|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should the warpriest be able to swap out their bonus feats like fighters do? Both the brawler and the swashbuckler, the other fighter based classes, are able to do so.
That's a rather good idea. Probably should also be able to count as a fighter for feats like brawlers and swashbucklers do currently.
|
Should the warpriest be able to swap out their bonus feats like fighters do? Both the brawler and the swashbuckler, the other fighter based classes, are able to do so.That's a rather good idea. Probably should also be able to count as a fighter for feats like brawlers and swashbucklers do currently.
I'd prefer it be more like ranger where they don't need the pre-requisites.
Helps with the MAD.
This is what I suggested for the weapon groups in the other thread.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should the warpriest be able to swap out their bonus feats like fighters do? Both the brawler and the swashbuckler, the other fighter based classes, are able to do so.That's a rather good idea. Probably should also be able to count as a fighter for feats like brawlers and swashbucklers do currently.
I wish they'd just come out and say that Alternate classes count as their base classes for qualification purposes instead of doing it one by one in each thread. I mean, wasn't that the point of making these Alternate classes fo two base classes? So that they could capitolize on as much of the existing material as possible? Warpriest levels counting as full Fighter and Cleric levels for qualification purposes is one of the things that would make the class viable and actually distinguish it from the two.
Both ways.And in case they hadn't thought to address that, Scavion caught it and pointed it out in the class feedback thread - which is exactly the kind of feedback I would assume they're looking for.
Let's try to keep this positive and limit the sarcasm, shall we?
I'm reasonably sure there is a point hiding behind those two words but I'm afraid it's eluding me at the moment.
I think it's a problem that we're all hung up on the favored weapon when the class as written doesn't even require the warpriest to follow the deity's teachings under threat of losing class features; despite Focus Weapon and Sacred Weapon being how they are, the warpriest is considerably less limited roleplay-wise by deity/philosophy choice than the cleric!I think your assuming they don't have to be within 2 steps of their deity, where I am assuming they are a divine class and all divine classes are required to be within 1 step of their god.
The fact they are a combined fighter / cleric class does not remove the clerical restrictions of following their god tenets and beliefs.
That's now how it works.
Those divine classes have the mechanical wording within them to say that. The Warpriest does not.
Which to be honest, I don't mind too much.
A Warpriest is dedicated to battle moreso than anything else. He may not be concerned with particularities of the deity. Just whichever gets him back into the fight soonest.
There are exceptions to the alignment rule - Oracles being a big one, but also heretic inquisitors.
While the concept of the class is a fighter / cleric, I don't see how that transfers the clerical restrictions unless they're specifically placed in the Warpriest text.
The brawler is a fighter/monk. Would you require the brawler to be Lawful because monks are?
The Blood Rager is a barbarian/sorcerer. Would you ban a lawful blood rager because barbarians can't be lawful?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a problem that we're all hung up on the favored weapon when the class as written doesn't even require the warpriest to follow the deity's teachings under threat of losing class features; despite Focus Weapon and Sacred Weapon being how they are, the warpriest is considerably less limited roleplay-wise by deity/philosophy choice than the cleric!I think your assuming they don't have to be within 2 steps of their deity, where I am assuming they are a divine class and all divine classes are required to be within 1 step of their god.
The fact they are a combined fighter / cleric class does not remove the clerical restrictions of following their god tenets and beliefs.
That's now how it works.
Point the first - divine classes without gods have been A Thing since...1st edition, actually. Pathfinder added some vague divine fluff to Paladin, becoming the first non-Forgotten Realms setting to require that a Paladin worship a god instead of gaining power directly from their own righteousness and virtue. Clerics of causes, ideals, or even planes of existence (examples: Baator, Bytopia) have existed since 1st edition and got a lot of coverage in Planescape.
Point the second - if it's not stated, it isn't a rule.
Point the third - Permit me to quote Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett: "Certain allowances had to be made for soldiers, who endangered their souls by coming into such close contact with heathens."
