Age of Ashes Dwarf-Half-Elf


Advice

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've had a character concept for the Age of Ashes AP stuck in my brain for at least a year now that I want to get out somehow, but I'm not sure HOW best to do it. Since 2e now allows half-elves whose other halfs can be ancestries BESIDES humans, I immediately glommed on to the idea of the child of a dwarf daddy and elf mommy who loved each other very much, especially since Age of Ashes' narrative explores both elven and dwarven cultures and histories, making the idea of a character between these two worlds getting in touch with both his heritages INCREDIBLY tempting!

The idea I had for a concept uses the Haunting Vision campaign background, drawing inspiration from the song I See Fire from The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug's credits: this lad, the eldest son of a rare and loving union between a dwarf and an elf, started having horrible nightmares of fire and destruction growing up. He turned to his family's traditions of forging and magic, ways fire could be controlled and used for good, and eventually came to a syncretic view of Torag, the Father of Dwarves, and Yuelral, the elven goddess of gems, nature and magic, viewing them as two sides of the same coin. More recently his nightmares have gotten worse, and he's seen a specific place in them: the town of Breachill. Fearing for his family, his brothers and the people of this town, he's gone there to investigate and hopefully stop whatever conflagration is about to be unleashed!

The question is...I'm not sure what class to use for him that fits this narrative. Conceptually I had imagined something similar to 5e D&D's Forge Domain Cleric, combining fire-based divine magic with melee combat, but less "formally trained" per se, to accommodate the idea of worshiping a personalized Pantheon that includes Torag and Yuelral since I believe Clerics (and Champions) still need to select a singular deity. My immediate instinct was Flame Oracle, as well as the Crystal Keeper archetype that becomes available later in the AP, but I've been advised against that to a certain extent both because Flame Oracle is more of a blaster-caster when I'm looking for something more of the Gish persuasion, and because, as the title of the AP suggests, there's a LOT of fire-resistant enemies to deal with. Other ideas I've toyed with include Druid, specifically looking at Flame Order and Stone Order using the Order Explorer feat, as well as the Warrior Muse Bard, maybe doing things like using songs to time hammer rhythms while forging and "tuning" a forged sword to ring perfectly when it strikes an enemy, but then that's starting to get away from the fire-based theme.

I am very new to 2e, to say the least. My only character is a Champion (Paladin), who recently got converted from 1e and shortly died and got reincarnated after that, and there's a lot of rules I'm still learning as I go, and I'm also regularly watching Narrative Declaration's Rotgrind campaign, so I'd appreciate any advice on how to make this concept work. Thank you, in advance, for your suggestions and for reading through this long, rambly post. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dwarf+Elf=Dwelf
Dwarf+Orc=Dork
Elf+Orc=Elk


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Conceptually I had imagined something similar to 5e D&D's Forge Domain Cleric, combining fire-based divine magic with melee combat, but less "formally trained" per se, to accommodate the idea of worshiping a personalized Pantheon that includes Torag and Yuelral since I believe Clerics (and Champions) still need to select a singular deity.

Pantheon concept for Deity does exist. Work with the GM to work that out if you want.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would play a flame Oracle if I were you.

Do you use free archetype?

Basically I'd say... 80-90% of monsters in Age of Ashes aren't resistant to fire damage. And as an Oracle you can supplement your flame curse focus spells with divine list alignment damage (almost all fire resistant ennemies are weak to good damage).

You'll be good to go.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AlastarOG wrote:

I would play a flame Oracle if I were you.

Do you use free archetype?

Basically I'd say... 80-90% of monsters in Age of Ashes aren't resistant to fire damage. And as an Oracle you can supplement your flame curse focus spells with divine list alignment damage (almost all fire resistant ennemies are weak to good damage).

You'll be good to go.

The last game I expressed interest in for this concept did use Free Archetype, and it does seem like despite being an optional system it IS pretty popular.

Like I said in the original post, however, my understanding was Flame Mystery was a bad idea for the concept as is because it's designed to play like a Sorcerer or an evocation Wizard, while playing the gish is the purview of the Battle Mystery Oracle, which I wasn't too keen on because I wanted more fire-related stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know how most feel but until they release some manner of Inquisitor, the Magus is the only thing that can really be described as a gish (with possible exception of summoner who doesn't gish so much have a pet to be the combat half to thei spell half.

