I'd be interested on hearing the reasoning behind the limit on number of wondrous items. It strikes me as odd.
Search Posts
So the unchained monk is probably different enough from the standard one to merit a guide. I kind of want to make one, but I'm sure I'd miss a lot of things if I just started writing. So here's a brainstorming thread, where I'm hoping people will share their thoughts. Things that should probably be in there;
*Though if you like ranged attacks with your monk, pick the zen archer instead. It kills things really, really well. Ki powers:
Style Strikes
That's all I have at the moment. I'm especially looking for feats and magic items I might not know of.
Ha. Am I the only one that finds it funny that pathfinder changed flurry, essentially making it two-weapon fighting? Then there was the whole faq thing. "It's not two-weapon fighting"
Aaand now they've changed it... Into the 3.5 version of flurry. Heh. It's even got the old extra attack on 11th level and everything. Still, they've fixed the accuracy loss. This is good. It only took what, 7 years? Seriously though, this version of the monk I can see myself playing, although I will remain annoyed that Brawling is an armor property, that 'Greater' combat maneuver feats require Combat Expertise while not being on the 10th level feat list, and (the new one) poor will saves. But these relatively minor inconveniences I can deal with. The loss of archetypes perhaps less so. They were actually quite interesting. Well done. Kudos.
Mainly your gnashing, though.
Hmm. I can't decide if I want to change my bonus feat into mounted combat, or maybe point blank shot. Also, I kind of feel I backed myself into a corner gonig dex, to a point that I'd be unlikely to work with anything that isn't either ranged or finesseable. On the other hand, I'm not seeing her as a strength based warrior. Also, for narrative reasons, her int and wis shouldn't go lower than 12 or her cha 16, and that leaves precious little points left for combat stats, so dex is a neat solution there. On the plus side, I'll be good with thrown weapons. Maybe I should see about getting Returning on that transformative weapon once were let loose.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/feats ctrl+f, then write "deadly agility"
The continent(Empire? Country?) of Tian Xia has tons of eastern culutre
I cracked it! That took a while. On the plus side, I now have a paladin concept I won't tire of for the next few years, I think. Background is still a little bit WIP. I have the hard part nailed down, though. The rest is history, as they say. (The Dragon)
This class makes it out with fever dump stats than the monk. This is pretty impressive.
I agree, oh yes indeed.
Tanks don't quite work like that. If your character don't do damage.... Your first point is absolutely true. Your original post didn't seem to be about making a bfc/diplo/nuissance tank, however. It concerned itself with a support character, which I believe is a wrong direction to take a warpriest build, as Clerics Do It Better. Now, that's not saying the Warpriest is a Bad Class. It just needs to realize that it isn't a cleric. I can see it doing a couple of things well: Self buffing: It get swift action self-buffs. This translates to
Feats: This translates to letting them do things wich requires lots of feats well.
Odd weapon choices: sacred weapon means they can use oddball things to greater effect tha usual. These tings lead me to thinking that I'd make a BFC whip-user. Multiple ability depenancy is pretty horrible, tough.
But if we do that then the ability fails to do what it was put in there for: It exists in order to allow you to use your deitys favored weapon even though it would normally be a terrible idea: unamred strike, armor spikes(as a primary weapon), dagger, whip etc. Or rather: it might help. But then again, it might not: Maybe strength blessing winds up being better than death. Now we have made Gorum-following warpriests stronger, while the intent was to help out dagger-wielding pharasmans.
Channel Energy progresses as the same pace as the Fervor heal, so 2D6 at level 5, 3D6 at 8th level, 4D6 at 11th level and so on. I hadn't realized that. The ability just went in my mind from something interesting that I'm probably not going to use, to something extremely horrible. I could have had two quickened spells in exchange.
Some people are always going to optimize and min-max and get the most mileage out of whatever options they have available. I'd like that. I still get to feel awesome with my armor spikes, and it still won't really matter in the long run. I'd put it at d8 or d10.
Tanks don't quite work like that. If your character don't do damage, and there's a tasty lightly armored arcer right there, the badguys of mediocore intelligence isn't going to stand around your longsword while they get killed by the archer. If you want party support tank, you're far better off just going cleric.
I'd like to contest your perception of Thor. He was a Barbarian with magic gauntlets, a magic belt, and a magic hammer which he could throw so hard, it made the sound of thunder: His blood made him freakishly strong, not magic. He could also ressurect goats, or maybe his goats were magical: this issue is a bit opaque, but from what I remember, I'm inclined to believe the latter. There is very little magic in norse mythology. What is there either seems to stem from magic items, which, largely, the dwarves make, from the women, who seem to be able to do a variety of things, from Loki, who's big on transformation, or from Odin, who's just boss. Various Jotun could also do magic. They seem to have far fewer magic items.
