It was unhelpful because it didn't add anything helpful.Come now, you state that his entire comment is crap because the last sentence taken out of context is of disputable value?Also, a better spell list.Because access to all the cleric spells is worse than access to some of them...
The Warpriest needs a boost, but comments like this aren't helpful.
Just because the devs are covering their ears, going "na na na" every time someone mentions problems with spell lists, doesn't mean it isn't helpful.
It just means the power-that-be don't wanna hear it.
|
It was unhelpful because it didn't add anything helpful.Come now, you state that his entire comment is crap because the last sentence taken out of context is of disputable value?Also, a better spell list.Because access to all the cleric spells is worse than access to some of them...
The Warpriest needs a boost, but comments like this aren't helpful.
Just because the devs are covering their ears, going "na na na" every time someone mentions problems with spell lists, doesn't mean it isn't helpful.
It just means the power-that-be don't wanna hear it.
It is the cleric spell list. Every spell on the cleric spell list.
And you can swap out daily.
Spontaneous vs Memorized with the same progression...
@Zark - I don't see that happening. Each God comes with baggage beyond the weapon. If you play in a game with any observation of the
"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds"
Clause, that is a far heavier burden. And if the bonus are where they should be, that is making the weapons substantially better, it becomes almost a non-factor.
emphasis mine.
|
|
emphasis mine.@Zark - I don't see that happening. Each God comes with baggage beyond the weapon. If you play in a game with any observation of the
"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds"
Clause, that is a far heavier burden. And if the bonus are where they should be, that is making the weapons substantially better, it becomes almost a non-factor.
Because War Preists will be the exception...
"An inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability."
Warpriests won't be expected to actually follow the god they worship...that is restrictive and cruel...
It was unhelpful because it didn't add anything helpful.Come now, you state that his entire comment is crap because the last sentence taken out of context is of disputable value?Also, a better spell list.Because access to all the cleric spells is worse than access to some of them...
The Warpriest needs a boost, but comments like this aren't helpful.
Just because the devs are covering their ears, going "na na na" every time someone mentions problems with spell lists, doesn't mean it isn't helpful.
It just means the power-that-be don't wanna hear it.It is the cleric spell list. Every spell on the cleric spell list.
And you can swap out daily.
Spontaneous vs Memorized with the same progression...
And all of it is late-access without any regard to the fact that the classes cast differently.
They gave Inquisitors their own list for a reason. I can only assume it was a good one. If it was a good reason then, why isn't it a good reason now?The "logic" doesn't hold.
|
I wish there was more play-testing information in this thread, because I think it would go a long ways in answering some of the questions and theories that some of you have. I don't currently have a group so I'm unable to play-test the class myself, so I'm totally dependent on reading these forums for the information I'm looking for.
With that being said I would restrict warpriest to light armor, and give them an AC buff derived from wisdom similar to monk. I would also give them access to two-handed weapons only, that way you don't have to worry about deity-specific weapons like star-knives.
In addition I would drop Channel Energy in lieu of an persistent aura of some sort that perhaps aids either combat, defense, or healing, which would allow the warpriest to fill a role as needed. A few of you said something about a divine magus which I think would a great idea source for this class.
I say we change the topic away from favored weapons now. The same people has been using the same arguments for a while, and it's about to get personal. It's time to agree to disagree, and hope you won the ear of the devs.
Come what may.
|
I like flavor on my characters. I always make sure that my characters have a strong flavor.
But what if warpriest limits my options in that flavor by railroading myself into using a weapon that doesn't fit my theme. For instance, what if I wanted to play an andoran halfling warpriest of desna (which is really supported by golarion flavor) who used daggers (which fits the halfling flavor well) and cut free slaves (which fits halfling, andoran, and desnan flavor well)? Well then I play a cleric/fighter and call myself a warpriest.
