Lord Snow wrote:
I think your argument lacks sadly a lot in ability to think outside your own cultural mentality.
So it is safe to assume that the revised playtest will be next week if everything goes according to plan.
That would not leave a lot of time for the actual playtesting. I hope they get the revisions right, then.
Well, there is some absurdist appeal to the idea that every time you screw up in the new game, a Reaper will land outside the building you're in, blow its Reaper horn and announce in the voice of Shepard that you are doing something wrong. :p
I always took that to mean that each option has positives and negatives and no one is 100% right;
As someone (a literatur professor) put it on the BioWare social forum: "All were thematically revolting".
I think it would have been much more in the spirit of the entire trilogy and especially the first two games if you could have earned yourself a "good" ending. One thing which defined Shepard prior to the horrible ending of ME3 was that s/he always managed to make a new option. Someone with far more eloquence than myself made a good stab at explaining how that could have been done in this essay here. Definitely worth a read, IMO.
There's no way that Synthesis will be the standard ending, unless they manage to retcon the whole "circuit skin" thing. At the very least, the story implications make it pretty much a no-go, too. Control... maybe, but unlikely, if they want to make a clean break with Shepard. So, Destroy it is.
Did I mention that all three endings suck, because each one makes you into a monster? Aside from the myriad of other BS stuff around the endings, but that particular piece of "FU!" from the writers still stands out to me.
Although I recognize that many people like FemShep, I got to tout the advantages of BroShep. You get to be with Tali and Garrus is the best bro ever in the history of games. Team Dextro FTW! Also, I love Mark Meer's understated (but layered) performance as Shepard.
Wouldn't be half bad to add a "Have you playtested this class in a game?" question to each survey.
I think not. People can have clear ideas how mechanics work without playtesting. Which also suffers from fickle dice other random chance elements. I'd love to playtest, but time and willing friends make it not very likely that I'll get the chance. Also, at this moment the classes are getting re-designed, so I'm not sure how playtesting the old versions helps things anymore.
Survey taken. Somehow I seem more negative about some classes than I really feel about them, but that's because the survey asks for direct comparisons with other classes. ^^
Aside from the Warpriest, which is horribly useless in its current state and gets his milkshake stolen by the Inquisitor.
I definitely love that it feels like the developer in charge of the Warpriest is avoiding this thread like the plague. At least the lead dev for the Investigator is talking to people.
I think it's Jason and he seems busy with the Arcanist. I'd find it hilarious if it were Sean, though.
I cringed at that too. The introduction reads like it could be swapped with the paladin except for the last sentence that basically says, "This is pretty much exactly a paladin, the only difference being that it doesn't have to be lawful good."
Oh, man, the Warpriest wishes that it would be as good as a Paladin in smiting fools. Sadly, it isn't, a Paladin will outfight it at every level (caveat: "when facing evil opponents").
I'm a bit sad that nobody of the Paizo devs seems to be able to formulate what their intended role for the Warpriest really is. Even the defined role in the playtest document makes the class sound like a worse Cleric.
"Although not as capable as a cleric, the warpriest can still serve as a capable healer or spellcaster,..."
I wonder if any other class already declares in its flavor text "Yo, you better play a Cleric, son!". ;)
No, I also think that the blessing summoning options are underwhelming, because they start it off with SM IV, SM V. Getting Summon Monster XI at level 20 is irrelevant, people, because the campaign is over at that point.
Yes, and so will the one of the Warpriest. Again, what's your point here?
You don't need to know why the designers feel there's room for it in order to playtest it.
You see, such "shut up you pleb!" comments do nothing to make me desist in asking politely for an answer.
In my opinion, it's pretty clearly to fill the niche that the paladin is too narrowly defined to fit; holy warrior, minus the restrictive code.
From the playtest document. It's a fighter-cleric. That's pretty straightforward.
So, it's the Inquisitor with slightly different abilities. Again, why do we need another one of those when it already exists in a better form?
I think we need to know that to give useful feedback if the mechanics of the class work as to the direction the developers want the class to go in.
