I think we need to put our readers up front. What do we imagine to be most useful people who come to this guide?
I imagine that someone wants to know how effective a class is “in general” as well as when it’s been optimized.
Yeah, I think the fundamental goal is to be useful, not responsive to irrelevant theorycraft about how bad you can make something.
There is a fair question about how to handle classes with finite spell access attempting to contribute outside their ‘chosen field’. But I think saying “a wizard who doesn’t select any summoning spells can’t summon” is unhelpful. It costs very negligible character resources for an arbitrary wizard to add a summoning spell to his book and prepare it (or multiple instances) in a given day. Given that Generic or Otherwise Optimized Wizard may have selected conjuration as an opposition school or neglected to add any summoning spells, it may make sense to penalize her slightly relative to Generic or Otherwise Optimized Cleric (who has all the spells built in) on that basis, but that would be a very small (half pointish) difference to me. Generic or Otherwise Optimized Sorcerer is slightly worse off than said Wizard, but still slightly. “Can I contribute via summons if I optimize as a blaster?” Answer isn’t “No.”, it’s “Yes, just need a spell to use.”
IluzryMage wrote: Arkham Joker wrote: IluzryMage wrote: I mean...but in that case the minimum for a wizard would be 0 because you can totally just...not get a summoning spell. . Now you're just being either an annoying pedant or deliberately obtuse... either way stop it or leave the thread. I've no time for childish nonsense.
Yes, yes... every class should have a minimum score of 0 as they could "choose" to pick the worst spells, have no armour, no weapons, pick the worst feats, have no items and give all their money away to the donkey shelter.
Grow up. Also in this case, if a wizard lets say, had a score of 11 and so did a druid, a wizard COULDNT choose a summoning spell, whereas the druid still has summon monster class feature...which is a meaningful difference! Here is a more relevant example of something that somebody might actually make as a result of optimizing something else: A Sorcerer who didn't take any summoning spells in their Repertoire(*) because they needed it all for battlefield control, blasting, buffing, debuffing, and other defenses. This is a perfectly valid build, and doesn't even depend upon some weird archetype. A less common but still perfectly valid and playable example: A Thassilonian (Sin Magic) Specialist (hello, weird archetype) in Evocation (Wrath) or Illusion (Pride), both of which have Conjuration (Sloth) as one of their Prohibited (not just Opposition) Schools.
(*)2nd Edition terminology -- so sue me
Something like this could potentially dump a caster's rating for something (summoning in the above example) to 0. To avoid this, we should have the minimum rating not include dumping something, even though that might be a valid thing to do. In the combat example I gave earlier, that would include not dumping Strength (which likewise is considered a valid thing to do in most 9/9 arcane caster guides, although not so often in 9/9 divine caster guides). Maybe add a note to the minimum ratings of relevant classes to indicate that you can go lower by dumping in a valid build, especially if you are trying hard to optimize something else.
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: I think we need to put our readers up front. What do we imagine to be most useful people who come to this guide? Yes, this. It's not realistic to assume that any caster would have a casting stat too low to actually cast spells, because nobody plays that way. It's also not realistic to assume that someone interested in (say) comparing blaster casters didn't pick blasting spells, because nobody plays that way either.
In other words, the minimum rating should not be for a character who deliberately picks the weakest options possible, because that's not useful to readers.
UnArcaneElection wrote: A less common but still perfectly valid and playable example: A Thassilonian (Sin Magic) Specialist (hello, weird archetype) in Evocation (Wrath) or Illusion (Pride), That's a good reason for the earlier suggestion of comparing base classes, not archetypes.
I crib heavily from the excellent guide "Bell, Book & Candle" to rate the Oracle.
What did I get right or wrong?
Casters Compared
I also added to the Druid section (from Iluzry) the fact that Lion Shaman, et al, get standard action Summon Nature's Ally for their critter type. And getting lions on the field a round early is a massive effect when most encounters are decided within the first 3-4 rounds.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Some tweaks to the Blaster and Item sections..... 'Critter Cleric' is up next!
Regarding domains - almost any non-Cleric blasting spell can be sourced if you look around which further complicates things when building.
And looking at deity choices (see previous):
- Shizuru gets you Color Spray (technically a de-buff but worth mentioning, especially since you can cast it spontaneously), Scorching Ray and Prismatic Spray.
- Hei-Feng gets you Lightning Bolt
- Moloch gets you Flame Arrow
- Worship a GOO/OG and you of course get the always useful Dreamed Secrets. And this if you already have a decent set of domains, could be your best option since you will likely only need 1 or 2 spells to top you off.
- Rovagug gets you the amazing boon, ‘Destructive Spell (Su)’ for an aspiring Divine Paragon blaster - in essence it’s like (and possibly still better than) a Greater, Greater, Greater Spell Focus for blasters! Stack it with the actual Spell Focus feats and your enemy has no chance of passing that save DC. Would pair up brilliantly with being a Samsaran.
So in general here is how I would approach building a ‘blaster Cleric’:
First, you have to apply your race template depending on your specific plan. These are my go-to’s:
1) Human - extra feat, great FCB and useful alternate racial abilities
2) Dwarf - good stat boosts and great survivability
3) Aasimar - perfect stat boosts and access to Consecrate Spell
4) Lava Gnome/Magma Ifrit - boosts Fire/Ash domain potential
5) Tiefling - Good stat boosts, great FCB and useful alternate racial abilities
6) Samsaran - Good stat boosts, excellent spell poaching ability
Next apply your archetype.
1) Theologian - all in to the Fire/Ash domain and maxing damage and Wall of Ashes utility, but make sure you incorporate Elemental Spell into your build somehow to give you options as you reach the mid-levels. Thanks to some free MM
2) Ecclesitheurge - if you want the widest spell selection possible to give you options all the way from 1 -20.
