It would be awfully difficult to change attack progression and spell allocation in a archetype.
I don't think they are interested in another Full BaB divine caster. A better chance would be you might get a Paladin Archetype that didn't have alignment restrictions.
That makes sense, a full bab 4th level spellcasting archetype for the Warpriest would probably be more work than an alignment-free Paladin. I don't mind what approach they use but I do think a "holy warrior" type class option with full bab and different or no alignment requirements would be appreciated by the Paizo fans.
@Renegade Paladin
I really like what you're working on! I think the new take on sacred power is very, very interesting and much more convenient than the original writing.
One question though, why did you add Glamered to the list of armor enhancements? Normally I'm all for additional options in cases like these but a 1-minute duration for Glamered armor seems... Kind of narrow? As a replacement I'd consider enhancements like Balanced, Bolstering, Deathless, and possibly Rallying.
One question though, why did you add Glamered to the list of armor enhancements?
He didn't, that's one of the abilities the playtest Warpriest can use.
|
It would be awfully difficult to change attack progression and spell allocation in a archetype.
I don't think they are interested in another Full BaB divine caster. A better chance would be you might get a Paladin Archetype that didn't have alignment restrictions.
That makes sense, a full bab 4th level spellcasting archetype for the Warpriest would probably be more work than an alignment-free Paladin. I don't mind what approach they use but I do think a "holy warrior" type class option with full bab and different or no alignment requirements would be appreciated by the Paizo fans.
@Renegade Paladin
I really like what you're working on! I think the new take on sacred power is very, very interesting and much more convenient than the original writing.
One question though, why did you add Glamered to the list of armor enhancements? Normally I'm all for additional options in cases like these but a 1-minute duration for Glamered armor seems... Kind of narrow? As a replacement I'd consider enhancements like Balanced, Bolstering, Deathless, and possibly Rallying.
I copy/pasted the playtest list. This was more about getting the idea for the mechanic off the ground rather than specific numbers and abilities. I certainly agree those would work better, with the addendum that I'd really like to find a way to work the determination property into the list, if we can account for the armor's 1/day nature (probably at +3 equivalency if we stick with the playtest values for fixed costs, since it falls in price between energy resistance and improved energy resistance).
Argh, I missed Glamered when I read the original list - my bad. Determination would definitely be an interesting enhancement to add to the list!
|
Warrior of the faith, skilled at arms and armor, the warpriest is a soldier for his faith. Capable of calling upon the power of the gods in the form of blessings and spells, the warpriest blends divine magic with martial skill. Although many think of the paladin as the ultimate warrior of faith, the warpriest can serve any deity and his morals can more closely match those of his god.
Role: Although not as capable as a cleric, the warpriest can still serve as a capable healer or spellcaster, calling upon his divine powers from the center of the fight, where his armor and martial skill can be put to the test.
Alignment: A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis (as a Cleric).
Hit Die: d8
Alternate Classes: Cleric and fighter.
Starting Wealth: 5d6 × 10 gp (average 175 gp).
The warpriest’s class skills are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (arcane), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Knowledge (religion) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).
2 + Int modifier. (4+Int?)
The following are the class features of the warpriest.
If a blessing’s power duplicates a spell effect, the warpriest’s caster level for that power is equal to his warpriest level. Blessings that affect weapons and armor benefit anyone who wields or wears those items, not just the warpriest.
At 1st level, a warpriest can expend 1 point from his sacred fire pool as a move action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute, (or as a swift action for Focus Weapon). For every four levels beyond 1st, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves.
At 5th level, these bonuses can be used to add any of the following weapon properties:brilliant energy, defending, disruption, flaming, frost, keen, and shock.
In addition, if the warpriest is chaotic, he can add anarchic and vicious. If he is evil, he can add mighty cleaving and unholy. If he is good, he can add holy and ghost touch. If he is lawful, he can add axiomatic and merciful.
A warpriest that is neutral, (or whose Deity is neutral) in respect to the above alignments does not get additional weapon properties.
Adding any of these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the properties base cost (see Table 15–9 of the Core Rulebook). Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the property’s base price modifier (see Table 15–9 on page 469 of the Core Rulebook). These properties are added to any the weapon already has, but duplicates do not stack. If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added. These bonuses and properties are decided when the sacred fire pool point is spent and cannot be changed until the next time the warpriest uses this ability. These bonuses do not function if the weapon is wielded by anyone other than the warpriest. A warpriest can only enhance one weapon in this way at one time. If he uses this ability again, the first use immediately ends.
