Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Cayden Cailean

ciretose's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 14,577 posts (14,650 including aliases). 3 reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 14,577 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

Kudaku wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Yes, and now I want to play a TWF Warpriest (-4 to start)

A ranged Magi (-4 with rapid reload)
A two handed...well not while I'm attacking I'm not...

If you aren't having them take the penalty, then you are functionally giving a +4 enhancement to the spell, or better as some have argued it shouldn't provoke.

Can someone explain this to me? No sarcasm I swear to God, but I have no idea what Ciretose is talking about now.

If I'm taking a -2 to use spell combat, and as you say they waive the requirement to have a hand free, and I want to be a two weapon fighter, my bonus is now -4.

If I am ranged using rapid shot, -2 for the casting -2 for rapid reload.

Andoran

Kudaku wrote:


And as Jiggy said - Magi have absolutely no trouble hitting their targets despite being a 3/4th bab class and taking a -2 penalty using Spell Combat.

Since this came later.

Because the Magus damage often from damage that goes against touch AC and self buffs from Arcane pool.

Things the warpriest does not have.

Andoran

Kudaku wrote:

We don't know if the Warpriest gets access to Spell Combat, or if he does, if he has to eat the -2 penalty magi take.

The -2 penalty makes sense for magi since they are functionally Two weapon fighting with a 1h weapon and a(typically attack) spell.

If the warpriest was limited to casting buffs (with whatever limitations is most appropriate), there's no need to place a similar penalty on the ability.

Yes, and now I want to play a TWF Warpriest (-4 to start)

A ranged Magi (-4 with rapid reload)
A two handed...well not while I'm attacking I'm not...

If you aren't having them take the penalty, then you are functionally giving a +4 enhancement to the spell, or better as some have argued it shouldn't provoke.

OR

You can just set up sell buff special abilities and leave the spells alone to be used however makes the most sense for the build.

A 6 level divine caster class should not be asking the spells to do the heavy lifting.

Andoran

ChainsawSam wrote:


There is no reason to give the class Martial Weapon proficiency. All it is doing is sitting there taking up space and tipping the 'game design scale' against the class.
Quote:

I disagree if they are going to have other buff mechanics. Consider the inquisitor with martial and full armor. That would be a big difference.

If they are going with buffing mechanics (and it appears they are) having it apply to martial weapons would seem to make sense if the complaint is limited selection.

As to the channel stuff...that sounds more like a cleric archetype to me, but to each there own.

Andoran

Jiggy wrote:


Unless an enemy turns out to be spectacularly hard to hit, magi willingly use their touch spells against normal AC via Spellstrike as standard operating procedure. I don't even know the last time I saw a magus try to deliver a spell against Touch AC. Thus, most/all of what you said about the difference between a magus and a warpriest is faulty to the point of irrelevance.

I'm not MrSin, but I suspect that's what he meant when he asked you not to comment about the magus without understanding it better (rude though it may have been).

The called for mechanic is spell combat, not spell strike, with the intention to be able to self buff while attacking.

Spellstrike is largely irreverent given we are talking about the cleric spell list...not exactly full of offensive touch spells.

Spell combat is going to give you minuses to hit, and is being proposed to allow you to cast a buff while attacking...therefore taking a minus before getting a bonus and all the while restricting to one hand.

In a world where both the Inquisitor and Paladin self buff without resorting to spells, it makes little sense to have the "Take a minus for a plus while burning a spell" approach rather than just adding buff effects if you have as a goal, getting buffs.

Andoran

Lord_Malkov wrote:

Could all of this be done with class features? Sure, I suppose. Does that make a big difference to me? Well a bit. I think it would start to make the class feel a bit like a divine barbarian.

Does the inquisitor or Paladin feel like a divine Barbarian? The core self buffs are not spells, they are Judgements, Bane, Spite, Divine Bond, etc...

The only reason the summoner messes with the spell levels is flavor, strongly counterbalanced by losing your primary class feature if you cast a summon spell outside of the chart.

That would be like saying a Paladin could do quickened buffs if they didn't smite, or an inquisitor could if they didn't use judgement or bane.

The problem is that the blessings don't add much directly to the core role of the class, and the only thing that does is insufficient to the task and I think more of a side dish than a core feature.

