Spellcasters and their problems ...


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

751 to 800 of 1,256 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

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.

In what world are you setting up all these buffs in combat. Plus you are literally better off casting then on a martial


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:

Well I’m a bit confused then. People have gone over all the different flavors of warpriest there is between full caster and martial mc’ing in to caster. All are quite valid and powerful depending on what your interest lies. The place where it does fall short is what classes like cleric, inquisitor and Warpriest could all do with the concept in PF1. There it was possible to have best of both worlds, while now it’s very segmented on what you can have.

I do agree with the sentiment of how they silo you when you make the choice, but considering no one I ever played with in PF1 actually played that way (dipping, changing classes midstream) I can see why they didn’t give that as an option. I’m sure they’ve thought of it but I have no idea how they’d even do it with the current system.

I quite simply disagree with your overall stance on the topic. Plus it's not a warpriest unless it's a warpriest. Meaning fighter+cleric is not a warpriest

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
In what world are you setting up all these buffs in combat. Plus you are literally better off casting then on a martial

Scouting is a thing and Heroism lasts 10 minutes, setting it up pre combat isn't that unlikely, but I wasn't saying you'd have them all, just pointing out how good they were.

And that post was specifically in regards to the hypothetical world where casters had martial level Proficiencies (so Master in attacks and so on). In the actual game, things are a bit different.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:

I don’t think the argument that they don’t replace martials because they have better things to do is a very good one. What PF2 does that PF1 didn’t is hide more damage behind starting as a class. PF2 gives very limited damage buffs to multiclassing into a martial archetype compared to PF1 where the main thing limiting it was long feat chains that casters just didn’t have enough feat choices to go down. They usually did have enough to go down one feat chain, but due to how PF1 works that was usually good enough, especially when paired with 6/9 level casting.

In PF2 though my experience with DMing a high level (16) group and Derivens posts on his high level druid experience has shown (for us at least) at high levels the casting just like PF1 does pull ahead. The proficiency gap is necessary there to prevent parties being just casters. Sure their melee strikes don’t do as much damage but they can also do things like bust out 7-9th level spells that devastate encounters.

Then you're missing the point.

If they can bust out 7th and 9th level spells to devastate encounters, why the bloody hell is a +2 to hit a threat? Why are they Striking at all? They have spells.

Edit: To be clearer, why is only the +2 seen as the threat, and not the 7 other things each martial chassis bring to the table in making a front line character?

Even Heroism (which only partly stacks with bard stuff) get more mileage cast on the actual martial, even if your to hit is the same (which it won't be due to key ability modifiers but even if it was) because every attack that either character successfully strikes with, the Martial will almost certainly hit and crit harder. They get better weapons, earlier and better Weapon specialization, and crit specializations.

And that's before getting into the simple fact that some people will always choose a martial even if a caster is just as good for so that they wouldn't have to keep track of spell slots and consumables. Plus, you know, better HP, Saves, Perception, Weapon Specialization, and more class abilities, some of which are pretty effective in their own right.

I don't doubt that a caster played well is effective and fun. But I find it curious that it is taken as a given that a Martial is not also fun and must be protected or mean casters will come take all their candy.


Ah that's fair


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Temperans wrote:

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.

Its a good build - the martial multiclassed into cleric. Its probably the best way to do it. You can fill up on scrolls, staves, wands if you need more casting. But you aren't a full caster, with a full spell DC.

Its fair. The old battle priest was too good, and its gone. The new war priest is IMHO a poor compromise build. Being not really good at anything.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:


I quite simply disagree with your overall stance on the topic. Plus it's not a warpriest unless it's a warpriest. Meaning fighter+cleric is not a warpriest

This latter part seems severely fixated on terminology over effect.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


I quite simply disagree with your overall stance on the topic. Plus it's not a warpriest unless it's a warpriest. Meaning fighter+cleric is not a warpriest
This latter part seems severely fixated on terminology over effect.

It's not a warpriest because warpriest already exists. If you want to render the identity of classes moot at your table by calling a fighter with a cleric dedication a warpriest that's you but it's not everyone.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


I quite simply disagree with your overall stance on the topic. Plus it's not a warpriest unless it's a warpriest. Meaning fighter+cleric is not a warpriest
This latter part seems severely fixated on terminology over effect.
It's not a warpriest because warpriest already exists. If you want to render the identity of classes moot at your table by calling a fighter with a cleric dedication a warpriest that's you but it's not everyone.

