Also, if you are going to keep Fervour tied to CHA instead of WIS, could you pretty please add in a static bonus xd6+y, where y is your Charisma Modifier? It would help give some relief for being so MAD.
OR use Warpriest level as BaB for selecting feats.
Just saying.
I assume they are going for "total conformity is by definition equal and thus balanced".
Except that option doesn't achieve total conformity.
There is still variation based on Reach, 2h/1h/Light status (the latter relevant mostly for 2WF/Swallowed whole scenarios but also for Feats like Piranha Strike), Damage Type (some weapons having multiple types), and Weapon Specific features like capabilty to use as Thrown Weapon, bonuses to certain Maneuvers or attacks like Lance Charge or Spears Readying vs Charge, or compatability with Feats/Builds like Dervish Dance.
So such an attempt at equalizing stats just ends up leaving certain weapons better off than others while bypassing mechanical differences meant to balance those differences/advantages. Seriously, if you look at Reach Weapons and Light Weapons they all consistently have worse damage stats then non-Reach 2H/1H weapons: this would negate that consistent design paradigm.
|
Gonna revise my answer...I think that the sacred weapon damage should be for the favored weapon only (not all focus weapons) and that the original weapons threat range/multiplier should be used (C). (But still give full BAB and allow the Sacred Weapon enhancement to any focus weapon).
The goal of the whole exercise was to make warpriests whose deities had ineffective favored weapons more effective with those weapons, and this change accomplishes that. A warpriest with a light mace as a favored weapon will get a huge boost at all levels, but if he picks up a greatsword, well, that weapon is fine as is. A warpriest with a greatsword as a favored weapon will still get a slight boost in damage, but only at the highest levels.
What if there were a separate damage progression for Light Weapons?
Say, cap it a d10 or something for light.
It would help limit the whole Keen Agile Kukri shenanigans while still providing a boost to damage and help the Warpriest feel like they are still better at their focus weapon.
I wouldn't be too worried about two weapon fighting at the highest levels of the game. The difference in damage gained by those upgrading dice from 1-20th is 5.5 points of damage. Double it since we're two weapon fighting and we're looking at 11 damage. 11 damage at 20th level still won't be winning any DPR races. And those races only matter when you have enough damage to drop the enemy in one turn. Any more than that is gratuity.
So... let's give you Martial Weapon proficiency (and Weapon Focus of choice)
so you have lots of good options besides a potentially weak Favored Weapon,
but then buff up the Favored Weapon stat so that you are strongly discouraged from using another weapon.
What?
All that does is make the weakest damage Favored Weapons that have other nice weapon features
(crit, reach, thrown, Light status, maneuver bonus or other special capability, feat/class ability compatability)
become the new 'optimal weapon/build' over other Favored Weapons like Greatsword,
which forgoes nice auxiliary features like that for the priviledge of having the best weapon damage dice around.
Gonna revise my answer...I think that the sacred weapon damage should be for the favored weapon only (not all focus weapons) and that the original weapons threat range/multiplier should be used (C). (But still give full BAB and allow the Sacred Weapon enhancement to any focus weapon).
The goal of the whole exercise was to make warpriests whose deities had ineffective favored weapons more effective with those weapons, and this change accomplishes that. A warpriest with a light mace as a favored weapon will get a huge boost at all levels, but if he picks up a greatsword, well, that weapon is fine as is. A warpriest with a greatsword as a favored weapon will still get a slight boost in damage, but only at the highest levels.
I whole-heartedly agree. Wouldn't it be nice to see more people using maces and such and not the standard greatsword/longsword/scimitars?
But yes, the lynchpin that makes this class palatable is this feature, that they are not restricted only to their deity's weapon, but if they choose a light mace they aren't castrated either, and they can always choose another Sacred Weapon to allow some of the versatility of the Fighter element.
