| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably more appropriate for the homebrew section?
Probably more appropriate for the homebrew section?
Probably - I can also recommend the Clerics+ document from Pathfinder Infinite. It has a fantastic interpretation of the warpriest.
The remaster warpriest having a feat for heavy armor, master in weapons at 19 (which I would have a problem with if it weren't for the fact that the game is basically over at that point), and preexisting feats to aid a smiting playstyle do everything I need to wade into the front lines as a supporting off-martial who's typical turn is casting a spell and doing a single bop with their weapon of choice. War priest of Gorum or Ragathiel is high on my list of first characters I'll play after making a witch once the remaster drops. Cleric has a lot of good feats, and now that I'll only need one feat for scaling heavy armor while keeping feats/and or the possibility for other archetypes open the warpriest will be better than ever. Spirit damage over alignment will similarly be a boon for the mixed approach of the warpriest (who has plenty of lvls of parity with other casters' proficiency and now won't have to dump wis for Cha). All this to say I thought the war priest was fine before (it was one of the funnest classes I've played) and now with all the remaster changes it'll be eating good!
While I agree that this should be in Homebrew (and have flagged it as such), can I ask why you'd like to separate these subclasses? What your suggesting feels like something that could already be accomplished through class feats or taking a different class (like I fighter who grabs the cleric dedication or even just a champion).
I played a Warpriest for 20 levels in Extinction Curse. He was in the thick of the action all the time, and he did great. The little tweaks in the Remaster would make a great subclass a little bit better (I would've loved Master in Rapier at 19th.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Champion cannot cast spells.
But this could easily be accomplished with multiclass dedication.
Weapon progression doesn't go above expert even for the favored weapon.
For... cleric? You could easily get what you want through a multiclass dedication.
No deity has the khakkara as it's favored weapon. (Its the weapon monk priests use, and not even monks can use it)
Oddly specific, but if the intent here is "I want a warpriest who uses the khakkara," you have a few options:
1. Make a warpriest who uses a khakkara and talk to your GM about allowing a deity who uses a staff as their favored weapon.
2. Make another class and grab a multiclass dedication.
I would like to have a fulu dabbler for the cleric. (like the Thaumaturge has for talismans)
Again, very specific. But many of the fulu have the talisman trait, so you can just pick up the Talisman Dabbler Dedication to get access to a bunch of free ones as well as going out and learning to Craft them on your own (without the dedication).
I would like something as a Divine magus. (Hence the smite ability)
So this is very much in the realm of homebrew. People have clamored for it, but I would be dollars to doughnuts that we won't be seeing it from an official source. The Exemplar looks to be the direction that a divine martial will be taking in the future. I don't see why you couldn't just do all of this by taking the magus and giving it the divine spell list if you're homebrew friendly.
Otherwise, very simply, rather than ask for a full class to be broken into two separate classes, why not just make a champion with archetype feats?
I feel most of the requests being made here already exist, will exist very soon, or would be better-addressed as feats or other archetypes:
Really, if I wanted to go for a sword-and-board or two-handed weapon Warpriest who smites enemies, I can already do that with existing options, and with the remaster I'll be able to do it all even better. Even though it doesn't match the fantasy completely, I could also opt into the Talisman Dabbler archetype for some fulus. If there were an archetype dedicated to fulus, or a cleric feat that made specific use of fulus, it looks like the Warpriest would do essentially everything out of the box that we seem to be asking for here.
|
The Divine offense-oriented martial I would have pegged as the Inquisitor. But then I remembered the playtest Exemplar who shares much of the vibe I see in what you described in your OP.
Actually, I am now a bit worried that, with the advent of the Exemplar, we will never get a PF2 version of the Inquisitor.
For the cloistered cleric, I would take inspiration from WoW and focus of the Heal and Harm font. So you would have a cleric that focuses on healing, with the doctrine being the communal healing feat tree. And a holy fire cleric that uses the harm feat tree.
