There has been some discussion on that :).
A popular suggestion is to move the bonus feats to start at level 2 and every 3 levels from 2, so 2-5-8-11-14-17-20. 3/4th BAB get +6 bab at level 8 and +8 at level 11 so it would fit well with when new attack feats like Lunge and Improved Critical becomes available.
On the other hand, if it applied to spells like Bull's Strength, that would be more useful.
Uhh, it can? Read the ability again:
2nd: 1 hour/level -> 24 hours
7th: 10 min/level -> 24 hours
11th: 1 min/level -> 24 hours
15th: 1 round/level -> 24 hours
Note that this is inclusive: You don't lose the ability to bond with 1 hour/level spells at level 7, you just gain the ability to bond with 10 min/level spells. The better durations deliberately come online late because persisting spells is really, really strong.
(Also, TBH, I could really care less about PFS.)
Not trying to be a jerk, then, but the ability seems very useless then. You get it at 2nd level, but cant actually use it at all until about 7th level, and then at 15th levelish, it starts to finally become useful, (it's auto-outside of the level for PFS play, and if you are lucky you might get it for the very, very end of most AP's, maybe).
For the most part, in an adventuring day, once they started getting spells that are Hour/Level, those spells are already pretty much up for the effective adventuring day. A Cleric is already casting those for a min of 5 and 7 hours, where the Warpriest starts out casting them at 7 and 10 hours min already.
On the other hand, if it applied to spells like Bull's Strength, that would be more useful. Or even boosted a spells duration by one increment could work, too. 1 Min or Round/Level -> Min/Level -> 10 Mins/Level -> Hour/Level -> 24 Hours.
That is certainly better but it won't catch up the warpriest in terms of attack and damage by itself. Maybe something like this AND built in buffs usable a few times a day?
Something like this:
Divine Purpose: For a number of rounds a day equal to the Warpriest's level + Wis mod, she may imbue her attacks with divine purpose. During these rounds, the Warpriest gains a +1 divine bonus to attack rolls and deals an additional 1d8 of damage of the first attack she makes each round. These bonus damage die increase this attack bonus increases by 1 at level 5 and every 4 levels thereafter to a maximum of +5 to attack at level 17 and +5d8 to the damage roll of the first attack made each round. The Waroriest may activate Divine Purpose as a swift action and end it as a free action at the end of one of her turns. (The damage is only to the first attack to not over incentivize dual wielding and archer builds over other types of builds)
Beginning at level 8 during a full attack action, the warpriest may add this damage to the second attack she gets from high base attack bonus (the one at -5). At level 16, she gets this damage to her third attack (the one at -10) as well.
|
On the other hand, if it applied to spells like Bull's Strength, that would be more useful.Uhh, it can? Read the ability again:
2nd: 1 hour/level -> 24 hours
7th: 10 min/level -> 24 hours
11th: 1 min/level -> 24 hours
15th: 1 round/level -> 24 hoursNote that this is inclusive: You don't lose the ability to bond with 1 hour/level spells at level 7, you just gain the ability to bond with 10 min/level spells. The better durations deliberately come online late because persisting spells is really, really strong.
(Also, TBH, I could really care less about PFS.)
Spoiler:Bonded Spell (Su): A Warpriest's connection to their deity is so strong, that the power of the divine does not fade from them so easily. Beginning at 2nd level, once per day, a Warpriest may bond with a spell with a range of personal or touch with a duration of 1 hour/level: The spell is cast on the warpriest with a duration of 24 hours. A bonded spell cannot be easily dispelled: Unless the caster level check to dispel the spell succeeds by 10 or more, the effects are only suppressed for 1d4 rounds, as if the effect were that of a magic item. At 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level, the Warpriest may bond with an additional spell each day. At 7th level, a Warpriest may bond with a spell with a duration of 10 minutes/level. At 11th level, he may bond with a spell with a duration fo 1 minute/level. At 15th level, he may bond with a spell with a duration of 1 round/level.
Im saying this as constructive criticism, but I don't think you are getting what I mean.
As written, the 2nd level power is 100% pointless until you get to 7th level, because (I think) that's the first time you even have the option for an Hour/Level spell. And by that point, it's already, for all intents and purposes already up for the "24" adventuring day. That is to say from the point you enter the dungeon to the end of the game, it's going to be up already. So there is no reason to either get it at 2nd-6th level, or to restrict it to hour/level at that point. I mean that in an either/or sense.
If you instead changed it to something like:
2nd: 1 any spell -> 1 Hour/Level
7th: 10 min/level -> 24 hours
11th: 1 min/level -> 24 hours
15th: 1 round/level -> 24 hours
It becomes something that can then be used.