But we know we have a significant re-write coming, so we'll see what was re-written.

Andoran

MrSin wrote:


Also, quit talking about the magus if you don't know the magus.

Because if I disagree with you about the magus, I am ignorant and no longer should be allowed to discuss it?

Moving on before I get into trouble...

Spell combat is a -2 to attack. No big deal if your damage comes from touch attack, kind of a big deal if you are already a 3/4 BaB class. The Cleric spell list isn't a big damage dealing spell list, so adding spell combat mechanics (minus to attack) to get a buff (+ to attack) doesn't really make a lot of sense if your argument is "Then it is up next round".

It is up next round either way, since you are losing -2 up front. Not to mention a hand you could be TWF, THF, or wielding a shield with.

Light armor is not heavy armor. Being able to self heal is fairly meaningful, particularly if that is made a swift action channel. Those are things this class has that the Magus doesn't which better equip it for frontline combat.

And the magus has damage spells that are based off touch AC, which make the negatives to attack (and dumping strength) something the Magus can do easily that the Warpriest wouldn't.

So the solution of looking to the Magus fails to address the warpriests needs.

What the class needs is more ways to do damage with a weapon in combat.

Andoran

@Thomas - I think the blessings read better than they build out and test in play. The death blessing for example makes no sense for a cleric of Pharasma. And the playtest above showed the issues with Erastil.

In and of themselves they are interesting. As a part of this specific class, integrated into the dynamics of the class, they don't work.

As to the "fix"...I'm still in the "It's not a problem it is a feature" group. :)

Andoran

nohar wrote:
i'm hoping they got rid of/changed channel...hopefully making it not based on charisma...

I think a change to Channel was announced as going to happen, but that wouldn't be a 1/3 in my book.

The class is basically (in order of importance IMHO)

1. 6 Levels of spells.
2. Bonus Feats Every 3 levels
3. Blessings
4. Channel
5. Sacred Weapons and Armor.
6. Martial Weapon Proficiency and Heavy Armor.

I don't see anything happening to 1 or 6.

2 and 5 may be altered, but not heavily and probably just clean up of the concept.

So to me that leave 3 and 4 as the areas where drastic change would (and should) occur.

Andoran

According to a podcast, 1/3 of the class was drastically altered.

Hoping it was the blessings :)

Andoran

Hopefully the 1/3 removed/altered were the Blessings :(

Andoran

@Lord Malkov - I would still rather you just give them access to a buff that allows them to do the things included under righteous might than mess with the spell levels.

Keep in mind the Summoner has the limiting "Either/Or" factor with those summons and the eidelon.

Andoran

If I were king of the game here is what I would do.

1. Craft Magic Arms and Armor is something anyone can take, and the ranks in craft replace caster level entirely.

2. Probably lean back, smile, and call it a day.

Andoran

MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:

Depends on how they make them good. If its a central class feature, then yes, that does make everything else a bad choice.

Sacred Weapon vs. Proficiency is also a very different thing.

So giving you something good is bad..
No, that isn't what I said. There was a contingency. Its not that your giving something a bonus, its that your using it to bring it to the baseline. Yes, its great to have nice tings, but if that nice thing is what's brining you to where you should be then that makes every other choice bad, because you need that one thing. For comparison, you don't play a fighter and choose not to use the weapons they have weapon training in. That's stupid. That makes you incredibly weak.

And the fact is the bonus is functionally the same as Divine Bond.

Are you arguing divine bond is the central class feature of the paladin?

Is the arcane pool weapon enhancement the central class feature of the Magus?

Hell, is it even the primary use of arcane pool points?

There is a lot of people who seem upset at any attempts to match flavor to mechanics rather than just delivering a flavorless husk.

I feel the exact opposite. My complaint as I've delved into the class comes from the fact the blessings don't fit flavor.

The Inquisitor is able to self buff, but stealing that mechanic is pointless. At this point you should just make an inquisitor archetype.

Changing the channel mechanic for self heal as a swift action would be a good start.

Switching the blessings out for something that directly aids combat and self buffing, similar to a Battle Oracle's mystery but for many more types of combat is another way to go.

But this fixation on "A dagger will be made a somewhat better option for classes that favor daggers." is missing the big picture and making a mountain out of a molehill.

