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.
As far as I'm aware, its one of those 'unwritten design philosophies'. Like how, in the conversion from 3.5 to Pathfinder, Paizo, more or less, tied BAB and Hit die together (Full BAB = D10 hit die, 3/4 BAB = d8 hit die, 1/2 BAB = d6 hit die).
Look at any 6th level casting class, all of them are 3/4 BAB. As it stands, the only 4th level casting classes are Paladin, Ranger, and Bloodrager, all of which are full BAB.
So based off that, in order for the Warpriest to gain full BAB, he has to take a hit in casting to compensate.
Figured I'd shamelessly plug my level 4 Warpriest playtest for a little bit - I played it next to an inquisitor and made some thoughts about how the two classes measure up. The test can be found here.
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'd like that. I still get to feel awesome with my armor spikes, and it still won't really matter in the long run.
I'd put it at d8 or d10.
How does channel energy work is it -3 of character level or its considered to have 2d6 at 4th?
Channel Energy progresses as the same pace as the Fervor heal, so 2D6 at level 5, 3D6 at 8th level, 4D6 at 11th level and so on.
Channel Energy progresses as the same pace as the Fervor heal, so 2D6 at level 5, 3D6 at 8th level, 4D6 at 11th level and so on.
I hadn't realized that. The ability just went in my mind from something interesting that I'm probably not going to use, to something extremely horrible.
I could have had two quickened spells in exchange.
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 Designer1. A or C. They are both equaly easy to use. B is a hot mess.
2. C would be the most balanced.
3. A would be the most fun. It allows for more customization.Option A: Yes the optimizers are going to use heavy crit weapons. So what. I fail to see how that's any different then any other option in Pathfinder. Optimizers will always pick the optimal choice. The only way you stop them is to give no choices... thats boring and effectivly what C does. With option C it doesn't really matter what you use as a weapon because they are all the same. You might as well use a butter knife or a broom. Come to think of it that might be quite humerous.
A choise that doesn't matter is the same as not giving someone a choise at all.This is right on. There always will be optimized choices, and reasons to not take the optimized choice. The trick here is not to level the playing field, but to ensure that the worst choices (i.e. warpriest of pharasma being forced into a dagger with no respite) aren't unworkable (for the record, increasing damage die on the dagger and giving an option to take a better weapon is a great fix).
The correct solution is not to make daggers, scythes, and greataxes all identical.
The point of this rule was to make "bad" weapons better. Instead it is just making the best weapons (high crit weapons) better. Rule C is an unmitigated failure.
Ellie the Level 5 War Priest of Irori
Character stuffSomething to note, a Warpriest of Irori can gain either Weapon Focus or choose Improved Unarmed Strike from the Favored Weapon class feature. This is important.
Sacred Weapon says that a Warpriest can make any weapon he has Weapon Focus in or his deity's favored weapon a Sacred Weapon. So a Warpriest of Irori could choose Imp. Unarmed Strike (instead of Weapon Focus) and still make his unarmed strikes a Sacred Weapon.
With this in mind, your Warpriest should be dealing 1d8 points of damage on the unarmed strike, instead of 1d3.
Also, since you didn't choose Weapon Focus (gauntlet) you can't make a gauntlet a Sacred Weapon.
Hi Dev's, this is something that needs to be looked at.
Priests of Irori get screwed here. It should just be, they get Improved Unarmed Strike (its the weapon of their god)... AND still get the choice of weapon focus. If they want to put it in punching someone or using a weapon, that's up to them.
For instance, WPs of Ragathiel will get WP Bastard Sword AND a Weapon Focus, right? Why are the Irorian's being screwed?
Please re-word to make this clear, 'cause at the moment with the RAW it would appear that they get the crappy end of the stick.
Its really just poor/redundant wording. The Devs said you gain Improved Unarmed Strike for having Unarmed Strike as your deity's favored weapon. As part of what you gain from proficiency
I believe they recognize this overlook already. You get proficiency as Improved Unarmed Strike automatically, so you can still choose Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike) since it only says "You can instead select Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat." As in you don't have to.