Point the last - A character whose alignment is very different from their deity can make for an interesting study in how that alignment approaches that deity's beliefs and themes, and I've DMed for some very interesting characters (clerics and otherwise) who clashed deeply with the mainstream aspects of their faith.
|
I think it's a problem that we're all hung up on the favored weapon when the class as written doesn't even require the warpriest to follow the deity's teachings under threat of losing class features; despite Focus Weapon and Sacred Weapon being how they are, the warpriest is considerably less limited roleplay-wise by deity/philosophy choice than the cleric!I think your assuming they don't have to be within 2 steps of their deity, where I am assuming they are a divine class and all divine classes are required to be within 1 step of their god.
The fact they are a combined fighter / cleric class does not remove the clerical restrictions of following their god tenets and beliefs.
That's now how it works.
Then they should write an Ex-Warpriests section into the class. Which they have so far not done. I'm sure it'll happen, but in the meantime warpriests are more dependent on favored weapon than the deity's actual alignment or teachings. My argument is that the deity's actual alignment and teachings should have much more to do with whether or not the warpriest can use his class features than whether or not he happens to have a specific kind of weapon to hand. Once they put in an Ex-Warpriests rule, that argument will not change in the slightest, because even with that the class is still more dependent on having a specific weapon than following the deity's teachings. It's a lot easier to have your weapon disarmed, sundered, stolen, or rendered useless by situation than it is to compel you to fall. This should not be absolutely crippling for the warpriest, but as it stands right now it is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a Lawful Evil Warpriest of Iomedae who takes slaves and sacrifices children in her name. I retain full combat ability while using her Longsword.If you are going to ignore that you can't be a follower Iomedae as a LE character, then just ignore the other rules you don't like.
Then you can have your cake and eat it to.
Really? Because the Warpriest has no limitations on his alignment in comparison to a deity.
A Warpriest is a Clerical class and therefore subject to the god interpretation of his duties and behavior regarding divine granted abilities.
A classic example of why I make optimization vs roleplaying comments.
Implying that optimizers don't or can't roleplay is quite the bit insulting. It's also wrong. I optimize, I roleplay, and mostly I do the former to enhance the latter. You'll note that one - one - of my above points addresses rules and the rest are pure flavor.
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point the first - divine classes without gods have been A Thing since...1st edition, actually. Pathfinder added some vague divine fluff to Paladin, becoming the first non-Forgotten Realms setting to require that a Paladin worship a god instead of gaining power directly from their own righteousness and virtue.
Just wanted to chime in, that isn't even a Pathfinder thing, that is a Golarion thing. Pathfinder in general still doesn't require Paladin's to have gods. Moreover, Paladin's don't have any restrictions limiting them to being within one step of their deity's alignment, that's pretty much only Clerics. Some of you may recall the infamous "Paladins of Asmodeus" incident from a certain scenario.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to chime in, that isn't even a Pathfinder thing, that is a Golarion thing. Pathfinder in general still doesn't require Paladin's to have gods. Moreover, Paladin's don't have any restrictions limiting them to being within one step of their deity's alignment, that's pretty much only Clerics. Some of you may recall the infamous "Paladins of Asmodeus" incident from a certain scenario.....
Point the first - divine classes without gods have been A Thing since...1st edition, actually. Pathfinder added some vague divine fluff to Paladin, becoming the first non-Forgotten Realms setting to require that a Paladin worship a god instead of gaining power directly from their own righteousness and virtue.
My comment was based on the entry I found in the PFSRD, which talks about Paladins forming bonds with gods (and contains the Divine Bond class feature which also references gods). Personally, I don't like god-empowered Paladins. In my mind a god should feel lucky that such a saintlike champion has chosen to serve them and see that event as an affirmation that they're Doing the Right Thing.
I mean, it's not like D20 gods are the most mature and capable individuals. They screw up, sometimes a lot. It's nice to get confirmation that you're Doing it Right.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Because the Warpriest has no limitations on his alignment in comparison to a deity.A Warpriest is a Clerical class and therefore subject to the god interpretation of his duties and behavior regarding divine granted abilities.
A classic example of why I make optimization vs roleplaying comments.
No, it isn't. It doesn't say "cleric" at the top; it says "warpriest." It's a separate class with its own rules. As Kudaku asked, do you also interpret this to mean Bloodragers must be non-lawful? Brawlers must be lawful?