If the Focus Weapon is instead a ranged weapon, they may instead use the following weapon properties: distance, flaming, frost, keen, returning, seeking, and shock. If the warpriest is chaotic they may also add anarchic and thundering. If the warpriest is evil, he can instead also add cruel (see Ult Equip page 138), and unholy. Good and lawful warpriest retain the holy and ghost touch and the axiomatic and merciful additional properties listed above. Ranged Weapons such as bows, slings, and crossbows transfer their magical properties to their ammunition for a single shot. Thrown Weapons loose their magic after being used for an attack, unless they are also returning weapons.
These bonuses stack with any existing bonuses the armor might have, to a maximum of +5. The warpriest can imbue armor any of the following armor properties: energy resistance (normal, improved, and greater), fortification (heavy, light, or moderate), glamered, and spell resistance (13, 15, 17, and 19). Adding any of these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the properties base cost (see Table 15–4 of the Core Rulebook). For this purpose, glamered counts as a +1, energy resistance counts as +2, improved energy resistance counts as +4, and greater energy resistance counts as +5. Duplicate abilities do not stack. The armor must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus before any other properties can be added, whether normally from itself or granted by this ability.
The warpriest can use this ability one minute per day per warpriest level, but these minutes do not need to be consecutive. The enhancement bonus and properties are determined the first time the ability is used each day. The warpriest can change them by spending 1 full minute in prayer. These bonuses only apply while the warpriest is wearing the armor, and end immediately if the armor is removed or leaves the warpriest’s possession. This ability can be ended as a free action at the start of the warpriest’s turn. This ability can be applied to a shield, but a warpriest may only have a single use of this ability active at a time, and can not use it on both an Armor and a Shield at the same time. Similar to the spell Magic Vestment, (see CRB page 310), this can be used on an outfit of regular clothing that grants no AC bonus normally.
Ex-Warpriests: A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies, Bonus Feats (except that affect or depend on lost class features), and Holy Intuition. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a warpriest or cleric of that god until he atones for his deeds (see the atonement spell description). This works exactly like a Ex-Cleric (see CRB page 41).
Sacred Fire lists him as a magus still.
Divine Wrath should be called Spellstrike to not gain confusion with the spell.
Overall I really like where you are going with it, though I do not see the point in making them wait until 3rd level for heavy armor proficiency, just let them have it.
given that people are all over the place in regards to channeling and whether or not the warpriest should have it, is there any viability in making it simply an applicable Extra Damage to attack sort of thing? Sort of a spell-combat-ish non-spell blasty effect on hit? Or has the idea been ruled out already somewhere in the previous 37 pages?
While I hate to invoke Certain MMO Mechanics, I would think that having the usage of channel as an option as part of their attack motion/action would make for something interesting, possibly as a 'half-your-level- in-channel-expenditure' burstish sort of ability.
Don't quite have time to read it all at the moment (cooking atm), but I like the idea of delaying heavy armor proficiency till level 3. Most characters can't afford full plate at level 1 anyway so it's not a big deal for the Warpriest, and it makes the class less frontloaded/attractive for dipping.
Robert Little suggested pushing bonus feats to 2nd level and every 3 levels past 2, which I think is a great idea. A warpriest will have 6 bab at lvl 8 and 8 bab at lvl 11, so it lines up nicely with new combat feats (lunge and Imp Crit for instance) coming online at those levels. Qualifying for Fighter feats makes sense to me.
I endorse the idea of 4 skillpoints instead of 2 but honestly I think the minimum should be 4 ranks per level for all classes. Purely from a flavor/thematic view I don't really see the Warpriest being more "skillful" than the cleric.
I was never all that crazy about Spellstrike using the critical threat range but not the multiplier of the melee weapon wielded since it makes weapons with high threat ranges (like rapiers, scimitars etc) very attractive and other weapons fairly unattractive.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. I do think besides classes that use Int (Wizards, Wtch, etc. . .) 4+Int should be the bare min. I'm really thinking that this class needs 4 though, despite both it's parent classes getting stuck with 2 just because even more so then them, (and I think they are the two that really needed it most anyway), it's too MAD already and has too many skills it really should be good at just to do it's basic function as that class.
|
I disagree with delaying heavy armor. Full plate isn't the only heavy armor and this class is more front line than an inquisitor or cleric.
I don't care for adding another pool, particularly considering this class already has 6 levels of spell, blessings, and other bonuses. And I think making spells designed as standard actions into swift actions that don't provoke is playing with fire and begging for exploit.
