Battle harbinger of one of the deities that has claw as a favored weapon that goes claw dancer could be fun.
|
Reflexive Shield, Paragon's Guard, and Evasion are not so easily acquired.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 is available at the same level Fighters get it from Bastion.
Fighters don't get Evasion. I presume you mean Tempered Reflexes.
Champions can ALSO take Canny Acumen.
Champions get better AC and Divine Grace and Lay on Hands and Quick Shield Block and better shields and ...
You're REALLY pushing things to claim that a Fighter is a better tank
This is kind of cool idea for a battle harbinger. At level 18 the battle harbinger this one with druid dedication has master in both strikes and spellcasting. Picked a wisdom apex item to get spell DC to an even 40. Warpriest still doesnt have master in either at this level.
The fact that they get master for their divine weapon at 13
They can actually use feats to improve spellcasting profiency to master at 18 (yes thats 4 feats to do it but its possible and gives spell slots in doing it)
They will get legendary class DC at 19.
Too much focus has been on a bless bane font and not on what the nuts and bolts are providing.
So much potential for a chain lighting casting sword swinging gish.
Battle Harbinger of Rull
Cleric (Battle Harbinger) 18
N
Medium
Elf
Ancient Elf
Humanoid
Perception +28 (+2 initiative); Low-Light Vision
Languages None selected
Skills Acrobatics +24, Athletics +31, Diplomacy +20, Lore: One Terrain +20, Medicine +26, Nature +32, Religion +30, Stealth +24, Survival +26
Str +5, Dex +4, Con +4, Int +0, Wis +6, Cha +0
Items +3 Armor Resilient (Greater) Scale Mail, Headwrap of WisdomAC 40; Fort +30, Ref +28, Will +32
HP 240
Reactive Strike
Headwrap of Wisdom Speed 40 feet
Melee +3 Weapon Striking (Greater) Quickstrike Shock (Greater) Keen Falchion +32 (Forceful, Sweep, Rare, Magical, Electricity, Magical, Uncommon, Magical), Damage 3d10+8 S +1d6 Electricity
Battle Medicine
Trick Magic Item
Bounce Back
Aura Expertise
Headwrap of Wisdom
Divine Prepared Spells DC 40, attack +30; 9th ; 8th ; 7th ; 6th ; 5th ; 4th Sure Strike, Sure Strike; 3rd ; 2nd ; 1st ; Cantrips
Divine Prepared Spells DC 40, attack +30; 9th Chain Lightning (H+3), Chain Lightning (H+3); 8th Chain Lightning (H+2), Chain Lightning (H+2); 7th ; 6th ; 5th ; 4th ; 3rd ; 2nd ; 1st ; Cantrips Divine Lance, Light, Message, Shield, Stabilize
Divine Prepared Spells DC 40, attack +30; 9th Bless, Bless, Bless, Bless, Bane, Bane; 8th ; 7th ; 6th ; 5th ; 4th ; 3rd ; 2nd ; 1st ; Cantrips
Primal Prepared Spells DC 40, attack +30; 7th Chain Lightning (H+1); 6th Chain Lightning; 5th Lightning Storm, Lightning Storm; 4th Fly, Fly; 3rd Lightning Bolt, Lightning Bolt; 2nd Thunderstrike (H+1), Thunderstrike (H+1); 1st Charm, Charm; Cantrips Electric Arc, Live Wire
Focus Spells (2 points) Tempest Surge
Charged Javelin
Additional Feats Adopted Ancestry, Assurance, Basic Druid Spellcasting, Battle Harbinger Dedication, Break Curse, Cloud Jump, Creed Magic, Domain Initiate, Druid Dedication, Elven Instincts, Expert Druid Spellcasting, Fleet, Magic Rider, Master Druid Spellcasting, Nimble Elf, Order Spell, Powerful Leap, Primal Breadth, Quick Climb, Quick Jump, Replenishment of War, Titan Wrestler, Toughness, Untrained Improvisation, Wall Jump, Water Sprint
Additional Specials Adopted Ancestry (Human), Anathema, Battle Harbinger Favored Weapon (Falchion (1d10 S)), Cleric Spellcasting, Deity, Divine Defense, Domain Initiate (Lightning), Druid Order (Storm Order), Greater Creed, Initial Creed, Lesser Creed, Major Creed, Moderate Creed, Sanctification, True Creed
Reflexive Shield, Paragon's Guard, and Evasion are not so easily acquired.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 is available at the same level Fighters get it from Bastion.
Fighters don't get Evasion. I presume you mean Tempered Reflexes.