I'd love to, but I really need to hear a developer comment about what place they are envisioning the Warpriest to occupy, when compared to the already existing Inquisitor (and Cleric and Paladin). I think this question has to be answered to help us understand what their purpose with the class is. So far, most people just seem confused why we even need it, with three other classes already occupying the space it is supposed to fill.
The devs already made the decision to work over the Arcanist when people pointed out its shortcomings in the "where does it stand?" department, so I hope they will at least give us a good idea what their intent with the Warpriest is.
Yeah, I've been making noise about this identity problem for the last few days and so far have been summarily and very pointedly been ignored by Sean and the other devs.
The class lacks an identity of its own, since all the available spots are already occupied. It also is observably worse than the Inquisitor, which is the direct comparison class which already occupies the Warpriests intended spot and that makes me just sad.
A nerfed Channel Energy and having a full spell list to pick from every day do not make up for having four skill points less per level and not having access to the vast list of incredibly nifty features the Inquisitor can use.
The main problem the Cleric always has had in being an effective melee combatant is that you needed several rounds of casting short duration buffs to get going and the fast-paced Pathfinder combat often just doesn't give you that needed time. The Warpriest could probably find a niche by exploiting that gap, although that would probably necessitate re-writing a lot of the class. And I don't see that happening, given most comments from the devs.
Although it seems to be that there is some disagreement between them about how much the playtest can change. It's like Jason says "Everything is on the table", Sean says "We are not going to fundamentally change things anymore" and Stephen seems to fall somewhere in the middle. :p
A. Divine Magus without the action economy fix.
Sooo... the Inquisitor?
B. If the Paladin is a fighter/cleric leaning towards fighter, this is a fighter/cleric leaning more towards cleric.
Ah, so it's supposed to be... the Inquisitor?
And before someone comes in and tells me that I am being too negative: I want to love the Warpriest. Outside of the Swashbuckler, it was the class I was most looking forward to. But the current version badly duplicates a class which already exists and I feel that it needs its own identity and design concept, which distinguishes it from the other divine 3/4 BAB, 6 levels of spellcasting martial class. Which has vastly superior class features to this new class.
I'd really like to see Sean or Jason or Mark address what the concept of the Warpriest is. And especially what the concept of the Warpriest is, when compared to the Inquisitor. Why do we need two classes which seem to fill the same niche? "Selfish divine martial" is simply done better by the Inquisitor and it has great skills and way more skill points to boot. The nerfed Channel Energy of the Warpriest doesn't really compare.
Well, yes. Which is why I always feel a bit sad that playtest results come before methodical analysis. But this is about the least part of my concern for the Warpriest, so I would like to not focus on that part of my last post.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Sean, I think it is really unfair to basically declare that concerns about the overall role of a class are not even wanted. I'm pretty much unable to playtest those classes, because in both groups I play in we have running campaigns and I don't see many players wanting to sub out their character suddenly.
That being said, nine of the ten classes seem conceptually sound, only the Warpriest is completely baffling me as to which role it is supposed to play, which is not already filled better by the three other divine melee classes. The Cleric is a better caster, the Paladin is a better fighter and the most comparable class, the Inquisitor, just is straight out better at everything you'd expect the Warpriest to do.
So, the conceptual question comes up: What's the point of a new class which is worse than the three classes in whose spot it tries to find its place? What is its role, compared to those three classes? Until this concept is really established, it is difficult to give effective feedback, outside of raw data if the class was able to hit things enough.
Hybrid Classes fail to offer new niches, unnecessary reiterate old classes and dilute support for existing classes.
With Warpriest, not ONLY do I start off with full martial weapon & armor training, I get the ability to magically augment my weapon and armor in relevant ways, get a smattering of blessings which I can use to further augment my abilities, and even better, they STACK with existing enhancements! Oh, and the icing on the cake? Swift actions. Swift actions GALORE! I don't have to spend whole turns buffing: I just decide how I want to use my swift action for that round. Oh, AND I get bonus combat feats, just like the fighter. Eat your HEART out, crusader.
Only that most of this concept already exists in the Inquisitor, so I don't really understand why we need a second new class to fill the exact same concept, only slightly different. And worse than the already existing Inquisitor.
