Yes, Rysky, Pathfinder very firmly ties hit dice to BAB. I think the conversion guide mentions it. You are not going to see that change.
What DeathQuaker said.
He managed to to put everything I thought about the class on paper way better then I could organize.
"She," for what it's worth, but thank you.
|
Yes, Rysky, Pathfinder very firmly ties hit dice to BAB. I think the conversion guide mentions it. You are not going to see that change.
"She," for what it's worth, but thank you.What DeathQuaker said.
He managed to to put everything I thought about the class on paper way better then I could organize.
Okies, I just never thought about the correlation between BAB and HD before and was curious, thankies.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay so after a brief playtest of the war priest.
Warpriest of Ragithiel – Bastard Sword Level 8. Power attack, did decent damage.
Basically he did not perform poorly, nor did he break any banks. I didn’t like the standard action to increase my armor. But it did help a few times to keep me from being hit. I didn’t feel any different than a cleric fighter at 8th level except no weapon training.
I experienced a lot of what people are saying. However, it was not so dramatically underpowered. I was not bad, I basically held my own. I could wish for a few changes to spice things up. Because the Paladin next to me could heal and damage better than I could.
Also action economy was not going where I wanted. Swift actions in blessings and in sacred weapon, lots of standard action blessing for buffing. I felt like I could stand around buffing all day, while the paladin just walked up and smited or used a litany swift action spell… Ohh WP should have the Litany spells. But that would be another swift action and I already have weapon power as swift.
I actually like the Blessings quite a bit and wished I had more of them and they were a little more varied. I also wished my channel abilities were better and more central…. So here is what I would suggest.
Minor blessing change… Can you make them be able to be channeled through a weapon, so if you have a sword and board you don’t have to drop your weapon to use some of the touch abilities. Though most of them were touch a weapon and I was holding one.
Let their weapon work like an arcane bond so they don’t have to have somatic components while they wield the deity’s favored weapon.
Major changes….
You start with 2 minor blessings and get an additional at 4 and 7 at 10 you get two majors then an additional at 14 and 18. So yeah 6 minors and 6 majors. All belonging to your god or maybe one every other level like rogue talents 2,4,6,8 10 etc…. As long as the blessing belongs to a domain your god uses.
Give them Channel Divinity – at level 3 you can channel as a cleric = to your level to heal your allies or you can channel through your weapon similar to channel smite. Except the damage is not positive or negative it is just damage. You can do this 3 + Wisdom times per day or whatever. Then at higher levels the smite damage can be for all your attacks of two uses or Something that will compare to smite evil but is different.
Give them full Bab or give them 9 spell levels.
Make them spontaneous paladin casters or…. Remove all spell casting and give them a blessing every two levels and D12 Hit dice…
Sacred Weapon… can you make the duration a minute? Or just make it like a divine version of arcane strike to simplify it. That way we don’t’ have to keep track of rounds or run out of swift actions between it and some of the blessings.
|
|
In the forum for the Brawler they are stated to count as a monk and a fighter for the purposes of feats, as mentioned before, I am CERTAIN that since it isn't listed as a specific class ability, it is intended to be that way for ALL of these classes. So they are fighter of equal level, not -4.
It is specifically listed for the swashbuckler, however, making this far from certain to apply across all the fighter hybrids.
Sorry, I really do not intend to be. I would not be happy with any old new class, that is false. I would also not be happy with squandering an opportuniy to play test and have valid feedback to back up my suggested changes.
Yeah, but that's the thing. If you don't know what the class is supposed to do, how do you know what changes to suggest to make it do that better? If you have an idea in mind that is different from the developers' vision and you suggest changes to make it better at something they don't want, you will be ignored; the best way to provide constructive feedback is to know what exactly you're providing feedback on.
That said, it's pretty clear what the class's role is actually supposed to be, but that's a separate issue from the idea that you somehow don't need to know in order to test.
I am disappointed in the Warpriest class atm. The lack of a full BAB prevents the class from being a "paladin for all alignments".