No matter which full- spellcasting class you pick, none are going to have a significant edge with weapons, if we ignore the relatively easy to pick up weapon proficiencies. Nothing really makes oracle more of a blaster caster than a cleric or a druid, I'm pretty sure for most intents and purposes their stats will be identical depending on ability scores. Maybe armour proficiencies...

Liberty's Edge

Syncretism is a Cleric feat based on blending the teachings of 2 deities.

That said, your description indeed first screamed Oracle of flames.

But, if you want to go Gish, Magus is the best bet (and seems tailored made for the elf part). Now, you could take Cleric MC Dedication (fits dwarven culture) and get Fire Ray. This would fit well with your PC's story IMO AND it would give you the best damage cantrip a Magus can get.

But you would need to select another deity than Torag, who strangely does not have the Fire domain. Angradd seems to be the only dwarven deity that gets it, but he might be too much on the agressive side for your concept.

Or Magus with Oracle (Flames) MC and then Domain acumen to get Fire Ray. This actually might be the most simple way to play an efficient Gish that fits your character's story.


Yeah aside from magus there are no gish classes.

If you want to play a full caster you will fall off in efficiency for melee or ranged at 5 and never catch up.

Magus manages to gish but you won't get the full casting + almost full bab you could get in 1e.

Your options are:
Magus (with flam Oracle archetype) to gish but kinda lose out on casting

Main martial (maybe dragon instinct barbarian?) Archetype into Oracle for some light casting and heavy martial

Main caster (flame Oracle) with some melee potential that falls really off at 5. And will cost you stats better allocated somewhere else.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I suppose I could take Oracle as a multiclass to represent the fires from his dreams manifesting in the waking world and make part of his arc learning how to control them...that'd mean Crystal Keeper would have to be dropped though, as my understanding of the game is feats are too precious to waste on a second archetype.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I suppose I could take Oracle as a multiclass to represent the fires from his dreams manifesting in the waking world and make part of his arc learning how to control them...that'd mean Crystal Keeper would have to be dropped though, as my understanding of the game is feats are too precious to waste on a second archetype.

Depends on if you have free archetype or not.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
as my understanding of the game is feats are too precious to waste on a second archetype.

Fun fact, the oracle is the only class I feel at ease with 2 or even 3x dedications.

You are given either focus pool and refocusing for free, and apart from DD and diverse mystery I don't really like anything else ( maybe sometimes I could find interesting to borrow extra spells from deities, but it's kinda boring ).

ps: obviously also the feat to take diverse myster.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
as my understanding of the game is feats are too precious to waste on a second archetype.

Fun fact, the oracle is the only class I feel at ease with 2 or even 3x dedications.

You are given either focus pool and refocusing for free, and apart from DD and diverse mystery I don't really like anything else ( maybe sometimes I could find interesting to borrow extra spells from deities, but it's kinda boring ).

ps: obviously also the feat to take diverse myster.

Is that with base oracle or using oracle as the dedication?


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
as my understanding of the game is feats are too precious to waste on a second archetype.

Fun fact, the oracle is the only class I feel at ease with 2 or even 3x dedications.

You are given either focus pool and refocusing for free, and apart from DD and diverse mystery I don't really like anything else ( maybe sometimes I could find interesting to borrow extra spells from deities, but it's kinda boring ).

ps: obviously also the feat to take diverse myster.

Is that with base oracle or using oracle as the dedication?

The oracle class ( not the dedication ).

I really love the flavor and each different mistery, because it's ( my opinion, obviously ) much fun to play with ( roleplay, and drawbacks ), but can't really enjoy the majority of class feats.


HumbleGamer wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
as my understanding of the game is feats are too precious to waste on a second archetype.

Fun fact, the oracle is the only class I feel at ease with 2 or even 3x dedications.

You are given either focus pool and refocusing for free, and apart from DD and diverse mystery I don't really like anything else ( maybe sometimes I could find interesting to borrow extra spells from deities, but it's kinda boring ).

ps: obviously also the feat to take diverse mystery.

Well you also are a full caster with Charisma primary, d8 hitpoints, and light armour proficiency ie just enough. It is nice to not have to muck around with picking up those other feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I think an ancestors Oracle might also be a good fit for this character if you really want to lean into the "Child of Two Worlds" character idea. Having both dwarven and elven ancestor spirits trying to give them advice and trying to navigate those could work. The ancestors mystery is also one of the most gishy mysteries at the moment.

Scarab Sages

If you want to play a gish character associated with fire, I find archetyping into arcane sorcerer is rewarding (true strike, enlarge, haste). Choosing the efreeti bloodline ties you to fire.

