|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I dunno if it is just my group, but there needs to be another cleric doctrine. Warpriest is just. . . terrible. Sure they get expert quickly in weapons and get up to medium armor, but that also maxes out at expert meaning at higher levels they can’t go into melee without being a joke. They are going to be 2-6 AC behind most front-liners (depending on if they are running with a shield) and about three behind to-hits if you account for the fact that they can’t start with an 18 in strength/dex. Sure, there are a few spells that can help but most of those are limited to, say, one fight, and that doesn’t change the fact that:
Bottom line:
a warpriest ends up with expert in weapons, medium armor, and master in spellcasting
A cloistered cleric ends with expert in weapons, unarmored (can get up to medium or heavy armor with a dedication feat), and legendary in spellcasting.
Now I know that warpriests get expert in all martial weapons, but honestly, if you can’t hit with a weapon, you can’t hit with any weapon ad it doesn’t matter if it is a great sword or a dagger.
I propose we get another doctorine in here that gives us some melee capabilities, will outshine the cloistered, but also won’t step on any toes of the martial. I was thinking something like:
Sacred Fist Doctorine.
So at level 1 they get the monk/magus/martial artist ability to punch either lethally or non-lethally for a d6. That’s it, no domain abilities, no extra nothing. No armor proficiency.
At level 3 they get to treat their wisdom as their Dex modifier for AC. This will eventually put their AC on par with a rogue at level 10 because they will have the +5 wisdom to be wearing rugged clothing.
Have them eventually get to master but only in unarmed attacks (this is already possible with sixth pillar dedication, this just eliminates the need for that dedication) and mastery in unarmored defense (essentially putting them on par with most martial classes.). They only get master in spells. I feel this is a decent compromise. They are locked into unarmed/unarmored so they do ant outshine all the other martials, they only get master unarmored so they aren’t beating the monks, and they have something over the cloistered cleric. The only thing they get that is not currently possible is that they would be the only full caster (maguses don’t count) to get master in a defense type, but honestly, locking it into unarmored is Amy a big deal. They are still behind with a champion or even a fighter in full plate.
I dunno, any ideas? At me and my friends off base that warpriests are just sub-optimal? Do you have any other ideas?
| 2 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.
As for a better version of martial cleric ... this is why I wanted Magus to have choice of tradition instead of being locked to arcane casting. I think a divine tradition Magus is exactly what you are looking for.
For both kinds of clerics, they ONLY get expert for their deity's favored weapon. They are the only class that doesn't get expert in simple (unless their is an errata I don't know about). At my table I give expert to all weapons that they are trained in at 11th level and I give the warpriest master in their deity's favored weapon at 13th level.
I agree that more doctrines are needed.
The one you proposed is interesting.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The warpriest is for wading into the frontline with buff spells, martial weapons, armor, and shields without having to take any dedications. This gives you build flexibility while retaining what you want for the character concept: frontline capability. You're not the best frontline, but if you wanted the best you should have started fighter or champion. This frontline, however, gives full casting.
I'd rather have a warpriest with marshall dedication over a cloistered cleric with champion dedication. That's just preference though. If I could change anything I would make channel smite have the warpriest prerequisite. Otherwise I think the two subclasses both have pros and cons.
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.
As for a better version of martial cleric ... this is why I wanted Magus to have choice of tradition instead of being locked to arcane casting. I think a divine tradition Magus is exactly what you are looking for.
I can empathize, but witch being multi tradition and int based gives magus easy dedication access to any tradition that meshes fairly well with enough investment (5 feats).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriests are meant to be full casters that won't die immediately in melee. You won't be very good at hitting things, but your job is casting. Divine casters can get away with support casting a lot better than other types of casters, buffing yourself and allies will add a lot of value to the party. But a 3rd doctrine could be interesting just for some more options.
I mean, they kinda do just crumple in melee anyway. A warpriest has the same HP as a cloistered and their AC is still going to be, what, 3 behind a fighter? Five if the fighter has a shield and the warpriest doesn’t? That’s crit city man. My warrior bard with sentinel dedication had to stop running up in the frontlines in fights back at like, level 7 because he just got crit all the time.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worth noting: Sixth Pillar was flagged for errata before it even released. I wouldn’t use it as justification for anything - the designers consider it a mistake.
|
|
| 4 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.
As for a better version of martial cleric ... this is why I wanted Magus to have choice of tradition instead of being locked to arcane casting. I think a divine tradition Magus is exactly what you are looking for.