Harm spells really are not much at all like "holy fire" in fact harm spells are clearly unholy and as opposite to fire as you can get. If you wanna do holy fire you make Sarenrae your goddess and pick the fire domain. Then you get fire spells such as fireball and get fire focus spells
I mean exemplar seems more like a divine version of barbarian rather than a divine rogue (in all honesty inquisitor could probably be a doctrine or just divine trickster rogues. Also the whole thing with Paizo not really wanting inquisitor because of the whole inquisition thing)The Divine offense-oriented martial I would have pegged as the Inquisitor. But then I remembered the playtest Exemplar who shares much of the vibe I see in what you described in your OP.
Actually, I am now a bit worried that, with the advent of the Exemplar, we will never get a PF2 version of the Inquisitor.
What about the Inquisitor makes you think of the rogue?
The having more skill points and having a bunch of stealth related class skills. Like it flat out states they use "trickery and guile" in their 1e description, flavor wise it was pretty rogue like.What about the Inquisitor makes you think of the rogue?I mean exemplar seems more like a divine version of barbarian rather than a divine rogue (in all honesty inquisitor could probably be a doctrine or just divine trickster rogues. Also the whole thing with Paizo not really wanting inquisitor because of the whole inquisition thing)The Divine offense-oriented martial I would have pegged as the Inquisitor. But then I remembered the playtest Exemplar who shares much of the vibe I see in what you described in your OP.
Actually, I am now a bit worried that, with the advent of the Exemplar, we will never get a PF2 version of the Inquisitor.
The core class feature, "judgement," of the Inquisitor doesn't feel rogue-ish to me at all. Getting trained in stealth and being a dirty fighter are things a rogue would be good at, but I don't think a rogue is pronouncing judgment upon heretics. Inquisitor to me was always just a more offensive Paladin
While I agree that this should be in Homebrew (and have flagged it as such), can I ask why you'd like to separate these subclasses? What your suggesting feels like something that could already be accomplished through class feats or taking a different class (like I fighter who grabs the cleric dedication or even just a champion).
I have a slightly different reason for wanting Warpriests to be split off from clerics: I consider the warpriest doctrine to effectively be a class archetype, and I think all full casters could have made use of such a CA from the CRB.
Given that cloth-only clerics would still have their deity, their type of divine font, and thier pick of one out of several domain spells as first level choices, clerics would still be getting more "subclass" options than most classes.
Heck, look at witches. They don't even get to pick which focus spell they get at first level (note, I didn't say focus cantrip); everyone just gets phase familiar.
Edit: Obviously, I know that isn't happening with remaster. I would have liked if it had, but it was easy enough to homebrew a version for my own use. There's a couple modifications to base classes that also needed to happen, namely standardizing all full casters to get expert fortitude at 9th, but other than that it was pretty easy to write as a plug in and out.
That's quite a bit more along the lines of "that ship has sailed" since archetypes were still coming into their own by the APG and class archetypes are in a weird-ish space still. At this point, removing content to reproduce it somewhere else just feels a little unnecessary. And I suppose we could also make the guess that it means that warpriest would be getting a lot less support since its feats and abilities would then by tied to the class archetype instead of the class chassis itself.
Like I can see cloistered/warpriest being that proto-class archetype for sure, but I don't know that it's healthier for the game to disentangle them from each other. I mean, as you can see, there are already so many ways to sort of "adjust the dial" of how much spellcasting, martial prowess, and more that you can get through archetypes.
Should their be a more martial focused divine caster? Sure, why not. I just don't think it's in the cards for cleric to get chopped up and divvied out when it already has as many fans as it does.
I must not have been clear; I wasn't asking for a more martial focused divine caster. Much the opposite; if instead adding doctrines after the playtest to the cleric class the developers had opted to introduce a class archetype that made pretty much the same changes to every full caster class, clerics would tread water while every other kind of caster got their more martial focused version. Most of them have at least a couple feats or focus spells that would have worked better if they had the same toggle to become a front line caster, such as Bespell Weapon.
Oh yeah, I'm all for that.