You could also choose elemental (fire) sorcerer, but that doesn't get you anything as nice as true strike.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So, I got to thinking about this, and I'm wondering if part of the reason I'm confused is because we're operating from different definitions of "gish."

It looks like the reason Magus is recommended as the only true gish out of the class roster is it's a class that dishes out hurt via spells and weapons in equal measure. The kinds of gishes I've usually played in 1e didn't operate like that; they used spells primarily to buff themselves and their allies before going into melee combat themselves, or they were a caster like a bard or an ora-din who could at least protect themselves with a sword if someone walked up to them, because swords are cool.

Are those viable ways to play in 2e or not?


Consider they got rid of powercreep and most of prebuff stuff, though some spells have a length good enough to last a couple of fights or even more ( depends whether the party stops for treat wounds or not ).

But it's something that can vary from group to group ( some allows prebuff with 1 min cast spells outside the door or next to the corner ).

A magus has 4 spells per day, and all of its focus spells are self only, and also shares a pool with the hybrid spell conflux spell, which allows you to do stuff while also recharging your spellstrike, so you'll find yourself having to choose what to use and what not to use, each fight.

Back to the magus with 4 slots ( +2 extra hybrid slots, which at some points will also allow you to cast haste and fly ), a magus could indeed buff allies, but given the limited amount of spells a player could decide otherwise ( " I want to save 2 high level spells to blast the boss" or "I want to always have stoneskin on me" or "I want to be quickened all the time to have an extra stride, to properly use my spellstrike" and so on ).

Compared to a bard, which has 3 spells per level ( rather than 2/2 +2 hybrid ), and an insane amount of supportive compositions, the magus might not be the best choice when it comes to buff or prebuff allies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

So, I got to thinking about this, and I'm wondering if part of the reason I'm confused is because we're operating from different definitions of "gish."

It looks like the reason Magus is recommended as the only true gish out of the class roster is it's a class that dishes out hurt via spells and weapons in equal measure. The kinds of gishes I've usually played in 1e didn't operate like that; they used spells primarily to buff themselves and their allies before going into melee combat themselves, or they were a caster like a bard or an ora-din who could at least protect themselves with a sword if someone walked up to them, because swords are cool.

Are those viable ways to play in 2e or not?

So if what you want is to buff yourself before combat, you have some limited options.

Gone are the days of needing an excel sheet to track the 12-18 buffs everyone has on every day.

You pretty much have 3 or 4 spells you want to cast on yourself as buffs:

Heroism (3,6,9, gives +1/+2/+3 status bonus to attack rolls, saves and skills, REALLY strong, single target, ten minutes, divine/occult)
Mirror Image (1 minute, gives 3 images, can save you from crits and hits, occult/arcane)
Invisibility (1 minute, can be cast as 2 and 4th level spell, 4th level is greater invisibility)
Stoneskin (4th level, lasts 20 minutes, gives physical damage resistance of 5, everytime you are hit the duration reduces by 1 minute)

There are others, but these are the staples i'd say. Now to your point of prebuffing and just fighting, you'll notice that:

-The duration on all of these is low and does not go up, so you can't just cast 180 minute duration buffs and keep going.
-Most of these are around the 10 minute mark, and the treat wounds exploration activity, which is assumed to be used between each fight by game design, is also 10 minutes. Meaning that unless you burn ressources on healing spells, your heroism or stoneskin is going down between fights.
-One list does not have them all, best bet is probably occult cause it has true strike
-All of these are low level.

Now another point that makes all of us say ''casters can't be gishes like they were'' is scaling proficiency. Casters only get up to expert proficiency in weapons, and at level 11, and martials get master, which means that at all levels, even if you pump all your stats into your str/dex, they will be 10% more accurate and have +10% chance to crit. You can match this with buffs (see heroism) but there's an argument to be made that if you're gonna be casting heroism... why not cast it on the fighter and make THEM even MORE likely to crit and hit.

This is compounded by the fact that everything multiplies on a crit, and that martial classes all have a ''damage gimmick'' as well as greater weapon specialization adding at least 3 damage over a caster.

So if we take a strike from a greatsword wielding Warpriest vs a Precision Ranger at level 20, assuming both went to 24 STR (warpriest 22 since its their max) and have +3 Major Striking weapons.

