1. And? If divine characters can use their deity's favored weapons, pretty sure they are accustomed to their use.That's why Sacred Weapon should apply solely to the deity's favored weapon.I see three problems with this:
1. Some favoured weapons are ranged, some melee. I'd expect a martial character to want to be at least viable with both ranged and melee.
2. Some favoured weapons are simple, not martial. Again, seems reasonable for a martial character to want (at least the equivalent of) martial weapons.
3. It doesn't leave room for e.g. racial preferences such as dwarves liking axes/hammers.
Bear in mind that simple/martial isn't just the flat weapon damage, it's also the increased effect of critical hits.
Not the point. The point is that sometimes the ranged specialist has to fight with a melee weapon and sometimes the melee specialist can't get close enough to melee.
2. Again, and? The mace, spear, dagger, sickle and crossbow are viable.
A lot of people feel they are not.
3. You might wanna blame Paizo for not expanding racial panthéons as much as the Forgotten Realms did.
Point is, you're a divine soldier who's supposed to be an expert of his or her deity's favored weapon, regardless of what it might be.
- An Abadar warpriest should be a crossbowman.
- A Cayden Cailean warpriest should be a swashbuckler.
- An Erastil warpriest should be an archer.
- An Irori warpriest should be a monk.
- A Norgorber warpriest should be a rogue.
- A Rovagug warpriest should be a barbarian.I used classes as general ideas here.
Not everyone agrees that eg. all Abadar warpriests should be crossbowmen.
Fervor's swift action casting still doesn't sit well with me. Mostly because it wastes the swift action which means I cannot cast a quickened spell in the same round, meaning once again that this class isn't the master of self buffing or action economy because I now have to decide between casting a spell, or healing myself. I cannot do both.
I would rather see something like a Divine Spell Combat that forced me to take a full round action, and made me take a -2 on my attack(s) for the round in exchange for letting me cast a spell with the same restrictions placed on Fervor's casting.
Otherwise this class simply cannot keep up with the action economy of the magus whom this class should be mirroring given it's make-up.
I'll reiterate that the full BAB thing is a bad mechanic, and I would rather see the spells streamlined into CHA to reduce the MAD going on. To make up for the lack of BAB with the focus weapon, have the Warpriest add his CHA to all of his attack rolls made with his Focus Weapon.
My 2cp.
Nets can't do damage unless through a very rare set of occurences you throw the net in such a way as it chokes someone/ hits a weak spot/ dislocates a joint etc etc.
Of course if a deity was favouring you they might be making sure that everytime you threw your net that these "flukes" just happened to keep occurring ;)
Guess that makes some sense.
Guess that makes some sense.Nets can't do damage unless through a very rare set of occurences you throw the net in such a way as it chokes someone/ hits a weak spot/ dislocates a joint etc etc.
Of course if a deity was favouring you they might be making sure that everytime you threw your net that these "flukes" just happened to keep occurring ;)
Oh don't get me wrong its hand wavey as all hell, but if a problem with a class/feature comes down to simply "how can nets do damage" then the hand wavey-ness seems to be adequately proportional to the importance of the question ;)
There's about 800 posts worth of arguments on this topic in the previous Warpriest and Jason clearly put a lot of effort into making the Warpriest weapon-agnostic while also making all Favored Weapons viable for the class. The class still has some issues but I don't think the weapon selection is one of them.
100% agreed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fervor's swift action casting still doesn't sit well with me. Mostly because it wastes the swift action which means I cannot cast a quickened spell in the same round, meaning once again that this class isn't the master of self buffing or action economy because I now have to decide between casting a spell, or healing myself. I cannot do both.
I think its ok for there to have to be some choices to be made. I'd argue that the current state of the class is the master of self buffing. It can do it twice as fast as the cleric can without having to use things like quickened spells which eat up more potent resources, not to mention as a 6 level caster quickened spell is far less useful and isnt even an option until much later levels.
I would rather see something like a Divine Spell Combat that forced me to take a full round action, and made me take a -2 on my attack(s) for the round in exchange for letting me cast a spell with the same restrictions placed on Fervor's casting.
