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.)
Ok...I'm game. But in what manner do you propose making this non-scaling boost in such a way that allows making a dagger Sacred Weapon viable without being inconsistent with Warpriests who select a longsword or a greatsword?
In other words, in what internally consistent way do you propose boosting weapons that are seen as "less than optimal" without being inconsistent to the rest?
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.
I just think the mechanic actually lowers the amount of variety. A scimitar deals a d6 and not a d8 (like the longsword) because it can crit on 18 rather than 19. There is a tradeoff. Now there is one weapon that both deals (let us say) a d10 and crits on a 19 and another that crits on an 18. I will grant that the longsword can deal piercing damage too, but I think my point gets across. Before, there were many cases when the long sword was better (when crit-ing was not an option) and now there is no such case.
If we are going to homogenize the weapons then pull that trigger all the way or recognize that the critical hit portion of the weapon is just as important--if not more important--than the actual damage die.
|
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.)Ok...I'm game. But in what manner do you propose making this non-scaling boost in such a way that allows making a dagger Sacred Weapon viable without being inconsistent with Warpriests who select a longsword or a greatsword?
In other words, in what internally consistent way do you propose boosting weapons that are seen as "less than optimal" without being inconsistent to the rest?
Great. Ok, let's specify the suggestion. The point isn't to make the dagger favored weapon equal to a greatsword. But to boost it just enough that it's not crazy to use it. I'm trying to be sensitive to the homogenization worry, too.
Here's a first stab (taken from my earlier post). Can be adjusted as we discuss, I'll keep the specification updated as needed.
(The first possible change has been suggested upthread: breaking this out into columns by damage type for a bit more variety, along standard lines.)
>> Non-Scaling Boost Option (v 1.0) <<
When wielding a sacred weapon, the warpriest can use the following statistics instead of normal statistics for a weapon of that type.
1d6, 19-20/x2 — light weapon
1d8, 19-20/x2 — one-handed (non-light) weapon
2d6, 19-20/x2 — two-handed weapon
Why should a rule justified by pandering to Favored Weapons be instituted for the Class that is LESS Favored Weapon centric (than Clerics)?
Why shouldn't this be done for Fighters who happen to be lay worshippers of the God of Feather Dusters,
or who just want to get nice big damage on their Shuriken or Net or whatever?
Or Monks, who now must choose between UAS damage and Monk Weapons with special qualities, etc.
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 optimizers. A bit of variety is a good thing.
Just a second. You're not appeasing optimizers with homogeneity. Optimizers are quite happy with some options being better than other options. The people that pleases are the folks who assume everyone will try to use the absolute best weapons at all times. This is good to a certain point. It's important for us to recognize the upper power caps of builds. It's also important to recognize not everyone will use the most optimal builds, and to make sure they can contribute meaningfully as well.
Now having options scaled up to be viable is great. The point of the scaled damage dice was so we could have guys with daggers BE an option. And it accomplishes it! I could make a bad ass sickle wielding Warpriest of Erastil.
Just to borrow an idea from another poster,
They wanted to make a Scythe wielding Warpriest of Pharasma to represent the more grim motif of Death. Now imagine if the Scythe wasn't a pretty alright weapon. They would be completely shafted since they chose a weapon to complete their concept that was less than good.
Now if we fix the weirdness on throwing weapons not getting the benefit, I could make a kick ass Shuriken throwing Warpriest from like Tian.
I know Scavion, I edited that post because I erroneously skipped a word in the second to last sentence. It's meant to (and should now) read:
"...might be a step too far to appease the anti-optimizers".
|
|
Why should a change justified by pandering to Favored Weapons be instituted for the Class that is less Favored Weapon centric (than Clerics)?
I'm aware of the argument you've been making on this point, Quandry. I see your point, but I don't agree with you fully. I think it is important that a Warpriest of a given god be able to use his god's favored weapon in a combat-viable way if he chooses to. Not every Warpriest needs to, but I think it's important to have the boost in place for the Warpriests who want to.
And let's avoid insults ("pandering" sounds like one).
But it's not important for Clerics?
Or Fighters or Rogues who are really really sad that their special quality weapons of choice don't do more damage?