As written, the 2nd level power is 100% pointless until you get to 7th level, because (I think) that's the first time you even have the option for an Hour/Level spell. And by that point, it's already, for all intents and purposes already up for the "24" adventuring day. That is to say from the point you enter the dungeon to the end of the game, it's going to be up already.
I'm aware of this problem: That's why I said the ability is written with the assumption that we'd get some 1st and 2nd-level cleric spells with a duration of 1 hour/level to be compatible with this.
I don't think your suggestion would work. If you can turn any spell into a 1 hour/level spell, then you effectively get the level 15 ability at level 8, where you can make any spell you want last effectively all day.
It's my understanding that there will not be any new spells with the ACG. :)
There will be new spells, new feats, and new archetypes. Granted we don't know how many, but still.
Not trying to be a jerk, then, but the ability seems very useless then. You get it at 2nd level, but cant actually use it at all until about 7th level, and then at 15th levelish, it starts to finally become useful, (it's auto-outside of the level for PFS play, and if you are lucky you might get it for the very, very end of most AP's, maybe).
For the most part, in an adventuring day, once they started getting spells that are Hour/Level, those spells are already pretty much up for the effective adventuring day. A Cleric is already casting those for a min of 5 and 7 hours, where the Warpriest starts out casting them at 7 and 10 hours min already.
On the other hand, if it applied to spells like Bull's Strength, that would be more useful. Or even boosted a spells duration by one increment could work, too. 1 Min or Round/Level -> Min/Level -> 10 Mins/Level -> Hour/Level -> 24 Hours.
I mentioned the increment change earlier in the thread actually, but it wasn't well received.
It's my understanding that there will not be any new spells with the ACG. :)
There most definitely will be new spells in the ACG. The Bloodrager is getting its own list and I have a feeling its getting some swift action spells, some of which might bleed over to the Cleric list for Warpriest use.
Magic Vestment is a 1st level spell that lasts hours per level. As is Magic Weapon.
Magic Vestment is 3rd level, and Magic Weapon lasts 1 minute/level. Greater Magic Weapon lasts 1 hour/level, but is 4th level for clerics.
Magic Vestment is a 1st level spell that lasts hours per level. As is Magic Weapon.Magic Vestment is 3rd level, and Magic Weapon lasts 1 minute/level. Greater Magic Weapon lasts 1 hour/level, but is 4th level for clerics.
Herp derp.
I have not had a good run lately.
>_> I didn't say anything of that regard.
|
|
It's my understanding that there will not be any new spells with the ACG. :)There most definitely will be new spells in the ACG. The Bloodrager is getting its own list and I have a feeling its getting some swift action spells, some of which might bleed over to the Cleric list for Warpriest use.
I'm pretty sure that they said from the start there would be no new spells in this book, but I could be wrong, and I can't find the post.
Alternate name for the Warpriest could be the Templar. I realize that a very good class by Super/Rogue Genius Games already exists, but they have done this with the Magus, once before.
When I hear "Templar" I think of a character who's obsessed with maintaining the status quo and smashing everything that appears to threaten it with extreme violence. "Templar of Asmodeus" works, but "Templar of Desna" sounds like a contradiction of terms.
Then again, so does "Inquisitor of Desna." When I hear "Inquisitor" I think of psychopaths who torture people into giving false confessions so they can be publicly burned at the stake.
I'm pretty sure that they said from the start there would be no new spells in this book, but I could be wrong, and I can't find the post.It's my understanding that there will not be any new spells with the ACG. :)There most definitely will be new spells in the ACG. The Bloodrager is getting its own list and I have a feeling its getting some swift action spells, some of which might bleed over to the Cleric list for Warpriest use.
Jason Bulmahn said in the podcast that there will be new spells. If they, at first, decided against new spells, it seems they may have changed their mind since then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to say it: favored weapon was designed as a restriction on the cleric, not a bonus. It was a way of enabling viable warrior-clerics without giving clerics martial weapon proficiency. Various other thematics were added to make it a more interesting choice, but fundamentally, it was put in place to keep any given cleric from wielding both greatsword and longbow without expending some character options. It goes all the way back to AD&D "specialty priests" where you would swap out the cleric's restriction to blunt weapons for some other limited set; if you gave out good weapons like the longsword, you were encouraged to limit them in other ways, through weapon proficiencies and access to spell domains.
I don't see the purpose of porting over the favored weapon unless the focus of the class is intended to be a kensai-like specialist of one weapon. That's not what I would have anticipated from a cleric-fighter hybrid. Fighter 1/Cleric X is already going to be some stiff competition. I'm really curious to see where this concept is going. It's vastly restrictive, almost like a monk.
|
When I hear "Templar" I think of a character who's obsessed with maintaining the status quo and smashing everything that appears to threaten it with extreme violence. "Templar of Asmodeus" works, but "Templar of Desna" sounds like a contradiction of terms.
