| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most Rogues won't be specialized in Medicine.
Thing is, they don't really have to specialize. They get increases and Skill Feats often enough that it doesn't require them to be specialized.
Rogues don't have bonuses in Wisdom so they are not good at Battle Medicine.
Considering Expert Assurance at level 2 guarantees a 16 always (no Wisdom even factored in) I fail to see how that matters.
And Medicine is just out of combat healing, so it should not be counted in this list (also, Medicine is overrated, it is useful only for a bunch of levels before being replaced around level 10 by wands of Heal).
I disagree with most of this.
I would put them F tier as there is nothing related to healing in their class features.
Except for Skill Increases and Skill Feats. You know, two defining Class Features.
Except for Skill Increases and Skill Feats. You know, two defining Class Features.
Making 2d8 points of healing per ally per day is so low that it's competing with potions. Ok, E tier if you want.
If anyone tells me "We have a Rogue, we don't need a Cleric", I'd laugh. Putting Rogues on the same line than Angelic Sorcerer and above Druids... I have hard time considering you're serious, in fact.Every class but the ones having healing abilities are F tier. If Rogues are E tier, then all classes with Familiar are E tier too, as they can deliver potions in one action. Hardly relevant anyway.
Rogues aren't any better at medicine than other classes. They have an easier time speccing into medicine since they get double skill increases and feats, but a rogue who speccs into medicine is as good at it as a fighter who speccs into medicine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone tells me "We have a Rogue, we don't need a Cleric", I'd laugh. Putting Rogues on the same line than Angelic Sorcerer and above Druids... I have hard time considering you're serious, in fact.
Tell that to the Rogue that's out healing the Angelic Sorcerer in my current campaign.
Every class but the ones having healing abilities are F tier.
Ah so 3 x day spell that heals 1d8, 1d8+4 is somehow "god tier" propel them into god tier, Battle Medicine is terrible, out of combat medicine "doesn't matter and sucks".
Thanks for enlightening me, rofl.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most Rogues won't be specialized in Medicine. Rogues don't have bonuses in Wisdom so they are not good at Battle Medicine. And Medicine is just out of combat healing, so it should not be counted in this list (also, Medicine is overrated, it is useful only for a bunch of levels before being replaced around level 10 by wands of Heal).
I would put them F tier as there is nothing related to healing in their class features.
Out of Combat healing is perfectly legitimate as it will lower the resources required for In Combat healing. I would consider Druid a better healer than any Primal Sorc simply because of GoodBerry alone. That doesn’t make them much better, but enough to be worth consideration. While a Medicine Specialized Rogue may not be enough to cover an entire party; if you couple them with an Alchemist that brews Elixers of Life, then I’d say you have a pretty good foundation.
I will say Bibi is right in that Treat Wounds doesn’t scale that well. Medicine gets better when you can roll for the higher DC which Assurance won’t catch up to nearly quick enough. For example even a Rogue won’t get assurance to 20 till level 6 and only heal for 2d8 + 10 every 10min. Rogue will certainly be able to specialize quicker and more efficiently than a Monk, but the Monk will eventually catch up and possibly even be able to roll the higher DC more consistently.
When more Skill feats get printed i feel you’re right that Rogue will get even better; but with what we have currently it’s just not enough IMO.
If anyone tells me "We have a Rogue, we don't need a Cleric", I'd laugh. Putting Rogues on the same line than Angelic Sorcerer and above Druids... I have hard time considering you're serious, in fact.Tell that to the Rogue that's out healing the Angelic Sorcerer in my current campaign.
Every class but the ones having healing abilities are F tier.Ah so 3 x day spell that heals 1d8, 1d8+4 is somehow "god tier" propel them into god tier, Battle Medicine is terrible, out of combat medicine "doesn't matter and sucks".
Thanks for enlightening me, rofl.
Man, you're funny. Being the medic of your party makes you do all the out of combat Medicine checks. Crazy, isn't it? And this has nothing to do with being a Rogue, it just has to do with noone else in your party being better at Medicine than him.
