| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, nothing in the stealth skill suggests that it works differently with different imprecise senses. In fact, going by RAW, I would have to rule that a stealth check to Hide makes you nondetected by imprecise scent: "it might be undetected by you if it's using Stealth". There's nothing in the feat, the description of imprecise sense, or the description of the Stealth skill or it's actions that would let you autodetect a hiding/stealthing creature with imprecise scent.
A GM could be very nice and say that stealth doesn't apply to scent, but that would be up to table variation.
Which means, imprecise scent (at least from this feat) is specifically only useful in an area of Silence, loud noise (but not strong smells), or if the character has been deafened.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is Acute Scent so important to people and what does it have to do with the power level of casters?!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is Acute Scent so important to people and what does it have to do with the power level of casters?!
1st level feat trouncing low to mid level invisibility/sneaking spells and illusionary spells.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM could be very nice and say that stealth doesn't apply to scent, but that would be up to table variation.
You huddle behind cover or greater cover or deeper into concealment to become hidden, rather than observed. The GM rolls your Stealth check in secret and compares the result to the Perception DC of each creature you’re observed by but that you have cover or greater cover against or are concealed from. You gain the circumstance bonus from cover or greater cover to your check.
Success If the creature could see you, you’re now hidden from it instead of observed. If you were hidden from or undetected by the creature, you retain that condition.
If you successfully become hidden to a creature but then cease to have cover or greater cover against it or be concealed from it, you become observed again. You cease being hidden if you do anything except Hide, Sneak, or Step. If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and you then become observed. If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act unless the GM determines otherwise. The GM might allow you to perform a particularly unobtrusive action without being noticed, possibly requiring another Stealth check.
If a creature uses Seek to make you observed by it, you must successfully Hide to become hidden from it again.
You can attempt to move to another place while becoming or staying undetected. Stride up to half your Speed. (You can use Sneak while Burrowing, Climbing, Flying, or Swimming instead of Striding if you have the corresponding movement type; you must move at half that Speed.)
If you’re undetected by a creature and it’s impossible for that creature to observe you (for a typical creature, this includes when you’re invisible, the observer is blinded, or you’re in darkness and the creature can’t see in darkness), for any critical failure you roll on a check to Sneak, you get a failure instead. You also continue to be undetected if you lose cover or greater cover against or are no longer concealed from such a creature.
At the end of your movement, the GM rolls your Stealth check in secret and compares the result to the Perception DC of each creature you were hidden from or undetected by at the start of your movement. If you have cover or greater cover from the creature throughout your Stride, you gain the +2 circumstance bonus from cover (or +4 from greater cover) to your Stealth check. Because you’re moving, the bonus increase from Taking Cover doesn’t apply. You don’t get to roll against a creature if, at the end of your movement, you neither are concealed from it nor have cover or greater cover against it. You automatically become observed by such a creature.
Success You’re undetected by the creature during your movement and remain undetected by the creature at the end of it.
You become observed as soon as you do anything other than Hide, Sneak, or Step. If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and you then become observed. If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act unless the GM determines otherwise. The GM might allow you to perform a particularly unobtrusive action without being noticed, possibly requiring another Stealth check. If you speak or make a deliberate loud noise, you become hidden instead of undetected.
If a creature uses Seek and you become hidden to it as a result, you must Sneak if you want to become undetected by that creature again.
Failure A telltale sound or other sign gives your position away, though you still remain unseen. You’re hidden from the creature throughout your movement and remain so.
Critical Failure You’re spotted! You’re observed by the creature throughout your movement and remain so. If you’re invisible and were hidden from the creature, instead of being observed you’re hidden throughout your movement and remain so.
The creature knows your location but can’t see you.
Absolutely nothing in the Stealth rules say they apply against scent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, nothing in the stealth skill suggests that it works differently with different imprecise senses.
However the explanation in the senses section does.
Using Stealth with Other Senses The Stealth skill is designed to use Hide for avoiding visual detection and Avoid Notice and Sneak to avoid being both seen and heard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is Acute Scent so important to people and what does it have to do with the power level of casters?!1st level feat trouncing low to mid level invisibility/sneaking spells and illusionary spells.
weren't you the one saying it was useless though?
weren't you the one saying it was useless though?Why is Acute Scent so important to people and what does it have to do with the power level of casters?!1st level feat trouncing low to mid level invisibility/sneaking spells and illusionary spells.
Compared to other combat-oriented feats, yes. I'd much rather have feats that give me solid options in combat than feats which may or may not work or be relevant sometimes in cases that aren't very frequent.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My one issue with pf2e. At this point. Is how easily i make characters with really cool concepts but I cannot play those concepts from 1-20.
I don't mean having to get to level 6 for your build to work.
No I'm talking about due to things like proficiencies scaling, what works great at one level won't work well at a different level.