I'm not sure why you are insulted. You yourself directly repeat that exact justification for this move. Without that motivation, nobody would seem to be suggesting this change, so addressing the validity of that justification/motivation seems pretty relevant.
As written, Warpriests (unlike Clerics with whom they share some aspects) are getting full Martial Proficiency and are specifically getting Divine Intervention from their Deity to buff their BAB with ANY Focus Weapon of choice. Why is it important that we mess with 'some' stats of Favored Weapons for them, but not for Paladins? Deities whose favored weapon is 'weak' KNOW THAT, if it was important to them to not be weak they would favor another weapon, they don't need to grant unique buffs to a weak weapon when non-weak weapons are available and work just fine. Warpriests are different than Clerics, and Deities sponsoring them should be happy with them fulfilling their martial vocation in the most capable way possible.
It seems like some people are 'crossing wires' with metagame concerns that aren't directly justifiable by the class concept itself.
|
|
But it's not important for Clerics?
I think it's important for Clerics, too. My Clerics all try to use their gods' favored weapons. But if it's not a very combat-oriented weapon I focus on something other than rolling attack rolls. But since the Warpriest is all about rolling attack rolls, I'd like to be able to do that with the favored weapon without *too* much of a handicap for a non-martial weapon.
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.)Ok...I'm game. But in what manner do you propose making this non-scaling boost in such a way that allows making a dagger Sacred Weapon viable without being inconsistent with Warpriests who select a longsword or a greatsword?
In other words, in what internally consistent way do you propose boosting weapons that are seen as "less than optimal" without being inconsistent to the rest?
Great. Ok, let's specify the suggestion. The point isn't to make the dagger favored weapon equal to a greatsword. But to boost it just enough that it's not crazy to use it. I'm trying to be sensitive to the homogenization worry, too.
Here's a first stab (taken from my earlier post). Can be adjusted as we discuss, I'll keep the specification updated as needed.
(The first possible change has been suggested upthread: breaking this out into columns by damage type for a bit more variety, along standard lines.)
>> Non-Scaling Boost Option (v 1.0) <<
When wielding a sacred weapon, the warpriest can use the following statistics instead of normal statistics for a weapon of that type.1d6, 19-20/x2 — light weapon
1d8, 19-20/x2 — one-handed (non-light) weapon
2d6, 19-20/x2 — two-handed weapon
Ok, good start. I have to admit I'm not keen (no pun intended) on homogenizing critical ranges.
What do you think of assigning limits on damage increases based upon the crit multiplier of a weapon?
For example, let's take any x2 weapon, such as a dagger or kukri or longsword. Start at d6 or weapon, whichever is better. At 5th level and every 5 levels beyond that, the Warpriest may upgrade the damage die on their favored weapon up to a maximum number of times equal to the crit multiplier on the weapon. Therefore, a longsword would cap out at 2d6, the dagger and kukri at d10, etc. A spear (x3) would cap out at 2d6, as would a falchion. And a scythe would cap out at a 2d8.
Greatswords don't have far to go to reach the cap anyway, but that is mitigated as they have great initial damage?
Let me know what you think, or if I need to clarify.
But it's not important for Clerics?I think it's important for Clerics, too. My Clerics all try to use their gods' favored weapons. But if it's not a very combat-oriented weapon I focus on something other than rolling attack rolls. But since the Warpriest is all about rolling attack rolls, I'd like to be able to do that with the favored weapon without *too* much of a handicap for a non-martial weapon.
I can't believe you just said that if your deity doesn't have a good favored weapon, you focus on doing something else.
I don't wanna drop the wall of text explaining why the Warpriest shouldn't be 100% focused on his Favored Weapon. But heres the TLDR.
Warpriest- As a member of the holy warriors, due note that the Paladin, Inquisitor, and Cleric all don't heavily depend on their favored weapon to function in combat.
Favored Weapons- Close to no explanation is actually given for a Deity's Favored Weapon. Examples of those choices being meaningful actually tell us not to use them, or to use other weapons in combat. I find it hard to believe they're a central point to your roleplaying.