Okay, so? That's not the apparent design goal; if they wanted to build a paladin clone they could have easily done it.
I know a lot of folks are just looking at the WP to be a comparable DPR to Paladins, F/C, and Inquisitors, and there are a lot of good ideas to help make that happen. That being said, I really want the WP to be more a tanky party buffer, and there are definitely some neat tools in the kit to let that happen.
The Artifice Blessing in particular has me going "this is neat". At level 10, I can use my sacred weapon and sacred armor abilities, and then pass those abilities off to another member of the party. "Oh we're fighting X? Here, let me bless my weapon, and just give you the extra bonus mr. fighter". I like that idea. I'm looking from a PFS angle as well, so my thoughts pretty much stop right around level 12. I think from a WPL aspect, the artifice/protection WP can do a lot to free up cash throughout the party, and I think that's pretty neat. I'm rolling one up for PFS this weekend, so I'll be able to see how it works at the low levels, but I don't think it'll be that much worse than the fighters at the table, and I think I can hold my own against the clerics.
Just some thoughts at least.
|
I think someone else may have said this already, (just skimmed through some of the pages), but might I suggest for Focus Weapon giving them guided hand as a bonus feat instead of weapon focus? It would reduce the MAD and help the class hinge off of one ability score (like most full casters, fighters, barbarians, and paladins hinge off of casting stat or strength or charisma). I'd also suggest replacing channel energy completely for a bit of a unique mechanic like an SU psuedo-spiritual weapon to mimic this classes tie to their deities favored weapon, or divine spell strike/combat. Still, loving the class so far!
I know a lot of folks are just looking at the WP to be a comparable DPR to Paladins, F/C, and Inquisitors, and there are a lot of good ideas to help make that happen. That being said, I really want the WP to be more a tanky party buffer, and there are definitely some neat tools in the kit to let that happen.
The Artifice Blessing in particular has me going "this is neat". At level 10, I can use my sacred weapon and sacred armor abilities, and then pass those abilities off to another member of the party. "Oh we're fighting X? Here, let me bless my weapon, and just give you the extra bonus mr. fighter". I like that idea. I'm looking from a PFS angle as well, so my thoughts pretty much stop right around level 12. I think from a WPL aspect, the artifice/protection WP can do a lot to free up cash throughout the party, and I think that's pretty neat. I'm rolling one up for PFS this weekend, so I'll be able to see how it works at the low levels, but I don't think it'll be that much worse than the fighters at the table, and I think I can hold my own against the clerics.
Just some thoughts at least.
See my issue with this is there already is this class. The regular cleric takes heavy armor proficiency and has full casting divine buffing as well as better channel positive energy. Also keep in mind it has already been stated that there will be a cleric archetype that gets blessings.
But this discussion just goes back to what I have been saying all along, which is we all agree warpriest is a little weak now, but to know what needs to be buffed we need to know what the class is supposed to be.
Is it supposed to be most similar to a cleric, inquisitor, or paladin. How good should it be at buffing the party, healing, buffing itself, and fighting.
See my issue with this is there already is this class. The regular cleric takes heavy armor proficiency and has full casting divine buffing as well as better channel positive energy. Also keep in mind it has already been stated that there will be a cleric archetype that gets blessings.
But this discussion just goes back to what I have been saying all along, which is we all agree warpriest is a little weak now, but to know what needs to be buffed we need to know what the class is supposed to be.
Is it supposed to be most similar to a cleric, inquisitor, or paladin. How good should it be at buffing the party, healing, buffing itself, and fighting.
