>Paladins are martial-oriented holy warriors. >Clerics are caster-oriented holy warriors

>Paladins are martial-oriented holy warriors
>Clerics are caster-oriented holy warriors
Where's the stealth-oriented holy warriors though? Are there any holy versions of a rogue?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    4e did it with the Avenger, but I have no idea how the flavour for that class went (have never played 4e but would like to try)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The flavour is you're a religiously motivated murderer with usually no armor and two handed weapon. Their gameplay gimmick was that they designate an enemy and get huge bonuses against them as long as they can stay isolated from other foes.

      I thought they were pretty neat but fluffwise their niche could absolutely have been taken by an established title like Assassin.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Huh. The two-handed weapon is kind of interesting. I love robed swordsmen with big swords - WHFB Elven Swordmasters and the emphasis on the mysticism of their training always really appealed to me.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I love robed swordsmen with big swords
          You are my brother.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thou'rt mine companion faithful and true.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah I really like playing monks with greatswords, I had a Pathfinder character based around that who would just jump around like an anime character and do YUGE damage with his YUGE sword

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I love robed swordsmen with big swords
          You are my brother.

          what, you two think you're niche? we all enjoy jedi here

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The flavour was I've got a huge sword and and I'm coming ta get ya.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A holy rogue would be much like the Peacekeeper from For Honor that you posted: an agent of the church who stamps out heresy and sedition on the homefront and isn't afraid to employ subterfuge and assassination to do it. A Peacekeeper on the front lines or on an adventure is likely in the middle of dealing with a broad conspiracy or is handing a situation that has spiraled out of control and necessitates a war footing of some kind.

      The Avenger mentioned in would be more like a paladin variant, as their specialty is not unlike that of an inquisitor: rooting out heretics and putting them to the sword with prejudice. Like a Peacekeeper, they would operate outside of a battlefield in most cases, albeit with slightly closer proximity than PK.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Avenger is classed in 4e as a "divine striker" class, meaning they employ divine powers while engaging as a primary damage dealer for the party (with some control on the side). They wear cloth armor and a two-hander of their choice, and apart from divine powers, they can mark a target with a censure and get bonuses against that target, making them a potent duelist. They are esoteric and reclusive in their teachings and rites, typically part of some form of secret society within their religion, but nonetheless, they act as the arm of punishment and vengeance for their faith. If an Avenger is after you, you are already marked for death as far as they're concerned.

      Play an Avenger if you want to be a divine-themed edgelord.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "Striker" specifically means they specialize in single-target DPS, with the rogue being the flagship striker. The other roles, for comparison, were Controller (deal with large groups of enemies with offense and some control, flagship is wizard), Defender (frontline tank, flagship is fighter), and Leader (party buffs and support, flagship is cleric).

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "Zealot" is the most common by-word to describe the avenger. Their faith is blinding and arguably more extreme than even a paladin's, but it keeps them focused on their task and their target.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hashishim or Dervish would be unironically good ways to spin it (is there a pun in there on Dervish?). Leaving your body unprotected by armour and in the hands of God, moving swiftly and inscrutably, guides by His hand, etc

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hashishim/Dervishes are underrated as fuck, I'm a big fan of the sneaky fanatic with a knife and no fear archetype. It can be much spookier than a regular Rogue if leveraged right.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Leaving your body unprotected by armour and in the hands of God, moving swiftly and inscrutably, guides by His hand, etc
      So a monk with daggers?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Hashishim

      Didnt they chew on marijuana to be a little bit more psychotic? That needs to be a game mechanic.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Combat drugs are a thing in plenty of systems. They pop up in cyberpunk more often.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, it was just a myth perpetuated by confused europeans who thought their name actually referred to hash. It still needs to be a game mechanic though.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hashishim/Dervishes are underrated as fuck, I'm a big fan of the sneaky fanatic with a knife and no fear archetype. It can be much spookier than a regular Rogue if leveraged right.

      >Hashishim

      Didnt they chew on marijuana to be a little bit more psychotic? That needs to be a game mechanic.

      [...]

      Combat drugs are a thing in plenty of systems. They pop up in cyberpunk more often.

