|
Inquisitor is the best built new class IMHO, so I agree with you.
I think they were trying to get there with feats, and it didn't work. I do think a mystery style mechanic in place of blessings combined with combat style feats and self healing channel as a swift gets you something different from a fighter or a cleric that could perhaps be more frontline than an inquisitor.
I would play a class like that.
I really liked this class on first read, but then when I dug into the weeds it lacked power and the blessings...well...they don't work at all.
I still think the idea is interesting, and I think since it is clear what the lack is, fixing it is just a matter of dev elbow grease :)
So giving you something good is bad..Depends on how they make them good. If its a central class feature, then yes, that does make everything else a bad choice.
Sacred Weapon vs. Proficiency is also a very different thing.
No, that isn't what I said. There was a contingency. Its not that your giving something a bonus, its that your using it to bring it to the baseline. Yes, its great to have nice tings, but if that nice thing is what's brining you to where you should be then that makes every other choice bad, because you need that one thing. For comparison, you don't play a fighter and choose not to use the weapons they have weapon training in. That's stupid. That makes you incredibly weak.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People have rightfully complained about warpriests of Pharasma having to use daggers, but can you imagine warpreists of Cthulhu?
Warpreist: "Ia! Ia! Cthulhu F'tagn!!!" *charges in with dagger*
Paladin: "Wait, you're trying to kill me with THAT little thing? Geez, you really ARE insane!"
I honestly have noted a correlation between these new classes and design directions that don't seem to be well considered.
The most obvious being that feats, no matter how many, will never overcome slow casting progression and the loss of the top three spell levels.
Feats are not good. You can't replace good magical class features with feats and expect some sort of equilibrium. If this class got two feats a level for every level I would still choose a cleric. Better spells at earlier levels that will, in some instances, outstrip a feat by several orders of magnitude cannot be so easily stripped off the cleric chassis.
Feats are not good.
|
Goning to chime in here and apologies if others have mentioned it before, I haven't read more than the first pages of replies...
After reading the Warpriest it does lack the uniqueness of the other class crossovers.
Its focus is very unclear. is it a fighter? a cleric? or even a Paladin?
What I think would help the warpriest is if you instead focused on the War aspect of the name.
I could imagine a warpriest tending to the wounded in battle, helping groups of people instead of just one, fighting alongside allies, bolstering them with blessings and divine power.
In essence I see a warpriest being more of a team player than a "look what I can do" one trip pony.
My mind flicks back to the Marshal from D&D and its use of abilities like , Battle Orders, Don't Die on Me!, and Stand your Ground, all of which would fit a warpriest IMHO and give the class a unique element beyond the fighter/cleric wannabe paladin stereotype its in now.
if your looking for ideas perhaps give them the share spell ability that casters have with familiars that functions on allies when casting spells from their spell list (1 per 5 levels),
Give them a unique spell list focused on the mass cure wounds with a tailored 6 level spell list, removing a lot of the cleric spells that focus on a single target.
Give them the ability enchant defences such as doors, walls, ballistas, and other war machines to help when the party must defend instead of going on the offence (perhaps conjure a few). I could see a warpriest blessing the water in a mote that repels undead or demons.
Give them a censer as a focus item maybe, or the ability to create and enchant then with spell effects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly have noted a correlation between these new classes and design directions that don't seem to be well considered.
The most obvious being that feats, no matter how many, will never overcome slow casting progression and the loss of the top three spell levels.
Feats are not good. You can't replace good magical class features with feats and expect some sort of equilibrium. If this class got two feats a level for every level I would still choose a cleric. Better spells at earlier levels that will, in some instances, outstrip a feat by several orders of magnitude cannot be so easily stripped off the cleric chassis.
Feats are not good.
Especially combat feats, because they seem to be balanced with the assumption that only Fighters will be taking them. Notice how much more powerful in general caster-oriented feats are than combat-oriented ones?
Anyway, I'm gonna say my piece on the favored weapon thing since Jason seems to be reading the thread now: Shelyn never actually uses the Whisperer of Souls in combat because it has the power to eat souls. Warpriests of Shelyn getting bonuses for using a glaive, thus, makes absolutely no sense: Why would Shelyn *want* her followers to fight with something that symbolizes such an evil weapon?
The only justification I can come up with at all for such a bonus is that, for some reason, Shelynites are usually pictured wielding a glaive. Why is this?