Furthermore, not only is this most emphatically not optimization versus roleplaying (being Lawful Evil isn't "optimized" for anything in particular except not having to deal with unholy blight and order's wrath), but the two aren't even opposed. I'm not particularly interested in hyper-optimization myself, but one of my players is, and not only does he make unkillable multiclass monstrosities to play in my games, but they're the most well-developed and deeply roleplayed characters in the entire game, and no one in my group is a slouch at that. :p
Moreover, Paladin's don't have any restrictions limiting them to being within one step of their deity's alignment, that's pretty much only Clerics. Some of you may recall the infamous "Paladins of Asmodeus" incident from a certain scenario.....
Since noted as an editing mistake and retconned, it should be pointed out.
|
Design Manager
|
A Warpriest is a Clerical class and therefore subject to the god interpretation of his duties and behavior regarding divine granted abilities.
A classic example of why I make optimization vs roleplaying comments.
Prince actually didn't make any points that play into "optimization vs roleplaying" at all. He barely touched on the rules, but focused instead on historical and thematic precedents.
I think Warpriests having the option of joining Inquisitor's as kind of the "bloody arm" of the church, where they themselves are not exactly embodiments of their religion's principals is actually pretty thematic and appropriate. Being the militant arm of the church, one might imagine that Warpriests philosophical and moral views might vary quite widely from their "more studied, less bloodied" counterparts, in much the same way that knights taking part in the Crusades were not exactly living embodiments of Christ's love.
Being the militant arm of the church, one might imagine that Warpriests philosophical and moral views might vary quite widely from their "more studied, less bloodied" counterparts, in much the same way that knights taking part in the Crusades were not exactly living embodiments of Christ's love.A Warpriest is a Clerical class and therefore subject to the god interpretation of his duties and behavior regarding divine granted abilities.
A classic example of why I make optimization vs roleplaying comments.
He who fights Monsters...
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My comment was based on the entry I found in the PFSRD, which talks about Paladins forming bonds with gods (and contains the Divine Bond class feature which also references gods). Personally, I don't like god-empowered Paladins. In my mind a god should feel lucky that such a saintlike champion has chosen to serve them and see that event as an affirmation that they're Doing the Right Thing.
I mean, it's not like D20 gods are the most mature and capable individuals. They screw up, sometimes a lot. It's nice to get confirmation that you're Doing it Right.
Just for reference-
|
Design Manager
|
Sorry Price of Knives, do NOT mean to imply there cannot be a balance between both and I love to have characters that pack a punch as well.
However the idea of having a LE divine character follower a LG god because XYZ text did not say otherwise is a CLASSIC example of why such comments are made.
It was not directed at any roleplayer that like to pack a punch and have the best PC they can craft and I apologize to anyone that falls into that category that was insulted by my statement.
More a classic example of rules-lawyering than optimization vs. roleplay if anything, though I personally wouldn't even call it that.
Sorry Price of Knives, do NOT mean to imply there cannot be a balance between both and I love to have characters that pack a punch as well.
However the idea of having a LE divine character follower a LG god because XYZ text did not say otherwise is a CLASSIC example of why such comments are made.
It was not directed at any roleplayer that like to pack a punch and have the best PC they can craft and I apologize to anyone that falls into that category that was insulted by my statement.
You do know there could be a myriad of reasons the LE character could worship Iomedae right?
I have absolutely no idea where your getting following a good deity while being evil is optimizing. I was pointing out a possibility regardless of it's effectiveness.
So the fact that you dropped that blanket statement is even odder.
RAW, the rules allow for you to have a LE Warpriest following a LG god.
Heck Inquisitors just can't fall into a "Forbidden Alignment." Without stating what exactly that is of course.
|
|
He who fights Monsters...Being the militant arm of the church, one might imagine that Warpriests philosophical and moral views might vary quite widely from their "more studied, less bloodied" counterparts, in much the same way that knights taking part in the Crusades were not exactly living embodiments of Christ's love.A Warpriest is a Clerical class and therefore subject to the god interpretation of his duties and behavior regarding divine granted abilities.
A classic example of why I make optimization vs roleplaying comments.
And such fanatics will often try to be the embodiment of said god Wearing what the god wears, using the weapon the god uses and a very good rational for why a peaceful god would have a Warpriest. That being said, they will still fall within 1 step of the alignment of their gods..