3) Divine Paragon - I would only take this if I was a Rovagug worshipper to get free and early access to ‘Destructive Spell’ as this is a superb boost to Blasters as its applies to ALL blast spells as opposed to just one school (e.g Evocation).
4) Idealist (Plane of Fire) - +2 CL on your fire spells via Invoke Realm and spontaneous - Produce Flame, Wall of Fire, and Delayed Blast Fireball. Stacks with Theologian and Divine Paragon and PFS legal, so you may as well take it anyway. A definite booster.
Plan your specific feats/traits.
1) Dreamed Secrets - needs good WIS investment for the save, but functions like the Samsaran template, albeit smaller in number but wider in option and applicable to any race.
2) Metamagic reducers - a must have but remember you only get two. IMO for most blast spells it’s not worth giving up more than an extra level in slots for a spell - ie) an Empowered, Elemental Spell Fireball is worth a 4th level slot (factoring in your 2 MM reducers), but an Empowered, Persistent Spell Fireball is not worth a 5th level slot IMO. But hey if you’re going all in then maybe it’s to your taste?!
3) MM feats - yes of course you can buy MM rods to partly get round this, but then that’s another conversation due to cost, availability….etc. Alongside the above, you have Rime Spell (+1) which would pair excellently with Flurry of Snowballs if you were using the Samsaran template. Reach Spell (+1) has many uses and I have found it particularly useful paired with Harm for a Blaster build, since this is on the basic spell list and builds in some extra ability for the mid-levels onwards. Furious Spell (+1) is a good one to pair up with Fireball, granting you a +6 damage bonus to the damage total.
3) Vile domain - getting that Fireball CL higher!
4) Flumefire Rage - now this is only going to be of real worth to the dedicated Fire/Ash domain blaster due to its requirements - ie) CHA 15, Spell Focus, Mage’s Tattoo. Human could well be the best choice to help with the feat cost. Fortunately as a Cleric with your good Fort save, you should be able to avoid the Fatigue (DC 18 for Fireball) - curiously, this point can make this feat more useable for you than a Wiz/Sorc. It does lead onto the further potential tie-in with the spell Rage which can be accessed with a few of the domains/subdomains - although this does then have an action economy cost and also means that you can only cast damaging fire-based spells whilst it’s in effect. But then again +2 hp per die might well be worth it for you build; so it comes down to specifics.
Overall, it’s fair to say, if you know what you’re doing, the Cleric can make a very good blaster. HOWEVER, ultimately it can never truly get top tier, even when specialised, when compared to a Wiz/Sorc (whom I view as equal for differing reasons) due to its lack of bonus feats. Having extra feats or specialised blaster Arcane School/Bloodline abilities is what gives them the little bit of extra polish that they need to excel.
Obsessing about getting Spell Perfection sorted at 15th level isn't what makes a great Blaster IMO... after all blasting as a method (especially elemental types) begins to decline in efficiency notably past mid-levels. You need to make sure you can do decent damage reliably throughout your PC career.
As always though, what makes the Cleric so useful is that even if you do hyper-specialise in a given role within your party, you can still perform many other roles pretty decently as a side-hustle!
Void Shard - 250 gp
Effect - When you use a void crystal as a material component or focus for a spell of the necromancy school, the target takes a –2 penalty on saves against the spell.
A great item for any necro-Cleric and priced reasonably enough to make purchasing and using regularly definitely worthy at mid-high levels.
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: I crib heavily from the excellent guide "Bell, Book & Candle" to rate the Oracle.
What did I get right or wrong?
Casters Compared
Looking pretty good, although it's funny how much more massive the Cleric section is than all the others.
I just remembered one tweak that should be made to Oracle and Shaman: While most divine casters have good Fortitude Saves, Oracle and Shaman don't. This makes it a bit harder to avoid dying or being incapacitated by combat with something that does poison or some other kind of Bad Touch (not all of those hit Fortitude, but some do), thereby putting them in partially the same boat as the arcane casters (although still having better hit dice and for the most part being able to wear armor while the arcane casters by default can't). Also, although they all technically have good Will Saves, the Oracle (not Shaman) is the one whose casting isn't Wisdom-based, and thereby has a worse Will Save than the other divine casters and is therefore more susceptible to the kind of Bad Touch that hits Will (again putting them in the same boat with the arcane casters, and this time more thoroughly so).
True.... and as I think mentioned somewhere in the Cleric section, the reality of the Shaman is that due to so many builds utilising Arcane Enlightenment (and also their inherent need for the FCB), they too won't likely have great Will saves either as if they don't put some kind of investment into their physical stats, they become very vulnerable.
Arkham Joker wrote: Some tweaks to the Blaster and Item sections..... 'Critter Cleric' is up next!
Regarding domains - almost any non-Cleric blasting spell can be sourced if you look around which further complicates things when building.
And looking at deity choices (see previous):
- Shizuru gets you Color Spray (technically a de-buff but worth mentioning, especially since you can cast it spontaneously), Scorching Ray and Prismatic Spray.
- Hei-Feng gets you Lightning Bolt
- Moloch gets you Flame Arrow
- Worship a GOO/OG and you of course get the always useful Dreamed Secrets. And this if you already have a decent set of domains, could be your best option since you will likely only need 1 or 2 spells to top you off.
- Rovagug gets you the amazing boon, ‘Destructive Spell (Su)’ for an aspiring Divine Paragon blaster - in essence it’s like (and possibly still better than) a Greater, Greater, Greater Spell Focus for blasters! Stack it with the actual Spell Focus feats and your enemy has no chance of passing that save DC. Would pair up brilliantly with being a Samsaran.
So in general here is how I would approach building a ‘blaster Cleric’:
First, you have to apply your race template depending on your specific plan. These are my go-to’s:
1) Human - extra feat, great FCB and useful alternate racial abilities
2) Dwarf - good stat boosts and great survivability
3) Aasimar - perfect stat boosts and access to Consecrate Spell
4) Lava Gnome/Magma Ifrit - boosts Fire/Ash domain potential
5) Tiefling - Good stat boosts, great FCB and useful alternate racial abilities
6) Samsaran - Good stat boosts, excellent spell poaching ability
Next apply your archetype.
