@Lord Malkov - And if you want to be a caster, why not just play a cleric?
And before you say "Magus" let us be honest about that class. It is not a front line class. It can't take hits (light armor) and it doesn't actually hit anything without spells, considering all the minuses it takes to actually hitting, beyond being a 3/4 BaB class.
The Divine spell list is not an offensive list. This is not a class that will get damage bonuses from spells. And it is a 6 level casting class, so depending on the spell list just puts it behind the curve.
The buffs will need to be from class features, not from messing with the way the spells work.
Add class features that allow you to buff yourself and/or your weapon (whatever weapon that is).
It really is that simple.
I hope they don't make it complex. I hope they realize the blessings don't fit and replace them with things that make this class chew bubblegum and kick ass.
If you are going to be in heavy armor with martial weapons, for the love of your deity give them hitting power.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
If I'm being forced to use spells to buff myself as opposed to class features, why should I play warpriest over cleric.
Did you not see the tons and tons of posts I personally have made advocating additional buffs as class features?
Seriously, this is what I find so irritating about this whole discussion.
People are complaining about a single buff to a single item when the real issue is that there are too few class abilities to make you able to fight well.
The intention, it appears, was to give lots of feats like a fighter.
The problem of course, is that this is a 3/4 BaB class and you didn't even give access to fighter feats.
It sounds like there will be a focus on self buffing. Great. I'm hoping it will be class features that give bonuses that will just apply, regardless of weapon.
But to me it is absolutely asinine to complain about a bonus that barely brings that item up to full BaB level of attack bonus.
At least it is a bonus.
What people should be doing is discussing why there aren't other bonuses, not attack the few that exist. Particularly when they are basically the equivalent of the Paladin's sacred bond item in value.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The most important currency you have a GM is trust. Once you lose that, you lose your group.
The GM should be fair. Cruelty should come from the dice, not the person who rolls them.
They should make every adventure winnable, they should avoid getting in a competition with the players, and they should try the best they are able to do what they think would happen in that world, given what the players decide to do.
A good GM knows the world, knows the people, knows what they would do and what is going on. A good GM does not metagame off table knowledge, but never hesitates to play intelligent creatures intelligently.
And adventuring is dangerous work. Players have advantages and should generally win...but at what cost? And when decisions have outcomes...well decisions should have outcomes.
I'm not sure where my games fall on the death spectrum, if anything I seem to have somewhat have less deaths generally than the GM's I enjoy playing under.
But I always ask "What would happen next?" and everything else seems to take care of itself.
Here is where the problem came in.
It wasn't that he looked up a plan.
It was that he didn't validate coming by that knowledge in character.
If he had rolled a knowledge to find out what would work against the creature and come up with this solution, great.
On the other hand, what if he rolled a 1 on that knowledge check...
We had a running joke in one of our games because after rolling a 1 on a knowledge check to know what the immunities of an obvious skeleton were the player shouted "I think it's a trout."
And so, since we had never fought skeletons with those characters in that game, we didn't know to use bludgeoning. So we kept hacking away with swords and axes.
Because we, the people running, knew. The players in the game, didn't.
That is metagaming, that is where he was "cheating".
If before we went to fight undead, we went to learn about them, or we had fought skeletons before as these characters in this game, we would "know".
We didn't, so we didn't.
Knowing you can summon archons is not the same as knowing archons beat golems.
@Craft Cheese - But of course the healing blessing is only one possible choice, while the channel change would apply to all war priests, regardless.
And if you saw my fix, I changed the blessings to be a list of specific weapon or armor enhancements that you could add for rounds per day to any weapon (not just sacred) that were thematic (Death had bane: Undead, Fire had flaming, etc...)
I made a whole list in the other thread and got to about 4 enchantment choices for each domain just using existing enchantments. Seemed an interesting way to have the rarely used weapon enchantments get some run.