The point of this rule was to make "bad" weapons better. Instead it is just making the best weapons (high crit weapons) better. Rule C is...
Be careful with absolutes like "Just..." when it isn't true. Without a doubt this design makes awful weapons pretty adequate. It ALSO makes high crit weapons better as a side effect.
And obviously this is okay. Otherwise all weapons would have been the same when they made the game. Simple weapons were made to be a poor option in comparison to martial/exotic. Now the only difference is the crit range/weapon qualities and on the weapon qualities side, a simple weapon can hold it's own. By giving them some sort of scaling crit range, optimizers can still optimize by everyone rushing for reach/other weapon qualities for a tactical advantage.
Channel Energy progresses as the same pace as the Fervor heal, so 2D6 at level 5, 3D6 at 8th level, 4D6 at 11th level and so on.I hadn't realized that. The ability just went in my mind from something interesting that I'm probably not going to use, to something extremely horrible.
I could have had two quickened spells in exchange.
I don't see the in the text that it says how much the channel energy is for, as far as I can tell it doe not say. Either way Arae Graven is correct. It is not worth it. As I pointed out before the amount of d6 healing done by fervor does not match cure spells, and two uses of fervor are rarely going to equal channel energy.
Cure light wounds quickened is stronger than fervor healing till 8th level. So you can start using Cure moderate wounds which is better than fervor healing till 17th level at which point you could move to cure serious.
The "lay on hands" portion should be removed and just use 1 fervor to channel as a cleric.
I also think that all war priest should be able to channel and spontaneously cast both positive and negative energy because they are warpriests they should be equally good at healing and harming foes on the battle field.
As far as I'm aware, its one of those 'unwritten design philosophies'. Like how, in the conversion from 3.5 to Pathfinder, Paizo, more or less, tied BAB and Hit die together (Full BAB = D10 hit die, 3/4 BAB = d8 hit die, 1/2 BAB = d6 hit die).
Except it's not unwritten: The 3.5 -> Pathfinder conversion guide explicitly states that converted classes should follow the rule. It does *not* say "No class with full BAB should have a better spell progression than a Paladin or Ranger." Which would be quite the poignant piece of advice given the existence of things like the Duskblade and Mystic Ranger. It might be an unwritten assumption the team follows (and would help explain why the Bloodrager is so crippled) but if so, it's a stupid one.
|
I also think that all war priest should be able to channel and spontaneously cast both positive and negative energy because they are warpriests they should be equally good at healing and harming foes on the battle field.
Now that I fully agree with. This would also make the class be able to play like a limited divine magus, and Fervor does not specify that the touch healing/harming is Positive/Negative energy. Also, being able to channel a cure/Inflict spell through a weapon would go a long way to solve the issue with weapons without modifying the actual weapons. A Warpriest of Pharasma would then be pretty good at fighting Undead with dagger(s) and be both useful and cool. Especially if they fix the ranged and thrown weapons issues.
I also think that all war priest should be able to channel and spontaneously cast both positive and negative energy because they are warpriests they should be equally good at healing and harming foes on the battle field.Now that I fully agree with. This would also make the class be able to play like a limited divine magus, and Fervor does not specify that the touch healing/harming is Positive/Negative energy. Also, being able to channel a cure/Inflict spell through a weapon would go a long way to solve the issue with weapons without modifying the actual weapons. A Warpriest of Pharasma would then be pretty good at fighting Undead with dagger(s) and be both useful and cool. Especially if they fix the ranged and thrown weapons issues.
This is similar to the approach I've taken when tinkering with the current version of the Warpriest, but I would take it a step further. I think it would be a mistake to try to balance favored weapons by manipulating the damage die and crit profile. I'd rather balance favored weapons by giving Warpriests of different gods different things they can do with their favored weapons. This would also help address the biggest issue I have with the class which is that as written all Warpriests, regardless of Deity, feel the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be somewhat complex, but how about redesigning sacred weapon so that instead of automatically upping the damage, you can customize the weapon's statistics to an extent?