I don't consider classes for the most part to have an "identity". The class name is just a name hung on a particular range of capabilities, and if you can acquire that same (or close to) set of abilities in other ways, the name will be just as applicable to them and the distinction will be largely invisible in-setting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


I quite simply disagree with your overall stance on the topic. Plus it's not a warpriest unless it's a warpriest. Meaning fighter+cleric is not a warpriest
This latter part seems severely fixated on terminology over effect.
It's not a warpriest because warpriest already exists. If you want to render the identity of classes moot at your table by calling a fighter with a cleric dedication a warpriest that's you but it's not everyone.
I don't consider classes for the most part to have an "identity". The class name is just a name hung on a particular range of capabilities, and if you can acquire that same (or close to) set of abilities in other ways, the name will be just as applicable to them and the distinction will be largely invisible in-setting.

I'm flatly against this. Personally.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas5251212 wrote:
This latter part seems severely fixated on terminology over effect.

Even in effect, the fighter-cleric is a build that has minimal spellcasting identity until there's been some significant investment in levels and feats.

It's a good build for a lot of purposes, but a level 2 fighter with two cantrips is not something I'd ever call a warpriest thematically.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Warpriest were very thematically more warrior than Clerics having good attack and damage; while also being more of a caster than Paladin/Fighters, having 6th level casting.

A Fighter/Cleric is not a Warpriest any more than a Fighter/Druid is a Ranger, a Fighter/Wizard is a Magus, or a Fighter/Bard an Occultist.

The fact they have similar themes, does not make them the same classes. For the sole reason that classes do have a mechanical meaning. Even if you want to ignore that meaning in your games, in the lore those classes are real and known.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

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
We'll see what they
...

Pretend to be a martial? You are a martial doing martial damage as well as a martial using holy power thus a war priest.

I don't get what you're saying. PF2 is the most varied ability to make characters I have ever seen.

The performance gap is not very wide, so you can literally make almost anything and not feel punished for doing so. Whereas in PF1 if you didn't take the exact feat chain over several levels to max yourself out, you felt gimped using your chosen fighting style.

In PF2 you could take Power Attack as a warpriest, cast heroism on yourself, and you'll be smashing quite hard with maybe a modest reduction in hit chance and damage. Work in some true strike and a channel smite, you are quite effective.

Way less of a difference in effectiveness than comparing a War Priest from PF1 versus say a barbarian, which required a massive number of buff spells for the war priest to compete against martial damage.

I have made so many concepts in PF2 and have so many more I can make, I'm not even sure how you can possibly have trouble making concepts unless you are solely focused on powergaming performance.

I'm sorry, but there is no reason you can't make a concept and perform at a level that isn't near as far apart from the performance of a character of a pure type.

I made a half-elf (cavern-drow) martial fighter dread marshal with a sorcerer aberrant archetype using double slice as a concept that is highly effective. He will eventually have heroism, along with dread marshal stance, and Fearsome Brute to make this terrifying warrior with aberrant blood that crushes people in battle with two rhoka swords.

You can put all types of concepts like this together. I'm glad they even made Tieflings, Aasimar, and the like usable with any base ancestry like you can be a dwarf Aasimar or Tiefling now. This is great.

PF2 has more ability to create nearly any concept that is viable due to the balance you want to make. So I'm not understanding what you mean when you say you can't make a concept. There's no real argument for a lack of ability to create character given the sheer amount of flexibility in the system with ancestry, general, and class feats and archetypes along with a much narrower performance gap for all classes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Martials in PF1 are not 100% worse, that is something spouted by people who cant see eveything martials can do. Usually because they are too busy comparing them to Casters.

Depends on what you mean by better. I reach a point usually at some point past lvl 10 where I did not need martials to win. Casters could travel alone and decimate encounters that would hammer martials.

Martials did a lot of damage and were powerful in their own right, but the gap between casters and martials was the widest in D&D history. It was like casters were Zeus and martials were Hercules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


I quite simply disagree with your overall stance on the topic. Plus it's not a warpriest unless it's a warpriest. Meaning fighter+cleric is not a warpriest
This latter part seems severely fixated on terminology over effect.
It's not a warpriest because warpriest already exists. If you want to render the identity of classes moot at your table by calling a fighter with a cleric dedication a warpriest that's you but it's not everyone.