Thus I cannot play a concept. I am forced to meta game and retrain repeatedly so I stay functional. I'm no longer playing a concept. Just a warpriest, or barbarian, or rogue. When I reach these levels, my interest evaporates. I suddenly want to play a different character. Or play such a drab vanilla character that it's concept couldn't possibly every faulter. Like a know-it-all wizard (yawn) or a mute fighter that hits things and little else (zzz)
Perhaps others are on with coloring within the lines but I'm not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sort of agree. PF2 is a lot of fun at times but it's a really bad system for going outside the expectations of your class. There are a lot of hard walls in PF2 and even when there are ways around them, they tend to be really specific and often come with their own issues (like really specific archetypes to get new weapon proficiencies or limited choices on what's acceptable to grab, proficiencies that improve at odd rates or never at all).
It'll presumably get better over time: The APG enabled us to do things that were impossible or absurdly onerous to do in core... but it's definitely something I want to keep bringing up so it'll hopefully continue to improve.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My one issue with pf2e. At this point. Is how easily i make characters with really cool concepts but I cannot play those concepts from 1-20.
I don't mean having to get to level 6 for your build to work.
No I'm talking about due to things like proficiencies scaling, what works great at one level won't work well at a different level.
Thus I cannot play a concept. I am forced to meta game and retrain repeatedly so I stay functional. I'm no longer playing a concept. Just a warpriest, or barbarian, or rogue. When I reach these levels, my interest evaporates. I suddenly want to play a different character. Or play such a drab vanilla character that it's concept couldn't possibly every faulter. Like a know-it-all wizard (yawn) or a mute fighter that hits things and little else (zzz)
Perhaps others are on with coloring within the lines but I'm not.
I find that you can make more concepts in PF2 than in PF1. There are a lot of ways to mix and match classes abilities. Nothing is so extreme one way or the other you don't feel like it's impossible to play the concept.
You can do a warpriest as an example multiple ways with no real limitations. You want to play a cleric warpriest with fighter multiclass, you can be a caster focused warpriest. You want to be more fighter you play a fighter with a cleric multiclass. You want to be a raging barbarian priest, play a barbarian with cleric levels. You can make nearly any concept and be effective because the gap between high and low performance is fairly negligible.
The only people who can't clearly see the nearly limitless effective concepts are the min-maxers who can't play a concept unless everything is as maxed as you can possibly get. That's not really a concept. That's a play-style choice.
Right now in PF2 every class is viable and nearly any type of character you feel like playing can be built using the PF2 ruleset as far as the visuals and capabilities go.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My one issue with pf2e. At this point. Is how easily i make characters with really cool concepts but I cannot play those concepts from 1-20.
I don't mean having to get to level 6 for your build to work.
No I'm talking about due to things like proficiencies scaling, what works great at one level won't work well at a different level.
Thus I cannot play a concept. I am forced to meta game and retrain repeatedly so I stay functional. I'm no longer playing a concept. Just a warpriest, or barbarian, or rogue. When I reach these levels, my interest evaporates. I suddenly want to play a different character. Or play such a drab vanilla character that it's concept couldn't possibly every faulter. Like a know-it-all wizard (yawn) or a mute fighter that hits things and little else (zzz)
Perhaps others are on with coloring within the lines but I'm not.
I don't really feel like this is true at all. Some concepts need to be a different Class than you feel like they need to be intuitively, and many require an Archetype to be functional due to Proficiency scaling, but almost all can be made to work one way or another.
What concept are you having trouble with? Maybe I can help you find a 1-20 version that works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My one issue with pf2e. At this point. Is how easily i make characters with really cool concepts but I cannot play those concepts from 1-20.
I don't mean having to get to level 6 for your build to work.
No I'm talking about due to things like proficiencies scaling, what works great at one level won't work well at a different level.
Thus I cannot play a concept. I am forced to meta game and retrain repeatedly so I stay functional. I'm no longer playing a concept. Just a warpriest, or barbarian, or rogue. When I reach these levels, my interest evaporates. I suddenly want to play a different character. Or play such a drab vanilla character that it's concept couldn't possibly every faulter. Like a know-it-all wizard (yawn) or a mute fighter that hits things and little else (zzz)
Perhaps others are on with coloring within the lines but I'm not.
Are you just referencing certain levels of being bad? I do admit there are some weird levels but you can easily makes a lot of concepts work.
This is 100% worse in PF1, characters in that game have all sorts of crazy power spikes and you could make absolutely horrible characters.
APG added a lot of options and upped dedication power and can easily flavor characters so much. Just look at the options...
-The dedications allow players to be healers without being a caster. This allows full support Rogues/Investigators.
-Beastmaster: Let's ever class have an animal friend.
-Cavalier: Same as above but let's you be a mounted anything.
-Improvised Weapon: You can actually be a character that picks up random options and hits them with it.
-Eldritch Archer: Not sure anyone finds this class bad, but of course you cant get it at level 1 but you can still be a magic archer from level 1-5.
-There really are just too many to go through.
Yes you still have all the base features of your class but if you spend your class feats on 100% dedications you definitely just arent a "insert class".
These archetypes really showed what dedications can do. Hopefully every dedication from now on will be as in depth and as interesting as the APG.
Also why exactly are you retraining constantly? Only feats I ever think you would want to retrain are armor/weapon/sentinel feats. Your character would easily be functional without retraining. PF2E is by far the best when it comes to "every player being functional".
I am curious, what concept do you have that isnt functional between 1-20? I really cant think of many other than things that havent been brought to the game yet.
