| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good comparison point might be something like the victor's wreath aura on exemplar, or the marshal archetype's aura.
The action cost doesn't really seem in line with Marshal, especially?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heroism is single target, Fear is 1 round, Bard doesn't have Martial Proficiency, and etc
I think the idea is 1 aura on round 1, and then Strikes, with the Wave spells or potential 2nd auras to augment your power/options for the more difficult fights.
My point was that casting what is for almost all intents and purposes a 1st rank spell is not a good battle plan from level 5 onwards. And while you can spend resources in the form of feats to make the battle auras better, a) other clerics don't have to in order to keep their font competitive, and b) those improvements only start to kick in later into the fight, so in the critical opening stages of the fight you're spending your actions to cast a first rank spell you hope will grow into a better spell.
Battle Harbinger will give way higher bonuses/penalties than a wand.
The issue is: No. It will struggle to even cast a second Aura.
My point was that casting what is for almost all intents and purposes a 1st rank spell is not a good battle plan from level 5 onwards. And while you can spend resources in the form of feats to make the battle auras better, a) other clerics don't have to in order to keep their font competitive, and b) those improvements only start to kick in later into the fight, so in the critical opening stages of the fight you're spending your actions to cast a first rank spell you hope will grow into a better spell.Heroism is single target, Fear is 1 round, Bard doesn't have Martial Proficiency, and etc
I think the idea is 1 aura on round 1, and then Strikes, with the Wave spells or potential 2nd auras to augment your power/options for the more difficult fights.
Hmm.
Do clerics stop casting bless at higher levels?| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that casting what is for almost all intents and purposes a 1st rank spell is not a good battle plan from level 5 onwards.
That might be true if the class feats didn't enhance the font spells: The first level spell can be increased up to 4 for bonuses and minuses. And you can tailor it to give bonuses/minuses to compliment those given by other players.
Battle Harbinger will give way higher bonuses/penalties than a wand.The issue is: No. It will struggle to even cast a second Aura.
Why? With sustaining on a hit, you can Strike, Sustain and cast a second Aura spell... I'm not seeing the struggle. It seems like more of a struggle to juggle wands and weapon use.
I think the better question is which deities are favored most by the abilities of the battle harbinger. Best proficiency is only with favored weapon.
What did everyone expect in a gish class?
Im confused by all this expectation a gish class wouldnt have bounded casting.
I can't speak for everyone, but what I expected of a gish class was a class that was competent at martial combat and somewhat decent at spellcasting. I'm curious to know which specific comment or person here gave you the impression that the bounded casting was the issue here, because in my opinion, and from what I've seen, critics of the class archetype seem totally fine with the bounded casting, but are not so fine with the Wisdom KAS, the caster-grade weapon specialization progression, the lack of martial feats even the Warpriest gets, the nerfed divine font that messes up their ability to smite, and the spellcasting progression so poor that you'd need to take another casting archetype just to increase it again.
Just to take someone else's example, a 3rd-level Warpriest of Iomedae does better in martial combat than a Battle Harbinger of the same deity, because both Strike with the same accuracy and damage, except the Warpriest can also block with their shield, whereas the Battle Harbinger would need to pick a feat for that. Whereas the Battle Harbinger is stuck with a weak dedication feat they're forced to take at 2nd level, the Warpriest can use their 2nd-level feat to start wielding heavy armor, and with 5 spell slots compared to the Battle Harbinger's 3, they can cast more spells too, including bane or bless if they want on top of a much stronger font. At 20th level, the Warpriest and Battle Harbinger will also Strike with the exact same accuracy and damage, and while the Battle Harbinger will have more AC, a better DC for their crit spec, and Reactive Strike, the Warpriest will have 24 more spell slots, better spell proficiency, and a far better font. As has been mentioned already, the Battle Harbinger is outdone at being a gish by an existing Cleric doctrine, which is not what you'd want from a class archetype that was hailed as the divine gish we'd all long been waiting for.
Why? With sustaining on a hit, you can Strike, Sustain and cast a second Aura spell... I'm not seeing the struggle. It seems like more of a struggle to juggle wands and weapon use.
Because it can cast 4-5 Auras per day. So if you start casting 2 of them you last 2, 3 fights top. And after that, what's left of your Battle Harbinger?
Do clerics stop casting bless at higher levels?
Well, you hardly cast it at low level. It's just that at level 1-2, you don't have much to do with your spell slots. But once you get actual spellpower, you don't cast Bless anymore. The spell is rather weak compared to the competition, which is in general costing a single action for similar effects.
At higher levels, giving everyone a +2 is a significant party power boost. In harder fights, with 2 Auras up, giving something like effectively a 4+ point swing for either attacks or defence is even better.
At least, we know where our disagreement will be. You'll be very disappointed if you ever get a Battle Harbinger at level 12 when you'll discover that this +2 happens once in a blue moon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that casting what is for almost all intents and purposes a 1st rank spell is not a good battle plan from level 5 onwards. And while you can spend resources in the form of feats to make the battle auras better, a) other clerics don't have to in order to keep their font competitive, and b) those improvements only start to kick in later into the fight, so in the critical opening stages of the fight you're spending your actions to cast a first rank spell you hope will grow into a better spell.Heroism is single target, Fear is 1 round, Bard doesn't have Martial Proficiency, and etc
I think the idea is 1 aura on round 1, and then Strikes, with the Wave spells or potential 2nd auras to augment your power/options for the more difficult fights.
Hmm.
Do clerics stop casting bless at higher levels?