Yes, please. An explanation what niche this class is supposed to fill (especially in comparison to the Cleric, Inquisitor and Paladin) would be highly appreciated, because so far most people seem bewildered by that and the obvious inferiority of this class compared to the Inquisitor (which already occupies the exact gamespace it seems to be geared for).
Ernest Mueller wrote:
Well, the only class I am legitimately upset about is the Warpriest, because it occupies the same gamespace as the Inquisitor, yet still manages to be worse in about every respect to it. I don't see how the developers came up with the idea for this class and could overlook that. It needs an identity of its own, maybe in the realm of being a fast group buff melee class or something like that. In its current state, it just makes me scratch my head why I would ever want to play one over an Inquisitor. The developers also could chime in with an explanation what niche the class is supposed to occupy (especially in comparison to the Cleric, Inquisitor and Paladin).
The other classes are either in a good place (Swashbuckler, Investigator, Bloodrager), need some minor to middle amount of work (Hunter, Slayer, Shaman) or a better identity (Arcanist, Hunter).
That doesn't mean that criticism is unwarranted or that people who voice that criticism should be shouted down by some people which often try to mock and deligitimize any criticism of the rules. However, voicing criticism should be done in a curteous and constructive manner and some of the people not happy with the playtest have expressed themselves in a manner which made it seem as if Paizo had done them some personal grievance. And that is not the way to get the developers ear.
Yes, that is my thought exactly. If you are going to cap spellcasting/BAB at level 6, the class better have something amazing up its sleeve to stand against the Cleric, like the Inquisitor does.
IMO, the Warpriest should be able to give out buffs as swift actions to himself and his allies, which would make him a go-to class for people who want to play a frontline cleric of war, who always had to struggle with their buffing taking up precious rounds which could be used for smashing in enemies heads.
That would be perfect. I would dig looking at this Swashbuckler class too.
Here's a link to the post with a link to the latest version.
If you want me to post the Swashbuckler version stat blocks of Ameiko (better equipped than the rest of the NPC's, though... she was kind of my favorite among them ^^), just say so.
One thing I had hoped for the class before its publication was that it would give out its blessings to everyone, not only itself. Maybe that is an aspect which could set it apart from the Inquisitor, which mostly seems a selfish class, i.e. has no inherent buff potential (outside of maybe taking those spells on its list).
More skill points are sorely needed, though. The Cleric has the excuse of being a full caster and the Fighter has no good excuse but it's a legacy issue. The Warpriest shouldn't be constrained by that and it is darkly comical how much better the Inquisitor is in that regard.
The sad thing is that the Inquisitor is better in about every regard to the Warpriest. I honestly don't see the point of designing a new class which is vastly inferior to and occupies the same purpose as a class you designed and published before.
War Priest - I think that Fighter/Cleric is a mis label here. Its much closer to Cleric/Paladin. A very Utility oriented Paladin but still no skill points. (Sorry divine spell casters, now shut up and go back to being too absorbed in prayer to learn to do anything practical). All things being equal its a decent blend of the two and one I would consider in a party that was lacking divine support and martial prowess.
<Inquisitor sneaks up from behind and slaps you over the head>
"Not learn anything practical, pfft. Here, have a beer, pray to Cayden".
Can't give you Ameiko, since I changed her class to my own homebrewn Swashbuckler, but I got the other three at varying high levels. Their equipment may be a bit off and their stats may also not always be 100% correct (it's a ton of writing after all), but here they go. Not really well formatted, though, since this board only lets you do formatting with time-consuming tags:
* See the Inner Sea World Guide.
* See the Inner Sea World Guide.
This is a class which will make large group of melee opponents great against the party. With the normally more diverse adventuring groups, I don't think it will fare as well and a normal bard seems better for that, anyway. I've swung my initial "it's okay" impression to a more negative "seems like a good class to use against the player characters" opinion, I fear.
My more detailed first impression: This class is superfluous. Clerics and Inquisitors are superior in every way to the class and while you can argue that the Cleric is more focused on being a caster, it is impossible to ignore that the Inquisitor seems to be better at about everything relevant (damage, skills, tanking, utility) to the Warpriest.