I feel like you are referencing Gish characters but they should be functional in theory. Only reason PF1 made Gish characters "powerful" is by stacking so many buffs that you could be almost or even better than a martial. I dont think anyone likes the cast 10 buffs and run through a dungeon concept.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gish is definitely a big one but not the only one.
Most recent was with playtest summoner but I'll wait and hope.
And yes these feats like armor training are big stand outs.
As for anything else I have a base disagreement on where the line in the sand for my use of the word functional is. For me that's operating at peak efficiency. If suddenly, through zero fault of my own system mastery. The concept I was using is no longer as reliable as it was. I find this frustrating and I lose interest in the character.
Warpriest is an example. My to hit and armor eventually lag behind enough that I no longer feel effective in melee. When I did earlier levels.
That's just one of many examples not all Gish.
Do I think current warpriest should have martial proficiencies? Clearly no. Rather they should have either been their own class or a variation of a different class other than cleric.
Oops hit x level and I get crit more, I miss more, my heavy armor means nothing now, but I can spend 1-3 rounds wasting my turns buffing myself instead of buffing a martial.
It's why I only play casters as casters, why I don't mc martials into casters unless it's for true strike, and why I'm hopeful for magus and really worried about summoner.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gish is definitely a big one but not the only one.
Most recent was with playtest summoner but I'll wait and hope.
And yes these feats like armor training are big stand outs.
As for anything else I have a base disagreement on where the line in the sand for my use of the word functional is. For me that's operating at peak efficiency. If suddenly, through zero fault of my own system mastery. The concept I was using is no longer as reliable as it was. I find this frustrating and I lose interest in the character.
Warpriest is an example. My to hit and armor eventually lag behind enough that I no longer feel effective in melee. When I did earlier levels.
That's just one of many examples not all Gish.
Do I think current warpriest should have martial proficiencies? Clearly no. Rather they should have either been their own class or a variation of a different class other than cleric.
Oops hit x level and I get crit more, I miss more, my heavy armor means nothing now, but I can spend 1-3 rounds wasting my turns buffing myself instead of buffing a martial.
It's why I only play casters as casters, why I don't mc martials into casters unless it's for true strike, and why I'm hopeful for magus and really worried about summoner.
A GISH would not be built using the cleric as the primary class. GISHes are usually martials with reduced casting, not casters with reduced martial ability. If you wanted a GISH warpriest you would play a fighter with cleric levels. That would make you a rather good warpriest at higher level.
Making full casters that are as effective as martials is not part of PF2 and isn't part of a balanced game. That's part of PF1 power gaming. So a game for doing that is available if you want to play that way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriest is an example. My to hit and armor eventually lag behind enough that I no longer feel effective in melee. When I did earlier levels.
But 'Warpriest' isn't a concept. It's a specific mechanical implementation, and you're right that it's not valid as a 'gish' build, at least not in the long term...but there are builds that do work for that. The fact that Warpriest doesn't work for your concept does not mean that said concept doesn't work.
'Gish' builds are sincerely tricky right now, much trickier than almost any other concept, but even they are hardly impossible to make work, they just require specific mechanical implementations.
So I'll ask again: What was your actual concept? Because I bet there is in fact a way to usefully build it in the long term, that way just doesn't turn out to be Warpriest.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your definition of functional is "peak performance" no game with any amount of character customization and meaningful choice will ever be good enough for you
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriest used to be one of the best Gishes. They tried to follow that history. But they neutered the proficiency so that they couldn't actually be good.
It would had been much better if instead of "Warpriest" that had another name.
You can make a pretty good approximation of a 1E warpriest simply by playing a base martial class and multiclassing cleric or divine sorcerer, though.
A fighter-cleric is a badass combatant with up to 8th level utility casting - they dont have all the bits and ribbons of a 1E warpriest, but they fight like a 2E Fighter on top of the cleric casting.
The 2E warpriesr is admittedly more accurately described as "Cleric Classic" but that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gish is definitely a big one but not the only one.
Most recent was with playtest summoner but I'll wait and hope.
And yes these feats like armor training are big stand outs.
As for anything else I have a base disagreement on where the line in the sand for my use of the word functional is. For me that's operating at peak efficiency. If suddenly, through zero fault of my own system mastery. The concept I was using is no longer as reliable as it was. I find this frustrating and I lose interest in the character.
Warpriest is an example. My to hit and armor eventually lag behind enough that I no longer feel effective in melee. When I did earlier levels.
That's just one of many examples not all Gish.
Do I think current warpriest should have martial proficiencies? Clearly no. Rather they should have either been their own class or a variation of a different class other than cleric.
Oops hit x level and I get crit more, I miss more, my heavy armor means nothing now, but I can spend 1-3 rounds wasting my turns buffing myself instead of buffing a martial.
It's why I only play casters as casters, why I don't mc martials into casters unless it's for true strike, and why I'm hopeful for magus and really worried about summoner.
A GISH would not be built using the cleric as the primary class. GISHes are usually martials with reduced casting, not casters with reduced martial ability. If you wanted a GISH warpriest you would play a fighter with cleric levels. That would make you a rather good warpriest at higher level.