Then again, so does "Inquisitor of Desna." When I hear "Inquisitor" I think of psychopaths who torture people into giving false confessions so they can be publicly burned at the stake.
Actually, inquisitorial trials were about the most fair you could get in the Middle Ages (certainly much more so than you'd get out of the average baron), but that's neither here nor there.
I agree that it shouldn't be renamed Templar, though. That means something very specific, and warpriest, as a base class, should be a general concept, open to many varieties of character. I say again that "warpriest" is a fine name as it is.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I hear "Inquisitor" I think of psychopaths who torture people into giving false confessions so they can be publicly burned at the stake.
When I hear "Inquisitor", I think about a Spanish character with throw anything, 2h thrower, and a ridiculous stealth check who carries around comfy chairs and throws them screaming "NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!".
Well we'll have to see what the final product is...as it is IMO the favored weapon powers only being able to be used with the dieties favored weapon just puts me off. The Warpriest is the only class of the new ones I have any interest in and if they nerf it ....well this would be one product that I will pass on spending my money on.
|
|
Well, to be fair, a lot of people say that about this or that aspect of the book. I agree, the Warpriest is the one I am most interested in. It's obvious that a lot of us have very, very different ideas on what it should look like, too, and that doesn't make everyone else wrong, it just means we all have our own opinions and hopes for the class, but they can't please everyone.
However, this book's material should be out for free in the PRD and the like, so even if you do not like it enough to pay, you should still be able to the other material for free.
As for the Deity's Favored Weapon, I'm torn. On one hand, I do think it's a good idea, that adds a certain level of flavor and balance, and I also do really think that the people that are arguing that the Fighter side should have all (or some) weapons "favored" are ignoring that (at least in my experience) most Fighters themselves tend to really focus on just one weapon even though they can use almost all weapons. Sure, like everyone else, having a backup weapon is a good idea, but not one that often comes up, and is rarely ever kept up with past say a +1 when cost comes into play.
Now on the other hand, I personally just like the image of certain weapons. I'm a fan of the Cleric wading into battle alongside the warriors, with a Mace in one hand and their faith in the other. Or a warrior-type carrying a Bastard Sword (rather than the more common Longsword of Greatsword). On the other hand, I think that opens the door to some really odd and counter intuitive concepts. I see far too many battle Cleric's of Shylen because she gives the free Glaive, and I don't want to see it become (example) Warpriests of Shylen pimping the Greataxes, Greatswords, and Earthbreakers. Likewise, Desna is extremely popular for Clerics because she has the best Domains, and I really don't want to start seeing Warpriests of Desna freely using the best weapons, too, just because you can RAW by ignoring flavor ad fluff.
So with all that in mind, I would rather keep the Deity's Favored Weapon, personally, even if it does slightly cut down on some concepts, I think it's better than the Pandora's box it would open instead.
You have two groups of people:
Group 1 only wants the Dieties favored Weapon to get the bonuses
Group 2 - Wants any ONE type of weapon - chosen at character creation to get the bonuses
Going with Group 1 means that Group 2 loses out...will not buy product, etc
Going with Group 2 means that group 1 can still chose their Dieties favored Weapon for no loss of power...both sides win
|
|
You have two groups of people:
Group 1 only wants the Dieties favored Weapon to get the bonuses
Group 2 - Wants any ONE type of weapon - chosen at character creation to get the bonuses
Going with Group 1 means that Group 2 loses out...will not buy product, etc
Going with Group 2 means that group 1 can still chose their Dieties favored Weapon for no loss of power...both sides win
I'm not sure that's true.
I think if Group 2 "wins", just as many people will be turned of (will not buy the product or whatever) as would Group 2 if things were reversed.
And if Group 1 "wins", Group 2 can still pick a deity appropriate to the concept, well just weapon really, they want anyway.
And from the PoV of Group 1, just because you get bonuses to your Deity's Favored Weapon, that in no way prevents you from otherwise using any weapon you want otherwise, so, from that side, "both sides wins".
As for the Deity's Favored Weapon, I'm torn. On one hand, I do think it's a good idea, that adds a certain level of flavor and balance,
It adds nothing to balance. Flavor sure, but it works against balance.
I'm not sure that's true.
I think if Group 2 "wins", just as many people will be turned of (will not buy the product or whatever) as would Group 2 if things were reversed.
And if Group 1 "wins", Group 2 can still pick a deity appropriate to the concept, well just weapon really, they want anyway.