Currently your sacred weapon improves (or can improve) in damage at 1st, 5th, and then every 5 levels thereafter.
Break apart the various statistics of a weapon and you have roughly 4 areas that can be sensibly modified: Damage, critical multiplier, critical threat range, and special weapon features\damage types.
At each level, you could choose to improve your sacred weapon(s) in one of those four categories:
- Damage: Increase the damage die of the weapon by 1 type, to a maximum of 2d8 at 20th level
- Critical multiplier: Increase the weapon's critical multiplier by half (rounded down) to a maximum of x4 (for weapons with a 20 threat range), or x3 (for any weapons with an expanded critical threat range).
- Critical threat range: Increase the weapon's critical threat range by half (rounded down); this increase stacks with other increases such as from keen or Improved Critical. This cannot increase the threat range beyond 15-20 (for a x2 weapon), 17-20 (for a x3 weapon), or 18-20 (for a x4 weapon).
- Weapon features: Add a new weapon feature (trip, reach, sunder, etc.) to the weapon or add a type of damage dealt by the weapon (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing).
So to throw out an example, a Warpriest of Pharasma who chooses to use a dagger would almost assuredly make her first sacred weapon enhancement a damage die increase to 1d6. At 5th level, she could increase this further (to a 1d8), or alternatively she could grant her dagger the ability to deal Bashing damage or to have the Sunder quality; she could also add 1\2 to the threat range or crit range.
A Warpriest of Gorum, however, might be happy with his 2d6 of damage from his greatsword, so at 1st level he might choose instead to give it Reach, or the ability to deal piercing damage.
Personally, if this were adopted I would prefer to see sacred weapon go back to affecting only the Warpriest's god's favored weapon.
18-20/x4 weapon?
*Drools*
Obviously the numbers I threw out are a very rough estimate. But since sacred weapon now only requires Weapon Focus, you could rather easily take Weapon Focus (Pistols) and Improved Critical (Pistols) and get a 19-20 x4 versus touch AC; I don't see an 18-20 x4 more overpowered than that, heh.
Assuming that the 'cost' of adding the new qualities to the weapon would work, what do people think about it? It seems to grant the Warpriests of gods with weaker weapons a way to gain decent damage output, and it gives the Warpriests of gods who already have decent weapons some way to still gain benefit from that portion of the class feature (noting that the enhancements like holy are a separate portion of that same feature).
I just don't think the x4 multiplier should ever stack to give MORE than a 18-20 (if you want people to use these weapons or 19-20) even with keen or improved critical.
Similarly no x3 weapon can be expanded beyond crit-ing on a 17 and no x2 can be expanded beyond a 15.
So yeah. I like it.
It might be somewhat complex, but how about redesigning sacred weapon so that instead of automatically upping the damage, you can customize the weapon's statistics to an extent?
Currently your sacred weapon improves (or can improve) in damage at 1st, 5th, and then every 5 levels thereafter.
Break apart the various statistics of a weapon and you have roughly 4 areas that can be sensibly modified: Damage, critical multiplier, critical threat range, and special weapon features\damage types.
At each level, you could choose to improve your sacred weapon(s) in one of those four categories:
- Damage: Increase the damage die of the weapon by 1 type, to a maximum of 2d8 at 20th level
- Critical multiplier: Increase the weapon's critical multiplier by half (rounded down) to a maximum of x4 (for weapons with a 20 threat range), or x3 (for any weapons with an expanded critical threat range).
- Critical threat range: Increase the weapon's critical threat range by half (rounded down); this increase stacks with other increases such as from keen or Improved Critical. This cannot increase the threat range beyond 15-20 (for a x2 weapon), 17-20 (for a x3 weapon), or 18-20 (for a x4 weapon).
- Weapon features: Add a new weapon feature (trip, reach, sunder, etc.) to the weapon or add a type of damage dealt by the weapon (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing).
So to throw out an example, a Warpriest of Pharasma who chooses to use a dagger would almost assuredly make her first sacred weapon enhancement a damage die increase to 1d6. At 5th level, she could increase this further (to a 1d8), or alternatively she could grant her dagger the ability to deal Bashing damage or to have the Sunder quality; she could also add 1\2 to the threat range or crit range.
