|
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?
It isn't a limited ability to cast spells when you add an ability to cast spells that surpasses every other class in the game.
If you want to add buffs, add buffs.
What is being proposed is allowing you to cast spells without provoking while also making a full attack.
That is using a bunker buster bomb to remove a stump. The collateral effects are a bit excessive if what you really want is to make them fight better.
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?
It isn't a limited ability to cast spells when you add an ability to cast spells that surpasses every other class in the game.
If you want to add buffs, add buffs.
What is being proposed is allowing you to cast spells without provoking while also making a full attack.
That is using a bunker buster bomb to remove a stump. The collateral effects are a bit excessive if what you really want is to make them fight better.
Are you being willfully ignorant of what we are saying? We want to limit it to self buffs. It will have no application other than personal buffs while accessing all the variety that the built-in spell list has: grow in size; sense traps like a rogue for a little while; walk on air; all manner of stuff that we wanna do that won't have direct combat effects save for what it does to make the Warpriest better at fighting.
And clerics can cast pretty much every spell on the spell list quickened eventually and then full attack (the attack spells AND the buffs). I am see 0 issue here.
I think you have the Warpriest class overly crystallized in your head already.
| 1 person 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?
It isn't a limited ability to cast spells when you add an ability to cast spells that surpasses every other class in the game.
If you want to add buffs, add buffs.
What is being proposed is allowing you to cast spells without provoking while also making a full attack.
That is using a bunker buster bomb to remove a stump. The collateral effects are a bit excessive if what you really want is to make them fight better.
Ummm, I think what is being proposed is something very much like Spell Combat from the Magus with the additional restriction of limiting what can be cast in this manner.
At least that is what I have been suggesting. This would still require a concentration check just like a Magus, and still give penalties to attack rolls like a magus, and could only be done as part of a full-attack, not a standard attack after a move for example, just like a magus.
If it is balanced there, then it shouldn't be too problematic here. The cleric list is better at combat buffing and healing, the magus list has better offensive options. Both can eventually wear heavy armor, both can buff up their weapon for a few rounds per day... I mean it seems pretty fair to me.
The extra restriction on spell combat and the removal of spellstrike are fine, and the arcane pool disappears to make room for blessings. Channel energy is already on the chopping block, so yeah... seems alright to me.
|
|
Are you being willfully ignorant of what we are saying? We want to limit it to self buffs.
What you want and what will occur are two different things.
You want to limit it to self buffs, meaning any spell that is personal.
Did you mean to exclude weapon buffs, or not? Because those are touched not personal.
Did you mean to include spells like comprehend languages? I guess it isn't bad, but from this point forward every spell ever written for clerics would have to ask "What if the Warpriest uses it in combat?"
Quicken is a +4 to spell level. This is better than quicken if you add the removal of AoO.
Did you mean to effectively nerf metamagic for the class, or spells that were already swift actions?
It is using a paint roller to paint miniatures. Too broad a brush for the job.
@Lord_Malkov- There are several proposals on the table.
The problem with Magus is now we have a class that suddenly can't wield the two-handed favored weapons without a rules change AND takes a penalty to hit, functionally countering the buff it just added in many cases, in order to cast that buff.
So you can only use one weapon AND you take a -2 in order to get a personal buff. You basically take two steps back in damage and attack to get a buff that I hope is better than what you gave up...
And now suddenly, Warpriests are homogeneously boring one handed melee fighters.
OR you just give them features that let them add personal buffs without all the rigmarole.
OR you can just add abilities that let the class self buff, and address the problem directly.
Hopefully we'll see an update released on Monday and all this will be moot.
|
A limited ability to cast a spell that improves your and only your offensive capability as a swift action doesn't surpass all spellcasting in the game. It isn't superior to summoning a demon, knocking out enemies in combat instantly if they fail a spell, restoring the damaged party to full health, granting all the melee combatants an extra attack, or even just granting the rest of the party a bonus to attack and damage rolls. It just makes the class have a decent action economy. I do however agree that not provoking attacks of opportunity is a bit too powerful.It isn't a limited ability to cast spells when you add an ability to cast spells that surpasses every other class in the game.
If you want to add buffs, add buffs.
What is being proposed is allowing you to cast spells without provoking while also making a full attack.
