|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Squiggit wrote: Claxon wrote: I think as long as they have full casting progression they just can't be allowed to creep too close to other martial characters.
I agree completely, but at the same time if they (and other caster-gishes) really end up that far behind other martials, especially fighters, in terms of physical combat capabilities the whole premise of becoming a martially inclined caster ends up feeling a little bit misleading. I agree, in the sense of people coming from PF1 expecting that Warpriest are going to end up with a very different feel to the class.
Honestly, I think recreating that kind of warpriest is best done as a Fighter multiclass into cleric and spending some of their class feats to get spell casting. That's a much better approximation IMO.
The warpriest doctrine for clerics is more like a caster who dabbled in martial combat, rather than a martial combatant who dabbled in casting (which is what people seem to expect).
I do also agree with SuperBidi's concern about giving too strong of bonus to deity favored weapons then causing a meta problem where we only see clerics of one deity because their weapon is too good to pass up.
Lady Melo wrote: I wonder if Warpriest could have worked going to master in simple weapons only. (Although I suppose you lose the whole Martial>Simple once you bump the die size on a simple weapon (such as deity one), and most ancestries give a really easy ways to make certain martial weapons in to simple weapons for proficiency, so in the end there are too many easy work arounds).
Perhaps a +1 bonus they lose if they become Master/Legendary (a sort of half step between Expert and Master).
The kind of weapon doesn't really matter.
It's the chance to hit that it does.
Also, a simple weapon could be 1 dice greater if under 1d6, so the dmg will be more or less the same as any other weapon.
let's say you have a dagger 1d4 > 1d6.
Compare it with another class with master rank and a 1d8 dmg
with greater rune striking will be
4d6 +str
vs
4d8 + str
Given the same str bonus and a medium roll we are going to have
4x4 +str
5x4 +str
a mere 4 dmg difference.
A warpriest is made to be hybrid, but given the fact that spells like heroism work better on a fighter, he will simply be a versatile character which buffs, heals or deal his damage on secondary targets.
Anyway, comparing a versatile character to a specialized character will always see the specialized character being better on paper. A Warpriest is worse than a Fighter when it comes to melee combat and worse than a Cleric when it comes to divine magic. So if you try, following some white-room theory, to find the proper position of a Warpriest during combat, you'll massively fail. A Warpriest is supposed to switch between melee combat and spells depending on the situation. Its strength is not spike efficiency, its sustained one. When your Fighter looks at the flying enemy waiting for the Wizard's spell, the Warpriest blasts. When your Cleric waits for someone to heal, the Warpriest crushes skulls.
So, the Warpriest is worse than a Fighter or a Cleric when these characters can use their powers, but he's better than them when they can't, as he's always something very interesting to do.
Squiggit wrote: Claxon wrote: I think as long as they have full casting progression they just can't be allowed to creep too close to other martial characters.
I agree completely, but at the same time if they (and other caster-gishes) really end up that far behind other martials, especially fighters, in terms of physical combat capabilities the whole premise of becoming a martially inclined caster ends up feeling a little bit misleading. You can build a wizard who can hit most enemies (in the level -1 to level -2 range) a reasonable amount of time (60% chance of hitting). With the right magic items a wizard can even get a 60% chance of hitting a boss (level+2).
Considering wizards have zero way to buff their to hit in this edition I think Carter weapon users are completely viable.
A Wizard with a +3 weapon is equivalent to a martial with a +1 weapon (assuming equal ability mod). Getting 60% vs lv+2 as a Wizard seems very much like spending everything for minimal effect.
Also warpriests were self buffers with the potential to buff others. From what you all have said, they have become buffers that have the potential to self buff. Which definitely plays differently.
Temperans wrote: A Wizard with a +3 weapon is equivalent to a martial with a +1 weapon (assuming equal ability mod). Getting 60% vs lv+2 as a Wizard seems very much like spending everything for minimal effect.
Also warpriests were self buffers with the potential to buff others. From what you all have said, they have become buffers that have the potential to self buff. Which definitely plays differently.
I am not familiar with the previous version of the game, but if the classes had different combat bonuses in terms of attack, wouldn't the warpriests had been more useful buffing someone else even in p1?