I made my suggestion above for bonus feats, and agree with moving them off of 1st and think the every 3 levels past 2nd makes pretty good sense, although I would probably go with every 4 which matches the rangers combat style projection. And as I said above (or last page now) if you make them mirror the ranger combat styles, lack of pre-requisites will help the MAD issues.
|
|
I think you're leaning too much on the magus. What the warpriest needs is a unique mechanic, not to add in a third alternate class. I didn't state it in the notes, but in my ability design above I left it open as a swift/free action on purpose, both to reflect that this is the deity's blessing on the warpriest more than the magus' focused training and split attention, and to intentionally leave the door open to use Still Spell to cast with both hands full in the case of a warpriest with a two-handed focus weapon and one who wishes to use a shield. I did not, however, bake it in because I would like this to be both a player choice and something with a cost to it should the player choose it (i.e. spell slots a level higher).
Good Stuff
I really like that. One question... was there a reason you went with "Free Action" instead of "Swift Action"? Just curious.
|
|
I think you're leaning too much on the magus. What the warpriest needs is a unique mechanic, not to add in a third alternate class.
How is what I did and what you did all that different? Both are pretty copy/paste from the Magus, though I went in to fix a few things people have mentioned like ranged weapons, and didn't tie in the armor, the weapon, and the blessings into one pool. Mostly I just didn't like that idea, but personal preference, and wanted to see what it would look like without, but still easily able to put them back in if needed.
Please note that I did add in some unique mechanics, also.
I didn't state it in the notes, but in my ability design above I left it open as a swift/free action on purpose, both to reflect that this is the deity's blessing on the warpriest more than the magus' focused training and split attention, and to intentionally leave the door open to use Still Spell to cast with both hands full in the case of a warpriest with a two-handed focus weapon and one who wishes to use a shield. I did not, however, bake it in because I would like this to be both a player choice and something with a cost to it should the player choose it (i.e. spell slots a level higher).
I don't think that requiring warpriests whose Deity's Favored Weapon happens to be two handed needing to take Still Spell is a great way to go. They can already let go with one hand, cast, and then regrab and attack with the weapon normally, so it kind of seems like making things more complicated for the sake of making them complicated.
|
|
Good StuffI really like that. One question... was there a reason you went with "Free Action" instead of "Swift Action"? Just curious.
Yes. The class is crazily dependent on the swift action even without requiring it for the casting mechanic as well, and also to bring it in line with Spell Combat, which doesn't require an action at all (a magus can use Spell Combat and a swift action in the same round). The magus (our baseline comparison for this, as the only extant class with a similar mechanic) is more than balanced out by being able to cast any spell he chooses, rather than only self-targeting ones. The most offensive thing a warpriest could do with the ability spell-wise that comes immediately to mind is prayer, and that's not exactly the biggest thing he could choose to do to his enemies with his spells if could pick whatever he pleased.
I think you're leaning too much on the magus. What the warpriest needs is a unique mechanic, not to add in a third alternate class. I didn't state it in the notes, but in my ability design above I left it open as a swift/free action on purpose, both to reflect that this is the deity's blessing on the warpriest more than the magus' focused training and split attention, and to intentionally leave the door open to use Still Spell to cast with both hands full in the case of a warpriest with a two-handed focus weapon and one who wishes to use a shield. I did not, however, bake it in because I would like this to be both a player choice and something with a cost to it should the player choose it (i.e. spell slots a level higher).
Well, the magus's mechanic solved some problems and those are problems that I want solved for the Warpriest too.
How about this though (which may have already been suggested):
Starting at 2nd level, the Warpriest may "trap" one spell from the Warpriest's spell on his person. The duration of the spell stays the same but the Warpriest may turn the effect on or off once a round as a free action. So the Warpriest can cast divine favor on himself ahead of time and then turn it on when the fight starts, and consume like three rounds of it for the fight.
Starting at level 7, maybe he can "trap" a second spell, and then another at levels 12 and 17.
Perhaps the highest level buff spell they can trap should be limited to the Warpriest's level divided by 4 (round down, minimum 1).
I see this working well, but I suspect I will be ignored -w-
Its not a terrible idea Excalibur. I wouldn't worry about limiting the level of the spell much because the warpriest already has limits on its casting when compared against a cleric.
Yeah. I chose roughly that spell level progression because those are around the levels where an equivalent level cleric has the option of quickening those spells.
And I think quickened buffs are sort of the baseline that needs to be balanced against, maybe. The stronger version can be playtested first to see if anything goes horribly awry though.
|
|
I actually considered something similar briefly, but didn't go with it because it might prove awkward with mass buffs (what happens if you store bless in that fashion and then turn it back on, presuming the same allies aren't in the AoE between casting and reactivation?) and because I, like Scavion, like the "feel" of the class powering up more and more as a tough fight drags on. Which isn't to say your idea is a bad one; the more we give the developers to work with, the better we're doing our jobs. :)
I actually considered something similar briefly, but didn't go with it because it might prove awkward with mass buffs (what happens if you store bless in that fashion and then turn it back on, presuming the same allies aren't in the AoE between casting and reactivation?) and because I, like Scavion, like the "feel" of the class powering up more and more as a tough fight drags on. Which isn't to say your idea is a bad one; the more we give the developers to work with, the better we're doing our jobs. :)
Notice that I said that only one spell may be activated per round (as a free action). So at level 7, the warpriest might activate divine favor in the first round and then enlarge person in the second.