In the visual context of the game world it mostly assuredly is a war priest. You seem fixated on the created class known as a war priest, not on the concept. Which is the main problem with your statements. You're not interested in the character concept of a war priest which is easily made multiple different ways in PF2.

You're interest in the specific warpriest class mechanical powers and capabilities. That is not a concept. That is mechanics and power levels. Not sure why you continue to argue this as a concept. It isn't.

Concepts are I want to play a big, two-handed sword striking warpriest. Can I build this in PF2? Yes, you can.

Your idea of a concept is I want to make the warpriest class and nothing else, even if these other combinations completely approximate a war priest would do within the game world. Very different idea specifically focused on mechanics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


I quite simply disagree with your overall stance on the topic. Plus it's not a warpriest unless it's a warpriest. Meaning fighter+cleric is not a warpriest
This latter part seems severely fixated on terminology over effect.
It's not a warpriest because warpriest already exists. If you want to render the identity of classes moot at your table by calling a fighter with a cleric dedication a warpriest that's you but it's not everyone.

In the visual context of the game world it mostly assuredly is a war priest. You seem fixated on the created class known as a war priest, not on the concept. Which is the main problem with your statements. You're not interested in the character concept of a war priest which is easily made multiple different ways in PF2.

You're interest in the specific warpriest class mechanical powers and capabilities. That is not a concept. That is mechanics and power levels. Not sure why you continue to argue this as a concept. It isn't.

Concepts are I want to play a big, two-handed sword striking warpriest. Can I build this in PF2? Yes, you can.

Your idea of a concept is I want to make the warpriest class and nothing else, even if these other combinations completely approximate a war priest would do within the game world. Very different idea specifically focused on mechanics.

.

I disagree. I also disagree with your previous post. I don't view wasting actions to buff my already inferior proficiencies to mimic that of a martial as a constructive use of my time or resources. Rather casting on an actual martial is best.

I'm not looking to approximate. That's like arguing you can... Oh I dunno. Make climb skill the fly skill but only when your next to a wall.

Now could I make a worshipper of the executioner God that's a fighter with a cleric dedication? Sure. But at that point all I'm doing it for is true strike and maybe some self buffs if the casters can't be bothered to buff me for whatever reason. But either way. It's not a warpriest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:

I disagree. I also disagree with your previous post. I don't view wasting actions to buff my already inferior proficiencies to mimic that of a martial as a constructive use of my time or resources. Rather casting on an actual martial is best.

I'm not looking to approximate. That's like arguing you can... Oh I dunno. Make climb skill the fly skill but only when your next to a wall.

Now could I make a worshipper of the executioner God that's a fighter with a cleric dedication? Sure. But at that point all I'm doing it for is true strike and maybe some self buffs if the casters can't be bothered to buff me for whatever reason. But either way. It's not a warpriest.

I don't think that's a very apt comparison, simply because one isn't exactly a changing of mechanics, just a different build completely legal by the rules to do to emulate a concept. The "Fly as Climb" argument doesn't hold water because 1. The rules for Climbing and Flying are already distinct with their own requirements and effects, and 2. Trying to treat the two as the same falls into issue of the rules actually permitting this, which they technically don't. From what I can tell, your contention might strictly be the first one, but it's the second part that really makes the difference here.

In short, they are saying "Build a martial-like character with spells from the divine list this way instead of that way." Because in essence, that's what a Warpriest is: a martial-like character with spells from the divine list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


I quite simply disagree with your overall stance on the topic. Plus it's not a warpriest unless it's a warpriest. Meaning fighter+cleric is not a warpriest
This latter part seems severely fixated on terminology over effect.
It's not a warpriest because warpriest already exists. If you want to render the identity of classes moot at your table by calling a fighter with a cleric dedication a warpriest that's you but it's not everyone.

In the visual context of the game world it mostly assuredly is a war priest. You seem fixated on the created class known as a war priest, not on the concept. Which is the main problem with your statements. You're not interested in the character concept of a war priest which is easily made multiple different ways in PF2.

You're interest in the specific warpriest class mechanical powers and capabilities. That is not a concept. That is mechanics and power levels. Not sure why you continue to argue this as a concept. It isn't.

