| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dont forget that it get the Extra rune on its weapon that champion lost.
i think its can be better then what people realize.
you still have the 4 most important spell slots, and can still use wands and scroll for all utility a regular cleric could give.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you "think" is not necessarily true.
What you're stating is because I have the correctness of stating my point of view as a point of view and not some godly truth, then my point of view bears less weight than someone else's point of view stated as a godly truth.
Well, the debate progresses :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, what I'm stating is that most of the stuff you are saying are 100% subjective and not objective.
I love how you use that as an argument.
Yes, all we say is subjective. That's great. Thanks for stating the obvious.
Still, I can say this Archetype is crap. And I can say something that I find very much an actual argument: a bunch of rank 1 spells is not a unique gimmick. It's just a bunch of rank 1 spells.
This archetype is subpar in absolutely everything. A Summoner does everything a Battle Harbinger does but better. A Bard will do the "unique gimmick" so much better that I question the use of the word "unique". I think "weak gimmick" would be a better description of Battle Auras.
Still, you're objectively wrong about one thing:
YOU may not like the archetype
I DO like the archetype. Not how it has been implemented. But a balanced Battle Harbinger is definitely something I'd like to play.
And I'm used to play weak classes and options and get the most out of them, so when I state the Battle Harbinger is so bad I wouldn't even play one, it's holding some weight.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Bidi, are you saying that the standard cleric's healing font is not a unique gimmick? Because "a bunch of rank 1 spells" is all it is.
If the Healing Font was stuck at rank 1 I'd say that it's not a unique gimmick. But it's not what Healing Font does, it gives you at rank spells. Unlike Battle Auras.
I'd argue that not only is it pretty unique (no other class gets it), it's pretty powerful.
It's neither unique nor powerful. Rank 1 spells are virtually free at some point, so every caster can cast as many rank 1 spells they want once their level is high enough. As such, I expect the Battle Harbinger to be ok at low level, but once you get to level 7-8, it'll no more be unique or strong. I can build you a level 8+ Divine Summoner that is more of a martial, more of a caster and better at buffing than a Battle Harbinger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I like about summoner is the 'cast in back, meat up front' capability. I don't think I would ever use Summoner to replace the aura-focused Harbinger simply because I wouldn't want to stick the Summoner part of the duet in melee. Is that something you regularly do, stick both in melee?
In my level 8+ "Battle Harbinger" Summoner, there's a Bardic Composition that doesn't care much about my Summoner positioning. The added Aura spells are just gravy.
And to answer your question, I always position my Summoner next to my Eidolon, either just behind the martials or to cover a flank. But that's definitely a conversation for somewhere else (I've written about the Caster Summoner, the Summoner paradigm that I like to follow).
One of the things I like about summoner is the 'cast in back, meat up front' capability. I don't think I would ever use Summoner to replace the aura-focused Harbinger simply because I wouldn't want to stick the Summoner part of the duet in melee. Is that something you regularly do, stick both in melee?In my level 8+ "Battle Harbinger" Summoner, there's a Bardic Composition that doesn't care much about my Summoner positioning. The added Aura spells are just gravy.
And to answer your question, I always position my Summoner next to my Eidolon, either just behind the martials or to cover a flank. But that's definitely a conversation for somewhere else (I've written about the Caster Summoner, the Summoner paradigm that I like to follow).
But does the positioning preference of a summonder matter when a battle harbinger wants to be in melee?
when hitting things expands one of the auras they have up? That can just be passive for them, while they do exactly what you want them to do, swing at things.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But does the positioning preference of a summonder matter when a battle harbinger wants to be in melee?
when hitting things expands one of the auras they have up? That can just be passive for them, while they do exactly what you want them to do, swing at things.
Sorry, I don't get your question.
I feel there have been far too many posts on this question. I've laid out my arguments, I can repeat them but I feel it won't help much.At least, with the Battle Harbinger, I expect experience to quickly show its limitations. So it's just a question of time.