Yeah I agree, if this is meant to be a DPR class, a buff/healing class, a self buff class, etc. we need to know so that we can start building towards it's strengths. I know it's been said over and over, but a lot of the suggestions floating around seem to hinge on what any particular player sees this class as doing. Getting rid of channel and spellcasting for greater martial ability would be fine if the class is supposed to be DPR based, but it's the exact opposite direction if it's meant to be buffing and healing the party.
|
It's not meant to be a DPR class. It has medium BAB, no synergy with ranged combat, and no access to highly damaging spells. Basically to do high DPR you need to hit more often than you don't and/or have multiple attacks and/or have ways to do very high damage. Rangers do it by firing off 4+ arrows. Magi do it by dropping 10d6 spell strikes that can crit and add weapon damage. Sorcerers do it by throwing 10d6 spells with +level damage. Natural attack Barbarians and Animal Companions do it with Pounce, also known as lots of attacks.
But we all know that paizo tied the hit dice with the bab so
low bab->d6s,
medium bab->d8s,
High bab ->d10s.
I don't think we'll see this changed.
Except this is by no means written in stone.
Barbarians have d12, after all.
Right, so if it's not meant to be a DPR class, then the suggestions to increase its BAB are really going in the wrong direction as they push it toward being a DPR class.
If we want to offer suggestions to push it toward more utility, then I want to suggest alternate uses of Channel. Something to allow channel to buff/debuff AC, Saves, etc. I also see Holy Vindicator as a solid PrC for the WP, as it adds to the wacky "buff my own equipment" theme. I like the idea of the holy warrior that shows up to the party and all his gear lights up like he's ready to throw down some vengeance.
With that in mind, action economy seems to be the biggest area of concern for me. Not being able to quickly buff up (self or others) means that in society play you're basically always playing catch up.
The Sacred Weapon ability has made me overthink swift actions. Can you take a swift action in the middle of another action?
For example can you wait until after you determine the results of a "to hit" roll before applying an effect as a swift action? It would make the 1 rnd/lvl more useful at lower levels.
|
|
The Sacred Weapon ability has made me overthink swift actions. Can you take a swift action in the middle of another action?
For example can you wait until after you determine the results of a "to hit" roll before applying an effect as a swift action? It would make the 1 rnd/lvl more useful at lower levels.
No, that falls under Immediate Actions.
When used on your turn they sound the same to me.
PRD Says:
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn.
Either your not getting what I'm asking or I'm not getting what your saying.
How is performing a swift action after rolling (and determining the result of) an attack on your turn more the realm of an immediate action?
Swift Actions
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.
Edit: Actually, I think after reading it more closely you could decide to use a Sacred Weapon effect after the results are determined, since you can perform a swift action anytime you could normally take a free action.
|
|
Either your not getting what I'm asking or I'm not getting what your saying.
How is performing a swift action after rolling (and determining the result of) an attack on your turn more the realm of an immediate action?
Swift Actions
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.
Edit: Actually, I think after reading it more closely you could decide to use a Sacred Weapon effect after the results are determined, since you can perform a swift action anytime you could normally take a free action.
At this point I believe it needs to be moved to the FAQ thread.
... Or if JB or SKR would be so kind as to step in (or any other developer whose name currently escapes me, sowwies :3).
At this point I believe it needs to be moved to the FAQ thread.... Or if JB or SKR would be so kind as to step in (or any other developer whose name currently escapes me, sowwies :3).
I appreciate your input in any event.
|
|
I appreciate your input in any event.
At this point I believe it needs to be moved to the FAQ thread.... Or if JB or SKR would be so kind as to step in (or any other developer whose name currently escapes me, sowwies :3).
Thankies, I appreciate your discussion too, but seeing as how we continue to disagree, you run it as you see fit and I'll run it as I see fit and let's let it be the dev's headache now so we can go back to having fun with the shiny new classes :3
I get that the warpriest isn't alignment-restricted, but I feel like this design space has been thoroughly explored already.
Actually, he's restricted quiet a bit. He's going to be highly restricted based on what deity he chose. Deity determines the weapon he wields, blessings, alignment, spells... etc.
|
Right, so if it's not meant to be a DPR class, then the suggestions to increase its BAB are really going in the wrong direction as they push it toward being a DPR class.
