engaging with Verdyn. He's only here to troll. He's played half of Plaguestone, doesn't play or plan on playing further, and just parrots back whatever negative opinions he reads here regardless of their veracity while looking to get a rise out of people.

Thanks for the info.

Anyone else though? Seems like a magus hybrid study that changed out divine for arcane would work as a divine fighter? They could spellstrike with harm or divine Lance which could be great in some campaigns, and I think they could work.

Here is the PF1 archetype. The hybrid study could be centered around holding their spellbook and raising it like the tome feats the base magus could take. Just have that hybrid study get the tome feat for free and let them do something special with it. I know the original archetype beat people up with the tome but I figure give them at least a bit of choice with their weapons.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Because PF1 was a different game? Plus, you can also just... Play a smite focused paladin. There are a fair number of offensive feats and features available, and while the reaction has a protective bend it is still ultimately about striking the enemy.

You won't get the boss melter that PF1 smite was, but nothing does that in PF2. And you still get the crazy durability that PF1 paladins had by default.

What would be wrong with a Paladin spiking the damage of an on-level single-target blasting spell a few times per day against specifically evil foes?


Yeah, Smite Evil and Blade of Justice are pretty boss-melty against the right boss. Most fiends have weakness to good damage, Qlippoth are the only ones that are coming to my mind right now that don't, and a good many also have some form of physical resistance. Using both Smite Evil and Blade of Justice triggers their weakness, bypasses their resistance, and adds on extra damage to boot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:

Thanks for the info.

Anyone else though? Seems like a magus hybrid study that changed out divine for arcane would work as a divine fighter? They could spellstrike with harm or divine Lance which could be great in some campaigns, and I think they could work.

Here is the PF1 archetype. The hybrid study could be centered around holding their spellbook and raising it like the tome feats the base magus could take. Just have that archetype get the tome feat for free and let them do something special with it. I know the original archetype beat people up with the tome but I figure give them at least a bit of choice with their weapons.

I'm not going to say that that's necessarily a terrible character idea, or that it wouldn't be fun to play, but it's kind of ill-suited. The magus ideal is "I like stabbing people, and I like settign them on fire with arcane magic, and I don't want to have to choose. I want to be able to stab people and set them on fire at the same time." The magus as designed delivers on exactly that desire, and it does so quite well. The issue with just converting that over to divine caster unchanged is that that's not what people are mostly looking for in a divine striker. You don't generally go with divine magic because you want to blast people with spells... and if "blast people with spells" isn't a meaningful part of what you want out of a character, then magus probably isn't the right choice for a basis.


Perpdepog wrote:
Yeah, Smite Evil and Blade of Justice are pretty boss-melty against the right boss. Most fiends have weakness to good damage, Qlippoth are the only ones that are coming to my mind right now that don't, and a good many also have some form of physical resistance. Using both Smite Evil and Blade of Justice triggers their weakness, bypasses their resistance, and adds on extra damage to boot.

Isn't that what a Paladin should do? They banish evil from the material plane using their righteous anger, let's let them actually do that once in a while rather than applying some chip damage and letting the team pick up the kill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verdyn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Because PF1 was a different game? Plus, you can also just... Play a smite focused paladin. There are a fair number of offensive feats and features available, and while the reaction has a protective bend it is still ultimately about striking the enemy.

You won't get the boss melter that PF1 smite was, but nothing does that in PF2. And you still get the crazy durability that PF1 paladins had by default.

What would be wrong with a Paladin spiking the damage of an on-level single-target blasting spell a few times per day against specifically evil foes?

What are you asking for at this point? Because PF paladins weren't exactly renowned for their blasting spells. But if that's actually what you want, play a battle oracle. True Strike+Searing Light is pretty sick damage.

If you meant something closer to the PF1 paladin, which entered a buffed state of melee prowess X times for day... X times per day abilities don't really exist anymore beyond spells and extracts, at least non for meaningful, defining class features. They are rarely fun to track and distort the game when you start to play single encounter days. I wouldn't expect that to come back any more than rage rounds or performance rounds.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
The spirit totem barbarian has anthema, a relationship with undeath, and a mechanic that might as well be smite. Healing is but a single feat for Blessed One (Lay on Hands is one of the rare spells that works with rage) and the relationship with the deity can be reflavored from the spirit of your ancestor.

While your statement is more correct than the one that it is in response to, there are still some issues.