Now, I do want a class that gives a flavor for wielding the deity favored weapon, but I don't want the main source of attack and damage to only work with that weapon. And I think there should be an ability to give those to other weapons. Like the spell I suggested upthread. If you gave it a move action cast time to help with action economy, you could have some fun with different flavors.
I also think that if a feat (or even small 2 feat chain, because the class has feats built in) that let you use a different weapon as your deity's favored weapon for the class would be great, provided warpriests could get it at low levels (3 at the latest) to not be mechanically weak for 5 levels but choose an awesome flavor choice.
emphasis mine.@Zark - I don't see that happening. Each God comes with baggage beyond the weapon. If you play in a game with any observation of the
"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds"
Clause, that is a far heavier burden. And if the bonus are where they should be, that is making the weapons substantially better, it becomes almost a non-factor.
Because War Preists will be the exception...
"An inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability."
Warpriests won't be expected to actually follow the god they worship...that is restrictive and cruel...
Wait, this is sarcasm right?
Because being the crusader for "following the God's lead is important for weapons" but then switching it up to "following the God's lead is important for weapons only" is... uh...
@Excaliburproxy - I have literally no idea what you are talking about. I have argued throughout the thread for any number of bonuses to the class when using the favored weapon.
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else in the thread.
I am referring to your comment to Trogdar. You did not want to give the warpriest metamagic or spell combat-like stuff right? Because that is the thing that will make the warpriest real deal viable.
That or you give each weapon its own list of suckiness-mitigating special abilities.
Like: Desna clerics get full BAB with Star Knives
While Gorumn clerics and his great sword focus weapon only gets something like vital strike and its greater versions at higher levels.
I started writing this post angry and ended it liking my own devils advocate argument.
|
|
Wait, this is sarcasm right?
Because War Preists will be the exception..."An inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability."
Warpriests won't be expected to actually follow the god they worship...that is restrictive and cruel...
Yes. I will try to remember include a sarcasm tag. For example
Clearly the developers intend for this to be a class that worships a god but doesn't follow any of the god tenets. Asking people to actually play character with the flavor of the setting is cruel and restrictive.(s)
|
|
@Excaliburproxy - I have literally no idea what you are talking about. I have argued throughout the thread for any number of bonuses to the class when using the favored weapon.
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else in the thread.
I am referring to your comment to Trogdar. You did not want to give the warpriest metamagic or spell combat-like stuff right? Because that is the thing that will make the warpriest real deal viable.
That or you give each weapon its own list of suckiness-mitigating special abilities.
Like: Desna clerics get full BAB with Star Knives
While Gorumn clerics and his great sword focus weapon only gets something like vital strike and its greater versions at higher levels.I started writing that post angry and ended it liking my own devils advocate argument.
No I said I don't think that is the best way to approach the problem. I think that could create a number of unintended consequences and complexities.
If you want to increase the ability to hit and do damage, increase the ability to hit and do damage.
Indirectly messing with spells is like taking the doors off your car to make it go faster. Technically it probably will, given it weighs less, but now you have bigger problems.
|
|
@Knight Druid - Dropping the armor is something I would not do. It is part of what separates it from the inquisitor. This class is actually a heavy armored class.
I think I see where you are intending, but I think heavy armor fits better.
We can agree to disagree, but as it stands now the class doesn't seem to set itself apart from the other divine classes. I would think that from a flavor standpoint it would make sense (to me at least) that their faith is what armors them (i.e. wisdom).
@Excaliburproxy - I have literally no idea what you are talking about. I have argued throughout the thread for any number of bonuses to the class when using the favored weapon.
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else in the thread.
I am referring to your comment to Trogdar. You did not want to give the warpriest metamagic or spell combat-like stuff right? Because that is the thing that will make the warpriest real deal viable.
That or you give each weapon its own list of suckiness-mitigating special abilities.
Like: Desna clerics get full BAB with Star Knives
While Gorumn clerics and his great sword focus weapon only gets something like vital strike and its greater versions at higher levels.I started writing that post angry and ended it liking my own devils advocate argument.