1) Theologian - all in to the Fire/Ash domain and maxing damage and Wall of Ashes utility, but make sure you incorporate Elemental Spell into your build somehow to give you options as you reach the mid-levels. Thanks to some free MM
2) Ecclesitheurge - if you want the widest spell selection possible to give you options all the way from 1 -20....
Thanks Arkham. Does this replace your previous "blaster" entry, or extend it?
UnArcaneElection wrote: Northern Spotted Owl wrote: I crib heavily from the excellent guide "Bell, Book & Candle" to rate the Oracle.
What did I get right or wrong?
Casters Compared
Looking pretty good, although it's funny how much more massive the Cleric section is than all the others.
I just remembered one tweak that should be made to Oracle and Shaman: While most divine casters have good Fortitude Saves, Oracle and Shaman don't. This makes it a bit harder to avoid dying or being incapacitated by combat with something that does poison or some other kind of Bad Touch (not all of those hit Fortitude, but some do), thereby putting them in partially the same boat as the arcane casters (although still having better hit dice and for the most part being able to wear armor while the arcane casters by default can't). Also, although they all technically have good Will Saves, the Oracle (not Shaman) is the one whose casting isn't Wisdom-based, and thereby has a worse Will Save than the other divine casters and is therefore more susceptible to the kind of Bad Touch that hits Will (again putting them in the same boat with the arcane casters, and this time more thoroughly so).
Hmm. I hadn't really considered saving throws. Should that have its own category? It's pretty easy to populate if we want to add it, since it's just a combination of which saves you have and whether you'll have a particularly good wis/dex/con. In this case mostly wis.
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: .... Both!
From ...."Regarding domains..."
Replaces the same bit (and onwards) in the blaster section/document. Everything before stays the same.
Obviously the Void Shard bit needs to go in the item section.
Cheers
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Arkham Joker wrote: Northern Spotted Owl wrote: .... Both!
From ...."Regarding domains..."
Replaces the same bit (and onwards) in the blaster section/document. Everything before stays the same.
Obviously the Void Shard bit needs to go in the item section.
Cheers
Got it. Updated.
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: Hmm. I hadn't really considered saving throws. Should that have its own category? It's pretty easy to populate if we want to add it, since it's just a combination of which saves you have and whether you'll have a particularly good wis/dex/con. In this case mostly wis. I suppose "defense" as a whole should cover that (i.e. armor class, hit points, and saves). I'm not so sure that medium armor is actually better than the Mage Armor spell though, considering most arcane casters probably want a decent dex anyway. But that's an easy thing to do math for.
Arcanist has a few defensive exploits that the wizard doesn't get, so he may actually be ahead in defense.
Kurald Galain wrote: Northern Spotted Owl wrote: Hmm. I hadn't really considered saving throws. Should that have its own category? It's pretty easy to populate if we want to add it, since it's just a combination of which saves you have and whether you'll have a particularly good wis/dex/con. In this case mostly wis. I suppose "defense" as a whole should cover that (i.e. armor class, hit points, and saves). I'm not so sure that medium armor is actually better than the Mage Armor spell though, considering most arcane casters probably want a decent dex anyway. But that's an easy thing to do math for.
Arcanist has a few defensive exploits that the wizard doesn't get, so he may actually be ahead in defense. +5 mithral breastplate is +11 allowing what, +6 Dex bonus?
I don’t think most casters would be limited by a +6 ceiling.
I was thinking of Saves more in terms of being for Combat, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt for Defense (not just Saves(*)) to have its own category.
(*)All of the 9/9 casters have good Will Saves, although the Wisdom-based ones have very good Will Saves; all of them have bad Reflex Saves (which might be mitigated somewhat by Dexterity); the arcane casters, Oracle, and Shaman have bad Fortitude Saves, which significantly hurts for being in combat; the other divine casters have good Fortitude Saves.
A general defense category would be overlapping quite a bit with buffing, though, since a lot of 9/9 casters' defenses are spells (some of which can even be used on others), and for this the Sorcerer/Wizard list really shines in the low levels.
Lelomenia wrote: +5 mithral breastplate is +11 allowing what, +6 Dex bonus? Well, since the aim of the guide is to give practical advice, let's focus on the levels people most commonly play at (1-10, mostly), and not at level 20. People probably won't have +5 items at that point.
UnArcaneElection wrote: I was thinking of Saves more in terms of being for Combat, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt for Defense (not just Saves(*)) to have its own category.
(*)All of the 9/9 casters have good Will Saves, although the Wisdom-based ones have very good Will Saves; all of them have bad Reflex Saves (which might be mitigated somewhat by Dexterity); the arcane casters, Oracle, and Shaman have bad Fortitude Saves, which significantly hurts for being in combat; the other divine casters have good Fortitude Saves.
A general defense category would be overlapping quite a bit with buffing, though, since a lot of 9/9 casters' defenses are spells (some of which can even be used on others), and for this the Sorcerer/Wizard list really shines in the low levels.
I lean toward a Saves category if we're going to add anything, since that doesn't overlap with either Melee Combat nor with Buffing. It would also be very quick to pull together.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I added scores & commentary for the Arcanist. I cribbed from Iluzry's guide, but I've never even been in a party with an arcanist, much less played one. Tell me what I got wrong boys & girls.
The guide.
UnArcane -- I added a note to your entry under wizard/utility.
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: {. . .}
The guide.
UnArcane -- I added a note to your entry under wizard/utility.