Then the mystery powers were tied to weapon groups, which of course are indirectly tied to god through favored weapon. And those bonuses also weren't favored weapon exclusive (although many would obviously benefit users of that "type" of weapon.
If you look at the Oracle, it just doesn't matter thematically that a god be spelled out, but they act in a similar way to domains in that you select one theme for your oracle.
Ok, let me try this, and please read it as “a” suggestion rather than “ciretose's” suggestion
Cover the dip:
So at first level lose the bonus feat and blessing as currently written and replace blessing with the ability to add a +1 enchantment (weapon or armor) linked to a domain of your deity for one round a level. This isn't a +1, this is a special enchantment, like bane:undead or flaming that is matched to a domain, and not just a +1.
This can be added to any weapon as a swift action, not just the favored weapon of your deity.
Enough to the useful at 1st but not so much to be broken. But what are you doing with Blessing being cut so much? Glad you asked.
Mystery as Weapon Training:
Rather than using the domain style from Cleric, use the Mystery Style from Oracle. Replace the bonus spells with Combat Style feats similar to ranger (including not needing pre-requisites). There are 14 Weapon styles as opposed to the 32 blessing domains, so space will be similar. The special abilities (think Oracle revalations) will apply to any weapon, and in fact don't need to even be weapon specific. Giving fast movement to unarmed group perhaps? Just a list of abilities similar to revalations, only linked to weapon groups.
What about channel?
Changing the channel:
Replace channel with an ability that lets you channel self or someone touched as a swift action. Simple change, big difference
The elephant in the room:
Make sacred weapon bonuses a flat bonus. Add a feat that lets you change sacred weapons. But...and this is the key, you will notice all of the enhancements above work on any weapon, not just your sacred weapon. All you will get from sacred weapon is weapon focus at 1st, and the +1 every four levels. Which is nice, but doesn't exclude you from all of the other bonuses you are getting from other things. It makes the favored weapon the best, but you can still get bonuses from your other abilities to all weapons you have.
Yes this is a fairly big change for blessings, but in many ways it is really is just swapping using domains as the template for using mysteries as the template. I think this addresses the top loading, helps with the MAD (not prerequisites for combat style feats), keeps sacred being sacred without making other options "useless", and finally makes this unique from Cleric or Inquisitor without reinventing the wheel.
The Oracle doesn't follow the God, they are selected by them. The Oracle isn't required to have any real connection to any faith.
"Although the gods work through many agents, perhaps none is more mysterious than the oracle. These divine vessels are granted power without their choice, selected by providence to wield powers that even they do not fully understand. Unlike a cleric, who draws her magic through devotion to a deity, oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals. Instead of worshiping a single source, oracles tend to venerate all of the gods that share their beliefs. While some see the powers of the oracle as a gift, others view them as a curse, changing the life of the chosen in unforeseen ways."
@Scavion - What you describe is what I envision as an inquisitor.
Here is what I envision. The Cleric runs the church, protects the church and its followers. He is the defender of the faith.
The Inquisitor hunts down heretics, does what needs be done. Solo mission special forces hunter of evil who sometimes has to act outside the laws of the church to get it done. He is the special opps of the faith.
The Warpriest is the army of the church. Trained with the weapons of the faith, not given the "do what you need to do" of an inquisitor, but focused more on offense than defense than the Cleric.
The Cleric is preaching about the God, trying to bring in followers, making sure the church is safe and well run, healing the weak (or spreading evil...)
The inquisitor is lightly armored, highly skilled, keep under the radar and doing that we don't want to talk about in church that need to be done.
The Warpriest is 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".
A nine-level casting class with a special pet who uses the druid spell list is called a druid.
I still think the pet should be replaced with a fetish that acts like a bonded item, but that is just me...
Lets say we do give both spell lists. Cleric and Druid. I think that would be to much power, but, only because of all the extras that come with it. Specifically hexes.
Is it more important to have hexes or either spell list. Because I could see that being a reasonable straight up trade.
