| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They aren't going to get master in anything martial without cutting back casting significantly, and that's not going to come from a doctrine.Could come from a wave casting class archetype that's tied to this specific doctrine.
That seems like a bigger overhaul than a class archetype can handle. If it's going to be a wave casting dedication, it's more likely to go to a class that already has wave casting, I feel. A magus that gets a class archetype for divine casting, for instance, though that's a bad idea on its face for the lack of spell attack spells that divine brings to the table.
If the ask is master weapon proficiency and expert spell casting, divine is a really tricky spell list to put that on, and wave casting may be the answer (limit the number of spell slots that just work off of your main schtick). However, I feel like if we're going to see that, it'll be in a new class like the inquisitior (personally, I hope not, as I'd like to see the inquisitior get divested from spellcasting like the ranger and champion have; but I may be in the minority there).
EDIT: I, personally, like the warpriest's current niche. That's not to say that everyone does. But I don't think the fix is to "patch" it with errata or even an archetype, and certainly not a doctrine that's just "warpriest but fightier." I think what would give the doctrine more oomph is some class feats specific to the doctrine. Right now, there are plenty of shield-focused feats, but that neglects so many other builds and playstyles. If another divine book makes its way down the pipeline, I feel like this would be a great way to add in a few more feats to give warpriest some presents.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think we'll ever see an Expert spellcasting option here, because Master is the baseline for spells and that would let you buy up better proficiency with feats, something PF2 does not seem to want players to be able to do (at least in relation to class features).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reminder that Evangelist is a PrC that would hopefully be ported over.
Not saying that a skill focused Cleric is bad, but that it would be best for the name Evangelist to stay as a PrC anyone can take. Not just clerics.
Evsngelist as a PrC is kinda awkward in pathfinder's current space.
Diefic obediences aren't really a thing, and I'm nor really expecting them to come back (sadly, as they were pretty cool).
The evangelist basically served as a way to bolt some extra skill advancement onto you class without sacrificing too much advancement in others classes, but 2e doesnt have that paradigm.
Even if you made it an archetype, it eould look quite a bit different from the og class; I don't see any merit to not using the names, especially since "evangelist" is much closer in definition to "socially focused priest" than it is "religious devotee with better than average skills"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the main benefit of Evangelist (progressing your main class while also being the servant of a god) is already done better by PF2's main system. If something similar comes up, I expect it to be an archetype called something like Devotee, probably also covering the Exalted and Sentinel paths as well.
Evangelist would be a good doctrine name for a more skillsy cleric.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, another Cleric Doctrine isn't realistically going to happen without a class archetype that comes with it.
The minimum stuff that Doctrine has to cover is both too much and not enough to play around with it.
At minimum it has to:
- provide expert Fortitude
- provide expert weapon proficiency
- provide expert and master casting proficiency
and do these at reasonable levels.
You can't really mess around with Reflex saves because that's a core class feature. You can't really give it Master weapons and casting because then it's just better than a Warpriest.
The only way to play around with the balance of it requires a Class Archetype to start taking away some class features so you can rebuild from scratch.
At this point, another Cleric Doctrine isn't realistically going to happen without a class archetype that comes with it.
The minimum stuff that Doctrine has to cover is both too much and not enough to play around with it.
At minimum it has to:
- provide expert Fortitude
- provide expert weapon proficiency
- provide expert and master casting proficiencyand do these at reasonable levels.
You can't really mess around with Reflex saves because that's a core class feature. You can't really give it Master weapons and casting because then it's just better than a Warpriest.
The only way to play around with the balance of it requires a Class Archetype to start taking away some class features so you can rebuild from scratch.
You could probably make my evangelist idea as a master proficiency caster without an archetype, but a class archetype with a lot of skill would probably make a more satisfying preacher since you could get up to legendary casting and have unique ways to play around with the idea of of a priest who actively convinces people to join the faith.