I can't speak for all divine/occult casters, but by the time 3rd and 4th rank spells are available, I have too many stronger spells to cast before bless becomes a competitive option. When that becomes the case, I drop Bless from my prepared/known spells and replace it with a utility spell or something I can cast with 1 Action or a reaction. 2nd rank and eventually third rank spells go the same way eventually.
‐‐--------------
While it's true the value of a +1 bonus never goes away, the alternative things you could get with two actions and a finite pool of things from your class go up in value as you level up. That's kind of the whole point of spell ranks.
I can't speak for everyone, but what I expected of a gish class was a class that was competent at martial combat and somewhat decent at spellcasting. I'm curious to know which specific comment or person here gave you the impression that the bounded casting was the issue here, because in my opinion, and from what I've seen, critics of the class archetype seem totally fine with the bounded casting...What did everyone expect in a gish class?
Im confused by all this expectation a gish class wouldnt have bounded casting.
Teridax you did say that they lose spell slots each rank compared to a warpriest in one of your own posts as one of the concerns that made it not worth the trade off.
You did mention your other concerns but losing slots was also in there.If you look back at several posts by others theres plenty of mention that losing slots for the martial proficiency the class gets was a bad deal or not worth it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it can cast 4-5 Auras per day. So if you start casting 2 of them you last 2, 3 fights top. And after that, what's left of your Battle Harbinger?
That all depends on the table you're playing with now doesn't it? Some games might only HAVE 3 fights [or less] a 'day': Yes more fights a day will strain their font more than less.
There is also a difference between the ease of maintaining 2 sustain spells and doing so each and every fight. I don't see why they'd be dropping multiple sustain spells on lesser fights anymore than I'd expect other casters to be dropping multiple high level slots on every encounter either.
PS: Also, font goes to 6 uses at 15th, so it's 4-6 auras per day.
That might be true if the class feats didn't enhance the font spells: The first level spell can be increased up to 4 for bonuses and minuses. And you can tailor it to give bonuses/minuses to compliment those given by other players.
If you critically hit in four different rounds of a fight and the fights not functionally over... Unless you're fighting an Ooze in an Extreme encounter, something really weird ia going on. Extreme outliers like that aren't something worth planning for. They'll make for amazing stoires if they ever happen, precisely because the odds are so stacked against you.
For a more realistic scenario, albeit an extremely simplified one.
Across their career, the average martial hits on average of an 8 for their first attack*, and an average of 13 for their second. So if we get a chance to make two attacks, their chance of critting is (1-.15)*(1-.05). That's a 19.25% chance. If you get to do that 4 times (So we're in round 5, which is often the clean up phase of the fight), you have a 1-(80.75%^4) chance to critically hitat least once, or about 57.5%. That means in many fights you will never critically hit an enemy. Now, debuffs and buffs improve the odds, of course, but outside the white room you're not getting that many attakcs because you had to double move or heal a comrade or any number of things that come up (Plus, it's quite possible the enemy has a better AC*)
*I'm using Rpgbot's fundamental math of character optimization, which assumes a barbarian attacking an opponent of the same level with a Moderate AC. Lower level enemies have lower ACs, but High ACs are quite common too.
That all depends on the table you're playing with now doesn't it? Some games might only HAVE 3 fights [or less] a 'day': Yes more fights a day will strain their font more than less.
There is also a difference between the ease of maintaining 2 sustain spells and doing so each and every fight. I don't see why they'd be dropping multiple sustain spells on lesser fights anymore than I'd expect other casters to be dropping multiple high level slots on every encounter either.
PS: Also, font goes to 6 uses at 15th, so it's 4-6 auras per day.
If these were equivalent to high level slots, I'd agree. But these aren't, these are your main shtick. There's no reason to limit them when other aura options are unlimited. If I play a Battle Harbinger, I want to use Battle Auras, not calculate if this fight is hard enough to justify a second rank 1 spell...
My point was that casting what is for almost all intents and purposes a 1st rank spell is not a good battle plan from level 5 onwards. And while you can spend resources in the form of feats to make the battle auras better, a) other clerics don't have to in order to keep their font competitive, and b) those improvements only start to kick in later into the fight, so in the critical opening stages of the fight you're spending your actions to cast a first rank spell you hope will grow into a better spell.Heroism is single target, Fear is 1 round, Bard doesn't have Martial Proficiency, and etc
I think the idea is 1 aura on round 1, and then Strikes, with the Wave spells or potential 2nd auras to augment your power/options for the more difficult fights.
Hmm.
Do clerics stop casting bless at higher levels?
I can't speak for all divine/occult casters, but by the time 3rd and 4th rank spells are available, I have too many stronger spells to cast before bless becomes a competitive option. When that becomes the case, I drop Bless from my prepared/known spells and replace it with a utility spell or something I can cast with 1 Action or a reaction. 2nd rank and eventually third rank spells go the same way eventually.
‐‐--------------
While it's true the value of a +1 bonus never goes away, the alternative things you could get with two actions and a finite pool of things from your class go up in value as you level up. That's kind of the whole point of spell ranks.
i get that but does that mean higher level characters never end up in fights where all they need is bless and swinging? Such a low investment to help the party when they dont need to throw out stronger spells.
For a battle harbinger they will still have the wave casting slots for higher level spell casting in the fights when thats needed but for most fights they will just want to drop an aura and start swinging. If they are in a party with other melee bless and malediction seem like the way to go. If they are in a party with more casters bane and benediction will help them and the harbinger stay alive while they rain down their big spells. I can see that second kind of party with a harbinger that picks up shield block heavy armor and has a deity with a one handed weapon they wouldn't want to dual wield.