Warpriest: +33 to hit, 4d12+9 to damage
Ranger: +36 to hit, 4d12+13+3d8 to damage.
(For fun) Barbarian: +36 to hit, 4d12+13+16 fire damage

So you can see that using your limited resources on yourself rather than pooling them on someone who would make better use of them is greatly suboptimal.

Simply put, macro buffing with all your spell slots and steamrolling encounters is simply not a playstyle anymore.

Now from your earlier post, you do have a cool concept, and making it come to life is indeed important, so you have to choose.

The closest thing that would, in my mind, come close to an original pf1e gish is a Red Dragon Instinct Barbarian archetyping into a flame oracle.

Very thematic, some low level castings for shield cantrip, heroism and bless when appropriate, and the dragon instinct synergizes well with the flame oracle 1st mystery spell, because you deal fire damage with each strike and the mystery spell makes an aura around you where people catch on fire when you deal fire damage to them.


A warpriest is not allowed to hit 24 STR, since it starts with 16.


Corrected math following humblegamer'S post.

Oh look at that, the ''gish'' caster warpriest is even more terrible than I thought ...


AlastarOG wrote:


Oh look at that, the ''gish'' caster warpriest is even more terrible than I thought ...

If you want to shine more with it, you might consider getting the Competitive Edge Domain Focus Spell ( but you'll be mostly tied to evil deities, and not so good weapons ).

If you go for it, then haste will be your best friend.

Also, a -3 compared to a pure combatant without the need to use a battleform is EXCELLENT in my opinion ( you can close the gap with a heroism of your highest level, regardless the level ).

Liberty's Edge

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

So, I got to thinking about this, and I'm wondering if part of the reason I'm confused is because we're operating from different definitions of "gish."

It looks like the reason Magus is recommended as the only true gish out of the class roster is it's a class that dishes out hurt via spells and weapons in equal measure. The kinds of gishes I've usually played in 1e didn't operate like that; they used spells primarily to buff themselves and their allies before going into melee combat themselves, or they were a caster like a bard or an ora-din who could at least protect themselves with a sword if someone walked up to them, because swords are cool.

Are those viable ways to play in 2e or not?

The first style is mostly what you get when playing a Martial with Caster MC : you hit things and spice it up every now and then with magic.

The second is a Caster with Martial MC. You cast spells but are not entirely useless with a weapon. Note though that the caveats above are quite true.

The Magus is somewhat similar to the first style, though their basic ability with weapons is a bit below Martials. But when they cast their spells, they are almost equal and with more potential variety thanks to magic.


HumbleGamer wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:


Oh look at that, the ''gish'' caster warpriest is even more terrible than I thought ...

If you want to shine more with it, you might consider getting the Competitive Edge Domain Focus Spell ( but you'll be mostly tied to evil deities, and not so good weapons ).

If you go for it, then haste will be your best friend.

Also, a -3 compared to a pure combatant without the need to use a battleform is EXCELLENT in my opinion ( you can close the gap with a heroism of your highest level, regardless the level ).

Yeah but as mentioned, why would you cast heroism on yourself and not on the martial.

On yourself you bridge the gap slightly (and are still lacking damage because you don't have greater weapon spec or a damage feature) on your martial they have +15% chance to hit and Crit and then double their greater damage.

You can do both of course but that's a lot of ressources.

My agents of edgewatch did manage to steamroll the BBEG of the campaign when the bard cast level 9 heroism on himself and the champion and level 6 heroism on the alchemist and sorcerer though.


AlastarOG wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:


Oh look at that, the ''gish'' caster warpriest is even more terrible than I thought ...

If you want to shine more with it, you might consider getting the Competitive Edge Domain Focus Spell ( but you'll be mostly tied to evil deities, and not so good weapons ).

If you go for it, then haste will be your best friend.

Also, a -3 compared to a pure combatant without the need to use a battleform is EXCELLENT in my opinion ( you can close the gap with a heroism of your highest level, regardless the level ).

Yeah but as mentioned, why would you cast heroism on yourself and not on the martial.

Mostly not to break the game with powercreep and enjoy my character.

Buffing a single combatant while debuffing the enemy is clearly the most efficient solution ( we can all easily agree on this ), but the encounters are meant to be dealt with different builds and compositions, and by actively looking out for powercreep is imo going to be a downside for the players, if they don't like to stomp enemies, and for the DM, having to modify an already written AP.