This class needs a complete overhaul to find a place which makes its existance necessary. So far as I can see, the only reason to play it is because you disagree with the flavor of playing an Inquisitor.
After getting a good night of sleep, my initial impressions:
Arcanist: This almost seems too good. You get the best things from the Wizard and the best things from the Sorcerer. On the other hand, you also get the worst from the Wizard (fiddly and expensive acquisition of spells) and the worst from the Sorcerer (delayed spell progression), but I am hesitant to call it a wash. You also get Intelligence as your main stat, which makes the class a skill monkey. What the class currently completely lacks seems to be flavor, it occupies a strange, undefined middle ground between Wizards and Sorcerers. 3/5 for kinda-sorta obsoleting the Sorcerer.
Bloodrager: Well, at least you don't get Pounce and your Bloodrage Powers are more limited in choice. But, man, this class seems to want to obsolete the Barbarian so badly. I quite like it, the idea of your special heritage pumping power through your veins was something I always loved about the Sorcerer. Mechanically, it seems to very strong. 4/5
Brawler: Horrible class name, but the class itself is very strong. I only hope that the ACG will provide new ways to enhance your unarmed attacks, the Amulet of Mighty Fists has never cut it. This class has most things I always wanted for the Monk, a non-mystic martial artist. Evasion is kinda missed, though, but we got an item for that. 5/5
Hunter: Do we also get Night Elves to annoyingly bunny-jump all around the room? ^^ I like this class, it brings across your enhanced connection to your animal companion quite well. It would probably benefit from getting better benefits out of it than the normal ones, like some from the familiar list. 4/5
Investigator: Hey, someone just backstabbed the Rogue! Again! Not that I particularly mind, though. Awesome class, obsoletes the Rogue. Again. Please adopt as it is. Even though I hate Sneak Attack.5/5
Shaman: Mechanically this looks strong, but then again it's a full caster. I guess this is the class I was looking forward to the least, since I found Oracle/Witch to be a weird combination. Eh, it seems okay. My low score stems mostly from me being apathetic toward its concept. 3/5
Skald: So, you seriously are giving a quasi-bard the ability to give everybody Pounce and some of the other really good rage powers? This is, depending on the party composition, really, really good or rather okay. I wonder how this interacts with the Bloodragers power set, though? Anyway, decent class, not my personal style, but decent. 4/5
Slayer: Hey, Buffy. :p Aside from my dislike of Sneak Attack, this seems really, really solid. 5/5
Swashbuckler: Oh, how I have awaited thee! Very different, yet strangely similar to my own take on the class, this class has tons of awesome things going for it. Initial confusion about Precise Strike aside, so much goodness. Some not-so-goodness, too, but that is for the class discussion thread. 5/5
Warpriest: Uh, what exactly is the point of this class? The Inquisitor seems to do everything it can and better. The Channel Energy feature is too weak, the spell list is worse than the Inquisitors, 2+INT skills per level is a joke in comparison and it occupies the same niche. Blessings seem really, really weak through the bank. This class badly needs either a full BAB and worse spellcasting, or a major buff to its class abilities. 2/5
So, seven out of ten classes seem awesome, two out of ten seem good, but I can't make heads and tails of their flavor yet and one seems really, really unnecessary and weak. There's room to improve, but not much. I hope they don't nerf the good classes.
Not really. The only thing which could not be explained easily is how Jinora suddenly got that huge power-up in terms of being able to commune with spirits.
What happened was that Raava was dispersed by Unavatuu and Jinora gathered her remnants together, put them into Unavatuu and thus allowed Kaiyukorra to take those remnants out of Unavatuu (whose contact with Raava restored her to full existance). Which Korra had tried earlier, but which had failed then, because Raava's spirit was still dispersed at that point.
* In my own experience, too many casters slows down gameplay by dragging out individual combat turns while at the same time promoting the 15-minute adventuring day.
I am pretty sure, by way of observing their class design since the APG, that Paizo has completely given up on preventing the 15 minute workday.