That would be less flexible, and also slow down buffing potential of the class. As it stands the character can use fervor to buff, and hten spent its turn fighting OR it can cast another buff. What you describe would actually reduce its ability to buff itself and cut down on its options. It wouldnt then be able to choose for instance an offensive spell in the same round that it buffs.
Otherwise this class simply cannot keep up with the action economy of the magus whom this class should be mirroring given it's make-up.
I'll reiterate that the full BAB thing is a bad mechanic, and I would rather see the spells streamlined into CHA to reduce the MAD going on. To make up for the lack of BAB with the focus weapon, have the Warpriest add his CHA to all of his attack rolls made with his Focus Weapon.
My 2cp.
The class doesnt need to be a mirror of the magus, it needs to work as a warrior and a priest. It does that quite well as it stands, and adding charisma to all attacks is an unprecedented mechanic that could cause all sorts of balance issues. It also doesnt scale well (being a flat bonus not likely to change much over the character's career) or interact with the rules as seamlessly as something like base attack bonus does. Full bab on a specific kind of attacks also already has precedent in the rules, and works fairly well.
The number of stats necessary to make the warpriest work, really needs to be reeled in a bit. I understand the idea of making the class MAD to balance out it's strength, but I feel like it's too much so. All this will do is stifle build creativity and penalize anyone who builds a character outside the norm.
With a 20 point buy (before racials):
Str 14
Dex 13
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 12
With a +2 to one ability score for overall racial modifiers.
This is obviously a melee character, and I just don't see anywhere to really tweak this without hurting the character mechanically. Being a melee fighter, you really don't want less then 14 Con, you also want some Dex and Str for AC, initiative, and melee attacks. Wisdom being our casting stat needs to be somewhat acceptable, and some charisma is needed to fuel our class features. Sure you still have racial modifiers to apply, but an overall +2 to an ability score won't alter this basic setup much.
Being a martial character with a casting/ability stat is already pretty MAD, it doesn't need both wisdom and charisma to fuel its abilities. God help you if you're in a game with something less than a 20 point buy, or you want to make a character outside of the norm.
Needing 4 stats is enough (Str, Dex, Con, plus Wis or Cha), that's my opinion at least.
Without thinking this through too much (because hey whats the fun in that) you could always try and even it out by having a class ability which allows them to base AC off Wis (insight bonus style). This would result in Warpriests skewing towards melee instead of ranged, but tbf I think thats more thematically appropriate anyway. Or if you wanted to you could make it similar to the rangers fighting style choice, the warpriest at level 2 chooses either to use Wis for AC or else uses their Wis for Fort saves, so ranged warpriests could drop their con but maintain a decent fort save, and melee warpriests could drop dex and maintain a decent AC.
(Also to balance it out you would have the same armor limitations, so if you can only get max +2 AC from Dex in armor, then you can also only get +2 Wis to AC).
Agree though that MAD is great, but that spreading TOO thin is a bit much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you want the warpriest to personally drive the final nail into the monk's coffin then? (:
lol, tbf, people have thought monks were underpowered for yonks now, they shouldnt be the reason another perfectly viable class is held back.
So you want the warpriest to personally drive the final nail into the monk's coffin then? (:
I don't see anyone driving a nail into the Sohei, Zen Archer, MoMS, or Maneuver Master monks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the class as is. The revision is a hundred times better. A few points I would like to make.
1. I understand being MAD is a balancing factor but I think it’s a bit too much. Needing 4 of the 6 stats... I would take it down to 3. Please consider using Wisdom or CHA for all his abilities to cut down on being TOO MAD.
2. I love the Sacred Weapon feature. I hope you don’t decide to clip it because of knee jerk reactions from the boards. At most I would normalize the crit range while using the Sacred Weapon damage chart. Other than that it seems great. I love that you gain this buff for any weapon you have weapon focus with. It really gives the player a reason to pick an under used weapon for RP reasons and keeps people from picking a deity based on their favored weapon. Great decision. Over all I hope Sacred Weapon doesn't change.