The Guide wrote: {. . .}
(Owl’s note – the exploiter wizard with quick study pushes the utility over the top. Is that our only 11?) {. . .}
Maybe . . . but then you've got to say Brown Fur Transmuter Arcanist takes buffing to 11, especially with (but not limited to) Share Transmutation.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I added a Control tab to the ratings spreadsheet and listed out some of the better control spells. Just eyeballing this it looks to me as though the tiers are:
wizard/sorc
druid
shaman & witch (rough tie)
cleric
What am I missing? Are some of these spells niche enough or too 2nd tier-ish? Are there others I'm (likely) missing?
Ratings
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: I added a Control tab to the ratings spreadsheet and listed out some of the better control spells. Just eyeballing this it looks to me as though the tiers are:
wizard/sorc
druid
shaman & witch (rough tie)
cleric
What am I missing? Are some of these spells niche enough or too 2nd tier-ish? Are there others I'm (likely) missing?
Ratings
The Cleric is bottom tier in control?!? Me thinks someone hasn't read my guide/Bible.....
And a quick note - the Cleric spell list has to be rated at 9 not 8. It is the 2nd largest in both quantity and quality and has the advantage over even the Wizard in that the entire spell selection can be changed every day, and finally it is accessed at the earliest level possible (ie a level ahead of spont casters).
Arkham Joker wrote: Northern Spotted Owl wrote: I added a Control tab to the ratings spreadsheet and listed out some of the better control spells. Just eyeballing this it looks to me as though the tiers are:
wizard/sorc
druid
shaman & witch (rough tie)
cleric
What am I missing? Are some of these spells niche enough or too 2nd tier-ish? Are there others I'm (likely) missing?
Ratings
The Cleric is bottom tier in control?!? Me thinks someone hasn't read my guide/Bible.....
And a quick note - the Cleric spell list has to be rated at 9 not 8. It is the 2nd largest in both quantity and quality and has the advantage over even the Wizard in that the entire spell selection can be changed every day, and finally it is accessed at the earliest level possible (ie a level ahead of spont casters). That's before considering class details such as domains or archetypes. I'm just looking at what the base spell list brings to bear for control. It's also not considering the prepared vs spontaneous caster detail you bring up.
I did look at your write-up on control and included spells from that that seemed broadly applicable. E.g. grasping corpse can't reliably be counted on. But, if I missed key spells please call them out and I'll happily add them. I post this stuff because I expect that I'll miss details.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I added a sheet for Combat. I'm inclined to separate out the classes a bit on their respective upper ends:
Druid 10
Cleric, Oracle 8
Shaman 6
Arcanist, Sorc, Witch 3
Wizard 1
Thoughts?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: I added a sheet for Combat. I'm inclined to separate out the classes a bit on their respective upper ends:
Druid 10
Cleric, Oracle 8
Shaman 6
Arcanist, Sorc, Witch 3
Wizard 1
Thoughts?
Being that I am the one doing the Cleric stuff can you take out the scores for Critters and Utility since I haven't actually done them yet!
And regarding Combat, I genuinely think there is only a hair's breadth difference between Cleric and Druid at the maximum end. And quite possibly they are equal (as stated in the guide).
Cleric gets better weapons, armour, race options and Combat spells for starters, and has more ways of healing themselves in combat effectively.
A Cleric can also access an AC easily too. Throw in all the various other options outlined in the guide and there really is nothing in it.
Also you cant just auto lump Cleric/Oracle together for obvious reasons.
To be brutally honest, my Cleric guide must be used as the basis for ALL things Cleric within the document.... no ifs buts or maybes. Its probably one of the most comprehensive on the entire internet.
If other people disagree with the assessments in my guide then it is up to them to identify where they think the faults are. It is NOT up to me to constantly have to reference it!
In summary... my guide is the Cleric gospel and thus if there are no significant identifiable flaws in a given section, then that's that!
Ps Kindly change the Cleric spell list rating to a 9
Cheers
Arkham, have you actually posted a link to this guide you are so proud of? I have searched your post history for "Https" (which will show links included in URL tags, by the by), and there is no link to it...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
pad300 wrote: Arkham, have you actually posted a link to this guide you are so proud of? I have searched your post history for "Https" (which will show links included in URL tags, by the by), and there is no link to it...
It's currently in the Comparing Casters document. I imagine that Arkham will extract it to its own guide, and then we'll just link to that.
Arkham -- I haven't changed any ratings, I'm just opening up the topic. And I'd love to get baseline ratings for the cleric from you too. Right now we have a lot of ?-9 or ?-10 ratings, which aren't as helpful to our target audience as I'd like this guide to be.
Broadly I think that now that we have ratings for each of the 9/9 casters (except the Psychic, and a contribution there is certainly welcome) we need to go through each category and "normalize" the ratings.
If the cleric is in fact just behind the druid in combat then a 9 sounds right. Do folks broadly agree with that? And laying out these classes in order, does this look right for combat:
Druid 8-10
Cleric ?-9
Oracle 6-9
Shaman 3-6
Witch 1-4
Arcanist 1-3
Sorcerer 1-3
Wizard 1-1
I'd expect the baseline rating for cleric, oracle & shaman to be reasonably close, but we have cleric unrated, oracle at 6, and shaman at 3. The shaman drops a bit because she's much more likely to put her FCB into additional spells rather than HP, but 3 vs 6 seems like quite a bit.
What should we adjust here? Or does this look spot-on to folks?
^I would have been inclined to put the Witch 1 step below the Sorcerer and Arcanist due to not having as good a list of low-level self-defense spells(*). Maybe even put the Sorcerer 1 step above the Arcanist due to being able to have more spells left over for other stuff (even at low levels) than the Arcanist after casting all those self-defense spells. (Plus, a handful of Bloodlines have Claws or Bad Touch powers that are actually decent for Combat -- Ghoul is the poster child for this, although even this would be much better on a martial who got it through Eldritch Heritage or VMC Sorcerer, than on an actual Sorcerer).