Fair enough.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Shillelagh a lot because it is a powerful buff that is self-only
:-D

Playing PFS, I now use it on as many Martial or Martial-like builds as I can.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I like Shillelagh a lot because it is a powerful buff that is self-only

:-D

It would be tons of fun to play

Fighter: "Do you have anything to enhance my combat skills, my friend?"

Spellcaster: "Yeah, sure! I do have this spell which... oh noes, it only works on my weapon! I am so sorry I can't give you more damage! Seems Like I'll have to properly contribute myself... how unfortunate..."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I like Shillelagh a lot because it is a powerful buff that is self-only

:-D

It would be tons of fun to play

Fighter: "Do you have anything to enhance my combat skills, my friend?"

Spellcaster: "Yeah, sure! I do have this spell which... oh noes, it only works on my weapon! I am so sorry I can't give you more damage! Seems Like I'll have to properly contribute myself... how unfortunate..."

TBT my current Shillelagh-user is a Fighter with Magus MC.

Other PCs : "Why aren't you charging and attacking like a proper Fighter ? "

Fighter : "Buffing my staff here. Just let them approach to get their deserved smacking."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I like Shillelagh a lot because it is a powerful buff that is self-only

:-D

It would be tons of fun to play

Fighter: "Do you have anything to enhance my combat skills, my friend?"

Spellcaster: "Yeah, sure! I do have this spell which... oh noes, it only works on my weapon! I am so sorry I can't give you more damage! Seems Like I'll have to properly contribute myself... how unfortunate..."

TBT my current Shillelagh-user is a Fighter with Magus MC.

Other PCs : "Why aren't you charging and attacking like a proper Fighter ? "

Fighter : "Buffing my staff here. Just let them approach to get their deserved smacking."

Well served Sir.

Also... by lvl 8 you'll be also able to get shift blame, in order to turn a critical spellstrike into "It wasn't me, it clearly was the rogue right there" ( or any other character who made fun of your fighter :d ).


The Raven Black wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I like Shillelagh a lot because it is a powerful buff that is self-only

:-D

It would be tons of fun to play

Fighter: "Do you have anything to enhance my combat skills, my friend?"

Spellcaster: "Yeah, sure! I do have this spell which... oh noes, it only works on my weapon! I am so sorry I can't give you more damage! Seems Like I'll have to properly contribute myself... how unfortunate..."

TBT my current Shillelagh-user is a Fighter with Magus MC.

Other PCs : "Why aren't you charging and attacking like a proper Fighter ? "

Fighter : "Buffing my staff here. Just let them approach to get their deserved smacking."

How did you get Shillelagh for that build? Adaptive Adept?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I like Shillelagh a lot because it is a powerful buff that is self-only

:-D

It would be tons of fun to play

Fighter: "Do you have anything to enhance my combat skills, my friend?"

Spellcaster: "Yeah, sure! I do have this spell which... oh noes, it only works on my weapon! I am so sorry I can't give you more damage! Seems Like I'll have to properly contribute myself... how unfortunate..."

TBT my current Shillelagh-user is a Fighter with Magus MC.

Other PCs : "Why aren't you charging and attacking like a proper Fighter ? "

Fighter : "Buffing my staff here. Just let them approach to get their deserved smacking."

How did you get Shillelagh for that build? Adaptive Adept?

Assurance in Nature and Trick Magic Item.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So bards can't gish not because they're BAD at stuff, but just that they're so much better AT casting that hitting things with a sword is a waste of time?


The Raven Black wrote:
Gisher wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I like Shillelagh a lot because it is a powerful buff that is self-only

:-D

It would be tons of fun to play

Fighter: "Do you have anything to enhance my combat skills, my friend?"

Spellcaster: "Yeah, sure! I do have this spell which... oh noes, it only works on my weapon! I am so sorry I can't give you more damage! Seems Like I'll have to properly contribute myself... how unfortunate..."

TBT my current Shillelagh-user is a Fighter with Magus MC.

Other PCs : "Why aren't you charging and attacking like a proper Fighter ? "

Fighter : "Buffing my staff here. Just let them approach to get their deserved smacking."

How did you get Shillelagh for that build? Adaptive Adept?
Assurance in Nature and Trick Magic Item.

Clever! I never thought of that approach.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
So bards can't gish not because they're BAD at stuff, but just that they're so much better AT casting that hitting things with a sword is a waste of time?

Precisely, but you can definitely build around the occasional pot shot with a weapon.