No I said I don't think that is the best way to approach the problem. I think that could create a number of unintended consequences and complexities.
If you want to increase the ability to hit and do damage, increase the ability to hit and do damage.
Indirectly messing with spells is like taking the doors off your car to make it go faster. Technically it probably will, given it weighs less, but now you have bigger problems.
I think that sounds suspiciously like being afraid to try new things.
I mean: the spell combat-like ability would definitely solve the action economy problem. And that is already in the game and people know how it works. And one could limit it further by forcing people to wield their diety's favored weapon (just for you~) or also limiting it to a certain number of uses per day or even minute/hour. I just want to get my buffs off, man. I just want my buffs so so badly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the biggest problems associated with a hybrid combat class is action economy.
Flat bonuses to hit and damage do absolutely nothing as to resolve action economy issues.
Clearly the developers intend for this to be a class that worships a god but doesn't follow any of the god tenets. Asking people to actually play character with the flavor of the setting is cruel and restrictive.(s)
Your character's flavor is literally anything you want it to be. Heck, half the fun of writing character backstories is taking a weird combination of stuff and making them make sense: Anyone can write a Paladin of Iomedae, but a Paladin of Lamashtu? How did that happen? Mechanically restricting character options for the purposes of "flavor" is actually counter-productive to flavor, IMO.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Blades, Heavy: ?
Blades, Light: TWF progression
Bows: Rapid reload progression
Close: ? (maybe martial mastery)
Crossbows: Reload as free action
Double: ?
Firearms: Do any gods have firearms yet?
Flails: ?
Hammers:
Monk:
Natural:
Polearms:
Spears:
Thrown: Returning
Now each class can get special abilities catered to it, so having starknife or daggers can actually get abilities geared toward it.
As it stands, there is nothing to really playtest here.
This is a cleric/fighter multiclass and not a class in-and-of itself.
A divine magus would at least be something new.
This is probably ot very productive, but my interest in this class is just about zero until it gets a rewrite. You can't just slap a few bonus feats onto a cleric and cut the legs out from under their casting and call it a class. Lets be honest.
Here is what a Cleric 2/fighter 1 would look like as just a straight up multiclass to 20th with no archtypes:
1st +0 |Fort +2|Ref +0|Will +2|Aura, channel energy 1d6, domains, orisons, spontaneous casting
2nd +1 |Fort +3|Ref +0|Will +3|
3rd +2 |Fort +5|Ref +0|Will +3| Fighter Proficiencies, Bonus Feat
4th +3 |Fort +5|Ref +1|Will +3| Channel Energy 2d6
5th +4 |Fort +6|Ref +1|Will +4|
6th +5 |Fort +7|Ref +1|Will +4| bonus feat, bravery
7th +5 |Fort +7|Ref +1|Will +4| Channel Energy 3d6
8th +6/+1 |Fort +8|Ref +2|Will +5|
9th +7/+2 |Fort +8|Ref +3|Will +6| Armor Training
10th +8/+3 |Fort +8|Ref +3|Will +6| Channel Energy 4d6
11th +9/+4 |Fort +9|Ref +3|Will +7|
12th +10/+5 |Fort +10|Ref +3|Will +7| Bonus Feat
13th +10/+5 |Fort +10|Ref +4|Will +7| Channel Energy 5d6
14th +11/+6/+1 |Fort +11|Ref +4|Will +8|
15th +12/+7/+2 |Fort +11|Ref +4|Will +8| Weapon Training
16th +13/+8/+3 |Fort +11|Ref +4|Will +8| Channel Energy 6d6
17th +14/+9/+4 |Fort +12|Ref +5|Will +9|
18th +15/+10/+5 |Fort +13|Ref +6|Will +10| Bonus Feat
19th +15/+10/+5 |Fort +13|Ref +6|Will +10| Channel Energy 7d6
20th +16/+11/+6/+1 |Fort +14|Ref +6|Will +11|
Spells:
1st: 3 | 1+1
2nd: 4 | 2+1
3rd: 4 | 2+1
4th: 4 | 2+1 | 1+1
5th: 4 | 3+1 | 2+1
6th: 4 | 3+1 | 2+1
7th: 4 | 3+1 | 2+1 | 1+1
8th: 4 | 3+1 | 3+1 | 2+1
9th: 4 | 3+1 | 3+1 | 2+1
10th: 4 | 4+1 | 3+1 | 2+1 | 1+1
11th: 4 | 4+1 | 3+1 | 3+1 | 2+1
12th: 4 | 4+1 | 3+1 | 3+1 | 2+1