The theurge... I just don't see any way around not using a class archetype. Dipping into other traditions really isn't something you can lean into without using a decent amount of class feats, if halcyon speaker is anything to go off of
|
I don't think we'll ever see an Expert spellcasting option here, because Master is the baseline for spells and that would let you buy up better proficiency with feats, something PF2 does not seem to want players to be able to do (at least in relation to class features).This is part of why I always disliked the base of caster proficiency being Master and not Expert. That one singular choice cut out so many potential classes.
Without fundamental spell runes the math is too tight for the baseline to be expert. But yes, I think it's a missed opportunity as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I remember correctly Cleric doctrines weren't originally intended they were added as a result of player feedback. That could be why they turned out the way they are and are a bit of a dead-end when it comes to expansion.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I don't think they're really meant to be expanded on, its just a toggle between cleric-as-dedicated-divine-spell-caster and cleric-as-armored-frontline-support. While they could play with the idea of adding a skill-centric version or something, the cleric mainly gets expansion through gods, which grant regular non-list spells and focus spells. Gods are essentially like mini Sorcerer Bloodlines unto themselves.
Also people often do not know / remember that the Warpriest is the PF2 equivalent of the PF1 Cleric.
The cleric in 1e could still fight though; one of the most popular ways to run the cleric was as a hybrid that held its own in a fight (not that I think it needs to be that way in 2e)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reminder that Evangelist is a PrC that would hopefully be ported over.
Not saying that a skill focused Cleric is bad, but that it would be best for the name Evangelist to stay as a PrC anyone can take. Not just clerics.
Evsngelist as a PrC is kinda awkward in pathfinder's current space.
Diefic obediences aren't really a thing, and I'm nor really expecting them to come back (sadly, as they were pretty cool).
The evangelist basically served as a way to bolt some extra skill advancement onto you class without sacrificing too much advancement in others classes, but 2e doesnt have that paradigm.
Even if you made it an archetype, it eould look quite a bit different from the og class; I don't see any merit to not using the names, especially since "evangelist" is much closer in definition to "socially focused priest" than it is "religious devotee with better than average skills"
The real reason I think Evangelist isn't going to make a return is because of how personalized the deific/fiendish/mystery/whatever boons are. Each deity needed a set, and actually needed three sets because there were three classes that used them, and all of that takes up a ton of space.
They're super fun to read, but unless somebody is actively planning on taking one of those archetypes they don't do anything for them, and not everybody is going to be as interested in a product that is mostly this one niche thing. (As much as I loved the obediences and this particular book, it was one of the issues in The Book of the Damned.)
I think it would be fertile ground for a 3P publisher to expand upon, though, and would snap something like that up in a heartbeat.
Diefic obediences were so flavorful. I thought it was funny when a fellow player kept asking why all my characters liked to dance, and I pointed at desna's obedience. Even the characters that didn't take one of those classes still did the obedience. Some of them also tried Black Butterfly's anonymous donation thing.
Imo, it seems that the obediences were eaten by edicts, and in my games, I reward performing edicts with divine intercessions
Speaking of, I think they were eaten by the divine intercessions, too. Boons and curses have a very similar feel to the deific boons from 1E, even coming in three tiers like they did. It'd be fairly easy to look at a deity's boons from 1E and make those into divine intercessions, save some of the crazier ones, like the one that turned you into a worm that walks.
There is some room for crazier ones. Achekek's major curse is that he straight up murders the ass off of you. And then he murders the rest of you too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also people often do not know / remember that the Warpriest is the PF2 equivalent of the PF1 Cleric.
Honestly I found it weird in PF1 that the standard priest character was so well armed and armoured, like, where was my religious guy wearing robes? It is good to have non-frontline version of the cleric to be the classic priest in robes giving out blessings from the backline.
It's one of those things that's basically just "DnD tradition" despite most characters of that type in fiction being just the regular priest guy.
(Same with druids, who are probably only still in the game because of inertia. I think druids are so relatively uncommon because there just are 0 fictional touchstones to pull from.)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's one of those things that's basically just "DnD tradition" despite most characters of that type in fiction being just the regular priest guy.