Concepts are I want to play a big, two-handed sword striking warpriest. Can I build this in PF2? Yes, you can.

Your idea of a concept is I want to make the warpriest class and nothing else, even if these other combinations completely approximate a war priest would do within the game world. Very different idea specifically focused on mechanics.

.

I disagree. I also disagree with your previous post. I don't view wasting actions to buff my already inferior proficiencies to mimic that of a martial as a constructive use of my time or resources. Rather casting on an actual martial is best.

I'm not looking to approximate. That's like arguing you can... Oh I dunno. Make climb skill the fly skill but only when your next to a wall.

Now could I make a worshipper of the executioner God that's a fighter with a cleric dedication? Sure. But at that point all I'm doing it for is true strike and maybe some self...

Disagreement is only relevant if you can show mechanically how this does not allow you to play your concept. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing is not relevant data.

It has been clearly proven you can make a war priest concept in a variety of ways that is effective and for all visual purposes can be role-played as a war priest.

What you can is a specific mechanical chassis based on a class from PF1. That is not a concept. That is mechanics. Very different.

I understand the idea as many of us had a nice, long debate on the summoner on how mechanics can be used to mirror concepts. But I don't see support for your argument that there are not available mechanics for mirroring the concept you want. You seem way too focused on the specific warpriest class and not on the concept of a war priest, which is a very viable concept in PF2.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas5251212 wrote:
I don't consider classes for the most part to have an "identity". The class name is just a name hung on a particular range of capabilities, and if you can acquire that same (or close to) set of abilities in other ways, the name will be just as applicable to them and the distinction will be largely invisible in-setting.

Classes have an identity to some degree, but only inasmuch as they provide distinct stuff in-world (so mostly only casters). Clerics, for example, are pretty well defined in-world, and something like a Bard is visibly and meaningfully different in-world.

But, on the other hand, nothing in-world separates a Cleric and a Fighter multiclassing into Cleric. Someone multiclassing to Cleric is, in world, a Cleric.

Squiggit wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
This latter part seems severely fixated on terminology over effect.

Even in effect, the fighter-cleric is a build that has minimal spellcasting identity until there's been some significant investment in levels and feats.

It's a good build for a lot of purposes, but a level 2 fighter with two cantrips is not something I'd ever call a warpriest thematically.

Going Champion rather than Fighter as your martial base solves this problem in a lot of ways. A Champion has distinct, meaningful, Divine powers (most notably solid healing) from level 1, and can grow into the full Divine casting in a way that seems consistent with a title like Warpriest to me.

Martialmasters wrote:
I disagree. I also disagree with your previous post. I don't view wasting actions to buff my already inferior proficiencies to mimic that of a martial as a constructive use of my time or resources. Rather casting on an actual martial is best.

I'm not sure this statement is universally true at all. It's gonna depend a lot on specific circumstances and what martial we're talking about, I think.

But it is usually fairly correct, and I can see how it would be frustrating, though.

Martialmasters wrote:
I'm not looking to approximate. That's like arguing you can... Oh I dunno. Make climb skill the fly skill but only when your next to a wall.

But this is a bad analogy, as those are actually two different things in-universe while a Warpriest Cleric and warpriest Champion/Cleric are not.

A more accurate analogy is saying 'I want the flight spell' and then complaining when someone finds a way for you to get storwind flight instead. Sure, it's a different spell but it still lets you fly. It does the thing all that's changed is terminology and a few details.

Martialmasters wrote:
Now could I make a worshipper of the executioner God that's a fighter with a cleric dedication? Sure. But at that point all I'm doing it for is true strike and maybe some self buffs if the casters can't be bothered to buff me for whatever reason. But either way. It's not a warpriest.

Why isn't it, though? Is it just the name? Or do you have some other specific requirements for your concept of what a warpriest should be that Fighter/Cleric doesn't quite get you? If the latter, what are they? Because I bet what you want is buildable.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

For context for those that did not participate in the most recent playtest, "Climbing as Flying" was in fact something that was suggested when people expressed dissatisfaction that Eidolons are not able to permanently fly before level 16.

It was advised that having a climb speed (available at level 6) is narratively the same thing, and if you just described it as flying but used the climbing rules it would be satisfying from an RP perspective.