That is using a bunker buster bomb to remove a stump. The collateral effects are a bit excessive if what you really want is to make them fight better.
So you can only use one weapon AND you take a -2 in order to get a personal buff. You basically take two steps back in damage and attack to get a buff that I hope is better than what you gave up...
And now suddenly, Warpriests are homogeneously boring one handed melee fighters.
1.)Giving them a -2 to attack and a +x attack and damage that last after the -2 attack has left makes them better in combat, because it improves their attack and damage in later rounds, while letting them attack in the first round for a chance to do damage.
2.)While I agree that all Magi being 1h melee fighters* is boring, I think that can safely be avoided in the warpriest by say, letting them use focus weapon as if it were a free hand and/or divine focus component like several others have suggested.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose I dont think we're arguing for Beckett's design which incorporates way too much of the Magus to be healthy. And has a carbon copy of Spell Combat in it.
We're arguing for a swift or free action spells that don't provoke because lets be honest, if you build for it, casting defensively is easy sauce. If you don't then you incorporate a Combat Casting feat tax into the class.
You can use a two handed weapon and buff. Its a free action to hold the weapon in one hand, cast, then free action to regrip.
The only builds that method hurts is really SnBoard/Twfighters. And I'm of the opinion that the focus weapon should count as a free hand.
If you look at Renegade's proposal, the Warpriest can only buff himself, his weapon, or his armor with his spell.
|
|
FAVOR PLEASE: Can someone stat up a level 4 Warpriest of Pharasma and post to the web for me?
I'm playtesting tomorrow night, but don't have time tonight to put it together. Thanks for any help you can provide.
I threw this together...its not power-gamy at all. Just playing to Pharasma's flavor. Need to add about 1.5k worth of consumables to get gear to appropriate value.
Human (Varisian) Warpriest 4
N Medium humanoid (human)
Init +5; Senses Perception +2
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 18, touch 14, flat-footed 14 (+4 armor, +4 Dex)
hp 31 (4d8+8)
Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +6
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee mithral dagger +9 (1d4+2/19-20) or
mithral dagger +7 (1d4+2/19-20) and
mithral dagger +7 (1d4+2/19-20) (two-weapon fighting) or
masterwork light mace +6 (1d6+2/×2) and
masterwork light mace +6 (1d6+2/×2) (two-weapon fighting)
Warpriest Spells Prepared (CL 4th; concentration +6):
2nd (2/day)— ghostbane dirge (DC 14), returning weapon
1st (4/day)— cure light wounds, divine favor(x2), remove fear
0 (at will)— resistance, stabilize, read magic, detect magic
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 14, Dex 18, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10
Base Atk +3; CMB +5; CMD 19
Feats Double Slice, Piranha Strike, Quick Draw, Two-weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (dagger)
Traits corpse hunter, harrow born (varisian)
Skills Climb +6, Diplomacy +5, Heal +6, Knowledge (religion) +6, Spellcraft +7, Swim +6
Languages Common, Varisian
SQ gentle rest (minor), Sacred Weapon +1, blessings (healing blessing, repose blessing), selfish healer (minor), spontaneous casting
Other Gear Mithral Shirt, Masterwork Light mace (2), Mithral Dagger (2), Silver holy symbol of Pharasma, Spell component pouch.
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Corpse Hunter: You have dedicated yourself to the destruction of undead, and receive a +1 trait bonus on all attacks made against undead.
Gentle Rest (minor) (Su): Touched living foe is staggered 1 rd (2 rds if undead). Sleep if already staggered.
Sacred Weapon: +1 (4 rounds/day) (Su) As a swift action, grant weapon enhancement bonus or certain powers.
Selfish Healer (minor) (Su): As a swift action, cast a prepared cure spell on self with no AoO.
In my write-up above, I just said Focus Weapons or any Light or One-Handed Weapon.
Its also not a carbon copy. :)
Yours includes Spell Combat and Spellstrike. Just renamed. If we're going to rob and base the class so much off of the Magus we might as well just make it an archetype that replaces arcane spells with divine ones and swaps the armor training for something else.
|
|
Are you being willfully ignorant of what we are saying? We want to limit it to self buffs.
What you want and what will occur are two different things.