But does the positioning preference of a summonder matter when a battle harbinger wants to be in melee?
when hitting things expands one of the auras they have up? That can just be passive for them, while they do exactly what you want them to do, swing at things.Sorry, I don't get your question.
I feel there have been far too many posts on this question. I've laid out my arguments, I can repeat them but I feel it won't help much.At least, with the Battle Harbinger, I expect experience to quickly show its limitations. So it's just a question of time.
That is a fair expectation.
We do need to see how they actually play.
I think the font should include options for herorism and gizarjanes march because I don't like the fact it's a feature that should be giving them a a scaling resources but is instead giving them a first level spell slot from 1-20
Heroism would fit. For it to include an AP spell specifically practiced by the Terwa Lords would be surprising, though.
That sounds like a great build for Ruby Phoenix or another high level campaign. But, sometimes it's not the destination it's the journey. "My level 8+..." is for many campaigns close to the destination, it's not the journey. So I'm happy to see cleric get a class archetype that gives 'aura gish' as a hit-the-ground-running option.
At low level, the Battle Harbinger is fine as a bunch of rank 1 spells is a nice feature up to level 4. It's at level 5 that their Font starts being lackluster. At level 7, it's hardly a feature and that's the moment where you'll feel like a second grade character.
And while I agree the journey is important, no one cares about a character effectiveness at level 1. The end of the journey is much more important than the beginning.
That sounds like a great build for Ruby Phoenix or another high level campaign. But, sometimes it's not the destination it's the journey. "My level 8+..." is for many campaigns close to the destination, it's not the journey. So I'm happy to see cleric get a class archetype that gives 'aura gish' as a hit-the-ground-running option.At low level, the Battle Harbinger is fine as a bunch of rank 1 spells is a nice feature up to level 4. It's at level 5 that their Font starts being lackluster. At level 7, it's hardly a feature and that's the moment where you'll feel like a second grade character.
And while I agree the journey is important, no one cares about a character effectiveness at level 1. The end of the journey is much more important than the beginning.
I mean, a lot of the mechanical benefits of their 1st rank spells are not unlike the Bard's, and if a Bard can maintain +1's from 1 to 20 and be considered a powerhouse class, so can the Battle Herald.
Bard still has better proficiencies, scaling, and spell list, but this is coming across as if a +1 status bonus to attack rolls or AC is bad after 5th level, when the tight math and constant relevance says otherwise.
I mean, a lot of the mechanical benefits of their 1st rank spells are not unlike the Bard's, and if a Bard can maintain +1's from 1 to 20 and be considered a powerhouse class, so can the Battle Herald.
Bard still has better proficiencies, scaling, and spell list, but this is coming across as if a +1 status bonus to attack rolls or AC is bad after 5th level, when the tight math and constant relevance says otherwise.
Bard Compositions are much better than Bless/Bane and such.
And the Bard is strong when Synesthesia comes into play. And later Haste 7 and True Target. Before that, it's very far from strong, it's actually rather weak from level 5 to 8. At level 1-4 it's weak but still much better than most casters thanks to its buffs.The Bard strength at high level doesn't come from low level Compositions.
I don't expect to reliably hit +4, but even at just +2, for a party...
Well, you won't reliably hit +2. You'll get it roughly for a quarter of your rounds, a third at most, as shown by previous calculations (that are in line with my experience). The level 12 feat is not the powerhouse that people think it is.
Hitting +4 is virtually impossible, unless you resort to a bag of rats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like a great build for Ruby Phoenix or another high level campaign. But, sometimes it's not the destination it's the journey. "My level 8+..." is for many campaigns close to the destination, it's not the journey. So I'm happy to see cleric get a class archetype that gives 'aura gish' as a hit-the-ground-running option.At low level, the Battle Harbinger is fine as a bunch of rank 1 spells is a nice feature up to level 4. It's at level 5 that their Font starts being lackluster. At level 7, it's hardly a feature and that's the moment where you'll feel like a second grade character.