Group 2 has to compromise their character concept if Group 1 wins. Group 1 can still do what they want but they just aren't forcing everyone else to do that. Little unfair isn't it?
Also, I'm not sure if one tiny change means "Will not buy product!" isn't that an overreaction? Its not like we're giving the TOB daily resources.
|
|
As for the Deity's Favored Weapon, I'm torn. On one hand, I do think it's a good idea, that adds a certain level of flavor and balance,
It adds nothing to balance. Flavor sure, but it works against balance.
Flavor, certainly, but also balance. Like with Clerics/Domains, part of the balance between the various options is from Favored Weapon vs Blessing options. Keep in mind the original Playtest doc had a lot of issues with Blessings, and we will have to wait and see what the next one, and also the final results both look like, but allowing any weapon for free (more or less) as the Focus Weapon makes Warpriest's of the deity with the best Blessings the optimal choice, regardless of if that deity should really even have Warpriests to begin with. Why play a Warpriest of Ragathiel (a great example of a "deity" that should have Warpriests) when you can play instead be a Bastard Sword wielding Warpriest of Korda (just an example for the sake of argument, I didn't look at the actual Blessings here) and get better Blessings from a non-war-like patron?
I'm not sure that's true.
I think if Group 2 "wins", just as many people will be turned of (will not buy the product or whatever) as would Group 2 if things were reversed.
And if Group 1 "wins", Group 2 can still pick a deity appropriate to the concept, well just weapon really, they want anyway.
Group 2 has to compromise their character concept if Group 1 wins. Group 1 can still do what they want but they just aren't forcing everyone else to do that. Little unfair isn't it?
Also, I'm not sure if one tiny change means "Will not buy product!" isn't that an overreaction? Its not like we're giving the TOB daily resources.
I am simply stating that I think both sides have a very similar reasoning and logic behind that train of thought. I'm not trying to propagate that argument all over again, nor am I suggesting that I think one side is more right than the other, or the other has to compromise more so the other can "win". I think both sides probably view it as unfair. You might also want to reread it, because I'm not the one that overreacted with "I will not buy the product", my friend. I just replied to it. :)
Going with Group 1 means that Group 2 loses out...
It adds nothing to balance. Flavor sure, but it works against balance.Flavor, certainly, but also balance. Like with Clerics/Domains, part of the balance between the various options is from Favored Weapon vs Blessing options. Keep in mind the original Playtest doc had a lot of issues with Blessings, and we will have to wait and see what the next one, and also the final results both look like, but allowing any weapon for free (more or less) as the Focus Weapon makes Warpriest's of the deity with the best Blessings the optimal choice, regardless of if that deity should really even have Warpriests to begin with. Why play a Warpriest of Ragathiel (a great example of a "deity" that should have Warpriests) when you can play instead be a Bastard Sword wielding Warpriest of Korda (just an example for the sake of argument, I didn't look at the actual Blessings here) and get better Blessings from a non-war-like patron?
That only works if there aren't superior and inferior options based on weapon vs. blessing, which is sadly far from true. Some options have great domains and favored weapons, and others have bad domains and bad weapon. Not necessarily a bad thing because its thematic, but that's also why it sucks to be locked into a bad weapon, especially for a class based around being a martial.
You might also want to reread it, because I'm not the one that overreacted with "I will not buy the product", my friend. I just replied to it. :)
I know! That's why I added it in a last paragraph at the bottom. More like an aside than anything. Hard to make it look like that sort of thing on the internet though. There's no facing in forums!
|
|
It adds nothing to balance. Flavor sure, but it works against balance.Flavor, certainly, but also balance. Like with Clerics/Domains, part of the balance between the various options is from Favored Weapon vs Blessing options. Keep in mind the original Playtest doc had a lot of issues with Blessings, and we will have to wait and see what the next one, and also the final results both look like, but allowing any weapon for free (more or less) as the Focus Weapon makes Warpriest's of the deity with the best Blessings the optimal choice, regardless of if that deity should really even have Warpriests to begin with. Why play a Warpriest of Ragathiel (a great example of a "deity" that should have Warpriests) when you can play instead be a Bastard Sword wielding Warpriest of Korda (just an example for the sake of argument, I didn't look at the actual Blessings here) and get better Blessings from a non-war-like patron?
That only works if there aren't superior and inferior options based on weapon vs. blessing, which is sadly far from true. Some options have great domains and favored weapons, and others have bad domains and bad weapon. Not necessarily a bad thing because its thematic, but that's also why it sucks to be locked into a bad weapon, especially for a class based around being a martial.
True, but this was also one of the first things pointed out pretty unanimously in the various actual playtests I've read, and the indication was that this was going to be one of the big changes. I'm giving Paizo the benefit of the doubt that the next Playtest Doc, as well as the final form will rectify this much more than it is now. Currently, it's not universally true as much as there are some odd cases (Eristal) that they just don't work right.