I wouldn't be too worried about two weapon fighting at the highest levels of the game. The difference in damage gained by those upgrading dice from 1-20th is 5.5 points of damage. Double it since we're two weapon fighting and we're looking at 11 damage. 11 damage at 20th level still won't be winning any DPR races. And those races only matter when you have enough damage to drop the enemy in one turn. Any more than that is gratuity.What if there were a separate damage progression for Light Weapons?
Say, cap it a d10 or something for light.
It would help limit the whole Keen Agile Kukri shenanigans while still providing a boost to damage and help the Warpriest feel like they are still better at their focus weapon.
I agree with you, trust me, but this was more an offering of compromise to those upset with it, that they may not drag this feature down with their wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Well if you want to be that way the Falchion, Falcata, Scimitar/Rapier, and Kukri (Wakizashi is better but "Eastern ewww" mentality exists) are already far and away the best weapons for their category anyway, so the point is really moot. It changes nothing in that respect.
Optimal weapons stay optimal. What a surprise.
But it has the added bonus of making terrible weapons more viable, which is great.
Well if you want to be that way the Falchion, Falcata, Scimitar/Rapier, and Kukri (Wakizashi is better but "Eastern ewww" mentality exists) are already far and away the best weapons for their category anyway, so the point is really moot. It changes nothing in that respect.
Optimal weapons stay optimal. What a surprise.
But it has the added bonus of making terrible weapons more viable, which is great.
No reason to EVER use the Falchion. Just two hand the scimitar and have the versatility of having a free hand whenever you feel like it.
This rule exasperates all these gaps rather than reduces them. Damage disparities have been reduced but that is just damage disparities.
It's interesting to see all of the people changing their answers to a modified C. Allowing the favored weapon to be the one that progresses also seems to be a popular idea vs any weapon that the WP has weapon focus in. I really have nothing palpable to add here, but just wanted to make an observation.
That is what it was in the first set of rules and that just leads to people picking gods based on the abilities of their weapon.
Man.
It is hard to make rules that don't cause problem.
|
My main interest in the sacred weapon damage boost is to make allow a warpriest of a god with a less-martial favored weapon to use the favored weapon of his god.
To achieve that goal, a fixed boost based on weapon size looks like it'd be sufficient:
[Light] 1d6, 19-20/x2
[One-handed] 1d8, 19-20/x2
[Two-handed] 2d6, 19-20/x2
This boost could be optional to any sacred weapon (as currently), or offered only for the god's favored weapon. I don't have a position on that.
But my main question: why scale the damage past this?
If it's assessed that "more damage" is needed all the time (outside of the rounds/day Enhancement)
then ADDING damage dice to ALL focus/favored weapons (rather than SCALING/altering damage dice)
helps out everybody, but is not altering the balance (nearly as much):
higher damage weapons retain the same advantage (albeit their advantage is proportionately reduced),
bonus damage dice don't multiply on crits so crit factors aren't altered (so that aspect of damage variance stays proportionatley the same)
Each weapon is still retaining it's unique stats which are meant to be balanced against non-damage aspects.
I'm not really convinced that the class needs more damage all the time (in one or some weapons of choice),
which is one more reason why taking such an approach is a bad idea, both in conception and implementation.
|
|
If it's assessed that "more damage" is needed all the time (outside of the rounds/day Enhancement)
then adding damage dice to ALL weapons regardless helps out everybody, but is not directly altering the balance,
higher damage weapons retain the same advantage (even if proportinately it reduces with the bonus damage dice on top),
bonus damage dice don't multiply on crits so crit factors aren't altered (so that aspect of damage variance stays proportionatley the same)
and so each weapon is still retaining it's unique stats which are meant to be balanced against non-damage aspects.I'm not really convinced that the class needs more damage all the time,
which is one more reason why taking such an approach is a bad idea, both in conception and implementation.