I'm not even going to complain about mechanics. From an RP perspective the idea of a favored weapon seems like something that can work for a couple of deities (Iomedae) but completely breaks down when you apply it outside of this context, even though these deities have no less potential to have more militant followers: Some Desnans, for example, work to help overthrow the Umbral Court in Nidal, and hunt down the abominations spawned by Ghlaunder and Lamashtu. What reason could she possibly have for giving them bonuses for wielding starknives?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the war priest as being targeted at the player who would play a crusader cleric, but gets bored having to spend rounds out of combat buffing. For a limited buff/melee class, buffing just takes too long if it has to be done before combat. The cleric and bard are buffer primary. They too suffers from this, but at least their buffs are powerful enough to turn a battle more or less on their own.
I see a role for the war priest as the melee buffers whose buffs do not keep them out of combat. That is, the warpriest is a weaker spellcaster than the cleric, but their buff spells should all be swift actions, which means they can be used in melee, taking no actions and provoking no AoOs. The limit on one swift/round still keeps down the total volume of buffs cast, and the slower spell progression limits the strength of the buffs. If the warpriest opts to stay back and spend a standard action buffing, he can get two spells off in one round, but for a decent combatant this truly is a sacrifice. Having the cleric spell list, the war priest gets a lot of team buffs and a few individual buffs, which plays into this role. Spells that require an attack roll or saving throw should not be swift actions.
Having this, the war priest doesn't need so many other impressive abilities.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I see the war priest as being targeted at the player who would play a crusader cleric, but gets bored having to spend rounds out of combat buffing. For a limited buff/melee class, buffing just takes too long if it has to be done before combat. The cleric and bard are buffer primary. They too suffers from this, but at least their buffs are powerful enough to turn a battle more or less on their own.
I see a role for the war priest as the melee buffers whose buffs do not keep them out of combat. That is, the warpriest is a weaker spellcaster than the cleric, but their buff spells should all be swift actions, which means they can be used in melee, taking no actions and provoking no AoOs. The limit on one swift/round still keeps down the total volume of buffs cast, and the slower spell progression limits the strength of the buffs. If the warpriest opts to stay back and spend a standard action buffing, he can get two spells off in one round, but for a decent combatant this truly is a sacrifice. Having the cleric spell list, the war priest gets a lot of team buffs and a few individual buffs, which plays into this role. Spells that require an attack roll or saving throw should not be swift actions.
Having this, the war priest doesn't need so many other impressive abilities.
I agree wholeheartedly with your concept of the Warpriest. Hopefully this is what we see with the new playtest PDF.
|
|
No, that isn't what I said. There was a contingency. Its not that your giving something a bonus, its that your using it to bring it to the baseline. Yes, its great to have nice tings, but if that nice thing is what's brining you to where you should be then that makes every other choice bad, because you need that one thing. For comparison, you don't play a fighter and choose not to use the weapons they have weapon training in. That's stupid. That makes you incredibly weak.So giving you something good is bad..Depends on how they make them good. If its a central class feature, then yes, that does make everything else a bad choice.
Sacred Weapon vs. Proficiency is also a very different thing.
And the fact is the bonus is functionally the same as Divine Bond.
Are you arguing divine bond is the central class feature of the paladin?
Is the arcane pool weapon enhancement the central class feature of the Magus?
Hell, is it even the primary use of arcane pool points?
There is a lot of people who seem upset at any attempts to match flavor to mechanics rather than just delivering a flavorless husk.
I feel the exact opposite. My complaint as I've delved into the class comes from the fact the blessings don't fit flavor.
The Inquisitor is able to self buff, but stealing that mechanic is pointless. At this point you should just make an inquisitor archetype.
Changing the channel mechanic for self heal as a swift action would be a good start.
Switching the blessings out for something that directly aids combat and self buffing, similar to a Battle Oracle's mystery but for many more types of combat is another way to go.
But this fixation on "A dagger will be made a somewhat better option for classes that favor daggers." is missing the big picture and making a mountain out of a molehill.
What should be happening, and what I think is happening, is the class needs to have mechanics that say "Here is a cool thing you can do if you are a Dagger user. Here is a cool thing you can do if you are a great sword user. Etc..." so that regardless of what option you choose (because it is a choice...) you have something cool you can do that make sense with the theme.