Will a survey be denoted as updated if I simply send in another one just like it? My opinion of the hunter hasn't changed in any respect, for example. I want to send in a new survey that says that without it getting marked as 'survey not updated'.
I'm not sure it is all that big a deal as it is made out to be. Of course, I haven't played much at igher levels where crit-fishing comes into its own, and the damage increase from SW begind to matter. Of course, I'm quite invested in the visuals of my character, and I'm not likely to ever go with something as silly-looking as a scimitar or a falchion unless I have a warrior I can envision using them. As for the questions:
That said, now that we get the freedom to choose, I think it might be reasonable to scratch the damage increase. Since we get to pick what we want, nobody is in a tight spot they can't get out of, unless they put themselves in that spot. The problem with the original class was that it pretty arbitrarily stuck some warpriests in a tight spot, while others got on fine. This problem only really needed one of two fixes, and I think giving them both is a mistake, as it leads to new problems.
I think it's fine that they can't affect weapons with fervor casting. Those spells are usually either long duration anyway, or they're those spells that don't scale well with CL, and just makes you feel bad for wanting to be a cleric.
Isn't "required ability scores" (e.g. MAD) a bad balancing point? It dramatically changes how good a class is between a 10, 15, 20, and 25 point game. To say nothing of how it integrates with stat rolling. Other classes benefit from good stats too, but having a class with really high scaling with higher generation seems like a bad idea. Yeah. I've seen games at my table that run 5d6 drop 2 for stats generation. There'd be no such thing as 'ability requirements is balance'in there. The warpriest could end up in 'drastically more powerful than comparable classes while both have high stats' at the same time as it's 'drastically less powerful than comparable classes while both have low stats' This is just as much of a problem for the warpriest as it was for 3.5e paladin, which is to say, a big one.
It isn't the attack that damages you. It's the sharp iron stick it is executed with.
Although it doesn't say it outright, I'm looking for anything that would prevent favored weapon (unarmed strike) from benefitting from sacred weapon. Monk 2/Warpriest X? I don't think so. It seems you'd use whatever was better.
This revision lets me use a Torch to do lots of damage, correct? Depends on your level, I'd imagine. But I'm quite sure Alchemist's fire is a weapon. There's some interesting stuff going on there, if we allow warpriests to throw their focus weapon.
I would like the class to cover those not so holy warriors of Thor who smash things with their hammers in Thor's name and power without spending multiple rounds buffing themselves. Then proceed to drink and wench long into the night afterwards. Don't you just want a barbarian? Priesthood can be RP'ed, you know.
1) Why are you assuming spear style for melee hunters? 2) What does this provide to help it hit aside from weapon focus and precise shot? This looks interesting.
1) the increased damae die is always active. It's the special abilities that you have to activate. Also, there's nothing wrong with a greatswords damage at level one. It simply doesn't need to be upped, while the dagger pretty much has to, if you aren't swimming in bonus damage that doesn't care if you wield a light weapon(eg: knifemaster rogue.)2) I could see it being less MAD. It is pretty strong already, though, so maybe MADness balances it? 3) yeah. It's probably an oversight, though. @raith: shouldn't a fighter be doing comparable damage? He'll have more money to buy str gear, and more points to buy str, since he isn't MAD. Say he dumps cha, dumps int, and has neutral wisdom.
20+6+4(level)=30str.
This compares pretty well to the warpriest, losing +5 to hit and +3 to damage. The fighter has other things going for him as well, though. If we give him Two anded fighter archetype, the damage race swings back into his favor. He's also been using critical feats since level 11, something the warpriest can't do till 15. In addition, combat manouvers are something he's got both the feats, the BaB, and the ability scores to be good at. Overall, I'd say that there's room for the fighter still.
It's a price I'd pay gladly. I'd totally play the warpriest as it is right now. I would ignore the blessings completely, but I'd be having a blast while doing so. I'm totally enamoured with the class, yet at the same time I can't really shake the feeling that there's three major problems with it. -Madness. Str, Wis, Con, Cha, maybe int if you want to do tripping (hint: you don't.)
I'd tie fervor to Wisdom, tie sacred armarments(I like this name) to fervor, and cut blessings altogether. Although in some ways, I think I'll be happier just having the class as it stands right now.
The number of sswift actions that the warpriest takes has risen to the point that the old calls for making them swift actions make less sense. Perhaps the weapon buffs should be made to last minutes/level instead? that'd make them useful to slap on pre-combat.