A Warpriest of Gorum, however, might be happy with his 2d6 of damage from his greatsword, so at 1st level he might choose instead to give it Reach, or the ability to deal piercing damage.
Personally, if this were adopted I would prefer to...
Why stop there? Why not allow a high level Pharasma Warpriest's dagger to cast undead to dead on crits vs undead or a Gorum Warpriest's greatsword to grant a rage effect on misses. Could even use Fervor to activate the effects. I think there is room for bold design here.
...It might be somewhat complex, but how about redesigning sacred weapon so that instead of automatically upping the damage, you can customize the weapon's statistics to an extent?
Currently your sacred weapon improves (or can improve) in damage at 1st, 5th, and then every 5 levels thereafter.
Break apart the various statistics of a weapon and you have roughly 4 areas that can be sensibly modified: Damage, critical multiplier, critical threat range, and special weapon features\damage types.
At each level, you could choose to improve your sacred weapon(s) in one of those four categories:
- Damage: Increase the damage die of the weapon by 1 type, to a maximum of 2d8 at 20th level
- Critical multiplier: Increase the weapon's critical multiplier by half (rounded down) to a maximum of x4 (for weapons with a 20 threat range), or x3 (for any weapons with an expanded critical threat range).
- Critical threat range: Increase the weapon's critical threat range by half (rounded down); this increase stacks with other increases such as from keen or Improved Critical. This cannot increase the threat range beyond 15-20 (for a x2 weapon), 17-20 (for a x3 weapon), or 18-20 (for a x4 weapon).
- Weapon features: Add a new weapon feature (trip, reach, sunder, etc.) to the weapon or add a type of damage dealt by the weapon (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing).
So to throw out an example, a Warpriest of Pharasma who chooses to use a dagger would almost assuredly make her first sacred weapon enhancement a damage die increase to 1d6. At 5th level, she could increase this further (to a 1d8), or alternatively she could grant her dagger the ability to deal Bashing damage or to have the Sunder quality; she could also add 1\2 to the threat range or crit range.
A Warpriest of Gorum, however, might be happy with his 2d6 of damage from his greatsword, so at 1st level he might choose instead to give it Reach, or the ability to deal piercing damage.
Personally, if this were
Seems like a horrible pain in the ass and would not extend to nonstandard settings.
Maybe you could tie certain sets of weapons with certain blessings and put weapons of a certain strength or weakness with powers of a certain strength or weakness.
|
No, they haven't. The delayed spellcasting really hurts. What made Clericzilla get its name was the ability to basically replace the fighter with a spell while (unlike its arcane counterparts with transformation) retaining the ability to cast spells while doing so. The spellcasting was the whole point; this is nowhere near as powerful as a DMM battle cleric because of this. There's also the fact that martial classes in PF generally got a power boost, so just having full BAB doesn't qualify as replacing them anymore.I think you need to nerf this class in power as it is now you have brought back the 3.0 Codzilla, or even worse. True, it is MAD, but it needs to be nerfed.Interesting discussion folks.
I personally find it interesting there that the discussion swings back and forth between "this class is too good" and "this class is to MAD and that is going to cripple it".
That said, I think there are some valid points on both sides that I am going to be looking into for the final version of the Warpriest.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Sure, enjoy your one attack that eats a standard action and can't be combined with, well....anything. Certainly no balance issue there.
It is 5.5 points of damage per hit that is also potentially doubled by critical or further increased by vital strike.
Which is hilarious, because Treerazer's entry in the ISWG mentions using Greater Vital Strikes if he's forced to move or charge. And yes, I know what the feat actually says, but that's just funny. :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Limits on my suggestion would probably be something like: Maximum increase to 2d8 damage; threat range and multiplier capped at 15-20 for x2; 17-20 for x3; and 19-20 for x4; and no more than 4 features or damage types (total, not added) per weapon.