Making full casters that are as effective as martials is not part of PF2 and isn't part of a balanced game. That's part of PF1 power gaming. So a game for doing that is available if you want to play that way.
You quoted my post but clearly did not read it's entire content's if this is your reply. That is all
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You quoted my post but clearly did not read it's entire content's if this is your reply. That is allGish is definitely a big one but not the only one.
Most recent was with playtest summoner but I'll wait and hope.
And yes these feats like armor training are big stand outs.
As for anything else I have a base disagreement on where the line in the sand for my use of the word functional is. For me that's operating at peak efficiency. If suddenly, through zero fault of my own system mastery. The concept I was using is no longer as reliable as it was. I find this frustrating and I lose interest in the character.
Warpriest is an example. My to hit and armor eventually lag behind enough that I no longer feel effective in melee. When I did earlier levels.
That's just one of many examples not all Gish.
Do I think current warpriest should have martial proficiencies? Clearly no. Rather they should have either been their own class or a variation of a different class other than cleric.
Oops hit x level and I get crit more, I miss more, my heavy armor means nothing now, but I can spend 1-3 rounds wasting my turns buffing myself instead of buffing a martial.
It's why I only play casters as casters, why I don't mc martials into casters unless it's for true strike, and why I'm hopeful for magus and really worried about summoner.
A GISH would not be built using the cleric as the primary class. GISHes are usually martials with reduced casting, not casters with reduced martial ability. If you wanted a GISH warpriest you would play a fighter with cleric levels. That would make you a rather good warpriest at higher level.
Making full casters that are as effective as martials is not part of PF2 and isn't part of a balanced game. That's part of PF1 power gaming. So a game for doing that is available if you want to play that way.
We'll see what they do with the Magus. The Inquisitor may be more what you're looking for once they get the Magus nailed down.
Either way you can make an excellent war priest concept using a fighter with cleric ability. If you're thinking you can make a buffed up old style cleric or war priest from PF1, you will absolutely never be able to do that in PF2. The game doesn't work like that. That is what it seems you want.
If that was not the case, then you would see that you can make some cool warpriest builds in PF2 that are very effective, especially if you buff up with a heroism which brings you to Master Martial proficiency or better, while still being able to debuff if needed as well as build up your arms in different ways with true strike.
It seems to me you want what PF1 offers, not what is available in PF2 which is every bit a powerful warpriest capable of great damage and capability. It's for some reason not enough for you. Like so many on here that seem disatisifed, I don't think PF2 will ever be a game you like because balance will always be number one when designing classes. Unless of course you're happy with the Magus design as that will be the likely design for an Inquisitor or similar type of warpriest.
The cleric warpriest or figther cleric look every bit the part of the warpriest concept. So what you are seeking is not a concept, but mechanics. In all ways visually the warpriest looks very much like a warpriest within the game world.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriest is an example. My to hit and armor eventually lag behind enough that I no longer feel effective in melee. When I did earlier levels.But 'Warpriest' isn't a concept. It's a specific mechanical implementation, and you're right that it's not valid as a 'gish' build, at least not in the long term...but there are builds that do work for that. The fact that Warpriest doesn't work for your concept does not mean that said concept doesn't work.
'Gish' builds are sincerely tricky right now, much trickier than almost any other concept, but even they are hardly impossible to make work, they just require specific mechanical implementations.
So I'll ask again: What was your actual concept? Because I bet there is in fact a way to usefully build it in the long term, that way just doesn't turn out to be Warpriest.
In that, single, specific example? To be a warpriest that focused on hitting things. Because it's a warpriest. At least in name. But what it actually was was a cleric with shuffled around proficiencies.
My interest wasn't a fighter with cleric levels and calling myself a warpriest. It was playing a warpriest and hitting things in melee (worshipped and executioner God, tanked wisdom, harming font, etc)
Summoner was another great one. Early levels my concept of a orc summoner with a beast eidolon worked well. I tanked cha and focused on longer duration buff spells using my eidolon as my attacking option. At a certain level due to 16str, no real feat support to give more attack options and no ability to utilize a str Apex item for the eidolon by higher levels the concept that worked rather wonderfully was absolutely terrible.
It's why I say you have to stay inside the lines. Unless you enjoy having to roll higher than everyone else to make your strategies work.
But regardless people are just going to ignore the math and give me their anecdotal evidence about his in their group or their character they made it work. Cool. You rolled higher consistently. Or you got lucky with your damage type. Or your DM have you that exact bit of info you needed to flex.
I just prefer my s++$ to work without handholding personally.
Probably the last I'll speak of it on the forums. Love the system and it's by and far my favorite. As I favor the focus on balance even if I degree slightly where that line should be in places. But it means I need to either home brew or limit my options so as not to fall into traps. Means no really interesting builds from a mechanical standpoint and probably part of the reason I majorly prefer free archetype as a base expectation out of the game.
Warpriest is an example. My to hit and armor eventually lag behind enough that I no longer feel effective in melee. When I did earlier levels.But 'Warpriest' isn't a concept. It's a specific mechanical implementation, and you're right that it's not valid as a 'gish' build, at least not in the long term...but there are builds that do work for that. The fact that Warpriest doesn't work for your concept does not mean that said concept doesn't work.