For exemple in my agents of edgewatch game the bard used a build that went:

Warrior muse bard (for martial weapon proficiency)
As much strength as possible.
Marshall archetype
Sentinel archetype (for armor proficiency )

He would trigger his leadership aura, go into melee and cast spells with the occasional melee hit (because of the three action economy this works well as spells are two actions and a strike is one).

He also eventually nabbed mauler archetype and went true strike+power attack.

He was clearly not as effective as the champion, but occasionally got a good shot in.

You just have to manage your expectations on your efficiency vs pure martials.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Been mulling over this some more and was wondering what the major tradeoff would be between starting as an Oracle to using it as a multiclass.

It kind of feels like HumbleGamer's description really resonates with me, that playing a martially-oriented class with Oracle as a multiclass has very few, if any drawbacks, mechanically or narratively.


Your spells will be massively subpar as an archetypes caster (can't go above master, expert/master progression happen 5 levels later than for main casters, you're always 2 spell levels, at least, behind, your casting stat is probably not your key ability, you will have 1 slot of each spell level instead of 3 or 4)

These are very major drawbacks, but if you don't see them as so for what you want to do then good for you!


AlastarOG wrote:

Your spells will be massively subpar as an archetypes caster (can't go above master, expert/master progression happen 5 levels later than for main casters, you're always 2 spell levels, at least, behind, your casting stat is probably not your key ability, you will have 1 slot of each spell level instead of 3 or 4)

These are very major drawbacks, but if you don't see them as so for what you want to do then good for you!

Consider this divine spell list which cares about your Spell DC

Cantrips : Daze, Haunting Hymn, Divine Lance,
1st: Command, Fear, Sanctuary, Bane
2nd: Calm Emotions, Inner Radiance Torrent, Spiritual Weapon, Dispel Magic
3rd: Fear,
4th: Globe of Invulnerability, Spiritual Anamnesis, Divine Wrath
5th: Shadow Blast,
6th: Repulsion, Spirit Blast, True Seeing
7th: Sunburst
8th: Canticle of Everlasting Grief
9th: Overwhelming Presence,

Versus this divine spell list which doesn't much care

Cantrips: Forbidding Ward or Shield, Detect Magic, Light, Guidance
1st: Bless, Heal, Summon Lesser Servitor
2nd: Augury, Faerie Fire, Darkness
3rd: Circle of Protection, Heroism
4th: Air Walk, Freedom of Movement, Silence
5th: Drop Dead, Prying Eye, Summon Celestial
6th: Scintillating Safeguard
7th: Ethereal Jaunt,
8th: Antimagic Field, Discern Location, Divine Aura
9th: Crusade, Foresight

The second one is pretty good.


Gortle wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:

Your spells will be massively subpar as an archetypes caster (can't go above master, expert/master progression happen 5 levels later than for main casters, you're always 2 spell levels, at least, behind, your casting stat is probably not your key ability, you will have 1 slot of each spell level instead of 3 or 4)

These are very major drawbacks, but if you don't see them as so for what you want to do then good for you!

Consider this divine spell list which cares about your Spell DC

Cantrips : Daze, Haunting Hymn, Divine Lance,
1st: Command, Fear, Sanctuary, Bane
2nd: Calm Emotions, Inner Radiance Torrent, Spiritual Weapon, Dispel Magic
3rd: Fear,
4th: Globe of Invulnerability, Spiritual Anamnesis, Divine Wrath
5th: Shadow Blast,
6th: Repulsion, Spirit Blast, True Seeing
7th: Sunburst
8th: Canticle of Everlasting Grief
9th: Overwhelming Presence,

Versus this divine spell list which doesn't much care

Cantrips: Forbidding Ward or Shield, Detect Magic, Light, Guidance
1st: Bless, Heal, Summon Lesser Servitor
2nd: Augury, Faerie Fire, Darkness
3rd: Circle of Protection, Heroism
4th: Air Walk, Freedom of Movement, Silence
5th: Drop Dead, Prying Eye, Summon Celestial
6th: Scintillating Safeguard
7th: Ethereal Jaunt,
8th: Antimagic Field, Discern Location, Divine Aura
9th: Crusade, Foresight

The second one is pretty good.

No arguments from me! But you do lose out on the versatility of doing both, and that's an opportunity cost!


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Been mulling over this some more and was wondering what the major tradeoff would be between starting as an Oracle to using it as a multiclass.

It kind of feels like HumbleGamer's description really resonates with me, that playing a martially-oriented class with Oracle as a multiclass has very few, if any drawbacks, mechanically or narratively.