In a homebrew campaign...you can do anything you want
However I play a lot of PFS and I REALLY like the Warpriest concept..but if it is nerfed I will pass on it...not buy the product. This is because of what I prefer to play and because none of the other classes being playtested have any interest for me. Not that they are bad...just not my cup of tea.There is no leeway in PFS to houserule objectionable material...you have to use it as written.
No matter...if it is not up to what I believe it should be then I will ignore it and play Ftr/Cleric multiclass if that is my concept of what a Warpriest should be and not Paizo's.
After all this is a playtest and not everyone will be happy with the finished product.
|
|
Not an argument, but I'm curious. I'm also not suggesting that this will be the way it's handled, (and lets assume that both are balanced and reasonably flavored and mechanically sound options). How do people feel about these to options?
1.) The Warpriest is kept with the Deity's Favored Weapon as the only Focus Weapon option (outside of Feats), but an Archtype option is also included that focuses on trading out the Focus Weapon for a single one of your choice.
2.) The Warpriest is changed so that it's Focus Weapon is general, but an Archtype option is included that focuses on boosting the Deity's Favored Weapon (only) as the Focus Weapon.
Which option, keeping all things and the different sides and PoV's in mind, which overall do you think is a better option? In both cases, both sides are pretty evenly allowed without making the other compromise. As a player of a different class with a Warpriest in your party, or against an enemy Warpriest, what would you think? Or if you are a Cleric, or Fighter, (or similar class like Inquisitor), how do you feel about Favored Weapon? Which, in general, do you think is the better route, both for what you would want, but also for the potential abuse either might allow?
Not an argument, but I'm curious. I'm also not suggesting that this will be the way it's handled, (and lets assume that both are balanced and reasonably flavored and mechanically sound options). How do people feel about these to options?
1.) The Warpriest is kept with the Deity's Favored Weapon as the only Focus Weapon option (outside of Feats), but an Archtype option is also included that focuses on trading out the Focus Weapon for a single one of your choice.
2.) The Warpriest is changed so that it's Focus Weapon is general, but an Archtype option is included that focuses on boosting the Deity's Favored Weapon (only) as the Focus Weapon.
Which option, keeping all things and the different sides and PoV's in mind, which overall do you think is a better option? In both cases, both sides are pretty evenly allowed without making the other compromise. As a player of a different class with a Warpriest in your party, or against an enemy Warpriest, what would you think? Or if you are a Cleric, or Fighter, (or similar class like Inquisitor), how do you feel about Favored Weapon? Which, in general, do you think is the better route, both for what you would want, but also for the potential abuse either might allow?
I'd be okay with either to be honest, though I'd prefer the base class to be the open one. I would be worried any archetypes though come with a lot of baggage, including a change not being able to be traded out, additional class features beyond what you wanted, and in the worst case you could have something like the separatist which gives you something someone else could have but at a pretty bleh cost.
Which option, keeping all things and the different sides and PoV's in mind, which overall do you think is a better option? In both cases, both sides are pretty evenly allowed without making the other compromise. As a player of a different class with a Warpriest in your party, or against an enemy Warpriest, what would you think? Or if you are a Cleric, or Fighter, (or similar class like Inquisitor), how do you feel about Favored Weapon? Which, in general, do you think is the better route, both for what you would want, but also for the potential abuse either might allow?
I'd probably prefer option 2 - the baseline classes tend to be "generalists", then the archetypes pick an aspect of the class to focus on. For instance "Magus" vs "Staff Magus", "Fighter" vs "Weapon Master", "Wizard" vs "Primalist", "Paladin" vs "Divine Defender" and so on.
That way the baseline class offers the flexibility and options to let people play it the way they want, and if you want to specialize or pick an aspect of the class to focus on - there's an archetype for that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i just don't see the point of being proficient with all martial weapons if you can't use any of them for your class features unless they're your deity's favored weapon (in which case you'd have gotten the proficiency anyway). as it stands, if i play a fighter 1/cleric whatever, i can use a martial weapon of my choice without losing the benefit of any of my class features... it just seems silly if the concept for the warpriest is a more physical combat oriented cleric.
I guess I just don't get how anyone could legitimately say something like: "if option A is weaker than option B, but I prefer the RP aspect of option A, then the class is broken". There are examples of that sort of thing all OVER the place.
As a fighter, I may prefer the idea of a dagger being my main weapon instead of a kukri... but choosing a dagger is flat-out worse than using a kukri. Should they be upset?
