She has to take Improved Counterspells for the PrC, so I already went all in with the Divine Defiance, that way she's a decent Dispeller at 5 and can enter the class on 6, none of that annoying retraining necessary (that irritates me on some level).
I don't like healing devotion, getting some minor Fast Healing after going down is only useful in that tiny area between 0 and death and in that area you might as well wait till Amy uses his healing belt.
The aura is similarly pointless, considering Amrelath's total hp. Useless during battle and afterwards some healing wands or scrolls are just as good.
All in all I admit that her build won't come into its own for 2 levels, but that's how I see the only chance of her getting good at that point then, if she survives so long
She'll die before she reaches level 6.
Look, how about taking Divine Defiance at level 5 through retraining? Now you could get healing up or something. I like the DMM idea, it makes her marginally more useful than she is now with her unimpressive melee, her nonexistent useful combat magic, and her focus on counterspelling level 1 spells.
Feats: DMM, Extend Spell, Persist Spell, Improved Counterspelling, Chain Spell, Flaws (Noncombatant and Vulnerable)
This means forgetting Protection Devotion, which is a shame. But then if Amrelath buys her a nightstick (it's cheap!) and a Reliquary Holy Symbol (even cheaper!) and she uses Domain Substitution to swap out Ocean for Undeath, she can cast a Chained Persisted Lesser Vigor on 4 people (which is great). Then at level 6 give her Divine Defiance.
Even better: she can cast Substitute Domain the previous day, prepare spells (but not domain spells) at dawn, cast her Persisted Chained Lesser Vigor, and then end Substitute Domain to get Ocean back and prepare her domain spells.
If I were you I would make her Lawful Neutral. That way at level 4 she could take Church Inquisitor, which is awesome for counterspellers.
You have clearly not actually read Descartes.
He wrote "Je pense donc je suis" (I think therefore I am) at one point, yes. Yet that's probably a mistake (argue modern critics) because when he wrote the "Méditations Métaphysiques" his argumentation specifically said that his sentence cannot have a causal link within it, because I have not established that I am capable of comprehending causality.
Indeed, his actual famous quote is "Je suis, j'existe" ("I think, I am"). He only wrote "I think therefore I am" in 1 other book (and a letter to someone, I believe) in which he isn't trying to explain it.
And this is a simplification too. I'm not an actual philosopher/historian so I couldn't go deep into it, but there are specialists out there who insist that "cogito, ergo sum" was actually someone else's idea first and that Descartes just made it popular and actually tried to justify it. That's still rather disputed though.
This is revenge for tagging me as a useless pedant who likes to argue about pointless details earlier:
I think they aren't being deliberately obtuse. I'm seeing people responding to you who rarely post as is, so my guess is they aren't heavily invested in the discussion so much as being pedantic.
Trust me, around here if you want people to listen to your arguments you have to skate by on a combination of willful stubbornness in the face of people being anal about minor details to try to undermine your argument, and also raise the bar on your arguments by firming up any foundational approach to them that people might find more compelling. They have to be multi-layered since a lot of people around here will argue with you if they don't agree with just one
part of it, and I suspect it's just because they enjoy debate.
Not naming names.
Seriously?
I wasn't involved in
@Deliste's discussion! Argh!
And I don't even have a history of opposing
your proposals at all! You are clearly confusing me with someone else!