- They have anathema, but it's all the same anathema. They don't have any sort of deity-based anathema, or other particular mechanical association with a single deity. I mean, they work just fine if you wanted to play a follower of Pharasma in the first place, but....

- The relationship with undead? Okay, yeah, that one's pretty solid. I'm not going to deny it. Spirit Totem absolutely hits the "relationship with undead" checkbox, and does it with style.

- Smite? Cleric smite is kind of a weird thing to get hung up on, but the barbarian doesn't really have it. At least, I'm not seeing anywhere that gives them the ability to attack extra-hard X times per day.

...and the healing you've more or less admitted.

Now, I don't necessarily think that all of these this are necessarily critical to the image. (Smite? Really?) but it's still the case that the barbarian as written, even the spirit barb, has some issues when trying to be the Divine Melee Striker character in general, and even more when trying to swap in for the cleric as part of this rather specific character idea.

Well I think part of the issue is I'm not entirely clear what anyone is asking for anymore. People seem to be conflating the PF1 paladin and cleric. They were pretty different in PF1 and pretty different in PF2.


Captain Morgan wrote:
What are you asking for at this point? Because PF paladins weren't exactly renowned for their blasting spells. But if that's actually what you want, play a battle oracle. True Strike+Searing Light is pretty sick damage.

What if the Paladin's melee smite that can only hit specific targets a few times per day, could deal blasting spell level damage on hit? If that doesn't work make it a focus spell that costs 2 points of focus with the effect granting you a single smite blessed strike within the next minute. That should make it PF2 friendly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verdyn wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
Yeah, Smite Evil and Blade of Justice are pretty boss-melty against the right boss. Most fiends have weakness to good damage, Qlippoth are the only ones that are coming to my mind right now that don't, and a good many also have some form of physical resistance. Using both Smite Evil and Blade of Justice triggers their weakness, bypasses their resistance, and adds on extra damage to boot.
Isn't that what a Paladin should do? They banish evil from the material plane using their righteous anger, let's let them actually do that once in a while rather than applying some chip damage and letting the team pick up the kill.

They DO that. That was the whole point of the post you quoted.


Captain Morgan wrote:
They DO that. That was the whole point of the post you quoted.

They hit for some piddly bonus damage, they do not capital S smite.


Verdyn wrote:
What if the Paladin's melee smite that can only hit specific targets a few times per day, could deal blasting spell level damage on hit? If that doesn't work make it a focus spell that costs 2 points of focus with the effect granting you a single smite blessed strike within the next minute. That should make it PF2 friendly.

What?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah Humble, I was confused by that too.

Verdyn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
They DO that. That was the whole point of the post you quoted.
They hit for some piddly bonus damage, they do not capital S smite.

Most fiends have weakness to good damage about equal to their level. PF1 Smite evil was the paladins level in damage, except on the first hit in fiends where it was doubled. But meanwhile the PF2 Paladin is dealing persistent damage that triggers round after round, plus the extra damage from Smith Evil (4 or 6 depending on level) plus 2 extra damage dice for Blade of Justice.

Paladins do what you are asking for already.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Most fiends have weakness to good damage about equal to their level. PF1 Smite evil was the paladins level in damage, except on the first hit in fiends where it was doubled. But meanwhile the PF2 Paladin is dealing persistent damage that triggers round after round, plus the extra damage from Smith Evil (4 or 6 depending on level) plus 2 extra damage dice for Blade of Justice.

Paladins do what you are asking for already.

Nobody that was building around smiting in PF1 ever did that little damage and you know it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verdyn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Most fiends have weakness to good damage about equal to their level. PF1 Smite evil was the paladins level in damage, except on the first hit in fiends where it was doubled. But meanwhile the PF2 Paladin is dealing persistent damage that triggers round after round, plus the extra damage from Smith Evil (4 or 6 depending on level) plus 2 extra damage dice for Blade of Justice.

Paladins do what you are asking for already.

Nobody that was building around smiting in PF1 ever did that little damage and you know it.

OK, so how is the paladin adding additional damage to the smite? Because there's plenty of ways to increase your basic melee damage, but that's not a paladin specific ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

I agree about Kineticist not being a slot caster.

Disagree about the Warpriest design. It seem too troublesome when it would just be easier to add in Fervor as it was in PF1 with modified cost.

Something like this?