      No, it was just a myth perpetuated by confused europeans who thought their name actually referred to hash. It still needs to be a game mechanic though.

      Hashishin. With an N not an M. But that's not what they called themselves. That was given to them by their enemies to discredit them and spread by Marco Polo. They were simply Nizari Ismaili. Some others say that it's a corruption and refers to followers of Hassan ibn Sabah, the man who established them but was never actually called the old man of the mountain, and that may be possible, but even in Arab they are Hashishin. And unlike in Europe where letters may be mistaken, in Arab it's REALLY hard to do so, since every line matters and scribes were trained for decades to not make mistakes. The myth of hashish however persisted even though, no, there is no evidence for it. Nor is there evidence of them being drugged and shown Heaven and Hell by their masters.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    3.5 had the Black Flame Zealot PRC

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Witch hunter, inquisitor.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    An inquisitor or something along those lines is probably the best thematically.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there isn't even a stealth-orientated arcane magic user let alone a holy one.
    Fact of the matter is that people's imagination of what a rogue is, is somehow even shallower than their understanding of martial arts.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There is a magical version of the rogue, though, in the form of the bard.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What about the beguiler?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Arcane Trickster

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      İllusionist

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >where is this thing in a hobby that's based on being able to make what you want
    Make some.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If I had my way? The druid would be this. Also Rangers I suppose, though if I had my way Rangers wouldn't be casters at all.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I love paladins but they shouldn't be a base class. Rangers, Paladins, Battlemages etc. should be multiclass prestige classes. So, what do you get when you cross a rogue and a cleric? Druids or monks could work depending on execution.

    Also clerics should not wear armor.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The paladin has become too iconic an image to leave out of the base game at this point, or at least gate behind multiple requirements.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    inquisitors, but ppl usually put this on clerics before considering anything else

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This moron hasn't made a Stealthy Cleric or a Stealthy Paladin
    But if you are looking for a specifically divine stealthy sort, then inquisitor

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Seems like something that would go to an Inquisitor? Though it would focus a little less on stealth and more on skillmonkeying for investigative work. Also, PK a cute with her racism against kidneys.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I make warlocks a divine class, and they seem to fit into the niche pretty handily.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I dunno, dude, I don't argue with the divine caster class, more just that they're not exactly sneaky rogue-types. They're more like "Ever more esoteric casters".

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The assassins retard

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unpopular opinion
    STEALTH ISN'T HOLY

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's like saying violence isn't holy.
      Sometimes you gotta do what you have to do.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The inquisitor. Social rogue with limited divine power. Sub out sneak attack and uncanny dodge for divine channel and a short spell list.
    Why is this still a question?

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Thuggee?

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Stealth is fine. Poison is unholy and evil but stealth isn't inherently bad.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's underhanded. It's like the definition of underhanded.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Poison is one of nature's weapons against its foes. It can be therefore considered holy.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "Nature" includes things like sharks eating their own babies.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Which isn't evil, it just is.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But when a human does it?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              We run on a different morale.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sounds like "Nature does it" is a weak argument for considering something holy then.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Don't think this will really deter a druid casting poison spells to defend himself and nature against its enemies.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No one ever said all druids are holy and good.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >holy
                Pretty sure they are divine spellcasters.
                >and good
                Nobody ever said anything like that at all. "Religious" does not necessarily mean good, especially not in the context of ttrpg's, where you can play clerics of evil gods and blackguards.
                Don't even think there is a real life religion that pretty much states "you must always use the most honest and direct means when combating your foes".

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Pretty sure they are divine spellcasters.
                So are Evil Clerics. You know, clerics who use unholy magic. Unholy, as in, the exact opposite of Holy.

                >Nobody ever said anything like that at all.
                Holy does not mean simply religious.
                And, real world religions value honesty and fairness, even though few of them outright ban lying.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You know, clerics who use unholy magic
                You got a point here, but neither stealth nor poisons could really be considered unholy, as they are part of nature and nature as it is is not unholy.
                Unless you got something like with Tolkien where Morgoth corrupted the natural world, but that's very setting-specific.
                >real world religions value honesty and fairness
                A lot of them also value peacefulness, yet a paladin is allowed to genocide orc babies in the name of his divines.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >neither stealth nor poisons could really be considered unholy, as they are part of nature and nature as it is is not unholy.