What should be happening, and what I think is happening, is the class needs to have mechanics that say "Here is a cool thing you can do if you are a Dagger user. Here is a cool thing you can do if you are a great sword user. Etc..." so that regardless of what option you choose (because it is a choice...) you have something cool you can do that make sense with the theme.

If you can make a Warpriest of Pharasma who gets bane undead to weapons wielded as a swift action for rounds per level and can take the TWF without prerequites due to a combat mastery style feat chain, while also having access to self buffing abilities and healing as a swift action...that to be is fairly bad ass warrior against the undead.

And it is also different from the inquisitor or cleric.

My concern about making it about swift action spells comes down to the fact that this class will lag on spells no matter what, as it has 3 less levels of spell. Casting as a swift action isn't getting you access to the spells any sooner on the spell chart.

Now if you have a list of abilities like the Oracles Mysteries and you get things like War Sight or Battle cry...now we have something that is very different.

That is a central class feature.

Andoran

They should be able to buff as a swift action. That to me doesn't require spells to be made swift actions.

It requires them to be given features that allow them to buff as a swift action.

Andoran

Inquisitor is the best built new class IMHO, so I agree with you.

I think they were trying to get there with feats, and it didn't work. I do think a mystery style mechanic in place of blessings combined with combat style feats and self healing channel as a swift gets you something different from a fighter or a cleric that could perhaps be more frontline than an inquisitor.

I would play a class like that.

I really liked this class on first read, but then when I dug into the weeds it lacked power and the blessings...well...they don't work at all.

I still think the idea is interesting, and I think since it is clear what the lack is, fixing it is just a matter of dev elbow grease :)

Andoran

MrSin wrote:


Depends on how they make them good. If its a central class feature, then yes, that does make everything else a bad choice.

Sacred Weapon vs. Proficiency is also a very different thing.

So giving you something good is bad...

If sacred weapon is made into weapon training (which is what I advocated) for you deities favored weapon, that is a simple fix that fits flavor.

If they then add a feat to allow you to change it to another weapon (singular) that puts them in the same basic boat as inquisitors or Clerics wanting to choose a non-favored weapon.

Meanwhile, the main class feature of the class is 6 levels of spells and bonus feats every three levels, and blessing.

This is overlooked because the the classes from which it descends from gets more spells and more feats.

But that is the core of the class. That is what they are hopefully fixing, because that was what isn't working.

Andoran

master_marshmallow wrote:


I think we will see a version of Spell Combat that functions with self buffs, but we will not see an iteration of Spellstrike. At least, not with the main class, I can definitely see an archetype having the Spellstrike feature, allowing you to deliver Inflict Touches through your melee weapon.

That would be something a divine class has yet to do which I think would be good.

So you take a -2 to get a bonus, possibly only if you keep a hand free.

No thank you.

I'm hoping they just add buff mechanics. I hear what is said about the inquisitor, and I don't disagree that they are the current kings of the self buff. But I do think there are interesting things that can be done that wouldn't step on those toes.

But that was a good point.

Andoran

Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Sacred weapon is "a" buffing feature. Not even that great of one.
For now, but they say they will make you to want it so it probably becomes pretty strong, and that point if I have to sacrifize my main class feature to just use another weapon i would play a cleric or a paladin or an inquisitor.

If you play a cleric you have to take a feat for any weapon other than your favored and simple...almost the same for inquisitor.

And I hope you want to be lawful good for your Paladin...

If they make favored weapons good, that isn't making other things bad.

Andoran

ChainsawSam wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
ChainsawSam wrote:
That was my play test.
I really enjoyed reading that - you touched on all the major concerns I have and a few I hadn't even considered. I really hope the secs pick it up.

To be fair, some of my problems might have been due to crappy dice that night and a lot of my problems were unique to Erastil.

There is virtually no ranged weapon support among the Blessings. The Blessings which do offer support for ranged weapons (e.g. Air) don't seem to actually correspond with deities which give ranged weapons.

Another reason I'm calling for mystery style mechanics based on weapon groups.

Then you can have bonuses based on your specific weapon choices. And if you choose a group other than your favored, you still get bonuses and abilities.