I like the idea of having each deity's sacred weapon do something specific. It would take quite a bit of text space though to cover every deity, though.
Limits on my suggestion would probably be something like: Maximum increase to 2d8 damage; threat range and multiplier capped at 15-20 for x2; 17-20 for x3; and 19-20 for x4; and no more than 4 features or damage types (total, not added) per weapon.
I like the idea of having each deity's sacred weapon do something specific. It would take quite a bit of text space though to cover every deity, though.
It would be easier to do it by blessing rather than by deity, Fire Blessing gets flaming -> flaming burst
Good Blessing gets Holyetc.
I hope they don't nerf Sacred Weapon too much. Right now, it seems like one of the cool things that sets the Warpriest apart from the others.
Limits on my suggestion would probably be something like: Maximum increase to 2d8 damage; threat range and multiplier capped at 15-20 for x2; 17-20 for x3; and 19-20 for x4; and no more than 4 features or damage types (total, not added) per weapon.
I like the idea of having each deity's sacred weapon do something specific. It would take quite a bit of text space though to cover every deity, though.
It would be easier to do it by blessing rather than by deity, Fire Blessing gets flaming -> flaming burst
Good Blessing gets Holy
etc.
But if we do that then the ability fails to do what it was put in there for: It exists in order to allow you to use your deitys favored weapon even though it would normally be a terrible idea: unamred strike, armor spikes(as a primary weapon), dagger, whip etc.
Or rather: it might help. But then again, it might not:
Maybe strength blessing winds up being better than death. Now we have made Gorum-following warpriests stronger, while the intent was to help out dagger-wielding pharasmans.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
all of which is still stupid because favored weapons weren't designed around the idea of creating a balanced mechanic and the concept of favored weapons is, in some cases, bad flavor. there's still no good reason Shelyn would want her priests to use a glaive over any other weapon that gave the priest a personal connection to what Shelyn stands for. if the love of your life died in your arms and you decided to take up his/her pitchfork and use it to defend love in his/her memory, it would make more sense for Shelyn to bless your pitchfork than the glaive you grabbed because "Shelyn's favored weapon is (coincidentally) a glaive."
all of which is still stupid because favored weapons weren't designed around the idea of creating a balanced mechanic and the concept of favored weapons is, in some cases, bad flavor. there's still no good reason Shelyn would want her priests to use a glaive over any other weapon that gave the priest a personal connection to what Shelyn stands for. if the love of your life died in your arms and you decided to take up his/her pitchfork and use it to defend love in his/her memory, it would make more sense for Shelyn to bless your pitchfork than the glaive you grabbed because "Shelyn's favored weapon is (coincidentally) a glaive."
There's no coincidence to it in the example you provide. Try reading the lore:
There's actually in-game justification for a number of the gods' favored weapons, especially in those cases where they have a named weapon; in those cases where they don't, there's usually some sensible rationale behind them.
With that in mind, and understanding that what you're arguing for is logic behind favored weapons - something that's existed since 3.5 - do you have any other justifications why the idea(s) are "stupid"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i didn't say favored weapons were stupid. i said wanting a core class mechanic to be significantly invested in something that a) wasn't designed to be a class balancing mechanic and b) will change from setting to setting is stupid.
also, i have read the lore. that Shelyn's favored weapon is a glaive is a coincidence. there is no Golarion law that says that soul devouring weapons are always glaives or that the weapon given to Shelyn's brother etc. had to be a glaive. that the weapon in question is a glaive and not a rapier or anything else is coincidental. the weapon itself (as in glaives generally not the Whisperer of Souls in particular) has no connection to Shelyn's portfolio.
i wasn't saying that there wasn't justification for the god having a particular favored weapon. i was saying that the justifications for the assumption that a deity cares if you use their favored weapon are generally weak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has significance in the deity's history. It's 'coincidental' only in the sense that everything is coincidental if you alter circumstances; by your argument, it's 'coincidental' that the primary symbol of Christianity is the cross, because the pivotal figure of the story could have just as easily been nailed to a wooden circle.