This has several advantages;
1. Giving each weapon, even weapons such maces and spears, a useful role to play, and allowing for more weapon selections without hampering combat ability, and still promoting the ideal that the Warpriest is awesome with a holy weapon.
2. Preventing the Keen Agile Kukri dual-wielding slicer-dicer from approaching greatsword level damage, while still providing an upgrade.
3. It tones down per-hit damage on high crit chance weapons, while boosting per hit damage on low crit chance weapons such as scythes.
I think it's important for Clerics, too. My Clerics all try to use their gods' favored weapons. But if it's not a very combat-oriented weapon I focus on something other than rolling attack rolls. But since the Warpriest is all about rolling attack rolls, I'd like to be able to do that with the favored weapon without *too* much of a handicap for a non-martial weapon.
I don't always play Clerics of Desna, but when I do, I just carry the starknife on my belt for looks and when it's necessary to make actual attack rolls I pull out a light crossbow (or a composite longbow, that one time I played an Elf).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the difference here vs. Paladin?
They (MAY) worship Gods who have Favored Weapons, and have a martial combat focus that requires weapon effectiveness.
(possibly more so than Warpriest, given they have less casting)
And they get Martial Weapon proficiency to ensure they can achieve that, regardless of Favored Weapon.
Nobody expects them to use Favored Weapons exclusively when other martial weapons can do the job better.
Why does Warpriest need some special allowance to skew the stats of less stellar Favored Weapons but Paladins don't?
What is shocking about some God whose Clerics may favor a weak weapon (and thus probably don't expect to be primary melee combatants with that weapon)
embracing that a specifically martial Warpriest follower of theirs will use whatever tool is good for the job?
The contextual story of weaker Favored Weapons is that they are NOT martially effective. So why twist things to make them become so?
Why not use Favored Weapons exactly like Clerics do? If it IS good, go ahead and use it as a primary combat weapon.
If it is not good, carry it around for ceremony and tradition and maybe as a last ditch weapon, and use something better if you're focused on combat.
Can we just call a spade a spade and just have an ability that improves the damage of simple weapons by a die to the damage of the equivalent martial weapon?
Make daggers do a d6 (like a short sword) and make cudgels do a d8. That is the real problem here. No one wants to use simple weapons because they are worse than martial weapons.
Past that, give them damage bonuses that are not multiplied by crits.
But it's not important for Clerics?I think it's important for Clerics, too. My Clerics all try to use their gods' favored weapons. But if it's not a very combat-oriented weapon I focus on something other than rolling attack rolls. But since the Warpriest is all about rolling attack rolls, I'd like to be able to do that with the favored weapon without *too* much of a handicap for a non-martial weapon.I can't believe you just said that if your deity doesn't have a good favored weapon, you focus on doing something else.
I don't wanna drop the wall of text explaining why the Warpriest shouldn't be 100% focused on his Favored Weapon. But heres the TLDR.
Warpriest- As a member of the holy warriors, due note that the Paladin, Inquisitor, and Cleric all don't heavily depend on their favored weapon to function in combat.
Favored Weapons- Close to no explanation is actually given for a Deity's Favored Weapon. Examples of those choices being meaningful actually tell us not to use them, or to use other weapons in combat. I find it hard to believe they're a central point to your roleplaying.
I might be wrong, but I think he was talking about Clerics there.
What is the difference here vs. Paladin?
They also worship Gods who still have Favored Weapons, and have a martial combat focus that requires martial effectiveness.
(and get Martial Weapon proficiency to ensure they can achieve that, regardless of Favored Weapon)
Why does Warpriest need some special allowance to skew the stats of less stellar Favored Weapons but Paladins don't?
What is shocking about some God whose Clerics may favor a weak weapon (and thus probably don't expect to be primary melee combatants)
embracing that a specifically martial Warpriest follower of theirs will use whatever tool is good for the job?
The contextual story of weaker Favored Weapons is that they are NOT martially effective. So why twist things to make them become so?
"Alright soldier, get in there and clear that building of those vampire abominations."
"Woah woah woah, hang on there, I worship Pharasma."
"Yeah, so you hate them right? Get in there and destroy them! Wreak Pharasma's divine wrath down upon them."
"No, you don't understand. See...she really likes daggers."