In my party, the Fighter is the medic, so Fighters are A tier when it comes to healing?Yes, Treat Wounds has to be removed from healing calculations as anyone Trained in Medicine would heal as much as your Rogue as long as there's noone else in the party better in Medicine. Rogues have nothing to make them good at Treat Wounds, and actually no class really has anything for that, besides being Wisdom based, but that's a small bonus. So Rogues are F tier when it comes to healing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone tells me "We have a Rogue, we don't need a Cleric", I'd laugh. Putting Rogues on the same line than Angelic Sorcerer and above Druids... I have hard time considering you're serious, in fact.Tell that to the Rogue that's out healing the Angelic Sorcerer in my current campaign.
Every class but the ones having healing abilities are F tier.Ah so 3 x day spell that heals 1d8, 1d8+4 is somehow "god tier" propel them into god tier, Battle Medicine is terrible, out of combat medicine "doesn't matter and sucks".
Thanks for enlightening me, rofl.
Man, you're funny. Being the medic of your party makes you do all the out of combat Medicine checks. Crazy, isn't it? And this has nothing to do with being a Rogue, it just has to do with noone else in your party being better at Medicine than him.
In my party, the Fighter is the medic, so Fighters are A tier when it comes to healing?Yes, Treat Wounds has to be removed from healing calculations as anyone Trained in Medicine would heal as much as your Rogue as long as there's noone else in the party better in Medicine. Rogues have nothing to make them good at Treat Wounds, and actually no class really has anything for that, besides being Wisdom based, but that's a small bonus. So Rogues are F tier when it comes to healing.
I think the point is that rogues will be able to get every feat that requires expert in medicine or lower by level 4, while others can't get it til 6. And non-rogues have a much higher opportunity cost to get it since they have a much smaller amount of skill feats, meaning they might have to give up something that would help them in combat or for another skill they'd have to use.
As for the Wisdom thing, I don't see why a rogue shouldn't have good Wisdom. Wisdom is perception and usually initiative, everyone wants it. A thief has no reason not to get good wisdom because all they need for their class is Dex (the other rackets might have a harder time getting good Wis, though).
I think the point is that rogues will be able to get every feat that requires expert in medicine or lower by level 4
And it has nearly no impact. What makes you the medic of your party is that at the beginning of the game, when creating your character, you said "I'll be the medic." and everyone said "Ok". And that's it, you are the medic, and no one cares if you get all the feats by level 1, 2, 6 or 12, you are the medic and you'll make all the Treat Wounds check and make all the out of combat healing. And if it is not you, it'll be someone else, unless absolutely noone wants to increase Medicine.
So, I can hear that Rogues will be a bit more often medics because they have more skill increases and feats. But I'm not sure they will be medic much more often, and if they were not medic someone else would be. In every party, there's a medic, and it has not much to do with his class but with the fact that he doesn't plan on increasing much skills early on.
So, stating that a Rogue is an A class healer is a joke. You can put it E class healer because Rogues may be more often medics in parties, but that's the max you can expect from them. At the end of the day, the healer will be a Cleric, a Druid, a Sorcerer, a Bard or an Alchemist, not a Rogue. Treat Wounds can't be counted as it's just a specificity of your party to use this character as medic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You’re acting like the success of a DC 15 check is negligible when the rogue doesn’t even have to roll a check at level 2 to achieve healing both in and out of combat.
That’s the difference.
If you want to argue it’s front loaded, as Pumpkinhead mentioned, I wouldn’t disagree, but it still puts their healing output just below cleric at level 2 especially (because even if the casters spend all their spells on healing, they still have between a 50-70% chance of success odds to heal with battle medicine and OOC depending on wisdom).
The value of a Rogue healer also gets better the more members of your party, as OOC healing then becomes even more valuable and Battle Medicine has more targets (5 guaranteed heals for a party of five is 10d8 vs 5d8/7d8).
And by the way I agreed they could likely drop to b tier and angelic could go up a tier. I’d argue they’re A tier at level 2, but drop down to maybe C tier as levels go up (but again, just because there’s not really a lot of Skill Feats for high level medicine at the moment).
But they are miles better than Fighter, which is laughable to even state. And a Rogue can certainly invest in Wisdom (will save, perception, Medicine skill, etc) especially since the Thief has stats to spare.