                You just completed a full circle. You're right back at "Being part of nature must mean if can't be unholy" and then you have to address the whole business about sharks eating their own babies. Just because it happens in nature doesn't mean humans should do it, and I think it stands to remind you that humans don't naturally produce any kind of toxin or venom.

                In general, you have this weird thing where you fail to appreciate that religions that don't prohibit war still value peace, that religions that don't prohibit lying still value truth, and so on and so forth. Holiness is reaching towards ideals, and even though a religion may not outright bar certain criminal or unfair acts, many will still discourage them.

                Stealth towards violence is far from Holy. It's malicious subterfuge. While violence itself is not great, in extreme circumstances it might be necessary. And while stealth may also be necessary in extremely extreme circumstances, it's still not great.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and then you have to address the whole business about sharks eating their own babies
                Which nobody said is either holy nor unholy.
                >in extreme circumstances it might be necessary
                And that's pretty much why I would argue that subterfuge, poisons and stealth could still be considered holy in the right circumstances. If subterfuge and poisons are the right means to achieve a goal that can be seen as good and righteous, and any other means would fail, that's where the divine rogue that OP is talking about could come in handy. Like sneaking into the badguys lair in order to stealthily free the hostages, when the paladin would just burst into the front door, alarming the badguys and force them to kill them, as they have threatened to do.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Which nobody said is either holy nor unholy.
                Eating your own baby, solely because it is available at hand (as a shark does) and not out of some great necessity from some unthinkable circumstances, is unholy. The fact that this needs to be stated makes me wonder how you still think it's possible to present yourself as an authority on what is or isn't holy.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If the shark ate the baby, it was because it was hungry, a drive that serves its ability to make more babies, in a system where it is understood that reproductive adults have more value in the baby making system than do nonreproductive young, and that babies are present in sufficient numbers to ensure a healthy supply of baby making adults. This chain of actions is bereft of malice or sadistic pleasure, because the shark's evolutionary history has not emphasized the mental capacities to apply those things to itself and others. Before you continue to be a smug little self satisfied self righteous gay who dares to judge the vast majority of organic life as somehow inferior to himself and who deserves to be fed feet first into an incinerator, I don't have an answer for the Conundrum facing humans in the choices between behavior exhibited by our fellow animals that is violent yet self-beneficial but without malice, and it troubles me every fuxking day. But I do know you are such a slobbering retard that any answer you provide can be promptly used as toilet paper. Also, have a nice day.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If the human ate the baby, it was because it was hungry, a drive that serves its ability to make more babies, in a system where it is understood that reproductive adults have more value in the baby making system than do nonreproductive young, and that babies are present in sufficient numbers to ensure a healthy supply of baby making adults.

                You really need to not try to be smart, because it just makes how dumb you are show through.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >y-you're dumb!
                Thank you for conceding

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Holy fuck you really are dumb.

                A human knows better.

                Hence why you should never say "it's done in nature, so it's okay for a human to do it."

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody sane said it was ok for human to do it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >present yourself as an authority on what is or isn't holy
                Neither me nor you or anyone else gave a definition on something that is pretty much depending on the setting. In some, it's directly related to some dark energies and powers. Often it requires deliberate effort to be wicked and evil. Eating your own child might seem cruel from the point of view of us humans, but there is no willingness to be cruel and wicked in this case I actually don't know shit about sharks, but I hope you get my point
                In any case, I won't argue about what constitutes unholy any further, because as I said, it depends largely on the system and setting, and it's not even the topic itself. What has been argued is what counts as holy or what could be argued is still an appropriate means for a holy rogue-type, as I have given an example in my post that you didn't adress.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >there is no willingness to be cruel and wicked in this case
                And, you can say the same about poison use in nature. Bottom line is that there is a big difference between what animals do, and what's right for humans to do. This really shouldn't even have to be explained. Hell, we're literally talking about the Appeal to Nature fallacy, one of the most blatant fallacies.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay, so what is the big difference between killing someone by cleaving their body apart through sharpened steel and killing through venom and poison? Both isn't in itself holy or unholy, it's all about the circumstances and the context. And when killing silently and stealthily through means as poison is the right thing to do in some circumstances in order to reach some righteous goal, why couldn't it be considered holy?
                Again, some religions (also fantasy religions) make a point about being peaceful, yet a paladin being a murdermachine is not a problem?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                One is straight forward and direct, without any duplicity beyond perhaps the expected feints and misdirections found ordinarily in combat. It also takes more effort and skill to kill someone with an unpoisoned weapon than a poisoned one, meaning that more training and discipline must be used to realize that power, making it an automatic check against people who would want to use violence without investment.