"Oh. Well, that means you're really good at using them, right? Like, you've trained in it every day back at Pharasma's church boot camp? Suffice it to say that you know how to use a dagger in ways the common man does not?"
"Well...no. In fact, you could probably do more damage with it. I'm just going to...uh...stand over here and cheer you on."
"What? I thought they sent me a Warpriest. To fight in this WAR!"
"Oh no, I'm a midwife. I just took the job because of the healthcare plan."
*facepalm*
Nitpick: Paladins do not, in fact, worship deities. They certainly can if they want to (and there's some content based around this concept, including deity-specific codes of conduct) but the CRB paladin is specifically and intentionally written to be entirely independent of deities. Nor do paladins get proficiency in the favored weapon of a deity if they choose one to worship.
In fact it is entirely rules-legal (and interesting!) to play an atheist paladin.
Sacred Servant Paladin activates Smite Nitpicker Ability...
In case it wasn't obvious, by CRB Paladin I meant the vanilla paladin - not the various archetypes. I kind of thought I'd hedged my bets by specifically mentioning optional content based around gods, deity-specific codes of conduct etc.
Or I'm just missing written sarcasm/irony again. Honestly, there are times when I miss the [blue]blue text[/blue] philosophy from the Stick forums.
Guys! Guuuuuys!
I got it:
you choose between the current chart using 19-20 x2 crit modifiers (and maybe maybe only keeping certain weapon qualities) OR you can use the weapon's current standard damage and critical hit rules and get another (smaller) weapon damage bonus.
Like: get a +1 damage bonus at level 10 that eventually scales up to +3 by level 20.
So a dagger can scale from 1d4 to 2d8 with 19-20/x2, or a rapier can scale from 1d6 to 1d6+3 because I want to keep 18-20/x2...?
I'm really not seeing how it's OP. It's basically a Paladin with more casting, but less Feat access, less immunities, and no Smite.
More casting is no big deal?
.... And you just forgot to mention:
As for less Feat access, less immunities, and no Smite.
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'm a little late to the party on this one but...
1. A2. probably C with a few exceptions
3. none of the above
If the design goal is to incent players to use their Deity's favored weapon and to maintain parity across the range of Deity choices, normalizing weapon dice and crit range will get the job done but it feels heavy handed. I'd rather "balance" be hidden behind some level of player choice.
What if favored weapons gained unique weapon key words and abilities on a per Deity basis? The dagger of a Pharasma warpriest could gain increasingly potent abilities against undead, for example, as a player advanced in level. Balance could then be a function of the available Deity specific "tool-kit" rather than strict weapon profile.
More casting is no big deal?
Never said it wasn't.
It just doesn't make him OP.
.... And you just forgot to mention:
No alignment restriction and no code of honor.
Not relevant to a balance discussion.
Six Bonus feat.
Yes.
Full caster level
Full access to the cleric list from level one and getting stuff like Divine Power, Heal and more.
Spontaneous Casting.
The class being far more versatile due to orisons (and full caster level and getting spells from level 1).
All covered under "more casting".
Blessings.
Which are a grab bag at best.
Fervor.
Being able to cast stuff like Quicken Divine Power or Quicken heal at virtually no cost.
Look you can't keep listing the same ability multiple times to pad your list.
Getting sacred weapon
Which the Paladin also has, in effect, besides the mostly irrelevant scaling damage dice.
Getting sacred armor
Yes.
As for less Feat access, less immunities, and no Smite.
less Feat access = false. It gets different access to different feats than the Paladin. True it can't pick PA at level 1, but it get access to meta magic feats and craft feats earlier and they are more useful to a warpriest. Also, less feat access is also highly questionable since the Warpriest get more feats and thus get access to more feats than the Paladin.
But it has to wait a lot longer to get many of them, and I don't see a whole lot of metamagic a Warpriest really needs. Extend and Quicken are really about it.
Less immunities is true, but it is no big deal really. The Warpriest got good fort and will saves, wisdom as casting stat and it can quick cast stuff like protection/Magic circle against evil, Remove spells, Cleanse, etc.
A 70% chance to save is still significantly worse than a 100% chance to save.