If we want to offer suggestions to push it toward more utility, then I want to suggest alternate uses of Channel. Something to allow channel to buff/debuff AC, Saves, etc. I also see Holy Vindicator as a solid PrC for the WP, as it adds to the wacky "buff my own equipment" theme. I like the idea of the holy warrior that shows up to the party and all his gear lights up like he's ready to throw down some vengeance.
With that in mind, action economy seems to be the biggest area of concern for me. Not being able to quickly buff up (self or others) means that in society play you're basically always playing catch up.
The class lacks the action economy of a full cleric which means a high level cleric can out perform this class in both combat & healing. Heck, one of the playtesters was out damage and out healed by a paladin at moderate levels. BAB is important in power attack and hitting targets.
Right now, the warpriest tries to straddle the line to much and ends up being really just a watered down cleric with a couple of extra feats. The Warpriest's MAD problems compound this. To really have its own identity, the class needs to move to a full bab.
The inquisitor is a solid class with its own unique niche. It would be nice to see the warpriest move towards being one as well.
Here's my problem in a nut shell:
•Inquisitor takes Ranger and Cleric and combines them into one 3/4ths BAB/6-level spells class.
•Warpriest takes Fighter and Cleric and combines them into one 3/4ths BAB/6-level spells class.
•Ranger is, in pretty much every regard, as good or better than the Fighter.
So, the concept already exists, except with a better base class used in the combination.
|
|
The class lacks the action economy of a full cleric which means a high level cleric can out perform this class in both combat & healing. Heck, one of the playtesters was out damage and out healed by a paladin at moderate levels. BAB is important in power attack and hitting targets.
Right now, the warpriest tries to straddle the line to much and ends up being really just a watered down cleric with a couple of extra feats. The Warpriest's MAD problems compound this. To really have its own identity, the class needs to move to a full bab.
What do you mean it "lacks the action economy of a full cleric?" They both have the same action economy - One move action, one standard action (or one full-round action in place of the preceding two), one swift/immediate action (which the cleric doesn't really take advantage of, though the warpriest does with Sacred Weapon), and as many free actions as the GM deems reasonable. It isn't the action economy that makes the difference here. Now, with the array of combat buffs in the cleric list, the balance could easily tip in the warpriest's favor by changing its action economy with class features so that it can buff as a swift action, which removes the real need to make the class full BAB - once divine favor (or at later levels, divine power) is online, the cleric/warpriest is hitting and damaging just fine.
Incidentally, this is a major argument against going to full BAB on the warpriest - assuming it keeps its casting arrangement (which it's quite likely to do), you're giving a full BAB class divine power and company. There's a reason the paladin doesn't get any of those spells on it's spell list beyond divine favor, and it's not because it doesn't hit hard enough.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer to see a Spell Combat mechanic to full bab - the class requires buffs to compete in melee combat, and spell combat (or some other way to cast spells without losing Standard actions) makes the class able to activate those buffs and still compete in combat.
It would also make it stand out from the cleric and the paladin.
As it stands at the moment the cleric and the war priest relies on the same spells to compete in combat - divine favor, righteous might etc. The problem is that the cleric gets access to those spells faster, can cast them more often, and can cast them as a swift action (via Quicken Spell) much earlier than the Warpriest.
Add to that the fact that the cleric has a full caster progression, better channeling, and access to domain spells... Well, it's a bit of a mess.
|
|
Summarizing some thoughts from my blog
I really don’t see the point of blessings.
Warpriests blessing are named after domains and have granted powers like domains, typically replicating the powers of domains. This is pretty similar to how the inquisitor gets domains without spells. It’d be easier to rebalance to use the granted clerical powers and use that.
|
I was honestly kind of hoping this would be more focused on channelling for damage/healing and that the spell/domain side would be less emphasized.
Like a battle field front liner that could heal whole swaths of an army at a time, or use variant channelling to do different things with said channelling.
Channelling is such a unique and cool thing, and it's very cool when it's used and nothing really focuses on it.