For people worried about balance, it also puts an upper bound on the number of freely activated buffs.
And I don't see anything wrong with letting bless turn on and off and allowing each ally in the effect range act as though the spell had just been cast. I think limiting it to only the warpriest is not the end of of the world, though.
|
|
I actually considered something similar briefly, but didn't go with it because it might prove awkward with mass buffs (what happens if you store bless in that fashion and then turn it back on, presuming the same allies aren't in the AoE between casting and reactivation?) and because I, like Scavion, like the "feel" of the class powering up more and more as a tough fight drags on. Which isn't to say your idea is a bad one; the more we give the developers to work with, the better we're doing our jobs. :)Notice that I said that only one spell may be activated per round (as a free action). So at level 7, the warpriest might activate divine favor in the first round and then enlarge person in the second.
For people worried about balance, it also puts an upper bound on the number of freely activated buffs.
And I don't see anything wrong with letting bless turn on and off and allowing each ally in the effect range act as though the spell had just been cast. I think limiting it to only the warpriest is not the end of of the world, though.
The problem being that in addition to those buffs you are also getting bonuses to weapon, armor and from blessings.
Calling for "more" will always be popular, but there has to be a line.
Again, as I said before I don't like the swift action casting (Other than a swift channel for self or target) for two main reasons.
1. Making spells designed to be standard actions into swift actions without the costs of metamagic is going to lead to unintended uses.
2. This is supposed to be the martial focused version, so I think focusing on boosts to spells is the wrong approach.
I would prefer the class get bonuses as part of the class if we feel it needs bonuses rather than having the bonuses come from existing spells not designed to be used as free actions in combat.
I actually considered something similar briefly, but didn't go with it because it might prove awkward with mass buffs (what happens if you store bless in that fashion and then turn it back on, presuming the same allies aren't in the AoE between casting and reactivation?) and because I, like Scavion, like the "feel" of the class powering up more and more as a tough fight drags on. Which isn't to say your idea is a bad one; the more we give the developers to work with, the better we're doing our jobs. :)Notice that I said that only one spell may be activated per round (as a free action). So at level 7, the warpriest might activate divine favor in the first round and then enlarge person in the second.
For people worried about balance, it also puts an upper bound on the number of freely activated buffs.
And I don't see anything wrong with letting bless turn on and off and allowing each ally in the effect range act as though the spell had just been cast. I think limiting it to only the warpriest is not the end of of the world, though.
The problem being that in addition to those buffs you are also getting bonuses to weapon, armor and from blessings.
Calling for "more" will always be popular, but there has to be a line.
Again, as I said before I don't like the swift action casting (Other than a swift channel for self or target) for two main reasons.
1. Making spells designed to be standard actions into swift actions without the costs of metamagic is going to lead to unintended uses.
2. This is supposed to be the martial focused version, so I think focusing on boosts to spells is the wrong approach.
I would prefer the class get bonuses as part of the class if we feel it needs bonuses rather than having the bonuses come from existing spells not designed to be used as free actions in combat.
I am so far more in favor of those buffs being spells that words don't even work.
The merger of fighter and cleric like the merger of fighter and magus should imply that the spells of the caster class are being somehow incorporated into the combat of the warrior class. It brings together the two game styles and makes them more than the sum of their parts (which it needs to because 3/4 fighting and 6/9 casting are not that great by themselves).
The "bonuses from class" line of thinking is really just increasing the fighter portion of the class. Whereas the magic from spells like enlarge person would be allowing more of a synthesis.
Magus does it just fine and the game hasn't come crashing down around our ears. And the magus' mechanic is much less limited than anything anyone's proposed for the warpriest so far.
Yeah. The "limit" for the magus is the limited spell list.
|
|
Magus does it just fine and the game hasn't come crashing down around our ears. And the magus' mechanic is much less limited than anything anyone's proposed for the warpriest so far.
Magus is a caster who can wade into combat occasionally.
Also, as I said in another thread when a survey on the board was done as to what people's favorite class was, Magus got 0 votes.
For comparision, Rogue got 7.
The magus mechanic is means you are more or less going to play one handed melee weapon. Some people like it, but by no means is it a classic that we should be emulating. Go back to the old Magus playtest and you will see many of the concerns have bourne out and required FAQs. Aside from the summoner, I think it is the most FAQed class.