'Gish' builds are sincerely tricky right now, much trickier than almost any other concept, but even they are hardly impossible to make work, they just require specific mechanical implementations.
So I'll ask again: What was your actual concept? Because I bet there is in fact a way to usefully build it in the long term, that way just doesn't turn out to be Warpriest.
In that, single, specific example? To be a warpriest that focused on hitting things. Because it's a warpriest. At least in name. But what it actually was was a cleric with shuffled around proficiencies.
My interest wasn't a fighter with cleric levels and calling myself a warpriest. It was playing a warpriest and hitting things in melee (worshipped and executioner God, tanked wisdom, harming font, etc)
Summoner was another great one. Early levels my concept of a orc summoner with a beast eidolon worked well. I tanked cha and focused on longer duration buff spells using my eidolon as my attacking option. At a certain level due to 16str, no real feat support to give more attack options and no ability to utilize a str Apex item for the eidolon by higher levels the concept that worked rather wonderfully was absolutely terrible.
It's why I say you have to stay inside the lines. Unless you enjoy having to roll higher than everyone else to make your strategies work.
But regardless people are just going to ignore the math and give me their anecdotal evidence about his in their group or their character they...
Why are you unwilling to use heroism and/or true strike? My buddy made exactly a concept like you stated: a powerful heavy string war priest with channel smite buffing with herosim. What part of that is a problem? You don't hit as well as a fighter who doesn't get full casting?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We'll see what they do with the Magus. The Inquisitor...You quoted my post but clearly did not read it's entire content's if this is your reply. That is allGish is definitely a big one but not the only one.
Most recent was with playtest summoner but I'll wait and hope.
And yes these feats like armor training are big stand outs.
As for anything else I have a base disagreement on where the line in the sand for my use of the word functional is. For me that's operating at peak efficiency. If suddenly, through zero fault of my own system mastery. The concept I was using is no longer as reliable as it was. I find this frustrating and I lose interest in the character.
Warpriest is an example. My to hit and armor eventually lag behind enough that I no longer feel effective in melee. When I did earlier levels.
That's just one of many examples not all Gish.
Do I think current warpriest should have martial proficiencies? Clearly no. Rather they should have either been their own class or a variation of a different class other than cleric.
Oops hit x level and I get crit more, I miss more, my heavy armor means nothing now, but I can spend 1-3 rounds wasting my turns buffing myself instead of buffing a martial.
It's why I only play casters as casters, why I don't mc martials into casters unless it's for true strike, and why I'm hopeful for magus and really worried about summoner.
A GISH would not be built using the cleric as the primary class. GISHes are usually martials with reduced casting, not casters with reduced martial ability. If you wanted a GISH warpriest you would play a fighter with cleric levels. That would make you a rather good warpriest at higher level.
Making full casters that are as effective as martials is not part of PF2 and isn't part of a balanced game. That's part of PF1 power gaming. So a game for doing that is available if you want to play that way.
/Sigh. No. You misread. I want a balanced warpriest. Probably closer to what the magus was in the playtest.
Why cast heroism on myself and not the fighter? There is no reason that is the answer. You wasted 2 actions to pretend to be a martial.
So in that class in particular my issue is not that they are not all powerful 1e warpriest (TBH I hate pf1e) it is they are not balanced around the concept of the class but unfortunately and inseperably tied to the cleric class because of legacy reasons with no thought given to the ramifications.
No what I'd probably do is take magus base kit, rip out spell strike and keep the font and make channel smite a class feature.
Because that's a warpriest
...Warpriest is an example. My to hit and armor eventually lag behind enough that I no longer feel effective in melee. When I did earlier levels.But 'Warpriest' isn't a concept. It's a specific mechanical implementation, and you're right that it's not valid as a 'gish' build, at least not in the long term...but there are builds that do work for that. The fact that Warpriest doesn't work for your concept does not mean that said concept doesn't work.
'Gish' builds are sincerely tricky right now, much trickier than almost any other concept, but even they are hardly impossible to make work, they just require specific mechanical implementations.
So I'll ask again: What was your actual concept? Because I bet there is in fact a way to usefully build it in the long term, that way just doesn't turn out to be Warpriest.
In that, single, specific example? To be a warpriest that focused on hitting things. Because it's a warpriest. At least in name. But what it actually was was a cleric with shuffled around proficiencies.
My interest wasn't a fighter with cleric levels and calling myself a warpriest. It was playing a warpriest and hitting things in melee (worshipped and executioner God, tanked wisdom, harming font, etc)
Summoner was another great one. Early levels my concept of a orc summoner with a beast eidolon worked well. I tanked cha and focused on longer duration buff spells using my eidolon as my attacking option. At a certain level due to 16str, no real feat support to give more attack options and no ability to utilize a str Apex item for the eidolon by higher levels the concept that worked rather wonderfully was absolutely terrible.
It's why I say you have to stay inside the lines. Unless you enjoy having to roll higher than everyone else to make your strategies work.
But regardless people are just going to ignore the math and give me their anecdotal evidence about his in
Because cast that on a real martial and help your party is my reasoning
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoner is in playtest and your argument is that level 17 they have a -1 from Apex items so they aren't functional?