I'm not quite sure I agree with my own point. Having it 'kinda sorta' full BaB feels funny, altough upping it to straight full might make it the "yeah, the rest of you can just go die in a hole now" of martial classes, so to speak.
That's a good question. For one thing, it keeps them from taking feats that require BaB at first level, and delays acquisition of higher feats. This might be a balance thing? We don't want him to overshadow the fighter too much, what with full bab, swift-action buffs and sacred weapon+X?
It makes for a rather heavily armored monk, and one with spellcasting, no? There are rather a lot of things that does monk better than monk, if we define monk as "unarmed warrior"
I think I love you. (small note though; fervor keying off cha and spells off wis seems like regressing back into what was bad about the 3.5 paladin.)
That's actually not a bad idea. Does paizo mind?
THE FILE AS BEEN UPDATED
Hmm. Do you have a timeframe? Because I really should get to... You know what? Screw that. I'll wait. and then they'll see. And then they'll ALL SE.. Ahem. I'll be waiting up.
Look at Jason's post, Arae. The PDF isn't up yet. Ahh yes, the chronology got lost to my impatience. I thought all those it's up! post were recent.
Is this suposed to be different for europeans? My download says nothing has updated.
Help a tech-not-so-savant? I can't seem to find out where to download it from? could someone provide a link? Thanks a lot.
*Insert rage here.* Dowant badly.
Sure. But if I were going for True Ultimate Powah! I'd still rather be that than the fighter. Hence, it ranks tier 4, along with the fighter, who's up from tier 5 in 3.5. It gets sleep at level one, for instace. That's pretty deadly. Along with web, invisibility, animate dead, bestow curse, minor creation, polymorph, true seeing and baleful polymorph. That's True Ultimate Powah! right there, in a way that the fighter can't access.
I haven't read enough about pathfinder adepts to comment on that. Wiser people than me have called the 3.5 version of it low tier four. Its spell list actually wasn't bad, all things considered.
Paladins seem to be extremely over-representated here.
Seeing that 'tier' is actually a concept we have a rather stringent definition of, perhaps it's a bad idea to use it while talking about your own definition? Hunters seem tier 3, even though they're bland. Slayers are probably tier 4 along with the fighters.
Yep, and that's a big difference. He does not, however, lose anything for choosing to go with a different weapon in the first place. The warpriest does. He either loses the RP code and dogma of the god the player wanted by picking another one for the favored weapon, or he loses access to sacred weapon and weapon focus.
Yeah, this really needs to happen. As it stands, a warpriest with a one-handed weapon as their favored weapon are pretty much forced to be two-handing with it, or follow Sarenrae and use Dervish Dance. 'Priests with light weapons are screwed, currently, because they can't two-hand their dagger. The reason they can't just default to a shield in the off-hand or TWF is that somatic or material components can't be used if you are holding something in both hands. Such as two light weapons, or a weapon and a heavy shield.
But the real problem is that it manages to clash with the flavor of characters I want to make. The fighter doesn't take class features away from you for picking a rapier over a greatsword. It may be less powerful, but all your class features work. The cleric desn't take class features away from you for picking a god with a favored weapon and domains. The ones you get might be worse than others, but they're all there, regardless of what weapon you chose to wield. The warpriest does so. Take a rapier wielding pious assasin of Asmodeus, who takes down slaves who's run from their chains.
Except he couldn't, because then he'd be unable to use what I regard as one of his three main class features. There are other ways to express the concept, of course. Blackguard(based off of slayer or ranger), Inquisitor and cleric with a dip comes to mind. But I'd like the warpriest, as a base class, to be able to encompass as many character concepts as possible. Because that's one of the goals of a base class.
Hey, we're on this weapon thing again. How many times is this now?Yah, probably my fault this time. *Shudders* We really should get out more.
Yeah, you're right. Sorry. The only thing I can say is that it's an issue I care honestly care about, as I'd love to play a warpriest without that restriction. With it? Not so much. I'll just go away now. Back to my far too slow-paced pbp playtest of the slayer. There's a class that works.
I'm not sure he does. But I most certainly do. The thing is, on the cleric, there's no incentive to actually use the favored weapon, regardless of wether you worship the god or not. In short, I don't really care if I'm using my god's favored weapon or not, except for flavor. I like flavor. But sometimes, my flavor doesn't adhere to the favored weapon of the god. If I'm playing a cleric, and my concept says I need a greatsword, I spent a feat on to get martial weapon proficiency, and rock on. When attempting to do that as warpriest, I'm told to play a cleric instead. I regard this as a problem, but YMMV, and it certainly has been shown to do so. |