And while I agree the journey is important, no one cares about a character effectiveness at level 1. The end of the journey is much more important than the beginning.
I mean, a lot of the mechanical benefits of their 1st rank spells are not unlike the Bard's, and if a Bard can maintain +1's from 1 to 20 and be considered a powerhouse class, so can the Battle Herald.
Bard still has better proficiencies, scaling, and spell list, but this is coming across as if a +1 status bonus to attack rolls or AC is bad after 5th level, when the tight math and constant relevance says otherwise.
They are 1 action spells with a much bigger natural area effect and a lot of feats support.
But even so they still feel less impressive at later level unless they are suplmented by haste, herorism, synaesthesia etc spells the bard have a much more of at a higher DC.
If anything, the feat support for the battle auras is extensive.
I mean, my one gripe with the Archetype is about how many of the Archetype feats you feel obligated to take...
That said:
My overall impression is that the +1 is enough till mid-level, and it's exactly at those levels that it starts to fall off that you get feats to scale them up to up to +4.
I don't expect to reliably hit +4, but even at just +2, for a party...
This has been where I fell on this.
Also for those here who want haste and herosim remember this class still has the wavecasting slots and can pick up extra slots with surstrike and haste heroism ect..Meaning they can actually can do those things also and when they want to swing they do it better than a bard as they are martial scaling with it.
Actually have you all considered this?
1 This class can swing weapons and hit. Sure you want the extra damage martials get but theres still plenty of damage from a d12 weapon with striking dice. (Note this is why I brought up not all deities are equivalent for this class. i think the big weapons are favored here. Dual wielding would be fine but theres no room to get feats outside of archtype and still feel like a battle harbinger as it currently is like shroudb said)
2 Wave casting is what you have for harder fights. Up to 9thand 8th rank slots from the divine list leaves open a lot of options. Having only 4 of these total only means you run out of steam faster that other clerics, it doesnt mean you cant cast big spells.
3 Some flexibility to go more caster if thats what you want. The option to multiclass archtype into druid or something like that means you can be a master caster at 18 if you want to push casting ability up a peg. You can get the feat providing more slots from within archtype as well. You also have all the standard cleric feats to choose from. AND you could have heavy armor at level 6 in class with that modest level of casting ability.
4 Class DC up to legendary opens up ideas that we have to really look into
5 the font is gravy non all of this. In the fights with many opponents bane and malediction are going to work on them a lot. probably removing some danger from their numbers advantage. even a -1 for them to hit or a +1 for ally AC is hard on those lower level foes.
IN harder fights there is still applicability. With the option to go for a status bonus or penalty for ac or hit you can fill in the space your allies are not doing furthering the difference for the foe that much more.
This archtype does not look underpowered to me. It has some potential and is a great addition that compliments to the existing options in a team game.
1 This class can swing weapons and hit. Sure you want the extra damage martials get but theres still plenty of damage from a d12 weapon with striking dice. (Note this is why I brought up not all deities are equivalent for this class. i think the big weapons are favored here. Dual wielding would be fine but theres no room to get feats outside of archtype and still feel like a battle harbinger as it currently is like shroudb said)
This also describes a Warpriest.
2 Wave casting is what you have for harder fights. Up to 9thand 8th rank slots from the divine list leaves open a lot of options. Having only 4 of these total only means you run out of steam faster that other clerics, it doesnt mean you cant cast big spells.
The Warpriest gets this, more top-rank spells, and all of the spells of the ranks below that.
3 Some flexibility to go more caster if thats what you want. The option to multiclass archtype into druid or something like that means you can be a master caster at 18 if you want to push casting ability up a peg. You can get the feat providing more slots from within archtype as well. You also have all the standard cleric feats to choose from. AND you could have heavy armor at level 6 in class with that modest level of casting ability.