Now that's RAW, if you want to houserule you come from some warped cult of a LG god that somehow has turned the tenets upside down.
Go for it man, that's what the game is all about.
No, it isn't RAW; that's the point. You cannot quote the rule that says warpriests must be within one step of their deities on each alignment axis, because it doesn't exist. Such a rule isn't written anywhere, so by definition it cannot be Rules As Written.
I hasten to add that if the class actually made it into print without deity-relative alignment restrictions I would houserule them in immediately. I want warpriests to be influenced by their deities' ideals and dogma at least as much as clerics are, but restricting their class features to only working with the deity's favored weapon isn't a particularly good way to do that and is a good way to hamstring the class.
I wonder if maybe they wouldnt be better served by the warmages spell list.
It was a mix of arcane and divine evocation and conjuration spells.
Or maybe something along those lines?
I'll add to that by saying that some of the most interesting villains I've encountered have been evil men following good gods.
I wonder if maybe they wouldnt be better served by the warmages spell list.
It was a mix of arcane and divine evocation and conjuration spells.
Or maybe something along those lines?
Too much boom magey stuff for a class thats more like an in your face martial.
|
Design Manager
|
And such fanatics will often try to be the embodiment of said god Wearing what the god wears, using the weapon the god uses and a very good rational for why a peaceful god would have a Warpriest. That being said, they will still fall within 1 step of the alignment of their gods..
Now that's RAW, if you want to houserule you come from some warped cult of a LG god that somehow has turned the tenets upside down.
Go for it man, that's what the game is all about.
Except it's not. Only clerics have the restriction about being within 1 step of their deity, and Warpriests do not have that delineation. It is not a restriction for all divine characters either, it is unique to the cleric and specifically spelled out within his class. RAW, the Cleric is the only person who needs to worry about walking the same path as his deity. The rest of the mortals get to muddle along in the paths that suit them best, which may or may not conform to the exact same principles embodied by their chosen deity, though the fact that they believe and are working towards that deity's goals is enough to invest them with enough divine power to get the thing done right.
As I think about it, you'd actually be anti-power-gaming to make a Lawful Evil Warpriest of Desna, because the bit about "Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A warpriest can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's" would functionally remove all alignment based spells from their spell list.
|
|
I wonder if maybe they wouldnt be better served by the warmages spell list.
It was a mix of arcane and divine evocation and conjuration spells.
Or maybe something along those lines?
I doubt it. The stated design goal (since we actually have that now via the blog) is to have the warpriest be among "the best at healing and casting spells on itself." That means heal and buff heavy, not a bunch of AoE damage and summons.
They stated somewhere that the development team wanted to avoid making unique spell lists - I believe for editing reasons?
I think the Warpriest would benefit from getting equal access to some of the core buffing spells though. A lot of the reason why they look lackluster next to the cleric is that the cleric gets earlier access to the iconic divine buff spells like Divine Power (Cleric's 7 to Warpriest's 10), Righteous Might (Cleric's 9 to Warpriest's 13) etc.
Thanks for keeping it civil Clectabled, have a great weekend :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, so let's say that I want to play a warpriest of Milani. Her favored weapon is the morningstar. Well, I don't want a morningstar. Let's see what her article in Reign of Winter has to say about this...
She sees every object as a tool for fighting oppression, from a common scythe that can draw an enemy's blood to a printing press than can subvert a tyrant's reputation.
"Every object", meaning she probably wouldn't care if someone used something other then a morningstar to kill his or her oppressor.
But wait, there's more! Cayden Cailean's herald, Thais, uses a weapon given to her by Milani.
Thais is always depicted bearing her signature weapon, an ancient halberd borrowed from the goddess Milani’s armory called Tyranny’s Foil.
So not even did Milani have a halberd, she named it! What if I want to play a halberd-wielding warpriest of Milani so I can take advantage of Power Attack and Furious Focus? I can't!
What if I want to play a warpriest of Pharasma who wears a vulture-skull mask and wields a scythe in imitation of a Vanth Psychopomp? Or a warpriest with an undead bane disruption warhammer to better fight the undead who dare to defy the Lady of Grave's judgement? I can't!