Why? you do not speak for the Devs and certainly any posibility can become true at this point.
As I pointed out in the post, it isn't as simple as saying "We don't want the spells we don't want included, we only want the spells we want included"
You make it personal only and not only do you you include a bunch of spells you probably didn't intend, but you miss a lot you did, including the weapon buffs.
You make it touch...good lord then do you include to many problems...
If you are going to make it just a small limited list...at that point why not just make those a special abilities?
@Armored Monk - Or it can just be a class feature and we don't have to worry about the -2 or changing how weapons work because what you really want is a way to self buff, right?
Why create a complex solution to a rather straightforward problem?
Some of this is addressed by the blessings if you read through them, but I for one am not happy with the narrow nature of the blessing mechanic and how it really isn't customizable to concept.
Most of us seem to agree we want this 3/4 BaB guy to be able to get into it will the big boys.
He's got the AC. If they make the change to channel where it becomes a swift action for self or touched, he's got the hit points (and is a really good combat healer)
But he can't put the good hurt on the bad guy we want him to. Am I right?
Sacred Weapon is ok, but we all agree it is either not enough, too specific, or both.
And yes we all also agree making the sacred weapon a divine focus is also probably a good idea.
But I don't think adding a -2 to get a buff makes sense. I don't think having to go through and make a spell list for a better than quickened, quickened spell ability...not to mention any future spell...is that great a plan either.
I would rather this guy just be a guy who has weapons that hurt things a lot. Be they daggers, great Swords, Bows, this guy has mastered whatever they mastered, oh and by the way they also are able to add things to other weapons on the fly.
Not as a spell. As an ability.
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but someone on your side even favorited my last suggestion on how to accomplish this.
|
I Would like the warpriest to have a spell combat ability like the magus exactly with the exception of only being able to use one handed melee weapons. as divine and arcane magic are vastly different and the gods would not limit their holy warriors with such a stupid restriction.
On a some what different topic the way spell-combat is written it would preclude using a later written mythic rule Component freedom because of the wording of spell combat and the fact that it is not forward compatible with things pazio might write in the future w/o major errata and just needs to be Stricken from spell combat.
The war priest IMO need t be a divine version of the magus with blessings taking the place of arcana and some good form of combat healing like Lay on the hands that is wisdom based instead of charisma based with a blessing that allows LOH to be used a sort range.
|
|
That's actually what I did. I also made spell-combat require a divine focus (focus weapon), allowed for personal spells as well, but allowed for the focus weapon regardless of what type it is, or any Light or One-Handed Weapon. With that, and some changes to Spellstrike and a bit of buffing to Cure/Inflict spells, I traded out some of the improved versions of those abilities that the Magus gets, and obviously made it Wis based.
So by using what I posted earlier, a warpriest could, for example attack and then heal themselves with a cure spell, or attack and cast an Inflict, and if they do so with Spell Strike, it acts similar to Channel Smite, ignoring DR and Resistances the target might have. That would also solve the issue with the warpriest of Pharasma using daggers against skeletons. :)
I think people just scanned it rather than reading into it, though. And it's obviously not for everyone. Just an idea based off of SKR's comment and I've been wanting a "Divine Magus" for a while.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The war priest IMO need t be a divine version of the magus
I'd personally rather see a magus archetype with divine magic. Magi are more restricted then warpriests are, because the only options for archer, 2h, or sword and board are very sub-par, leading to most of them being scimitasers. I personally don't see why scimitaser is that much better then falcata wielding or katana wielding kensai/spire defenders*, but still its 1h melee with a high crit range weapon. Even if the devs ditch any weapon other then favored weapons, you still can be an archer, 2h, sword&board, and free hand fighting characer.
I think the Warpriest should be focused on being a self-buff focused class, but it has major problems with the action economy as it stands.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Sigh*As I pointed out in the post, it isn't as simple as saying "We don't want the spells we don't want included, we only want the spells we want included"
You make it personal only and not only do you you include a bunch of spells you probably didn't intend, but you miss a lot you did, including the weapon buffs.
You make it touch...good lord then do you include to many problems...
...the warpriest can cast any one warpriest spell prepared with a casting time of one standard action or less by expending one point per two levels of the spell (minimum 1), provided the spell targets the warpriest, his wielded weapon, or his worn armor.