I think mostly though the class is geared for the two handed weapon deities using bless and malediction making themselves and the other martials in the group much more dangerous. This direction also pairs better with the reaction that further increases the bonus. In a hard fight you need to swing the numbers and this class does that and not just for themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That might be true if the class feats didn't enhance the font spells: The first level spell can be increased up to 4 for bonuses and minuses. And you can tailor it to give bonuses/minuses to compliment those given by other players.If you critically hit in four different rounds of a fight and the fights not functionally over... Unless you're fighting an Ooze in an Extreme encounter, something really weird ia going on. Extreme outliers like that aren't something worth planning for. They'll make for amazing stoires if they ever happen, precisely because the odds are so stacked against you.
For a more realistic scenario, albeit an extremely simplified one.
Across their career, the average martial hits on average of an 8 for their first attack*, and an average of 13 for their second. So if we get a chance to make two attacks, their chance of critting is (1-.15)*(1-.05). That's a 19.25% chance. If you get to do that 4 times (So we're in round 5, which is often the clean up phase of the fight), you have a 1-(80.75%^4) chance to critically hitat least once, or about 57.5%. That means in many fights you will never critically hit an enemy. Now, debuffs and buffs improve the odds, of course, but outside the white room you're not getting that many attakcs because you had to double move or heal a comrade or any number of things that come up (Plus, it's quite possible the enemy has a better AC*)
*I'm using Rpgbot's fundamental math of character optimization, which assumes a barbarian attacking an opponent of the same level with a Moderate AC. Lower level enemies have lower ACs, but High ACs are quite common too.
yeah thats a real concern.
But only at level 12 and up when the reaction becomes available to pick up with feats.What does it look like specifically at those higher levels?
That's a good point, while you get the full martial proficiency, this is still a support class, hence the lack of crit spec. You don't need spec because you are enhancing the chances of your allies landing crits, and thus you get partial credit for your allies crits
Right. Because having critical specializations has no chance to help your allies score criticals or be any form of support to your allies whatsoever.
*looks at sword and spear critical specializations which were designed to make it easier for allies to hit and crit affected enemies, at brawling and firearm critical specializations for affecting enemy action economy, and hammer/flail critical specialization effectively doing both*
Yup, definitely not a helpful support feature at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you critically hit in four different rounds of a fight and the fights not functionally over... Unless you're fighting an Ooze in an Extreme encounter, something really weird ia going on. Extreme outliers like that aren't something worth planning for. They'll make for amazing stoires if they ever happen, precisely because the odds are so stacked against you.
We're also talking about a class that automatically gets Sure Strike as a known spell for its bonus slots. In addition, crits when bless is up increases the chances of further crits. You get a target flanked, Demoralized [ect] and toss out a Sure Strike and you can get the ball rolling. You just have to get 1 target that has a lower[ed] AC and hammer them. Will you have fights with no crits? Sure, but that's the case with any crit mechanic.
If I play a Battle Harbinger, I want to use Battle Auras, not calculate if this fight is hard enough to justify a second rank 1 spell...
Then the simple answer is that the class isn't for you then. Not every class is for every player.
That might be true if the class feats didn't enhance the font spells: The first level spell can be increased up to 4 for bonuses and minuses. And you can tailor it to give bonuses/minuses to compliment those given by other players.If you critically hit in four different rounds of a fight and the fights not functionally over... Unless you're fighting an Ooze in an Extreme encounter, something really weird ia going on. Extreme outliers like that aren't something worth planning for. They'll make for amazing stoires if they ever happen, precisely because the odds are so stacked against you.
For a more realistic scenario, albeit an extremely simplified one.
Across their career, the average martial hits on average of an 8 for their first attack*, and an average of 13 for their second. So if we get a chance to make two attacks, their chance of critting is (1-.15)*(1-.05). That's a 19.25% chance. If you get to do that 4 times (So we're in round 5, which is often the clean up phase of the fight), you have a 1-(80.75%^4) chance to critically hitat least once, or about 57.5%. That means in many fights you will never critically hit an enemy. Now, debuffs and buffs improve the odds, of course, but outside the white room you're not getting that many attakcs because you had to double move or heal a comrade or any number of things that come up (Plus, it's quite possible the enemy has a better AC*)
*I'm using Rpgbot's fundamental math of character optimization, which assumes a barbarian attacking an opponent of the same level with a Moderate AC. Lower level enemies have lower ACs, but High ACs are quite common too.
yeah thats a real concern.
But only at level 12 and up when the reaction becomes available to pick up with feats.
What does it look like specifically at those higher levels?
It doesn't change noticably. If you drop the first eleven levels, the mode and median number our hypothetical martial* needs is still 8 as they progress, but the mean number is 7.89 if you're splitting hairs. That average to-hit die number stays between 7 and 9 for the character's entire career. Like I said, buffs and debuffs can shift the math and those get more accessible as you level up, but those 8 attacks that I assumed the Battle Harbinger made before the battle became a forgone conclusion was incredibly generous.
Teridax you did say that they lose spell slots each rank compared to a warpriest in one of your own posts as one of the concerns that made it not worth the trade off.
You did mention your other concerns but losing slots was also in there.
If you look back at several posts by others theres plenty of mention that losing slots for the martial proficiency the class gets was a bad deal or not worth it.
Correct, and as my most recent reply to you should indicate, the problem is not that the Battle Harbinger loses spell slots, but that the Battle Harbinger's loss of spell slots isn't justified by what the class archetype gains. Compared to a Warpriest, you are just losing spell slots for very little gain, so if you want to play a gish, you might as well stick to a Warpriest. The way forward, as I outlined in another post, shouldn't be to give the Battle Harbinger more spell slots, but to give them better martial features so that they're not worse than a Warpriest at the thing they trade so much off to do.