Let’s just not continue the conversation.
I think what the stat tier exercise shows is that, with the consensus that druid and monk are really better than their '14' score in the initial draft tier list, the classes are really quite close to each other.
Really what I'd note is that some classes are specialists, while others are generalists. Monks for example may not be as good at striking as the fighter or at defending as the champion but have mobility and control as compensation.
Also that there are character build options that allow classes to fill in the gaps of other class roles, especially when it comes to out of combat healing.
Really it's solid. Even the alchemist might not be underpowered, just a general utility/support character with some combat capability rather than the good at everything character that the 1e alchemist was. Though that might be a controversial opinion.
Really it's solid. Even the alchemist might not be underpowered, just a general utility/support character with some combat capability rather than the good at everything character that the 1e alchemist was. Though that might be a controversial opinion.
This kind of breaks down, though, considering that (imaginary number) 80% of the rules are directly combat-related. That signals to the players that contribution in combat is the largest part of the game. Being less able to contribute in that realm is a serious detriment.
It would be similarly weird for the barbarian to exist in a game that was 80% social encounter rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Monks look weaker by the tiers because the tiers don't cover their biggest strengths; sheer mobility and spectacular defensive proficiencies.
This makes Monks very hard to kill- indeed, it makes them the most resilient class, period.
But since the tiers measure your ability to do teamwork related things, these strengths don't shine.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care much for tier lists in a game like this with so many variables (or, really, in any game), but I also want to throw my hat into the monks-are-better-than-they-seem-on-tier-paper ring.
Mobility and control are huge strengths and I think are why it's good right now, in Core. But I actually think Monk shines because it's a relative master of the action economy, and this mastery is what gives it so much of its potency. It lets the Monk do more than just be mobile and controlling; it also makes it a class that I predict will scale extremely well as more options are released.
Down the road I predict that while Fighters will maintain a top spot on the "DPS charts," Monks will get better and better at abusing utility actions from new feats and new archetypes because Flurry is such a game-changer.
Edit: Plus, they have baseline access to focus powers. Who knows where those are headed...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Monks look weaker by the tiers because the tiers don't cover their biggest strengths; sheer mobility and spectacular defensive proficiencies.
Monks can also have spectacular action economy. With flurry of blows and winding flow you can get four actions out of two, possibly denying the person you're hitting actions via stunning fist or the brawling group critical specialization. This is a much stronger strategy now than in previous versions of the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Monks are some of the biggest winners going from 1E to 2E. The improvement to their action economy is huge.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks really feel like monks in this edition.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread reminds me of the immediate aftermath of Starfinder's release when people would declare Soldiers and Envoys tier H/12 trashcan material and Operatives as tier S+++ godlike, based mostly on armchair rocking and "40 years of experience in playing games"
Stating that now in Stafinder forum would get people to laugh and raise their eyebrows, as actual gameplay proved Soldier damage output as more consistent and reliable than Operatives and Envoy's buffs and debuffs indispensable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No useless just less effective. I notice a trend of people saying incap makes it useless but it actually just increase the result one step. so a crit fail is just a fail. Is it best against higher no but it's not entirely useless.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stunning mooks basically for free is also really, really good. Removing incapacitation from Stunning Fist would take a feat which is already great and skyrocket into the stratosphere.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No useless just less effective. I notice a trend of people saying incap makes it useless but it actually just increase the result one step. so a crit fail is just a fail. Is it best against higher no but it's not entirely useless.So, you need a crit fail from a boss for an effect (+ you need to hit him). That's so freaking useless.
Disagree. it in fact has a use.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
No useless just less effective. I notice a trend of people saying incap makes it useless but it actually just increase the result one step. so a crit fail is just a fail. Is it best against higher no but it's not entirely useless.So, you need a crit fail from a boss for an effect (+ you need to hit him). That's so freaking useless.
Not useless when it happens at no action cost for doing something monks do all the time. If this was a video game, the feat would read "your flurry of blows has a ~50% chance of stunning a normal enemy and a 5% chance of stunning bosses". How is that useless?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having less then a 5% chance to stun a boss isn't that great.
VS. normal enemies, sure it has some value.