13th: 4 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 3+1 | 2+1 | 1+1
14th: 4 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 3+1 | 3+1 | 2+1
15th: 4 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 3+1 | 3+1 | 2+1
16th: 4 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 3+1 | 2+1 | 1+1
17th: 4 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 3+1 | 3+1 | 2+1
18th: 4 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 3+1 | 2+1 | 1+1
19th: 4 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 3+1 | 3+1 | 2+1
20th: 4 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 4+1 | 3+1 | 2+1 | 1+1
So, you can see a pretty fair comparison, and I don't think that the warpriest is bringing anything new to the table here.
THe class is fairly pointless at it is, if you can not properly play a melee warprist of Erastil, warpriest of abadar totally sucks and for most others fighter 2/cleric x woudl be just a better option (with the exact same flavor for those who does not want to play GURPS).That solves nothing and makes this class fairly pointless.The solution to this problem is to simply make Sacred Weapon not key off your Deity's Favored Weapon. If you want to encourage folks to use their Deity's Favored Weapon, let it count as a divine focus and as a free hand for somatic gestures.
There. Incentive to use your Deity's Favored Weapon and we don't cripple folks who want to roll other weapons.
Hence putting forward the suggestion of more bonuses/special abilities for using the sacred weapon of the god.
Perhaps a warpriest of Abadar can reload as a free action.
As to the melee war priest of Erastil, why would a god who has a favored weapon of "Bow" be the calling of a melee warpriest?
Sounds like a fighter to be.
Making all the classes and features the same bores me (And most of the people who buy the flavor books...) as much as playing with unoptimized classes seems to bore you.
And the people who buy books...we are the audience. :)
Let me first say that this whole Deity’s favored weapon is getting close to a Tempest in a teapot.
That said, this is not a cleric. It is supposed to be a fighter/cleric mash, but apart from bonus feat where are the fighter flavor?
Shouldn’t all Warpriests be better than all Clerics using any simple or martial weapon?
A crusade 15+fighter 1 is going to whip any warpriest both in getting access to fighter feats and casting spells and having domain powers.
She can even cast quicken Divine Power because she has 8 level spell slots. As for Blessings, true they are cool, but to me Blessings are just new domain powers with a new name. And the Standard action activation is problematic. There are Cleric domains/subdomains with powers such as Aura of Heroism that can be activated as a swift action.
Another problem the Warpriest have is weapons (and shields) prevents her from using rods. And since she gets less spell slots and lower spell slots she is worse at using meta magic such as quicken spell or reach spell.
I think he should be able to bond with a meta magic rod thru prayer so he doesn’t have to hold the rod to activate it. Each hour (or each morning) he should be able to swap rod if he so wishes. This would help him with his casting.
Does anyone else ever get the feeling that people just skip over their posts answering many questions and problems people have? I tend to get that a lot, apparently. >_>Here? All the freakin' time.
:)
Its a conspiracy...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet any option that isn't optimal sucks...
Let me give you a personal example of why this matters: I have some character concepts whose dogma and leanings point them toward martial deities like Milani, Iomedae, or (this is stretching her definition ever-so-slightly, I admit) Sarenrae. Maybe even Desna (EDIT: Who is not very martial, I admit). As part of this concept, I would like to see those characters use polearms. No, I'm not talking a fauchard. I'm talking things like a glaive, horsechopper, or lucerne hammer.