Then the simple answer is that the class isn't for you then. Not every class is for every player.
I would have certainly loved the class if it had been functional. This type of class is typically for me (versatile, both supportive and acting, with spellcasting features).
But if I ever build a martial auramancer, I'd not use the Battle Harbinger as there are other much more functional options available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct, and as my most recent reply to you should indicate, the problem is not that the Battle Harbinger loses spell slots, but that the Battle Harbinger's loss of spell slots isn't justified by what the class archetype gains. Compared to a Warpriest, you are just losing spell slots for very little gain, so if you want to play a gish, you might as well stick to a Warpriest. The way forward, as I outlined in another post, shouldn't be to give the Battle Harbinger more spell slots, but to give them better martial features so that they're not worse than a Warpriest at the thing they trade so much off to do.Teridax you did say that they lose spell slots each rank compared to a warpriest in one of your own posts as one of the concerns that made it not worth the trade off.
You did mention your other concerns but losing slots was also in there.
If you look back at several posts by others theres plenty of mention that losing slots for the martial proficiency the class gets was a bad deal or not worth it.
For me there is no distinction.
IMO limited spell casting is par for the course if your getting martial accuracy in your swings. If the class mechanic is built around supporting allies like this one is then you could also expect their own damage contribution to not be equivalent. Look instead to the damage gains of their allies or the damage your allies are not taking.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What did everyone expect in a gish class?
Im confused by all this expectation a gish class wouldnt have bounded casting.
People mad at getting exactly what they described they wanted, "A wave casting divine caster all about using weapons against enemies".
|
Like I said, buffs and debuffs can shift the math and those get more accessible as you level up, but those 8 attacks that I assumed the Battle Harbinger made before the battle became a forgone conclusion was incredibly generous.
It really is. The spell takes two actions to cast, which usually leaves only one action with which to attack, and that's assuming that the enemy is within reach without the requirement to move, which I can't imagine would be the case most of the time unless the Battle Harbinger is a ranged attacker. While it will happen occasionally I don't think you can reasonably expect a Battle Harbinger to make eight strikes over the first four rounds of most combats.
And that's before we consider casting a second Battle Aura spell, which means the Battle Harbinger is only striking once that round, too.
For me there is no distinction.
Forgive me, but if you are incapable or unwilling to establish a distinction between "this gish build doesn't gain enough for their loss of spell slots" and "this gish build loses spell slots and should have more spell slots", then I don't think you're really in a position to have this conversation in good faith. It certainly isn't allowing you to understand the people making their case in otherwise clear terms.
IMO limited spell casting is par for the course if your getting martial accuracy in your swings. If the class mechanic is built around supporting allies like this one is then you could also expect their own damage contribution to not be equivalent. Look instead to the damage gains of their allies or the damage your allies are not taking.
As has already been established, the Warpriest also has martial accuracy in their swings. The Warpriest can also output more damage than the Battle Harbinger and support better, so as already pointed out, the Warpriest beats the Battle Harbinger at their own game.
In general, the problem from what I'm seeing is that your stance appears to hinge on a lot of platitudes that are quite easy to contradict with in-game evidence. The Magus, for instance, has more spell slots natively than the Battle Harbinger thanks to studious spells, and can output fantastic support thanks to their access to arcane magic, yet is very much a solid damage-dealer. Similarly, the Summoner can debuff enemies harder than the Battle Harbinger, and can also assist allies with their slot spells, but still has access to greater weapon specialization (or, more specifically, greater eidolon specialization) so that their Strikes deal more damage. When you're a wave caster, the entire point is that you get to have a proper martial chassis alongside a bit of spellcasting, and the Battle Harbinger's chassis is missing key elements that would bring them up to par.
As others have mentioned, the problem with the Battle Harbinger's identity as a support is that it's largely bogus. The Battle Harbinger's font is worse than that of a regular Cleric, thereby also making them worse at supporting others, and once again, a Warpriest could use their lower-rank slots to cast all of the Battle Harbinger's font spells more plentifully alongside a far more diverse range of utility. A few people have fixated on the slot-machine element of enhancing your auras on a crit, but the fact of the matter is that the chances of landing a crit on a Battle Harbinger are not particularly high, so you'd end up with a lot of encounters where it would only kick in once or twice if you're lucky. The fact that it would take you 3 rounds to max out the benefit means that even if you managed to consistently crit at least once a round (and used your reaction too, so bye-bye Reactive Strike), by the time you'd have maxed out your aura, the fight would be over. Once more, a Warpriest using mid-range slots for heroism would do a better job of offering much of the same benefits as a Battle Harbinger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said, buffs and debuffs can shift the math and those get more accessible as you level up, but those 8 attacks that I assumed the Battle Harbinger made before the battle became a forgone conclusion was incredibly generous.It really is. The spell takes two actions to cast, which usually leaves only one action with which to attack, and that's assuming that the enemy is within reach without the requirement to move, which I can't imagine would be the case most of the time unless the Battle Harbinger is a ranged attacker. While it will happen occasionally I don't think you can reasonably expect a Battle Harbinger to make eight strikes over the first four rounds of most combats.
And that's before we consider casting a second Battle Aura spell, which means the Battle Harbinger is only striking once that round, too.