For actual play experience I have a player that went through 2 books of Age of Ashes as a Warpriest and rerolled as a cloistered after that. It just didn't do what he wanted. His spells sucked (because we had a Bard he didn't buff) and he wasn't that great at hitting things either.
As a Cloistered Cleric with Champion dedication he is getting the kind of character he wanted from the beginning - maybe a little better at damage mitigation and a little worse at melee strikes than he was aiming for.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're never going to give full martial proficiency to a full spellcaster. Maybe they'll make a class archetype for cleric that makes the tradeoff. However, general advice for Warpriest is to focus solely on buffing/healing, sacrifice Wisdom, and start with 18 Str/Dex. Alternatively, start with the Fighter or Champion chassis and MC.
I can empathize, but witch being multi tradition and int based gives magus easy dedication access to any tradition that meshes fairly well with enough investment (5 feats).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.
As for a better version of martial cleric ... this is why I wanted Magus to have choice of tradition instead of being locked to arcane casting. I think a divine tradition Magus is exactly what you are looking for.
Maybe. I hadn't considered taking Witch archetype for the spell slots. Normally if I consider Witch archetype at all it is for the focus spells.
On the other hand, half your class feats and three skill boosts is quite a bit of investment in order to get a handful of lower level spell slots. Maybe Magus wants to take a spellcasting archetype in order to get those lower level spell slots though. In that case Witch may be one of the better options to do it with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's probably also worth noting that while it's true that martials, in general (which leaves monk and champion out of this statement), get to Master in their armor, that's not until level 19. It's still a factor, but a much smaller one than if they were always behind that curve.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but there has to be a line between a martial and a full caster. At some point, a full caster is going to fall behind a martial. It has to. Otherwise, why bother being a martial?
That’s kinda my point, I guess. If you have this hard line between caster and martial and that line is ‘nothing higher than expert in AC or weapon attacks’ then the cloistered just wins period hands down and warpriest is sub par. If you want to make a ‘fighty cleric’ something has to give.
And, not for nothing, Maguses have huge advantages over my version of a sacred fist. Firstly spellstrike is huge, essentially adding an accurate weapon strike to even a fully leveled cantrip like gauging claw is fantastic. Also, they get extra bonus damage from arcane cascade stance that can be almost any damage type they have a spell for, which can trigger weaknesses. . . And on top of that they have access to a host of unique abilities like teleporting or spellstriking from far away or free switching from a reach weapon to an agile weapon. Lots of stuff that I would say justifies them not being a full caster without counting for the fact that they have master in attacks and AC. I’m okay with a cleric getting master in one weapon (unarmed strikes) and master in unarmored defense in trade for legendary caster proficiency and all the domain spells.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but there has to be a line between a martial and a full caster. At some point, a full caster is going to fall behind a martial. It has to. Otherwise, why bother being a martial?
The mid to high level feats and class features. Martial feats are just better most of the time. No matter how good spells are, you only got so many of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The warpriest is for wading into the frontline with buff spells, martial weapons, armor, and shields without having to take any dedications. This gives you build flexibility while retaining what you want for the character concept: frontline capability. You're not the best frontline, but if you wanted the best you should have started fighter or champion. This frontline, however, gives full casting.
I'd rather have a warpriest with marshall dedication over a cloistered cleric with champion dedication. That's just preference though. If I could change anything I would make channel smite have the warpriest prerequisite. Otherwise I think the two subclasses both have pros and cons.
Bard does this better between a better spell list and actual constant buffs. Proposing that a Bard is a better Warpriest than a Warpriest just really reinforces the argument that, frankly, the Warpriest got shafted.
Especially when you compare it to a Magus, who, even with Wave casting, should well outperform a Warpriest in the spells department.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but there has to be a line between a martial and a full caster. At some point, a full caster is going to fall behind a martial. It has to. Otherwise, why bother being a martial?The mid to high level feats and class features. Martial feats are just better most of the time. No matter how good spells are, you only got so many of them.
I don't think those feats are better than a proficiency bump. If I could get master weapon proficiency on a wizard then I wouldn't touch fighter or magus; I'd rather be a god. Hard capping proficiency to differentiate casters and martials makes you choose what you want: big damage in combat or full casting.
The warpriest is for wading into the frontline with buff spells, martial weapons, armor, and shields without having to take any dedications. This gives you build flexibility while retaining what you want for the character concept: frontline capability. You're not the best frontline, but if you wanted the best you should have started fighter or champion. This frontline, however, gives full casting.