That's an interesting thought. I still see the need for a bumping-up for less-martial favored weapons. But I'm not sure the class needs a general damage boost past that. If there IS a need for a general damage boost past that, bonus damage dice that don't multiply do seem like a good option.
|
|
Well if you want to be that way the Falchion, Falcata, Scimitar/Rapier, and Kukri (Wakizashi is better but "Eastern ewww" mentality exists) are already far and away the best weapons for their category anyway, so the point is really moot. It changes nothing in that respect.
Optimal weapons stay optimal. What a surprise.
But it has the added bonus of making terrible weapons more viable, which is great.
No reason to EVER use the Falchion. Just two hand the scimitar and have the versatility of having a free hand whenever you feel like it.
This rule exasperates all these gaps rather than reduces them. Damage disparities have been reduced but that is just damage disparities.
Fortunately, only Falchions, Rapiers, and Scimitars are currently available as Favored Weapons.
I don't think it would be possible to balance all of the weapons (both current and future) without either completely homogenizing them (all weapons do x damage, y threat, and x special abilities) and stripping away all flavor or having to come up with pages of rebalanced weapon stats for all the weapons and how they work with the sacred weapon ability. In those cases, I just don't see that "perfect" balance is a valid or even desirable option.
So that leaves "close enough". And I think the use of scaling damage for favored weapons is "close enough".
Uh... I'm pretty sure there is several demon lords, devils, and celestial lords that grant Kukri.
Others grant Longspear and other Reach Weapons including Lance, and Shuriken, Net, Bola are even Favored Weapon for some "Gods".
Bite and Claw are also available as Favored Weapons, combinable with e.g. Scimitar or Falchion full attack.
(search the net for 'pathfinder wiki favored weapon lance[or insert weapon of choice])
But I think the conceptual basis for this at a flavor level is just not justifiable,
without which I don't think there is really impetus for this alteration of weapon balance in the first place.
(and why do the stats need to be altered here, but not for Clerics?)
Deities are not such object fetishists that ALL followers of theirs must exclusively use their Favored Weapon.
Warpriests are not Clerics, and they are getting full Martial Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Focus of choice
which they can utilize with (Deity granted) Sacred Weapon's Full BAB and Enhancement option.
The mechanic right there is indicating that the Deity is actively "blessing" the Warpriest's use of any effective weapon.
(they lose this ability if they have an alignment violation or "violate the code of conduct" of their god and lose the gods' powers)
We don't need to boost weak Favored Weapons in order to make "Flavor" mechanically viable, the "Flavor" fully includes all Martial Weapons.
Deity's granting less effective weapons are generally less martially focused,
but a Warpriest is by nature MORE martially focused, so should be expected to diverge from the Clerical norm.
Apsu, Dahak have Bite (and Quarterstaff/Whip)
Urazra has Claw (and Spiked Gauntlet)
Using both the Nat Weapon and Manufactured Favored Weapon of those, you could in fact benefit from increased damage dice for both iteratives (with 2WF w/ Quarterstaff... I was looking for a Double Weapon example but forgot that previously) AND secondary natural attack. Or just use the Natural Weapons and some other non-Favored Manufactured Weapon that either has inherently good stats or is convenient (e.g. Bite+Unfavord Greatsword/Falcata or 2xClaws+Unfavored Bite+Unfavored Armor Spike Iteratives)
There may be more Deities with such Favored Weapons I'm not familiar with.
Well if you want to be that way the Falchion, Falcata, Scimitar/Rapier, and Kukri (Wakizashi is better but "Eastern ewww" mentality exists) are already far and away the best weapons for their category anyway, so the point is really moot. It changes nothing in that respect.
Optimal weapons stay optimal. What a surprise.
But it has the added bonus of making terrible weapons more viable, which is great.
No reason to EVER use the Falchion. Just two hand the scimitar and have the versatility of having a free hand whenever you feel like it.
This rule exasperates all these gaps rather than reduces them. Damage disparities have been reduced but that is just damage disparities.