If you can make a Warpriest of Pharasma who gets bane undead to weapons wielded as a swift action for rounds per level and can take the TWF without prerequites due to a combat mastery style feat chain, while also having access to self buffing abilities and healing as a swift action...that to be is fairly bad ass warrior against the undead.
And it is also different from the inquisitor or cleric.
My concern about making it about swift action spells comes down to the fact that this class will lag on spells no matter what, as it has 3 less levels of spell. Casting as a swift action isn't getting you access to the spells any sooner on the spell chart.
Now if you have a list of abilities like the Oracles Mysteries and you get things like War Sight or Battle cry...now we have something that is very different.
That is a central class feature.
The biggest problem I have with this class isn't the Favored Weapon issue, it's the prepared spellcasting. I had the same problem with the Magus. Spontaneous spellcasting says "combat", prepared spellcasting says "utility". Battle is chaotic and fluid, and requires improvisation. Why are combat classes given prepared spellcasting? I'll never understand that.This is a solid complaint and one I hadn't thought about. Though I think spontaneous casting would also limit the class to a degree. And we really don't need more limitations on the class. Air walk is a really thematic and useful spell in and outside of combat but I can't see myself taking it over more combat focused spells.
Plus there aren't wisdom based spontaneous casters.
Also note that there aren't any other 6 level casters who just use the Cleric/Druid list without alterations. This severely hurts the Warpriest and the Hunter.
If I'm being forced to use spells to buff myself as opposed to class features, why should I play warpriest over cleric.This is also an important point. Unless the Warpriest is massively better than the Cleric at self buffing to the point of in combat buffs/prebuffing then theres no reason not to play a Cleric. The Warpriest's class features should complement and enhance the Warpriests buffing otherwise its rather pointless right?
Of course folks will still play the Cleric for their divine caster fun needs, I know I for one love going from pew pewing beams of light to getting huge and smashing fools the next.
I feel the Warpriest should be the class that people who just want to play Battle Cleric go to.
I have a feeling lots of folks are going to take Fate's Favored.
I'm glad at least one person sees the importance of this point. :)
The Cleric is already a prepared divine caster. We don't need another one. The Warpriest should absolutely be spontaneous, and just to buck the trend, don't reduce their casting progressing.
Noone in my group plays a Magus. In fact, the one thing everyone in my group agrees on is what a terrible class it is. It's insanely overpowered one moment and virtually useless the next. There was absolutely no good reason for a skirmish class to be a prepared caster, and the occasional game-breaking "combos" it can do seem maybe like they weren't thoroughly playtested?
Also, we could use an alternative to the Oracle. I don't know what the motivations for the Oracle were, but I suspect alcohol was involved. :D
Anyways, back to the Warpriest, in addition to slightly "beefier" spontaneous casting progression, what about an ability to project auras? You know, kinda like the Dragon Shaman?
|
Plus there aren't wisdom based spontaneous casters.Also note that there aren't any other 6 level casters who just use the Cleric/Druid list without alterations. This severely hurts the Warpriest and the Hunter.
If I'm being forced to use spells to buff myself as opposed to class features, why should I play warpriest over cleric.This is also an important point. Unless the Warpriest is massively better than the Cleric at self buffing to the point of in combat buffs/prebuffing then theres no reason not to play a Cleric. The Warpriest's class features should complement and enhance the Warpriests buffing otherwise its rather pointless right?
I'm glad at least one person sees the importance of this point. :)
The Cleric is already a prepared divine caster. We don't need another one.
The Inquisitor is a 6 spell level Spont. Divine Caster. Do we instead need another of those?
@Lord Malkov - And if you want to be a caster, why not just play a cleric?
And before you say "Magus" let us be honest about that class. It is not a front line class. It can't take hits (light armor) and it doesn't actually hit anything without spells, considering all the minuses it takes to actually hitting, beyond being a 3/4 BaB class.
The Divine spell list is not an offensive list. This is not a class that will get damage bonuses from spells. And it is a 6 level casting class, so depending on the spell list just puts it behind the curve.
The buffs will need to be from class features, not from messing with the way the spells work.
Add class features that allow you to buff yourself and/or your weapon (whatever weapon that is).
It really is that simple.
I hope they don't make it complex. I hope they realize the blessings don't fit and replace them with things that make this class chew bubblegum and kick ass.
If you are going to be in heavy armor with martial weapons, for the love of your deity give them hitting power.