Clerics already have this issue. A cleric of pharasma gets proficiency with a simple weapon (dagger)... which they already have proficiency with. A cleric of Gorum OTOH gets a greatsword, so they are getting more out of the feature. Is this a game-breaker? Or rather, why is it suddenly a game-breaker for the warpriest?
If the "character concept" is a warpriest that uses X set of weapons... then choose a deity that makes that work. If the concept is a warpriest of X deity, then use that deity's weapon. If the concept is a warpriest of X deity that uses X weapon (not the favored weapon) then talk to your GM, or take the slight power dip to fill the concept.
Should Clerics be super upset that the deity they like doesn't have the domains they want? Should they be upset that they can't get the exact combination of domains that they want? I mean... this sort of thing happens all the time.
What happens if a Fighter wants to use a single Rapier as his weapon combined with a low str/high dex and light armor. The swashbuckler class aside, this seems like something that should be doable with the core fighter no? But if you do it.... if you realize that concept, you are gimping yourself immensely. So, class broken?
If the "character concept" is a warpriest that uses X set of weapons... then choose a deity that makes that work. If the concept is a warpriest of X deity, then use that deity's weapon. If the concept is a warpriest of X deity that uses X weapon (not the favored weapon) then talk to your GM, or take the slight power dip to fill the concept.
okay, but what if you're a warpriest of no particular deity? you're a WARpriest and you're proficient with all martial weapons, but you didn't just make yourself suboptimal if you decide to use a martial weapon, you've gimped yourself because a good number of your class abilities can't be used with the plethora of weapons of which you have ostensibly been given the option.
If the "character concept" is a warpriest that uses X set of weapons... then choose a deity that makes that work. If the concept is a warpriest of X deity, then use that deity's weapon. If the concept is a warpriest of X deity that uses X weapon (not the favored weapon) then talk to your GM, or take the slight power dip to fill the concept.okay, but what if you're a warpriest of no particular deity? you're a WARpriest and you're proficient with all martial weapons, but you didn't just make yourself suboptimal if you decide to use a martial weapon, you've gimped yourself because a good number of your class abilities can't be used with the plethora of weapons of which you have ostensibly been given the option.
You should be happy that you gain a Favored Weapon at all. If a Cleric doesn't worship a Deity, he doesn't gain proficiency with any bonus weapon. A Warpriest still gains the Favored Weapon bonus with a simple weapon, something Cleric's don't get.
Clerics already have this issue. A cleric of pharasma gets proficiency with a simple weapon (dagger)... which they already have proficiency with. A cleric of Gorum OTOH gets a greatsword, so they are getting more out of the feature. Is this a game-breaker? Or rather, why is it suddenly a game-breaker for the warpriest?
While I don't want to touch the cleric myself, I will say that the warpriest is advertised as a fighter and should have fighter abilities while the full caster cleric is... a full caster. The cleric isn't nearly as harmed as the warpriest.
What happens if a Fighter wants to use a single Rapier as his weapon combined with a low str/high dex and light armor. The swashbuckler class aside, this seems like something that should be doable with the core fighter no? But if you do it.... if you realize that concept, you are gimping yourself immensely. So, class broken?
That's actually a problem with the weapon style, not the fighter. Fighter has its own problems mind you, but the fact some styles are just subpar is really unfortunate. Additionally, the core fighter isn't all about light armor, its about making the best out of the heavier armors. It also has dozens of other options to choose from, including big sword and heavy armor and two weapon fighting. Meanwhile there are archetypes that make your rapier much more viable. On top of all of that, they never had to conflict their roleplaying choices. You didn't say "man I hope your from Ustalav!" or "Man I hope you don't worship Desna". In fact you can make a fighter, give him a rapier, and the only thing that's really chosen for him is... Using a rapier, that thing you chose! He doesn't have to worship Cayden and if he did worship Cayden he wouldn't have to regret wanting to use any other weapon because arbitrary mechanics. He could infact use a bow about as well as a greatsword really, with rapier on the side! Relative to what a bow vs. greatsword vs Rapier is with weapon training and a feat each.
You should be happy that you gain a Favored Weapon at all. If a Cleric doesn't worship a Deity, he doesn't gain proficiency with any bonus weapon. A Warpriest still gains the Favored Weapon bonus with a simple weapon, something Cleric's don't get.
WTB more Atheist/Agnostic support. Have Money Will Spend.
You should be happy that you gain a Favored Weapon at all. If a Cleric doesn't worship a Deity, he doesn't gain proficiency with any bonus weapon. A Warpriest still gains the Favored Weapon bonus with a simple weapon, something Cleric's don't get.
you apparently misunderstand my point... i'm not asking for extra proficiencies... warpriests are already proficient with all martial weapons. i'm only asking that my class abilities be able to work with the weapons i'm allowed instead of giving me all martial weapon proficiencies but essentially telling me i have to use simple weapons. just let me choose any weapon with which i'm proficient (or at least simple AND martial—just simple is stupid because the class is more martial than a regular cleric) for my focus weapon unless i have a deity and we're fine.