There. Done. Two pages ago, in fact. Actually thirty pages ago, for the iteration that was written with uses/day instead of a point pool shared with Sacred Weapon/Armor. Includes the Target: You spells as well as the weapon and armor buffs (though GMW and magic vestment are both hour/level duration, so there's no real need to use them as a swift action anyway), shield of faith, and the stat buffs. Excludes every offensive spell with the exception of prayer, which is dual use. So what's the problem?
|
|
@Renegade Paladin - Mass spells for starters (they target the warpriest...) Area or communal effect spells would also include the warpriest. Off the top of my head, I'm not investing the time to go through the spell list one by one (which is exactly what would need to happen, since this isn't a selective list and therefore all cleric spells are on there...) Not to mention synergies that might come since now you can cast two spells in a round...at what level?
You say there is no real need to use some spells as swift, perhaps the duration were included as a limiting factor specifically because the game is designed to have you take the standard action to buff up unless you are investing in metamagic?
And again, if you are using the spell combat mechanic you are getting a minus for a plus..
If not, you are giving a +4 spell level effect for free at what level?
The FAQ would light up with munchkin options for months.
And for what? So you don't have to make it a special ability that gives you that same effect?
That line of text is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about. You meant it to be exclusionary, but instead it actually opens up even more spells.
Then why would you ever be a fighter ever again?I think this classes really needs to be full base attack bonus with d10 health.
Whats a fighter?
|
|
@Renegade Paladin - Mass spells for starters (they target the warpriest...)
Well, yes. And?
Area or communal effect spells would also include the warpriest.
An area including a character is not the same as targeting a character. You can't use spell turning on area spells for the same reason this wouldn't permit simple area spells. (i.e. the warpriest couldn't just give himself fire resistance and then cast flame strike with an area including himself with this because it doesn't target him.)
I don't think it would be terribly difficult to word the ability so that the warpriest, and only the warpriest, would benefit from the buff spell. Right now the major limiter on the warpriest's turn is the time it takes to get buffs up. I feel like an Inquisitor who's lost his Judgement ability and had his Bane watered waaaaay down in exchange for the ability to spend the first couple of rounds buffing myself to gain the same functionality, or in the case that I have time to spend bringing up an absurdly long series of buffs (assuming that I didn't use the slots on heal spells and never cast another buff in the course of the day) I end up being a one hit wonder...as in I spend six rounds or so buffing and one round turning something into goo.
Regarding some sort of spell combat mechanic:
Perhaps a line denoting that while the Warpriest can cast the buff on himself/his equipment the buff will only affect the warpriest regardless of the number of possible additional targets and only works on his gear while he's wearing/using it (I'm avoiding the word holding here because of thrown weapons) which several spells and other effects already state.
So the line would read:
"the warpriest can cast any one warpriest spell prepared with a casting time of one standard action or less by expending one point per two levels of the spell (minimum 1), provided the spell targets [only] the warpriest, his wielded weapon, or his worn armor [while he is wearing/wielding them.]"
While this does still leave open the possibility of a fairly large number of buffs on himself it stops "Mass XYZ" from being brought up too quickly (unless the Warpriest wants to blow it only on himself) and some of the longer buffs can be brought up that way also, but the long buff is balanced by it being up for a longer period of time. Bringing it up quickly at need can be no more damaging than the Magus' ability to suddenly explode damage onto a target with spellstrike. It also leaves in the "minus for a plus" mechanic, however what the warpriest here is looking for is action economy and not the manifestation of an instant buff stack. Yes, you could potentially use it to bring up two buffs very quickly, but potions can already assist in that while not being considered broken and the points mechanic would limit how often, and how high a level buff, the warpriest could do so. An additional limiter is the relatively small number of prepared spells the warpriest will have at any one time.
Alternatively, you can limit it with a per day counter, probably higher than the number of times a Magus would be able to do so (on the grounds that buffs are good, but they take time to show their full function while a DD spell goes of immediately) or by tagging the reduction in casting time to specific levels of the warpriest's progression.