What if I want to play a warpriest of Asmodeus who wields a glaive and wears a Barbazu's Beard in imitation of a Bearded Devil? I can't!
In terms of both flavor and mechanics, the Sacred Weapon feature is a dead end. It ruins any attempt to create a unique character and forces you to select certain deities for optimal weapon choices.
Ask yourself, Ciretose...would you WANT to play a Warpriest of Pharasma who was forced to rely on a dagger? Would you WANT to be swiping away at a huge Ravener with it? Probably not.
Hopefully, Paizo will read the writing on the wall and get rid of this annoying class feature before the playtest ends.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OMG let it go...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So not even did Milani have a halberd, she named it! What if I want to play a halberd-wielding warpriest of Milani so I can take advantage of Power Attack and Furious Focus? I can't!
What if I want to play a warpriest of Pharasma who wears a vulture-skull mask and wields a scythe in imitation of a Vanth Psychopomp? Or a warpriest with an undead bane disruption warhammer to better fight the undead who dare to defy the Lady of Grave's judgement? I can't!
What if I want to play a warpriest of Asmodeus who wields a glaive and wears a Barbazu's Beard in imitation of a Bearded Devil? I can't!
Well, first of all, you can, actually. You have martial weapon proficiency and 10 (11 if you're human) feats, plus bonus feats on top of that that have no requirement about which weapons they apply to. You're perfectly able to do so, even if it wouldn't be an optimal choice.
Secondly, however, you can play something else. You can play a cleric, or a fighter/cleric, or an inquisitor, or even a paladin if your deity allows for it. You are asking that the class be something it is currently not, and that is in fact the exact opposite of the way the dev team has suggested they are planning to head. You're asking why the paladin has to detect evil (what if I want to detect chaos instead?) or why the why the alchemist has to have extracts (that's too limiting! real spellcasting is the only choice!) - it might seem an "annoying" feature to you, but it's actually the core of the class. The warpriest is a specialist with the deity's favored weapon, and the dev team wants to make that more functional, not take it away.
Hopefully, Paizo will read the writing on the wall and get rid of this annoying class feature before the playtest ends.
Best of luck with that - but I would be prepared to be disappointed.
You're asking why the paladin has to detect evil (what if I want to detect chaos instead?) or why the why the alchemist has to have extracts (that's too limiting! real spellcasting is the only choice!) - it might seem an "annoying" feature to you, but it's actually the core of the class.
A bit of a strawman argument. Detect Evil and Extracts are vital to the Paladin and Alchemist respectively, and I would never advocate taking them away. Detect evil for paladins because they are holy warriors empowered by the gods of righteousness, and being able to identify evildoers is part of what makes them unique. Extracts are part of the Alchemist's mystique, and symbolize what they are supposed to be: a kind of magical mad scientist.
But the warpriest...if they're supposed to be divine battle-champions of their deities, having them be almost forced to rely on (in many cases) sub-optimal favored weapons just doesn't make sense. Take Ahriman, for instance. He's devoted to pure evil and destruction, and wants to ruin all of creation. Now imagine his psychopathic warpriests...hitting people with whips for non-lethal damage. That's cruel, of course. But I doubt the Usij go around trying to whip people into submission...if anything, that would be Callistra's job, if you catch my drift. ;)
Maybe I just have the wrong expectations, but I thought the warpriest was supposed to be some kind of "divine soldier" who could (even if only slightly) act as a paladin/antipaladin-esque class for alignments that don't have them.
I guess I'll just stick to a Crusader cleric.
|
If Person A gets 5 extra points, and Person B gets 0 extra points, the difference between the two of them is the exact same as Person A getting 0 extra points, and Person B losing 5 points. In this case, punishment and reward are the exact same thing. Changing what we call the relationship doesn't change the arbitrariily unequal nature of it.