I don't think this concept is that complicated that we need to add complexity.
We want it to hit better, give it bonuses to hit.
Magus does it just fine and the game hasn't come crashing down around our ears. And the magus' mechanic is much less limited than anything anyone's proposed for the warpriest so far.
Yep, and it may not seem like the most exciting thing to the developers to make a "divine magus" but the variance in spell lists alone would be enough to distinguish them. Even if a warpriest did have unlimited access to casting any sort of spell, I think a lot of them would still focus onn buffs. They are a good bang for the buck, and the warpriest touch spells are going to be pretty weak in comparison.
The magus (and to a much lesser extent the eldritch knight) solves the action economy issue inherent to being a dual-role class.
I have no issue with using a divine pool or a limited version of spell combat or a limited number of uses per day even. But the problem needs to be addressed somehow or the cleric that dips some fighter levels will be a better warpriest than a warpriest.
As I said before, the straight Cleric will be way ahead on his access to those sexy cleric buffs, so if the Warpriest still needs to spend rounds, everything else will be overshadowed by the cleric casting a buff that is 2-3 spell levels higher and having a full progression list to make him excellent in tons of other situations as well.
So, I am hopeful that we will see some good changes in the first revision. This rough draft as it stands is not holding up.
I don't understand the coming up with new mechanics when we aren't finished playtesting the ones they want us to playtest, in this or any other new class thread. That's Paizo's job, ours is to test.
We need to test and present data on the playtest, not rewrite the existing mechanics and playtest those. What an incredible waste of time.
Just my 2cp.
Magus does it just fine and the game hasn't come crashing down around our ears. And the magus' mechanic is much less limited than anything anyone's proposed for the warpriest so far.Magus is a caster who can wade into combat occasionally.
Also, as I said in another thread when a survey on the board was done as to what people's favorite class was, Magus got 0 votes.
For comparision, Rogue got 7.
The magus mechanic is means you are more or less going to play one handed melee weapon. Some people like it, but by no means is it a classic that we should be emulating. Go back to the old Magus playtest and you will see many of the concerns have bourne out and required FAQs. Aside from the summoner, I think it is the most FAQed class.
I don't think this concept is that complicated that we need to add complexity.
We want it to hit better, give it bonuses to hit.
There WILL be ways to hit with many of these proposed "magus-like" options in the form of the clerics already built-in combat buffs that they will be able to apply.
And I think you are the only person here that is assuming that this Warpriest magus-like ability will limit her to one-handed weapon options. We just want action economy in exchange for 9 levels of casting.
This is hella reasonable.
|
|
The buff spells exist. They have existed and been used.
It is a whole other thing to have those spells be able to be cast without taking away your other actions or provoking an attack of opportunity.
There is being able to buff, and there is being able to buff/cast without cost or risk in combat.
The limit for the magus is being a medium armor 3/4 BaB class that can't self heal and wears light armor.
The Magus in melee is just visiting much of the time, particularly against anything really solid that can hit back.
By contrast this is a heavy armor class that can self heal (hopefully as a free or swift action in combat once channel is addressed) and so it's function will be to get into combat and soak damage.
We have a (relatively) lightly armored poke and run class in the inquisitor. We have a spell casting focused class in the cleric.
It would be a disappointing if the focus of this class became casting spells, given the major impediment for the class is the removal of spells.
The buff spells exist. They have existed and been used.
It is a whole other thing to have those spells be able to be cast without taking away your other actions or provoking an attack of opportunity.
There is being able to buff, and there is being able to buff/cast without cost or risk in combat.
The limit for the magus is being a medium armor 3/4 BaB class that can't self heal and wears light armor.
The Magus in melee is just visiting much of the time, particularly against anything really solid that can hit back.
By contrast this is a heavy armor class that can self heal (hopefully as a free or swift action in combat once channel is addressed) and so it's function will be to get into combat and soak damage.
We have a (relatively) lightly armored poke and run class in the inquisitor. We have a spell casting focused class in the cleric.
It would be a disappointing if the focus of this class became casting spells, given the major impediment for the class is the removal of spells.
Yep! The buffs should be without cost and risk in combat. That is the thing that will make this class. There you go<3
He will just do it in heavy armor and not have full base attack progression
|
|
I don't understand the coming up with new mechanics when we aren't finished playtesting the ones they want us to playtest, in this or any other new class thread. That's Paizo's job, ours is to test.
We need to test and present data on the playtest, not rewrite the existing mechanics and playtest those. What an incredible waste of time.Just my 2cp.
Meh. The blog post said they are looking at ways to change certain things, I don't think suggestions are out of order.