Andoran

master_marshmallow wrote:


I was referring to you getting defensive...
I seriously do not understand how we are even having a discussion at this point, the devs have acknowledged what we asked them to look at and right now we are waiting for the new play test doc. I see no point in fighting over it anymore and no need to get defensive on anyone's stance.

I agree. I find it interesting you didn't give this reply to the others when they brought up their complaints about favored weapons, but did reply to me when I responded to those complaints.

Hopefully we can move on to discussing the area that are lacking, like the blessing issue.

I made my proposal to replace it as well as how to make the bonus feats more useful.

Andoran

@Scavion - The blessings are really a problem. I showed above the Pharasma blessings and it is kind of ridiculous how poorly they fit both theme and performance.

I hope that is the area they are focusing the most on. Like I said, I would blow that whole thing up and start over with a new mechanic to make the class able to hit things and hurt them.

Andoran

master_marshmallow wrote:
ciretose wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
He's doing it again isn't he?

Responding to posts?

Again, was I the one who wrote "The class is dead to me"

"you suck if you choose another weapon."

"a punishment."

"without the favored weapon of their deity that woudl make them a very lame class and a waste of space and work"

"Because the god do not waht his warpriest to suck for no reason."

Etc, etc, etc...

Why are you getting so overly defensive about... I don't even know anymore.

You say "He's doing it again" and then ask me why I'm defensive?

Seriously?

Andoran

MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
And while Scrodinger's Magus is great on the front lines, casting all those buffs in advance and still having the damage spells for a full combat day...in actual math they are about rogue or bard level.
And now he's shouting schrodinger. Right back to it folks.
And this post is intended toward what purpose?
Lampshading in an old timey style? We go through this a lot.

We do. I ask, lest you say I am putting words in your mouth. Yet you never seem to answer...

A spell combat mechanic includes minuses to attack. For the magus who is often doing damage via spells based off touch AC...not as much a concern.

That isn't the divine spell list.

The Magus as a model doesn't work because the magus is a caster first, weapon user a very distant 2nd. Further, it's loss of 3 levels of spells comes with a gain to 3/4 BaB, d8 hit points and the ability to actually wear armor (among other things.)

Hence the dex builds that don't care about added damage, similar to a rogue not caring much about STR since the primary damage is sneak attack.

This is a class that can use any number of weapons, and primarily the damage will not be from the spell directly.

And changing the spell mechanics does nothing to change that it has 3 levels less than another 3/4 d8 BaB class.

The buffs need to be baked in as special abilities.

Andoran

Adam B. 135 wrote:
Well darn, did not see that there. Good point on the feat prerequisites though.

No worries.

Andoran

MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
And while Scrodinger's Magus is great on the front lines, casting all those buffs in advance and still having the damage spells for a full combat day...in actual math they are about rogue or bard level.
And now he's shouting schrodinger. Right back to it folks.

And this post is intended toward what purpose?

Andoran

master_marshmallow wrote:
He's doing it again isn't he?

Responding to posts?

Again, was I the one who wrote "The class is dead to me"

"you suck if you choose another weapon."

"a punishment."

"without the favored weapon of their deity that woudl make them a very lame class and a waste of space and work"

"Because the god do not waht his warpriest to suck for no reason."

Etc, etc, etc...

Andoran

Atarlost wrote:


But if you're right about spells not being enough here you were wrong a page ago about spells being enough for those who dare to want to play warpriests using martial weapons.

Did they remove Martial Weapon Proficiency while I was gone?

Do the bonus feats only apply to the favored weapon? I didn't see that...

Andoran

Kudaku wrote:

While I can't speak for anyone else here, the reason I use smite evil, or bane, or spell combat as examples is because Jason seems to have expressed an interest in making the favored weapon a bigger aspect of the class - we don't know how big yet, so im preparing for the worst by envisioning a mechanic as intrinsic to the warpriest as smite is to the paladin.

Though I agree with you in that blessings are lackluster and the class needs more class features, I'm actually feeling good about the self-buffing aspect. Clericzillas were terrifying back in the day and with the right spellcasting action mechanic the warpriest can be a very viable combatant.

And you're seriously underestimating the magus if you don't think it can hold up on the frontlines.