3. While it is pretty heavy on the Swift Actions I think this is a balancing factor. You have to pick and choose what buff you want to use and when. I’m not sure why people are freaking out over swift action self buffing and offensive spells... there isn't a huge list of offensive spells a 6th level cleric caster can brag about. I’m ok with the number of Swift Actions as a balancing factor if that’s the intent and consider the swift action casting to be balanced as is.
4. Sacred Weapon should be increased to the same duration as Sacred Armor. I really hate that certain buffs are tied to alignment... giving people even more incentive to choose alignment based on game mechanics over Role Play seems to be a bad idea. A generic set of weapon/armor buffs would be better imo.
5. I believe his Class Skills to be too robust. I would cut Knowledge (engineering), and Survival. Possibly Handle Animal, Ride, Diplomacy, and intimidate also. 2 Skill points seems a bit low but is fine.
6. LOVE the full BAB when using the Sacred Weapon. I have seen people complain that it makes the Warpriest a full BAB in all but name but they are wrong. It doesn't affect your CMB/CMD, nor does it meet Feat prereqs. It simply gives you a bonus to hit and an extra attack. I hope the full BAB progression for Sacred Weapon doesn't change.
7. And finally the Blessings. To be honest they are the only underwhelming part of the class. A Minor and Major effect only. I would have liked to see at least 3 abilities (1, 5, 10 maybe). On top of that the actual abilities for the most part are pretty dull other than the Battle Companion abilities (which I like). Over all I think they are the only weak portion of the class and I would like to see them improved or dropped in favor of getting 1 cleric domain.
Final Note: I really like the look of this class. All of my points are minor gripes. If nothing changed from now till print this would still be my favorite class of the new ones (though Shaman is close!).
I will try and Playtest as soon as I can and see if my thoughts are still the same.
Been mulling over this class with some friends, and while we generally really love the class, there's a slight balance issue we noticed that may make Sacred Weapon rather unbalancing. I did a quick Ctrl-F of the thread, and haven't seen anyone post this yet, so here goes:
Consider a Warpriest with Weapon Focus: Heavy Shield and Two Weapon Fighting. If we are reading the class correctly, such a priest with a pair of +1 Bashing Shields is able to swing for 3d6 damage with each hand at 5th level (1d8 up to 3d6 for Huge). With access to Enlarge Person and potentially UMD'ing Lead Blades onto himself, he can fairly easily swing for 5d6 damage, and can even enhance the shields as weapons for further hilarity. All this for a gold investment of less than 10k.
I would very much love to be reading this wrong, so please, PLEASE tell me it works differently.
It doesn't work, for two different reasons. First, sacred weapon doesn't increase the weapon's base damage.
If the weapon
normally deals more damage than this, its damage is
unchanged. This increase in damage does not affect any
other aspect of the weapon. The warpriest can decide
to use the weapon’s base damage instead of the sacred
weapon damage—this must be declared before the attack
roll is made.
So, the shield's weapon damage "is unchanged."
The second reason it doesn't work is because sacred weapon damage is based on the size of the Warpriest.
These bonuses only apply while the warpriest is holding the weapon, and end immediately if the weapon is sheathed or leaves the warpriest’s possession.Am I correct in thinking that Sacred Weapon doesn't work well with thrown weapons?
that's a real shame for pharasma then.
|
I'm going to go ahead and say I think the MAD for the class is about right. I don't see Constitution as being necessary (by the arguments that folks have been posting, it would be a required ability for every class) - they have enough access to healing to offset the difference in not having quite as high a Con as other front line fighters (especially in using Fervor as self-heals).
That just leaves STR/DEX, WIS, and CHA as required stats, and even then, only STR/DEX needs to be a high point stat (as I don't see Warpriests requiring high DCs for their spells and they can get a reasonable pool of Fervor without a high CHA).
I'd also like to throw "Zealot" on the list of alternative names for the class (to get around that whole Portmanteau thing that Paizo prefers to avoid.
Reading the Sacred Weapon ability I think the throwing weapon were left out by accident - I think it was worded that way to ensure that the ability only works for Warpriests. I'd be very surprised if it won't be reworded to include thrown weapons by the time it's released. Still, the more people who make note of it the more chance that the designers notice it.