You can hold the weapon in one hand, just that it requires both hands to make an attack with it. For instance,
Begin round 2handing.
Free action to ungrip with one hand
Cast spell
Free action regrip with hand.
^That is probably the most important instance for the Warpriest.
A half-orc War Priest of Apsu could pick WF Orc Double Axe and get sacred weapon on for the double weapon and the bite.
That might be a nice fit for your double weapon example.
A tengi War Priest of Apsu could pick WF Claw and get sacred weapon on all its natural attacks.
Indeed. Tengu get proficiency in all Swords, so Apsu Favored Weapon: Bite (Alt Racial) combined with Weapon Focus: Double Sword
would similarly get scaled Sacred Weapon Damage on all attacks (Double Sword has better Crit Range though).
+Use in Grapple/Swallow Whole scenarios, or with Dervish Dance, etc.
You can hold the weapon in one hand, just that it requires both hands to make an attack with it. For instance,Begin round 2handing.
Free action to ungrip with one hand
Cast spell
Free action regrip with hand.^That is probably the most important instance for the Warpriest.
The point, I believe, was that the scimitar can be used as a two handed weapon, where the Falchion, generally, cannot be used one handed.
You get everything you would get with the Falchion, plus the ability to carry a shield or torch, cast (with out the need for the free action) and the damage difference (1d6 vs 2d4) is pretty mild in many builds.
I can walk through the whole dungeon torch in other hand till we need to fight. Drop torch as free action and if you wield a shield you can't use the Scimitar with both hands. Tomatoes to potatoes. Everything has it's own niche.
+Use in Grapple/Swallow Whole scenarios, or with Dervish Dance, etc.
You've got me on the grapple but not Swallow Whole. Weapon must be light.
Dervish Dance means you won't get two handed bonuses.
DD also usually means you have 1d6 weapon damage (medium).
Boosting that is pretty significant for a DEX-built (Favored)Longbow/(Focus)Scimitar or (Favored)Bite/Claw+(Focus)Scimitar build.
(or do both, with extra Weapon Focus Feat, to get scaled Sacred Damage on lots of attacks all the time, range and melee)
The Light Weapon distinction is fully relevant to scaled damage Kukris/etc.
Regardless, why is this necessary? The God is actively blessing the usage of any Martial Weapon you choose.
Why argue with that and insist that it's really important to use the "Favored Weapon" for their Clerics,
so we must mess with the game balance to make that mechanically attractive in all situations?
Warpriests aren't Clerics. They are more bad-ass, and tend to use more bad-ass weapons, just like bad-ass Fighters, Barbs, Pally's, etc.
A Favored Weapon: Feather-Duster Deity who is nonetheless sponsoring a Warpriest knows that and is happy with that,
if they didn't want their Warpriests to be more bad-ass than Clerics they would just tell them to be Clerics instead.
I mean, this is like Sikhs: Traditionally wear swords/daggers as a symbol of defending the faith (or whatever).
But any Sikh in an actual military organization is not going to insist on using swords in melee combat,
they will use machine guns and rockets like any other combatant.
I'm not sure what you mean by using a swift action to cast Divine Favor prevents you from healing. This is still the first round of combat right? Why do you need to heal yourself as your very first action? Either way, warpriest still has an advantage because they can wade into combat and buff themselves as they go. Every buff an inquisitor or paladin uses has to spend a standard action. The warpriest can just jump in and fight and buff themselves over the course of battle. It may be 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th round of combat before you're fully buffed, but you've managed to attack every single round. Look at it this way: the inquisitor can apply 2 buffs as a standard action over 2 rounds and then actually fight on round 3, while the warpriest can apply 2 buffs while still full attacking both rounds. That's a pretty good head-start.
Also yes, inquisitor has fast healing but A) it sucks compared to fervor or even cure light, and B) until level 16 it's taking the place of either a damage or attack buff. Since we're comparing their damage output, inquisitor activating fast healing means they do less damage. Warpriest still has a huge leg-up because she can just heal herself without stopping or reducing her offense.