Literally any character can multiclass into another caster for more flexibility, and the Warpriest has the privilege of not needing to opt into another caster archetype for master spellcasting proficiency.
4 Class DC up to legendary opens up ideas that we have to really look into
Sure, such as?
5 the font is gravy non all of this. In the fights with many opponents bane and malediction are going to work on them a lot. probably removing some danger from their numbers advantage. even a -1 for them to hit or a +1 for ally AC is hard on those lower level foes.
IN harder fights there is still applicability. With the option to go for a status bonus or penalty for ac or hit you can fill in the space your allies are not doing furthering the difference for the foe that much more.
A Warpriest does not need a font to cast these spells with even greater frequency than the Battle Harbinger, and does not need to pick a feat to prepare benediction or malediction into low-rank spell slots either.
This archtype does not look underpowered to me. It has some potential and is a great addition that compliments to the existing options in a team game.
If you like this archetype, then lemme tell you, you'll love the Warpriest.
... and that's what it boils down to, really. It's not that everyone somehow missed these big revelations, it's that people noticed these things, noticed the Warpriest does these things comparably, equally, or better, and decided that if they wanted to do the Battle Harbinger's thing, they would probably have an easier time with a Warpriest. You could certainly have a fun time with a Battle Harbinger, but the class archetype certainly has room to be even better at their thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 This class can swing weapons and hit. Sure you want the extra damage martials get but theres still plenty of damage from a d12 weapon with striking dice. (Note this is why I brought up not all deities are equivalent for this class. i think the big weapons are favored here. Dual wielding would be fine but theres no room to get feats outside of archtype and still feel like a battle harbinger as it currently is like shroudb said)This also describes a Warpriest.
2 Wave casting is what you have for harder fights. Up to 9thand 8th rank slots from the divine list leaves open a lot of options. Having only 4 of these total only means you run out of steam faster that other clerics, it doesnt mean you cant cast big spells.The Warpriest gets this, more top-rank spells, and all of the spells of the ranks below that.
3 Some flexibility to go more caster if thats what you want. The option to multiclass archtype into druid or something like that means you can be a master caster at 18 if you want to push casting ability up a peg. You can get the feat providing more slots from within archtype as well. You also have all the standard cleric feats to choose from. AND you could have heavy armor at level 6 in class with that modest level of casting ability.Literally any character can multiclass into another caster for more flexibility, and the Warpriest has the privilege of not needing to opt into another caster archetype for master spellcasting proficiency.
4 Class DC up to legendary opens up ideas that we have to really look intoSure, such as?
...5 the font is gravy non all of this. In the fights with many opponents bane and malediction are going to work on them a lot. probably removing some danger from their numbers advantage. even a -1 for them to hit or a +1 for ally AC is hard on those lower level foes.
IN harder fights there is still applicability. With
In some sense it should also describe a warpriest right?
They are the same class. But its disnigenuous to say a warpriest hits like a martial. they need to get to 7 to catch up to expert and since master doesnt come till 19 they fight like a caster from 13th till then.response to 2. yep and doesnt get full martial scaling.
others started a thread on 4. i would look there.
Response to 5 is just false. level 1 5 casts of bless for example for battle harbinger if they want to. warpriest? 2 times.
Also on your point abot not needing the feat? neither does the harbinger for wave slots.
I do love the warpriest. Its a great class, it just isnt as good a martial as the battle harbinger jsut as the harbinger isnt as good a caster as the warpriest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On question of the journey... from level 1-4 and 7-12, a whooping 10 levels and probably the most played levels in the game, warpriest is pretty much ahead and better equipped to take advantage of Cleric feats like Channel Smite, Restorative Strike and Cast Down
And the warpriest for half of his levels is behind 2 on his attacks.