I may not have communicated exactly what I meant to there, but the reason I brought up summoner is their ability to cast Summon Spells that are advanced far beyond their actual spell slots would allow.
If the Warpriest does the same thing, then I suppose you could call it a class feature... but that is still using spells. I suggested a summoner-like progression for buffs earlier in the thread, and I have adamantly stated that a warpriest needs better access to buffs or it will stay 2 levels behind the cleric on access to the best buffs (example I used before was thhat a 9th level cleric can buff with righteous might and divine power, while a lvl 9 warpriest is still stuck on divine favor)
The idea of a class feature, in this case, sounded to me like blessings or sacred weapon needed to take center stage.... and I think that using the pre-existing Cleric buff spells will work just fine as long as the warpriest gets access to those spells far earlier (personal spells are cast as being 1 or 2 levels lower or they get SLA versions using the 9-level caster progression just like summoner)
I almost can't help but wonder if this was kind of a joke among the developers who got sick of seeing so many Clerics of Desna.
I play Clerics of Desna for RP reasons.
...I think butterflies are awesome okay
this class is looking to be very, very, very powerful. the luck domain alone mixed with conductive is going to be a automatic -2 to saves and hit on every successful strike. add onto that curse spells for debuffing, and you have a powerhouse character.
1. They only apply to *your* attacks and spells. That's still quite potent for a Bad Touch build, but not nearly as good as, say, the Madness domain. (Not the blessing. The blessing suuuuucks. I had to rewrite it from scratch.)
2. AFAIK the penalty isn't cumulative, and never scales below -2. Effectively, it's the same as the penalty for being shaken, or sickened (but it does stack with them).
According to a podcast, 1/3 of the class was drastically altered.
Hoping it was the blessings :)
That's less than I'd have hoped would change, honestly, but I suppose I should wait for the new doc to come out before I start complaining.
So, the iconic is a Half-Orc Gorum worshipper. Well... I'd have hoped they went with something less obvious, but at least they don't worship Iomedae, who'd be an even more obvious pick than Gorum.
|
|
i'm hoping they got rid of/changed channel...hopefully making it not based on charisma...
I think a change to Channel was announced as going to happen, but that wouldn't be a 1/3 in my book.
The class is basically (in order of importance IMHO)
1. 6 Levels of spells.
2. Bonus Feats Every 3 levels
3. Blessings
4. Channel
5. Sacred Weapons and Armor.
6. Martial Weapon Proficiency and Heavy Armor.
I don't see anything happening to 1 or 6.
2 and 5 may be altered, but not heavily and probably just clean up of the concept.
So to me that leave 3 and 4 as the areas where drastic change would (and should) occur.
@Lord Malkov - I would still rather you just give them access to a buff that allows them to do the things included under righteous might than mess with the spell levels.
Keep in mind the Summoner has the limiting "Either/Or" factor with those summons and the eidelon.
Well... the summoner example is just to show a way that you can give access to spells outside of the spell list when they are thematically appropriate. What the tradeoff is for the summoner is not really relevant to this example.
Could all of this be done with class features? Sure, I suppose. Does that make a big difference to me? Well a bit. I think it would start to make the class feel a bit like a divine barbarian.
Either way, though, a scaling class feature buff could work. I don't particularly care how it happens, but I like the flavor inherent to those buffs spells. They are also very well tested and long-standing manifestations of a divine warrior channeling the might of their deity. If the class feature is going to emulate Righteous Might anyway, then why not just let them use righteous might as an SLA?
That was my original suggestion anyway, that they get 3+wisdom uses per day of a list of buff spells. This would end up looking like the summoner, except that at 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17 instead of getting summon monster I-IX, they would get Cleric Buffs.
There is a lot of people who seem upset at any attempts to match flavor to mechanics rather than just delivering a flavorless husk.
Because people have been saying they want a flavorless husk? Its one thing to give a suggestion, its another to say people are arguing for a flavorless husk. Again, much of what people say is because they want to role-play something.
Also, quit talking about the magus if you don't know the magus.
Lead Designer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to remind folks here one last time to knock off the sniping and personal attacks. I am seeing way too many posts that are getting flagged or deleted by staff. If it keeps up, some folks are going to get a time out.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
I would much rather see the class be powerful at the cost of some flavor than a flavorful, but helpless class, the way it is right now. People can clamor for favor all they want, but not a lot would play it if it was allowed to continue lagging behind the rest of the classes. As it stands, it's looking like Paizo is going to be able to preserve the flavor while (hopefully) making it every bit the equal of a cleric or a fighter, if nothing else.