The power of abilites have to be evaluated in comparison to their cost. Stunning Strike is a very low-cost ability (it costs you nothing, since you would be using flurry of blows regardless) so it will be good even if it doesn't trigger that often. Against normal enemies (and it can be argued at-level enemies aren't even "normal enemies" since they present a serious threat to the party in groups), stunning strike will trigger very often. This combination of low cost and high reward is what makes the feat so good.
Even against bosses, the feat is low cost low reward, which doesn't make it bad by any means. It's a strict upgrade to what you would normally be doing anyway.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really it's solid. Even the alchemist might not be underpowered, just a general utility/support character with some combat capability rather than the good at everything character that the 1e alchemist was. Though that might be a controversial opinion.This kind of breaks down, though, considering that (imaginary number) 80% of the rules are directly combat-related. That signals to the players that contribution in combat is the largest part of the game. Being less able to contribute in that realm is a serious detriment.
It would be similarly weird for the barbarian to exist in a game that was 80% social encounter rules.
This.. isn't quite true.
Even if 80% of the rules are for combat, it doesn't actually follow that combat is the largest part of the game. It's just the part that the designers felt required the most rules. Non-combat times are more free-form, often. It doesn't make them less important. What makes the various rulesets more or less important is simply your style of play. (Both on a micro and macro scale.)
Really it's solid. Even the alchemist might not be underpowered, just a general utility/support character with some combat capability rather than the good at everything character that the 1e alchemist was. Though that might be a controversial opinion.This kind of breaks down, though, considering that (imaginary number) 80% of the rules are directly combat-related. That signals to the players that contribution in combat is the largest part of the game. Being less able to contribute in that realm is a serious detriment.
It would be similarly weird for the barbarian to exist in a game that was 80% social encounter rules.
This.. isn't quite true.
Even if 80% of the rules are for combat, it doesn't actually follow that combat is the largest part of the game. It's just the part that the designers felt required the most rules. Non-combat times are more free-form, often. It doesn't make them less important. What makes the various rulesets more or less important is simply your style of play. (Both on a micro and macro scale.)
The only part of a game you can honestly evaluate are its mechanics. Everything else is something you and yours bring to the table. If you aren't engaging the mechanics, you aren't engaging the game itself. You are doing something tangential and related.
None of that is to say that other stuff isn't important to the experience of a game or the source of significant enjoyment. Just that it isn't actually the system you are engaging.
|
|
Really it's solid. Even the alchemist might not be underpowered, just a general utility/support character with some combat capability rather than the good at everything character that the 1e alchemist was. Though that might be a controversial opinion.This kind of breaks down, though, considering that (imaginary number) 80% of the rules are directly combat-related. That signals to the players that contribution in combat is the largest part of the game. Being less able to contribute in that realm is a serious detriment.
It would be similarly weird for the barbarian to exist in a game that was 80% social encounter rules.
This.. isn't quite true.
Even if 80% of the rules are for combat, it doesn't actually follow that combat is the largest part of the game. It's just the part that the designers felt required the most rules. Non-combat times are more free-form, often. It doesn't make them less important. What makes the various rulesets more or less important is simply your style of play. (Both on a micro and macro scale.)
The only part of a game you can honestly evaluate are its mechanics. Everything else is something you and yours bring to the table. If you aren't engaging the mechanics, you aren't engaging the game itself. You are doing something tangential and related.
None of that is to say that other stuff isn't important to the experience of a game or the source of significant enjoyment. Just that it isn't actually the system you are engaging.
Except those rules -are- in the system that you are engaging. They tend to require fewer rules to adjudicate, but they are there and part of the system. Combat isn't everything in pathfinder, it simply has more mechanics to it, at the moment.
Offering a different perspective; when my players are doing non-combat things, combat rules are still doing work "under the hood". For example, a tense negotiation scene with the queen is made all the more thrilling since the players know combat might break out if they mess up, or because the upcoming fight with the blue dragon of the sands will be difficult unless they secure the queen's aid. The player's aren't directly engaged with combat rules in that moment, but those rules still inform the player's decisions and their understanding of the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SuperBidi earlier ranked the Strength-based Warpriest as D tier, so I just wanted to comment -
My Age of Ashes party has a Gorumite Strength-based Warpriest. While he might not be the most deadly member of the party (that's probably the rogue or the swashbuckler; good lord swashbuckler damage output is insane if they can reliably get panache), he's absolutely contributing quite well and has never felt useless. The party loves having someone that can both dish out and heal damage, and he currently holds the record for the largest single-damage hit (+1 striking greatsword + enlarge + weapon surge + crit and rolled near max).