K1 wrote:
I am not familiar with the previous version of the game, but if the classes had different combat bonuses in terms of attack, wouldn't the warpriests had been more useful buffing someone else even in p1?
Whether that's true or not, in my experience, the people who played warpriest were decidedly of the mentality that they wanted to buff themselves. It's my belief Paizo created to class to appease players who wanted the combat buffing benefit of Clerics, without having the socially imposed responsibility of buffing others. Warpriest also filled the niche of the non-lawful good Paladin.
The warpriest was one of the few classes to use the Swift actions as a vehicle for buffing, so this facilitated self-buffing as one entered into melee.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
K1 wrote: I am not familiar with the previous version of the game, but if the classes had different combat bonuses in terms of attack, wouldn't the warpriests had been more useful buffing someone else even in p1? Generally true, a few big differences though, like that attack bonuses were easier to come by in PF1, so while Fighters were much more accurate and still did more damage in the end, it was much easier for a Warpriest to improve their baseline accuracy.
For another, the Warpriest class itself had a built in mechanic to self-buff faster than normal, encouraging playing in a more combat oriented fashion.
For a third, their spell list in PF1 contained buff spells that couldn't be cast on allies even if they wanted to and were designed to help cover their inferior combat capabilities.
N N 959 wrote: K1 wrote:
I am not familiar with the previous version of the game, but if the classes had different combat bonuses in terms of attack, wouldn't the warpriests had been more useful buffing someone else even in p1?
Whether that's true or not, in my experience, the people who played warpriest were decidedly of the mentality that they wanted to buff themselves. It's my belief Paizo created to class to appease players who wanted the combat buffing benefit of Clerics, without having the socially imposed responsibility of buffing others. Warpriest also filled the niche of the non-lawful good Paladin.
The warpriest was one of the few classes to use the Swift actions as a vehicle for buffing, so this facilitated self-buffing as one entered into melee.
Being true or not is simply to confront the attack ratio of a buffed dps with a buffed warpriest ( just to know if one of the two would have been more efficient in terms of percentages ).
I mean, if you put all of this about roleplay, then we can have a self buffed cleric with heroism 3 on himself.
He will just have 1 less than a fighter, and could be definitely competitive ( even with a heroism 2, if you want to save higher lvl slots ).
The point of the whole thing was "If a fighter already hit easier than all the other classes... wouldn't be better/wiser to enhance his abilities instead?"
In terms of efficiency ( even if, if i were about to fight some monsters in a fantasy world far away, i will definitely enhance my survival chance, even if it would mean not to buff myself but to buff someone else. This because while it's true that +X saving throws would be amazing on me, +3 on hit on a fighter will allow us to end the fight earlier, and that means a higher chance of survival ).
K1 wrote: Being true or not is simply to confront the attack ratio of a buffed dps with a buffed warpriest ( just to know if one of the two would have been more efficient in terms of percentages ). It's not that simple. You're ignoring context.
Quote: I mean, if you put all of this about roleplay, then we can have a self buffed cleric with heroism 3 on himself. It's not "all" about roleplay, but it is heavily influenced by the experience that classes engender. You play a Fighter because you want to fight with weapons. A warpriest's official modus operandi is to get a bloody nose. In my experience, this was a popular/successful class from that perspective.
Quote: The point of the whole thing was "If a fighter already hit easier than all the other classes... wouldn't be better/wiser to enhance his abilities instead?" In general no, but it's dependent on the circumstance/context of the fight.. For a lot of reasons, both IC and OOC, a party is better off having more than one capable fighter.
Quote: In terms of efficiency ( even if, if i were about to fight some monsters in a fantasy world far away, i will definitely enhance my survival chance, even if it would mean not to buff myself but to buff someone else. That is hardly a universal position. There are many warring societies were those who fought sought personal glory at the risk of death and even in the face of it. You're also forgetting that the class is a "war" "priest." Combine a mentality for violence with fanaticism and I would not expect a warpriest to buff others for combat. In fact, the whole point of being a warpriest (both OOC and IC) is to buff yourself for combat.