I do agree that the favored weapon wasn't intended to be a class-balancing mechanic. I disagree that utilizing it in a class feature is 'stupid'. But not certain there's really any reason to argue that further, since it's an argument of subjective opinion.
I hadn't realized that. The ability just went in my mind from something interesting that I'm probably not going to use, to something extremely horrible.
I could have had two quickened spells in exchange.
I don't see the in the text that it says how much the channel energy is for, as far as I can tell it doe not say. Either way Arae Graven is correct. It is not worth it. As I pointed out before the amount of d6 healing done by fervor does not match cure spells, and two uses of fervor are rarely going to equal channel energy.
Cure light wounds quickened is stronger than fervor healing till 8th level. So you can start using Cure moderate wounds which is better than fervor healing till 17th level at which point you could move to cure serious.
The "lay on hands" portion should be removed and just use 1 fervor to channel as a cleric.
I also think that all war priest should be able to channel and spontaneously cast both positive and negative energy because they are warpriests they should be equally good at healing and harming foes on the battle field.
They could have worded it more clearly but the Channel Energy effect states: Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the warpriest. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to the amount of the fervor ability.
Fervor starts off with 1D6 at level 2 and scales up one die every 3 levels.
And yes, after playtesting Fervor I found the healing mechanics very, very underwhelming. Even Cure X Wounds and a cleric's Channel Energy scale poorly compared to health pools and damage output of spells, but the partial progression really kills it for me. I'll save Fervor charges for swift spellcasting and only use Fervor charges for healing just before rest.
That said, I'd rather see the Warpriest lose Channel Energy and get Lay on Hands progression on the personal Fervor heal, or allow him to pick up something similar to Mercies but only useable on himself. That way the Warpriest can still handle conditions when they become level appropriate, but he won't cope as well as the cleric. It kind of ties in with the "unstoppable Faith-driven Force" concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not give sacred weapons different damage die progressions depending on their crit range or multiplier? That way x4 and 18-20 weapons could average a die-size behind and x2 weapons could average a die size ahead.
It has significance in the deity's history. It's 'coincidental' only in the sense that everything is coincidental if you alter circumstances; by your argument, it's 'coincidental' that the primary symbol of Christianity is the cross, because the pivotal figure of the story could have just as easily been nailed to a wooden circle.
I do agree that the favored weapon wasn't intended to be a class-balancing mechanic. I disagree that utilizing it in a class feature is 'stupid'. But not certain there's really any reason to argue that further, since it's an argument of subjective opinion.
well it is coincidental that the primary symbol of christianity is a cross, and i think it's a perfectly legitimate argument that God (though personally i don't believe) might find it barbaric and disgusting that we would direct our worship toward such a thing. also, the difference would be that christians use the cross because it was the instrument of christ's death. and since that religion is all about that sacrifice and how he made it for us, that makes sense. Shelyn's religion isn't about worshipping her because she saved us from the glaive or it would make perfect sense for all her priests to use a glaive. the important aspect of the glaive is WHY she stole it. similar to how the cross is important because Jesus died on it for us (thus christian's carry it to remind them of that), it would be more apt for Shelyn to bless the aforementioned pitchfork than a glaive with no personal connection to the user.
also, again i didn't say using favored weapons in a class feature was stupid. i said attempting to pigeonhole a class feature into something that wasn't designed as a balancing factor or using a class feature to completely disrupt the idea that the damage on weapons was supposed to be one of their balancing factors just so you can make some favored weapons (which will change with setting) viable is stupid. i say this because i still see people overly concerned with the idea that Pharasma thinks it's a wise thing for a war priest to enter battle with a ceremonial dagger rather than a real weapon and wanting favored weapons to be a better option "because they're favored weapons" rather than because it actually makes sense that they should also favor that weapon (i.e. that the weapon type has a connection to the deities portfolio).
personally, and i've said this before, i don't mind the idea that deities might give you a little boon for using a weapon they particularly favor, i just think Shelyn's more likely to bless a pitchfork with a personal connection to the user than a glaive without one whereas a more combat oriented deity might not really care what weapon his followers wield, but still probably considers their own superior since they do fight with it. i also think the bonus should be something largely negligible and not something that benefits certain deities favored weapons more than others. a single increase to the damage die type (applied after size adjustments) hardly seems like it would break the game, but dagger users would still go up to their d6 (as though d4 daggers are significantly less viable). this retains the idea that relative weapon damage was a balancing factor rather than making all weapons eventually do the same damage.