And in "preparing for the worst" the whole thread seems to have gone crazy as everyone is feeding into the apocalyptic assumptions that are no where on the page.

And while Scrodinger's Magus is great on the front lines, casting all those buffs in advance and still having the damage spells for a full combat day...in actual math they are about rogue or bard level.

Meaning they can wade in and trade a few, but they aren't tanks.

This fellow can and should be a tank.

Andoran

MrSin wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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

Magus is expected to be upfront. They aren't the wizard who stands in back and cast create pit and haste, they use spell combat to wade into combat while buffing themselves and others and landing touch spells using spell strike. It has class features that buff itself without spells too! Spells even grant it mobility other classes can't have. They can actually very durable with spells like mirror image, blur/displacement, and invisibility at their disposal, and they trend towards dex builds with don't have that much less AC in armor anyway.(theoretically 2).

Edit: Comparing the magus to the warpriest is a big comparison though, the difference in spell list alone is pretty crazy.

In light armor, with no healing, no offhand shield, and attacking with minuses when they use their main feature as a 3/4 BaB class...

The Magus is a caster who can wade in to combat and does almost all of it's damage from spells cast, not from weapon damage.

That makes it a caster class.

The Bloodrager is a combat role who can cast, and frankly the real Gish many of us have been waiting for.

Please don't add anything to this 3/4 class that is already moderately MAD that makes it harder for them to hit, like adding a spell combat mechanic. Aptly named because spell comes before combat.

That is my fear for the changes coming up. I'm hoping those aren't the suggestions he it taking.

Andoran

Kudaku wrote:

You might want to work better at controlling that irritation, it's seeping into your posts st the moment :-/

People are addressing the lack of bonuses specifically by debating the sacred weapon - if that mechanic is too central then the class will be unplayable if you're not using the favored weapon and you'd be better off playing a different class - which would be a shame.

At the moment we don't know how big (or small) the weapon-specific benefit will be, which is why people are stating reservations about it. By pointing out the drawbacks to the class if the favored weapon aspect is unavoidable and critical to the class, the hope is that an alternate option to only the favored weapon will be added in and/or that the class bonuses will be balanced more evenly.

If you want to talk controlling irritation, please address to those saying things like "the class is dead to me"...

And my point is this is a mountain out of a molehill. It is a +1 bonus at 4th level that doesn't even add bonuses past +5.

It is not the core of the class. It it a side dish.

The issue is not the side dish. The issue is the lack of steak.

Jason seems to understand that the feats combined with martial weapon and 6 levels of spells doesn't cut it.

Cool.

Now what would cut it? That is the question.

Andoran

Adam B. 135 wrote:
Considering that currently the sacred weapon mechanic is the major weapon buffing mechanic of the class, there is no myth. It is factual that Paizo has not confirmed whether a Warpriest will be able to use sacred weapon on a weapon that is not a focus weapon in the future. In other words, it is factual that we have no confirmation if the Warpriest's main buffing class feature will be available to all weapons.

Sacred weapon is "a" buffing feature. Not even that great of one.

The class has bonus feats every 3 level and 6 levels of casting, plus blessings. Those are the main "buffing" features.

Sacred weapon doesn't even really get you even with a full BaB class having no features.

The problem is not that the favored weapon got what is, again, basically Divind bond.

The problem is that the feats and blessings don't cut it, and the 6 levels are less than 9 so you are already losing out there.

We don't talk about how awesome a Paladin's bonded weapon is. We talk about smite. Because a +1 every 4 levels you have to activate is nice, but that isn't the class.

The Warpriest has no smite. Hell it doesn't even have a Divine Grace or Lay on Hands.

That is where our attention should be.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@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.

Andoran

Adam B. 135 wrote:
Exactly. With the state of things now, we still have no confirmation that non-favored weapons can be enhanced with the Warpriest's class features.

What makes you think you can't?

Other than the group freak out at *gasp* a feature encouraging use of a favored weapon, what makes you think you won't be able to?

Are the blessings favored weapon exclusive?

Does anything in the class other than sacred weapon make any reference to focus weapon or favored weapon?

The word "Favored" appears once in the class.

Under Focus Weapon.

Focus Weapon appears once.

Under sacred weapon.