Quote: This because while it's true that +X saving throws would be amazing on me, +3 on hit on a fighter will allow us to end the fight earlier, and that means a higher chance of survival ). Again, this is by no means a universal truth or even a statistical one. There are innumerable variables that determine the best course of action. And that's just what's best IC. If a player who gets to buff herself, guilt-free, leads to her having greater enthusiasm for the game, I'm all for it...so is Paizo.
It seems that we can't fine ourselves mid way.
What I was asking is if a combat class had higher modifier than a warpriest. If so, ofc just imho, even in the previous version a higher bonus on a combat class would have been more efficient than on a Hybrid.
I was just doing simple math.
That's why when I talked about roleplay I said that I agreed with you ( about the last part, every game is meant to have fun. You can accomplish your quest weather you buff the fighter or yourself ).
K1 wrote: I was just doing simple math. The "math" may be simple, but the formulas and the analysis is beyond conventional computing.
The optimal combat strategy is greatly dependent on loads of variables. Having one person at +6 isn't automatically better than having two people at +3. Consider that if you give all the buffs to one character, then the opposing force can focus on one character rather than several.
Sure, if we are fighting in a 5' wide hallway and the Fighter is blocking all the monsters, then buff the FIghter, right? Or maybe, let the Fighter go into Full Defense and buff the Ranger with Improved Precise Shot.
The point is that you can't use a spreadsheet to tell you what to do. The best a spreadsheet can do is help you find the things you aren't accounting for.
N N 959 wrote: K1 wrote: I was just doing simple math. The "math" may be simple, but the formulas and the analysis is beyond conventional computing.
The optimal combat strategy is greatly dependent on loads of variables. Having one person at +6 isn't automatically better than having two people at +3. Consider that if you give all the buffs to one character, then the opposing force can focus on one character rather than several.
Sure, if we are fighting in a 5' wide hallway and the Fighter is blocking all the monsters, then buff the FIghter, right? Or maybe, let the Fighter go into Full Defense and buff the Ranger with Improved Precise Shot.
The point is that you can't use a spreadsheet to tell you what to do. The best a spreadsheet can do is help you find the things you aren't accounting for. Indeed you can change your target.
But if the target it is you, then after you have cast the buff you will be probably out of action, while a combat class could delay his turn until he gets the buff ( depends how the delay action works indeed ).
Also, let's think about this specific ruleset.
If the max we can get is a hit with a 10+ ( and 19/20 critical success ), what about increasing both normal hit and critical chance?
I mean, since it does not necessarily come to hit 20 ti critical hit somebody, then a to hit buff will have double values, in this specific contex ( if you over hit by 10 or more you get a critical hit ).
I do agree that you can't say "I am going to use all the time X on character 1", but you are a capable of knowing what would be one of the best outcome in terms of strategy ( it's not the right word I know ), weather you decide you do it or not ( because as you said before "you couldn't" or "there will be a better use of it", or something else ).
K1 wrote: But if the target it is you, then after you have cast the buff you will be probably out of action, while a combat class could delay his turn until he gets the buff ( depends how the delay action works indeed ). As stated, the PF1 Warpriest made extensive use of the Swift Action type to apply buffs. This allowed the character to both buff and attack in the same round.
Quote: Also, let's think about this specific ruleset. There's not much utility in that because the Warpriest was made effective by allowing it to leverage the Action economy. Until we see the mechanics used for PF2, it's kind of pointless to guess at break even points.
Quote: I mean, since it does not necessarily come to hit 20 ti critical hit somebody, then a to hit buff will have double values, in this specific contex ( if you over hit by 10 or more you get a critical hit ). These types of analytics/assertions are really popular on forums because they are easy to do. I've never seen anyone try to determine the correlation to actual game play.
Quote: I do agree that you can't say "I am going to use all the time X on character 1", but you are a capable of knowing what would be one of the best outcome in terms of strategy ( it's not the right word I know ), weather you decide you do it or not ( because as you said before "you couldn't" or "there will be a better use of it", or something else ). I'm responding to the general statement you made here:
k1 wrote: wouldn't the warpriests had been more useful buffing someone else even in p1? As you agree, there is no universal answer to that question, even if we agree on what it means to be "useful." And if i had to guess, I'd say no because the class was set up to buff itself and doing that leveraged its abilities (you're swimming downstream). I would not expect it's going to play the same in PF2.
|