I'm going to go ahead and say I think the MAD for the class is about right. I don't see Constitution as being necessary (by the arguments that folks have been posting, it would be a required ability for every class) - they have enough access to healing to offset the difference in not having quite as high a Con as other front line fighters (especially in using Fervor as self-heals).
That just leaves STR/DEX, WIS, and CHA as required stats, and even then, only STR/DEX needs to be a high point stat (as I don't see Warpriests requiring high DCs for their spells and they can get a reasonable pool of Fervor without a high CHA).
I'd also like to throw "Zealot" on the list of alternative names for the class (to get around that whole Portmanteau thing that Paizo prefers to avoid.
While I understand your point, I'm going to have to disagree with you. While every class needs Con, as it is so closely tied to survivability, melee oriented classes (which the warpriest is skewed towards) need higher Con or they simple don't survive encounters. It's been my experience that a melee with less then 14 Con will likely not make it to 2nd level, barring being straight up lucky.
By your logic, you could ignore any ability score because all classes "need" it. We can ignore Int because all classes need it for skill points, we can ignore Dex because all classes need it for initiative, AC and reflex saves, I could go on.
If a melee oriented character wants to be able to fulfill his role of going into melee and fighting effectively, they cannot ignore Con as a required stat. It's just as necessary to their effectiveness as Int is to a wizard, or Cha is to a sorcerer.
The thing to keep in mind is that this class has a baseline Hit die of 8 while being more MAD than any other frontline melee class. The paladin is more MAD than either the fighter or the barbarian but gets Lay on Hands specifically to compensate.
Bards (Dex, Charisma), Clerics (Strength/Wisdom), Druids (Strength/Wisdom), inquisitors (Strength, Wisdom), magi (Dex/Str, Intelligence), and Oracles (Strength/Charisma) are all secondary melee classes and they all have more points available to invest in Constitution than the Warpriest.
Spreading primary ability scores was popular as a balance point in 3.5 (Paladin, Favored Soul, various other classes) but in-play it's frustrating to make characters like this, hard to play them well and Pathfinder (rightly) turned away from it. The oracle gets all its spells from Charisma (the favored soul was split between charisma and wisdom), the paladin no longer requires Wisdom.
Ideally I'd like to see Fervor be based off Wisdom instead of Charisma. Alternately if the class continues to be spread between strength/dexterity, constitution, wisdom and charisma I'd like to see their hit die upped to D10.
Eh, I don't think it'd do all that much. Bumping the hit die up by 1 size means you only get (on average assuming you roll) 1 more hit point per level, plus 2 more at 1st level. That's not a lot, an average 21 more HP at level 20.
Eh, I don't think it'd do all that much. Bumping the hit die up by 1 size means you only get (on average assuming you roll) 1 more hit point per level, plus 2 more at 1st level. That's not a lot, an average 21 more HP at level 20.
Its a free Toughness mate =P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real question is, why can't Sacred Weapon add the guided special ability?
Eh, I don't think it'd do all that much. Bumping the hit die up by 1 size means you only get (on average assuming you roll) 1 more hit point per level, plus 2 more at 1st level. That's not a lot, an average 21 more HP at level 20.
That's a fair way to think about it, though by the same logic the difference between a rogue and a fighter will only be 21 hp. However it's both the ability score spread difference and the size of the hit die that creates the difference in HP pools. I don't know, I still feel like the WP could benefit from having some extra hit points compared to bards or inquisitors.
The real question is, why can't Sacred Weapon add the guided special ability?
I kind of get the feeling that Pathfinder wants to buy up and then bury all the books that contained the Guided special ability in a landfill somewhere, E.T.-style. Similarly Agile (though it gets some love in the PFS guide) stands out as being one of fairly few weapon enhancements not republished in the Ultimate Equipment guide.