Standard to Move, then Move to Swift. I'll level the actual levels for those effects to people who have more experience designing that sort of thing, I'm just offering ideas here.
|
|
The most heard complaint in my circles is that the Warpriest just doesn't shine well enough. A cleric heals and casts better, while fighting about as well. A Paladin fights better, while healing just as well. I felt a Warpriest should be a class that buffs his party or debuffs his opponents WHILE beating them down. I hit the monster and rally everyone around me giving them bonuses, or I hit the monster and cripple it a few turns giving it negatives.
The whole mental image though was of a priest that fights in war and rallies the troops while demoralizing the enemy, he represents his god in battle as if the gods themselves where there to fight. I don't get that vibe with the current iteration of Warpriest, and a lot of that has to do with action economy as well as too much MAD.
Of course I understand this class could easily be tweaked to be overpowered and as such great care is being taken not to make it so that it overshadows the other classes. I just feel right now it isn't standing on it's own just yet.
|
"Everyone wants to be the center of the spotlight, to be the hero, yet they need someone who makes them better on the battlefield. You will never be remembered for dealing that critical blow that fell the foe, but you will be the enabler who allowed that to happen. Sure setup is required. A banner here, a moment of greatness there, a critical you give to the next guy who will probably do something more with it. Remember you are not some wimp who sits in the back, you are in front lines where it matters. The role is that of the Warlord, you play the battle like it is chess, setting up the moves that will enable your side to victory. Always thinking three steps ahead of the enemy. May not be your cup of tea, but you want see that guy over there with the Scythe get a critical more often right so they can be more useful in combat right? Right."
-Elf Warlord
Elf Warpriest 4 / Bard 1
STR: 15, DEX: 14, CON: 10, INT: 10, WIS: 14, CHA: 14
Gear: +1 Masterwork Rapier, Wand of Cure Light Wounds, +1 Full Plate
AC: 22
Skills: (Stuff)
Blessings: Charm (Charming Presence, Minor), Travel (Agile Feet)
Feats
01 Run
01 Combat Expertise
01 Butterfly's Sting
01 Weapon Focus (Rapier)
03 Power Attack
03 Furious Focus
05 Flagbearer
1st Level Warpriest Spells: Liberating Command (1 times), Cure Light Wounds (3 times)
2nd Level Warpriest Spell: Shield Other (1 times), Cure Moderate Wounds (1 Times)
1st Level Bard Spell: Moment of Greatness (2 Times)
@Renegade Paladin - Mass spells for starters (they target the warpriest...) Area or communal effect spells would also include the warpriest. Off the top of my head, I'm not investing the time to go through the spell list one by one (which is exactly what would need to happen, since this isn't a selective list and therefore all cleric spells are on there...) Not to mention synergies that might come since now you can cast two spells in a round...at what level?
You say there is no real need to use some spells as swift, perhaps the duration were included as a limiting factor specifically because the game is designed to have you take the standard action to buff up unless you are investing in metamagic?
And again, if you are using the spell combat mechanic you are getting a minus for a plus..
If not, you are giving a +4 spell level effect for free at what level?
The FAQ would light up with munchkin options for months.
And for what? So you don't have to make it a special ability that gives you that same effect?
That line of text is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about. You meant it to be exclusionary, but instead it actually opens up even more spells.
Well its easy enough to write a line that says:
"Spells cast in this way can only affect you or equipment that you are wearing or wielding even if they would normally affect multiple targets. Effects applied to an item cease to function if anyone other than the warpriest is using it."But I agree. Spell Combat is not the same as granting quickened spells.
It comes with built in barriers. You need to make a full-attack, you get -2 on attacks that round, and you have to pass a concentration check.
Just the full-attack part is very important. Can't use spell combat when staggered. Can't use spell combat before getting into the fray (aka on the first round of combat before a charge). It is a well thought-out ability, that has balancing factors baked in.
I wouldn't mind a slightly lighter restriction on Cure spells being quick to match up to the swift action Lay on Hands and the battle oracle's swift cast heals though.
Not to mention synergies that might come since now you can cast two spells in a round...at what level?
Level 13.
Renegade Paladin's mechanic is similar to the magus in that the spell can be cast only when combined with a full attack (or, uniquely, with a charge) which means there's no standard action available to cast a second spell without the use of metamagic. You could cast a Quickened spell in addition to the use of Sacred Power, but that would come online with a level 1 spell taking a 5th level spell slot, available at level 13 at the earliest - similar to other 6th level spell progression classes.