"Play a Shelynite, they favor glaives" one might say. Shelyn's belief system does not match the concepts I wish to play. Iomedae, Milani, Sarenrae, and so on do. This would actually be 'playing to mechanics' rather than playing wholly to flavor. I want a certain belief system for that character, but a different weapon. It's not even some super-cheese polearm out to win the DPR Olympics.
I'd like this class to be open to that kind of compromise, where I pick the story flavor I want but go with another weapon if I don't like the existing one the deity favors. Right now the class isn't delivering on this. Maybe it won't no matter what. I don't know that one way or the other. Nonetheless, if I don't speak up then I won't be heard and the developers won't even consider my wishes when designing this product they hope I (and many others, who may have different needs and opinions) will purchase.
I don't need optimal. I want options. Right now, "go play a martial-evangelist of Shelyn if you want your polearm" seems almost like the opposite extreme of what you were arguing against... it'd be picking a deity for their weapon rather than their belief system. I want something a little more directly martial than Cleric, while still having some weapon options. If I have to give up some spellcasting for it, that's fine and dandy by me.
|
|
Celestial Pegasus - Then play with a different weapon.
Shelyn's favored weapon for her warriors is a Glaive.
If we take your approach, we will see very few war priests with certain weapons, despite it being the favored weapon of the God.
That is the opposite of what we should see, given a specific weapon is the favored weapon of a specific god.
If you are selecting for God, Shelyn likes Glaives. It is part of who she is, in the same way that her brother being a creep is part of who she is.
You don't argue that "I like Shelyn...but I don't believe her brother is Zon Kuthon"
I mean, you can house rule it that way, and you can house rule the weapon...but Shelyn is who she is. Just as Erastil is a bit of a misogynist and Cayden is a drunk.
If you wanted to argue that there should be a feat you can take to swap for another weapon, I probably would be ok with that. That is a fair price most wouldn't pay unless they actually want the flavor.
But the easiest, first, optimal choice should be using the weapon the god favors, considering the power you are gaining is coming from the god.
|
|
As it stands, there is nothing to really playtest here.
This is kind of where I am at. There are a couple of classes that clearly aren't ready. This is one of them. We could playtest it, but it seems clear it is lagging offensively and will be getting...something.
The discussion is as to what that something will be.
|
|
Re: Feat to swap out or add to the weapon benefits - I could go for this. I do not like it, but as an absolute worst case I could accept it, grudgingly.
As far as the rest goes?
Re: Shelyn/Zon Kuthon example... actually, it's entirely possible. You could see a Separatist Cleric who argues precisely this. "How could someone so wonderful have a brother who is so utterly her opposite?! I do not believe it!" This is mechanically supported by the game, if you use that archetype. Whether any particular player or GM feels this is a good thing or not is a separate matter, but the possibility is there and the game outright enables it.
Re: Erastil and sexism... it has been a while and I do not have the quote right in front of me, but I seem to recall some kind of plan to retcon or otherwise change this being discussed some time ago.
Re: Favored weapon... there was an example above of how this might go too far, for the case of Erastil in particular. The example takes it to an extreme, but shows how this could fall apart in a hurry and why a deity should probably be quite tolerant of, and even supporting of, some of their clergy using different weapons.
So at this point, does anyone disagree with weapon training? If not can we playtest adding that.
2nd, any feedback on changing the blessings to be weapon based, using the fighter weapon groups?
Are you in charge of the playtesting?
|
|
You don't own the Gods and Magic book, do you?
Erastil is the best fit. We can maybe stretch to Abadar or Cayden Cailean.I wasn't aware people who don't own every setting splat Paizo has ever published weren't allowed to put together backstories based on the material that is in the CRB (ie. portfolios of major deities).
I guess roleplaying and not just rollplaying is pay to play now.