It sounds like you are happy from level 1-4 when every character is roughly the same a disappointed when your character starts to differentiate and get -2.
By level 5 as every gish you trade -2 for full casting, I feel that is plenty functional.
Also the retraining armor is weird but that is really only specific circumstances. Most characters dont need to do this.
Yes Warpriest isnt a full class. The only fall behind by -2 at 5-6 and 13+. By level 13+ I feel they have plenty of spells to overcome this difference.
PF1 had this extact same issue but was "solved by mass buffing". It was actually worse since buy level 10 a Wizard was -5 and 3/4 martials were at -2/3 and it just got worse. Also those caused monsters to just be super easy to hit. Our buffed up Warpriest easily kills bosses in 1 round or reall close if he gets a full attack.
Funny thing in Pathfinder Kingmaker I found this made the game extremely annoying. After every rest and start of a dungeon casting 10+ buffs was not fun.
Seems like a lot of people want gish characters to be better martials than martials. Any sort of "weakness" and people think they are useless.
There is a reason that inn every tier list in PF1 full martials are pretty much at the bottom of the barrels. It is pretty much full casters>half casters>full martials. By that standards 50% or more of classes in PF1 were non functional. PF2E I cant even find a tier list yet so that is a good sign...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A harm font war priest using channel smite is a beast with their one big hit of the round and can spend their third action healing themselves, or raising a shield, or moving, or even better, lining up true strike on their big hit. I don't think heroism is as great a spell to cast on single attack focused characters, as there are better uses of the spell and the spell slot for the warpriest.
It would be nice if things like cast down worked with channel smite, but I think it might be a mistake to assume that any class can be easily played well by starting off with tanking your primary class stat to as low as possible.
Starting with a 16 in an attack stat that you are only really using to make one attack a round is pretty effective, especially when the trade off is having a second 16 in a stat that you can use to attack with spells that do damage on successful save. A war priest with a 16/16/14 in any combination of STR, WIS and CHA can be pretty devastating with their options for doing a lot of nova damage in a hurry to the right enemy.
I play a cloistered cleric who has hit level 7 (the level where my weapon attack is the most worst in comparison to my spell casting proficiency) and still hits and crits regularly with my longbow attack, even getting killing blows regularly against solo encounters. Yeah I miss some rounds and end up doing no damage, but that is usually because I spent 2 actions casting a heal spell that really helped my allies stay in the fight, or a dispel magic that undid an enemies entire turn or sometimes entire plan, despite the fact that a full 50% or more of my spells memorized are out of combat utility spells. The divine list packs an incredible punch in its narrative shaping options that have allowed our party to make child's play of traveling undetected through a jungle at high speed while keeping in touch with allies a continent away, coordinating an organization that we haven't been able to see in person in over a month, all the while making friends with all the animals we come across and making the whole party feel like we are super heroes working in coordination with the world around us to defeat a great evil facing the land.
That is all stuff my cleric provides every day to the whole party. We also have a wizard who is new to PF2 and thus more focused on just trying to be a good combat wizard and still having some growing pains with that. Our two martial characters get about 75 of the treasure we find so are decked out monsters of melee combat, but even the rogue has trouble doing with skills half of what my cleric can do much better with magic. It absolutely costs me some of my combat effectiveness with spells, but that trade off feels fine to me as I can do quite a bit in combat just by drawing attacks keeping near to our paladin and setting up sneak attack for our rogue. As well as take out fleeing enemies from great range because my perception is very good and it is difficult to get away from a longbow's range. I also have an animal companion with more HP than my character who I primarily use as a mount during exploration and a way to get flanking for the rogue without exposing myself. Honestly, on paper the character looks spread way, way to thin, with lots of sub optimal choices, but I would be shocked if anyone in the party ever wishes there was a different character in my weird little goblin's place.
PS: Ketephys is an excellent deity for a cleric.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, 'a character of X Class' is fundamentally not a concept, especially in PF2. If your concept starts with the name of a Class in it you should immediately stop, remove the Class, and then think about what you want the character to be able to do, and to be in the world.
Once you know that, you can almost certainly build a character using PF2's rules that does it. But it might not be the same Class that leapt to mind when you thought about achieving it. Which is fine as long as you don't get overly hung up on Class names.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, 'a character of X Class' is fundamentally not a concept, especially in PF2. If your concept starts with the name of a Class in it you should immediately stop, remove the Class, and then think about what you want the character to be able to do, and to be in the world.
Once you know that, you can almost certainly build a character using PF2's rules that does it. But it might not be the same Class that leapt to mind when you thought about achieving it. Which is fine as long as you don't get overly hung up on Class names.
I disagree. All I got for you
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then maybe this is not the game for you. Before I came to these boards (or the old faqs) almost no one I played PF1 with cared about multiclassing or building gishes or figuring out why 2 levels in ranger or Paladin or oracle was cool. They just wanted to build a class and level in the class and be functional. But PF1 had such a huge power level difference between vanilla classes not to mention how certain archetypes and dips were overpowered. So PF2 is vastly better for making sure that the play experience for the 98% of players who play the game like this are happy and competitive and functional. But for people who want to game the system and get an advantage the new system is worse for sure.