No Smite? Smite only applies to evil creatures, has limited uses per day and there is more to a class than simple DPR
Yes, but when the DPR gain is so monstrous, it bears mention.
but more importantly: No, this is not a non-Lawful Good Paladin. I agree, it would have been nice with an “any alignment Paladin” or at least a “CG Paladin”, but we are not going to get one. So I hardly seeing the point of comparing it to the Paladin and saying it doesn’t get "Smite evil or Immunities" and while doing so downplaying or even ignoring nice parts of the class.
I didn't downplay or ignore anything. I've already said the new Warpriest is a good class. I just don't see how it's supposed to be OP.
You want another comparison, look at the Inquisitor, in that case.
Much worse at skills, and possibly damage dealing from the Judgement/Bane combo a number of times per day, same casting, 2 Blessings vs one Domain (something I consider to be about equal given the average power level of the Blessings), slower Initiative, more MADness, better Weapons and Armor, a few more Feats (count each Teamwork Feat as half a Feat apiece), etc.
About equal, overall.
I'm really not seeing how it's OP. It's basically a Paladin with more casting, but less Feat access, less immunities, and no Smite.More casting is no big deal?
.... And you just forgot to mention:
No alignment restriction and no code of honor.
Six Bonus feat.
Full caster level
Full access to the cleric list from level one and getting stuff like Divine Power, Heal and more.
Spontaneous Casting.
The class being far more versatile due to orisons (and full caster level and getting spells from level 1).
Blessings.
Fevor.
Being able to cast stuff like Quicken Divine Power or Quicken heal at virtually no cost.
Getting sacred weapon
Getting sacred armor
Etc. As for less Feat access, less immunities, and no Smite.
less Feat access = false. It gets different access to different feats than the Paladin. True it can't pick PA at level 1, but it get access to meta magic feats and craft feats earlier and they are more useful to a warpriest. Also, less feat access is also highly questionable since the Warpriest get more feats and thus get access to more feats than the Paladin.
Less immunities is true, but it is no big deal really. The Warpriest got good fort and will saves, wisdom as casting stat and it can quick cast stuff like protection/Magic circle against evil, Remove spells, Cleanse, etc.
No Smite? Smite only applies to evil creatures, has limited uses per day and there is more to a class than simple DPR, but more importantly: No, this is not a non-Lawful Good Paladin. I agree, it would have been nice with an “any alignment Paladin” or at least a “CG Paladin”, but we are not going to get one. So I hardly seeing the point of comparing it to the Paladin and saying it doesn’t get "Smite evil or Immunities" and while doing so downplaying or even ignoring nice parts of the class.
>Implying warpriest won't have a line in their description saying that they need to be within one step of their deity's alignment, just like cleric
>Implying warpriest won't have a line in their description saying that they need to be within one step of their...I'm really not seeing how it's OP. It's basically a Paladin with more casting, but less Feat access, less immunities, and no Smite.More casting is no big deal?
.... And you just forgot to mention:
No alignment restriction and no code of honor.
Six Bonus feat.
Full caster level
Full access to the cleric list from level one and getting stuff like Divine Power, Heal and more.
Spontaneous Casting.
The class being far more versatile due to orisons (and full caster level and getting spells from level 1).
Blessings.
Fevor.
Being able to cast stuff like Quicken Divine Power or Quicken heal at virtually no cost.
Getting sacred weapon
Getting sacred armor
Etc. As for less Feat access, less immunities, and no Smite.
less Feat access = false. It gets different access to different feats than the Paladin. True it can't pick PA at level 1, but it get access to meta magic feats and craft feats earlier and they are more useful to a warpriest. Also, less feat access is also highly questionable since the Warpriest get more feats and thus get access to more feats than the Paladin.
Less immunities is true, but it is no big deal really. The Warpriest got good fort and will saves, wisdom as casting stat and it can quick cast stuff like protection/Magic circle against evil, Remove spells, Cleanse, etc.
No Smite? Smite only applies to evil creatures, has limited uses per day and there is more to a class than simple DPR, but more importantly: No, this is not a non-Lawful Good Paladin. I agree, it would have been nice with an “any alignment Paladin” or at least a “CG Paladin”, but we are not going to get one. So I hardly seeing the point of comparing it to the Paladin and saying it doesn’t get "Smite evil or Immunities" and while doing so downplaying or even ignoring nice parts of the class.