(*)Wizard also has these spells, but not as many castings as the Sorcerer, and out of the box has almost no non-magical offensive or support combat ability, so has no reason to be near melee combat range, even at low levels.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
UnArcaneElection wrote: ^I would have been inclined to put the Witch 1 step below the Sorcerer and Arcanist due to not having as good a list of low-level self-defense spells(*). Maybe even put the Sorcerer 1 step above the Arcanist due to being able to have more spells left over for other stuff (even at low levels) than the Arcanist after casting all those self-defense spells. (Plus, a handful of Bloodlines have Claws or Bad Touch powers that are actually decent for Combat -- Ghoul is the poster child for this, although even this would be much better on a martial who got it through Eldritch Heritage or VMC Sorcerer, than on an actual Sorcerer).
(*)Wizard also has these spells, but not as many castings as the Sorcerer, and out of the box has almost no non-magical offensive or support combat ability, so has no reason to be near melee combat range, even at low levels.
More like this?
Druid 8-10
Cleric ?-9
Oracle 6-9
Shaman 3-6
Witch 1-4 <-- ranges from terrible to white-haired witch
Arcanist 2-3 <-- pretty terrible to blade adept
Sorcerer 2-3 <-- pretty terrible to ghoul bloodline
Wizard 1-1 <-- just terrible
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Doompatrol wrote: If we go to the basics, ignoring archetypes and other potentially balance changing optional features, I've always thought this is how paizo view it. I don't think that's quite right... I'd go with
Spell Casting
1. Wizard
2. Druid
3. Sorcerer
4. Cleric
Because druid excels at battlefield control (including no-SR variants), self-buffs, and utility; and they have some decent debuffs available too. Cleric list just doesn't hold up to that until you get to pretty high level (above where most campaigns end), except of course that cleric is the best at healing.
Class Features
1. Druid
2. Wizard
3. Cleric
4. Sorcerer
For class features, because some of the wizard's school powers are very powerful (e.g. conjuration's teleport or evocation's energy swap), and generally better than domain powers. I'm generally unimpressed by most sorcerer bloodlines although there are some standout exceptions like orc/draconic. But really nothing compares to the druid's shapeshift PLUS animal companion PLUS miscellaneous extra abilities (like poison immunity).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Northern Spotted Owl wrote:
Druid 8-10
Cleric ?-9
Oracle 6-9
Shaman 3-6
Witch 1-4 <-- ranges from terrible to white-haired witch
Arcanist 2-3 <-- pretty terrible to blade adept
Sorcerer 2-3 <-- pretty terrible to ghoul bloodline
Wizard 1-1 <-- just terrible
I'd rate cleric and oracle a bit lower than 9, because druid has shapeshift AND buff spells AND his animal, and that's really such a big advantage that I don't see cleric or oracle getting that close.
Note that arcanist also gets Armored Mask, which is an immediate-action defense boost. And I agree with UAE that witch should rank lower because she has less good defensive spells.
Bottom line for cleric is probably the cloistered cleric (no medium armor and no simple weapon proficiency) which is below the oracle's 6, at least.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kurald Galain wrote: Northern Spotted Owl wrote:
Druid 8-10
Cleric ?-9
Oracle 6-9
Shaman 3-6
Witch 1-4 <-- ranges from terrible to white-haired witch
Arcanist 2-3 <-- pretty terrible to blade adept
Sorcerer 2-3 <-- pretty terrible to ghoul bloodline
Wizard 1-1 <-- just terrible
I'd rate cleric and oracle a bit lower than 9, because druid has shapeshift AND buff spells AND his animal, and that's really such a big advantage that I don't see cleric or oracle getting that close.
Note that arcanist also gets Armored Mask, which is an immediate-action defense boost. And I agree with UAE that witch should rank lower because she has less good defensive spells.
Bottom line for cleric is probably the cloistered cleric (no medium armor and no simple weapon proficiency) which is below the oracle's 6, at least. Arcanist -- Does Armored Mask bump this up to a "generic arcanist" score of 3 or better? I have that at 2, and Blade Adept only moving it up to 3.
Witch -- She's a 1 in general, maybe a 2 with Prehensile Hair, and a 4 as a White-Haired Witch. (Mind you WHW is a terrible idea, since you'd much rather have hexes than a 4-out-of-10 among casters combat efficiency.)
Cleric -- We want to start with a default/generic cleric for our base score, rather than the Cloistered.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: UnArcaneElection wrote: ^I would have been inclined to put the Witch 1 step below the Sorcerer and Arcanist due to not having as good a list of low-level self-defense spells(*). Maybe even put the Sorcerer 1 step above the Arcanist due to being able to have more spells left over for other stuff (even at low levels) than the Arcanist after casting all those self-defense spells. (Plus, a handful of Bloodlines have Claws or Bad Touch powers that are actually decent for Combat -- Ghoul is the poster child for this, although even this would be much better on a martial who got it through Eldritch Heritage or VMC Sorcerer, than on an actual Sorcerer).
(*)Wizard also has these spells, but not as many castings as the Sorcerer, and out of the box has almost no non-magical offensive or support combat ability, so has no reason to be near melee combat range, even at low levels.
More like this?
Druid 8-10
Cleric ?-9
Oracle 6-9
Shaman 3-6
Witch 1-4 <-- ranges from terrible to white-haired witch
Arcanist 2-3 <-- pretty terrible to blade adept
Sorcerer 2-3 <-- pretty terrible to ghoul bloodline
Wizard 1-1 <-- just terrible I have a hard time putting White-Haired Witch up that high unless you can figure out some way to keep them alive(*). Not having most of those self-defense spells that the Sorcerer, Arcanist, and even Wizard can get really hurts (but then the Wizard can't do much in the way of combat, although using additional spells and in some cases Arcane School abilities is another matter . . . but then that's no longer Combat, but Debuffing).
(*)RIP pre-Errata Scarred Witch Doctor, even though this was never compatible with the White-Haired Witch archetype.
Making a Blade Adept Arcanist actually decent requires a really specific build (here's my shot at this -- I'd welcome other attempts).