@Rory
If you disregard the Luck-bonus trait (which is wildly overpowered for a trait), adjust the fighter's PB to have less wisdom and more strength, and swap Power Attack with Weapon Focus: Greatsword the numbers are pretty even. Don't get me wrong, the Warpriest is a stronger class than the Fighter (simply by virtue of being a spellcaster) but in static numbers I think the Fighter will come out ahead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to the FAQ on Unarmed Strike as a Favored Weapon...
Favored Weapon (Unarmed Strike): If my deity's favored weapon is Unarmed Strike, do I gain Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat?
Yes, if your class grants you proficiency in your deity's favored weapon as a class ability.
I wanted to reiterate this. It should really be a baseline rule for all deity-based casters, as the FAQ treats it, and "Fistpriests" should get WF: Unarmed Strike instead of IUS.
6. LOVE the full BAB when using the Sacred Weapon. I have seen people complain that it makes the Warpriest a full BAB in all but name but they are wrong. It doesn't affect your CMB/CMD, nor does it meet Feat prereqs. It simply gives you a bonus to hit and an extra attack.
Nitpick - it actually CAN affect your CMB, for example if you're using a maneuver that relies on the weapon like disarm, sunder or trip. Your BAB rises for the purpose of attacking with the weapon, and CMB is an attack (that uses the weapon, in the above cases.)
I don't know, I still feel like the WP could benefit from having some extra hit points compared to bards or inquisitors.
Some methods WPs get extra hitpoints over bard and inquisitors:
1) Use some Fervor for emergency heals.
2) Spend a bonus combat feat on Toughness.
3) Pick a Healing Blessing deity and memorize some cure spells.
4) Swift action cast Aid or Bear's Endurance on yourself.I'm not sure if that is enough to fill in your feeling or not.
Apart from Toughness (which is a viable option but takes up feat slots) all of those options are either Reactive healing that expend resources or buff spells that focus on closing the gap, which means they will either have no swift actions or less spells available to cast more relevant buffs.
Mind, I am nitpicking at the moment - if the class was published tomorrow the way it looks right now I'd still happily play it. That said, we have another week of playtesting left so I'll present my minor concerns :)
I'd also like to throw "Zealot" on the list of alternative names for the class (to get around that whole Portmanteau thing that Paizo prefers to avoid.
Please please please no to "Zealot", not another name which instantly sets the characters tone, as opposed to their class. Warpriest tells you the character is a god lovin fighter cleric, but it leaves it to you to set their character, are they fighting to defend their gods believes, are they fighting to impose them? Zealot on the other hand doesnt tell you what type of class they are (you could have a weak scholar be a zealot), but it DOES define the character instantly, its like wooo another palidin!
Wally the Level 5 War Priest of Erastil
S: 14 D: 16 C: 12 I: 10 W: 14 Ch: 14 (20 pt human, +1 CHA @ 4th)
Feats: Point Blank Shot (human), Rapid Shot (1st), Weapon Focus Longbow (WP 1), Precise Shot (3rd), Deadly Aim (WP 3), Weapon Focus Great Sword (5th)
Traits: ??? (+1 to luck bonuses from Ultimate Campaign), Reactionary (+1 Init)
Special Abilities:
- Blessings x 2
- Sacred Weapon
- Fervor (4 / day)
- Channel Energy
- Sacred Weapon +1 (4 rounds per day)
- Spells (4x0th, 5x 1st, 3x 2nd)Spells Prepared: 6x Divine Favor, 1x Cure Moderate Wounds, 1x Bull's Strength
Items: +1 longbow, +1 great sword, +1 chain shirt
Frank the Level 5 Fighter
S: 14 D: 18 C: 14 I: 10 W: 14 Ch: 7 (20 pt human, +1 WIS @ 4th)
Feats: Point Blank Shot (human), Rapid Shot (1st), Weapon Focus Longbow (F 1), Precise Shot (F 2), Deadly Aim (3rd), Weapon Specialization (F 4), Power Attack (5th)
Traits: ???, Reactionary (+1 Init)
Special Abilities:
- Bravery +1
- Armor Training 1
- Weapon Training 1 (bows)Items: +1 longbow, +1 great sword, +1 breastplate
It is meant that these two characters have the same goal in mind. That is to be a premiere archer and a decent switch-hitter. The feats were picked with this in mind to keep the variables in check for the comparison.