In my opinion this class is terribly boring. I had a player use this in yesterday's session and he was so bored by it that I just let him swap to a Paladin instead.
Why was he bored?
How would he have been able to have fun?
Warpriest should have UMD as a class skill. Warpriest feels very flavorful.
You should be happy that you gain a Favored Weapon at all. If a Cleric doesn't worship a Deity, he doesn't gain proficiency with any bonus weapon. A Warpriest still gains the Favored Weapon bonus with a simple weapon, something Cleric's don't get.you apparently misunderstand my point... i'm not asking for extra proficiencies... warpriests are already proficient with all martial weapons. i'm only asking that my class abilities be able to work with the weapons i'm allowed instead of giving me all martial weapon proficiencies but essentially telling me i have to use simple weapons. just let me choose any weapon with which i'm proficient (or at least simple AND martial—just simple is stupid because the class is more martial than a regular cleric) for my focus weapon unless i have a deity and we're fine.
My point was that Cleric's don't get a favored weapon AT ALL if they don't worship a deity, while Warpriests do. You should be grateful for that favored weapon, because you wouldn't get it otherwise.
My point was that Cleric's don't get a favored weapon AT ALL if they don't worship a deity, while Warpriests do. You should be grateful for that favored weapon, because you wouldn't get it otherwise.You should be happy that you gain a Favored Weapon at all. If a Cleric doesn't worship a Deity, he doesn't gain proficiency with any bonus weapon. A Warpriest still gains the Favored Weapon bonus with a simple weapon, something Cleric's don't get.you apparently misunderstand my point... i'm not asking for extra proficiencies... warpriests are already proficient with all martial weapons. i'm only asking that my class abilities be able to work with the weapons i'm allowed instead of giving me all martial weapon proficiencies but essentially telling me i have to use simple weapons. just let me choose any weapon with which i'm proficient (or at least simple AND martial—just simple is stupid because the class is more martial than a regular cleric) for my focus weapon unless i have a deity and we're fine.
I read him saying that he does not want to have a favored weapon on his godless warpriest. That's what I think he said you were misunderstanding.
I read him saying that he does not want to have a favored weapon on his godless warpriest. That's what I think he said you were misunderstanding.My point was that Cleric's don't get a favored weapon AT ALL if they don't worship a deity, while Warpriests do. You should be grateful for that favored weapon, because you wouldn't get it otherwise.You should be happy that you gain a Favored Weapon at all. If a Cleric doesn't worship a Deity, he doesn't gain proficiency with any bonus weapon. A Warpriest still gains the Favored Weapon bonus with a simple weapon, something Cleric's don't get.you apparently misunderstand my point... i'm not asking for extra proficiencies... warpriests are already proficient with all martial weapons. i'm only asking that my class abilities be able to work with the weapons i'm allowed instead of giving me all martial weapon proficiencies but essentially telling me i have to use simple weapons. just let me choose any weapon with which i'm proficient (or at least simple AND martial—just simple is stupid because the class is more martial than a regular cleric) for my focus weapon unless i have a deity and we're fine.
My understanding is he wants Favored Weapon to work with any weapon with which you are proficient if you don't worship a God, instead of only working with simple weapons.
Basically, it makes it more advantageous to 'not' worship a God, than to worship a God, which kind of flies in the face of Clerics.
A Cleric can worship a God, or worship an Ideal. If he worships a God, his domains are limited, but he gains proficiency in the Gods weapon. If he worships an ideal, he gains flexible domains, but doesn't gain a bonus weapon of any sort.
Conversely, if a Warpriest worships a God, he gets proficiency and Focused Weapon with the Gods chosen weapon. If he doesn't worship a God, he gets Focused Weapon with any simple weapon instead.
He wants it expanded to allows Focused Weapon with any weapon the Warpriest is proficient with. To me, this is a problem as Martial Weapons are far more powerful than simple weapons (most of the time).
Basically, it makes it more advantageous to 'not' worship a God, than to worship a God, which kind of flies in the face of Clerics.
Uhh, it already is? Being able to choose your domains freely is a way, way, way larger boon than a free weapon proficiency (that might be for something stupid like a whip or starknife anyway).
My point was that Cleric's don't get a favored weapon AT ALL if they don't worship a deity, while Warpriests do. You should be grateful for that favored weapon, because you wouldn't get it otherwise.
i'm confused... warpriests don't get a favored weapon either if they don't worship a deity. they get their focus weapon and sacred weapon class features... but i don't see how that's relevant. the warpriest isn't a cleric. he gave up other things for different class features. those class features should work with all the weapons with which the base class is proficient.