This thread is feeding into itself some mythology that doesn't exist in the actual text.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Andoran

Adam B. 135 wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Now what did you think of my post 5 posts above? I addressed your points and gave you the input you have been asking for.
I responded to it. 5 posts above actually :)

Where is the response to this then?

"Your ideas to replace blessings have potential, but I do not think they should be entirely focused on weapon enchants. I believe they should grant static abilities along with a list of weapon enchantments.

A list of bonus feats also turns me off. I like the freedom the current class gives you with feat selection."

This is direct feedback on your ideas.

This post.

Or just scroll up.

Andoran

MrSin wrote:

And no one said the sky is falling. Nice list of people saying they don't like something though. Gotta' empathize, understand what people saying that mean without just dismissing them or treating them like doomsayers who don't mean or know anything.

Captain selective outrage...

Did I say what you are saying or are you now putting words in my mouth while complaining about words being put in your mouth. Because

Pro-tip: this is why you and I don't get along.

You don't get to complain about people misrepresenting your argument while you misrepresent other peoples arguments. Like you are doing in this post.

On topic, it is a bonus to a weapon.

That is all it is.

Period, full stop.

It doesn't mean other buffs and bonuses don't work, it doesn't prevent you from using other weapons.

It improves one weapon. At frankly a fairly modest pace.

I didn't even go back that far for the quotes I pulled, which were (and are since some were from this page) hyperbolic and ridiculous.

It's just a bonus. Because it is a favored weapon. So the god gave a bonus for using it. Because it is favored.

So flavor matching mechanics, not precluding anything else. Hell, you are more able to use other weapons than you would as a cleric, since a cleric has to take a feat to use anything other than simple or the favored effectively.

It doesn't prevent anything. This whole kurfluffle...well to quote Derrick Coleman: "Woop de damn do"

Andoran

Because they are going to change the class so you can't buff non-sacred weapons?

Divine Favor is going to be favored weapon only?

Andoran

Adam B. 135 wrote:
Now what did you think of my post 5 posts above? I addressed your points and gave you the input you have been asking for.

I responded to it. 5 posts above actually :)

Andoran

MrSin wrote:

ciretose wrote:
We'll see when the PDF rolls out, but I really wish there would be less "The sky is falling" when a single bonus ability isn't exactly what you want it to be.
Keep in mind the sky is falling is your words. Why is it in quotes? No ones said that.

Would you prefer the following quotes

"The class is dead to me"

"you suck if you choose another weapon."

"a punishment."

"without the favored weapon of their deity that woudl make them a very lame class and a waste of space and work"

"Because the god do not waht his warpriest to suck for no reason."

Etc, etc...

Andoran

Adam B. 135 wrote:
ciretose wrote:
that is not going to change.
This is a crowdsourced playtest. Things can still change drastically. Nobody can throw around statements like that with absolute confidence.

Read the blog post and the most recent post from the person writing the class.

"With the rewrite, the favored weapon of your god is going to become something you want to use, not just something you are forced to use. "

Posted 6 hours ago.

The Favored weapon will be favored. Accept and move on.

Andoran

Having a bonus to one thing does not preclude use of another thing.

The issue isn't that the favored weapon gets a bonus. The issue is that the class itself doesn't give enough bonuses to make them effective in combat.

I'm hoping the route is to give a selections of ways to self buff as a replacement for the blessings (which as I said, don't work well or fit as currently constituted) and I've made my suggestions.

If there are ways to buff your scythe to a point of being effective, who cares that there are also separate bonuses if you use a dagger?

We'll see when the PDF rolls out, but I really wish there would be less "The sky is falling" when a single bonus ability isn't exactly what you want it to be.

Andoran

Adam B. 135 wrote:


Your ideas to replace blessings have potential, but I do not think they should be entirely focused on weapon enchants. I believe they should grant static abilities along with a list of weapon enchantments.

A list of bonus feats also turns me off. I like the freedom the current class gives you with feat selection.

The enchantments are for armor or weapons. Static abilities are already on the sacred weapon, but I would say it would make sense to have those types of things them as some of the mystery style bonuses in the weapon groups.

The problem with the current feat set up is the need for pre-requisites. By going ranger style you don't need to be as MAD (no ability score MINs) and you can bypass stepping stone feats.