The thing about Sorcerer is that to just be useful support in Combat without being great at it, they don't have to invest much -- pick the self-defense spells that you're probably going to want anyway, have decent Dexterity and Constitution that you're probably going to want anyway, and spend a few gold pieces on a Longspear (and retain enough Strength so that you aren't Encumbered by it). Doesn't matter if you never actually hit anything as long as you provide decent Aid Another and Flanking service to the rest of your party(*), and are protected enough by your self-defense buffs so that you don't go down. You can make this better with more investment by being a Halfling with the Helpful trait, but Halfling is pretty good as a Sorcerer chassis anyway, and that's a pretty good trait for a Halfling to have anyway.
(*)Assuming you have a party that actually makes good use of this, of course.
Arcanist could do the same as Sorcerer above, but can't keep it up as long (fewer spells per day), and Wizard has to tie themselves into knots to do that.
Combat for an arcane 9/9 caster isn't about trying to substitute for a martial (which requires tying yourself in knots), but to offer them some useful support even when you aren't casting a spell or using an ability that has limited charges per day (especially if your adventuring day is longer than 15 minutes even at the low levels). And you want to do this with minimal investment in things that won't be useful later.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kurald Galain wrote:
I'd rate cleric and oracle a bit lower than 9, because druid has shapeshift AND buff spells AND his animal, and that's really such a big advantage that I don't see cleric or oracle getting that close.
Read the guide....
Cleric can get AC very easily (and in actual fact can get 2 AC via Animal and Scalykind domains) and still have another domain to play with, has much better buffing capability, better AC, better race options, better in-combat healing
The only advantage Druid has is wildshape and even that can be replicated partially by spells.
There are several Cleric domain abilities that make excellent combat boosters.
You have to remember the ratings have a minimum level and maximum level.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kurald Galain wrote:
Spell Casting
1. Wizard
2. Druid
3. Sorcerer
4. Cleric
Not in a million years! The overall Druid spell list is actually quite weak in several ways and I would in fact put Witch ahead of it.
To me, healing falls under the “Healing” rating, not “Combat.” Buffing falls under the “Buffing” rating, not combat (but self-only spells i would have under combat, not buffing, but worth asking for other opinions). Animal companions and summons i would count towards “Critters”, not Combat.
As for the ranges provided, Shaman 3-6 vs. Oracle (and Cleric) 6-9 is wrong. Around level 10, a not particularly optimized, essentially unbuffed Shaman archer is going to fire off 5-6 arrows for around 30ish damage each. I doubt an optimized cleric/oracle can match an optimized Shaman in archery (Bane is stronger than basically anything available to either, and i don’t know any in-class path for either to get to the Holy Grail of archery, Point Blank Mastery). But the 3-6 vs. 6-9 ranges suggests that optimized Shaman should be compared to Generic Unoptimized Oracle (or unoptimized cleric). Who is likely going to swinging a longspear once a round for 1d8+6 or whatever.
And bottom end of shaman below cleric/oracle seems correct, off fortitude save and lack of shield proficiency. But not 6 vs. 3 difference.
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: Cleric -- We want to start with a default/generic cleric for our base score, rather than the Cloistered. That's fair, but then you should probably also go with a default/generic witch and omit the white-haired archetype (and as you say, WHW is quite a terrible idea anyway).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
UnArcaneElection wrote: I have a hard time putting White-Haired Witch up that high unless you can figure out some way to keep them alive(*). Not having most of those self-defense spells that the Sorcerer, Arcanist, and even Wizard can get really hurts (but then the Wizard can't do much in the way of combat, although using additional spells and in some cases Arcane School abilities is another matter . . . but then that's no longer Combat, but Debuffing).
(*)RIP pre-Errata Scarred Witch Doctor, even though this was never compatible with the White-Haired Witch archetype.
Witch 1-3?
UnArcaneElection wrote: Making a Blade Adept Arcanist actually decent requires a really specific build (here's my shot at this -- I'd welcome other attempts). What would you put the upper end of Arcanist at then? 4? 5?
UnArcaneElection wrote: The thing about Sorcerer is that to just be useful support in Combat without being great at it, they don't have to invest much -- pick the self-defense spells that you're probably going to want anyway, have decent Dexterity and Constitution that you're probably going to want anyway, and spend a few gold pieces on a Longspear (and retain enough Strength so that you aren't Encumbered by it). Doesn't matter if you never actually hit anything as long as you provide decent Aid Another and Flanking service to the rest of your party(*), and are protected enough by your self-defense buffs so that you don't go down. You can make this better with more investment by being a Halfling with the Helpful trait, but Halfling is pretty good as a Sorcerer chassis anyway, and that's a pretty good trait for a Halfling to have anyway.
(*)Assuming you have a party that actually makes good use of this, of course.
All good points. What range makes sense for you? For that matter, could you just give your ranges for whichever classes you think need to be adjusted? More data makes for a better final result.
Cheers.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Arkham Joker wrote: Read the guide....
Cleric can get AC very easily (and in actual fact can get 2 AC via Animal and Scalykind domains) and still have another domain to play with, has much better buffing capability, better AC, better race options, better in-combat healing
The only advantage Druid has is wildshape and even that can be replicated partially by spells.
There are several Cleric domain abilities that make excellent combat boosters.
You have to remember the ratings have a minimum level and maximum level.
Combat, Buffing & "Critters" (still don't love that label/category) overlap, but we should try to rate them at separately as we can. Buffs that only apply to yourself & perhaps your animal companion certainly overlap with Combat.
We also need to think about various decisions having costs as well as benefits. E.g. a domain that grants an animal companion is different from a domain that optimizes combat. So a cleric in combat could have one or the other, where a druid can readily have both.
Similarly, it's hard to rate a druid in combat without considering Wild Shape, even though that overlaps heavily with Buffing.