(Same with druids, who are probably only still in the game because of inertia. I think druids are so relatively uncommon because there just are 0 fictional touchstones to pull from.)
I think Merlin is implied to be a druid in one of the various King Arthur movies out there? The one where King Arthur and his knights are all romans?
I think that is the only pop culture thing outside of D&D I can think of that pulls from the history/mythology regarding druids rather than pulling from what D&D made druids into.
To be fair, D&D kind of had to essentially make things up for druids - all we know about actual druids largely comes from third hand accounts by the romans, and accounts of rumours about druids spread by the romans.
You can literally sum up the entire wiki page for historical druids as
-Pagan celtic leader/priest
-Maybe does Divination
-Probably does sacrifices
-Maybe does human sacrifice, but that is also likely just romans making stuff up
-Runs religious festivals
-Exempt from taxes and fighting
-Didn't write anything down
-Like, one roman author decided they hung out in caves and forests
-At some point someone depicted them as wearing white robes and wielding sickles, and from then on everyone decided that was what they looked like
-Maybe believed in reincarnation?
-Sometimes feature in Irish folklore
Like, the parts of the wiki page discussing the unreliable sources that wrote about druids and the scholarship/reception around druids is twice the length of the part of the wiki page that actually talks about druids themselves, and the druid part of the druid wiki page is just a long list of maybes.
|
The shapeshifting duel in the Disney movie screams DnD Druid to me.
And the Cleric was IIRC based on a character of old stories (maybe about Charlemagne) who was a priest in armor bashing heads.
Hence why Clerics used only blunt weapons, as there was a taboo against spilling blood, so no slashing or piercing weapon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Same with druids, who are probably only still in the game because of inertia. I think druids are so relatively uncommon because there just are 0 fictional touchstones to pull from.)
I think you could say the same about the Ranger. In broad strokes 'survivalist' does have fictional backing but the specific amalgamation of abilities that create the DnD/PF ranger are pretty self-referential more than anything else. The pseudo-druidism, the emphasis on two-weapon fighting...
Though to some extent I think that's systemic. I mean Wizards are one of the most established fantasy archetype there is, but the DnD/PF Wizard is actually pretty bad at mimicking the conceptual space of any spellcaster other than a D&D Wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Same with druids, who are probably only still in the game because of inertia. I think druids are so relatively uncommon because there just are 0 fictional touchstones to pull from.)I think you could say the same about the Ranger. In broad strokes 'survivalist' does have fictional backing but the specific amalgamation of abilities that create the DnD/PF ranger are pretty self-referential more than anything else. The pseudo-druidism, the emphasis on two-weapon fighting...
Though to some extent I think that's systemic. I mean Wizards are one of the most established fantasy archetype there is, but the DnD/PF Wizard is actually pretty bad at mimicking the conceptual space of any spellcaster other than a D&D Wizard.
Well for wizards there's a basis in Jack Vance novels. There's also a lot of other fantasy authors that use similar magic (Discworld, Black Company, and Amber series) but even that gets a little bit chicken or the egg-y. They may just be basing their wizards off the D&D model.
Considering that PF1 Ranger really wasn't any better at TWF besides allowing it be Str based... I think the whole thing in PF2 was caused because of DnD overriding Paizo history in the playtest. This is specially true with the whole Hunt target being a thing and lack of spells at release: Both a very DnD thing and not a PF thing.(Same with druids, who are probably only still in the game because of inertia. I think druids are so relatively uncommon because there just are 0 fictional touchstones to pull from.)I think you could say the same about the Ranger. In broad strokes 'survivalist' does have fictional backing but the specific amalgamation of abilities that create the DnD/PF ranger are pretty self-referential more than anything else. The pseudo-druidism, the emphasis on two-weapon fighting...