They only need to not "Grossly violate the code of conduct required by their god." They also already have the alignment restrictions clerics do now.
I wish they continued to omit that. I like the idea of Warpriest differing heavily from Clerics in dogma.
I am in favor of CHA based Casting partially because without Paladin Divine Grace, that leaves them with worse Saves at least in the Will Dept. THey have plenty of means to buff their Saves of course, but that starts to dial back their defensive strength compared to the Paladin. I see these guys as the brash self righteous warriors of Faith, they take the martial path even when most of the Cleric's of a given god do not, so CHA seems to match. (That does open up the Oracle dip for CHA->AC instead of DEX, same as Paladin)
I do consider balance vs. the Paladin a concern. WHen I see complaints about action economy, i.e. that they cannot nova all their abilties every round, I consider that a feature because doing that would be too much.
I would say that they don't really need all the bonus Feats they get (Weapon Focus also counts).
I also think that their Alt-Class correlations should be shifted to Cleric and PALADIN, not Fighter...
Fervor and Sacred Weapon/Armor are very Paladin-esque, and I don't think they need help in the Combat Dept by qualifying for Fighter Only Feats. Linking them to Paladin, they could qualiy for "Extra Lay on Hands", which I think is fine and more balanced than Fighter Feats. That also supports a switch of casting stat to CHA.
EDIT: I think "Lay on Hands" should be a separate class ability with it's own sub-heading. That makes clearer the compatability with "LoH" Feats, and is just more comprehensive than shoving it all in one paragraph with Fervor's other usage... even if it's still fueled by the same Fervor "pool".
I would guess that Sacred Weapon means they can use Full Class Level = BAB when qualifying for Feats specific to that weapon. (?)
Having full BAB on Favored Weapon and any Weapon Focus weapon rather reduces the difference to Paladin in all the weapons they care about.
How many weapons does a Paladin use anyways?
It's pretty easy to choose a decent Favored Weapon and grab Weapon Focus in Longbow, for example -> Golden
I don't know if they really need the Sacred Weapon Enhancement and the Sacred Armor Enhancement active at the same time,
Paladins have to give one up to get Armor/Shield stuff like that in an Archetype (Sacred Shield).
It seems like the activation could be at least a Standard Action like it is for a Paladin to activate Weapon Bond/Shield Bond,
AT LEAST for the Sacred Armor which has a duration in minutes, I don't see the need to have it use a Swift Action.
For that matter, if they are to have an option to boost their defense like this,
why not have it only work on a SHIELD just like it does for the Sacred Shield Paladin,
that makes it a bit of planning and trade-off to be wieldng a Shield to have ready to use, compard to any old Armor.
Toning down some of that stuff a bit opens up more design space to allow things like Blessing/Domain Spells,
stuff that is distinct from Paladin's role rather than stepping on their toes too much.
Of course they can, it's a generic combat option.
Sort of confusing to calculate iteratives/off-hand iteratives if one "Sacred" weapon is using Full BAB and the other isn't though.
Most people would try to get both as "Sacred" via Weapon Focus if need be, but the situation would come up.
They only need to not "Grossly violate the code of conduct required by their god." They also already have the alignment restrictions clerics do now.
I wish they continued to omit that. I like the idea of Warpriest differing heavily from Clerics in dogma.
Flavor-wise, this is exactly what inquisitors do. If you want a divine caster who still follows a deity but can tell the church to stuff it, play an inquisitor.
Flavor-wise, this is exactly what inquisitors do. If you want a divine caster who still follows a deity but can tell the church to stuff it, play an inquisitor.They only need to not "Grossly violate the code of conduct required by their god." They also already have the alignment restrictions clerics do now.
I wish they continued to omit that. I like the idea of Warpriest differing heavily from Clerics in dogma.
*shrug* I like to think the heavy combat/martial arm of the church has quite different views than the more preachy kind.
You want another comparison, look at the Inquisitor, in that case.