A cleric of Gorum OTOH gets a greatsword, so they are getting more out of the feature. Is this a game-breaker? Or rather, why is it suddenly a game-breaker for the warpriest?
One of the cleric's most central class abilities doesn't require it to use its favored weapon, while one of the warpriest's primary abilities does.
That's actually a problem with the weapon style, not the fighter. Fighter has its own problems mind you, but the fact some styles are just subpar is really unfortunate. Additionally, the core fighter isn't all about light armor, its about making the best out of the heavier armors. It also has dozens of other options to choose from, including big sword and heavy armor and two weapon fighting. Meanwhile there are archetypes that make your rapier much more viable. On top of all of that, they never had to conflict their roleplaying choices. You didn't say "man I hope your from Ustalav!" or "Man I hope you don't worship Desna". In fact you can make a fighter, give him a rapier, and the only thing that's really chosen for him is... Using a rapier, that thing you chose! He doesn't have to worship Cayden and if he did worship Cayden he wouldn't have to regret wanting to use any other weapon because arbitrary mechanics. He could infact use a bow about as well as a greatsword really, with rapier on the side! Relative to what a bow vs. greatsword vs Rapier is with weapon...
I see at as incredibly similar actually.
You can say that the fighter is equally good with other weapons, but that is not usually the case. Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Finesse, Improved Critical all focused on using a Rapier, then switching to a Greatsword with a low strength and no feat support... I see this as very similar to a Warpriest switching to a secondary weapon that is not their Favored Weapon.
The choice here is just as limiting. You can say what you want, but choosing a Deity is about choosing a philosophy that you like and picking a particular trope for your Cleric/Warpriest. The same is true for a fighting style and the fighter, it is often a question of trope and flavor, not optimization. And the set of choices available to a fighter are not all on equal mechanical footing.
So, when you make your choices, you have to deal with the fact that some are not as optimal as others. You may really like one particular weapon style... or perhaps you are emulating a trope that you read about or a weapon set that seems cool (like a single rapier). Saying "well you made that choice" is fine, but then I can say the same thing about a Warpriest choosing his deity.
You would like for all the options to be equal but they aren't and that rings true for every choice in the game. You make a choice that is about flavor, but then you have to deal with the mechanical consequences. Sometimes you play a dex-based fighter with a single rapier who wears light armor, and you are mechanically shafted until you can find some other rule-set to make that work (like the addition of the swashbuckler class, homebrew fixes, archetypes or the like). It can seem unfair, but that sort of problem runs rampant throughout the game. The only solution to this sort of issue is broad-based homogenization.... and frankly, I'll take the imbalance.
If you said that every warpriest did the same damage die/type/crit threat/crit multiplier and got the same bonuses regardless of which weapon they used, the class would be far more boring. All warpriests would be the same.... and there is no reason to do that. The optimal choice will always be there, and we just have to accept that other choices will be sub-optimal to whatever degree. Pretty much every class has to deal with this and it is almost always attached to a major roleplaying decision (sorcerer bloodline, martial fighting style/weapon choice, wizard school, cleric deity, barbarian totem, animal companion type, oracle mystery etc.)
The Devs have already said that they are going to work on making the favored weapons a bit more even than they currently are, and that is all that needs to happen.
My understanding is he wants Favored Weapon to work with any weapon with which you are proficient if you don't worship a God, instead of only working with simple weapons.
Basically, it makes it more advantageous to 'not' worship a God, than to worship a God, which kind of flies in the face of Clerics.
A Cleric can worship a God, or worship an Ideal. If he worships a God, his domains are limited, but he gains proficiency in the Gods weapon. If he worships an ideal, he gains flexible domains, but doesn't gain a bonus weapon of any sort.
Conversely, if a Warpriest worships a God, he gets proficiency and Focused Weapon with the Gods chosen weapon. If he doesn't worship a God, he gets Focused Weapon with any simple weapon instead.
He wants it expanded...
I'm not sure he does. But I most certainly do.
The thing is, on the cleric, there's no incentive to actually use the favored weapon, regardless of wether you worship the god or not.
In short, I don't really care if I'm using my god's favored weapon or not, except for flavor. I like flavor. But sometimes, my flavor doesn't adhere to the favored weapon of the god. If I'm playing a cleric, and my concept says I need a greatsword, I spent a feat on to get martial weapon proficiency, and rock on.
When attempting to do that as warpriest, I'm told to play a cleric instead. I regard this as a problem, but YMMV, and it certainly has been shown to do so.