Though to some extent I think that's systemic. I mean Wizards are one of the most established fantasy archetype there is, but the DnD/PF Wizard is actually pretty bad at mimicking the conceptual space of any spellcaster other than a D&D Wizard.
Don't all D&D rangers have spells in the current edition?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hunt Prey very definitely takes its influence from Slayer from 1e. Especially because "Hunt" in 5e is a (very weird) spell and not just a thing you do.
Slayer Study Target does resemble the PF2 Ranger Hunt Target. Wont deny that, but the comparison stops at the basic bonus (+perception, +track, +bonus to hit).
The overall mechanics are closer to how DnD handles rangers.
The proof against your argument is that PF2E's Rangers are fun.
I fail to see the resemblance given 5e Ranger has (bad) spells and gets generic weapon bonuses while having multiple ribbon abilities. Different design scheme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't all D&D rangers have spells in the current edition?Considering that PF1 Ranger really wasn't any better at TWF besides allowing it be Str based... I think the whole thing in PF2 was caused because of DnD overriding Paizo history in the playtest. This is specially true with the whole Hunt target being a thing and lack of spells at release: Both a very DnD thing and not a PF thing.(Same with druids, who are probably only still in the game because of inertia. I think druids are so relatively uncommon because there just are 0 fictional touchstones to pull from.)I think you could say the same about the Ranger. In broad strokes 'survivalist' does have fictional backing but the specific amalgamation of abilities that create the DnD/PF ranger are pretty self-referential more than anything else. The pseudo-druidism, the emphasis on two-weapon fighting...
Though to some extent I think that's systemic. I mean Wizards are one of the most established fantasy archetype there is, but the DnD/PF Wizard is actually pretty bad at mimicking the conceptual space of any spellcaster other than a D&D Wizard.
Yes, that is correct. It was D&D 4E that had rangers with no spells.
Yeah, the 5e ranger is closer to the PF1/3.5 ranger in design, while the PF2 ranger feels a lot like the 4e ranger (at least in terms of having a greater focus on damage, being spellless and having an emphasis on TWF/archery as its main combat styles).
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hear a lot of griping about Warpriest. I haven't actually played one myself though, so I don't know how much of that is just coming from whiteroom number comparisons rather than actual play experience.
I have played one, and GMd one. It's definitely all whiteroom talk, the class is very effective and has some of the best feats you will find.
The problem I noticed with having play experience is that it will be dismissed, as that experience only includes the levels warpriest is good at. For example, I played lv3-7, which because of proficiencies are the only levels warpriest is good at, while my player ran lv 13-18, which due to spells and proficiencies are the only levels warpriest is good at. If somebody came by with experience of lv8-12, those would be dismissed too, as with all those overpowered feat choices they are the only levels warpriest is good at. And of course because of how many extra feats you get at lower levels, the same would be true of someone having experience of lv1-3, the only levels warpriest is good at.
The same general rule I apply to caster attacks applies to warpriests: avoid MAP. It sounds stupidly obvious, but if you only cast one attack spell per round, you won't have to worry about runes. If you only smack one dude per round, you won't have to worry about being Expert. Plenty of other actions you can take, and plenty of ways to getting much, MUCH better use of that single attack than just plain damage with your feats (if you're archetyping sentinel or champion, you're probably gonna suck at some point).
I mean come on, Fighters have second attacks that use lower numbers than a warpriest and nobody questions that they're worth using.
Keep a consistent benchmark, people.
I don't dispute that the War Priest doctrine is basically playable and mostly works.
It's just that I would still always choose the Cloistered Cleric. Because the extra bits the I care about that the War Priest gives me I can easily get in other ways.
All that the War Priest really costs is direct offensive use of magic where the DCs count. You can easily play a cleric and never worry about that. I just like that side of clerical magic too much. I really don't see the point in gimping my build for.