The weapon group is going to have the feats that you would pick for the types of weapons in that group. And as I said you can choose any weapon group, it just will be more likely people will choose the group they have a sacred weapon with, given the bonuses and weapon focus.

Andoran

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Just because you disagree doesn't make it bad idea

It does make it derailing. That ship has sailed and you two can either continue to derail or be part of coming up with a solution.

As it stands, the class has a benefit to favored weapons.

Based on all blog posts and feedback, that is not going to change.

The class also has other benefits, and those benefits effect all weapons.

If you want to discuss the blessing ideas, or other ideas, or propose some new ideas based in reality, by all means stick around.

If you want to beat a dead horse, please start another thread. The favored weapon will be favored. Deal with it and move on.

Andoran

Adam B. 135 wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I would say that posting a simple solution is better than inventing a solution requiring feats and at least a page of rules to buff bad weapons.

And I would say you haven't read the thread, and ask that you do so before commenting on something addressed a long time ago in the topic.

The discussion is not about buffing "bad weapons".

Again, I would like to avoid more derailing at this point and either address what is being discussed or offer new solutions or suggestions.

Well this is a new solution right here, and just as valid as any other solution. Its also the easiest to implement:

Unklbuck wrote:

We're overcomplicating things here. The Warpriest is a Soldier for their God...They have Simple and martial Weapon proficiencies...allow them to chose one type of simple or martial Weapon...irregardless of their dieties favored weapon and that weapon type will be Their favoed weapon

Are you done now?

Andoran

Insain Dragoon wrote:
I would say that posting a simple solution is better than inventing a solution requiring feats and at least a page of rules to buff bad weapons.

And I would say you haven't read the thread, and ask that you do so before commenting on something addressed a long time ago in the topic.

The discussion is not about buffing "bad weapons".

Again, I would like to avoid more derailing at this point and either address what is being discussed or offer new solutions or suggestions.

Andoran

Adam B. 135 wrote:
Unklbuck wrote:

We're overcomplicating things here. The Warpriest is a Soldier for their God...They have Simple and martial Weapon proficiencies...allow them to chose one type of simple or martial Weapon...irregardless of their dieties favored weapon and that weapon type will be Their favoed weapon

Agreed 100%. Rovagug and Gorum should not care about what weapon you wield, as long as it is wielded in their names. Similiarly, I doubt Iomedae cares if you use a longsword, greatsword, or even your fist to fight evil, as long as evil is being fought. I also doubt that the wise Pharasma wants you to face against undead with a small ritual dagger either, especially when skeletons and liches resist slashing and piercing weapons.

Stop derailing and return to the topic please.

Andoran

Unklbuck wrote:

We're overcomplicating things here. The Warpriest is a Soldier for their God...They have Simple and martial Weapon proficiencies...allow them to chose one type of simple or martial Weapon...irregardless of their dieties favored weapon and that weapon type will be Their favoed weapon

The reason I'm pushing the groups is in the hope of a mystery style mechanic rather than the current domain style mechanic.

Plus, if you go this route you can have bonus feats customized more to combat style.

You can have light weapons get TWF progression feats, for example. Or have a sword and board progression or a ranged combat progression.

I wouldn't tie it specifically to the favored weapon (although I'm hoping the bonuses to the favored weapon would make you want to), it would be a choice you make, same as an oracle choosing a mystery.

The only thing tied to deity would be the enchantment domains.

Andoran

It does not sound like you won't be able to buff non-favored weapon (nor did it ever...)

It sounds like favored weapons will get additional buffs.

So the class will be a heavy self buff class (crossing fingers some of my suggestions are stolen) and the buffs will apply to everything, but favored weapons will get an extra bonus.

Looking forward to the PDF.

Andoran

Kryzbyn wrote:


Teamwork feats aside, if this AC is buffed above and beyond a normal AC, something akin to an Eidolon, then no, it may not be mechanicly disadvantageous.
But I'll leave it at that. I don't want to go down this rabbit hole per se, until we know more about how this class is changing :)
Good points, though.

Fair enough until we see the changes, but if the Animal Companion alone isn't goings to be > The Animal Companion and a PC.

1 to 50 of 14,577 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.