Also that bane-reliance is still a gamble. Unless you coordinate with the party and make sure everyone has a really good knowledge check in all 6 possible creature types, you can't rely on it. Heck, even then, someone might fail a check.
At any rate, you asked why anyone would play a warpriest over an inquisitor and I answered. They're similar to inquisitor and have more self- and team-buff capabilities. You could say that you would personally never play a warpriest over an inquisitor, but in the same vein I would never play a wizard over a sorcerer. I just don't care for the bonuses wizard offers compared to what sorcerer offers. Personally, I just love the idea of a non-paladin class that can heal herself and party members while doing nice damage.
I dont know if you have drawn up and played one yet. I built one at level 4 to compare to my PFS pally. I also play tested one at level 6. Fervor is a very limited resource. At level 6, I have 4 points of Fervor. If I use two of them in one battle to buff then im only left with 2 for the rest of the day for buffing. AND what does that leave me for healing? I love what they did with Fervor. Also, IM a huge fan of divine melee characters and I have alot of experience playing them. You cant do all your saying without running of resources.
I agree, most Inquisitors will never use fast healing judgement. But I was also answering that they could heal with it. The warpriest has a much greater advantage in healing over an Inquisitor.
I will disagree with the Bane thing. I have never see it as an issue. You might run into a evil-outsider, dragon or undead creature and not be able to identify its exact weakness (DR, Resistance, ect) but you can still get the type right.
So, question for the crowd concerning Sacred Weapon and crits...
A. All sacred weapons have a standard crit range and multiplier (19-20/x2 or maybe 20/x3)?
That just makes the scimitar warpriests sad instead of the bastard sword ones.
So, question for the crowd concerning Sacred Weapon and crits...
A. All sacred weapons have a standard crit range and multiplier (19-20/x2 or maybe 20/x3)?
B. Whenever a sacred weapon scores a crit, all of the additional damage is based off the original weapon damage?
C. It works as is (weapon damage scales, crit stats are drawn from the weapon, which means some will crit more often, but only for x2, others rarely but for x3)
So....
1. Which is easiest to use?
2. Which is the most balanced?
3. Which is the most fun?Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I vote for A as written.
I would prefer they keep the crit/multiplier of original weapon and give them the option to upgrade to a d8 dice size if better. I dont like the scaling dice at all.
BTW, as currently written Warpriests have all Martial proficiencies but don't get proficiency in Deity's favored weapon(s) like Clerics do, which is relevant for Exotic Weapons. FYI.
BTW, as currently written Warpriests have all Martial proficiencies but don't get proficiency in Deity's favored weapon(s) like Clerics do, which is relevant for Exotic Weapons. FYI.
That was left out by mistake. The correction is in the first post of this thread.
Ah. Then I revise my post in this revised Revised Warpriest Discussion. ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Which is easiest to use?
2. Which is the most balanced?
3. Which is the most fun?
1. C
2. A
3. C
Honestly, I don't see it as a huge deal that some weapons have slightly better threat range or critical multipliers than others. Damage die is the big thing people tend to look at first. As others have noted, if you equalize threat-ranges and critical multipliers then the people who want to squeeze every benefit out of the class will look at weapon special qualities and so on... Some people are always going to optimize and min-max and get the most mileage out of whatever options they have available.
A. All sacred weapons have a standard crit range and multiplier (19-20/x2 or maybe 20/x3)?
B. Whenever a sacred weapon scores a crit, all of the additional damage is based off the original weapon damage?
C. It works as is (weapon damage scales, crit stats are drawn from the weapon, which means some will crit more often, but only for x2, others rarely but for x3)
So....
1. Which is easiest to use?
2. Which is the most balanced?
3. Which is the most fun?
1. C is the easiest. A requires you to whip out a spreadsheet the first few levels to figure out whether you should use the replacement damage or not, while B is just horrible.