Frankly, I'm not interested in the playtest for this class until I see the revision of the core mechanic they have suggested is coming.
|
|
Yep! The buffs should be without cost and risk in combat. That is the thing that will make this class. There you go<3He will just do it in heavy armor and not have full base attack progression
That is the thing that would break this class in my opinion. And short of an exclusive spell list, would add an additional complexity of possible abuse to be considered on every cleric or divine spell going forward.
And for what? Something that could just be a self buffing mechanic that doesn't utilized the entire spell list to unintended outcomes.
If you want to add buffs, add buffs. Add them to blessing or may the blessings like mysteries where you can choose from a sections of buff options and have those specific options be able to be activated in combat.
But free action casting with no AoO is Pandora's box that doesn't need to be open if all we are trying to do is increase attack power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep! The buffs should be without cost and risk in combat. That is the thing that will make this class. There you go<3He will just do it in heavy armor and not have full base attack progression
That is the thing that would break this class in my opinion. And short of an exclusive spell list, would add an additional complexity of possible abuse to be considered on every cleric or divine spell going forward.
And for what? Something that could just be a self buffing mechanic that doesn't utilized the entire spell list to unintended outcomes.
If you want to add buffs, add buffs. Add them to blessing or may the blessings like mysteries where you can choose from a sections of buff options and have those specific options be able to be activated in combat.
But free action casting with no AoO is Pandora's box that doesn't need to be open if all we are trying to do is increase attack power.
It is a box the magus opened and is now a part of the game that a Warpriest should have access to. If anything, I think sacred weapon and armor should be dropped in favor of a mechanic like this. And powers that make a class viable should not be hidden inside blessing that not every character wants or has access to.
|
|
It is a box the magus opened and is now a part of the game that a Warpriest should have access to. If anything, I think sacred weapon and armor should be dropped in favor of a mechanic like this. And powers that make a class viable should not be hidden inside blessing that not every character wants or has access to.
Yep! The buffs should be without cost and risk in combat. That is the thing that will make this class. There you go<3He will just do it in heavy armor and not have full base attack progression
That is the thing that would break this class in my opinion. And short of an exclusive spell list, would add an additional complexity of possible abuse to be considered on every cleric or divine spell going forward.
And for what? Something that could just be a self buffing mechanic that doesn't utilized the entire spell list to unintended outcomes.
If you want to add buffs, add buffs. Add them to blessing or may the blessings like mysteries where you can choose from a sections of buff options and have those specific options be able to be activated in combat.
But free action casting with no AoO is Pandora's box that doesn't need to be open if all we are trying to do is increase attack power.
We will have to agree to disagree.
You are proposing the class be a caster that can fight.
I'm proposing the class be a fighter that can cast.
Those are different things.
It is a box the magus opened and is now a part of the game that a Warpriest should have access to. If anything, I think sacred weapon and armor should be dropped in favor of a mechanic like this. And powers that make a class viable should not be hidden inside blessing that not every character wants or has access to.
Yep! The buffs should be without cost and risk in combat. That is the thing that will make this class. There you go<3He will just do it in heavy armor and not have full base attack progression
That is the thing that would break this class in my opinion. And short of an exclusive spell list, would add an additional complexity of possible abuse to be considered on every cleric or divine spell going forward.
And for what? Something that could just be a self buffing mechanic that doesn't utilized the entire spell list to unintended outcomes.
If you want to add buffs, add buffs. Add them to blessing or may the blessings like mysteries where you can choose from a sections of buff options and have those specific options be able to be activated in combat.
But free action casting with no AoO is Pandora's box that doesn't need to be open if all we are trying to do is increase attack power.
While I get where you are coming from, the same might be said about spells. I'm sure that there are some nifty buff spells in the APG for example, that not every warpriest will have access to, while every warpriest built will have the potential to access every blessing in the ACG, at least until his deity is selected.
Hmmm. Some deities are better than others. I dislike having so much on this class' function be dependant on choice of deity.
I like the cleric and the inquisitor better for this reason. They can serve whatever deity, and I wont really care about the impact of power on the character. This lets me play out a lot of different concepts without wishing I'd played a cleric of the totally sweet Erastil package, while for flavor reasons I got stuck with sucky Desna. (I'm not aware of the power dispersity between these two, they were siply two picked off the top of my head.)
|
|
There is being able to buff, and there is being able to buff/cast without cost or risk in combat.
But free action casting with no AoO is Pandora's box that doesn't need to be open if all we are trying to do is increase attack power.What if there was something like this
I'm proposing the class be a fighter that can cast.