Fervor<>
{Cleric}{Divine}{Necromancy}{metamagic}{concentrate}
Cost Expend a heal or harm spell
Prerequisite harmful font or healing font
If your next action is to cast a cantrip or a spell that is at least 2 levels lower than the highest level spell slot you have and a range of touch, reduce the number of actions to cast it by 1 (minimum 1 action). You may only target yourself with this spell, you are no longer require to touch the target to target yourself, and the spell loses any somatic components (and so also loses the manipulate trait).

Not certain of the exact wording, but that seems to cover the bases.


Captain Morgan wrote:
OK, so how is the paladin adding additional damage to the smite? Because there's plenty of ways to increase your basic melee damage, but that's not a paladin specific ability.

Things like Divine Might and easy access to Enlarge Person aren't specifically Paladin exclusive, but your average melee beat stick wasn't self-casting them and didn't get a free mount to amp up their spike damage for free.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verdyn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
OK, so how is the paladin adding additional damage to the smite? Because there's plenty of ways to increase your basic melee damage, but that's not a paladin specific ability.
Things like Divine Might and easy access to Enlarge Person aren't specifically Paladin exclusive, but your average melee beat stick wasn't self-casting them and didn't get a free mount to amp up their spike damage for free.

Cool, so a spell that doesn't exist (did you mean righteous might or divne power? Neither is on the paladin list ) a non-paladin spell, and lance charge cheese.

You're not actually advocating for smite at this point, you're just advocating to bring back munchkin level damage. No one can do that anymore, nor should they.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Divine Favor maybe? At least that's a paladin spell.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Divine Favor maybe? At least that's a paladin spell.

Maybe? But it is a by Verdyn's standards a "piddly" +4 even with Fortune's favored, so that seems off.

Scarab Sages

Sanityfaerie wrote:


I'm not going to say that that's necessarily a terrible character idea, or that it wouldn't be fun to play, but it's kind of ill-suited. The magus ideal is "I like stabbing people, and I like settign them on fire with arcane magic, and I don't want to have to choose. I want to be able to stab people and set them on fire at the same time." The magus as designed delivers on exactly that desire, and it does so quite well. The issue with just converting that over to divine caster unchanged is that that's not what people are mostly looking for in a divine striker. You don't generally go with divine magic because you want to blast people with spells... and if "blast people with spells" isn't a meaningful part of what you want out of a character, then magus probably isn't the right choice for a basis.

Sure, I get what you are saying. And it is a point well taken. It’s just, well, it seems that there is little wiggle room for what the OP wanted. If you want a holy warrior that focuses on casting, that’s a warpriest. If you want a holy warrior that focuses on fighting, that’s a champion. If you want something right down the middle, the magus chassis seems to be it. So you can either reinvent the wheel by making an entirely separate class that also gets master in spells, armor, and weapons, and the magus/summoner spell progression or you can tweak the ready-built one we have. Between a hybrid study ability and a focus spell you get I think you could come up with something that ‘feels right’ for what the OP wants. Maybe a hybrid study ability like this:

When using a spellstrike, instead of applying a spell to your strike, you can direct its healing energies elsewhere. When you spellstrike with the heal spell, you may instead strike an enemy, and target yourself or an ally with the heal spell as if you had cast that spell with two actions. This still counts as using a spellstrike, and counts as making two attacks.

That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure someone could come up with something better.

And, I guess I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up the point. . . what about making a summoner that takes that feat to merge with their eidolon. You could be walking around AS an angel, still have access to a few spells, and in eidolon form you have decent attacks, armor, and HP. Would that solve the OP’s request?


Captain Morgan wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Divine Favor maybe? At least that's a paladin spell.
Maybe? But it is a by Verdyn's standards a "piddly" +4 even with Fortune's favored, so that seems off.

It's a luck bonus, so even a small number helps because it stacks easily with other sources. It's also applied to weapon damage and thus multiples with charges and crits.


VampByDay wrote:
And, I guess I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up the point. . . what about making a summoner that takes that feat to merge with their eidolon. You could be walking around AS an angel, still have access to a few spells, and in eidolon form you have decent attacks, armor, and HP. Would that solve the OP’s request?

Yeah, that would work well if Paizo gave that to us. It works even better if the summon spells could convert to heals, but that's an easy feat to add.