I do not want to get into back and forth defending or criticizing this position (though I imagine my word choice makes my opinion of this suggestion clear, in fact I'm probably presenting the idea in an overly critical light), but I did want to explain that MartialMasters didn't just pull that comparison out of a hat.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I was aware of that, and agree that 'climbing as flying' is in no way satisfactory (they simply don't actually accomplish the same range of things).

I just don't think the situation we're discussing here is particularly equivalent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
I don't consider classes for the most part to have an "identity". The class name is just a name hung on a particular range of capabilities, and if you can acquire that same (or close to) set of abilities in other ways, the name will be just as applicable to them and the distinction will be largely invisible in-setting.

Classes have an identity to some degree, but only inasmuch as they provide distinct stuff in-world (so mostly only casters). Clerics, for example, are pretty well defined in-world, and something like a Bard is visibly and meaningfully different in-world.

But, on the other hand, nothing in-world separates a Cleric and a Fighter multiclassing into Cleric. Someone multiclassing to Cleric is, in world, a Cleric.

This is probably getting into the weeds, but I think this touches on a concept that also came up during the playtest, that class names are both a game mechanical term and an in-game setting term. Golarian isn't quite in the league of the Order of the Stick, but with Legends and Pathfinder society we have tons of examples of NPCs that have a specific class, subclass, and even archetypes noted. It is fairly evident that a warpriest cleric IS a warpriest. Something else might be able to play at the same thing, but if you saw an NPC entry "Oloch (Warpriest of Gorum)", would you assume they were a champion or fighter that multiclassed into a divine sorcerer, or would you assume they were a Warpriest cleric?

It's an interesting question to decide which would be your actual "class" if your character were listed like one of those NPCs. In this example, we have a Fighter that multiclassed into Cleric. Are they primarily a fighter as that is the chassis they are using? Are they a cleric because that is the most meaningful narrative choice the character made? Why is that considered the most meaningful narrative choice, is it because Clerics are spellcasters and any dosage of caster is automatically more impactful narratively than a Martial?

Do any of these answers change if instead of a multiclass archetype, it is a general archetype? What about a faction archetype?

For myself, I tend to see MC and general archetypes as not character defining, but do see that for faction archetypes, as that demonstrates a fair amount of in-game commitment.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

For the record, I was aware of that, and agree that 'climbing as flying' is in no way satisfactory (they simply don't actually accomplish the same range of things).

I just don't think the situation we're discussing here is particularly equivalent.

Mostly wasn't directed at you. I think I recognize everyone participating so far, but that particular discussion turn might have been confusing for someone that wandered in here without dipping into that particular pool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am a little confused by people arguing that gish casters are made less functional by the ability to cast heroism on an ally instead of themselves, or more probably, both. I agree that for a war priest that is going to be hitting hard with channel smite true strike is the much better use of resources, as you are probably only needing to land 3 supercharged attacks in the whole combat to massively outpace most martial allies.

But if you look at the proficiency gap between martials and warpriests but include heroism as a default for the war priest ends up being ahead at some levels and equal by level 20. How is that any different than the dynamic of the PF1 warpriest in terms of accuracy? And all of this is with just one spell to buff, not turns of pre-combat buffing to be equal to the average martial.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

I am a little confused by people arguing that gish casters are made less functional by the ability to cast heroism on an ally instead of themselves, or more probably, both. I agree that for a war priest that is going to be hitting hard with channel smite true strike is the much better use of resources, as you are probably only needing to land 3 supercharged attacks in the whole combat to massively outpace most martial allies.

But if you look at the proficiency gap between martials and warpriests but include heroism as a default for the war priest ends up being ahead at some levels and equal by level 20. How is that any different than the dynamic of the PF1 warpriest in terms of accuracy? And all of this is with just one spell to buff, not turns of pre-combat buffing to be equal to the average martial.

The crux of my argument, and some of Martialmasters I think, is that while you can cast heroism on yourself to equal a Martial, that spell is better spent cast on a Martial who flat out gets more out of the spell, due to all of their baseline attacks hitting and critting harder. I feel this is even true if both characters have equal weapon proficiency, due to the other class features martials have that casters simply don't have access to.

Most buffs that last multiple rounds or minutes are, imo, better cast on the martial for this reason, since their average strike is going to be better than the average strike of a caster.

