It's neither.The Swift Action is the touch attack, that is empowered to cause the penalty. It's all the swift action.
Replace "the vocal minority" with "the Wizards of the Coast DDN design team" if you prefer.Now it's one set of professionals saying, "it's way too powerful."
Their predecessors, also professionals, saying, "it's not too powerful, in fact it's so not-that-powerful that we've made it a core option that doesn't even require spending resources to achieve... you can just do it."
Dex is still more valuable than Str in DDN, so the argument about it being a different game is minimal at best.
This.You know that requiring 4 ability scores is too much. And we know that you know. As magnuskn says, it's the entire reason you swapped the Paladin to Cha-casting.
Don't go back down that dark road. :(
I stand by the idea that the Bloodrager needs:
A) Some way to boost his save DCs.
Do that, and I'd love this class to death.
Hell, I'd be fine if the class forced a switch to Dex-to-damage, taking away even the option of using Str for damage.
Benn Roe wrote:
I do think Scribe Scroll is a weird choice and that Silent Spell would make better sense, especially if it came with the caveat that it could be added without increasing spell level or casting time some number of times per day or more. Aren't skalds going to have a hard time manifesting verbal components while singing?
Since the spell-casting is Bard-based, the singing/music IS the "verbal component."Now, I like your idea, but I'd sub in Still Spell instead of Silent Spell.
While I don't think that would actually fix anything the class is having issues with, I do support it. It goes a long way towards making the Hunter "the pet class" (as Animal Empathy is Cha-based).
Dex to damage doesn't change the fact that you wouldn't be getting Dex-and-a-half for two-handing a weapon.
There is literally no good reason not to allow THE dex class to not have some way of getting Dex to damage.
And to add to this, because it's the Druid list, the buffs it has access to are going to largely be...
wait for it...
Adam B. 135 wrote:
I missed that. Fair enough. :)My other concerns are still valid, I feel.
Making the Raging Song feature be turn-by-turn based inclusion was a good change. It helps the gish-style characters a lot.
However, there is still no reason a full caster would ever want the bonus, as the extra Str is wasted, the extra Con is wasted at best and a death-sentence at worst, and the penalty to AC is very relevant.
Also, the way the "rage stuff" stacks with other rage classes is really only useful if the other class has already burned through their own rage abilities - I don't see that happening often. And if you can't use your Rage abilities (powers, bloodlines, etc) then there's really no reason not to just use your own rounds.
So, in summation? It's a little better, but I still don't see a reason to pick this over a pure Bard, and just flavor the Bard as a Skald.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
You're missing the point.Every class in the game that requires hitting it's opponents has ways to buff it's chance to hit in addition to whatever magical items it acquires (other than the core Rogue, which is widely accepted as awful in combat). This class offers nothing that isn't replaced by an item.
So how does a 3/4's BAB class with no bonuses to hit... hit?
Knee-jerk reaction? The mechanics are very unimpressive. For something that is supposed to make up a core part of the class, there's a TON of "meh" options.
But the ones that really stick out to me are:
I agree with Lemmy that this class is still stomping all over a Core Barb's toes.
But more than that, I think you guys entirely missed the point with requests for a separate spell list. This class NEEDS some early-access spells. Without them, why even bother? Level 13 Fire Shield? No thanks.
•I see a future where 90% of Warpriests are using Scimitars or Kukris.
But it's not all bad news: Fervor is a good fix. :)
All in all, I still don't see a reason to pick this class over the other divine melee options, unless my only goal is to cheese-out some uber scimitar damage.
(Quoting you here because I think this leads into the point I've been trying to make. So this will be open to any answer, not directed at Ciretose specifically.)I assume the Oracle falls under the same description of the Cleric?
If so, what about Oracles of War(or Metal)? The ones who are also walking around in full armor with a giant crest, wielding the weapon of the faith going "I am the champion of my God. Fear their wrath?" Except with better spell-casting and a Capstone that's superior to Pounce.
Because people wanted a non-LG paladin. That is, someone who fights well and gets a lot of nifty abilities. That's what they're going for. There's a huge psychological impediment with being a 9th level caster and being a non-LG holy warrior for most people.
I agree with you that that is what people want, but it's clearly not what the class was designed to accomplish. The only way they'll get the "non-LG Paladin" is to practically rewrite from scratch.
Could we stop arguing for options that don't exist?
Suggesting fixes is fine. Assuming a suggested fix is "canon" (for lack of a better word) is not fine, and pretty far off-topic.
Hmm... How to wield a moose... I mean, I'll have to crank my strength pretty high, but I bet they'll never see it coming. A man wielding a moose by its antlers swinging it in circles screaming a battle cry "For Erastil!"
What? Utter nonsense, that!Clearly Erastil wants you to be making ranged attacks with your moose. ;)
I hope you're trolling super-hard, because to think you can't read what you quote yourself...
Ceremonial execution is not general combat.
Because not all deities are warriors.
Edit - Oh! And not all Pathfinder games will take place in settings that include Deity-favored weapons.
I think I'd swap Witches and Shaman, but that's just me. ;)
Roberta Yang wrote:
I'll never understand why people want the Swashbuckler ability to get nerfed so hard. Right now? You can finesse a morning star or a shortspear - the feat doesn't let you do that!Just let it count as the feat for prereqs and be done with it. :P
The problem with this is that it is not our job, as playtesters, to worry about page or word count in a final product. Our job is to playtest and offer feedback based on what is presented.
From a production standpoint? Those concerns the devs raise are real and should not be ignored.