Cori Marie wrote:
Didn't sound worse than the gobledigook Marvel writers come up with. ^^
So, you take out your glowing weapon and then you strike your opponent, whom is expected to be still unaware of you at that point? You expect any GM to let that fly?
And, in any case, lighting and sneaking is a cornercase of concealment, because combat usually is a group affair and adventurers tend to bring plenty of light sources to that.
The real problem is the concealment, which can be created by a multitude of effects related to the environment or magic and which unduly screws Sneak Attack users over. Other melee fighters, whom have a by far less fiddly mechanic of dealing damage, have to deal with a 20-50% miss chance, but if they beat that, they deal their full damage. Sneak Attack users have to deal with the miss chance and it robs them of their main damage ability entirely. And on top of that are the other mentioned problems with even getting Sneak Attacks to work.
I can't believe people love to argue so much that this is even in dispute.
Flanking is not as easy as it looks, since it requires to get into position and is dependent on your party members being able to stay there or even help you out. Not all other players are capable of good teamwork.
Immune monsters are one aspect of Sneak Attacks problems, although not the most annoying one. As you pointed out, immune monster types are not the most common ones.
No, the most annoying of Sneak Attack's problems is the concealment issue. If your GM is savvy about lighting rules or likes to use difficult terrain features like fog or anything else which provides 20% concealment or worse, your Sneak Attack user is screwed. Yes, Paizo built in a Rogue talent by now which gets around at least the 20% issue (still screwed at 50%, though) or you "choose" a Darkvision race, but it is an issue which should have never been in the rules in the first place.
And then there are the other issues I've enumerated, which just put the cherry on top of the mountain of suck which is Sneak Attack.
I too don’t like sneak attack. I still don’t get why rogues don’t get quicken feint or some similar ability. Still, the Investigator will maybe get some ability to help him/her with the sneak attack. That said the concept sound cool. I really love Sherlock Holmes character so I’m hoping for new mechanics that lets skill remain useful at higher levels. Even if that don’t happen spells + skills are far more useful than just skills, so this class still looks interesting.
Having to flank or feint is only one aspect why Sneak Attack sucks. Then there are the additional aspects like damage being determined by random dice, that damage not multiplying on a critical hit, lots of enemies which are simply immune to it and, the "best", the ability simply stopping to work if you are in a semi-dark room or if there is a light ground fog. None of those problems apply to a Barbarians making a simple melee strike, although the last of them might make him miss (which any Sneak Attack user also has to deal with).
But you guys all already knew that. I just feel irritated about more classes who have to deal with all those problems. Sorry for venting.
Are you so sensitive that even the slightest amount of irony is an insult to you? Please notice how I did not cast aspersions on your character with my original reply, but just pointed out how extreme your position sounded.
The GM in question (yes he is real) is a twenty something year old computer repair specialist. To him WBL is a RULE and will be adhered to strictly. If we ever exceed WBL from treasure he hands out he will strip it from your characters arbitrarily until you are under the listed maximum for your level. Rules WILL be followed in his game or else. We killed a dragon once and nobody dared to pick up any treasure because we were already at WBL and dared not even remove a single copper coin from the horde lest the GM step in and say "You seem to have misplaced your magic ring somewhere... remove it from your sheet." Although to be fair if we just grabbed coins it's more likely our coin purses would vanish. One guy once tossed aside a couple items to pick up a new piece... nobody touched the stuff he dropped either.
And that is bad, nay, horrible GM'ing. I guess he goes more in the direction of being a robot, then.
So YES there are GMs out there who will see the quote that WBL is a rule and claim full justification from the Devs themselves for their actions. Even if it ruins immersion in the setting and breaks the fourth wall to pieces.
As I said, I guess he's a robot (not literally, though). You need to apply some human judgement to how you GM, not just cite the rules.
I sympathize... By calling it a rule, you end up with GMs who will arbitrarily delete treasure off your sheet because "you are cheating by taking too much treasure". Even if it was treasure given out by that GM or placed within the published adventure.
That sounds like a really unlikely scenario, unless the GM is a ten-year old or a robot.