I was assuming the first round is move+cast spell, and begin attacking on the second turn. I don't foresee Battle Harbingers getting to attack on the first turn with any consistency unless they use a ranged weapon (No shade at ranged attackers, but that is clearly not the fantasy Oloch is selling in the art for the book)
I was assuming the first round is move+cast spell, and begin attacking on the second turn. I don't foresee Battle Harbingers getting to attack on the first turn with any consistency unless they use a ranged weapon (No shade at ranged attackers, but that is clearly not the fantasy Oloch is selling in the art for the book)
You'll hardly get your wasted first turn back by casting Bless. You should only cast a Battle Aura if you can also Strike in the same round (outside of prebuff situations).
|
|
You'll hardly get your wasted first turn back by casting Bless. You should only cast a Battle Aura if you can also Strike in the same round (outside of prebuff situations).
I agree with that, though it likely means casting the Battle Aura when the Battle Harbinger is threatened by an opponent, one fewer round with a battle aura active, and that the Battle Harbinger likely won't get a second Battle Aura active until the third round of combat.
The fact that it would take you 3 rounds to max out the benefit means that even if you managed to consistently crit at least once a round (and used your reaction too, so bye-bye Reactive Strike), by the time you'd have maxed out your aura, the fight would be over.
4 rounds actually because of the "Once per round on subsequent turns, you can Sustain the spell to increase the emanation's radius by 10 feet."
1º round to cast the spell.
2º round crit and use reaction now it's +2
3° round now +3
4º round now +4
|
|
4 rounds actually because of the "Once per round on subsequent turns, you can Sustain the spell to increase the emanation's radius by 10 feet."
We/re not talking about extending the radius, though, we're talking about Empowered Onslaught, which is a reaction triggered when the Battle Harbinger sustains the battle aura, not when they increase its radius.
Tandem Onslaught states that "The first time each round that you successfully hit and deal damage to an enemy[,] . . . you can automatically Sustain a single battle aura that you currently have active," and has no text limiting it to a subsequent turn.
I think that by RAW until you pick up Empowered Onslaught, sustaining in the same turn the battle aura accomplishes nothing, but I'd honestly probably read Tandem Onslaught's "applying any additional effects that come with sustaining the spell" to allow the the feat to increase the radius even in the same turn the spell was cast. That'd be a house rule, but it's not a big power boost, and Gods know the Battle Harbinger could use the help.
4 rounds actually because of the "Once per round on subsequent turns, you can Sustain the spell to increase the emanation's radius by 10 feet."
1º round to cast the spell.
2º round crit and use reaction now it's +2
3° round now +3
4º round now +4
It is in fact 3 rounds, though this hinges on an aspect of Sustain that isn't obvious: specifically, you can Sustain a spell without gaining any benefits from it, which is why spells like implosion say "the first time each round you Sustain the spell". You could therefore, in theory at least, Strike on the same round you cast a battle aura, crit, and use your reaction to Sustain the spell.
However, there's an interesting quirk to Tandem/Empowered Onslaught, which is that Tandem Onslaught applies its benefit automatically on your first Strike that hits and deals damage, and only the first, whereas Empowered Onslaught only triggers if you critically hit and sustain a battle aura. If you find yourself in the situation where you score a regular hit with a Strike, and then a critical hit with your second Strike, you wouldn't be able to trigger Empowered Onslaught. You could perhaps stretch the interpretation of the trigger to allow critting and then Sustaining as separate actions, but that's a stretch and still requires an action tax. The feat could certainly use better wording on the trigger, as "you critically hit with a Strike and sustain a battle aura on the same turn" would avoid this issue (it would also probably not be overpowered to let a Battle Harbinger Sustain a battle aura with a successful Strike multiple times per turn, otherwise the archetype is going to end up quite action-taxed if they're trying to maintain multiple auras like some people have been advocating).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, there's an interesting quirk to Tandem/Empowered Onslaught, which is that Tandem Onslaught applies its benefit automatically on your first Strike that hits and deals damage, and only the first, whereas Empowered Onslaught only triggers if you critically hit and sustain a battle aura.
This is a good point, and changes the math (or at least the practical application of that math) that Squark did above.
Across their career, the average martial hits on average of an 8 for their first attack*, and an average of 13 for their second. So if we get a chance to make two attacks, their chance of critting is (1-.15)*(1-.05). That's a 19.25% chance.
But Empowered Onslaught only triggers if the crit is on the first attack, or is on the second attack and the first strike either missed or failed to deal damage. I'm not math-savvy enough to figure out the odds of one or the other of those circumstances occurring, but it has to be less the 19.25% chance of simply critting at least once on either of the strikes.
If you get to do that 4 times (So we're in round 5, which is often the clean up phase of the fight), you have a 1-(80.75%^4) chance to critically hitat least once, or about 57.5%.
The odds of getting one of the specific sets of results that trigger Empowered Onslaught, at least once over the course of five rounds also must, necessarily, be lower than the odds of simply critting at least once over those same rounds, which also means the odds of a 5 round combat in which Empowered Onslaught never triggers is some amount greater than 42.5%
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me there is no distinction.Forgive me, but if you are incapable or unwilling to establish a distinction between "this gish build doesn't gain enough for their loss of spell slots" and "this gish build loses spell slots and should have more spell slots", then I don't think you're really in a position to have this conversation in good faith. It certainly isn't allowing you to understand the people making their case in otherwise clear terms.
IMO limited spell casting is par for the course if your getting martial accuracy in your swings. If the class mechanic is built around supporting allies like this one is then you could also expect their own damage contribution to not be equivalent. Look instead to the damage gains of their allies or the damage your allies are not taking.As has already been established, the Warpriest also has martial accuracy in their swings. The Warpriest can also output more damage than the Battle Harbinger and support better, so as already pointed out, the Warpriest beats the Battle Harbinger at their own game.