Never said, implied, or insinuated I wanted to game the system. I understand if you assume due to only viewing this topic in a binary way. But I'm not
So let’s get back to gish. The general sense of gish as a caster who can attack is way more doable in PF2. Casters are all closer to martial to hit than casters were in PF1. However the min max of a gish with spells and the proficiency of a martial that was possible in PF1 is gone like Deriven said. It’s not coming back and most players are happy with that. If you want martial to hit and casting you pay severely with number of spells (magus) or your have to sink tons of feats to get a decent number of spells. You’re not getting martial to hit and full casting.
Yes casters are closer to hit if you don't account for the value of those individuals pluses and minuses. I am.
I never asked for martial to hit and full casting. Again. You make binary assumptions of a more broad topic because you don't want to have it.
Like I said I'll either stay inside the lines or home brew. The magus is an excellent framework to fix things like the warpriest. Just change the spell list. Take out spell strike and spell combat for channel smite and font system. Better warpriest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said I'll either stay inside the lines or home brew. The magus is an excellent framework to fix things like the warpriest. Just change the spell list. Take out spell strike and spell combat for channel smite and font system. Better warpriest.
I like this set up. Add in all the Heal/Harm cleric feats, and maybe a couple focus spells that are close enough to old Fervor abilities if you squint, and that character sounds pretty cool.
Like I said I'll either stay inside the lines or home brew. The magus is an excellent framework to fix things like the warpriest. Just change the spell list. Take out spell strike and spell combat for channel smite and font system. Better warpriest.I like this set up. Add in all the Heal/Harm cleric feats, and maybe a couple focus spells that are close enough to old Fervor abilities if you squint, and that character sounds pretty cool.
Yeah I like the idea. Could probably do similar stuff with druid for a more wild shape focused character.
Could probably pull something of with bard and their more martially driven subspec.
Witch with less about spells and gets the hair out nails feat?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do hope the Warpriest proficiencies get changed a bit in an upcoming errata to match the new standard we're seeing here with Magus.
Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen, nor do I expect Paizo to change the proficiency structure Clerics have set up in their Doctrines list.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just like Starfinder, I think that PF2 could open up a bit more by every class' key ability score being any of the six chosen at first level. Want an 18 Str Cleric? Go for it. Want an 18 Int Magus? You do you. I do not think this breaks anything mechanically, and it opens up for more creativity. This is my defualt homebrew change #1.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the most interesting things about this thread, is that we're seeing how expectation for what something ought to mean intersects with how it actually works-- for instance, Warpriests are pretty good, but they don't want to hit all day with weapons, they want to cast-and-swing or buff up their attacks with magic. Its not a caster "as martial" its a "Caster with a side of martial" and played that way, it works well.
But for some people, there's an expectation that gish play (before anyone corrects me, I'm using the contemporary 'gish' which is any character who combines magic and weapons.)
To be honest, this actually feels like fertile ground for class archetypes-- I could see one for the cleric that requires Warpriest that actually knocks their Proficiency up a rank at the cost of another feature (font maybe? or reduced spellcasting?) and provides a bunch of class feats that convert the cleric into a "I swing, and then swing again" proper martial.
A lot of classes might appreciate an option like that, actually.
Just like Starfinder, I think that PF2 could open up a bit more by every class' key ability score being any of the six chosen at first level. Want an 18 Str Cleric? Go for it. Want an 18 Int Magus? You do you. I do not think this breaks anything mechanically, and it opens up for more creativity. This is my defualt homebrew change #1.
When first PF2E I thought this too. I still think it should be changed to what you said.
They could still have "pick a key ability stat from these options for class" then as a seperate stat add 2 to any stat.
I think a few classes would love this. It isnt a huge deal since 16 vs 18 are on par 50% of the game. Druid/Cleric are the main ones that jump out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the most interesting things about this thread, is that we're seeing how expectation for what something ought to mean intersects with how it actually works-- for instance, Warpriests are pretty good, but they don't want to hit all day with weapons, they want to cast-and-swing or buff up their attacks with magic. Its not a caster "as martial" its a "Caster with a side of martial" and played that way, it works well.
But for some people, there's an expectation that gish play (before anyone corrects me, I'm using the contemporary 'gish' which is any character who combines magic and weapons.)
To be honest, this actually feels like fertile ground for class archetypes-- I could see one for the cleric that requires Warpriest that actually knocks their Proficiency up a rank at the cost of another feature (font maybe? or reduced spellcasting?) and provides a bunch of class feats that convert the cleric into a "I swing, and then swing again" proper martial.
A lot of classes might appreciate an option like that, actually.
I want them to add archetypes that take away something to give interesting effects. It doesnt necessarily only have to be class archetypes. Class ones of course can be good too, that is pretty much what PF1 did anyway.
The problem PF2E is trying to avoid is giving a caster master weapons and full casting means they would be better than Martials. This is a big issue with PF1 where martials are 100% worse except in rare cases that you have crazy amount of encounters not with 20 minutes.