I just hope they choose not to concentrate the class around healing too much. If I wanted a healer, I'd make a life oracle or cleric. Most people that make a warpriest will want to do so for the WAR part, not being forced to disengage from the enemy to heal someone that should already be getting healed by the actual healer. More than that, focusing too much on the healing aspect would be detrimental to people that might like to, oh I don't know, blow things up with negative energy. Sure, they might be losing channel, but I hope they at least retain access to their inflict spells.
|
|
Also, quit talking about the magus if you don't know the magus.
Because if I disagree with you about the magus, I am ignorant and no longer should be allowed to discuss it?
Moving on before I get into trouble...
Spell combat is a -2 to attack. No big deal if your damage comes from touch attack, kind of a big deal if you are already a 3/4 BaB class. The Cleric spell list isn't a big damage dealing spell list, so adding spell combat mechanics (minus to attack) to get a buff (+ to attack) doesn't really make a lot of sense if your argument is "Then it is up next round".
It is up next round either way, since you are losing -2 up front. Not to mention a hand you could be TWF, THF, or wielding a shield with.
Light armor is not heavy armor. Being able to self heal is fairly meaningful, particularly if that is made a swift action channel. Those are things this class has that the Magus doesn't which better equip it for frontline combat.
And the magus has damage spells that are based off touch AC, which make the negatives to attack (and dumping strength) something the Magus can do easily that the Warpriest wouldn't.
So the solution of looking to the Magus fails to address the warpriests needs.
What the class needs is more ways to do damage with a weapon in combat.
|
|
Could all of this be done with class features? Sure, I suppose. Does that make a big difference to me? Well a bit. I think it would start to make the class feel a bit like a divine barbarian.
Does the inquisitor or Paladin feel like a divine Barbarian? The core self buffs are not spells, they are Judgements, Bane, Spite, Divine Bond, etc...
The only reason the summoner messes with the spell levels is flavor, strongly counterbalanced by losing your primary class feature if you cast a summon spell outside of the chart.
That would be like saying a Paladin could do quickened buffs if they didn't smite, or an inquisitor could if they didn't use judgement or bane.
The problem is that the blessings don't add much directly to the core role of the class, and the only thing that does is insufficient to the task and I think more of a side dish than a core feature.
But we know we have a significant re-write coming, so we'll see what was re-written.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I finally got to play a warpriest (1st, 4th, 9th, and 16th levels) and I really like the blessings. I just wish they had a bit more oomph. Like 3 different abilities at different levels (1st, 8th, and 15th).
Not a big fan of the warpriest getting channel energy though, but I wouldn't like to see him get the lay on hands feature either. Maybe something in the middle.
As for the spells, I think it would be intersting to only get orisons and zero 1st level spells at 1st class level (allows for bonus spells based on high ability modifier), and get zero 7th level spells at 19th class level. I think staying with the standard cleric spells is okay, I hate the number of spell lists atm and it makes having to update existing spells with another class/level entry onerous.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And the magus has damage spells that are based off touch AC, which make the negatives to attack (and dumping strength) something the Magus can do easily that the Warpriest wouldn't.
So the solution of looking to the Magus fails to address the warpriests needs.
What the class needs is more ways to do damage with a weapon in combat.
Unless an enemy turns out to be spectacularly hard to hit, magi willingly use their touch spells against normal AC via Spellstrike as standard operating procedure. I don't even know the last time I saw a magus try to deliver a spell against Touch AC. Thus, most/all of what you said about the difference between a magus and a warpriest is faulty to the point of irrelevance.
I'm not MrSin, but I suspect that's what he meant when he asked you not to comment about the magus without understanding it better (rude though it may have been).
|
|
Unless an enemy turns out to be spectacularly hard to hit, magi willingly use their touch spells against normal AC via Spellstrike as standard operating procedure. I don't even know the last time I saw a magus try to deliver a spell against Touch AC. Thus, most/all of what you said about the difference between a magus and a warpriest is faulty to the point of irrelevance.I'm not MrSin, but I suspect that's what he meant when he asked you not to comment about the magus without understanding it better (rude though it may have been).