I'd rather have a warpriest with marshall dedication over a cloistered cleric with champion dedication. That's just preference though. If I could change anything I would make channel smite have the warpriest prerequisite. Otherwise I think the two subclasses both have pros and cons.Bard does this better between a better spell list and actual constant buffs. Proposing that a Bard is a better Warpriest than a Warpriest just really reinforces the argument that, frankly, the Warpriest got shafted.
Especially when you compare it to a Magus, who, even with Wave casting, should well outperform a Warpriest in the spells department.
Magus with bard, cleric, or marshal dedication is definitely an option id consider but bard doesn't come stock with medium armor and shield block like the warpriest does. Id also rather have divine over occult on a support caster. Occult is something I want on a debuffer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this just showing that we need one extra level of proficiency in the mix?
Maybe, something like:
Untrained: 0
Trained: Level + 0
Skilled: Level + 2
Expert: Level + 3
Master: Level + 4
Legendary: Level + 6
So true casters max at skilled, hybrid classes max at expert, martials max at master, and fighters and gunslingers get legendary. I chose the numbers to try to keep to existing math for easy use at home, but I'd have gone by twos all the way up if I was redesigning everything to fit.
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.
Some of it is a bit white-roomy.
But I think a lot of it comes down to your second point. There's a pretty strong desire, from what I've seen, for a combat ready divine character. Warpriest falls a little flat on the martial end, Champions aren't magical enough, and Summoners cater to a very specific fantasy that doesn't work with the broader ideas here.
As much as I think both the DA classes are cool ideas it's a shame to me that we aren't getting a chance to see more of that martial/caster hybrid area explored.
And you basically need a new class for this type of character, because Paizo has by design made it so spellcasters can't get meaningfully better at martial combat and spellcasting archetypes are too slow and limited to really fulfill the whole fantasy from the martial starting point either.
Worth noting: Sixth Pillar was flagged for errata before it even released. I wouldn’t use it as justification for anything - the designers consider it a mistake.
Yeah, bit of a shame about that. It opened up a lot of these options people are complaining about missing.
It would be something between expert and master as master should be +6 and legendary is +8
Yeah, that works. I was just laying down the basic idea.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think those feats are better than a proficiency bump. If I could get master weapon proficiency on a wizard then I wouldn't touch fighter or magus; I'd rather be a god. Hard capping proficiency to differentiate casters and martials makes you choose what you want: big damage in combat or full casting.Right, but there has to be a line between a martial and a full caster. At some point, a full caster is going to fall behind a martial. It has to. Otherwise, why bother being a martial?The mid to high level feats and class features. Martial feats are just better most of the time. No matter how good spells are, you only got so many of them.
Spellcasters aren't gods anymore, and I wouldn't touch a Magus either (it's not a good class). Those feats and their turn to turn flexibility and power are much more preferable to me than most of the spells. And even when I do find a good spell, it's still usually 2 actions. 1 strike at master proficiency without the damage additives of a martial? Doesn't sound game breaking to me.
Back to the Warpriest though, Master proficiency for a lack of a Font might have worked OK.
From my experience the warpriest simply lacks compared to other characters. Especially the magus, who laughs at it with their master weapon proficiencies, master armor proficiencies, hybrid studies, arguably better spell list and spellstrike. Any martial with a cleric dedication is also arguably better than the warpriest at being a warpriest.
Despite me thinking they desperately need to be buffed, I wouldnt improve their weapon proficiency. No, I'd just improve their armor proficiency one step. Maybe give them the choice of selecting str/dex instead of wis as their key score and call it a day. They still aren't going to be outshining any other class, especially because offensively they're limited to master casting and expert weapons, but at least they wouldn't fall quite as short.
|
|
Magus is good at spells by making it a strike. If we don't want to bump Warpriest proficiency, then yeah letting them pick Str/Dex as their key stat would do a lot and seems the kind of big thing a Doctrine would do. Using Wis to hit instead of strength with their Favoured Weapon would work too, but it's both more thematic and more restrictive/punishing than it needs to be.
The 'fix' here seems straightforward - create a class archetype that trades font, spell proficiency, or quantity of spells for better martial/armor capability. This is basically what class archetypes are made for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New/Reworked Warpriest doctrine using the Bounded Spellcasting spellslot progression? Improve the martial proficiencies at the cost of the lower level spell slots, but don't include all of the other shenanigans of the Magus class itself - keep the Cleric shenanigans instead.
Currently, the only class that can change their KAS from their subclass is the rogue.