But then I think there is some confusion about what I mean when I say "unique spell lists" for these classes. I don't care if they don't get their own unique spells - please, use what already exists!
Now, they've already admitted to giving some thought to allowing the Bloodrager to have it's own unique list, and that's great. But the same issue exists with the Hunter and Warpriest, and I think the only reason we haven't been as convincing with those classes is that they have too many other issues that need work way before we get to their spell lists.
This may sound hostile, but I promise that isn't my intent. I'm just genuinely curious about design process:
Who thought that mixing the Ranger and the Druid would be a good idea to begin with? The classes are already so similar (with the Druid being the "spell-casting woodlander" and the Ranger being the "combative woodlander") that I don't see how this made it to the final play-testing "cut."
Rage becomes pretty lackluster if it doesn't improve, however.
It's why Barbarians are about the only ones who enjoy the mechanic - because they aren't stuck with low bonuses like everyone else who has to get it from some sort of archetype mechanic (Skald-like) or the spell.
I disagree, and there's already precedent for it.For example, when someone sat down and said, "Let's combine the Fighter and the Druid into it's own class," they didn't just tack the Druid list on to the Ranger and call it a day.
When someone sat down and said, "Let's combine the Fighter and the Cleric into it's own class, (the first time, anyway)" they didn't just tack the Cleric list onto the Paladin and call it a day.
Ditto the Bard. And the Magus. And the Inquisitor. And the Witch. And every single other example that I can think of that exists outside of this pdf.
Did I miss something? Did they change Damage Reduction from "slightly resistant to damage" to "completely immune to things that don't beat their DR" while I wasn't looking?
Use your head, man.Daggers do d4 damage. Skeleton's have Bludgeoning/5. Warpriests need Str, Wisdom, a halfway decent Con, and really shouldn't be dumping Dex or Cha (and Archers have it worse). So most aren't going to be getting a ton of extra damage from Str alone.
So that low-level Warpriest is looking at 1-2 damage per hit, on an obvious enemy encounter considering his faith, with the best of damage rolls.
There's no way Pharasma cares more about the dagger than she does about destroying the skeleton. Because of her flavor. And if flavor is the key to everything here...
The difference between a Cleric with the Healing domain and one without it is minimal. The difference between an unarmed strike and a greatsword is absolutely huge.
And yes, every faith will have Warpriests. Why? Because there isn't a deity restriction on the class. Does that make a lot of sense? No, but it's less restrictive on player options that way, which is why you don't see the class saying, "Only X, Y, and Z gods have Warpriests."
(And for what it's worth, don't you think the god/ess of Magic would much prefer their closest followers to be wielding magic, and not give a hoot what physical weapon is in their hands?)
Swap Charisma for Wisdom and you just described the Inquisitor. ;P
You're missing the entirety of my (sarcastic) point.Pharasma hates undead. She wants her followers to destroy undead. Pathfinder Devs decided her favorite weapon is a dagger. So you're telling me that Pharasma is happy with her Warpriest who literally cannot hurt a skeleton because he's too busy using the wrong weapon for the job, in an effort to appease her?
I don't buy that.
Look, the idea of tying mechanics to flavor is fine. But the flavor has to be designed with that in mind if it's ever going to work well. Deity favored weapons were absolutely not designed with mechanical effectiveness in mind - My point about Mystra and shuriken from above still stands as an example of that.
So, just idle curiosity here... Would it be okay to use a Rapier's stats and just reflavor it as a "Starknife" and therefore meet the requirements that you're using your god's favored weapon?
Or should we move on to other ideas where players don't get mechanically screwed with awful weapons just to force them into a flavor option?
(For what it's worth, I'm now imagining the Church of Pharasma telling the low-level Warpriest to go handle the gaggle of skeletons that's been haunting the graveyard; but oh, don't forget your dagger! /facepalm. )
So while I like the idea of tying a divine warrior class to it's deity's favored weapon, the problem is that the favored weapons of the deities were not carefully selected for player use. Ever. 3.X or Pathfinder. They were selected for the deities own quirky personalities.
Pharasma's dagger is a great Golarion-specific example, but I just can't get Mystra's shuriken out of my head. Why are shuriken the favored weapon of the (western) goddess of magic? Because they're the closest in appearance to twinkling stars, and Mystra is all about stars.
If the goddess of magic gave two hoots about having a warpriest, I'm absolutely positive she wouldn't care if they opted for a weapon other than shuriken.
Two points:1 - In general, I think the Devs know that they'll get plenty of armchair feedback, so it would be foolish of them to not hammer home that they want people actually playing the classes as much as possible.
2 - I think what I quoted above is spot-on. When problems with a class are blatant and playtesting isn't required to point them out, it's very... disheartening, when the Devs make a point to "sweep your opinion under the rug" because you aren't backing up the statement with numbers.
(And, for what it's worth, from what I can see most of the conflicting opinions on the classes aren't actually about the classes themselves, but instead on "which fix to this problem is the right one." People are disagreeing on how to fix the classes more than they're disagreeing on whether the classes need to be fixed or not.)
The biggest reason, however, is that theory crafting can't answer one extremely important aspect of he class: is it fun to play?
The issue with this: I can play an NPC class and have a grand ol' time. That doesn't mean the class is good enough to sit among the PC classes though.
Why is experimental science considered more important than natural philosophy?
Theorycrafting is experimental science. Playtest is what comes after theorycraft. The Devs have already done their theorycrafting - That's how we got the classes as the .pdf presents them. It would be foolish of us to test them without providing our own theorycrafting. ;)