I swear I couldn't find me in this thread talking about the oracle as a multiclass ( which I consider mechanically clunky, though oracles would add flavor regardless the situation ) or saying anything about the advantages of taking the oracle dedication.

What I meant to say before:

I mentioned before that the oracle class has, imo, its value because it gives you for free ( and 1 level earlier ) the refocusing feats, and also because, apart from a bunch of them, I don't really like the oracle feats.

What I was saying is that giving an oracle, you are free to get any other archetype you might like ( even without considering your mystery ), so I could take the bastion dedication without think "I had to give up stuff for it".

Oracle as dedication would make you permanently flat footed ( after using a cursebound spell ), if you plan to go with cursebound stuff ( focus spells ), but more important it doesn't offer anything unique in terms of mechanics ( being permanently flat footed is more a "permanent condition" rather than a double edge feat you'd like to deal with ).

Plus, as AlastarOG mentioned, your spells would be more like a joke.

I'd stick with a class which gives a focus pool and refocusing x2 ( champion hits it by lvl 10, oracle by lvl 11, any other class with that feature by lvl 12, wizard by lvl 14 because reasons ) and then try to get a 3/3 pool ( extra focus/spells through familiar, ancestry feats, items, etc... ), but since you mentionend buffing allies, I think the bard might be the best solution ( spells, focus pool, composition ), if you want to play that kind of character since the beginning, or consider getting the bard archetype later on a martial ( it's up to you how much you want to be versatile and how much you care about your combatskills ).

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh...that's my fault, I completely forgot you'd clarified that for me...Sorry!

Now I got more thinking to do...

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I gotta say, I'm finding there's an unspoken pressure, whether intentional or otherwise, for the different classes to "stay in their lane" so to speak. It's frustrating to navigate for someone like me who kind of has a compulsion to play characters who can fill any niche, whether that's with swords, spells or skills, so we're not barred from any specific quest or stuff because we lack a particular skill or spell and stuff. And like I said, swords are cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I gotta say, I'm finding there's an unspoken pressure, whether intentional or otherwise, for the different classes to "stay in their lane" so to speak. It's frustrating to navigate for someone like me who kind of has a compulsion to play characters who can fill any niche, whether that's with swords, spells or skills, so we're not barred from any specific quest or stuff because we lack a particular skill or spell and stuff. And like I said, swords are cool.

Oh yeah that's definitely on purpose.

Characters in pf2e are specialists and you optimise through party composition not by everyone being good at everything.

It is literally impossible to do a character who's good at everything in pf2e, you can at best make characters who are passable at most things with a few areas of specialization (like an eldritch scoundrel rogue... Lotsa skills, decent fighting, some spellcasting, but you kinda suck compared to other rogues because you took your class focus and got spellcasting with it).

That being said there is no "lockout" quest in pf2e at least how the material is printed. Most challenges can be overcome by different skills. If you don't have thievery there's often another skill involved or you can destroy the trap or just facetank it. Social challenges can be overcome through other skills but are better if you have a specialist etc. Etc. You're not gonna miss a quest because of someone not having the one skill, just maybe be less good at one part of the AP if there's an oversight.

Now of course it's possible you just want to be good at everything cause it makes you feel good, and that's valid, but then maybe pf2e just ain't the right system for that.

I like it that way because making Uber characters that were good at everything was kinda getting boring. Also they were always casters because casters were better than everyone else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I gotta say, I'm finding there's an unspoken pressure, whether intentional or otherwise, for the different classes to "stay in their lane" so to speak. It's frustrating to navigate for someone like me who kind of has a compulsion to play characters who can fill any niche, whether that's with swords, spells or skills, so we're not barred from any specific quest or stuff because we lack a particular skill or spell and stuff. And like I said, swords are cool.

It may be difficult for someone who comes from a previous edition ( for example either 1e or 3.0/3.5 ) to accept that hybrids no longer exist.

I'd probably try to start with a character idea, rather than looking at what every class has to offer.

Being proficient with skills, spells and combat stuff is not unaffordable though.

For example:

A magus with the rogue or investigator dedication could fit what you are looking for.

Being a good combatant, relying on strong arcane spells and focus powers, and the dedication will allow you to get feats to enhance your skill rank and also get extra skill feats.

The blessed one dedication may give you access to lay on hand ( if you prefer to have healing spells) or you can go with the witch dedication to get a familiar and life boost ( a fast healing focus spell you can use on any target).