The called for mechanic is spell combat, not spell strike, with the intention to be able to self buff while attacking.
Spellstrike is largely irreverent given we are talking about the cleric spell list...not exactly full of offensive touch spells.
Spell combat is going to give you minuses to hit, and is being proposed to allow you to cast a buff while attacking...therefore taking a minus before getting a bonus and all the while restricting to one hand.
In a world where both the Inquisitor and Paladin self buff without resorting to spells, it makes little sense to have the "Take a minus for a plus while burning a spell" approach rather than just adding buff effects if you have as a goal, getting buffs.
I would much rather see the class be powerful at the cost of some flavor than a flavorful, but helpless class, the way it is right now. People can clamor for favor all they want, but not a lot would play it if it was allowed to continue lagging behind the rest of the classes. As it stands, it's looking like Paizo is going to be able to preserve the flavor while (hopefully) making it every bit the equal of a cleric or a fighter, if nothing else.
I just hope they choose not to concentrate the class around healing too much. If I wanted a healer, I'd make a life oracle or cleric. Most people that make a warpriest will want to do so for the WAR part, not being forced to disengage from the enemy to heal someone that should already be getting healed by the actual healer. More than that, focusing too much on the healing aspect would be detrimental to people that might like to, oh I don't know, blow things up with negative energy. Sure, they might be losing channel, but I hope they at least retain access to their inflict spells.
Well, I think it would be a good idea to make positive energy warpriests get better access to swift cures, and to give negative energy warpriests better access to swift inflicts. That would be very reasonable and as decently balanced as a tradeoff as it is with spontaneous cure/inflict.
I agree that evil warpriests need to be kept in the fold here, and that they should be able to make good use of their inflicts if good warpriests are going to be able to make good use of their cures.
As to the favored weapon thing... they are working on it. We should be able to see the Warpriest revision soonish, and I think reserving judgement at this point is a good course of action. Some may not like them and some may call them legacy or a defunct artifact of a previous game, but favored weapons are a thing and the gods of golarion have them. They are part of the mythos, and if they want to use them then this should be fine. Sometimes these things are not mechanically optimized and that needs to be okay, because without this variance, we will end up with a plague of sameness and cookie-cutter optimization.
So, lets wait for the forthcoming solution. I think that we may see something pretty cool that evens out the set of choices laid before us.
We don't know if the Warpriest gets access to Spell Combat, or if he does, if he has to eat the -2 penalty magi take.
The -2 penalty makes sense for magi since they are functionally Two weapon fighting with a 1h weapon and a (typically attack) spell.
If the warpriest was limited to casting buffs (with whatever limitations is most appropriate), there's no need to place a similar penalty on the ability.
And as Jiggy said - Magi have absolutely no trouble hitting their targets despite being a 3/4th bab class and taking a -2 penalty using Spell Combat.
|
|
There is no reason to give the class Martial Weapon proficiency. All it is doing is sitting there taking up space and tipping the 'game design scale' against the class.
I disagree if they are going to have other buff mechanics. Consider the inquisitor with martial and full armor. That would be a big difference.
If they are going with buffing mechanics (and it appears they are) having it apply to martial weapons would seem to make sense if the complaint is limited selection.
As to the channel stuff...that sounds more like a cleric archetype to me, but to each there own.
Well it comes back to it being a WARpriest in IMO not warPRIEST.
1. d10 Hit Die
2. Warpriest Levels count as Fighter levels for Feats...that way they can get Wpn Spec, etc
3. Chose a Weapon type for Wpn Focus at 1st level and that becomes your favored Weapon...if you want your dieties weapon fine...if not chose something else
4. Eliminate Channeling altogether...it is almost worthless at the levels that it is obtained and with an already MAD class having to have a decent Charisma for Selective Channeling adds insult to injury
5. Allow Quicken spell 3/day + Wis for personal range only spells...Self Buffing
In my opinion this would make a very decent fighting cleric
|
|
We don't know if the Warpriest gets access to Spell Combat, or if he does, if he has to eat the -2 penalty magi take.
The -2 penalty makes sense for magi since they are functionally Two weapon fighting with a 1h weapon and a(typically attack) spell.
If the warpriest was limited to casting buffs (with whatever limitations is most appropriate), there's no need to place a similar penalty on the ability.