So if that is a "bad" class in 2e, then 2e is doing pretty well as far as balance goes.
2e is doing pretty well as far as balance goes, that's for sure. And I think I said in my message that I am still very doubtful about strength based gishes, but that they may exist.
Anyway, as any tier list, especially so early, it is personal and may evolve. What I know is that I've seen many people disappointed by strength based warpriests. So, at least, it's not easy to build for a character.
In my case, I think it's helped that the player in question is very much "role-play over roll-play" and honestly couldn't care how optimal his character is. And certainly his combat contribution is, on average, below that of the Fighter, Rogue, and Swashbuckler (maybe tied with the Monk, but the Monk player is even more of a roleplayer and made some very sub-optimal character choices).
But it certainly helps that he's still a full power Cleric. Like, he'd be a useful and contributing member of the party just based on his spellcasting; the fact that he can occasionally knockout 6d12+ damage in one hit is just sort of a feel-good bonus.
I think someone whose main focus was on "I want to be a powerful martial character!" would be disappointed by Warpriest, yeah. He's coming at it more from "I want to be a cleric who, because he worships Gorum, can also kick ass", and from that point of view Warpriest seems to nail it.
Yes, clearly, Warpriests are full power Clerics. That's why I consider Wisdom-based Warpriests over Strength-based ones. In my opinion, their strength is their spell list, and going Strength based means being worse in your main strength (I should stop using the word strength for 2 different things).
But if it works for him, then great! Playing the most optimized class doesn't mean having the most fun. I like Alchemist and Scoundrel Roguespersonally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, clearly, Warpriests are full power Clerics. That's why I consider Wisdom-based Warpriests over Strength-based ones. In my opinion, their strength is their spell list, and going Strength based means being worse in your main strength (I should stop using the word strength for 2 different things).
But if it works for him, then great! Playing the most optimized class doesn't mean having the most fun. I like Alchemist and Scoundrel Roguespersonally.
To be fair he does have 18 Wis, also. IIRC he took the flaw option so that he could manage 16 Str/18 Wis.
I'm also going to have to figure out how I want to handle the whole proficiency thing, because he dropped a feat on heavy armor and that's going to be an issue around 13th level...
But on average he does attack more often than he casts spells (and I'm not sure he's cast a single spell with a save yet), so I often forget he has max Wis. :)
|
While the difference between tiers could be a world of difference before, the difference between tiers now is the 1 or 2 points people are arguing the Alchemist lacks.
I still have no experience with 2nd edition (apart from some reading), but if you're correct, that would basically make my wishes come true regarding the rebalancing of the Pathfinder classes. So I really hope that my play experience will, at least in this regard, equal yours :)
I'm also going to have to figure out how I want to handle the whole proficiency thing, because he dropped a feat on heavy armor and that's going to be an issue around 13th level...
No idea how fast your campaign is going, but perhaps the APG will have an archetype to make that a reasonable choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also going to have to figure out how I want to handle the whole proficiency thing, because he dropped a feat on heavy armor and that's going to be an issue around 13th level...No idea how fast your campaign is going, but perhaps the APG will have an archetype to make that a reasonable choice.
That's my hope, but unfortunately for once in my life I am cursed with engrossed and focused players that stay on-task for most of each session. :P
Yes, clearly, Warpriests are full power Clerics. That's why I consider Wisdom-based Warpriests over Strength-based ones. In my opinion, their strength is their spell list, and going Strength based means being worse in your main strength (I should stop using the word strength for 2 different things).
But if it works for him, then great! Playing the most optimized class doesn't mean having the most fun. I like Alchemist and Scoundrel Roguespersonally.To be fair he does have 18 Wis, also. IIRC he took the flaw option so that he could manage 16 Str/18 Wis.
I'm also going to have to figure out how I want to handle the whole proficiency thing, because he dropped a feat on heavy armor and that's going to be an issue around 13th level...
But on average he does attack more often than he casts spells (and I'm not sure he's cast a single spell with a save yet), so I often forget he has max Wis. :)
Well, so, tier B in my chart :)
Maybe is he sometimes using spell attack rolls (like Searing Light, for example)?| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's my hope, but unfortunately for once in my life I am cursed with engrossed and focused players that stay on-task for most of each session. :PI'm also going to have to figure out how I want to handle the whole proficiency thing, because he dropped a feat on heavy armor and that's going to be an issue around 13th level...No idea how fast your campaign is going, but perhaps the APG will have an archetype to make that a reasonable choice.
Is it possible to learn this power?
Yes, clearly, Warpriests are full power Clerics. That's why I consider Wisdom-based Warpriests over Strength-based ones. In my opinion, their strength is their spell list, and going Strength based means being worse in your main strength (I should stop using the word strength for 2 different things).
But if it works for him, then great! Playing the most optimized class doesn't mean having the most fun. I like Alchemist and Scoundrel Roguespersonally.To be fair he does have 18 Wis, also. IIRC he took the flaw option so that he could manage 16 Str/18 Wis.
I'm also going to have to figure out how I want to handle the whole proficiency thing, because he dropped a feat on heavy armor and that's going to be an issue around 13th level...
But on average he does attack more often than he casts spells (and I'm not sure he's cast a single spell with a save yet), so I often forget he has max Wis. :)
Thinking more about it, Wisdom is far more useful than just saves and attack rolls. You also need it for all counteract check, and there are many in the Divine spell list.
In fact, the only spells you can cast without any link to Wisdom are Heal and buff spells. So, it really limits your casting ability to not have maxed Wisdom, even if you plan on using your greatsword massively.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't aware "Strength-based Warpriest" meant "Warpriest who didn't take max Wisdom", since obviously it's not super hard to do both. :)
I don't think he's actually cast a single spell with an attack roll... Healing and buffs is 90% of what he casts. He has done some counteract checks, but only a few, and outside of combat.
Usually he starts combat with Demoralize (free thanks to Battle Cry, Enlarge, move, and then for round two weapon surge, rage (he MC'd barbarian recently but only the dedication), attack. Then switch between attacking or if someone needs healing, moment of clarity + 2-action heal. If he's expecting a really hard fight he tends to hold off on rage for a couple rounds so he can cast buffs while he attacks.
I wasn't aware "Strength-based Warpriest" meant "Warpriest who didn't take max Wisdom", since obviously it's not super hard to do both. :)
I don't think he's actually cast a single spell with an attack roll... Healing and buffs is 90% of what he casts. He has done some counteract checks, but only a few, and outside of combat.
Usually he starts combat with Demoralize (free thanks to Battle Cry, Enlarge, move, and then for round two weapon surge, rage (he MC'd barbarian recently but only the dedication), attack. Then switch between attacking or if someone needs healing, moment of clarity + 2-action heal. If he's expecting a really hard fight he tends to hold off on rage for a couple rounds so he can cast buffs while he attacks.
Considering that you need Wisdom, Strength, Constitution, Charisma and a bit of Dexterity, having 18 Wisdom and 16 Strength means that you have big holes in your attribute matrix. So, yeah, you can max both, but you either resign on Font or defensive attributes.
I wouldn't call that super easy. It's actually pretty rare. His Warpriest is one of a kind, in my opinion.And considering that it takes him 2 rounds to make ideally one attack and one Demoralize check with average Charisma, it doesn't sound very efficient to me, if you allow me to be honest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't aware "Strength-based Warpriest" meant "Warpriest who didn't take max Wisdom", since obviously it's not super hard to do both. :)
I don't think he's actually cast a single spell with an attack roll... Healing and buffs is 90% of what he casts. He has done some counteract checks, but only a few, and outside of combat.
Usually he starts combat with Demoralize (free thanks to Battle Cry, Enlarge, move, and then for round two weapon surge, rage (he MC'd barbarian recently but only the dedication), attack. Then switch between attacking or if someone needs healing, moment of clarity + 2-action heal. If he's expecting a really hard fight he tends to hold off on rage for a couple rounds so he can cast buffs while he attacks.