Except it's not a PvP game. There are fixed benchmarks to compare each character against - namely, monsters in the Bestiaries - and if you can beat a CR-appropriate challenge with 0 points as well as with 5 points, it doesn't matter if one guy gets 5 and you get 0, you can both do what you're designed to do. The more powerful option is there for games that demand it or for inexperienced players who may have a harder time keeping up without it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except it's not a PvP game
If Person A gets 5 extra points, and Person B gets 0 extra points, the difference between the two of them is the exact same as Person A getting 0 extra points, and Person B losing 5 points. In this case, punishment and reward are the exact same thing. Changing what we call the relationship doesn't change the arbitrarily unequal nature of it.
You're right. We're not talking about PvP. That doesn't change the nature of the relationship as being arbitrarily unequal, or as being correctly described as either a punishment or as a reward.
There are fixed benchmarks to compare each character against - namely, monsters in the Bestiaries - and if you can beat a CR-appropriate challenge with 0 points as well as with 5 points, it doesn't matter if one guy gets 5 and you get 0, you can both do what you're designed to do. The more powerful option is there for games that demand it or for inexperienced players who may have a harder time keeping up without it.
What's great is that it's not a real option. A real game option is choosing do you want +5 to A, or +5 to B. The kind of option where you're weighing both choices and deciding which one is better. Ideally both choices could even be equally good, depending on how your character has progressed up to that point, making the choices even more interesting.
But that's not with this is. At the moment, and I expect the upcoming change to make things better, it's a choice of whether you want +5 to A, or +0 to B. That's not a real option. It's not even a more complex choice of whether you want +5 now, or +1 now and +2 later. It's a question of whether you want your chocolate piece now or to never get a chocolate piece.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except it's not a PvP game
If Person A gets 5 extra points, and Person B gets 0 extra points, the difference between the two of them is the exact same as Person A getting 0 extra points, and Person B losing 5 points. In this case, punishment and reward are the exact same thing. Changing what we call the relationship doesn't change the arbitrarily unequal nature of it.
You're right. We're not talking about PvP. That doesn't change the nature of the relationship as being arbitrarily unequal, or as being correctly described as either a punishment or as a reward.
Actually, that's entirely untrue on a fundamental level. You're correct in saying that the relationship is unequal, and that this should be remedied, but incorrect in claiming that 5>0 is the same as 0>-5, at least when it comes to game mechanics.
Let's say another man has 5 dollars, and I have 0 dollars. This isn't even close to saying that the other man has 0 dollars and I owe my best friend 5 dollars. It's the same relative difference in funds, but the circumstances are totally different. You are assuming that 5 is the baseline for the amount of money a person should have, when instead it is 0, at which point you can improve.
Mabtik, while I can't really claim to be impartial on the topic, I think that was well thought out and very well-written.
How would you feel about an ability that makes it easier for the Warpriest to qualify for combat feats? I'm thinking something like the monk flurry system but in reverse:
Student of War: For the purposes of qualifying for Combat Feats, the Warpriest's base attack bonus from his Warpriest class level is equal to his Warpriest level. For all other purposes, such as earning extra attacks or qualifying for a prestige class, the Warpriest uses his normal base attack bonus.
...Just read that out loud to make sure it made sense and turns out Warpriest is a bit of a tonguetwister!
I would actually like to get clarification on if the Warpriest counts as a fighter for some of the fighter feats. I wouldn't mind playing a tanking warpriest with some shield and TWF feats, or a TWF priest (although finding a way to get the spells up with that equipment will be interested, perhaps a weapon cord on one of the weapons?)if I could also shore up some of the difficulties of doing that with a 3/4 BAB class via fighter feats. That said, qualifying for any of the combat feats, fighter specific or not, sooner will be very handy in the process of upping the combat ability of a 3/4 BAB class to meet the front line combat role they seem cut out for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's important to note that Sacred Weapon (and Favored Weapon), as they are, are a trap. It just wasn't great design. Don't get me wrong... I admire the creativity and fun that the Paizo crew brings, and has consistently brought to my gaming table. However, it was a great idea that requires some tweaking. It's all part and parcel of the creative process.
Why is Sacred Weapon (and Favoured Weapon) a trap? It's a key class feature that is extremely limited in scope. It might be akin to allowing the Paladin to smite any demon they like, but nothing else. It might also be akin to allowing the Rogue to sneak attack, but only when they're not wearing any armour other than studded leather. Can your character use another weapon? Sure, absolutely, but if they do not use that one special weapon, a key class feature is rendered inoperable until you go back to using that one special weapon.