Speaking of levels, I would still like to get base level/default scores from you for the cleric.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lelomenia wrote: As for the ranges provided, Shaman 3-6 vs. Oracle (and Cleric) 6-9 is wrong. Around level 10, a not particularly optimized, essentially unbuffed Shaman archer is going to fire off 5-6 arrows for around 30ish damage each. I doubt an optimized cleric/oracle can match an optimized Shaman in archery (Bane is stronger than basically anything available to either, and i don’t know any in-class path for either to get to the Holy Grail of archery, Point Blank Mastery). But the 3-6 vs. 6-9 ranges suggests that optimized Shaman should be compared to Generic Unoptimized Oracle (or unoptimized cleric). Who is likely going to swinging a longspear once a round for 1d8+6 or whatever.
And bottom end of shaman below cleric/oracle seems correct, off fortitude save and lack of shield proficiency. But not 6 vs. 3 difference.
And that's why we need a round of "normalization". Folks have approached these ratings differently and a final guide requires that we standardize the scores as much as possible.
Could you give us your Combat ratings for the cleric, oracle & shaman?
I added a "Combat" tab to this spreadsheet where I summarize the pros & cons of each class. Am I missing anything key?
The sheet
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kurald Galain wrote: Northern Spotted Owl wrote: Cleric -- We want to start with a default/generic cleric for our base score, rather than the Cloistered. That's fair, but then you should probably also go with a default/generic witch and omit the white-haired archetype (and as you say, WHW is quite a terrible idea anyway). The witch's range of 1-4 (maybe 1-3, per Unarcane's comment that a white-haired witch is hard to keep alive) starts with a 1 for just that reason. A default witch rates a 1 for Combat: 1/2 BAB, 1d6 HP, mediocre spells (e.g. mage armor, but not shield).
The 4 (or 3) scales up to include prehensile hair, and then the white-haired witch.
Northern Spotted Owl wrote:
Combat, Buffing & "Critters" (still don't love that label/category) overlap, but we should try to rate them at separately as we can. Buffs that only apply to yourself & perhaps your animal companion certainly overlap with Combat.
We also need to think about various decisions having costs as well as benefits. E.g. a domain that grants an animal companion is different from a domain that optimizes combat. So a cleric in combat could have one or the other, where a druid can readily have both.
Similarly, it's hard to rate a druid in combat without considering Wild Shape, even though that overlaps heavily with Buffing.
Speaking of levels, I would still like to get base level/default scores from you for the cleric.
1) Agreed, several of the roles have significant overlap. IMO - "Combat" should mean how well that class functions quite literally by itself.
2) Errrmmm.... completely 100% the opposite in fact! A Druid chooses between an AC and a heavily restricted domain choice - it does not get both. A Cleric on the other hand CAN get both - it can take Animal/Scalykind domain and any other domain as well. In fact technically speaking a Cleric can get 2 AC... I am not aware of how even a Druid can achieve this.
3) Until there is a definitive agreement on what constitutes a "MINIMUM" score, there is no point on providing a rating. Myself and UAE are in agreement on what it means, but that is it as far as I am aware?
4) As well, a Cleric gets much better basic weapon options (as well as armour) than a Druid.
Lelomenia wrote: ... Around level 10, a not particularly optimized, essentially unbuffed Shaman archer is going to fire off 5-6 arrows for around 30ish damage each... In light of Farshot Fallon here. I'd like to see this... Please post a build.
Arkham Joker wrote: 2) Errrmmm.... completely 100% the opposite in fact! A Druid chooses between an AC and a heavily restricted domain choice - it does not get both. A Cleric on the other hand CAN get both - it can take Animal/Scalykind domain and any other domain as well. In fact technically speaking a Cleric can get 2 AC... I am not aware of how even a Druid can achieve this. I have no idea why I wasn't thinking about clerics having 2 domains. Pretend I just didn't type that.
Arkham Joker wrote: 3) Until there is a definitive agreement on what constitutes a "MINIMUM" score, there is no point on providing a rating. Myself and UAE are in agreement on what it means, but that is it as far as I am aware? I don't think anyone, you included, thinks that a minimum is really useful to our desired readers. I understand that it's more concrete & objective than the squishier "default" or "base" or "standard". But I'm convinced that it's what a reader gains value from.
If I look at a given 9/9 caster class and see that they rate 5-8 on Combat, and I've read that that means from "unoptimized" to "optimized" then that's useful info. If I instead read that they rate from 2-8 and that's from "traded everything possible away" to "optimized" then I come away quite a bit less informed. If our ratings all look like 1-8 or 2-10 or such then I don't think we're doing anyone a service. And that's really the only reason to bother pulling something like this together: to be useful. :)
Best,
Owl
pad300 wrote: Lelomenia wrote: ... Around level 10, a not particularly optimized, essentially unbuffed Shaman archer is going to fire off 5-6 arrows for around 30ish damage each... In light of Farshot Fallon here. I'd like to see this... Please post a build. Archery builds haven’t changed much over the years.
Human, shaman, battle spirit.
Ability scores (Farshot appears to be a 15-point build, which is painful as a 9th level caster focusing on combat, but here goes):
Str: 12
Dex: 22 (15 base)
Con: 10 (on a 20 point build, this would be 14)
Int: 8
Wis: 18 (15 base)
Cha: 10
Feats:
1: Point Blank Shot/Precise Shot
3: Exotic Weapon: Hornbow
5: Rapid Shot
7: Deadly Aim
9: Manyshot
Hexes:
Battle Master (gives Weapon Specialization: Hornbow at 8th)
Fetish (wondrous items are more affordable, e.g., boots of speed)
Etc.
Deadly Aim/full attack, with swift action Bane and free action boots of speed, is:
+3 longbow +14(x2)/+14/+14/+9, 2d6+14+2d6 dmg (x3). At 11th level, several of the wandering spirits give an extra d6 energy damage to any weapon you wield. At 12 level, namekeeper archetype gets an extra attack, but now reading it, it stacks with the haste attack and manyshot, but probably not with the extra Rapid Shot attack.