Much worse at skills, and possibly damage dealing from the Judgement/Bane combo a number of times per day, same casting, 2 Blessings vs one Domain (something I consider to be about equal given the average power level of the Blessings), slower Initiative, more MADness, better Weapons and Armor, a few more Feats (count each Teamwork Feat as half a Feat apiece), etc.
About equal, overall.
I agree the Inquisitor is the appropriate comparison and it's a good benchmark for the Warpriest. However I do think the Warpriest has a distinct action economy advantage over the Inquisitor. In terms of relative power this will translate differently at different tables but the ability to quick cast without provoking or a free hand is really strong.
I would guess that Sacred Weapon means they can use Full Class Level = BAB when qualifying for Feats specific to that weapon. (?)
This has not been made clear...I really wish we would get some clarification on this issue by staff.
I agree the Inquisitor is the appropriate comparison and it's a good benchmark for the Warpriest. However I do think the Warpriest has a distinct action economy advantage over the Inquisitor. In terms of relative power this will translate differently at different tables but the ability to quick cast without provoking or a free hand is really strong.
It is, but I see that as a feature, not a bug. The Inquisitor is basically a Divine Bard with some extra asswhoopin' capability. He does pretty good in combat, but also shines out of it.
The Warpriest wins in combat because of his quick buffs and other things, but considering the design goal for the class is a guy whose sole purpose is to kick ass for the Lord? Not a problem IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see the Inquisitor and the Warpriest as opposites really. An Inquisitor is a bad ass with skills, utility and out of combat options in general, but he's still pretty good in a fight. A Warpriest is a bad ass in combat and fighting, but still has pretty good out of combat utility (spells if nothing else).
The Inquisitor is able to ignore many of the restrictions of the usual clergy, because his job is to root out false believers, blasphemers, cabals of opposed clerics etc. He's more CIA/Navy Seal to the Warpriests Blackhawks and Tanks.
The Warpriest is the military aspect of the church. Which, sometimes, means going against the tenants of the church (such as more pacifistic Gods). They are the clergy that are leading from the front line, weapon in hand, while the Inquisitors are ferreting out the weaknesses and exploiting them behind the lines, and the Clerics are supporting from the middle/rear.
The Paladins are the champions and poster boys for the church. Kind of like Captain America. Bad asses in their own right, but just as important as a recruiter or role model as he is in a fight.
Flavor-wise, this is exactly what inquisitors do. If you want a divine caster who still follows a deity but can tell the church to stuff it, play an inquisitor.They only need to not "Grossly violate the code of conduct required by their god." They also already have the alignment restrictions clerics do now.
I wish they continued to omit that. I like the idea of Warpriest differing heavily from Clerics in dogma.
That's hardly an Inquisitor specific trope. Clerics also have Separatist Archetype, and Inquisitor themselves have the Heretic Archetype to go deep into that trope. So that Warpriests may also come under that rubric in some cases isn't anything special. Clerics themelves don't even need any Archetype to be in conflict with the church.
I see the Inquisitor and the Warpriest as opposites really. An Inquisitor is a bad ass with skills, utility and out of combat options in general, but he's still pretty good in a fight. A Warpriest is a bad ass in combat and fighting, but still has pretty good out of combat utility (spells if nothing else).
The Inquisitor is able to ignore many of the restrictions of the usual clergy, because his job is to root out false believers, blasphemers, cabals of opposed clerics etc. He's more CIA/Navy Seal to the Warpriests Blackhawks and Tanks.
The Warpriest is the military aspect of the church. Which, sometimes, means going against the tenants of the church (such as more pacifistic Gods). They are the clergy that are leading from the front line, weapon in hand, while the Inquisitors are ferreting out the weaknesses and exploiting them behind the lines, and the Clerics are supporting from the middle/rear.
The Paladins are the champions and poster boys for the church. Kind of like Captain America. Bad asses in their own right, but just as important as a recruiter or role model as he is in a fight.
This is pretty much spot on. +1 to you, sir.
I echo that Warpriest's ("Templar"!!!) out of combat utility will be mostly focused around spells and blessings/domain tie in (and Lay on Hands/Channel healing). I think some way to use Domain Spells will really enable that, augmenting the basic Blessings themselves... Spontaneous Domain Casting in place of Spontaneous Cure/Inflict seems appropriate IMHO. Perhaps just choosing one ENTIRE Domain Spell List to Spontaneous Cast from when preparing spells, no picking and choosing from both for every spell level...?