2. Probably B, considered independently, although it is the most horrific from a design standpoint in terms of creating special cases that will cause heartburn for years to come.3. C, because having weapons be different is more fun than them being the same.
As others have noted, if you equalize threat-ranges and critical multipliers then the people who want to squeeze every benefit out of the class will look at weapon special qualities and so on... Some people are always going to optimize and min-max and get the most mileage out of whatever options they have available.
This.
As others have noted, if you equalize threat-ranges and critical multipliers then the people who want to squeeze every benefit out of the class will look at weapon special qualities and so on... Some people are always going to optimize and min-max and get the most mileage out of whatever options they have available.This.
Totally true. Rather than have sacred weapon's base damage do double duty as a level-based power increase and a balancing mechanism, I think it would be far wiser to simply have it provide a one time boost at level 1 to someone normalize the more common types of weapons. A standard damage die based on usage, with a slight crit boost for weapons with unexceptional crit characteristics (x3 is generally weaker than 19-20 by a tiny, tiny amount, so I would suggest that).
|
|
Some people are always going to optimize and min-max and get the most mileage out of whatever options they have available.
Yes, that's true. But what does it change? The question on the table is how far we optimizers will be able to run with that when playing a Warpriest.
Question for the Option C crowd: What do you make of the suggestion to drop the scaling damage altogether? (Basic boost to make less-martial weapons viable, leave it at that.) Let's call this the Non-Scaling Boost option. (That's for my own sake, it helps me to tag it with a name.)
Some people are always going to optimize and min-max and get the most mileage out of whatever options they have available.Yes, that's true. But what does it change? The question on the table is how far we optimizers will be able to run with that when playing a Warpriest.
Question for the Option C crowd: What do you make of the suggestion to drop the scaling damage altogether? (Basic boost to make less-martial weapons viable, leave it at that.) Let's call this the Non-Scaling Boost option. (That's for my own sake, it helps me to tag it with a name.)
I... Well, let's see. I really like the idea that scaling damage makes the less sexy favored weapons (dagger, whip, light hammer etc) more attractive, or rather "less not attractive". The ability makes it much easier to make a character who focuses on his deity's favored weapon without being utterly ineffective in the primary focus of the class, namely combat. I don't necessarily see the point of making them scale to the point where they blow past other weapons and basically invent their own niche. As an example a TWFing war priest wielding light hammers that deal 2D6 damage seems a little off. However this comes online so late (Level 15+) that it will most likely never become an issue in my games. I'd prefer for the weapons to scale faster to a competitive cut-off point (D6 for Light, D10 for normal, 2D6 for two-handed?) and then stop.
Though all that said, I'd also be fine with leaving it the way it is now. I think transforming all favored weapons into a shapeless blob that all deal the same damage and all have the same threat range might be a step too far to appease the anti-optimizers. A bit of variety is a good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people are always going to optimize and min-max and get the most mileage out of whatever options they have available.Yes, that's true. But what does it change? The question on the table is how far we optimizers will be able to run with that when playing a Warpriest.
Question for the Option C crowd: What do you make of the suggestion to drop the scaling damage altogether? (Basic boost to make less-martial weapons viable, leave it at that.) Let's call this the Non-Scaling Boost option. (That's for my own sake, it helps me to tag it with a name.)
Really, this issue could also be resolved by capping the scaling damage so it doesn't exceed the damage dice of the strongest martial weapon (2d6 I believe). Given the number of options available from the cleric spell list to give yourself boosts to static damage, the die size of a weapon begins to matter a lot less. I don't like the idea of completely dropping the damage boost, because some of us like the idea of playing a viable Desnan or Pharsaman cleric using their deity's favored weapons. Even with the boost, this would be a sub-optimal play style, but if the boost was there, it would still be perfectly viable.