Yes, and now I want to play a TWF Warpriest (-4 to start)
A ranged Magi (-4 with rapid reload)A two handed...well not while I'm attacking I'm not...
If you aren't having them take the penalty, then you are functionally giving a +4 enhancement to the spell, or better as some have argued it shouldn't provoke.
OR
You can just set up sell buff special abilities and leave the spells alone to be used however makes the most sense for the build.
A 6 level divine caster class should not be asking the spells to do the heavy lifting.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Unless an enemy turns out to be spectacularly hard to hit, magi willingly use their touch spells against normal AC via Spellstrike as standard operating procedure. I don't even know the last time I saw a magus try to deliver a spell against Touch AC. Thus, most/all of what you said about the difference between a magus and a warpriest is faulty to the point of irrelevance.I'm not MrSin, but I suspect that's what he meant when he asked you not to comment about the magus without understanding it better (rude though it may have been).
The called for mechanic is spell combat, not spell strike, with the intention to be able to self buff while attacking.
Spellstrike is largely irreverent given we are talking about the cleric spell list...not exactly full of offensive touch spells.
Spell combat is going to give you minuses to hit, and is being proposed to allow you to cast a buff while attacking...therefore taking a minus before getting a bonus and all the while restricting to one hand.
In a world where both the Inquisitor and Paladin self buff without resorting to spells, it makes little sense to have the "Take a minus for a plus while burning a spell" approach rather than just adding buff effects if you have as a goal, getting buffs.
You have no idea what I wrote.
I wasn't talking about how Spellstrike relates to the warpriest. I was talking about how Spellstike on the magus undermines a premise you used to support your idea that Spell Combat would affect the magus and warpriest differently.To break it down even more simply for you:
• You claimed that the –2 to hit from Spell Combat is a bigger deal for a warpriest than for a magus.
• The premise you used was "because the warpriest targets AC while the magus targets Touch".
• I debunked your premise on the grounds that the magus typically does NOT target Touch—he targets regular AC, just like the warpriest.
• The reason the magus targets regular AC is because the magus uses Spellstrike.
Do you understand now?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would much rather see the class be powerful at the cost of some flavor than a flavorful, but helpless class, the way it is right now. People can clamor for favor all they want, but not a lot would play it if it was allowed to continue lagging behind the rest of the classes. As it stands, it's looking like Paizo is going to be able to preserve the flavor while (hopefully) making it every bit the equal of a cleric or a fighter, if nothing else.
I don't think flavor and power are opposed: In the best class designs, they compliment each other. A character should be as interesting in play as they are in your head.
I just hope they choose not to concentrate the class around healing too much. If I wanted a healer, I'd make a life oracle or cleric. Most people that make a warpriest will want to do so for the WAR part, not being forced to disengage from the enemy to heal someone that should already be getting healed by the actual healer. More than that, focusing too much on the healing aspect would be detrimental to people that might like to, oh I don't know, blow things up with negative energy. Sure, they might be losing channel, but I hope they at least retain access to their inflict spells.
So long as the class has the ability to heal, there will be people expecting you to spend the entire combat standing behind them and curing them each round instead of, you know, having fun. Short of removing healing capability altogether, nothing they can do with the class's design can help with this.
There is, however, plenty that can be done to exacerbate it. Like removing the Warpriest's ability to cast anything but Cure spells. Don't think they'll do that.
Yes, and now I want to play a TWF Warpriest (-4 to start)
A ranged Magi (-4 with rapid reload)
A two handed...well not while I'm attacking I'm not...If you aren't having them take the penalty, then you are functionally giving a +4 enhancement to the spell, or better as some have argued it shouldn't provoke.
Can someone explain this to me? No sarcasm I swear to God, but I have no idea what Ciretose is talking about now.
|
|
And as Jiggy said - Magi have absolutely no trouble hitting their targets despite being a 3/4th bab class and taking a -2 penalty using Spell Combat.
Since this came later.
Because the Magus damage often from damage that goes against touch AC and self buffs from Arcane pool.
Things the warpriest does not have.
|
|
Can someone explain this to me? No sarcasm I swear to God, but I have no idea what Ciretose is talking about now.Yes, and now I want to play a TWF Warpriest (-4 to start)
A ranged Magi (-4 with rapid reload)
A two handed...well not while I'm attacking I'm not...If you aren't having them take the penalty, then you are functionally giving a +4 enhancement to the spell, or better as some have argued it shouldn't provoke.