They are saying that any weapon I pick should be able to be favored by the god enough to get the bonuses without me having to do anything else, because that is what I want it to be.
Many of them very angrily, with exclamation points.
Given a bonus to one is not disdaining something else Bob.
Giving a bonus is showing favor.
It isn't emulation, it is a part of the worship of the class. No one (or at least I'm not) is saying taking another weapon should not be an available option.
What we are saying is that if your Deity favors a weapon, and they decide to grant bonuses to those who use that weapon, because that is their favored weapon, that isn't punishment.
That is a bonus.
Just like if a ranger has favored enemy undead, it isn't punishment every time he fights "Not undead"
This whole "punishment" mentality on the boards has gone way off the rails.
Actually 14...so slightly better. We have.
Axes: battleaxe, dwarven waraxe, greataxe, handaxe, heavy pick, light pick, orc double axe, and throwing axe.
Blades, Heavy: bastard sword, elven curve blade, falchion, greatsword, longsword, scimitar, scythe, and two-bladed sword.
Blades, Light: dagger, kama, kukri, rapier, sickle, starknife, and short sword.
Bows: composite longbow, composite shortbow, longbow, and shortbow.
Close: gauntlet, heavy shield, light shield, punching dagger, sap, spiked armor, spiked gauntlet, spiked shield, and unarmed strike.
Crossbows: hand crossbow, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, heavy repeating crossbow, and light repeating crossbow.
Double: dire flail, dwarven urgrosh, gnome hooked hammer, orc double axe, quarterstaff, and two-bladed sword.
Flails: dire flail, flail, heavy flail, morningstar, nunchaku, spiked chain, and whip.
Hammers: club, greatclub, heavy mace, light hammer, light mace, and warhammer.
Monk: kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and unarmed strike.
Natural: unarmed strike and all natural weapons, such as bite, claw, gore, tail, and wing.
Pole Arms: glaive, guisarme, halberd, and ranseur.
Spears: javelin, lance, longspear, shortspear, spear, and trident.
Thrown: blowgun, bolas, club, dagger, dart, halfling sling staff, javelin, light hammer, net, shortspear, shuriken, sling, spear, starknife, throwing axe, and trident.
The oracle has about 10 options under each, so if we use that format but we lose the skills and spells and replace them with bonus feats...
I actually think that could really work well.
You don't think the favored weapon of the God is actually something that should be given favor.
I think it is. So do the people who included in the game going back however long that is.
It really is that simple.
Arcane casters get penalities for wearing armor, druids don't wear metal and speak a language no one else can know, Clerics and Paladins can lose powers for not following the tenets of the faith, and Warpriests get bonuses when they use the favored weapons of the Gods they choose.
So again, attempting to move forward, what suggestions for getting the weapons to greater parity?
You have a very warped view of a minority considering your the only one asking for a feat tax.
I'm the only one left in the thread asking for it. Everyone else read the blog post, realized that it was going to stay favored, and moved on.
Go read the "outcry" in the blog post thread.
I'm only sticking around in the hope that a discussion of how to implement changes to give more parity to favored weapons will break out between the chicken little "the sky is falling if I have to take a feat for a different weapon" posts.
But even that got dragged over to the other thread I created...
Because they don't have 6 levels of casting or any other weapon proficiency...
If I am forced to take a single feat, I am no longer viable!
She is making you use it?
See I thought she was just giving you bonuses if you did use it.
Seriously this whole "punished" mindset boggles me.
If you don't get exactly what you want you are punished...
It is a bonus to the favored weapon of the deity you choose. There are how many deities you can select from?
And the class is also a 6 level caster with other abilities.
And on top of that, we are proposing a feat that lets you add these bonuses (including weapon focus for free...) to any weapon in the game.
Can you imagine trying to get the Wizard or Sorcerer through a playtest?
"What if I want to be an armored mage? Why are you punishing me?"