On a different note I wouldn't be entirely opposed to phrasing the ability so that there was a limit on Sacred Power's spell ability only affecting the Warpriest. Casting party-wide buff spells without using up your standard action is a very cool and interesting class mechanic since it means you can play a viable support character and also contribute on other fronts (akin to swift action Performance bards), but I'm not entirely certain I want the Warpriest to be the class who focuses on it - it strikes me as a class-defining power and detracts somewhat from the fighter-esque martial aspect of the class.
I know I'm pushing a lot of different archetypes now but maybe a Warpriest archetype similar to 3.5's War Weaver who specializes in group buffs while sacrificing offensive power would be a viable option?
|
|
@Renegade Paladin - Mass spells for starters (they target the warpriest...)Well, yes. And?
Area or communal effect spells would also include the warpriest.An area including a character is not the same as targeting a character. You can't use spell turning on area spells for the same reason this wouldn't permit simple area spells. (i.e. the warpriest couldn't just give himself fire resistance and then cast flame strike with an area including himself with this because it doesn't target him.)
Have you hung out on the rules forum much?
These kinds of things are 1000 post arguments. Were you around here during the Magus playtest and rollout?
Hell, a few months ago when people were arguing about what a "hand" was?
And your mass spell as a swift action in combat that doesn't provoke or interfere with making a full attack with either a two handed or two weapon...
Go back to the Magus threads and see how the devs feel about that. There is a reason the Magus is so limited to a single weapon.
|
|
I wouldn't mind a slightly lighter restriction on Cure spells being quick to match up to the swift action Lay on Hands and the battle oracle's swift cast heals though.
This is why I suggested changing channel for the Warpriest be a swift action if used on self or as a touch that does not provoke.
I also think this is why the Oracle mystery framework would be a better structure than the current use of domains. You can include things like this, as well as weapon specific things.
This is why I suggested changing channel for the Warpriest be a swift action if used on self or as a touch that does not provoke.
The Healing Blessing (half-)covers this, though I'd rather have Lay on Hands over that any day. (Hence my change to an immediate action in my blessings rewrite.) I wouldn't mind it, but some people might get upset if the Warpriest starts taking the Paladin's things.
I also think this is why the Oracle mystery framework would be a better structure than the current use of domains.
The big advantage of having blessings correspond with domains is that they want to keep blessings tied to which deity you choose: By having them correspond to domains, they don't have to write a blessing list for every single deity. For just the core deities wouldn't be so bad, but when you add in all the minor deities/demon lords/empyreal lords... Most of the minor deities don't even have proper subdomain lists yet.
Of course they could dump the idea that Warpriest's blessings are restricted by what deity they choose, which I'd support, but I don't think that's the direction they want to take the class.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Craft Cheese - But of course the healing blessing is only one possible choice, while the channel change would apply to all war priests, regardless.
And if you saw my fix, I changed the blessings to be a list of specific weapon or armor enhancements that you could add for rounds per day to any weapon (not just sacred) that were thematic (Death had bane: Undead, Fire had flaming, etc...)
I made a whole list in the other thread and got to about 4 enchantment choices for each domain just using existing enchantments. Seemed an interesting way to have the rarely used weapon enchantments get some run.
Then the mystery powers were tied to weapon groups, which of course are indirectly tied to god through favored weapon. And those bonuses also weren't favored weapon exclusive (although many would obviously benefit users of that "type" of weapon.
If you look at the Oracle, it just doesn't matter thematically that a god be spelled out, but they act in a similar way to domains in that you select one theme for your oracle.
I also think this is why the Oracle mystery framework would be a better structure than the current use of domains. You can include things like this, as well as weapon specific things.
I like this idea, except for the favored weapon bit ;)
|
|
I like this idea, except for the favored weapon bit ;)I also think this is why the Oracle mystery framework would be a better structure than the current use of domains. You can include things like this, as well as weapon specific things.
Weapon Group, not specific weapon. And again the bonuses from these things and enchantments apply to any weapon.
The only exclusive to sacred weapon bonus I would have is the sacred weapon bonus itself, which I would make a flat unnamed bonus to damage and attack using the same scale currently in place.