If I'm taking a -2 to use spell combat, and as you say they waive the requirement to have a hand free, and I want to be a two weapon fighter, my bonus is now -4.
If I am ranged using rapid shot, -2 for the casting -2 for rapid reload.
I'll just refer you to Jiggy's excellent breakdown of the magus post earlier.
Edit: Ah, now I see. You misunderstood, the "similar penalty" I was referring to was the -2 for using Spell Combat.
In case it's not clear I think people here are hoping for a similar mechanic to Spell Combat in that it makes it possible to combine full attacks and limited spellcasting.
However I don't think they want to keep the other limitations on Spell Combat, such as the free hand and so on - a warpriest should be able to cast spells while holding a two-handed weapon or a shield. This is where another suggestion, using the sacred weapon as a spell focus, enters the picture.
Ideally I'd like to see a warpriest be able to make full attacks and cast limited spells (typically self-targeting buffs) in the same round without having gear limitations such as the Magi's "one-handed weapon in one hand, and one free hand" or being unable to cast because he is dualwielding.
Battle Smite (Su): Once per day, a warpriest can call out to the powers of her deity to aid her in her struggle against her foes. As a swift action, the warpriest chooses one target within sight to smite. The warpriest adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her warpriest level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the warpriest is using her deity's favored weapon, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the warpriest possesses. Battle smite attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while battle smite is in effect, the warpriest gains a deflection bonus equal to her Wisdom modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite.
The battle smit effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the warpriest rests and regains her uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the warpriest may smite evil one additional time per day.
There. That's a solid combat boost, and you can still do something with a longbow even if your favored weapon is a club, and switching to a greatsword is a viable, if not always ideal option. Instead of having its own uses, it could also be powered off Warpriest Points.
Can someone explain this to me? No sarcasm I swear to God, but I have no idea what Ciretose is talking about now.Yes, and now I want to play a TWF Warpriest (-4 to start)
A ranged Magi (-4 with rapid reload)
A two handed...well not while I'm attacking I'm not...If you aren't having them take the penalty, then you are functionally giving a +4 enhancement to the spell, or better as some have argued it shouldn't provoke.
This came up earlier in the thread. That rather than using spell combat teh Warpriest just be able to cast Buffs as swift actions.
The +4 enhancement here is referring to the +4 level requirement for using Quickened Spell. The other part, I am not sure about because casting a quickened spell does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Spell combat is limiting. Mainly, because it needs to be done as part of a full attack. You could easily remove the attack penalty, because when limited to self-buffs the warpriest isn't getting an extra attack like the Magus is, but the full-attack requirement is a pretty big deal. It means that you can't buff/charge or buff/move/attack, or possibly the worst offender, buff/move/cast.
Either way, if it were up to me, I would use a spell-combat-ish ability that focused on buffs. Positive warpriests would be able to substitute a cure spell on themselves, negative warpriests would be able to apply an inflict spell to a weapon attack (but not an extra attack like magus spell combat or spell strike). There would be no extra attack, so no -2 to attacks, and to ensure that warpriests of Gorum (using a two handed weapon) weren't boned, I would remove the free hand requirement.
OTOH this can all be done with class features and more robust blessings. There is no need to use spell combat. I just happen to like the idea because it makes spellcasting (you know, half of the class) a very pertinent aspect of how the warpriest fights. If he depends on class features first and foremost, then the Warpriest's spells will mostly be used for non-combat utility. But that is just a guess.
That's alot like how the ordained champion PrC worked. Burnt spell slots for bonuses.
An interesting option but cleric buffs typically scale with caster level - at level 1 the cleric and the warpriest would get the same bonus from, say, divine favor (also a luck bonus) but at level 3 the cleric would get a +2 bonus, level 6 a +3 bonus and so on.
A fixed bonus scaling to spell level would get outpaced by buffs of the same level.
That doesn't mean it can't work though, you'd just need to tweak the formula...
And yes, if spellcasting is not an aspect of the warpriest's combat routine then he will most likely save those spell slots for utility, healing and so on. Not in itself a bad thing.
Swift action add WIS to attack bonuses during spell combat.
Don't give them Spellstrike so attacking with multiple weapons/2 hander won't matter.
Let blessings be a list of options rather than being tied to domains.
Also, give them one domain.
I want WIS to matter.