In general, the problem from what I'm seeing is that your stance appears to hinge on a lot of platitudes that are quite easy to contradict with in-game evidence. The Magus, for instance, has more spell slots natively than the Battle Harbinger thanks to studious spells, and can output fantastic support thanks to their access to arcane magic, yet is very much a solid damage-dealer. Similarly, the Summoner can debuff enemies harder than the Battle Harbinger, and can also assist allies with their slot spells, but still has access to greater weapon specialization (or, more specifically, greater eidolon specialization) so that their Strikes deal more damage. When you're a wave caster, the entire point is that you get to have a proper martial chassis alongside a bit of spellcasting, and the Battle Harbinger's chassis is missing key elements that would bring them up to par.
As others have mentioned, the problem...
Forgiven. (I mean it as a good natured jab, not a mean snarky one)
As for in game evidence.
Warpriests hardly could be said to have martial accuracy. its far to delayed. This was one of the biggest complaints of the doctrine when it came out (and even after remastered), it wasnt martial enough. The damage your talking about comes from spellcasting? Cause they are not doing more damage without expending slots, they are not hitting as much and are likely using 1handers and a shield unlike harbinger that seems more suited to twohanders. Support is iffy. Both have the same spells available, if two rounds of casting is all the support the party needs they will do it equally. If more rounds of casting highest slot is needed for support then warpriest will be able to keep going and harbinger would need to use one rank lower. After than its only auras for the harbinger. thats a trade off for having martial accuracy sooner.
as for magus? studious gives at level 7, 2 slots for specific spells (nice that they rank up). Battle harbinger has font starting with 4 slots at level 1 going up to 6 for aura spells and they get to use class DC for them (not to mention get legendary class DC) on top of that they can at level 8 gain 2 second rank slots for specific spells like surestrike or see the unseen, gaining haste and heroism at 10th level, and fly at 14th, slots upgrade ranks at those levels.
So if comparing slots to cast spells harbinger has more.
As for summoner honestly I have never read the class, dont know what it does. Ill take your word for it there.
Check this video out. lexchxn gives a fair take. basically the class can make auras more integrated with their striking by getting feats for it. So those simple level 1 bless and malediction spells end up being more supported in class than with any normal cleric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQKeYxkYimQ
Now all that said I havent said the class doesnt need any work. that was never my stance. I did say I liked the class and think its good.
If I were to lay on some criticism for the archtype it would be this:
Too much of the archtype is in its feats and not given at appropriate levels for just taking the archtype. Some of the feats feel too core to make the class work to be in a feat. Aura enhancement for example has no business being a feat you have to opt into for this archtype it should be given at level 4 for taking the archtype. This makes it feel like the archtype is locked into specific feats to be a battle harbinger rather than having equivalent options to choose from that all feel like being the archtype.
I would also say that the level 20 feat making 1 aura spell cost one action with a 10 min cool down is way too late. if this was available much sooner it would be fantastic with a free action aura cast at the start of battle being a passable level 20 feat. And that wouldnt even been very powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with that, though it likely means casting the Battle Aura when the Battle Harbinger is threatened by an opponent, one fewer round with a battle aura active, and that the Battle Harbinger likely won't get a second Battle Aura active until the third round of combat.
Exactly. And why I keep on repeating the Battle Harbinger is not functional: To play it optimally is to not play it as an auramancer...
As a side note, a Summoner is a strictly better Battle Harbinger. You are a better martial and a better caster, and you can just grab Wands of Bless/Benediction/Whatever and play the auramancer too, but unlike the Battle Harbinger you have 4 actions per turn to do it and no limit on the number of "spell slots". So, even if the fantasy is obviously significantly different, mechanically you should play a Summoner if you want a gish auramancer.
As for in game evidence.
Warpriests hardly could be said to have martial accuracy. its far to delayed.
It is perhaps delayed compared to a full martial, but it is certainly not "far too delayed". A Warpriest will be on par with a Battle Harbinger in terms of Strike accuracy for more than half the game's levels, and in particular both the starting and end level ranges. While I certainly agree that there is room for a doctrine that has even better martial progression in exchange for fewer spell slots, that progression ought to be actual martial progression and include greater weapon specialization, a crucial damage booster that the Battle Harbinger lacks.
The damage your talking about comes from spellcasting? Cause they are not doing more damage without expending slots, they are not hitting as much and are likely using 1handers and a shield unlike harbinger that seems more suited to twohanders.
The Warpriest is a full 3-slot caster with a divine font, so needing to use spell slots to supplement their damage is not a problem for them. They work particularly well with Channel Smite, allowing them to leverage both their martial accuracy and divine font to make meaty Strikes.
As for "not hitting as much": as already pointed out, a Warpriest will hit exactly as hard as a Battle Harbinger. The only reason a Warpriest would favor a sword-and-board build is because unlike the Battle Harbinger, they get the Shield Block feat for free. Please be aware of how you are attempting to dress up a negative as a positive here: that is a rhetorical tactic rather than a legitimate argument, and is not convincing to someone trying to have a discussion grounded in fact.
Support is iffy. Both have the same spells available, if two rounds of casting is all the support the party needs they will do it equally. If more rounds of casting highest slot is needed for support then warpriest will be able to keep going and harbinger would need to use one rank lower. After than its only auras for the harbinger. thats a trade off for having martial accuracy sooner.
This is simply not correct. The Warpriest gets a proper divine font, and can use their lower-rank slots for the Battle Harbinger's battle auras, so while they both have access to divine spells, the Warpriest accesses them much better. The Battle Harbinger, outside of their battle font, gets four spell slots to play with, so even if we're just counting top-rank slots the Warpriest has more to play with (they of course have a 10th-rank slot, which the Battle Harbinger doesn't get).
as for magus? studious gives at level 7, 2 slots for specific spells (nice that they rank up). Battle harbinger has font starting with 4 slots at level 1 going up to 6 for aura spells and they get to use class DC for them (not to mention get legendary class DC) on top of that they can at level 8 gain 2 second rank slots for specific spells like surestrike or see the unseen, gaining haste and heroism at 10th level, and fly at 14th, slots upgrade ranks at those levels.