This key class feature also relies upon a factor that can vary to great degrees based upon external circumstances. Get disarmed? No Sacred Weapon for you. Have your weapon sundered? No Sacred Weapon for you. Follow a deity that prefers daggers over greatswords? You're at a disadvantage in combat, and it's just tough luck for you. I cannot think of another class that is so restricted when it comes to class features related to combat utility.
This is why it needs to be reworked, and I think that Paizo realises this. As a mechanical limitation, it's even more extreme than the Paladin's Code. If left as-is, it would have serious ramifications with regard to flurry warpriests (two-weapon warpriests) and aegis warpriests (sword-and-board warpriests), particularly for followers of deities that favour two-handed weapons. There's no good reason why I shouldn't be able to create a viable archer warpriest that's just as effective with a bow as she is with a warhammer if she follows a god that uses the warhammer as its favoured weapon. It's a mechanic that causes more problems than advantages it creates. This is just a sampling as to why it was not well-written, and why it's getting revised.
Until we see what it gets changed to in the next revision, just keep calm and game on.
Best wishes!
Actually, that's entirely untrue on a fundamental level. You're correct in saying that the relationship is unequal, and that this should be remedied, but incorrect in claiming that 5>0 is the same as 0>-5, at least when it comes to game mechanics.
Let's say another man has 5 dollars, and I have 0 dollars. This isn't even close to saying that the other man has 0 dollars and I owe my best friend 5 dollars. It's the same relative difference in funds, but the circumstances are totally different. You are assuming that 5 is the baseline for the amount of money a person should have, when instead it is 0, at which point you can improve.
I don't care about if situation is different, when the end result is the same. To become equal with you, in both cases, the other person still has to come up with 5 more dollars. Whether he's paying off debt, or pocketing the money for himself, is irrelevant. Beyond that, I'm not just talking about the relationship, I'm talking about how we define it. Specfically, whether you define Person A as being rewarded for gaining 5 dollars/not losing 5 dollars, or Person B for being punished for not gaining 5 dollars, losing 5 dollars, does not change their new relationship.
One guy still has 5 more dollars than the other guy. Instead of deflecting complaints about about this new inequity into discussions of whether 1 guy was rewarded or if the other was punished, we should be asking whether the reason the inequity exists is a good one.
|
|
It's supposed to be a no-brainer. You already have incentive to use "other weapons" - incentivizing you to use the one belonging to your deity is logical.
There is an incentive, built into the class at level 1 - free Weapon Focus. Nobody's said that part's a bad idea, except in the context of front-loading, and the suggestions for fixing that have been to move back other things, not remove Focus Weapon.
The trouble is that the warpriest is supposed to be a warrior priest; I mean, that's the name, right? So he should be good at actually doing that. To that end, he has an attack bonus equalizer along the same lines as inquisitor and magus, other 3/4 BAB classes that are expected to be hitting things with weapons as part of their primary job but don't need/get the full benefit of full BAB (Power Attack, etc). But wait! Unlike those precedents, the warpriest's ability has severe limitations on what it can be used on, namely the favored weapon of the warpriest's deity. So you have odd situations like warpriests forced to choose between going to war with blatantly ceremonial weapons (whips, daggers) unsuited to the purpose or hitting like a non-combat class since without the favored weapon they, much like rogue, have no class features that boost their attack bonuses (bar spells, but the cleric can do that and do it better; remember we want to define a role for the class that isn't cleric-lite). The warpriest should be able to hit better than a second-line skillmonkey (or a cleric, for that matter) no matter what weapon you hand him, since that's supposedly a big part of his schtick.
What's even more embarrassing is that we have the precedent of the paladin class, which not only gets a similar ability through Divine Bond, but one that scales faster, scales higher, works with any weapon he's holding, and is attached to a full BAB class to boot! In light of all this, in combination with the fact that despite the fact that the deity chart only has room for one favored weapon there are several cases in the Golarion pantheon where the deity either favors many weapons, none at all, or some different ones than the one that's symbolically "theirs," there really is no reason to restrict Sacred Weapon in this harsh of a way. I could even see further incentivizing the favored weapon by making Sacred Weapon scale differently when used on it (one per three levels past 4th instead of per four and capping at +6, like Divine Bond, perhaps?), but just shutting it off entirely when a different weapon is called for or required by circumstance puts the warpriest at too much of a disadvantage in his role.