With a standard action buff, Divine Favor will add +4 to the attack rolls and +4 to damage (Fate’s Favored trait).
But if the original question was “why is shaman archer damage so much better than fighter archer damage”, answer appears to be: (1) that fighter was built before Hornbow (2) Bane adds a ridiculous 9 damage per attack. So that accounts for an 11.5 damage/attack advantage my shaman has.
I would really like to get proposed scores from anyone who has a perspective/insight we're missing. What have the ratings thus far over or under weighed?
I'm particularly interested in mis-matches across classes (such as shaman vs cleric & oracle) where different contributors have used different portions of the 1-10 range.
Cheers,
Owl
Lelomenia wrote: Archery builds haven’t changed much over the years.
Human, shaman, battle spirit.
Ability scores (Farshot appears to be a 15-point build, which is painful as a 9th level caster focusing on combat, but here goes):
Str: 12
Dex: 22 (15 base)
Con: 10 (on a 20 point build, this would be 14)
Int: 8
Wis: 18 (15 base)
Cha: 10
Feats:
1: Point Blank Shot/Precise Shot
3: Exotic Weapon: Hornbow
5: Rapid Shot
7: Deadly Aim
9: Manyshot
Hexes:
Battle Master (gives Weapon Specialization: Hornbow at 8th)
Fetish (wondrous items are more affordable, e.g., boots of speed)
Etc.
Deadly Aim/full attack, with swift action Bane and free action boots of speed, is:
+3 longbow +14(x2)/+14/+14/+9, 2d6+14+2d6 dmg (x3). At 11th level, several of the wandering spirits give an extra d6 energy damage to any weapon you wield. At 12 level, namekeeper archetype gets an extra attack, but now reading it, it stacks with the haste attack and manyshot, but probably not with the extra Rapid Shot attack.
With a standard action buff, Divine Favor will add +4 to the attack rolls and +4 to damage (Fate’s Favored trait).
But if the original question was “why is shaman archer damage so much better than fighter archer damage”, answer appears to be: (1) that fighter was built before Hornbow (2) Bane adds a ridiculous 9 damage per attack. So that accounts for an 11.5 damage/attack advantage my shaman has.
A "not particularly optimized, essentially unbuffed Shaman archer" ... with all 6 feats focused on archery, both Bane and Haste up, and a +6 dex belt at lvl 10 ... I see...
pad300 wrote:
A "not particularly optimized, essentially unbuffed Shaman archer" ... with all 6 feats focused on archery, both Bane and Haste up, and a +6 dex belt at lvl 10 ... I see...
“Not particularly optimized” = “optimized, but not aggressively so. generic CRB feats build, with many character options unutilized.” E.g., no traits used, no racial options, no archetype, only one spirit used, and assuming he’s allowed to use his Fetish Hex, only 35K out of 62K allocated for his archery, etc. If you think taking the generically applicable combat feats makes a character “particularly optimized”, that’s fine, but this is what i meant. Unless you read me as saying the unoptimized shaman beats/competes with optimized cleric. Definitely no. I was describing an “optimized, but not aggressively optimized” character.
“Essentially unbuffed” meaning no standard action buffs and no more than one swift action effect. I.e., what you look like full attacking your first round of combat. As noted, spamming Divine Favor before kicking down doors is a no brainer, but numbers are with 0 spell effects active on this full caster.
Also, belt is +4; human racial went to Dex. Maybe (base:17) is the way that’s normally written?
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: UnArcaneElection wrote: I have a hard time putting White-Haired Witch up that high unless you can figure out some way to keep them alive(*). Not having most of those self-defense spells that the Sorcerer, Arcanist, and even Wizard can get really hurts (but then the Wizard can't do much in the way of combat, although using additional spells and in some cases Arcane School abilities is another matter . . . but then that's no longer Combat, but Debuffing).
(*)RIP pre-Errata Scarred Witch Doctor, even though this was never compatible with the White-Haired Witch archetype.
Witch 1-3? That's probably fair. I'd be willing to allow a bit of upwards creep on this if somebody could come up with a way of keeping a White-Haired Witch alive while still being able to score hits with decent frequency. But with White-Haired Witch you're really hosing yourself for other functions.
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: UnArcaneElection wrote: Making a Blade Adept Arcanist actually decent requires a really specific build (here's my shot at this -- I'd welcome other attempts). What would you put the upper end of Arcanist at then? 4? 5? Normally 3, with an extremely specific build being able to go a bit over.
Northern Spotted Owl wrote: UnArcaneElection wrote: The thing about Sorcerer is that to just be useful support in Combat without being great at it, they don't have to invest much -- pick the self-defense spells that you're probably going to want anyway, have decent Dexterity and Constitution that you're probably going to want anyway, and spend a few gold pieces on a Longspear (and retain enough Strength so that you aren't Encumbered by it). Doesn't matter if you never actually hit anything as long as you provide decent Aid Another and Flanking service to the rest of your party(*), and are protected enough by your self-defense buffs so that you don't go down. You can make this better with more investment by being a Halfling with the Helpful trait, but Halfling is pretty good as a Sorcerer chassis anyway, and that's a pretty good trait for a Halfling to have anyway.
(*)Assuming you have a party that actually makes good use of this, of course.
All good points. What range makes sense for you? For that matter, could you just give your ranges for whichever classes you think need to be adjusted? More data makes for a better final result. Sorcerer: 1 to 4, and the upper end is without severely hosing yourself in other functions, unlike the other arcane casters.
Wizard: 1 to 2 (mainly 1). I'd be willing to push that just a bit higher if somebody could show how to make the Swordbinder archetype work. I mentioned Swordbinder earlier as being somewhat GM-dependent. I also asked about whether anybody could make Swordbinder good, in another thread, but didn't get any takers (although at that point the thread just died -- I seem to have some kind of curse that causes that to happen . . .).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