I'd write down 4/5 things you want, then ranking them. Finally remove the 2 you like the least ( let's say you'll eventually save them for higher levels or, eventually, you'll renounce to them).


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I gotta say, I'm finding there's an unspoken pressure, whether intentional or otherwise, for the different classes to "stay in their lane" so to speak. It's frustrating to navigate for someone like me who kind of has a compulsion to play characters who can fill any niche, whether that's with swords, spells or skills, so we're not barred from any specific quest or stuff because we lack a particular skill or spell and stuff. And like I said, swords are cool.

There are generalist characters. Druid, War Priest, Inventor. But its a game for a party of PCs specialisation makes sense for most characters.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Needing the other PCs in the party is a feature, not a bug.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gortle wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I gotta say, I'm finding there's an unspoken pressure, whether intentional or otherwise, for the different classes to "stay in their lane" so to speak. It's frustrating to navigate for someone like me who kind of has a compulsion to play characters who can fill any niche, whether that's with swords, spells or skills, so we're not barred from any specific quest or stuff because we lack a particular skill or spell and stuff. And like I said, swords are cool.
There are generalist characters. Druid, War Priest, Inventor. But its a game for a party of PCs specialisation makes sense for most characters.

Doesn't Warpriest have a reputation as being so terrible that Cloistered Cleric is essentially the ONLY Cleric doctrine worth playing?


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Gortle wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I gotta say, I'm finding there's an unspoken pressure, whether intentional or otherwise, for the different classes to "stay in their lane" so to speak. It's frustrating to navigate for someone like me who kind of has a compulsion to play characters who can fill any niche, whether that's with swords, spells or skills, so we're not barred from any specific quest or stuff because we lack a particular skill or spell and stuff. And like I said, swords are cool.
There are generalist characters. Druid, War Priest, Inventor. But its a game for a party of PCs specialisation makes sense for most characters.
Doesn't Warpriest have a reputation as being so terrible that Cloistered Cleric is essentially the ONLY Cleric doctrine worth playing?

They are !

It's more like cloistered cleric nabbing champion dedication is better in every single way than war priest.

A good fix in the homebrew forum I found is to give warpriest martial proficiency progression and bound casting as well as Key ability (Str&Wis) (like a magus).

But that requires GM approval.


Now now... warpriests are good at doing what they are required to do.

Join into the fray with other combatants, in order to trade blows and deal damage.

They are sturdy, with nice saves, while maintaining all you can get with a cloistered one ( apart from their spellcasting proficiency, which is traded for juggernaut, which is glorious as a melee character ).

What a warpriest can achieve:

Pros

Quote:

+ Same AC proficiency as any other combatant ( apart fighter/magus which get their 2 level earlier, and ranger/inventor which gets expert by lvl 11)

But the majority of combatants the same as a warpriest, until they hit lvl 19, until lvl 19 ( lvl 19-20 they will be 1 proficiency rank behind ).

+ Good AC ( they easily get Heavy armor proficiency, as well as the bastion archetype )

+ Good saves ( Master in will by lvl 7, master in fort by lvl 15 )

+ Good spellcasting ( they'll get the same spells as a cloistered one )

Cons

Quote:


- Low spellcasting DC ( this will only kick in if you use offensive spells on the enemies and if you want to counteract effects, like cure disease, dispel magic, etc... ). If you limit yourself with buffing your allies and healing them, you won't have any issue.

- Low attack ( starting from lvl 13, they are going to suffer a little more compared to martial classes. It's a -3 for lvl 13/14, then a -2 until lvl 20 ). You can deal with it in different ways, but consider you are a cleric after all ( so it's normal for a spellcaster to to be slightly behind a pure combatant )

In my opinion, a wapriest can be god given its amount of versatility, though it mostly depends on the deity ( weapon, bonus spells, domain spells and so on).

Unfortunately being tied to a deity is clunky as hell, resulting some deities to be better for cloistered and others for warpriests.

But if you want to build a warpriest and are open to different deities ( I mean, "you don't want a specific one" ), then you are set.

Dark Archive

From what you are saying, OP, it sounds like what you would want the most is a champion and then to take the Deity's Domain feat to get something from Torag or Yuelral. That would probably be the closest you can get to your character concept. And then you could pick up Oracle as you archetype and choose spell casting instead of looking to use the curses since they would be detrimental in combat.

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Age of Ashes Dwarf-Half-Elf All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.