That said, you bring up an excellent counter example with True Strike. Arguably, THAT you should cast on yourself, because a caster is well positioned to deliver one big Strike that hits like a truck, and True strike only lasts 1 strike.

Another point that I thought of overnight: while I still feel a caster with master martial weapon and armor proficiency (but not greater weapon specialization or crit specialization) does not invalidate martial characters, I am hard pressed to argue that it does not invalidate the Magus as presented in the playtest. And if those two proficiency bumps are enough to challenge an entire class, I think that's an argument the Magus could use a few more class features. If Martial Caster was given to all Magi at level 7, that might help (and would also make the level 6 feat choices more compelling), but critical specialization is probably also needed.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
That said, you bring up an excellent counter example with True Strike.

I'm not sure how valid it is when debating warpriests. You're limiting yourself to specific gods to get it as a divine spell and it only applies to cleric primary multiclasses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
That said, you bring up an excellent counter example with True Strike.
I'm not sure how valid it is when debating warpriests. You're limiting yourself to specific gods to get it as a divine spell and it only applies to cleric primary multiclasses.

You are often limiting yourself to certain gods when talking WP as most good WP's are bound to Heal and can't even use Channel Smite.

The base question being, do we even have a common understanding about what constitutes a WP?

A cleric that has enough defensive capabilities to conduct regular cleric duties near to or as part of the frontline (healing, buffing, restoring)?

A cleric that favours and uses weapons and spells in the mix without tapping into his special abilities much (mostly because they are prohibited; Emblazon Armament, Emblazon Energy, Divine Weapon)?

A cleric that uses weapons primarily in conjunction with his special abilities and without worrying about offensive spells (this one seems heavily supported in the CRB, e.g. Channel Smite & Cast Down).

etc.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

True Strike is nowhere near as valid a solution as is constantly suggested, simply because a huge amount of casters will never get it.

It's only a band-aid in specific instances. I don't deny its effectiveness, and I would recommend it to a player if it meshed with their concept and their class or character had access to it, but I would like to issue another reminder that this is a much more situational solution than it is presented as frequently on the forums.

It's akin to hearing "Monks in pf1 are very underpowered" and replying with "Not if you play these two specific archetypes, they're not!"

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Martials in PF1 are not 100% worse, that is something spouted by people who cant see eveything martials can do. Usually because they are too busy comparing them to Casters.
Yes a martial is a 100% worse in PF1 to a well built wizard, druid or cleric. There is no debate at all to this.

That is a debate that has been raging for like, what, 20 years? Probably longer, but back in ad&d days I was just a kid playing a game and wasn't aware of any of that. You can find people debating the martial-caster thing anywhere people talk about D&D or PF.

Also count me in the camp of people who think game terminology is just that, and has nothing to do with world setting. Any character could be built in numerous different ways in order to represent the same person. People would identify one another with occupation, affiliation, status, and the like, same as they do irl.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:


The crux of my argument, and some of Martialmasters I think, is that while you can cast heroism on yourself to equal a Martial, that spell is better spent cast on a Martial who flat out gets more out of the spell, due to all of their baseline attacks hitting and critting harder. I feel this is even true if both characters have equal weapon proficiency, due to the other class features martials have that casters simply don't have access to.

I do understand how table pressure can make caster's feel like it is their job to throw everything they have at making martials better, and that can be a successful strategy for play, but it isn't really required and doesn't have to be an either/or situation. The warpriest that really wants to focus on buff spells and martial combat, by level 5, will have at least 2 castings of heroism, and by level 7 you can have 5 castings of heroism, if buffing for martial combat is a character focus, which is also the point where you can have hit the same weapon proficiency as the average martial character. Heck from level 1 you have bless which lets you provide a bonus that your allies can choose to share or not and using magic weapon for the first 4 levels of play costs you nothing compared to wizards or sorcerers who end up stuck with a useless spell at higher levels.

By the time the martial character gets Master proficiency at level 13, you are already casting +2 Heroism and can have 5 castings of it.

SO even if buffing and healing is your primary focus as a warpriest, you can still be at very near martial fighting ability without spending a lot of resources on it. I just think that the pressure to buff martials at the cost of having the character that you want to play is a table problem, not a system problem. It feels like saying that the warpriest is unplayable because the options for things they can do in combat is so useful and diverse that just using a warpriest to self buff and attack is often not as overall powerful as using them to first support the party striker is a little unfair, especially as a full caster with a pretty decent amount of spells, the warpriest is really capable of doing both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unicore, who ever said it wasn't a table thing?