So if comparing slots to cast spells harbinger has more.
Studious spells go up to 4th-rank and let you cast fly, gecko grip, and haste, all of which are better than any battle font spell, and each hybrid study lets you cast even more utility spells like slow or mountain resilience. At 8th level, a Magus can fuse their weapon with a staff to Spellstrike with even more spells, so once again, the Magus's spell output is far better, and their support capabilities are greater despite being very much a damage-dealer.
Check this video out. lexchxn gives a fair take. basically the class can make auras more integrated with their striking by getting feats for it. So those simple level 1 bless and malediction spells end up being more supported in class than with any normal cleric.
These feats have already been discussed at length, and several posts directly above yours go into detail to outline how bad these feats are. You are right that this class archetype can Sustain 1st-rank battle aura spells better than anyone else, but that's not a particularly strong niche to have, and if you want more accurate attacks, just have your Warpriest cast heroism, as you have less than a 1-in-2 chance of triggering Empowered Onslaught, a 12th-level feat, even just once in an encounter with an at-level enemy (and forget about PL+2/3 enemies).
Too much of the archtype is in its feats and not given at appropriate levels for just taking the archtype. Some of the feats feel too core to make the class work to be in a feat. Aura enhancement for example has no business being a feat you have to opt into for this archtype it should be given at level 4 for taking the archtype. This makes it feel like the archtype is locked into specific feats to be a battle harbinger rather than having equivalent options to choose from that all feel like being the archtype.
I would also say that the level 20 feat making 1 aura spell cost one action with a 10 min cool down is way too late. if this was available much sooner it would be fantastic with a free action aura cast at the start of battle being a passable level 20 feat. And that wouldnt even been very powerful.
I agree with this, and I think in this respect we share common ground. To be clear, the point I'm making here isn't that the Battle Harbinger shouldn't exist, because much of this class archetype has what I've been wanting out of a divine gish, i.e. wave casting and a martial proficiency track. Rather, what I wanted out of this divine gish was also a full martial proficiency track, i.e. weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization (and I cannot stress how important both of these are for a martial class's damage output). What I wanted out of a Cleric archetype specifically was a gish who didn't need to be feat-taxed to wear heavy armor or smite with abandon, because they'd pay for it with a massive drop in spell output.
And this is ultimately what frustrates me the most with the Battle Harbinger: it's not just that they get so little for what they pay for, what they got was such a half-baked collection of benefits that they perform worse than a Warpriest at their stated function. Every single one of the feats they got was something that should have been either baked directly into the archetype or into the spells themselves -- for the life of me, I cannot understand why the designers thought it was a good idea to also downgrade the Battle Harbinger's font on top of all this, because while the idea of being all about battle auras is cool, bane and bless are both mediocre spells that get rapidly outdone by other divine options at higher ranks. As others have said, the Marshal does this same niche far better and with no resource expenditure.
As you should hopefully be able to see in the homebrew I wrote and linked in an earlier post, I'm not really asking for much here: I do very much want a Cleric doctrine that uses bounded casting to get martial proficiencies, I just want those proficiencies to be implemented properly, and the total package to be on par with other gishes. This isn't about rejecting all the Battle Harbinger stands for and saying there's no place for it, this is about expecting something that is on the same level as content we've received already.
As a side note, a Summoner is a strictly better Battle Harbinger. You are a better martial and a better caster, and you can just grab Wands of Bless/Benediction/Whatever and play the auramancer too, but unlike the Battle Harbinger you have 4 actions per turn to do it and no limit on the number of "spell slots". So, even if the fantasy is obviously significantly different, mechanically you should play a Summoner if you want a gish auramancer.
If the fantasy is important, I'd argue that a champion with the cleric archetype is also a better version of battle harbinger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for in game evidence.
Warpriests hardly could be said to have martial accuracy. its far to delayed.It is perhaps delayed compared to a full martial, but it is certainly not "far too delayed". A Warpriest will be on par with a Battle Harbinger in terms of Strike accuracy for more than half the game's levels, and in particular both the starting and end level ranges. While I certainly agree that there is room for a doctrine that has even better martial progression in exchange for fewer spell slots, that progression ought to be actual martial progression and include greater weapon specialization, a crucial damage booster that the Battle Harbinger lacks.
The damage your talking about comes from spellcasting? Cause they are not doing more damage without expending slots, they are not hitting as much and are likely using 1handers and a shield unlike harbinger that seems more suited to twohanders.The Warpriest is a full 3-slot caster with a divine font, so needing to use spell slots to supplement their damage is not a problem for them. They work particularly well with Channel Smite, allowing them to leverage both their martial accuracy and divine font to make meaty Strikes.
As for "not hitting as much": as already pointed out, a Warpriest will hit exactly as hard as a Battle Harbinger. The only reason a Warpriest would favor a sword-and-board build is because unlike the Battle Harbinger, they get the Shield Block feat for free. Please be aware of how you are attempting to dress up a negative as a positive here: that is a rhetorical tactic rather than a legitimate argument, and is not convincing to someone trying to have a discussion grounded in fact.
Support is iffy. Both have the same spells available, if two rounds of casting is all the support the party needs they will do it equally. If more rounds of casting highest slot is needed for support then warpriest will be able to keep going and harbinger...