It is a patch for a non-existent "problem"
If you want to be a druid, you don't wear metal armor.
If you want to be a wizard/sorcerer you get spell failure if you wear armor.
If you want to be a fighter with an exotic weapon, you take a feat.
And the Warpriest gets a bonus to the favored weapon of their god.
If you want that bonus to apply to something other than the favored weapon of their god, you take a feat.
What I would really like to see in this discussion is ideas for things to give each weapon group to bring the weapons closer to parity so it is a non-issue.
But complaining is easier than contributing I suppose...
Selecting a feat is a burden. Not getting a bonus is a handicap. People don't always agree with me, and call me out when I'm inconsistent.
Oh the oppression...
Then play a fighter/cleric. Problem also solved.
If I want to play a class that has full casting but doesn't pray to get spells or have to follow a deity (or at minimum a philosophy), cleric isn't for me.
If I want to play a class that has full casting but doesn't revere nature, Druid isn't for me.
Feat "tax" is another way of saying "I don't want to actually have to invest to get what I want."
Well...you do. If you want a better option than the one provided by the base, you pay for it.
Or house rule.
And people who want to wear metal don't play druids, people who want to cast spells don't play fighters, and people who don't want to worship a god don't play clerics.
Sure we could make the class bland enough for everyone. But why?
No I want people to choose their deity based on the concept they want to play and what the deity represents.
I think it is telling that some people put the power before the concept...
What I do think is that a Warpriest of Desna with a Starknife should be the best option for a warpriest of Desna, given that is the favored weapon of Desna.
I think if you want to get bonuses to something other than your deities favored weapon, you should be able to if you are willing to spend a feat.
I am excited by the idea of the rarely used starknife getting use thanks to bonuses. I think that concept is much more interesting than a falcion wielding Warpriest of Desna who is no different than a Falcion Wielding Warpriest of Erastil, etc, etc, etc...
I think that giving bonus to deities favored weapons will encourage people to be more likely to use favored weapons, which I think is a wonderful thing that puts flavor first.
But scream out Stormwind, I know it's coming...
I said the same thing and was told that they were handicapped.
If I have to take a feat to get a bonus to the weapon that my god favors, how is that not a feat tax if having to take a feat to get a bonus to a weapon my god does not favor isn't a feat tax.
Here is why I see happening if all weapons are equal. All warpriests will look similar. They will all use similar weapons.
However if the favored weapon is the focus, a warpriest of Gorum is very different than a warpriest of Cayden.
The thing I hate most about the Magus is that they all more or less look the same. It is boring. There is "a" build, more or less.
If each deity has a different favored weapon, each deities war priest will have a different look and feel, in a real sense.
That is much more interesting to me.
Regardless, it seems to be settled at this point so I personally would be more interested in discussing how to implement it well.
I'm advocating for variety. If favored weapons aren't favored, the warpriest weapons selection will be the same as every other class with martial weapon proficiency in the game.
That is the opposite of adding more variety to the table.
The reason most of us prefer Pathfinder to GURPS is that the flavor of pathfinder is more interesting. Deities having favored weapons is part of that flavor.
The fact that this weapon favoring has not been incorporated well before is exactly the reason why I'm excited about them finally doing it right.
Asking someone to take a feat when they choose not to use the weapon the god they choose favor is not an undo burden.
If you are a warpriest, literally a warrior for your god, why would the god not give incentive to use the weapon they favor.
That is what we are talking about. Incentive.
You don't need to take a feat if you select the weapon the god favors (or a simple weapon). You do need to take a feat if you want to select one the god doesn't favor.
Additionally (and this is also represented in the card game), the term "munchkin" typically refers not only to building a powerful character, but also strongly implies rule-bending, loophole exploitation, creative interpretation, or even outright cheating (there's even a card called "cheat") in the pursuit of that power.