                It's similar to how guns make killing easier, so people kill more when they have them. Generally, anything that makes violence easier is "more evil."

                Remember, we're not talking absolutes. It's not "This is holy, this is unholy," but more "This is holier, this is less holy."

                Holiest? Non-violence. Followed by Non-lethal violence. Followed by unavoidable Lethal Violence, where the lethality does not exceed the barest limits to stop the opponent from inflicting further harm themselves. And below all that is Lethal Violence with Poisons where the poison may not even kill the opponent before they kill you and only die afterwards.

                Can you use lethal poisons for good? Sure. Does it require extreme and rare circumstances that would make them extremely unappealing for any Holy institution to seriously consider investing resources into training people into their usage? Also likely yes.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's not "This is holy, this is unholy," but more "This is holier, this is less holy."
                I guess we can leave it at that.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A human knows better.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Poison is a tool just like a sword. If you use it to kill someone innocent for personal gain it's an evil act, but if you use it to slay an evil monster it's a good act.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Poison is unholy
      >nooo you can't lay out poison for ants or roaches, that's eeevil!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If eastern reincarnation was real then you would have a mortal duty to exterminate all lesser life so they could reincarnate as something less shitty sooner.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's the exact kind of attitude that gets you reincarnated as something shitty

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well no, because you've insulated yourself against that. You can't get reincarnated as an ant if there are no ants left to give birth to more ants.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Enjoy reincarnating in hell, retard

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >going to hell so that no one else ever has to get reincarnated as an ant
                Worth it tbh.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >going to hell so everyone else can go to hell forever instead of briefly being reincarnated as an ant
                You've basically replaced a few months of community service with a life sentence in tijuana, I don't think you've thought this through

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Enjoy reincarnating in hell, retard

                Yup, that's my Necromancer antagonist in Nechronica. Makes sure there's a low, miserable, horrible state of existence so that souls can start going back up the ladder instead of going to hell forever.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If eastern reincarnation was real then you would have a mortal duty to exterminate all lesser life so they could reincarnate as something less shitty sooner.

                That's NOT how Samsara works, holy shit

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Paladins are the embodiment of the chivalric ideal and possess divine casting powers because piety is part of chivalry
    >Clerics are holy warriors and possess superior casting powers to the paladin because religion is the focus of their character rather than a single aspect
    Fixed that for you.
    Of course if you want to keep doing it your way and want an actual answer then yeah, everyone else is one the right track, either Hashashin or Inquisitor

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are there any holy versions of a rogue?

    Inquisitors.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Inquisitors.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well shouldn't stealth be considered unholy by nature?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That would depend on what type of god one follows.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Avoiding unnecessary bloodshed by using physical skill and cunning to not be seen is ""evil""
      If anything, deceit and trickery would be the preferred way for holy warriors to dispose their foes. Making sure the works of evildoers will fail. Cripple their ability to fight by sabotaging their social and physical tools. Make room for God's wrath and do nothing but heap burning coals on their heads.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sicarii

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How would you translate the "mythic hero" archetype to tabletop? As in the sort of characters where they are exceptional martial fighters with some divine connection who can pull off feats like catching arrows or their body being harder than stone?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Have you tried playing 4e?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Have you tried playing Pathfinder 2e?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Have you tried playing Pathfinder 2e?