Judging from the PFSRD description of the weapon, it's a reach weapon - not a ranged weapon. It's a move action to switch between normal range and using the weapon with reach.
+1 to all those in favor of changing fervor to wis. Personally, I like that they have channel energy, as it lets them quality for guided hand (not sure how optimal this really is, but is really fits thematically). But, the one of the curses of martial classes is just how MAD they are compared to spellcasters. Please don't hit this great idea for a class with the same penalty.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Class Skills
The warpriest’s class skills are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Knowledge (religion) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).
Of these, I consider Climb, Diplomacy (or Intimidate), Heal, Knowledge Religion, Sense Motive, and Spellcraft as sort of mandatory skills that the Warpriest needs to fulfill their roll.
I personally would also drop Know Engineering and replace it with Know Arcana, History, and Nobility, (Arcana to be able to identify magical afflictions, History/Nobility both relating to anything warlike, identifying troops, banners, castles, battles, tactics, etc. . .)
But even without these, a Human Warpriest with Favored Class Bonus in Skill Points needs a 14 Int just to get what they kind of need to do their job, and that still leaves no real room to take anything outside the basics, like taking Craft to maintain your gear (like any good warrior) or Perception to be able to spot ambushes and sneaks.
I really think that this class (not to mention the basic Cleric and Fighter) really needs 4+Int. It just does. Alternatively, some way, some class feature that will allow it to do some of these basic warrior/basic priest things, maybe along the lines of how the Inquisitor adds a different stat or 1/2 their level to some skills.
I agree, I'd like to see some more out-of-combat utility added to the class. At the moment it plays like a fighter outside of combat and that's really not a compliment.
Sounds like a spiked chain from the description Khazadune. I think the range is a little better though.
Something else I'd like brought up... Clerics get five knowledges, fighters get two, and of those seven different knowledges warpriests seriously get religion and engineering? Really?
No dungeoneering and planes like the magus?
Warpriests definitely need more skill points. As mentioned above, the average warpriest would need something on the lines of 4-5 skills in order to really have the feel of a divine warrior. Knights in shining armor types will also need to add ride to their list. Unless your DM is really liberal with what you're allowed to do with the profession skill, and profession (priest) allows you to ID divine magic and holy symbols, know the basic tenets of religions, etc, etc, 2+int skill points just isn't enough to have a significant role out of combat.
|
|
Unless your DM is really liberal with what you're allowed to do with the profession skill, and profession (priest) allows you to ID divine magic and holy symbols, know the basic tenets of religionsI don't know about IDing divine magic, but you can answer basic questions about your profession, such as stuff related to your god or differences in holy symbols, etc. It won't be uber-useful for combat (like Identifying Undead or Magic), but it could help with story.Emphasis mine.
Huh, not sure how I've managed to skim past that part so many times. Yeah, it might help with some minor out of combat stuff, but it really would be nice to have more skill points to be more knowledgeable in the more complicated parts of being a warpriest. I'd like to think most crusaders in Golorian aren't completely incompetent at everything outside of combat, given that, as basically church military, a warpriest might even be more influential on how other see a religion more than their cleric in some cases.
|
|
Huh, not sure how I've managed to skim past that part so many times. Yeah, it might help with some minor out of combat stuff, but it really would be nice to have more skill points to be more knowledgeable in the more complicated parts of being a warpriest. I'd like to think most crusaders in Golorian aren't completely incompetent at everything outside of combat, given that, as basically church military, a warpriest might even be more influential on how other see a religion more than their cleric in some cases.
Totally agree here that it would be nice to see more skill points. Don't exactly expect to (as the class has 2 parents with 2+INT skill points), but still think it would be great.