+1000. I think this should be a fighter who casts as well. HOWEVER, I think this should be a buff up and fight class like a paladin or barbarian instead of an "always on" class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We will have to agree to disagree.You are proposing the class be a caster that can fight.
I'm proposing the class be a fighter that can cast.Those are different things.
I suspect you misunderstood what he were attempting to accomplish.
I understood him as proposing a fighter that could cast while fighting, while you were proposing a fighter that could cast outside of fighting.
It is a box the magus opened and is now a part of the game that a Warpriest should have access to. If anything, I think sacred weapon and armor should be dropped in favor of a mechanic like this. And powers that make a class viable should not be hidden inside blessing that not every character wants or has access to.
Yep! The buffs should be without cost and risk in combat. That is the thing that will make this class. There you go<3He will just do it in heavy armor and not have full base attack progression
That is the thing that would break this class in my opinion. And short of an exclusive spell list, would add an additional complexity of possible abuse to be considered on every cleric or divine spell going forward.
And for what? Something that could just be a self buffing mechanic that doesn't utilized the entire spell list to unintended outcomes.
If you want to add buffs, add buffs. Add them to blessing or may the blessings like mysteries where you can choose from a sections of buff options and have those specific options be able to be activated in combat.
But free action casting with no AoO is Pandora's box that doesn't need to be open if all we are trying to do is increase attack power.
We will have to agree to disagree.
You are proposing the class be a caster that can fight.
I'm proposing the class be a fighter that can cast.Those are different things.
I think you are proposing a fighter who can cast, while I am proposing a fighter/caster gish whose fighting and casting are combined in a way that makes her uniquely effective at fighting by casting. But you may have a point. These are fundamentally different approaches to the class.
I am just going to call "power up blessings" a poor solution even to the "fighter who can cast" approach, though. The thing that makes the Warpriest a viable warrior needs to be available to every Warpriest regardless of God and blessing. Balancing blessings will become a nightmare otherwise. The blessings should remain a nonessential component of the Warpriest's power, continuing to offer very situational bonuses (like the weak summon animal that will take up the Warpriest's standard action or that one freedom of movement ability) or granting greater versatility.
|
|
There is being able to buff, and there is being able to buff/cast without cost or risk in combat.But free action casting with no AoO is Pandora's box that doesn't need to be open if all we are trying to do is increase attack power.What if there was something like this ** spoiler omitted **the ability I suggested earlier, but instead of no AoO, you get a bonus for a penalty.I'm proposing the class be a fighter that can cast.+1000. I think this should be a fighter who casts as well. HOWEVER, I think this should be a buff up and fight class like a paladin or barbarian instead of an "always on" class.
The way I look at it, if you want a combat buff like rage or smite you should add a combat buff rather than trying to convert the spell list into combat buffs.
This is why I've been pushing to make blessings less like domains and more like mysteries for weapon groups where you can have abilities that give you bonuses you can use as you describe.
I say give the class what you want directly, not indirectly.
@Arae Garven - They are talking about giving up bonuses to hit and AC so you can cast better, I don't think I am.
Which is fine. That is a concept people may want. I don't, but other people might.
But when you say you are ok with dropping bonuses to hit and AC to replace them with spell casting abilities, you are saying move the focus from combat to casting.
There really is no other way to read that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Won't it stop being a WARpriest if we start sacrificing its melee capacity in favor of augmenting its spellcasting? If the thing is supposed to be clericzilla's little brother, make it clericzilla's little brother. Don't try to turn it into a gimped cleric, which admittedly, it IS a gimped cleric right now. Good thing that is being addressed by Paizo.
|
|
We will have to agree to disagree.You are proposing the class be a caster that can fight.
I'm proposing the class be a fighter that can cast.Those are different things.
I suspect you misunderstood what he were attempting to accomplish.
I understood him as proposing a fighter that could cast while fighting, while you were proposing a fighter that could cast outside of fighting.
And he just clarified he is looking for a gish while I'm looking for someone combat focused who can also cast.
We'll see what the Devs are looking for. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, I just don't find the idea of another divine caster who can also fight a little bit if you don't leave him in the mix to long not that interesting.
Not that it is wrong, just not my taste.
YMMV *shrug*
There is being able to buff, and there is being able to buff/cast without cost or risk in combat.But free action casting with no AoO is Pandora's box that doesn't need to be open if all we are trying to do is increase attack power.What if there was something like this ** spoiler omitted **the ability I suggested earlier, but instead of no AoO, you get a bonus for a penalty.I'm proposing the class be a fighter that can cast.+1000. I think this should be a fighter who casts as well. HOWEVER, I think this should be a buff up and fight class like a paladin or barbarian instead of an "always on" class.The way I look at it, if you want a combat buff like rage or smite you should add a combat buff rather than trying to convert the spell list into combat buffs.