But now it is in large bold text. So the visually impaired can feel his nerdrage. :)
A fighter is proficient in all martial but only gets weapon training for a group and weapon specialization for one with out burning extra feats.
I think that would be to much.
If you make it a swift rather than standard, that is a big bump. In my mind it makes up for the d8 gap when they are in the trenches. They can still combat heal with regular heal spells, and maybe having something that lets them combat cast heals without AoO makes sense.
Now we are carving out a real niche for this class.
I think it's a great idea moving towards condensing this class, but the problem with moving blessing abilities to Weapon Training groups is that the abilities granted from weapon training would, by nature, need to be generic, which removes some of the uniqueness of each individual Warpriest.
I can see that, but if you place them with the enhancements suddenly you have a page count issue.
I think the Inquisitor is the spontaneous caster, so that ship has sailed.
I don't like the swift casting as I think that just opens up a whole other can of worms. I get what you are saying about wanting to be able to buff quickly, but I don't think you should have that come without also increasing the level of the spell.
I think if you want buffs to the class, make them added directly to the class as a feature, not though modifications of spells that already have assigned levels and powers.
Matthew Trent wrote:
And so at this point favored weapon means...
If the favored weapon isn't favored, there is no point to having a favored weapon. I'm fine with a feat allowing you to have an alternative sacred weapon, but if the god isn't favoring a weapon, why called it a favored weapon?
We aren't talking about the Paladin. The Paladin has smite as a class feature.
We are talking about a class that basically the only unique aspect of it is the "sacred" weapon.
If favored weapon status means nothing in the game, then they should just remove it and save a few pages of space in the various books.
But I personally think it is good flavor and this is a good opportunity to have the favored weapon be used by the followers of the god.
If you think a set of weapons is to weak, make suggestions of how it could work.
As I said upthread, if you assign the blessings based on weapon types, you can have thrown weapons be returning, etc...and make the oddball weapons interesting.
But if we start throwing out interesting and cool flavor because it means someone, somewhere, might have to make a suboptimal mechanical choice...
Had a thought. What if instead of the blessings being for aspects, they are for weapons.
These are warpriests, after all.
You can break them down by the fighter groups and give specific bonuses/feats.
Axes: Cleave progression.
Now each class can get special abilities catered to it, so having starknife or daggers can actually get abilities geared toward it.
If you don't want flavor, play GURPS.
Arae Garven wrote:
No they don't, specifically because of the problems you noted.
Which is why I would like a class that encourages them to do so.
I don't want to play GURPS. I like when clerics to actually worship the gods that are giving them spells and are encouraged to use the favored weapon of the god they worship.
Crazy I know...
@AD - The rules exist to support the Adventure Paths and Modules. Unlike TSR and WOTC, they make money on people playing the disposable modules more than needing new crunch to feed the monster.
If the new classes get people to pick up a module or AP to try out the new class, win.
When that doesn't work anymore, that is when we will see a new edition that will still likely be backwards compatible but not rushed out at risk of bankruptcy as was the case with the current book.
As good a job as Jason did, it was still a rush job. All acknowledge that.
I for one look forward to a 1.5 edition.
Arae Garven wrote:
Many of us really like the new classes.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I don't think they are going to be able to "fix" the monk or rogue until the next edition. Doing so would obsolete the core version, and that isn't something I see them being interested in doing.
I think "a" monk is pretty good right now. It just isn't the unarmed monk.
I think the investigator or slayer fill the two things people complained about wanting in a rogue.
While neither is the perfect, I try to avoid having the perfect be the enemy of improvement.
Why is experimental science considered more important than natural philosophy?
More to the point, prior to testing people believed heavier objects fall faster than light ones.
Adjusting for air, they don't.
Theory crafting is all well and good, but it cherry picks variables. It isn't real world application in actual game setting.
It has it's place, but I would hope before Boeing puts a plane on the market they test it rather than just go by the models.
Cause the batteries didn't catch fire in the models...