At levels 1-4, the Warpriest and the Battle Harbinger have the same base attack proficiency. At levels 7-12, the Warpriest and the Battle Harbinger have the same base attack proficiency. At levels 19-20, the Warpriest and the Battle Harbinger have the same base attack proficiency. That's 12 of the game's 20 levels, including the important bookends, so your statement is an exaggeration at best. This also does not factor in how the Warpriest can spend spell slots the Battle Harbinger doesn't have on spells like heroism to equalize the scales or tip them in their favor.
In some sense it should also describe a warpriest right?
They are the same class. But its disnigenuous to say a warpriest hits like a martial. they need to get to 7 to catch up to expert and since master doesnt come till 19 they fight like a caster from 13th till then.
On the contrary, it is disingenuous to claim that they do not, given how they not only do get up-to-martial proficiency, but can more than make up the gaps with the spell slots the Battle Harbinger doesn't have, as pointed out above. The earlier martial proficiency is certainly an advantage, but it is not a case of having something the other doesn't, as the Warpriest does with so many things over the Battle Harbinger, nor does it make up for the gaps.
others started a thread on 4. i would look there.
I have posted there. Acknowledging that the Battle Harbinger needs improvements while simultaneously denying their shortcomings registers as doublethink to me.
Response to 5 is just false. level 1 5 casts of bless for example for battle harbinger if they want to. warpriest? 2 times.
A 6th-level Warpriest will be able to cast exactly as many aura spells as a Battle Harbinger while leaving their divine font untouched. A 20th-level Warpriest using nothing but their bottom 3 ranks of spells would be able to cast more aura spells than a Battle Harbinger, while also leaving their divine font untouched, and would have 15 more spell slots to play with than the latter class archetype. It is your own statement that is not only false, but intentionally misleading by focusing exclusively on level 1, rather than the vast majority of the game's levels.
Also on your point abot not needing the feat? neither does the harbinger for wave slots.
Emphasis added. If you want to allocate what precious few freeform spells slots you have to preparing 1st-rank spells, then go right ahead, but the fact remains that your base font remains locked to bane and bless. Meanwhile, that same 6th-level Cleric can have a pseudo-battle font with any aura spells they like, the same spell slots remaining as the Battle Harbinger, and still have their divine font.
I do love the warpriest. Its a great class, it just isnt as good a martial as the battle harbinger jsut as the harbinger isnt as good a caster as the warpriest.
But as has already been pointed out at length by many more people besides myself, using basic facts, this isn't really true. At best, the advantages the Battle Harbinger gets do not outweigh the negatives, and at worst, the Warpriest beats the Battle Harbinger at their own game more often than not. The Warpriest is the most direct point of comparison, but when you compare the Battle Harbinger to a wave caster like the Magus, it becomes obvious that the former is feat-taxed to get worse versions of what the latter class gets for free, with core class feature that simply do not match in power. And again: if your heart is really set on playing this archetype, don't let me or anyone else stop you, that's entirely your decision to make. You also don't need to engage in Razmiran levels of deception to justify your preferences, is all.
8/20 instead of "half" sure. Such a huge overexaggeration. Or simply, it could be a simplification to not waste a whole paragraph to reach the same exact outcome more or less...
Lol.
Nah, it's an exaggeration, and you very conveniently "simplify" the part where the levels where these two equalize are also the game's bookend levels. Your Warpriest will start off as accurate as a Battle Harbinger, and will finish as accurate as a Battle Harbinger, all while spending more time on the same accuracy level as a Battle Harbinger than not.
P.s. The slots you are "wasting" for getting "up there", the Battle Harbinger has them for free, cause you know, level 11 to get +2 heroism, is just 1 level before Harbinger gets his Auras to go +2, +3, +4.
So that's also false.
As someone else already noted in a prior comment, the chances of augmenting your battle aura even once over the course of an entire encounter are generally less than one in two, and it would take you the entire encounter to increase your aura to +4 even if you did crit every round. It is rather obvious to anyone not going out of their way to be intellectually dishonest that being able to prebuff with a +2 to all non-flat checks is the more effective option here.
Your OPINION is not facts. It never was.