But ulitmately it is the inability to start at 18 Strength. I look at the end product of a War Priest, and I see an unoptimised mess. Maybe its just me being a bit OCD. It just feels wrong without it. Yes its only a +1 on 50% of levels. Let me have that as an option and I'd be perfectly happy. Forcing the build to not have an 18 in what the player chooses to focus on is just irritating.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't dispute that the War Priest doctrine is basically playable and mostly works.
It's just that I would still always choose the Cloistered Cleric. Because the extra bits the I care about that the War Priest gives me I can easily get in other ways.
Remember when I said "good feats" and "overpowered feats"? Yeah. That's what you're going to have to sacrifice if you get Warpriest benefits "in other ways".
Everyone I saw trying to make "better warpriests" with armour-oriented dedications came up short when compared to an actual warpriest in actual play. There's a very specific reason for that. Numbers will tell you when the fight is over, but utility decides which side wins it.
But ulitmately it is the inability to start at 18 Strength. I look at the end product of a War Priest, and I see an unoptimised mess. Maybe its just me being a bit OCD. It just feels wrong without it. Yes its only a +1 on 50% of levels. Let me have that as an option and I'd be perfectly happy. Forcing the build to not have an 18 in what the player chooses to focus on is just irritating.
Never been an issue, tbh. Ok sure level 5 kinda sucked because I was hitting +11 while the Fighter was hitting +16 and then +11, but hey, I had 3rd level spells and she didn't. Still managed to do good. Plus, again, between Radiant Infusion and Cast Down, things felt quite ok. Didn't even take Channel Smite (which, considering how many fiends we met, was a strong candidate - but I preferred to save heals for areas or touches most of the time).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All that the War Priest really costs is direct offensive use of magic where the DCs count. You can easily play a cleric and never worry about that.
The problem is that it is not only the offensive use of magic that is inhibited by worse proficiency but also ANY spell or effect that relies on counteract mechanics, which on a list that is full of condition removal and protective wards is quite a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My best guess for "fixing" the Warpriest is not new doctrines but enhanced style support gained from class feats. I mean for example there is plenty of feat support for a Cleric centered around harmful font (perhaps even too much, because unless you manage to bring two Clerics most groups usually want their divine caster being able to heal and not needing an additional "healer" like Druid or Bard). And even if I don't know if math upgrades will be possible (e.g. enhancing counteracting or other proficiencies) some class feats that let you choose heavy armor without having to rely on archtypes or a couple of martial oriented action enhancing feats could really go a long way in order to be able to build a melee focused holy warrior.
I don't dispute that the War Priest doctrine is basically playable and mostly works.
It's just that I would still always choose the Cloistered Cleric. Because the extra bits the I care about that the War Priest gives me I can easily get in other ways.
Remember when I said "good feats" and "overpowered feats"? Yeah. That's what you're going to have to sacrifice if you get Warpriest benefits "in other ways".
Everyone I saw trying to make "better warpriests" with armour-oriented dedications came up short when compared to an actual warpriest in actual play. There's a very specific reason for that. Numbers will tell you when the fight is over, but utility decides which side wins it.
But ulitmately it is the inability to start at 18 Strength. I look at the end product of a War Priest, and I see an unoptimised mess. Maybe its just me being a bit OCD. It just feels wrong without it. Yes its only a +1 on 50% of levels. Let me have that as an option and I'd be perfectly happy. Forcing the build to not have an 18 in what the player chooses to focus on is just irritating.Never been an issue, tbh. Ok sure level 5 kinda sucked because I was hitting +11 while the Fighter was hitting +16 and then +11, but hey, I had 3rd level spells and she didn't. Still managed to do good. Plus, again, between Radiant Infusion and Cast Down, things felt quite ok. Didn't even take Channel Smite (which, considering how many fiends we met, was a strong candidate - but I preferred to save heals for areas or touches most of the time).
Which warpriest feats do you consider the particularly good and overpowered ones ?
Which warpriest feats do you consider the particularly good and overpowered ones ?
Asking me? You probably should ask someone else.
Overpowered - None.
Particularily Good. Perhaps Deadly Simplicity, but you get that for free and only if you need it. Many don't.