Magus/Summoner is their first try to get it right. Hopefully it turns out successful. Being equal to a Martial with Master Weapons while having spellcasting is going to be a nightmare for balance for sure.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't really an argument for anything or an assertion of any reality about game balance so don't take it as one, but...
I think it's sort of amusing that it's a generally agreed upon sentiment that if Spellcasters had weapon proficiencies comparable to martials they'd completely invalidate them.
And that it's a generally agreed upon sentiment that casters have it worst at low levels, particularly before level 5, and get better past that (with how much better being more up for debate I guess).
And yet that same level 1-4 bracket is the only point where spellcasters have the same level of proficiency as (non-fighter) martials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't really an argument for anything or an assertion of any reality about game balance so don't take it as one, but...
I think it's sort of amusing that it's a generally agreed upon sentiment that if Spellcasters had weapon proficiencies comparable to martials they'd completely invalidate them.
And that it's a generally agreed upon sentiment that casters have it worst at low levels, particularly before level 5, and get better past that (with how much better being more up for debate I guess).
And yet that same level 1-4 bracket is the only point where spellcasters have the same level of proficiency as (non-fighter) martials.
I have noticed the same. I suppose it depends on how much worth you place on the other 4 class features all martials get between their level 1 abilities and their capstone (which casters also get).
It’s because the only thing ever holding back casters (especially in PF1) was their spells. Once they get to 3rd or 4th level it just trumps anything martials can do. What PF2 has done is give some skill and martial feats that somewhat compete and pushes the balance point back further, probably more to around when 4-5th level spells come on.
In that light that balance makes sense. Give casters equivalent proficiency when their spells suck, but have them fall further behind when their spells pull them ahead.
Sure, but, what would a caster DO with that extra proficiency? It doesn't make most of their spells hit harder. They avoid a little damage with master armor, and hit a little more often with their simple weapons.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't really an argument for anything or an assertion of any reality about game balance so don't take it as one, but...
I think it's sort of amusing that it's a generally agreed upon sentiment that if Spellcasters had weapon proficiencies comparable to martials they'd completely invalidate them.
And that it's a generally agreed upon sentiment that casters have it worst at low levels, particularly before level 5, and get better past that (with how much better being more up for debate I guess).
And yet that same level 1-4 bracket is the only point where spellcasters have the same level of proficiency as (non-fighter) martials.
I think both points are valid, because this is mostly a build design issue.
If casters had the same Proficiencies as martials, they'd largely invalidate them not because you could build a focused offensive spell caster who could also do everything a martial could, but because the 'offensive spell caster' would still exist as a build and then as a separate character you'd have the Str focused full plate wearing 'front line caster', who just straight up replaces a martial. Even with the right Proficiencies one character cannot usually readily do both due to the disparate stat and Feat needs.
And, in the system we have, that 'front line caster' build doesn't really wind up doing what martials do at high levels, and thus winds up dissatisfying...but actually is fine at low levels. It is the 'offensive spell caster' builds that are not fine at levels 1-4, because equal Proficiency levels or not, their weapons are comparatively bad, they often lack armor, and they lack the free Ability points to invest in attacking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
as a separate character you'd have the Str focused full plate wearing 'front line caster', who just straight up replaces a martial.
I'm just not sure this is true, although it makes a LOT more sense than some of the other comments made.
What I think is true: built right with the right proficiencies, the Str focused caster could stand in as a Martial.
What I don't think logically follows: that this would invalidate martials.
Martials are just better set up with feats, stats, saves, armor, HP, and additional class abilities to be Martials. Which, duh. Maybe you can burn up spells trying to keep up, and it would be easier to do that if your Armor and Weapon proficiency didn't start 3 points behind. But then you're doing that and not casting stuff like Synesthesia.
Or you ARE casting that and giving up the ability to make your second and third strikes.
Which is fair, because you weren't going to hit very hard with them anyways.
Which means you probably didn't replace that barbarian or fighter after all.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't actually think it would completely invalidate martials, but it would go way too far in that direction for comfort or fun, IMO.
Spells are really good. Just a martial chassis and Heroism alone and you wind up with Fighter level accuracy and thus damage eventually, and that's one spell. Add Haste and the spell you cast some turns only eats your -10 attack, not your -5.
And that's just two obvious non-exclusive buffs. Start adding some Bard stuff in there and it gets horrifying.
Never said, implied, or insinuated I wanted to game the system. I understand if you assume due to only viewing this topic in a binary way. But I'm not
You did say this. “ Thus I cannot play a concept. I am forced to meta game and retrain repeatedly so I stay functional.”
If you’re so forced to metagame to do things in PF2 because lacking a +1 at levels or being behind in proficiency than for the gish example the exact same holds for PF1. There was absolutely advantages to be gained in PF1 in knowing the right dips, the correct feats and items and such to make the most effective character you can and make up the proficiency gap you lost to martials. Which was why every 9th level caster was at the top of all tier lists because at the end of the day the attack proficiency gap was illusory. You don’t have to meta game it’s up to you but PF2 finally forces players to make choices on the martial/caster spectrum. I’m sorry Paizo didn’t make options that fill in all the boxes you want but that is the game they made and most people wanted.
I don't like pf1e