Pointing to level ranges, spell options, mechanics, and so on is in fact referring to the facts. If the facts contradict your feelings, you should perhaps start by reevaluating your opinions, rather than textually screaming at the person you chose to pick an argument with via unnecessary caps.
In fact, in the particular case you are quoting, you are fundamentally, FACTUALLY, wrong: Battle Harbinger is by definition better martial because he has better martial proficiencies. Everything else, you can argue, but here, you are factually just wrong.
Lemme just pull up the response I already made to this exact same claim (this is, in fact, the part of my quote you conveniently chose to omit):
At best, the advantages the Battle Harbinger gets do not outweigh the negatives, and at worst, the Warpriest beats the Battle Harbinger at their own game more often than not. The Warpriest is the most direct point of comparison, but when you compare the Battle Harbinger to a wave caster like the Magus, it becomes obvious that the former is feat-taxed to get worse versions of what the latter class gets for free, with core class feature that simply do not match in power. And again: if your heart is really set on playing this archetype, don't let me or anyone else stop you, that's entirely your decision to make. You also don't need to engage in Razmiran levels of deception to justify your preferences, is all.
Razmiran levels of deception appear to be the general tactic at hand among those trying so desperately to defend the Battle Harbinger against its critics, because you are implicitly asking the reader to ignore the features competing classes get, spells these classes can prepare, and items these classes can purchase. In fact, it doesn't even seem like you're trying to defend the class archetype at all at this point, you just want to win this argument you chose to have, even if you ultimately have nothing meaningful to say on the matter. At the end of the day, the Battle Harbinger gives up a lot of power compared to other Cleric doctrines, yet often will not do much better than a Warpriest in martial combat, nor even as well. It's not just that they both have similar niches, the Battle Harbinger was meant to go even farther down the direction of being a gish, yet fails due to some pretty obvious mistakes in design that can be pointed out with simple comparisons to other wave casters. I'd say there's a much more interesting conversation to be had here than insisting that the Battle Harbinger is the better martial class "by definition" if you squint really hard and ignore all of the pesky evidence to the contrary. This isn't a class archetype that's meant to live on paper, it's a character-building option that's meant to be played, so "definitions" won't really help when people get underwhelmed by their mechanics.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bard Compositions are much better than Bless/Bane and such.
The remaster made bless a much more attractive option than it was. Still not as good as the Bardic composition but a much closer fit.
Pre remaster I only very occassionally saw Bless being cast or even memorized. But post remaster I see it being taken as a memorized spell or especially as a spell known for a spontaneous caster a fair bit.
It doesn't get cast every battle, but it sees a lot of use in the tough battles (especially the ones against the big solo or near solo boss).
Bless combined with Dirge of Doom is a very powerful combination for a bard at fairly low levels. And it allows the bard to still do lots of other things (throw spells, hit things, whatever they're built for).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Battle Harbinger would have made an awesome Divine Bound Caster Class and not slapped onto Cleric. It feels like it lacks the increased damage feature but there is a feat to give it a free rune of a certain type but I don't remember any martial who doesn't gain ways of dealing extra damage via their class features outside of Fighter.
Fighter: Just hits more often
Barbarian: Rage Damage
Ranger: Precision or Flurry (Hit harder or more often)
Monk: More powerful stances/Flurry of blows
Investigator: Uniuq Sneak attack
Rogue: Sneak Attack
Swashbuckler: Different Sneak Attack
Inventor: Overdrive
Gunslinger: See Fighter
Champion: Some reactions + Blade Ally
Exemplar: Immence of Weapon Ikons.
Magus: Spellstrike
Summoner: Ediolon smack + Cantrip
So all their extra damage/damage dealing features get removed and put into their Battle Font? That doesn't seem right when you got features like Victor's Wreath or Marshal Stance. Especially to augment your Battle Font further you need to spend class feats on it making it feel like they are a feat tax. Aura Enhancement feels very much to me like it is a feat tax.