Give them one domain and give them domain spells at the same progression as the cleric. Yes, the 6/9 caster should get 9 domain spells while being a 6/9 caster. THAT would be cool. AND let it keep at least one blesing.
A figher/Cleric should get at least one domain and domain spells.
...... or make it a full BAB class.
|
|
Here's my problem in a nut shell:
•Inquisitor takes Ranger and Cleric and combines them into one 3/4ths BAB/6-level spells class.
•Warpriest takes Fighter and Cleric and combines them into one 3/4ths BAB/6-level spells class.
•Ranger is, in pretty much every regard, as good or better than the Fighter.So, the concept already exists, except with a better base class used in the combination.
Ranger is better than fighter? I'll need to see some proof of that old canard
That, and the Inquisitor is a divine bard, not a ranger/cleric hybrid|
|
Ranger is better than fighter? I'll need to see some proof of that old canardWell, maybe it isn't better than fighters at damage, but it is relevant out of combat with decent amount of skills, can Two-Weapon Fight with a 10 Dex, can bull rush with shield attacks at level 2, can power attack with a 10 strength (if desired on a dex-build), can find traps with a certain archetypes, and can still compete relatively well in the damage competition. Now, the fighter can do a little more damage (like 5-10 points more at level 20, only a few at most levels though, where that much damage is relevant)and gets a few more feats, but hey, YMMV.
That, and the Inquisitor is a divine bard, not a ranger/cleric hybrid
1.)I'm glad someone else classifies the inquisitor as the divine bard, I thought I was the only one.
2.)Even though I call them divine bards due to very similar spellcasting and both are great skill monkeys and party faces, inquisitors are much less focused on buff/support and on being party face/knowledge monkey and much more focused on skills related to examining and hunting foes, like a ranger. AND they have a much MUCH heavier combat focus (Bane+Most Judgements being combat+Bane, and did I mention BANE). Again though, YMMV.
I did up a test level 12 Inquisitor, Cleric and WarPriest and perhaps its just because I don't know the warpriest as well but it doesn't seem to keep up with the other two.
I like the Cleric and I like the Inquisitor so it really depends on what the warpriest is supposed to be. Is it a divine bard that buffs the party or divine warrior that fights for the faith?
If it is a divine warrior I like some of the suggestions up thread (yes, I've read the whole thing). The most annoying thing about playing a battle cleric (or battle oracle) is spending a couple rounds buffing at the start of combat. Half the time the fight is almost over by the time you are done buffing. High level PCs can get around this somewhat through the Use of Quicken Spell but the WarPriest won't have that option with its limited casting ability.
I like the Divine Metamagic: Persistence idea. At level 5 the warpriest can make any 1 spell that is either range:touch or self last for 24 hours. An addition spell can be persisted this way at levels 10 and 15. The persisted spell must be a spell the warpriest can currently cast (no UMD shenanigans). This ability only works on the Warpriest.
I'd also like to see the sacred weapon and armor abilities able to activated one or both at the same time via a swift action. Some of the Blessing abilities are neat but I'd be happy if they were replaced with domains.
So ran first level warpriest through Thorn Keep The Accursed Halls. Let me start off by saying I love divine casters and tend to go war like clerics before this.
At level 1 this class is very versatile. We had 3 warpriest in the game. Myself I worshiped Gorum and carried my greatsword. A level 2 follower of Asmodeous that channeled negative energy and used his mace 2handed. And a follower of Abadar Rapid shooting his light crossbow. The crossbow and mace guy were both human. So the crossbow guy had weapon focus, point blank shot, rapid shot, and rapid reload. He went wisdom heavy though and only had a 14 dex. He missed a lot. I think High Wisdom is not the way to go here. Especially for PFS starting with a 12 is fine. All you will ever need is a 14 for society to cast your 4 level spells.
I don't know what the Asmodeous followers build was, but here is mine
Str 20
Dex 12
Con 14
Int 8
Wis 12
Cha 7
I know Cha 7 and I only get one channel, who cares thats for the normal clerics or life oracles. Even dumping cha I decided to do some intimidating.