Scarab Sages

Ah, here it is, first level feat Meld into Eidolon. It is pretty limiting, I know, can’t cast spells in it so most of your spellcasting would have to be out-of-combat. But it does let you play a big ol’ angel with eventual master in AC, master in attacks, and the ability to pre-buff or have after-fight debuff removal. Seems like one option for a Holy warrior with spells.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verdyn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Cool, so a spell that doesn't exist (did you mean righteous might or divne power? Neither is on the paladin list ) a non-paladin spell, and lance charge cheese.

I was transcribing from an old build guide and didn't double-check. It's either one of those spells or a 3.x feat by the same name. Also, <s>it's so hard to get access to the entire divine spell list especially when you already get divine casting.</s>

Quote:
You're not actually advocating for smite at this point, you're just advocating to bring back munchkin level damage. No one can do that anymore, nor should they.

It's a good thing I don't have a proposal for exactly the Smite I want in this very thread... Oh wait.

Maybe read my proposal before spouting off nonsense.

Your proposal was bad, and didn't actually look like a PF2 ability. Nor did it especially resemble PF1 smite.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Considering there are only two classes who even get heavy armor proficiency, and favored weapon proficiency is usually either a specific martial weapon or a simple one boosted close to martial with Deadly Simplicity -

You're basically trying to see "what can I take away from Champion to free up space to put in casting".

Eh, I think the better way to approach this is more like... what would be a good replacement for Spellstrike if we made a Divine Magus. At least as a starting point.
My hope is some kind of Ranger-y "I declare this target to be my sacred foe" sort of thing.

I think a Thaumaturge class archetype that trades out the two implement upgrades for wave casting should fit the bill.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Verdyn wrote:

We have posters that defend the alchemist and claim that it is powerful. I don't think this forum would know a good class if it came up and bit them.

Half of them would call it OP and call for nerfs so that the game maintains a safe status quo and the others would build it so badly as to boggle the mind.

Verdyn wrote:
Also, I'm far from the only one who feels this way. Do I need to link to our most recent Magus thread?

Schrodinger's Forum: competent when it agrees with him, incompetent when it doesn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Verdyn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Cool, so a spell that doesn't exist (did you mean righteous might or divne power? Neither is on the paladin list ) a non-paladin spell, and lance charge cheese.

I was transcribing from an old build guide and didn't double-check. It's either one of those spells or a 3.x feat by the same name. Also, <s>it's so hard to get access to the entire divine spell list especially when you already get divine casting.</s>

Quote:
You're not actually advocating for smite at this point, you're just advocating to bring back munchkin level damage. No one can do that anymore, nor should they.

It's a good thing I don't have a proposal for exactly the Smite I want in this very thread... Oh wait.

Maybe read my proposal before spouting off nonsense.

With respect, your proposal reads like someone who doesn't understand PF2 design in the slightest tried to design for PF2.

Also it's kind of a joke compared to a swashbuckler, who basically gets that every turn.

If you want a more casting-focused setup, go Champion MC Cleric/Divine Sorcerer. Or Fighter MC Cleric. There are tons of ways.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Your proposal was bad, and didn't actually look like a PF2 ability. Nor did it especially resemble PF1 smite.

PF1 Smite was only good because it was on the Paladin chassis which was awesome for stacking damage. If you just recreate smite exactly as it was you don't accurately capture what actually using it in PF1 did.

If you make smite a limited use melee ranged blast that uses the focus mechanic it gets close. If you get really weird maybe you get into amp territory and have an amped smite and an unamped smite, but that seems needlessly complicated. I could template that up, but the formatting isn't what you object to.


Cyouni wrote:
With respect, your proposal reads like someone who doesn't understand PF2 design in the slightest tried to design for PF2.

With respect, I don't see anybody else in here designing jack. People are proposing re-flavors of existing classes or half-assing suggestions for new classes. Nobody has yet even tried to design an actually mechanical means of doing what I'm imagining.

Quote:

Also it's kind of a joke compared to a swashbuckler, who basically gets that every turn.

If you want a more casting-focused setup, go Champion MC Cleric/Divine Sorcerer. Or Fighter MC Cleric. There are tons of ways.

A level 9 my version of Smite would add 6d6+Cha Mod to existing weapon damage, while a swashbuckler would do 4d6 with feat-driven riders. It feels like I could probably make my version of smite a basic focus spell and not break anything, but I wanted to start conservatively as my goal is to get a class the plays my style and not to break PF2.

51 to 100 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Is There Enough Design Space For An Offense Driven Divine Melee Class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.