This is why I've been pushing to make blessings less like domains and more like mysteries for weapon groups where you can have abilities that give you bonuses you can use as you describe.
I say give the class what you want directly, not indirectly.
@Arae Garven - They are talking about giving up bonuses to hit and AC so you can cast better, I don't think I am.
Which is fine. That is a concept people may want. I don't, but other people might.
But when you say you are ok with dropping bonuses to hit and AC to replace them with spell casting abilities, you are saying move the focus from combat to casting.
There really is no other way to read that.
Mechanically, that is not true at all. Powering melee combat with spells means that the Warpriest has fewer spells to do other things with. They are summoning the powers of their god in heaven (hell) to empower their mighty fighty punch fists.
I will also note the possible balance issue of Warpriests being nigh to unbeatable with rounds of preparation since their cleric buffs could possibly stack with their in class buffs. Maybe this is a feature and not a glitch? It could be circumvented with lots of extra lines of restrictions anyways.
|
|
Anytime you makes something nigh invulnerable, that is a glitch not a feature IMHO.
My issue isn't specifically adding power to melee (or ranged because bonuses apply to that as well) but rather empowering the casting aspect of the class in a class that seems to be geared toward decreasing casting power in exchange for increasing combat prowess elsewhere.
The Magus is a casting class that can go into combat. Similar to the Alchemist and Bard. If they find themselves under attack, they can survive a round, but it isn't a good place for them to be.
The Bloodrager and Paladin are combat classes that can cast.
The Inquisitor is a tweener more akin to the Ranger. It can do both, but it is a bit more fragile with a bit less spell power.
The Warpriest, it seems, intends to be to the Inquisitor what the Fighter is to the Ranger. A cousin that can take more hits and do more damage in exchange for versatility.
Right now it can take more hits, but it does less damage. That is the problem that needs to be addressed, in my opinion.
Again, it isn't that I think what you want is wrong. It is that it is a completely different thing.
It would be like me going over to the bloodrager thread and saying it really should be 3/4 class so we can give it 6 levels of spells because a sorcerer/barbarian Magus would be cooler.
Maybe it would be, maybe it wouldn't. But it would be very different that what was proposed.
|
|
Does a dev have stated something about the warpriest? becuse All discussion seems pointless at this point.Just the blog post, which I found to be very favorable to what I'm looking for.
Well, there is also that post someone linked to SKR which indicated that the Divine Magus and the battle Cleric/Paladin without Alignment are extremely popular requests.
Anytime you makes something nigh invulnerable, that is a glitch not a feature IMHO.
My issue isn't specifically adding power to melee (or ranged because bonuses apply to that as well) but rather empowering the casting aspect of the class in a class that seems to be geared toward decreasing casting power in exchange for increasing combat prowess elsewhere.
The Magus is a casting class that can go into combat. Similar to the Alchemist and Bard. If they find themselves under attack, they can survive a round, but it isn't a good place for them to be.
The Bloodrager and Paladin are combat classes that can cast.
The Inquisitor is a tweener more akin to the Ranger. It can do both, but it is a bit more fragile with a bit less spell power.
The Warpriest, it seems, intends to be to the Inquisitor what the Fighter is to the Ranger. A cousin that can take more hits and do more damage in exchange for versatility.
Right now it can take more hits, but it does less damage. That is the problem that needs to be addressed, in my opinion.
Again, it isn't that I think what you want is wrong. It is that it is a completely different thing.
It would be like me going over to the bloodrager thread and saying it really should be 3/4 class so we can give it 6 levels of spells because a sorcerer/barbarian Magus would be cooler.
Maybe it would be, maybe it wouldn't. But it would be very different that what was proposed.
Being able to cast while swinging a sword is a combat buff and a casting buff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea is that by gaining some sort of limited ability to cast buff spells while fighting is a huge benefit to the combat aspect of the Warpriest. That is why every aid to casting we've come up with for the Warpriest has been specifically geared towards buffing him.
Because buffing makes you better at combat right?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also say that the Range: Personal, Target: You cleric buffs, especially divine power, are standard actions because the theory at the time (in 3.0 D&D design) was that the spells would be used as a last resort, that the cleric could stand in as a second-line combatant when the fighter needed help. Of course it didn't work out that way with Divine Metamagic, but we need to keep in mind that while that's a balancing factor aimed at the cleric, what's being designed here is the warpriest. He's not a second-line combatant; it is his job to wade into the fray right alongside martial characters without a second thought. That is why allowing casting buffs in combat is a good idea; it's what lets him fill his role in the traditional manner of the combat cleric (again, while not being as overpowering due to delayed spell access).