Slight Difference Notes: The War Priest is +4 Will Save over the fighter at this point. The Fighter can use better armor and still retain 30 foot movement, so did for +1 AC. The War Priest is a decent face character. The Fighter is +1 Init and +1 Fort/Reflex saves. The fighter gets approximately +2 hitpoints per level.
The main problem I have with your comparison is that you're comparing a non spellcasting melee class to a spellcasting melee class. You're really just underlining the power gap between mundane classes vs spellcasting classes, and not whether the warpriest is too MAD or just MAD enough(which I assume is the point of your post). Do a comparison between an Inquisitor and a Warpriest, or a Battle Cleric and a Warpriest, that'll be a better comparison. Honestly I don't think anyone would argue with you that the warpriest, using his limited resource abilities to gain a buffs, will edge out a fighter without buffs. That's why they are limited on the number of uses per day.
The other issue I have with your comparison is that the warpriest build is really just show casing how good that trait is. You take out that trait, and they're very comparable, even with scared weapon. Once a warpriest runs out of his spell/special abilities, he'll always fall short of the fighter.
That said, we have another week of playtesting left so I'll present my minor concerns :)My response was informational only about various options that did exist in the class that covered the stated concerns.
It was not meant to suppress your concerns. Express away!
And I didn't mean to imply that I was feeling oppressed - I appreciate the information :).
I just wanted to state that my concern about the HP difference is not really a dealbreaker for me - the class is fine as it is but if Fervor worked off of Wisdom instead of Charisma, that would be the cherry on top of the Divine sundae for me :)
(Well, and 4 skillpoints per level and tweaking Blessings to work with ranged weapons as well as melee weapons, but now I'm starting to feel greedy...)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually prefer to see Wisdom over Charisma since it's closer to the Cleric roots and I envision the Warpriest as a slightly more introvert but reflected counterpoint to the extrovert yet naive (wisdom-dumping) paladin... That's just me though. The class could work with either Charisma or Wisdom. Just preferably not both.
Some guys said that Warpriest as a pooor purpose, or don't fill it as they should. I don't know, but I heard on skype a friend saying: "'Vivis, it's the class I always looked upon in PF".
I like this class. Some stuff made me smile, as how this class incite you to go on the "extreme alignment" road, maybe a way to keep you from using the easy "I'm neutral I can use all the spells!"
The balance over stats is well made IMO: you are more battle-inclined than clerics, but you can still go on the spellcaster side without make combat feats and stuff your priority, and still go smashing some faces or firing some arrows. Your stats decide. And clearly at 25 points this class should shine as Armonstrong's bald head under the Sun. Must be fun too.
Note on the crossbow: It's a little specific, but can be great if well used (I think of vital strike, hide and seek tactics and mage killing specialisation). Just less reliable than bows for lots of stuff.
Isn't "required ability scores" (e.g. MAD) a bad balancing point? It dramatically changes how good a class is between a 10, 15, 20, and 25 point game. To say nothing of how it integrates with stat rolling. Other classes benefit from good stats too, but having a class with really high scaling with higher generation seems like a bad idea.Interesting discussion folks,
I think I am starting to settle on the power level of this class. It feels useful, but not overly so and the required ability scores helps to keep it in check. That said, I think there is a fair bit of tuning that needs to happen. I am concerned about the sacred weapon damage scaling and high crit weapons, but I think I want to see more playtest feedback before I move in any direction on that issue.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Yeah. I've seen games at my table that run 5d6 drop 2 for stats generation. There'd be no such thing as 'ability requirements is balance'in there.
The warpriest could end up in 'drastically more powerful than comparable classes while both have high stats' at the same time as it's 'drastically less powerful than comparable classes while both have low stats'
This is just as much of a problem for the warpriest as it was for 3.5e paladin, which is to say, a big one.
Lead Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Granted, needing more than a single stat is seen as "Too MAD" by people on these forums.
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
I think the "too good" argument is swinging back and forth because people are measuring it up against different classes.