Feats: weapon focus, dazzling display, intimidating prowess. I went half orc and picked up another racial +2 and bolstered my saves with scarred tattoo and fates favored trait. This gave me a +9 to intimidate at level 1, my other trait was memorable so If I beat you and your buddies or whoever was with in 30' by 5 they were shaken for 3 rounds.
I never used my blessings. I had strength and destruction. these will get better with some levels. I started a couple fights by springing out my wand of Divine Favor giving myself a +2 hit/damage with Fates Favored for a Min. This was overkill on damage already doing 2d6+7 without it at level 1 is plenty, but the extra +2 to his was nice. I had bless and magic weapon prepared. Never cast either. I really want to see the class play at later level but at level 1 I love it as said with 3-4 feats very versatile. Well done Paizo
|
|
At level 1 this class is very versatile. We had 3 warpriest in the game. Myself I worshiped Gorum and carried my greatsword. A level 2 follower of Asmodeous that channeled negative energy and used his mace 2handed. And a follower of Abadar Rapid shooting his light crossbow. The crossbow and mace guy were both human. So the crossbow guy had weapon focus, point blank shot, rapid shot, and rapid reload. He went wisdom heavy though and only had a 14 dex. He missed a lot. I think High Wisdom is not the way to go here. Especially for PFS starting with a 12 is fine. All you will ever need is a 14 for society to cast your 4 level spells.
As the warpriest of Abadar, I feel the need to chime in. :)
I had a 15 Dex and a 16 Wis. Long term goal is to use Guided Hand with a higher Wisdom, since the crossbows damage isn't stat dependent, but I still need a decent Dex at lower levels til I can get that feat and to meet the prerequisites for other feats later. I actually did hit fairly often; however, many of those hits were rendered pointless due to DR.
Of my blessings, one never came up (agile feet) and the second I forgot about but would have been useful (inspiring word) when I couldn't effectively attack a foe in melee (due to not having precise shot yet).
I personally would have rather given up the bonus feat at first level for the 1d6 channel. With the three warpriests, none of us wanted to give up our personal buff spells to heal and we ended up relying on the heals from a higher level characters wand.
I'd prefer to see a Spell Combat mechanic to full bab - the class requires buffs to compete in melee combat, and spell combat (or some other way to cast spells without losing Standard actions) makes the class able to activate those buffs and still compete in combat.
It would also make it stand out from the cleric and the paladin.
As it stands at the moment the cleric and the war priest relies on the same spells to compete in combat - divine favor, righteous might etc. The problem is that the cleric gets access to those spells faster, can cast them more often, and can cast them as a swift action (via Quicken Spell) much earlier than the Warpriest.
Add to that the fact that the cleric has a full caster progression, better channeling, and access to domain spells... Well, it's a bit of a mess.
Yeah. Earlier I was clamoring for a spell-combat-like mechanic for this class too. However, I think it is important to remember that the Magus has a limited spell list to stop spell combat from getting too out of hand.
That said: I still really want to see essentially spell combat but for buffs only.
|
|
Here's my problem in a nut shell:
•Inquisitor takes Ranger and Cleric and combines them into one 3/4ths BAB/6-level spells class.
•Warpriest takes Fighter and Cleric and combines them into one 3/4ths BAB/6-level spells class.
•Ranger is, in pretty much every regard, as good or better than the Fighter.So, the concept already exists, except with a better base class used in the combination.
The ranger lags behind the fighter significantly in damage and armor when not facing it's favored enemy in every DPR contest ever run.
So no.
Looking at the class, the defense is really strong, but the offense is fairly meh. I don't think it needs to be up with the Barb and fighter, but I do think this is a class that should be able to dish more damage than it does.
Right now this is a front loaded, well armored tank with mediocre martial ability. I actually see a lot of potential in the class, but I think if it is a fighter hybrid, give it limited weapon training (deity weapon only), have it work with dualing gloves and then we have something to talk about.