A Warpriest is dedicated to battle moreso than anything else. He may not be concerned with particularities of the deity. Just whichever gets him back into the fight soonest.
Ok, this is an out-of-left-field kind of idea, and there are probably a thousand reasons (which you guys will explain to me in detail) why it wouldn't work, but what if they took this idea and ran with it? What if the warpriest was primarily dedicated to battle, and took a pragmatic, pantheistic approach to beseeching the gods for the power he needs?
This is a very rough sketch, but what I'm envisioning is something similar to the Shaman's Wandering Spirit ability. When the warpriest prepares spells for the day, he selects a deity to pray to for his divine power. The warpriest may select two of that deity's blessings as his blessings for that day. He may select an alignment blessing only if his alignment matches that domain. While a warpriest is under a deity's blessing, he must follow that deity's code of conduct. Grossly violating this code of conduct results in the warpriest losing access to his blessings until he prepares spells again.
Mechanically, this would give the warpriest some additional versatility (particularly if the suggestion to add domain spells to the blessings is adopted). Flavor-wise, I think this idea is particularly exciting. It gives us a divine caster who is effectively unaligned, but who still receives his power from the gods, rather than from a divine concept or from nature. It also takes an odd class "feature", the lack of alignment restriction by deity (which admittedly may be an oversight), and gives it an in-world explanation.
I hate to even type the words, but, sacred weapon: Decoupling the warpriest from a single deity would necessarily make the favored weapon=sacred weapon idea unworkable. My suggestion would be to alter sacred weapon to be applicable to one weapon in which you have proficiency when you gain the ability. If you wanted to take an EWP at first level to emulate a certain deity's favored weapon you could do so. The special properties by weapon group advocated by Ciretose and others to encourage weapon parity could still be in place in the sacred weapon ability to encourage the use of uncommon sacred weapons.
Thoughts?
|
|
On a different topic:Anyone else think access to the shield spell would be a nice buff if they got a specially tailored spell list? I mean, its the same as a +2 Ghost Touch Heavy Shield lasting for a minute/level (no stat reliance), and allows your hands to be full. So 2h a weapon (not as good for light weapons, but that could change depending on how the devs revise) and get 1.5*Strength to damage with a weapon for a nice offense and defense boost.
Any other non-cleric spells that could really help the class if it got a specially-tailored spell list?
** spoiler omitted **
On a different topic:Anyone else think access to the shield spell would be a nice buff if they got a specially tailored spell list? I mean, its the same as a +2 Ghost Touch Heavy Shield lasting for a minute/level (no stat reliance), and allows your hands to be full. So 2h a weapon (not as good for light weapons, but that could change depending on how the devs revise) and get 1.5*Strength to damage with a weapon for a nice offense and defense boost.
Any other non-cleric spells that could really help the class if it got a specially-tailored spell list?
Lead Blades and Keen Edge for all those favored weapons that everyone thinks are suboptimal.
Throw in Spell Combat and a pool of abilities that can allow you to Quicken something at higher levels (or apply the effects through sacred weapon) so you don't have to waste a turn buffing.
Gravity Bow would also be cool, and earlier access to GMW.
I don't think they get Cat's Grace as is, but that also seems like an important one.
Bladed Dash is combat oriented and would be rather useful.
Some paladin only spells like Litany of Righteousness would be tremendously useful to a combat focused cleric.
** spoiler omitted **
On a different topic:Anyone else think access to the shield spell would be a nice buff if they got a specially tailored spell list? I mean, its the same as a +2 Ghost Touch Heavy Shield lasting for a minute/level (no stat reliance), and allows your hands to be full. So 2h a weapon (not as good for light weapons, but that could change depending on how the devs revise) and get 1.5*Strength to damage with a weapon for a nice offense and defense boost.
Any other non-cleric spells that could really help the class if it got a specially-tailored spell list?
Haste, Cat's Grace, Heroism, False Life, and Expeditious Retreat all come to mind.