Being a mesh of the classes of Cleric and Fighter, Im pretty sure removing spells is out of the question.
I wouldn't be that sure. A warrior with access to augmented domains and a few other extras could be a viable class.
|
|
The most heard complaint in my circles is that the Warpriest just doesn't shine well enough. A cleric heals and casts better, while fighting about as well. A Paladin fights better, while healing just as well. I felt a Warpriest should be a class that buffs his party or debuffs his opponents WHILE beating them down. I hit the monster and rally everyone around me giving them bonuses, or I hit the monster and cripple it a few turns giving it negatives.
The whole mental image though was of a priest that fights in war and rallies the troops while demoralizing the enemy, he represents his god in battle as if the gods themselves where there to fight. I don't get that vibe with the current iteration of Warpriest, and a lot of that has to do with action economy as well as too much MAD.
Of course I understand this class could easily be tweaked to be overpowered and as such great care is being taken not to make it so that it overshadows the other classes. I just feel right now it isn't standing on it's own just yet.
re: "shining well enough"
Yep, this class is in a really tough spot to actually shine.The buffing ideas are what we've been used to in clerics in the past so I like your comments about debuffing above.
There's a lot of design space that could be explored on the debuffing side without treading too much on the traditional clericzilla or the magus. I think the warpriest who wades into his enemies to bring them low with his magic and might has a lot of flavor that also fits the mechanics of his capability as a front line fighter (which everyone can agree on that part of the class).
|
|
The big advantage of having blessings correspond with domains is that they want to keep blessings tied to which deity you choose: By having them correspond to domains, they don't have to write a blessing list for every single deity. For just the core deities wouldn't be so bad, but when you add in all the minor deities/demon lords/empyreal lords... Most of the minor deities don't even have proper subdomain lists yet.Of course they could dump the idea that Warpriest's blessings are restricted by what deity they choose, which I'd support, but I don't think that's the direction they want to take the class.
I like the direct link from the god's to the actual blessings themselves. Frankly we need more flavor when it comes to divine casters and their link to their gods. The only issue (i mean one of the issues) I see is when you pick a blessing because you really like the major blessing which is really cool, but you don't like the minor blessing which you think is stupid (or visa versa). This also applies to the domains and subdomains as well of course, i.e. having to take one of those ray attacks for one of my domain powers always makes me so mad that i end up taking some other domain purely out of spite.
I think a good workaround to not liking a specific blessing (which is often based on opinion and fitting your character theme) is to be able to mix and match your minor and major blessing powers from your available list of blessings from your god.
The class is still in design so there are some blessings out there which definitely need to be tweaked but being able to mix and match allow people to more accurately come up with powers which complement their character design.
Frankly we need more flavor when it comes to divine casters and their link to their gods.
I disagree with that. I like having clerics that revere a pantheon of deities, or having evil clerics serve Zargon the Returner, who is an eldritch evil but not a deity proper. I think it creates a lot of setting problems when you ascribe too much to the direct actions of deities.
In any case, we already have a divine caster who can fight in melee and typically wields the favored weapon of their god. It's called a cleric. I was really hoping the warpriest would be more of a well-rounded warrior and also had some versatility in expressing the methods and mandates of diverse deities.
|
|
Can we please table the "warpriests of Pharasma suck" discussion until we see what the dev team has planned for the next draft of the class? We know they're looking at ways to make the weapons feasible; why don't we just let them do that and come back afterward to see whether they pulled it off or not?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to disagree here. Not all favored weapons are favored for the same reasons, and Pharasma is a great example of this. Do you really think she expects her followers to be hunting undead with daggers? I'd say it's more likely the dagger is "favored" for ritualistic purposes. Why do we all jump to the conclusion that all deities favor weapons for the same reasons, and why do we assume that reason is always combat?
Nooooooo we had finally gotten a couple pages of discussion without this D:
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the idea of the Warpriest keeping Channel as a swift action single target ability as opposed to Lay on Hands. It keeps him from encroaching thematically on Paladin territory as much and keeps him in the cleric field, while also leaving the potential for him to still utilize Channel based feats like Channel Smite, Guided Hand,Versatile Channeler, etc.