They have to increase the number of predilection's weapons for the deity. I DO want to play a warpriest of Norgorber or Asmodean, but not with a dagger!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have to increase the number of predilection's weapons for the deity. I DO want to play a warpriest of Norgorber or Asmodean, but not with a dagger!
But as was said before up, if the bonus is always on for the favored weapon of your deity, rather than activated as a swift, suddenly you can be a dagger thrower who gets bonuses on every dagger, regardless of if they were enchanted or not.
Now that option is much more interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good to see that more people have taken a look at the class and seen that at this point it really doesn't have a good place to fill within the three already existing divine melee classes.
Here's my problem in a nut shell:
•Inquisitor takes Ranger and Cleric and combines them into one 3/4ths BAB/6-level spells class.
•Warpriest takes Fighter and Cleric and combines them into one 3/4ths BAB/6-level spells class.
•Ranger is, in pretty much every regard, as good or better than the Fighter.So, the concept already exists, except with a better base class used in the combination.
The ranger lags behind the fighter significantly in damage and armor when not facing it's favored enemy in every DPR contest ever run.
So no.
Why on earth would a DPR contest ever run with the assumption that the Ranger is typically fighting enemies that it doesn't have bonuses against? It doesn't even have to be full bonuses, but a GM who doesn't work with their Ranger player is a bad GM, IMO.
Also, Instant Enemy is a thing.
Even more-so, DPR isn't the only thing that happens/matters in a role-playing game.
|
|
Since some of us have been talking about MAD, I wanted to offer an opinion/thought and see how others feel about it.
Let us presume the class gets significantly reworked. If they discover that keeping it as a Wisdom caster makes it a bit too good after various changes we've asked for (or other things they come up with), would you be willing to see the Warpriest redone as a Charisma caster, so that their primary stats are Str or Dex (depending on whether they are a Melee/Ranged take on the War/martial part of the character), and Cha (for all the Priest/divine parts of the character).
I would. It would be a subtle reduction of the class' power (slightly worse Will saves, Perception, etc.) should that prove to be needed after revisions are made, and simultaneously give them a difference compared to the Cleric; they could be better evangelists for their deity. This may not sound like the very first thing a Warpriest should care about, but hear me out: It could lead to a lot of flavorful character ideas where an outspoken, opinionated adherent of their deity shares their faith with others and hopes they too will become siblings in arms united by a set of beliefs.
It would also give them some mechanical differentiation from Clerics and (I believe) Inquisitors, even if it does admittedly infringe a bit on the Oracle's gig.
This is just a random thought, but one I wanted to offer since the response to Arcanist issues has shown Paizo is willing to take some pretty radical changes if need be.
|
|
Why on earth would a DPR contest ever run with the assumption that the Ranger is typically fighting enemies that it doesn't have bonuses against? It doesn't even have to be full bonuses, but a GM who doesn't work with their Ranger player is a bad GM, IMO.Also, Instant Enemy is a thing.
Even more-so, DPR isn't the only thing that happens/matters in a role-playing game.
Because you don't get favored enemy (Everything). Are you seriously arguing that if the GM doesn't send them favored enemies all the time, that is a bad GM? Really?
And while yes favored enemy is a "thing" it is also a 3rd level ranger spell, meaning at 10th level they get it once a day if that is the ranger spell they select and they have bonus spells, against a single target.
So again, show me a DPR discussion or build where the ranger doesn't lag behind the fighter or let that whole side track go away.
On topic, this is a 6 level caster, not a 4 level caster. It is a 3/4 BaB class, not a full BaB class.
It won't be a full BaB class, the Devs said that ship has sailed. So looking at what we have we seem to generally agree it needs more offense.
On the flip side, the defense is one of the best in the game, given the bonuses.
The question is if the 3 level of spells it gives up are compensated by the abilities it gains. IMHO, not yet.
But I do think if you gave weapon training for favored weapon only, that would address the gap quite well and fit the flavor and hybrid intent.
Do people think that would be too much, or not enough?