For me I really feel that Clerical/Wizard feats are very mediocre and I'll always be branching into archetypes to get better options. There are heaps of those eg Champion's Reaction. I wrote guides for classes I really liked the options for. I'd be struggling to rate any cleric feat 4 stars out of 5.
Which warpriest feats do you consider the particularly good and overpowered ones ?Asking me? You probably should ask someone else.
Overpowered - None.
Particularily Good. Perhaps Deadly Simplicity, but you get that for free and only if you need it. Many don't.
For me I really feel that Clerical/Wizard feats are very mediocre and I'll always be branching into archetypes to get better options. There are heaps of those eg Champion's Reaction. I wrote guides for classes I really liked the options for. I'd be struggling to rate any cleric feat 4 stars out of 5.
Clearly not since I don’t recall you making a comment suggesting any where
It is was Ediwir but the quote function goes bizarre on here when there is a chain
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics get one of the only feats in the game that radically shift a spell’s power in the form of the hands spells. People might say “but cloister does it better!” But heal/harm offensive spam is way better at melee range. With feats like cremate undead, cast down, and then you have the infusion spells which are are pretty strong support features when you cast your heal/harm spells to heal an ally.
Heal and harm really don’t require top tier DCs to be very effective offensively. Passing on the feats that boost what you can do with heal/harm just to catch up defensively with the warpriest is making a significant sacrifice in your offensive abilities that the cleric doesn’t need to be really effective against undead and fiends.
I would argue warpriest are not great for high level play in broad/generalized campaigns, but they stay nearly must have in any campaign that is going to rely heavily on undead or fiendish foes.
Clerics get one of the only feats in the game that radically shift a spell’s power in the form of the hands spells. People might say “but cloister does it better!” But heal/harm offensive spam is way better at melee range. With feats like cremate undead, cast down, and then you have the infusion spells which are are pretty strong support features when you cast your heal/harm spells to heal an ally.
Heal and harm really don’t require top tier DCs to be very effective offensively. Passing on the feats that boost what you can do with heal/harm just to catch up defensively with the warpriest is making a significant sacrifice in your offensive abilities that the cleric doesn’t need to be really effective against undead and fiends.
I would argue warpriest are not great for high level play in broad/generalized campaigns, but they stay nearly must have in any campaign that is going to rely heavily on undead or fiendish foes.
You don't really need to do anything drastic to catch up to the warpriest though. Assuming starting 16 dex, the light armor general feat at human 1 or character level 3 will keep you equal with the warpriest (studded leather until 5, leather afterward) until level 13 at which point you retrain it and switch to robes and sit at -1 AC until level 15 gives you 20 dex.
Even sentinel isn't exactly hard to get out of. Take it at 2, take sentinel skill feats at 4 and 6 and you can archetype again at level 6 if you want. As long as you aren't the local medicine slave, you can easily afford to lose a few early skill feats.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A cloistered cleric with a 16 in dex and 16 in Wis is going to be lucky to have a 14 in Cha and Charisma is pretty essential for heal/harm Spam.
I agree that it is a mistake to have the medicine focused character your cleric because it puts too many of your eggs in one basket, but with a high charisma, a war priest can be investing in intimidation boosts and feats right from the beginning.
And It is not just armor prof that war priest gets. It is shield block and more robust Fort saves. It ends up being a whole lot of feats for a cloistered cleric to try to replicate and meanwhile the war priest is getting toughness, and powerful class feats surrounding a spell that they can have 7or 8 top level castings of.
People often overestimate raw proficiency. It is understandable why it happens and how it happens, but it is something I think experienced players should help less experienced players see past. It is true that if you are trying to spam only one thing, being as good as possible in that thing often yields high results. But overspecializing and not getting to do your thing can be extra frustrating. With things like cremate undead, and turn undead you are creating big problems for lots of enemies when they succeed on their saves. You don’t have to go all in on trying to get failures.