Is it better than the fighter? Most definitely - the utility of the cleric list, swift action buffs, self-healing and bonus feats all heavily outbalance the fighter's Bravery (snicker) and weapon training.
However if you compare it to the Inquisitor or the Magus I'd say it's about where it needs to be on a power scale, though I still think there is a little bit of a MAD aspect in here that could be tuned down. It's not so much adding power as adding elegance to the class, if that makes any sense.
One thing I think is really great is that this really feels like its own distinct class now, it's not just "how about we mash up fighter and cleric and sees what happens".
If there's aspects I'd tweak or remove now it's probably the Channel Energy (which feels a little forced to me) or Blessings. I think blessings either need a significant amount of work done or they should just be replaced with domains, though that might just be in part because I'm worried blessings will go the way of the dodo - released here and then never really expanded on again *cough words of power cough* in later books.
Granted, needing more than a single stat is seen as "Too MAD" by people on these forums.
MAD syndrome is similar to leg length inequality in that a minor case is not particularly debilitating, a moderate case can cause discomfort and affect life quality, and a severe case is excruciating.
I converted level 1 Warpriest to Revised version. The Sacred Weapon ability is written in very clunky manner. It actually makes me hesitate if I understood the property correctly myself!;
In addition, the warpriest sacred weapon damage (+dice?) is based on his level and not the weapon type. If the weapon normally deals more damage than this (/ weapon has bigger damage dice?), its damage (+dice?) is unchanged. This increase in damage does not affect any other aspect of the weapon (like crit range? or damage type P/S/B?). The warpriest can decide to use the weapon’s base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made (so I noticed in the first place that my greataxes deals d12, so I still need to mention using it before every attack roll? Is this sentence needed? I can't see any logic here!).
Oh yes, I am not native English speaker. So forgive if it just lack of skill on my part.
|
|
And weirdly...if the sacred weapon damage doesn't add mundane damage first...why does the size of the priest matter? If it's faith based (not physical) why does a gnome have smaller "Faith-power" than a medium sized Warpriest?
I saw some post about having larger weapons and not seeing a change in your weapon damage until 20th level
How about instead of the damage scale being based on the caster...
... Sm / Med / Large
It is based on the size of the weapon ...
... Light / one handed / two-handed
and uses the same scale
|
.... I still need to mention using it before every attack roll? Is this sentence needed? I can't see any logic here!).
The class at 1st lv states that the sacred weapon can do 1d6 no matter what the weapon is (pen or axe)
You can choose to go with the class damage (1d6) or axe damage (1d12) when you attack
As a DM I'd assume you are always going for the higher amount.
Also what you place on your character sheet is what I'd assume you are doing unless your explicitly state something else
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
Can it be both?
I agree with the MADness, also I don't see why you would give it increased weapon damage regardless of weapon AND allow them to use any weapon as their sacred weapon. I would prefer to force favorite weapon and give a static d8, (19-20 x2) to the weapon. As it stands now it favors 1 hand weapons, and promotes people to try and use crit builds to abuse it.
I also believe the Blessings need to be overhauled. The class probably doesn't need that much more in the combat department, just ironing out of the abilities it does have. Blessings could fill a utility roll that the warpriest is lacking with only 2 skill points per level. Look at the level one power of the Glory domain for example. Another good one is the current Glory Blessing (major).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed with Kudaku, I just don't see Charisma for this guy.
Flavor-wise: Clerics use their words and personality to convert others to the faith. They proselytize and evangelize. Warpriests do neither - they are the militant arm of the church, men (and women) of action. They convince people to convert by being a badass holy army, not by the persuasion or coercion of their speech.
Crunch-wise: Needing both Wis and Cha harms the class considerably at lower point-buy or with bad rolls. Consider that you will likely want 14 Con, 14 Wis, and 14 in your main combat stat (Str or Dex) at a minimum to start with; well, that got you to 15 PB with not a single point left over for Cha, for your other combat stat, or for Intelligence.
Charisma should not be important to them. I would even have their Channel and Fervor be wis-based, but limit their Channel by having it cost 3 or even 4 uses of Fervor to activate (with a feat to reduce it by 1.)