I think the Battle Harbinger would have made an awesome Divine Bound Caster Class and not slapped onto Cleric. It feels like it lacks the increased damage feature but there is a feat to give it a free rune of a certain type but I don't remember any martial who doesn't gain ways of dealing extra damage via their class features outside of Fighter.
I'd note that the Fighter hits and crits more often, such that their proficiency alone is enough to give them the highest single-target damage output in the game, but otherwise I agree with the criticism: whereas martial classes, including other bounded casters, have standard features like greater weapon specialization as well as some kind of a damage booster, the Battle Harbinger merely has a feature that lets them get up to par with the average of martial accuracy, and lacks greater weapon specialization entirely (and also gets weapon specialization 6 levels later than your typical martial class). When this is standard even for gishes like the Magus or Summoner, the Battle Harbinger can't be argued to be on par with them in martial combat, in my opinion.
And it doesn't stop there, either: a notable aspect of the Magus and Summoner is that both have a "secret sauce" that let them bypass their weakness at spellcasting or martial combat, and do both competently: the Magus's Spellstrike bypasses their weak spell attack mod using their weapon attack mod, and the Eidolon comes with its own stats and proficiencies that let the Summoner Strike with a martial body while they cast spells with a caster body. The Cleric in general gets a similar benefit with Channel Smite, which lets the class bypass their own (usually high) spell DC to apply both a Strike and a harm or heal spell in one go. This particular feat I think would've been perfect on the Battle Harbinger, at least with a regular divine font, and the fact that this was completely sidelined in favor of combat auras that don't heighten I think was a missed opportunity, one that also dooms the Battle Harbinger to contend with a sub-par base attack modifier for a martial class as well as terrible spell proficiency.
The remaster made bless a much more attractive option than it was. Still not as good as the Bardic composition but a much closer fit.
Bless costs 2 actions and is worse than Courageous Anthem.
So while I agree it has been buffed, and as such is obviously closer, it's still a mile away from Bardic Compositions.Bless is a nice rank 1 spell, that's all. Trying to turn it into a class feature will ask for much more than a few feats. Without the action economy being addressed, it's still not worth much.
I think there are two meaningful differences between the Battle Harbinger and the Summoner in this respect: the first is the difference in spell proficiency, where the Summoner gets up-to-master spell proficiency and the Battle Harbinger caps at expert. The second is that whereas the Summoner uses their eidolon's modifiers for Strikes, allowing their spellcaster body to commit fully to Charisma, the Battle Harbinger eventually has to decide whether to dedicate their apex item to Wisdom for their spell and class DC, thereby putting themselves at a -2 relative to most martial classes in Strike accuracy, or to Strength or Dexterity, widening the spell accuracy gap further (-3 relative to a Summoner, -5 relative to a full caster). For this reason, I feel the Battle Harbinger may end up having an easier time preparing more buff and healing spells into their bounded spell slots, rather than offensive spells reliant on a spell attack or DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It still needs a lot of work, but I feel these are two points that are frequently overlooked:
The battle harbinger DOES get extra martial damage. It comes in the form of his allies (including the high critting fighter) hitting and critting far more often.
Bless costs 2 actions and is worse than Courageous Anthem.
Bless and the other aura spells don't require an action every round, nor additional buy-in in the form of feats or class abilities to potentially increase its duration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bless and the other aura spells don't require an action every round, nor additional buy-in in the form of feats or class abilities to potentially increase its duration.
Bless requiring two actions on the same turn is worse than a spell requiring just a single action a round, and this gap widens further when you consider how bless needs several more Sustain actions to match courageous anthem, a cantrip, in radius. That the Bard can use a focus spell, i.e. not a per-day resource, to make their courageous anthem last the whole encounter, or increase all of its bonuses to a +3, and so using low-level feats, is the icing on top.