When you can only name 3 gods who fit that scenario, despite one of the divine iconics almost literally having that scenario and not worshipping any of the gods you listed, either you don't have access to the material or you are actively misleading.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
Are you in charge of the playtesting?So at this point, does anyone disagree with weapon training? If not can we playtest adding that.
2nd, any feedback on changing the blessings to be weapon based, using the fighter weapon groups?
I'm sorry? What part of that post offended you?
Did I ask a question in a discussion? Is that a problem?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you in charge of the playtesting?So at this point, does anyone disagree with weapon training? If not can we playtest adding that.
2nd, any feedback on changing the blessings to be weapon based, using the fighter weapon groups?
I'm sorry? What part of that post offended you?
Did I ask a question in a discussion? Is that a problem?
The part where your trying to take over the playtesting is a bit of a problem yes.
|
|
The part where your trying to take over the playtesting is a bit of a problem yes.Are you in charge of the playtesting?So at this point, does anyone disagree with weapon training? If not can we playtest adding that.
2nd, any feedback on changing the blessings to be weapon based, using the fighter weapon groups?
I'm sorry? What part of that post offended you?
Did I ask a question in a discussion? Is that a problem?
Then don't follow.
So as I was saying, does anyone disagree with weapon training being added?
If not, can we playtest adding that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The part where your trying to take over the playtesting is a bit of a problem yes.Are you in charge of the playtesting?So at this point, does anyone disagree with weapon training? If not can we playtest adding that.
2nd, any feedback on changing the blessings to be weapon based, using the fighter weapon groups?
I'm sorry? What part of that post offended you?
Did I ask a question in a discussion? Is that a problem?
Then don't follow.
So as I was saying, does anyone disagree with weapon training being added?
If not, can we playtest adding that?
Someone has control issues...
|
|
Someone has control issues...The part where your trying to take over the playtesting is a bit of a problem yes.Are you in charge of the playtesting?So at this point, does anyone disagree with weapon training? If not can we playtest adding that.
2nd, any feedback on changing the blessings to be weapon based, using the fighter weapon groups?
I'm sorry? What part of that post offended you?
Did I ask a question in a discussion? Is that a problem?
Then don't follow.
So as I was saying, does anyone disagree with weapon training being added?
If not, can we playtest adding that?
Perhaps the person who seems to be trying to pick a fight because I asked a question...
Perhaps the person who seems to be trying to pick a fight because I asked a question...
Or maybe I don't like you posing as an authority, directing people, and trying to keep people who you disagree with from accomplishing anything?
|
|
Perhaps the person who seems to be trying to pick a fight because I asked a question...Or maybe I don't like you posing as an authority, directing people, and trying to keep people who you disagree with from accomplishing anything?
Says the person who has now spent 5 posts trying to...actually what are you trying to do?
I mean really, how is the irony of you posting a complaint about "trying to keep people who you disagree with from accomplishing anything?" in response to me asking a question about adding weapon training isn't smacking you in the face really hard right now?
Really? You aren't seeing that?
*shakes head*
So, once again, does anyone disagree with adding weapon training, and if not can we playtest a bit with that added in to see if that is too much or too little.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, the vision of halfling favoring slings now comes to my mind.I think you have to make the favored weapon the best option. Otherwise why is it favored?
Then we'll have the feat.
Although it would seem reasonable for a halfling god with a sling to exist, if it doesn't already.
Boy it sure seems like a great majority of people are for doing away with Warpriests completely relying on their deity's favored weapon.
|
|
I actually don't think weapon training is the way to go. Static bonuses are great and all, but the Warpriest has those in heaps. I think unique benefits with certain weapons, associated with deity choice, or perhaps blessing choice, is the way to go.
Well, the current bonuses are swift actions and really not that awesome.
By the time you get Sacred Weapon +1 you probably already have an enhancement bonus on your primary weapon.
But we can explore the blessing angle, what did you have in mind. What I described or something else?