        Have you tried playing a classless system that lets you build a character to fit your wants without unnecessary and arbitrary restrictions?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Have you tried playing Pathfinder 2e?

        Have you tried playing the GURPS?

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I noted martial to specify that they are skilled at physical non-magical combat, armed and unarmed. The archetype is functionally a fighter that can perform feats of dexterity and that, in a pinch, holds divine favor. But they aren't necessarily war gods, and they also frequently engage in acrobatics.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And you may think that describes monks, but they can engage in armored combat, aren't necessarily pious, and can be tricksters in their own right. The traditional epic heroes.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >A church spy adept at covert operations. Equally adept with a sword as they are with incantations

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They missed out on making stealth something you could build around. It's good for opening backstabs on unsuspecting mobs but little else.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's.... that's all you'd need it for.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're really leaning hard on the "stealth" thing, given it's only one skill out of several you might expect out of the class. You already threw out the Inquisitor because you don't want a skillmonkey, but rather you want someone who can hide.

          [...]
          On a general level, stealth isn't just for setting up an ambush. It's for hiding from someone, it's for tailing someone without them noticing, it's for evading security when infiltrating somewhere, it's for stalking silently through an area.

          Nah, I want a Sekiro type system where you're able to take off half of a bosses health if you manage to sneak up on them in the overworld. Not to mention the fact that by sneaking passed evryone you forfeit any souls or item drops you'd get by killing them.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Confessor
      Eh... Sounds like an Inquisitor archetype.

      Sicarii

      >Sicarii
      Sicarius can actually work for the divine stealth guy. Yeah, Sicarius sounds pretty good. Thank bruv.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Was the Avenger stealthy? Or was he just a divine duelist?
    The latter. While not specifically evoking the imagery of a duelist, the Avenger specialized in the 1v1. It would be something along the lines of "My faith has marked you for death. You will see me coming, but there is nothing you can do to stop it."

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks for answering bruv. What would you name a stealth oriented divine class? Or an arcane one for that matter?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The "stealth arcane" character would be the Arcane Trickster.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's a prestige class. And the convention for base classes is for a single word name.
          Would Trickster work as a base class name? And would it be better for an arcane stealth... stelather? Is that a word? or for a divine stealth expert.

          [...]
          There was a Dex/Wis avenger good at Stealth you mongs.

          I never played 4e, did it have archetypes like Pathfinder or was that one of their path things? Could the paths in 4e change the attributes a class uses?
          I would be okay with the divine stealth class being good with 2-handers, would work with the dervish/zealot thing.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're really leaning hard on the "stealth" thing, given it's only one skill out of several you might expect out of the class. You already threw out the Inquisitor because you don't want a skillmonkey, but rather you want someone who can hide.

            That's.... that's all you'd need it for.

            On a general level, stealth isn't just for setting up an ambush. It's for hiding from someone, it's for tailing someone without them noticing, it's for evading security when infiltrating somewhere, it's for stalking silently through an area.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >You're really leaning hard on the "stealth" thing, given it's only one skill out of several you might expect out of the class.
              It's what OP was asking about, and it hit me that while bards and inquisitors CAN be stealthy, it's not their main flavor.
              Rogues on the other hand can do other things but their main flavor is stealthy guy.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              These games aren't designed around evading detection outside of the open world. You could still potentially do it with spells anyway. All more effective against other players. This isn't metal gear.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The only thing i am mostly mad about is that the darkness incantation doesn't fucking linger

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                5e warlocks do it at will.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks for answering bruv. What would you name a stealth oriented divine class? Or an arcane one for that matter?

      There was a Dex/Wis avenger good at Stealth you mongs.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A stealthvenger still swings a 2-hander, so it looks weird.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ninjas two hand katanas so I don't really consider it much of a stretch

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Look at

            "Zealot" is the most common by-word to describe the avenger. Their faith is blinding and arguably more extreme than even a paladin's, but it keeps them focused on their task and their target.

            . That's the official signature art of the avenger. What about that looks subtle?

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Was the Avenger stealthy?
    Depends whether you go WIS/DEX or WIS/INT.

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    3.5's Shadowbane Stalker, PF1's Jinyiwei Investigator.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *