| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
That's crazy man.
Indeed, and he HAS actually suffered for it. I believe his logic is "Gorum wants a fight, he doesn't care who wins. I let them hit me, and if I live then I have proved my worthiness to my god."
Honestly the party has a betting pool on when he'll die, but so far the dice seem to indicate he is in fact favored by Gorum. :)
As for variations, imagine an armored front liner cleric of Iomedae or Sarenrae.
Sorry, but you don't manage to make the Warpriest shine with your description. Not being able to deal as much damage as a Champion, having the hp pool of a Wizard during half of your carreer and being down in one round as soon as the enemy gets a bit lucky or nasty is why I consider it quite weak. Not unplayable, but weak.
And I'm playing Plaguestone right now, and yes, our Sword and Board Fighter is down in 2 rounds without healing during tough encounters. So, your Warpriest will often be down in one.
Honestly, it sounds from what you have said like the Warpriest is doing fine because there are 3 healers in the party. As if he is spending most of his healing on himself and letting everyone else act as the party healer.
This may in fact be true - although I would mark that as another point in favor of 2e's balance. That other classes can fill the "healer" role well enough to take the lion's share of the burden off the Cleric without sacrificing their own effectiveness is very different from the reality of 1e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it sounds like he's roleplaying fairly well, and is okay with a not top-tier build. Sometimes when I GM for a player like that, I'd reward them a bit. Things I'd consider for your Gorumite:
1) Let them essentially take the Diverse Armor Expert Champion Dedication feat, without actually being a MC Champion. I mean, you could flavor it as a Rare Cleric 14 feat that requires worship of Gorum and the Warpriest Doctrine, that the cleric has discovered through his faith.
2) Maybe drop a custom magic item that is a Breastplate holy to Gorum, to incentivize the Cleric to move back to Medium armor. Perhaps it's a Breastplate of Command, but with the bonus to Intimidate instead of Diplomacy? Bonus points if you drop this right at 10th level, so he can bump his Dex to 12 right away.
As for variations, imagine an armored front liner cleric of Iomedae or Sarenrae.Sorry, but you don't manage to make the Warpriest shine with your description. Not being able to deal as much damage as a Champion, having the hp pool of a Wizard during half of your carreer and being down in one round as soon as the enemy gets a bit lucky or nasty is why I consider it quite weak. Not unplayable, but weak.
An armored front liner cleric of Iomedae or Sarenrae is either a champion, or a fighter with lots of cleric dedication feats.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, it sounds from what you have said like the Warpriest is doing fine because there are 3 healers in the party. As if he is spending most of his healing on himself and letting everyone else act as the party healer.
Just because he is a cleric doesn't mean he ever intended on player the party healer, though.
If he stands in the front lines, and uses his spells and heals to keep himself there, that's a perfectly valid way of being a front liner.
Now, if he told the party 'I'll cover party heals' - and then didn't (which I'm not saying is what happened) ... then you can complain.
But warpriests do just fine as a frontliner, by doing it their way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't complaining just giving my impression. Specially given that without those other by healers the difficulty would shoot way up for everyone.
I suspect that "multiple competent healers" is something that every party is going to want in 2e, just because of how low the barrier to entry is.
The Warpriest has never turned down healing a party member when they needed it and IS still a full Cleric; I suspect that without the supplemental healers, he'd be spending most of his spells on healing the party and having less fun, yes. But the main reason he'd be having less fun is that "party healer" is not what he signed up to play.
I think a Strength-focused Warpriest who IS trying to be the primary party healer is probably going to not excel in melee combat, and someone who wants to both be the primary healer AND among the best melee combatants in the party is probably not going to be quite satisfied. That's why I think SuperBidi's stated "D tier" is probably accurate.
But you will still be a fully competent healer and at least still participate effectively in melee combat, which would not be the case with a 1e low-tier character that tried to split their focus that much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but you don't manage to make the Warpriest shine with your description. Not being able to deal as much damage as a Champion, having the hp pool of a Wizard during half of your carreer and being down in one round as soon as the enemy gets a bit lucky or nasty is why I consider it quite weak. Not unplayable, but weak.
And I'm playing Plaguestone right now, and yes, our Sword and Board Fighter is down in 2 rounds without healing during tough encounters. So, your Warpriest will often be down in one.
I'll note I merely described the unbuffed melee statistic line and AC. That is not all that a warpriest can do. If you want the full capabilities, you need to do the full write up as well as actually do analysis against actual enemies and consider attack routines. So I've given some thought to a strength based Warpriest build that is different from the Gorum build described here.
Anyways, while the base melee capability at 1st is less when looking without spells, a warpriest can spend spells to achieve a higher single target melee damage output for one fight than a champion and potentially a fighter. At 1st level, consider Magic Weapon + 3 heal spells. Combine with save targeting cantrips (Daze, Chill Touch), or if human, throw in an Adapted Cantrip like Electric Arc.
Here’s a "sword and board" Warpriest of Gozreh build at 1st level that can out damage a 1st level "sword and board" champion or fighter where there are at least 2 enemies without expending resources, and can nova against a boss with higher single target damage, while still having 3 heals spells that heal 12.5 for 2 actions, for potentially 37.5 health in a boss fight, compared to the champion's 6 from lay on hands.
NG 1st level Human Warpriest Cleric of Gozreh.
Str 16/Dex 12/Con 10/Int 10/Wis 18/Cha 12
Versatile Human Heritage (Toughness feat)
Human Feat 1, Adapted Cantrip (Electric Arc)
Farmhand background, Assurance (Athletics)
Warpriest Doctrine (Shield Block, Expert Fort saves)
Skills: Athletics +6, Farming Lore +3, Religion +7, Survival +7, Nature +7, Medicine +7
Spells (DC 18, +8 attack roll):
Cantrips: Electric Arc, Chill Touch, Daze, Shield, Disrupt Undead
1st: Magic Weapon, Heal x3
Attack: Trident +6, 1d8+3 P, throw 20’
HP: 17
AC: 18, Shield +2 AC, 5 Hardness
Fort: +5, Ref: +4, Wil: +7
Equipment: Chainmail (6 gp), Steel Shield (2gp), Trident (1g), Wooden Holy Symbol (1 sp), Adventurer’s Pack (7 sp), Healer’s Tools (5gp)
Lets say multiple lower level 0 Orc Brutes. AC 15, Reflex save +4
Level 1 sword and board fighter (+9, 1d8+4) vs AC 15
(0*0.25 + 1*0.5+2*0.25)*8.5 = 8.5
(0*0.5 + 1*0.45 + 2*0.05)*8.5 = 4.675
(0*0.75 + 1*0.2+2*0.05)*8.5 = 2.55
Total of 15.725 expected damage.
Level 1 sword and board champion(+7,1d8+4) vs AC 15
(0*0.35 + 1*0.5 + 2*0.15)*8.5 = 6.8
(0*0.6 + 1*0.35 + 2*0.05)*8.5 =3.825
(0*0.85 + 1*0.1 + 2*0.05)*8.5 = 1.7
Total of 12.325 expected damage.
Level 1 sword and board warpriest (+6,1d8+3 and DC 18 1d4+4 x2 targets) vs AC 15 and +4 Reflex
(0*0.4 + 1*0.5 + 2*0.1)*7.5 = 5.25
(2*0.2 + 1*0.45+0.5*0.3 + 0*0.05)*6.5*2 = 13
Total of 18.25 expected damage.
How about a level 3 boss like a Centaur. Here, the Warpriest pulls out the magic weapon spell on the 1st turn, and proceeds from there.
Level 1 sword and board fighter (+9,1d8+4) vs AC 22 (shield raised Centaur)
(0*0.6 + 1*0.35 + 2*0.05)*8.5 = 3.825
(0*0.85 + 1*0.1 + 2*0.05)*8.5 = 1.7
(0*0.95 + 1*0.05)*8.5 = 0.425
5.95 expected damage.
Level 1 sword and board champion (+7,1d8+4) vs AC 22 (shield raised Centaur)
(0*0.7 + 1*0.25 + 2*0.05)*8.5 = 2.975
(0*0.95 + 1*0 + 2*0.05)*8.5 = 0.85
(0*0.95 + 1*0.05)*8.5 = 0.425
4.25 expected damage.
Level 1 warpriest magic weapon strike (+7,2d8+3) vs AC 22 and chill touch (DC 18 vs +8)
(0*0.7 +1*0.25 + 2*0.05)*12 = 4.2
(2*0.05 + 1*0.4 + 0.5*0.5 + 0*0.05)*6.5 = 4.875
9.075
If you're going all out on offense, 9.075 > 5.95. Even a double slice fighter, 1d8+4, 1d6+4 agile maxes out at 7.625 for double slice + strike.
If you want a mid-game build, try:
NG 11th level Human Warpriest Cleric of Gozreh
Str 19/Dex 12/Con 14/Int 10/Wis 20/Cha 16
Versatile Human Heritage (Toughness feat)
Human Feats: Adapted Cantrip (Electric Arc), Natural Ambition (Domain Initiate-Air), Multitalented (Champion -grabbing heavy armor trained)
Farmhand Background, Assurance (Athletics)
Warpriest Doctrine (Shield Block, Expert Fort saves, martial trained, expert trident + crit spec, divine expert)
Cleric Feats: Emblazon Armament, Domain Initiate-Nature, Divine Weapon, Advanced Domain-Air, Emblazon Energy
General Feats: Canny Acumen (Reflexes), Fleet, Incredible Initiative
Skill Feats: Battle Medicine, Continual Recovery, Ward Medic, Assurance (medicine), Titan Wrestler
Skills: Athletics (master) +21, Farming Lore +13, Religion (expert) +20, Survival +18, Nature +18, Medicine (master)+22
Spells (DC 30, +20 attack roll):
Cantrips: Electric Arc (6d4+5), Chill Touch (6d4+5), Daze (2d6+4), Disrupt Undead (6d6+5), Shield (15 hardness)
Spells: 1st: Heal x3
2nd: Faerie Fire, See Invisibility, Resist Energy
3rd: Heroism x2, Heal
4th: Freedom of Movement, Air Walk x2
5th: Lightning bolt (10d6), Flame Strike (8d6), Dispel Magic
6th: Heroism x2, Heal x4 (avg 75 hit points per 2-action heal)
Focus 2 point pool, Focus Spells: Pushing Gust, Vibrant Thorns (6 or 6d6), Disperse into Air
Attack: +21 Trident, 2d8 +4 P + 1d6 F + 1d6 C + 1d6 E (23.5), throw 20’
Heroism (6th), Spell cast that turn: total +23 to hit, additional +1d4 force damage (26)
HP: 129
AC:30, Shield +2, Hardness 10, HP 80
Fort: +18, Ref: +17 (19 Bulwark), Wil: +23. (20/19 (21)/25 with heroism)
Equipment: +2 Striking Trident with Flaming and Frost runes (2,001 gp), +1 Resilient Full Plate (530 gp), Sturdy Shield (Lesser) (360 gp), Expanded Healer’s Tools (50gp), Bandolier (1sp), 258 gp, 9sp
The focus spell Disperse into Air is an amazing focus reaction to keep the Warpriest alive against a solo boss. Combined with 2-action heal spells means the Warpriest is likely still standing on turn 3 without support from any other character in such an encounter even if focused on. Max damage roll for an extreme damage level 14th boss is 120 damage, so if you start the fight at full health, even with literally the worst luck, you’re guaranteed to make it to round 2, unlike say a fighter.
Consider a Purple Worm solo boss (level 13), AC 32, Fort +28, Ref +21, Will +21.
Warpriest Strike + Electric Arc
(0*0.4 + 1*0.5 + 2*0.1)*23.5 = 16.45 expected damage from strike
(2*0.05 + 1*0.35 + 0.5*0.5 + 0*0.1)*20 = 14 expected damage from electric arc
30.45 expected damage
2nd strike if hasted by ally
(0*0.65 + 1*0.3 + 2*0.05)*23.5 = 9.4 expected damage
Champion +22 to hit (11+4+5+2=+22), 2d8+5+2+3d6=26.5, 3 strikes
(0*0.45 + 1*0.5 + 2*0.05)*26.5 = 15.9
(0*0.7 + 1*0.25 + 2*0.05)*26.5 = 9.275
(0*0.95 + 1*0 + 2*0.05)*26.5 = 2.65
Total expected damage is 27.825
4th strike if hasted by ally is the same as 3rd strike.
Even Strike + Strike + Raise shield routine is slightly more damage on the Warpriest (25.85 versus 25.175).
Fighter at this point does outpace the single target damage against a boss, and the exact damage output could vary wildly depending on exact build (double slice sword + shield, two-handed reach, trip build, fear build, AoO, etc).
On the other hand, the Warpriest defensive capabilities are much higher than the fighter in such a fight, limiting the Purple Worm to 1 hit per turn against the priest for the first 2 rounds of the fight and preventing Improved Grab/Quick Swallow Hole combos. It is impossible for a Purple worm to focus down the Warpriest since it maximum damage critical is only 110. If the warpriest can't be focused, its 75 hit point average heals means it can be back at full health with a 2-action heal even against typical critical hits (8d10+30->74), leaving the warpriest back at 129 hit points at the start of turn 3 without support from other characters. A fighter or even a Champion with perhaps two lay on hands for 36 hit points each won't necessarily start turn 3 with that many hit points remaining without help from the party.
And the Warpriest still has counters to invisibility, air walk, freedom of movement, dispel magic, and ranged AoE damage options.
Is that a better attempt at putting a shine on a strength based gish Warpriest?
Is that a better attempt at putting a shine on a strength based gish Warpriest?
Magic Weapon is not a personal spell, so it'll be better cast on someone else than the Warpriest. Also, at level 4 it becomes useless, and replacement takes tons of time to come.
And Electric Arc is not on the Divine spell list. So, encouraging the Warpriest to take a feat to get it is actually killing it a bit more.When you start speaking about Focus Spells, you are more in the proper direction, as you may guess that I've looked a bit at the Divine spell list before putting the Warpriest at tier D.
You can for example look at Vibrant Thorns + 1-action Heal. This is the kind of combos that makes the Warpriest exist. But, currently, it's the only one I know which is good enough for a Warpriest to be a thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is that a better attempt at putting a shine on a strength based gish Warpriest?Magic Weapon is not a personal spell, so it'll be better cast on someone else than the Warpriest.
I didn’t quite follow this point.
1. If the rest of the party consists of a Wizard, a Sorcerer, and an Alchemist, then casting it on the Warpriest will be the best choice.
So if one is deciding whether to add a Fighter or a Warpriest to the party just described, taking into account the effects of Magic Weapon for important combats seems absolutely relevant to evaluating the relative merits of those two choices.
2. The fact that Magic Weapon isn’t personal-only just makes the Warpriest look even better. Because not only can they cast it on themselves in important combats, they can choose to boost other PCs instead (if, say, they want to follow up with several more spells).
So this point seems to add to the shine of the strength-based Warpriest, not detract from it.
1. If the rest of the party consists of a Wizard, a Sorcerer, and an Alchemist, then casting it on the Warpriest will be the best choice.
So if one is deciding whether to add a Fighter or a Warpriest to the party just described, taking into account the effects of Magic Weapon for important combats seems absolutely relevant to evaluating the relative merits of those two choices.
Wizard, Sorcerer, Alchemist and Warpriest... I'm not one to consider it's the "martial edition", but not a single real martial in a party is a very very bad idea.
Warpriest is bad at taking blows, if he's the only frontline character, his survival time is one round, which he will lose casting Magic Weapon.Wizard, Sorcerer, Alchemist and Fighter is an unbalanced party, but at least if the Fighter is a really defensive one properly using AoO to protect the weak casters, it should work. Not the most optimized party ever, but it's manageable.
You need a main frontliner in any party. A character who can take the heat of the battle and quickly deal damage. That's not a role a Warpriest can take. And if there's a main frontliner, then your Warpriest has best use of Magic Weapon than to cast it on himself.
Anyway, I've given my tier list, it's just my opinion. You have the right to disagree with me. Especially considering that I don't have lots of experience playing PF2, so my knowledge of the system will evolve and my tier list, too.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is not a single martial a “bad idea”?
Replace the sorcerer or wizard with a Rogue and that party seems like it could hang, bonus points if Ruffian Rogue, which would pair well with the Warpriest In melee.
I think if you’re going to be that dismissive, you need to do some of the work that the people you’re responding to have done to show otherwise (the builds presented look solid). An opinion does not hold more value than a literal example.
Why is not a single martial a “bad idea”?
Replace the sorcerer or wizard with a Rogue and that party seems like it could hang, bonus points if Ruffian Rogue, which would pair well with the Warpriest In melee.
I think if you’re going to be that dismissive, you need to do some of the work that the people you’re responding to have done to show otherwise (the builds presented look solid). An opinion does not hold more value than a literal example.
Ok, let's have fun.
Let's consider the Warpriest to be the main frontliner of your Warpriest, Rogue, Sorcerer, Alchemist party.I'll take Hiruma's first level Warpriest and a Bugbear Tormentor (Moderate encounter for a first level party). The Bugbear Tormentor inflicts, on average, 19.025 damage to the 18AC, 17HP Warpriest with a 3 attack routine. A 2 attack routine inflicts 16HP, it's not the third attack the important one. So, your Warpriest will hardly be able to hold the line one round, and once down, your Rogue, Sorcerer and Alchemist will have hard time removing the 40 HPs of the Bugbear. Your party has hard time dealing with a Moderate encounter...
And the Warpriest needs to spend one round casting Magic Weapon for tough encounters? I'll give you a hint, he'll never be able to do it.
Warpriests are not main frontliners. If you don't have a Fighter, Monk, Barbarian or Champion to hold the line, your party is a bunch of victims. And it's far better to have 2 of them at least, as monsters can score critical hits.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The party you describe should not be moving forward into a powerful melee brute, so the war priest shouldn’t be open to a 2 or 3 attack round unless the party has already weakened, debugged, or otherwise set up the encounter to their favor.
Even parties with dedicated tanks are often better taking up advantageous positions on the battle field than spending a round moving forward with the expectation of having to heal after the enemy’s counter. Going first in. PF2 is not the universal advantage it was in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't see how a Rogue, Sorcerer, and Alchemist would have any trouble dealing with 40 hp...
Edit: I will say this. Most classes aren't built to go toe-to-toe with a brick. It's a nice thing that the martial classes can do well and it's a niche they can thrive in, relatively speaking. But from what I've played so far it doesn't seem like having that is strictly necessary, it just means that tactics change
The party you describe should not be moving forward into a powerful melee brute, so the war priest shouldn’t be open to a 2 or 3 attack round unless the party has already weakened, debugged, or otherwise set up the encounter to their favor.
Even parties with dedicated tanks are often better taking up advantageous positions on the battle field than spending a round moving forward with the expectation of having to heal after the enemy’s counter. Going first in. PF2 is not the universal advantage it was in PF1.
I'm speaking of a moderate encounter where the monster rolls high in initiative, attacks the party main frontliner and deals average damage to him. And that is a potential TPK. This party is unable to face a real challenge.
Anyway, do you really think that a party without a proper martial is viable?
I also don't see how a Rogue, Sorcerer, and Alchemist would have any trouble dealing with 40 hp...
The Alchemist hits on a 14, the Rogue on a 13, so they will hardly hit once every 2 rounds. I'm pretty sure they will see the 40hps go down very slowly. The Bugbear, on the contrary, can nearly put a character down every round.
i thinkthis kind of thought experiment is tricky to fold over into a mathematical simulation of effectiveness. In theory, a team of four martials with the medicine skill could go on fighting all day, and you can just use DPR to show their superiority to any other party. And at lower levels, the spell casting of the warpriest in particular is going to feel pretty weak. But with the sorcerer having a decent focus spell and practice utilizing the party resources effectively the players will figure out how to debuff and work together. By level 3+ using a spell slot to drop a solo moderate encounter will be fairly expected from a multicaster party and the real question here is what is the alchemist doing? Especially if the answer is plinking away once around from range while the war priest and rogue move into melee, the party has issues it needs to resolve.
My current 1st level party consists of a cleric, a wizard, a sorcerer and a barbarian. We are pretty new together and our first fight went badly, but tactics were very clearly the cause of our struggle. It was a very similar situation to what you were describing, but after the monster devastated the barb in the first round, and the barb and the sorcerer were forced to withdraw on the second. The monster charged at my cleric who was taking cover from it, hit once, and then was dropped by a triple harm salvo next round. Yes that was having to go nova on the first encounter of the day, and puts us in a bind for the rest of the day, but it’s first level in a caster heavy party. It’s nice to have back up plans that can work to get the job done done in a pinch. Martials often struggle in those situations too. The party now thinks my cleric is amazing, but I know I just got lucky the situation set itself up, and that I had the ability to burn all my resources in one round or we were pretty close to a route or even possibly a TPK.
Personally, I think armor is overrated in PF2 and not really a good enough trade off to make me want to go warpriest over cloistered, but I think the issue really is that the cleric that dumps wisdom is not very viable, but looks viable on paper, which is a lot of warpriest builds are going for, that I see people talking about. I think we probably are still figuring builds out right now, not to mention play strategies, and that is going to result in at least a full letter grade difference in how awesome one character looks verse another of the same class.
Long story short, I think there are some C grade warpriest builds, but is probably not the “pretend I am a martial with a lot of healing spells” build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Long story short, I think there are some C grade warpriest builds, but is probably not the “pretend I am a martial with a lot of healing spells” build.
And I completely agree with you. There's a lack of knowledge on gishes, but I expect at some point people to come up with viable Strength based gish builds.
Also, I've put the Wisdom-based Warpriest tier B. It is better than the Cloistered Cleric at low level, worse at high level. But I think not going to Legendary is a good reason to be tier B instead of A.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, let's have fun.
Let's consider the Warpriest to be the main frontliner of your Warpriest, Rogue, Sorcerer, Alchemist party.
I'll take Hiruma's first level Warpriest and a Bugbear Tormentor (Moderate encounter for a first level party). The Bugbear Tormentor inflicts, on average, 19.025 damage to the 18AC, 17HP Warpriest with a 3 attack routine. A 2 attack routine inflicts 16HP, it's not the third attack the important one. So, your Warpriest will hardly be able to hold the line one round, and once down, your Rogue, Sorcerer and Alchemist will have hard time removing the 40 HPs of the Bugbear. Your party has hard time dealing with a Moderate encounter...
And the Warpriest needs to spend one round casting Magic Weapon for tough encounters? I'll give you a hint, he'll never be able to do it.Warpriests are not main frontliners. If you don't have a Fighter, Monk, Barbarian or Champion to hold the line, your party is a bunch of victims. And it's far better to have 2 of them at least, as monsters can score critical hits.
This is a great example, in my opinion, of why theorycrafting cannot substitute for play experience in this edition, and why tactics are so important.
For example, in one round the Sorcerer could render the bugbear both frightened 1 and sickened 1 while the Alchemist could penalize its speed and force it to waste an extra action closing with the party - or make it flat-footed and relatively easy prey for the rogue. If the warpriest goes before the bugbear and knows he needs to tank, he can cast shield to get his AC up.
It's also worth mentioning that while you did choose a moderate encounter, you specifically chose the hardest-possible moderate encounter - a single high level enemy, described by the rules as a "moderate or severe threat boss". A level 3 creature is going to be a dangerous threat to any level 1 party.
Long story short, I think there are some C grade warpriest builds, but is probably not the “pretend I am a martial with a lot of healing spells” build.And I completely agree with you. There's a lack of knowledge on gishes, but I expect at some point people to come up with viable Strength based gish builds.
Also, I've put the Wisdom-based Warpriest tier B. It is better than the Cloistered Cleric at low level, worse at high level. But I think not going to Legendary is a good reason to be tier B instead of A.
I thought someone was calling the warpriest a D tier. That seemed excessively low. I think B is pretty fair. Divine spells are pretty awesome in play.
I thought someone was calling the warpriest a D tier. That seemed excessively low. I think B is pretty fair. Divine spells are pretty awesome in play.
I've put the Wisdom-based Warpriest B tier, and the Strength-based one D tier (with all Strength-based gishes at the moment). Hence this conversation.
This is a great example, in my opinion, of why theorycrafting cannot substitute for play experience in this edition, and why tactics are so important.
For example, in one round the Sorcerer could render the bugbear both frightened 1 and sickened 1 while the Alchemist could penalize its speed and force it to waste an extra action closing with the party - or make it flat-footed and relatively easy prey for the rogue. If the warpriest goes before the bugbear and knows he needs to tank, he can cast shield to get his AC up.
It's also worth mentioning that while you did choose a moderate encounter, you specifically chose the hardest-possible moderate encounter - a single high level enemy, described by the rules as a "moderate or severe threat boss". A level 3 creature is going to be a dangerous threat to any level 1 party.
Frightened 1 + Sickened 1 = Sickened 1 as both conditions don't stack.
The Alchemist hits on a 14. So, if he does anything, it's through sheer luck.Theorycrafting is good, sometimes :)
And I've taken a monster randomly amongst the level 3 list. A Bugbear is kind of a basic monster to me.
Or a 13 if bombing with Quicksilver Mutagen.
Frightened 1 + Sickened 1 = Sickened 1 as both conditions don't stack.
Perhaps not, but they both exist simultaneously, so resolving one means you've still got a penalty from the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I've taken a monster randomly amongst the level 3 list. A Bugbear is kind of a basic monster to me.
My point is that you took a level 3 monster at all. "Single high level monster" is the hardest form of encounter in 2e. A moderate encounter composed of two level 1 creatures would be massively easier for the party you describe - or any party.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, let's have fun.
Let's consider the Warpriest to be the main frontliner of your Warpriest, Rogue, Sorcerer, Alchemist party.
I'll take Hiruma's first level Warpriest and a Bugbear Tormentor (Moderate encounter for a first level party). The Bugbear Tormentor inflicts, on average, 19.025 damage to the 18AC, 17HP Warpriest with a 3 attack routine. A 2 attack routine inflicts 16HP, it's not the third attack the important one. So, your Warpriest will hardly be able to hold the line one round, and once down, your Rogue, Sorcerer and Alchemist will have hard time removing the 40 HPs of the Bugbear. Your party has hard time dealing with a Moderate encounter...
And the Warpriest needs to spend one round casting Magic Weapon for tough encounters? I'll give you a hint, he'll never be able to do it.Warpriests are not main frontliners. If you don't have a Fighter, Monk, Barbarian or Champion to hold the line, your party is a bunch of victims. And it's far better to have 2 of them at least, as monsters can score critical hits.
Its an interesting scenario, but the assumption of the enemy showing up under a single move action away seems more like an ambush than a normal encounter. Generally as a GM, if I'm giving a significant tactical advantage to the enemy such as a ranged enemy in a hard to reach elevated position or a strong melee monster starting in melee range, I treat the encounter as harder than would be implied by just the CRs. Similarly if I give the party an advantage like having a ranged player party starting 500 feet away against a melee/short range enemy, or high up on that cliff instead, I would treat the encounter as much easier.
For example, take an Elven Wizard and Sorcerer by themselves, one Elven with base speed 30 and the other with fleet/dangerous sorcery. And drop the Bugbear tormentor at a distance of 175 feet. Bugbear moves 75 feet closer, range 100. Both cast 3-action magic missile, dealing 22 total damage (3d4+3 and 3d4+4). Bug bear moves 75 feet closer. Range 25. Both cast 3-action magic missile, dealing 22 total damage, dropping the bugbear. If you're concerned about cover and sight lines, then they can kite for 10 minutes until said sight lines are right since they're faster than the bugbear at 30 feet versus 25 feet per action. Plus magic missiles only care about total cover.
That is an APL+4 encounter for 2 squishy casters, solved without taking a hit simply because of the starting range. Clearly, starting distance and spell selection is a huge factor in encounter difficulty.
I'm also curious why you didn't let the warpriest use the defend exploration activity in this scenario? That would leave their AC at 20, instead of 18 before their first turn. If you're denying them exploration activities, this sounds like an ambush, and should be a higher difficulty encounter than indicated purely by CR and XP budget.
If you do let the warpriest use the Defend activity, I calculate the expected damage to only be 12.55 assuming a move + twin feint on the bugbear's part, assuming it won initiative (roughly 57.25% chance given the bugbear's perception/stealth +8 versus the warpriest's +7 perception), and assuming the GM is disallowing reactions before a character acts in this scenario.
With the defend exploration activity, the warpriest's AC before his turn starts is 20.
+11 vs AC 20, hits on a 9, crits on a 19.
(0*0.4 + 1*0.5 + 2*0.1)*8.5 = 5.95
(0*0.5 + 1*0.45 + 2*0.05)*12 = 6.6
Total expected damage is: 12.55
Although perhaps a better metric is the % of combinations that leave the warpriest standing at the end of round 1. The combination odds are something like:
20% both miss (0 damage max, still standing)
43% chance 1 hits and 1 misses (16 damage absolute max, so still standing)
22.5% both hit (26 damage absolute max, 20.5 expected - only 4 out of 96 damage rolls still standing or about ~1%)
7% one crit/one misses (32 absolute max, 24 expected or 20 max, 17 expected - about ~1.75% expected still standing)
7% one crit/one hit (42 absolute max, 32.5 expected)
0.5% both crit (52 absolute max, 41 expected).
So assuming reactions are not allowed, in about 35% of damage rolls the warpriest goes down. This is to be compared to about 22% chance of damage rolls where a 21 hit point/same AC character (i.e. a fighter with shield up) goes down on round 1. About 1 in 8 encounters with a Bugbear tormentor the fighter will fare better than the warpriest on turn 1, assuming no shield block.
Of course, if reactions aren't allowed, and the bugbear is so close, why is the bugbear going after the armored characters and not the unarmored/lightly armored casters? I presume the warpriest is leading out front by a move action or something? So 25 feet or so in front?
Anyways, if this is a normal fight and not a surprise ambush, and reactions are allowed, the warpriest can reduce damage by 5. Now about 22% of damage rolls the warpriest goes down, while the fighter drops in about 10% of damage rolls. Again, about 1 in 8 encounters you'll notice a difference between the fighter and the warpriest on turn 1.
If you give me the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Alchemist team, then bugbear is down on turn two as the Warpriest heals and raises shield again on turn 1 if still standing, Wizard and Sorcerer cast 3-action magic missiles on turns 1 and 2, and the alchemist throws a bomb or two.
That is basically automatic damage of 12d4+12 plus 2 splash for 44. So with the warpriest as the "front liner", and the wizard, sorcerer, and alchemist as a backline, I would expect victory by turn 2 roughly 80% of the time (i.e. the warpriest is standing at the end of round 1). Using a fighter front liner (+5 perception vs +8 stealth) and same backline, I'd estimate victory on turn 2 at around 85% of the time.
I estimate this based on the fact that the warpriest wins initiative and moves to a distance of 35 feet, suffering at most 1 attack, dealing at most 20 damage, with 5 mitigated by shield on turn 1 42.75% of the time. 57.25% of the time the bugbear wins initiative from its surprise 25 foot distance or less, and even then the warpriest has a 66% chance of staying standing without a shield block.
0.4275 + 0.5725*0.66 = 0.80535 which is approximately 80%.
If the warpriest goes down on turn 1 (~20% of the time), then it becomes a question of the exact builds involved. Is the sorcerer occultist or arcane? What bombs does the alchemist have? Tangle foot? What is the speed of the characters? 20, 25, 30, 35 feet per action? The probabilities and possibilities become much more complex.
If we sub in the rogue for the Wizard, then expected damage on a 2 action attack flank on turn 1 is about 9.9 (assuming thief/18 dex) instead of 10.5. Turn 2 becomes tricky as the bugbear may attack the rogue instead of the warpriest, although then the warpriest is free to pull off an attack + chill touch, for expected 8.3 on turn 2. Sorcerer pops off another magic missile that turn for 10.5.
So 39.2 without the alchemist so far expected. 4 bombs over 2 turns will probably put it over 44 with good odds (since you get 1 spash on a fail). Or if the sorcerer has dangerous sorcery pushing the magic missiles up to 11.5 average, or 41.2 expected without alchemist, so 4 bombs should push it over.
Anyways, those are my thoughts on the scenario. Certainly looks beatable the majority of the time to me, although tactically it looks more like a severe encounter rather than a moderate with the Bugbear sneaking up like it does to 25 feet away or less.
And I've taken a monster randomly amongst the level 3 list. A Bugbear is kind of a basic monster to me.My point is that you took a level 3 monster at all. "Single high level monster" is the hardest form of encounter in 2e. A moderate encounter composed of two level 1 creatures would be massively easier for the party you describe - or any party.
I took a moderate encounter. I could have taken 1 level 4, 2 level 2 or 3 level 1 enemies and that would have been a tough encounter. If you need the moderate encounters to be tailored to your party, the party's weak , that is my point :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we should just rate the monsters by their teir... Let's call it something else tho... how about challenge rating?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I took a moderate encounter. I could have taken 1 level 4, 2 level 2 or 3 level 1 enemies and that would have been a tough encounter. If you need the moderate encounters to be tailored to your party, the party's weak , that is my point :)And I've taken a monster randomly amongst the level 3 list. A Bugbear is kind of a basic monster to me.My point is that you took a level 3 monster at all. "Single high level monster" is the hardest form of encounter in 2e. A moderate encounter composed of two level 1 creatures would be massively easier for the party you describe - or any party.
You are missing my point entirely, which is that "moderate" is a broad and almost inaccurate range.
Even with a fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric party, a level 3 monster is going to be quite challenging for a level 1 party. Meanwhile, two level 1 monsters, despite being the same "difficulty", will be much easier for that same party.
A level 3 single monster is only barely moderate, so it's no surprise at all that it jumps up to "severe" against a slightly below-average party composition. Going from there to "this party composition is completely non-feasible" is a heck of a stretch.
Especially when the crux of your argument is "the warpriest will go down in one round" and the thing that single high level monsters are absolutely best at is focusing down a single party member. Yes, of course the warpriest has a good chance of going down in one round. A barbarian has a fair chance of going down in one round against that encounter. Level+2 encounters are brutal, no matter the game only calls them "moderate".
You are missing my point entirely, which is that "moderate" is a broad and almost inaccurate range.
Even with a fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric party, a level 3 monster is going to be quite challenging for a level 1 party. Meanwhile, two level 1 monsters, despite being the same "difficulty", will be much easier for that same party.
A level 3 single monster is only barely moderate, so it's no surprise at all that it jumps up to "severe" against a slightly below-average party composition. Going from there to "this party composition is completely non-feasible" is a heck of a stretch.
Especially when the crux of your argument is "the warpriest will go down in one round" and the thing that single high level monsters are absolutely best at is focusing down a single party member. Yes, of course the warpriest has a good chance of going down in one round. A barbarian has a fair chance of going down in one round against that encounter. Level+2 encounters are brutal, no matter the game only calls them "moderate".
If the Bugbear was attacking a Fighter, Champion or Monk, it would put him to 1/3 hps on average. Even against a Ranger, Barbarian or a martial with no maximized AC or 10 Constitution, it would put him at 1/4 hps. So, without critical hits or any kind of luck, the situation is easily manageable.
Not having anyone able to take blows doesn't make a "slightly below-average party" in my opinion. It makes a "1-level less party". PF2 maths are extremely tight, 1/3 less hit points on your main frontliner is a big deal.This example was just there to illustrate that a Warpriest is no real martial. It is unable to hold the ground like a proper one. As such you need a real martial in a party if you have a Warpriest. And this martial will be a better target for Magic Weapon than the Warpriest. So if you really think about efficiency, you never cast Magic Weapon on the Warpriest. So I don't count Magic Weapon when calculating the damage output of a Strength-based Warpriest.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the Bugbear was attacking a Fighter, Champion or Monk, it would put him to 1/3 hps on average. Even against a Ranger, Barbarian or a martial with no maximized AC or 10 Constitution, it would put him at 1/4 hps. So, without critical hits or any kind of luck, the situation is easily manageable.
Could you please explain how you come to this conclusion? Given similar race, stats, feats and equipment the level 1 warpriest is exactly 2 HP behind Ranger, Fighter, Monk or Champion (4 behind Barb) and depending on weapon selection he might even be 2 AC in front of anybody not using a shield. So why exactly he is so much more squishy?
A warpriest has to have charisma, str, wisdom and a touch of Dex if their AC is going to be topped out. It is tough to have a 16 con as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A warpriest has to have charisma, str, wisdom and a touch of Dex if their AC is going to be topped out. It is tough to have a 16 con as well.
Sure, however if the Warpriest is to be the "dedicated" tank of the group he should distribute his attributes accordingly, e.g. by not maxing out Wis. In addition to that the claim was that the warpriest is much more squishy than "a martial with no maximized AC or 10 Constitution", so we have to compare him with that.
For example a hypothetical dwarven warpriest of Torag could feature the following array (Str16,Dex12,Con14,Wis14,Int10,Cha12), giving him 20HP before feats and a maximum AC of 18/20, surviving SuperBidi's Bugbears' 19.025 damage 100% of the time.
Note that I do not claim that this is the most effective Warpriest build ever, because dropping Wis and thus primarily relying on (self-) buffs and heals is harsh, especially considering other topics like counteract checks, however it is not an unplayable build if you want tankiness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A warpriest has to have charisma, str, wisdom and a touch of Dex if their AC is going to be topped out. It is tough to have a 16 con as well.
no they don't need all those things.
If they're a melee warpriest they likely don't care about Wisdom and dex of +1 is maxed out for Medium armor, not hard to obtain.
nvm Ubertron beat me to the longer explanation on playstyles and not having to be the "most optimal build as decided by the forums"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...At this point I'm going to agree with Ubertron and ask to see your numbers.
But also, I continue to make my main point: You are taking an encounter that is very dangerous for any party and saying "it's slightly more dangerous for this one party, therefore that party is completely useless"... ignoring that any party is about 50%+ likely to lose a party member to that encounter and the party you are talking about handles all kinds of more standard encounters just fine.
And you are handing all kinds of advantages to the monster - monster goes first, starts one move action away from the party, gets its attack routine off before anyone slaps a debuff on it, party hasn't taken precautions against this kind of fight, no one gets exploration tactics, etc.
Basically you are saying "look at the hardest possible moderate encounter, with everything set up in favor of the encounter - it's slightly more lethal to this party than the other! Therefore this party is completely useless!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to report in: Regardless of what the numbers say his effectiveness should be, the player of the Warpriest continues to demonstrate that he (not his character) is favored by Gorum.
He set a new single-hit-damage record in today's session, and of the four encounters we ran, he solo'd (!!) one, took out 50% of the creatures in another, did the most damage out of anyone in the party in the third, and... didn't really participate in the fourth because he was late to the fight. :P
None of this is because his build is amazing; most of it is because he can't seem to roll below a 15... And the encounter he solo'd was because of three crit failures and two failures against his first ever damaging spell, Weapon Storm...
And keep in mind - I know he's not cheating because I use Fantasy Grounds for dice rolls. XD
EDIT: Also, let the record state that the encounter that the Warpriest completely cleaned up by himself was a Moderate encounter. Just for reference in relation to the previous conversation. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@MaxAstro
It’s almost like an extremely balanced game on tight math encourages dice rolls and choices to be the governance of how effective you are, and not simply how well someone is “optimized”.
This has been my experience as well in actual play.
Because even if so and so has an additional +1 or +2, that’s absolutely dwarfed in comparison to what the roll of the die can produce.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why I think the Monk fares so well in practice, even if it might not be as much of a numerical powerhouse as the Fighter on paper.
Fighter is the Math Lord and gets all the benefits of being rock-solid and dependable because you can sort of count on the Fighter to hit things and not get crit as much. But Math Lord only gets you so far, and that's where I think this edition shines; how much you can do with your secondary and tertiary actions really matters, and the Monk is the best at absolutely hosing the action economy.
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.
80% of the rules are about combat because that is the most detailed part of the game. It in no way means that 80% of the game is combat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why I think the Monk fares so well in practice, even if it might not be as much of a numerical powerhouse as the Fighter on paper.
Fighter is the Math Lord and gets all the benefits of being rock-solid and dependable because you can sort of count on the Fighter to hit things and not get crit as much. But Math Lord only gets you so far, and that's where I think this edition shines; how much you can do with your secondary and tertiary actions really matters, and the Monk is the best at absolutely hosing the action economy.
This is definitely my experience.
The monk in my party is probably the least optimal character; 100% of choices were made for roleplay reasons. No starting 18, took two different Stances and hasn't taken any later stance feats yet, etc.
And yet being able to say "I patch up the party member next to me with battle medicine, run 50 feet to flank an enemy on the far side of the battle, hit them once and then trip them; they need to save vs stunning fist", all in one turn, has made her a very valuable party member.