Can we stop having these sometimes full BAB classes?
Why does War Priest only have full BAB when wielding their deities favorite weapon? Can they just be a full BAB class and be done with it?
Can we stop having these sometimes full BAB classes?
Why does War Priest only have full BAB when wielding their deities favorite weapon? Can they just be a full BAB class and be done with it?
In order for the Warpriest to be full BAB, his spell casting has to drop down to 4 spell level progression, like Ranger, Paladin and Bloodrager.
Something to note!
Warpriests should be far more wary of antimagic effects than other classes, as their Sacred Weapon ability is Supernatural. So in an Antimagic Fiel, the Warpriest loses full BAB and his scaling damage, instead of just magical enhancement and buffs, like other classes do.
I agree the Inquisitor is the appropriate comparison and it's a good benchmark for the Warpriest. However I do think the Warpriest has a distinct action economy advantage over the Inquisitor. In terms of relative power this will translate differently at different tables but the ability to quick cast without provoking or a free hand is really strong.It is, but I see that as a feature, not a bug. The Inquisitor is basically a Divine Bard with some extra asswhoopin' capability. He does pretty good in combat, but also shines out of it.
The Warpriest wins in combat because of his quick buffs and other things, but considering the design goal for the class is a guy whose sole purpose is to kick ass for the Lord? Not a problem IMO.
Yep. My gut reaction when you posted was to agree about the relative power level of the Inquisitor, then I waffled a bit when I thought more about the effectiveness of fervor fueled spell casting. In the end though the Inquisitor is simply a more versatile class, as it should be (imho) from a design perspective, so I feel the two classes will provide players a similar play experience in terms of "power". Which is a round about way of saying I believe the Warpriest is in a pretty good spot in terms of ass kicking at this stage of the playtest. I'd prefer to see the sacred weapon ability reworked to better reflect the flavor of individual Deities and their portfolios but that's just me on a soapbox.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I second that they should get more custom spells on the spell list, more than just Cleric cut-down.
It seems pretty easy to follow the model other classes have so far,
saying "Cleric spells + these specific spells" probably going for Paladin/Inquisitor spells, maybe early entry on a few Cleric spells?
Really, I think all of the new casters deserve AT LEAST that level of customization, even if a clean slate spell list isn't happening.
Swift Casting with Fervor is expensive, so if they're doing that, they should get their Fervor's worth.
I think the weirdness with Swift Self-Buff Spells/ Heal Spells (Blessing) being Prepared Only (disallowing Spontaneous Cure Conversion)
might be alleviated by introducing Domain Spontaneous Casting. That should not only work by allowing preparing Cures,
but by preparing Condition Removal and stuff like Breath of Life that is also "Healing".
(if people want Spontaneous Cure spells, then Healing's Domain Spell Cures are a great option)
I guess having BOTH Spontaneous Cure/Inflict and Domain Casting is possible (definitely only 1 Domain at a time there),
but I think it's a bolder design choice to drop Spontaneous Cure/Inflict and go whole heartedly with Domain Casting there.
I think that help shores up weakness compared to martial Cleric/Ftr builds by also getting those Domain Spells,
which can also help cover non-combat roles that Warpriest will quite simply struggle with given their skills and laser focus on combat abilties.
|
I would love to see channel get removed and have each type of damage, ie bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, given their own unique effect.
Think like piercing does bleed slashing can lower movement and bludgeoning can lower ac. It seems like the non spell casting aspect of this class isn't getting the love It deserves
I could see those as interesting alternate usages of the rounds/day Sacred Weapon buff...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In order for the Warpriest to be full BAB, his spell casting has to drop down to 4 spell level progression, like Ranger, Paladin and Bloodrager.
Says who? Full BAB isn't all that it's cracked up to be, really. WotC vastly overvalued full BAB (and attack/damage bonuses in general) for years and their class designs were crippled by it.
|
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
1. C
2. A3. C
I would prefer my WAR priest to use option C.