Edit: Upon reflection, there is one thing that is a system thing instead of a table thing: a warpriest plays differently at higher levels than at lower levels. Which is something that is somewhat true for all casters; people even reference that their classes turn on around levels 4 or 7 when the proficiencies start diverging.

If you are looking for a consistent playstyle throughout your career, that can be an issue, but I don't think that is limited to just gishes. It is just more pronounced with gishes, as they are just as effective as martials when both are unbuffed at first. As you say, you can ignore the pressure to change your tactics based on the best way to maximize your new tools, but for some tables that isn't going to fly.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
..buff things...

The problem of buffing is not a problem of slots, it is a problem of time, especially as prebuffing is gone.

Sure, you can use Bless and Magic weapon, starting at level 1, however doing so you just spend almost 50% of the fight doing nothing else.

IF however you cast the Magic Weapon on your Fighter or Barbarian - who ideally have not acted yet - the effect very probably comes online in the same round the spell is cast, which - considering 4 rounds of combat - is massive.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think structuring the game to make helping others be more efficient than spending those resources on yourself is good collaborative game design. Heroism, in particular, is a 10 minute buff so it is definitely possible to cast it on several people before entering a dangerous situation.

As war priests get higher in level, the play style changes a little but I think some of that is perception issues based on looking at the character sheet rather than looking at what you are doing in play. The war priest doesn't get worse at martial combat at level 13 just because martials get the next proficiency boost. They just have to be willing to spend some of their own higher level spell resources on their own combat abilities. With spells like haste, eventually you are casting them on yourself at the same time that you are casting them on your allies, and there are quite a few interesting Aura spells that are own the divine list that can provide benefits to the party as well as the caster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

Unicore, who ever said it wasn't a table thing?

Edit: Upon reflection, there is one thing that is a system thing instead of a table thing: a warpriest plays differently at higher levels than at lower levels. Which is something that is somewhat true for all casters; people even reference that their classes turn on around levels 4 or 7 when the proficiencies start diverging.

If you are looking for a consistent playstyle throughout your career, that can be an issue, but I don't think that is limited to just gishes. It is just more pronounced with gishes, as they are just as effective as martials when both are unbuffed at first. As you say, you can ignore the pressure to change your tactics based on the best way to maximize your new tools, but for some tables that isn't going to fly.

You articulated very well my issues.


But I value my enjoyment first as well. Hence retiring my warpriest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
But I value my enjoyment first as well. Hence retiring my warpriest.

Not surprising. PF1 warpriest was only good because of the insane number of high quality combat buffs you could load up on. Otherwise the class wasn't at all competitive with martial damage dealers.

The Magus and the Summoner were the boss power 6th level caster power GISHes of PF1. War priest was decent, but needed a ton of buffing like the Inquisitor to really do decent damage. That combo isn't going to happen in PF2, which is why I doubt we see the warpriest class as anything other than it is.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
PF1 warpriest was only good because of the insane number of high quality combat buffs you could load up on. Otherwise the class wasn't at all competitive with martial damage dealers.

Not really: what made then good was the use of Fervor that allowed casting spells on themselves as a swift action. They had an incentive to cast buffs on themselves because of that improved action economy so even in combat, short duration buffing of themselves made sense.

On the non-spell front, the warpriest had Sacred Weapon that made any weapon viable and played into Vital Strike builds. The Warpriest had more going for it that plain old spell buffs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
PF1 warpriest was only good because of the insane number of high quality combat buffs you could load up on. Otherwise the class wasn't at all competitive with martial damage dealers.

Not really: what made then good was the use of Fervor that allowed casting spells on themselves as a swift action. They had an incentive to cast buffs on themselves because of that improved action economy so even in combat, short duration buffing of themselves made sense.

On the non-spell front, the warpriest had Sacred Weapon that made any weapon viable and played into Vital Strike builds. The Warpriest had more going for it that plain old spell buffs.

Without those buff spells, the other class would still out damage them. Casting as a free action while buffing was nice, but it was the buffs that made them decent at high level. I remember that class well. They could not keep up with well-built fighters or barbarians wielding two-handed weapons without buffs.