In fairness, part of the issue here isn't just that bless and other aura spells are weak, but that the Bard's compositions are very, very strong. That's the Bard's key contribution. Even so, however, the gap isn't quite so big with other compositions: allegro for example, is a 7th-rank cantrip, but the spell it competes with is haste (plus Step), a 3rd-rank slot spell. For a 1st-rank composition cantrip to not only compete with a slot spell, but blow it out of the water entirely, the slot spell would probably have to be on the weaker side (and compared to excellent divine spells like heal, it's almost certainly weaker).
I don't have the book but from the comments on its proficiencies, it sounds to me like Harbinger is most analogous to Summoner
The Battle Harbinger is extremely analogous to the Summoner.
In terms of martial power, the Eidolon starts at 18 in its attack stat unlike the Battle Harbinger and get Greater Weapon Specialization. The Battle Harbinger can grab a Heavy Armor and is not limited to d8 weapons. Also, the Summoner has more hit points, both because of 10 hit points per level and less attribute madness (besides Charisma, you don't need much stat on the Summoner).
In terms of casting power, both are wave casters. But the Summoner gets to Master and can more easily put an 18 in Charisma. On the other hand, Wisdom is in general more interesting than Charisma but the Battle Harbinger has hard time putting an 18 in it considering that it needs also Strength and Constitution.
And beyond that, the only thing the Battle Harbinger has is its Battle Auras. But these are easily reproducible by a Summoner by grabbing Bard Dedication and a few Wands of Bless/Bane/whatever (for a negligible price once you reach mid levels). The Bard Composition is much better than the Battle Auras but the Battle Harbinger has a few feats that make up for it.
So overall, the Summoner and the Battle Harbinger are extremely comparable to the point where you can have a Summoner providing the exact same type of contribution than a Battle Harbinger.
The only meaningful difference being, obviously, that the Summoner has 4 actions per round compared to the Battle Harbinger 3.
Isn't a Divine Wrath of god beat stick class the Champion?
Isn't a Divine Wrath of god beat stick class the Champion?You'd think, but really no, they are focused around reactions (and the issues I have with some of them...oh boy, not mechanical power, just the play style they seem to be designed to encourage, like a Justice cause with a reach weapon and meat shields to proc reactions off) and tanking (look at the number of defence or shield feats they get vs ones that do damage).
The worst part is that they are worse tanks than fighters by comparison. Throw a fireball at a champion enough times and he dies easily. Can't say the same about a high enough level fighter.
|
|
The worst part is that they are worse tanks than fighters by comparison. Throw a fireball at a champion enough times and he dies easily. Can't say the same about a high enough level fighter.
In what way is the Champion a worse tank than a fighter? If you want something like Reactive Shield that is a dedication feat away.
I'm genuinely curious as to what I'm missing here.
Throw enough visions of death on the fighter and he dies easily. Can't say the same about a high enough level champion. What is your point?The worst part is that they are worse tanks than fighters by comparison. Throw a fireball at a champion enough times and he dies easily. Can't say the same about a high enough level fighter.Isn't a Divine Wrath of god beat stick class the Champion?You'd think, but really no, they are focused around reactions (and the issues I have with some of them...oh boy, not mechanical power, just the play style they seem to be designed to encourage, like a Justice cause with a reach weapon and meat shields to proc reactions off) and tanking (look at the number of defence or shield feats they get vs ones that do damage).
Vision of Death is a fear effect, so Bravery kicks in, and Canny Acumen gives fighters master in Will Saves, so they are basically almost as good as champions for Will Saves. Meanwhile, champions don't get Evasion, and don't have good enough shield feats compared to fighters.
The worst part is that they are worse tanks than fighters by comparison. Throw a fireball at a champion enough times and he dies easily. Can't say the same about a high enough level fighter.
In what way is the Champion a worse tank than a fighter? If you want something like Reactive Shield that is a dedication feat away.
I'm genuinely curious as to what I'm missing here.
Reflexive Shield, Paragon's Guard, and Evasion are not so easily acquired.