Several classes can choose between a couple of attributes (currently I think only STR and DEX). But they can do it on nothing more than the whims of the player. Being able to have a different key attribute assigned by choice of subclass doesn't seem all that much more flexible than that. Note that this could be different than Rogue in that Cleric subclass not be allowed to choose the key attribute (unlike the Rogue does - you can always still pick DEX as key attribute no matter what subclass you have).
New/Reworked Warpriest doctrine using the Bounded Spellcasting spellslot progression? Improve the martial proficiencies at the cost of the lower level spell slots, but don't include all of the other shenanigans of the Magus class itself - keep the Cleric shenanigans instead.
That's what I was thinking. Basically, Magus proficiencies, bounded casting, and keep their font.
New/Reworked Warpriest doctrine using the Bounded Spellcasting spellslot progression? Improve the martial proficiencies at the cost of the lower level spell slots, but don't include all of the other shenanigans of the Magus class itself - keep the Cleric shenanigans instead.That's what I was thinking. Basically, Magus proficiencies, bounded casting, and keep their font.
And keep all the other class feats of Cleric.
I could get behind that. It is also simple enough to homebrew too.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... let's actually look at what the differences are.
At the beginning of the game, the Warpriest gets a bunch of random useful stuff that makes them a fair bit tankier. They get medium armor proficiency, they get shield block, they get better fort save,
The cloistered cleric gets... a free feat, which gives them a focus spell.
- Second doctrine (3rd): Cloistered makes up the deficiency in fort saves. Warpriest gets trained in all of the martial weapons they weren't using, and quite possibly still aren't using. Warpriest is still ahead, but the Cloistered is making up ground.
- Third Doctrine (7th): Cloistered gets a bump to spell attack proficiency. Warpriest gets a bump to deity's weapon proficiency. This is arguably advantage to the Cloistered, if you don't think that the Warpriest is going to be hitting anyone anyway, but I'm prepared to call it a wash for now. On the other hand, the "trained in other martial" bit from the second doctrine just got even less impressive.
- Fourth Doctrine (11th): the gains from the Third doctrine even out.
- Fifth Doctrine (15th): Warpriest gets another fort save bump, and upgrades standard success to crit success. Cloistered gets a spell attack bump.
- Final Doctrine (19th): Both get a spell attack bump, but warpriest is still one behind.
/**********/
The warpriest isn't really about trading spellcasting for "hit people with sticks". It's about trading spellcasting for somewhat improved durability. At the end of the game, the warpriest has medium armor proficiency, shield block, and a notably better fort save. Cloistered has a focus spell and +2 on their spell attacks. The warpriest isn't really able to pretend to be a martial, but if all you're doing is buffing and healing (which, as a cleric, they might well be), they're a somewhat more durable healer/buffer. They're not a front-liner, but even non-front-liners take hits sometimes, an the warpriest is somewhat better at it.
Now, if you want to blast people with your god-lasers, then Cloistered is the better choice, and if your fantasy involves hitting people with your mace and having it matter, they won't really give you that anymore, but it's not because they're inherently bad. They just... don't offer that thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played a warpriest till level 6 of an ironfang invasion conversion. The DM has real life issues and had to stop running. During that time I felt amazing as a Warpriest, I picked up the blessed one dedication and I was able to do a little bit of everything, heal, off tank, and dish out damage, especially when I used my zeal focus spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a warpriest player now and played one for the early few levels of AV and the complaints about them always seem to come from a theoretical space. They definitely require a different build and playstyle than a cloistered cleric, but it's one that works, especially if you're in a group that requires another frontliner as well as a touch of support.
That's not to say I wouldn't like to see more cleric doctrines, but I don't think that warpriest is a good rationale for needing one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played a warpriest till level 6 of an ironfang invasion conversion. The DM has real life issues and had to stop running. During that time I felt amazing as a Warpriest, I picked up the blessed one dedication and I was able to do a little bit of everything, heal, off tank, and dish out damage, especially when I used my zeal focus spell.
Warpriest feels best at low levels. It's really nice for the early part of the game. It doesn't lag behind on any proficiency and the armor and shields are big survivability boosts. It's great.
Feels weirder at higher levels though, imo.
I agree that we need some more doctrines.
I was hoping we'd get some in Secrets of Magic but that wasn't to be (not that it matters as it's still a phenomenal book).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They should have given the warpriest Master Weapon proficiency and greater weapon spec to make up for the loss of Legendary Casting. Would have been just right for the class.
I made a war priest of Gorum. I made him a cloistered cleric and bought him proficiency in armor with an archetype. With both getting expert in weapons, there was no reason to reduce the maximum casting to Master Casting.