And as far as challenging casters, they couldn't come close to it.

So I'm not exactly sure why anyone would think you couldn't make a war priest that was much closer in capability to other classes than you could in PF1. Magus were way, way tougher than war priests. Their alpha-strike ability was nuts. The summoner could build a far more powerful eidolon. War priest was a strange little niche class with a few decent builds that could hardly match the uber GISH classes of summoner and magus.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Still think Warpriest Clerics should get an early Fervor feature that lets them use a self-buff spell with one less action, because I'm sick to death of seeing "it's always better to buff the martial(s)" when this subject comes up. Gishes have it rough already, they don't also need the lack of an easily-hit accuracy ceiling eating away at the former paradigm of buffing themselves. I should really write that and other potential Warpriest homebrew out once the holidays come around, if it doesn't exist already.

Even without that homebrew, though, if your character concept is "Cleric who does a hit", seems like it'd be pretty rude for anyone to tell you not to fulfill your concept because they want to be extra cool. Sure, Extreme encounters exist and warp tactics when they happen, whatever. But for most intended gameplay, let the HitCleric do a Hit the way it can.

(Though I'll heartily agree that True Strike shouldn't be seen as a fix to anything.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Without those buff spells, the other class would still out damage them. Casting as a free action while buffing was nice, but it was the buffs that made them decent at high level.

What you're missing is that the action economy fixer was what made in combat buffing possible and made it more tempting to do over just buffing a martial. With the death of long lasting buff in PF2, not getting an action fixer is much more noticeable. PF1 gave you a reason to buff yourself but PF2 doesn't.

Alfa/Polaris wrote:
(Though I'll heartily agree that True Strike shouldn't be seen as a fix to anything.)

Yeah, personally I don't want to be required to cast a true strike every time I Strike so I can feel like I'm semi-good with a weapon... :P


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Deriven is highlighting one of the problems with the PF2 warpriest though. The PF1 version had a suite of abilities designed to improve their combat ability and directly enhance their ability to fight and use magic in tandem. Bundled together in a packing designed to synergistically blend the capabilities of the class in a way that wasn't as overbearing as the core cleric, but also worked more cohesively in general.

The PF2 Warpriest meanwhile has... better fort saves.


Alfa/Polaris wrote:
Still think Warpriest Clerics should get an early Fervor feature that lets them use a self-buff spell with one less action, because I'm sick to death of seeing "it's always better to buff the martial(s)" when this subject comes up.

That's actually a good idea. It would make sense as, say, a 4th level alternative to Channel Smite. You'd need some fancy rules-legalese that translates into "self-buff", but that shouldn't be impossible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Deriven is highlighting one of the problems with the PF2 warpriest though. The PF1 version had a suite of abilities designed to improve their combat ability and directly enhance their ability to fight and use magic in tandem. Bundled together in a packing designed to synergistically blend the capabilities of the class in a way that wasn't as overbearing as the core cleric, but also worked more cohesively in general.

The PF2 Warpriest meanwhile has... better fort saves.

No one has this ability any more. With the new 3 action system, you can buff yourself and attack in the same round. So no point in handing something out that is already an integrated part of the game.

I will see a war priest in action soon focused on battle. I will track their damage comparatively. We will see how it compares.

I expect a war priest to do more damage than a monk when buffed and using attacks like channel smite, but less than a two-weapon barbarian or fighter. Somewhere in that middle tier with spikes.

That is about where they should be with full 10 level casting. Some people want things to be as they were in PF1 without every really comparing what a class can do now mechanically. There are a lot of assumptions about inferior play that don't hold true when the game is played.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:


No one has this ability any more. With the new 3 action system, you can buff yourself and attack in the same round. So no point in handing something out that is already an integrated part of the game.

A feat that allows them to combine casting a specific subset of spell (like a buff) with another very specific action (such as stride or strike) isn't outside of the design space of the game at least, and requiring that the spell consume a spell slot is a pretty typical cost.

I could imagine seeing something like that under the name of Fervor in Secrets of Magic - maybe a feat chain that starts with "cast and stride" with a 2nd feat that also allows Strike.

Unresteicted self-quicken though seems pretty gross for anything not once per day though.

751 to 800 of 1,256 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Spellcasters and their problems ... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.