Considering that you need Wisdom, Strength, Constitution, Charisma and a bit of Dexterity, having 18 Wisdom and 16 Strength means that you have big holes in your attribute matrix. So, yeah, you can max both, but you either resign on Font or defensive attributes.
I wouldn't call that super easy. It's actually pretty rare. His Warpriest is one of a kind, in my opinion.And considering that it takes him 2 rounds to make ideally one attack and one Demoralize check with average Charisma, it doesn't sound very efficient to me, if you allow me to be honest.
You don't need Con for one, and Dex can be low if using Medium armor.
Yeah, that's what I call a bit of Dexterity. You need 12. But below 12, it starts to be low.
And no Con? Low "hit dice" + low Con + no class abilities to endure blows, you won't stand in the middle of a real fight more than a round.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's what I call a bit of Dexterity. You need 12. But below 12, it starts to be low.
And no Con? Low "hit dice" + low Con + no class abilities to endure blows, you won't stand in the middle of a real fight more than a round.
I thought Warpriests get shield block and have heal spells. I'd personally consider those class abilities to help endure blows. I'll also note Clerics are medium "hit dice", not low "hit dice".
As for variations, imagine an armored front liner cleric of Iomedae or Sarenrae.
A fresh 1st level Human Cleric can pull off 16 Str/12 Dex/10 Con/10 Int/18 Wis/12 Charisma without even taking a flaw. 12 Dex lets you max out medium armor AC. Use shield plus 1-handed deity's favored weapon (longsword/scimitar/etc).
+6, 1d8+3 strike with 18 AC, 20 with shield up, 17 hit points (/w toughness). Shield block for DR 5 when shield is up.
Is it as good as martial's stat line? No, but its pretty close.
Take a fresh 1st level human champion with: 18 Str/12 Dex/14 Con/10 Int/10 Wis/14 Cha
+7,1d8+4 strike, with 18 AC, 20 with shield up, 21 hit points (/w toughness). Shield block for DR 5 when shield is up.
If the cleric can't stand in a real fight for more than a round, a champion or fighter can't stand there for more than 2, and likely only 1 as well.
Even at mid-levels, its not that bad. Level 10 Cleric:
Str 19/12 Dex/14 Con/10 Int/20 Wis/16 Cha
118 Hit points, with the same AC as a fighter in medium armor
Level 10 Champion in full plate
Str 20/Dex 12/18 Con/10 Int/14 Wis/18 Cha
158 Hit points, +3 more AC (expert armor + full plate being 1 higher AC)
In terms of hit poitns that is only about 25% fewer hit points (or about 33% more depending on which way you're looking at it). Even at this level if the cleric can't stand there for a round, then a fighter is at best there for 2. Also, given the more mobile nature of combat I feel intelligent enemies will engage a caster cleric throwing heals anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, his Dex is 10 (hence why he burned a feat on heavy armor), and I think Con and Cha are... 12 and 14? He almost died in the first session, but ironically hasn't even come close since then. And he's never run out of divine font, but that's because he saves it for emergency healing; the party also has a Bard with soothe and two other players with Medicine, one of whom is grabbing every Medicine feat she can get her hands on. Most healing I've ever seen in one party, honestly.
It takes him two rounds to set up, but then he easily does two rounds of damage; 3d12+9 is not bad at level 7. And usually he demoralizes someone other than who he is attacking, so the rogue can mess them up (Dread Striker is a fantastic feat).
And as I said - he's definitely below the curve. But not so far below the curve he feels useless. I think the rating of "D tier" might be accurate - it's just that a D tier 2e character can still competently contribute.
Usually he starts combat with Demoralize (free thanks to Battle Cry, Enlarge, move, and then for round two weapon surge, rage (he MC'd barbarian recently but only the dedication), attack.
Wait, you start your encounters by running up to the enemy and gifting them with their favorite three action attack routine? Then you make a single attack in return for getting mashed by another three action routine?
That's crazy man. How do you ever manage stay on your feet after that second round against any competent enemy?