War priest is badly designed. I made a stronger war priest using cloistered cleric with archetypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They should have given the warpriest Master Weapon proficiency and greater weapon spec to make up for the loss of Legendary Casting. Would have been just right for the class.
I made a war priest of Gorum. I made him a cloistered cleric and bought him proficiency in armor with an archetype. With both getting expert in weapons, there was no reason to reduce the maximum casting to Master Casting.
War priest is badly designed. I made a stronger war priest using cloistered cleric with archetypes.
With archetypes. The warpriest is free to spend those feats elsewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With archetypes. The warpriest is free to spend those feats elsewhere.They should have given the warpriest Master Weapon proficiency and greater weapon spec to make up for the loss of Legendary Casting. Would have been just right for the class.
I made a war priest of Gorum. I made him a cloistered cleric and bought him proficiency in armor with an archetype. With both getting expert in weapons, there was no reason to reduce the maximum casting to Master Casting.
War priest is badly designed. I made a stronger war priest using cloistered cleric with archetypes.
Cleric has plenty of feats to spare. And all it costs is one Sentinel Feat and you're good. It was an easy decision to make to keep faster advanced casting with no benefit other a slightly better Fort Save and armor that was easy to access.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I vibed with the divine class design in 2e; characters of faith are my preferred niche, and none have stuck the landing. Cloistered Cleric is very plain, Warpriest Cleric is kind of a mess, the binding to alignment with Champion really rubs me the wrong way, and Oracle mysteries feel super restrictive.
I'm equal parts nervous and hopeful for an eventual Inquisitor. I miss it a bunch, and the broad shape of it - divine wave caster with some Rogue or Inquisitor feel - seems like it should be a slam dunk.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriest isn’t bad - it’s strictly better than cloistered 1-6 and 11-14 (they literally have the same features, warpriest just has armour and shield block as well while cloistered gets a single 1st level feat).
The problem is that it utterly fails to deliver on the concept of being a cast+strike cleric at a certain point. Giving it master weapons at 15 wouldn’t really make it outshine martials - who are all effectively legendary anyway (either straight legendary, or legendary with a significant damage boost). Striking is probably one of the worst uses of an action a caster could do at that level, even with master proficiency.
That being said I’d rather the two doctrines were more differentiated. Sharing that many features basically leads to the current paradigm where warpriest is better 1-6 and 11-14, cloistered is better 15+ and the only “real” choice is 7-10.
Would giving the Warpriest a bonus to strikes on rounds where they've cast a spell help them any? That would lead to a buff/heal and strike gameplay loop that feels like one of the things people want the class to be better at.
|
|
Would giving the Warpriest a bonus to strikes on rounds where they've cast a spell help them any? That would lead to a buff/heal and strike gameplay loop that feels like one of the things people want the class to be better at.
Could get very stale if the optimal rotation is cast+strike every turn. A feat at level 12 or 14, when their proficiency falls off, to give a free melee strike when you cast a spell maybe? Something like
Striking Spell (F) Feat 14, Metamagic
Prerequisites: Warpriest Doctrine
If your next action is to Cast a Spell that requires two or more actions to cast, you may immediately make a melee strike after you finish casting that spell.
That’s something you could give those who want that platstyle that isn’t just a numerical buff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They could just add handful of powerful "prerequisite: warpriest" feats that help the warpriest keep up with other classes.
Wisdom to hit with favored weapon, reduced action casting after hitting with favored weapon... That kind of thing.
No need to rework the whole doctrine.
Would giving the Warpriest a bonus to strikes on rounds where they've cast a spell help them any? That would lead to a buff/heal and strike gameplay loop that feels like one of the things people want the class to be better at.Could get very stale if the optimal rotation is cast+strike every turn. A feat at level 12 or 14, when their proficiency falls off, to give a free melee strike when you cast a spell maybe? Something like
Striking Spell (F) Feat 14, Metamagic
Prerequisites: Warpriest DoctrineIf your next action is to Cast a Spell that requires two or more actions to cast, you may immediately make a melee strike after you finish casting that spell.
That’s something you could give those who want that platstyle that isn’t just a numerical buff.
I could see that helping, but when the issue is that they can't hit very well in melee I'd rather focus on that.
The reason why I think a simple solution works here is that you still need to cast a spell and as a full caster that gives many options. So spell + strike every round won't always mean doing the same actions each round except in easy fights or while mopping up where it will likely be cantrip into strike until things are over, but being honest those types of battles tend to be like that anyway.