Thing is this class will fit into many groups and actually do really well as is.
It sounds from the criticism that it would be to clunky to play at all and thats not a realistic take.
It sounds from the criticism that it would be to clunky to play at all and thats not a realistic take.
Of course it's not a realistic take, because it's a straw man argument and not something anyone has actually said. The point being made isn't that the class archetype is literally unplayable or that it cannot possibly do well, because that's just hyperbole, the point being made is that the class archetype is poorly-balanced and designed, and so in a way that could have been easily avoided. The class archetype is clunky and has a lot of problems, so while some players will undoubtedly enjoy it, much like how many players enjoyed the pre-remaster Alchemist, Swashbuckler, or Witch, many other players will also be disappointed with it. This isn't about yucking anyone else's yum, either, and the criticism is being directed squarely towards the class archetype and not its players.
and thats not a realistic take.
Why?
Why can't you realistically define the Battle Harbinger as clunky?| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This archetype looks really cool. I'm totally going to try one.
That said, I do hope they get greater weapon specialization errata'd in at some point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and thats not a realistic take.Why?
Why can't you realistically define the Battle Harbinger as clunky?
I appreciate you asking SuperBidi. I admit that was a hyperbolic call out. You can call it clunky if you like. I don't think it is though.
I mean you can try to throw out two auras each battle and in some fights that might be the right thing to do to swing numbers in the party's favor but im not seeing clunky as a mandatory way to play the archtype. I think a two aura fight would be one that requires more of a number shift and based on your party capabilities you can choose to slot the status affects that the rest of your party isnt doing for the group. Yes other clerics can also do that but that competes with slots and this has it in font(unfortunately only all options with a feat).This is still a cleric though is not as versatile as warpriest but it still has spell slots to utilize and it gets to pair that with full marital accurate strikes.
Now there is a gradient of choice in cleric. You can go with a full caster with cloistered, a caster leaning with warpriest, or go wave caster with battle harbinger.
If you want to swing swords hands down you cant to it better of the three than with harbinger. Also they have a math adjuster font rather than a hp restoring or damage dealing one.
These have a place as is. Though I did voice my concerns with the class.
As I posted in the other thread, I would probably change Battle Harbinger into something like this:
Battle Harbinger Adjustment: Your key attribute is Dexterity or Strength instead of Wisdom. You become trained in your choice of Athletics or Acrobatics. You gain weapon specialization at 7th level instead of 13th level, and greater weapon specialization at 15th level.
Spellcasting Adjustment: Left as is.
Divine Font Adjustment: Change the following line: "Your battle auras use your class DC or spell DC, whichever is higher."
Initial Creed (1st): Left as is.
Lesser Creed (5th): Remove the following line: "Your proficiency rank for your class DC increases to expert."
Moderate Creed (9th): Your proficiency ranks for your class DC, spell attack modifier, and spell DC statistics increase to expert.
Greater Creed (13th): You gain master proficiency with your deity’s favored weapon, martial weapons, simple weapons, and unarmed attacks. Your proficiency rank for Fortitude saves increases to master. When you roll a success on a Fortitude save, you get a critical success instead.
Major Creed (15th): Your proficiency rank for Will saves increases to master.
True Creed (17th): Your proficiency ranks for your class DC, spell attack modifier, and spell DC statistics increase to master.
Final Creed (19th): Remove the following line: "Your proficiency rank for your class DC increases to legendary."
Additional Feat Adjustment: Add the following line: "6th Reactive Strike (Player Core 138)."
Battle Harbinger Dedication Adjustment: You have trained extensively in combat, battlefield tactics, and stamina, focusing on being an exceptional warrior for your faith in exchange for less time studying the traditional spells and scriptures. For every 10 minutes you spend in exploration mode, you regain 2 battle font slots; this doesn't prevent you from participating in other exploration activities. You gain the Battle Blessing action.
Battle Blessing [one-action]
You cast a battle aura, though instead of having its regular duration, it lasts until the end of your next turn.
I was thinking instead of arguing about the errata ideas. Let them chill in the other thread and if you feel like arguing about em we could continue to do that here.
What do you think?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This archetype looks really cool. I'm totally going to try one.
That said, I do hope they get greater weapon specialization errata'd in at some point.
It does look really cool!
I haven’t red the whole thing yet but I’m already thinking up a few characters that I’d like to try it with.
I will almost certainly make a Battle Harbinger at some point. I love divine classes.
But my *jam* is playing classes with a reputation for being underpowered, and seeing if I can coax more out of them.
The only thing giving me pause is that cleric is my most played class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate you asking SuperBidi. I admit that was a hyperbolic call out. You can call it clunky if you like. I don't think it is though.
I mean you can try to throw out two auras each battle and in some fights that might be the right thing to do to swing numbers in the party's favor but im not seeing clunky as a mandatory way to play the archtype. I think a two aura fight would be one that requires more of a number shift and based on your party capabilities you can choose to slot the status affects that the rest of your party isnt doing for the group. Yes other clerics can also do that but that competes with slots and this has it in font(unfortunately only all options with a feat).
This is still a cleric though is not as versatile as warpriest but it still has spell slots to utilize and it gets to pair that with full marital accurate strikes.Now there is a gradient of choice in cleric. You can go with a full caster with cloistered, a caster leaning with warpriest, or go wave caster with battle harbinger.
If you want to swing swords hands down you cant to it better of the three than with harbinger. Also they have a math adjuster font rather than a hp restoring or damage dealing one.These have a place as is. Though I did voice my concerns with the class.
But the Battle Harbinger can be all of that AND clunky.
As of now, I think it's the worst option in the game for a class/subclass. That's not a small issue.