Champions can ALSO take Canny Acumen.
Champions get better AC and Divine Grace and Lay on Hands and Quick Shield Block and better shields and ...
You're REALLY pushing things to claim that a Fighter is a better tank
Champions picking Bastion is almost a little redundant, since a lot of the same feats from Bastion are also available to Champion as well. It might be good to pick in a Free Archetype game since they can cherry-pick the good feats and opt out into something else, but I know I personally didn't pick it since I was a Reach Champion with a Glaive. That being said, there's maybe one or two feats that Bastion gives that Champions don't get, so it's not the end of the world if Champions don't pick it. Really, lacking Evasion is the biggest downfall to Champions, since very rarely are Will Saves doing extreme amounts of damage.
Tempered Reflexes is to Divine Will what Evasion is to Resolve. It's just a name change and nothing more; the mechanics to avoid damage on a successful Reflex Save remains the same, and the Champion cannot get any effect similar to this. If there is some feature that's not baked into a class that lets them avoid even a subset of Reflex-based effects, I'd be inclined to hear it; it's far more often that is the case for Will-based effects, like Forlorn Elf, Bravery, etc.
Champions can take Canny Acumen, and they should, just like every class in the game should by 15th level or so, but because they don't get Master in Perception and/or Reflex, they have to make the pick between them. I know that my character chose to pick Reflex because I didn't use a shield (or have the Bastion dedication), and I experienced what happens when I am subject to Reflex-based effects, and they don't benefit from a Bravery-like effect for their base class features, meaning it's still not as good compared to a Fighter picking it up for Will Saves, which is a no-brainer.
Better AC isn't nearly as good as better to-hit due to the scaling of monsters (one of which is only relevant at certain levels, the other is always constant), Divine Grace is an opt-in feat that competes with your other solid reactions (by the way, Reflexive Shield does this for you automatically with Reflex Saves without having to burn a reaction for it, so it's kind of redundant in that regard, doubly so if you're an Orc with the Superstition feats), Lay on Hands is mediocre healing that only gives an AC bonus to other creatures, not yourself, and triggers reactions, so it's at-best a health transfer in a sense, and at-worst an action waster, and Quick Shield Block isn't exclusive to Champion, as Fighters (and Bastion dedication users) get it too.
Fighter with Evasion alone will save more HP than a Champion on-average, and doesn't require allies to sit within 15 feet of them to do it. They just exist, and it works. And I'm "pushing" it because it's actually happened to me in real play. Fighters are also much better in locking down and threatening dangerous foes compared to Champions, which can prevent more raw damage compared to Champions (yes, even Redeemer Champions).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're comparing a Glaive Champion to a sword and board Fighter...
Just realized something.
Why were people saying battle harbingers dont get weapon spec?
Or were they just upset it doesnt happen until 13th level?
I believe the complaint was that in addition to still using the standard caster level for Weapon Specialization, it also doesn't receive Greater Weapon Specialization like standard martials do.
I believe the complaint was that in addition to still using the standard caster level for Weapon Specialization, it also doesn't receive Greater Weapon Specialization like standard martials do.
Ah ok thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just realized something.
Why were people saying battle harbingers dont get weapon spec?
Or were they just upset it doesnt happen until 13th level?
Martial classes, including bounded casters, get weapon specialization at 7th level, and greater weapon specialization at 15th level (or, in the case of the Summoner, greater eidolon specialization). These features are crucial to supplying the damage per hit that is necessary for martial classes to deal competent Strike damage. Casters, by contrast, get weapon specialization at 13th level, and no greater weapon specialization. The Battle Harbinger, despite being designed to have a bounded caster chassis, has the weapon specialization progression of a caster, meaning they will be significantly below the average martial in Strike damage. Given the volume of text you have devoted to defending the Battle Harbinger, and how elementary these features are to class design in 2e, I find it a bit shocking that you'd be unaware of this the whole time.
Ok, let's not overeact here.
Specialization is nice, but it's nowhere near "mandatory to deal competent Strike Damage"
At level 7, even with a one-hander, when you get it it would increase something like 2d8+4 (13) to 2d8+6 (15), nice but hardly mandatory.
That's more than a 15% damage increase for every hit you deal. I do not think you or some others quite realize how significant of a difference that is, especially when multiple threads have been written about how some people will reject certain weapons over smaller relative differences in damage.
At level 15 improving spec to greater spec will increase something like 3d8+2d6+8 (28.5) to 3d8+2d6+11 (31.5).
Even at that level, that is still over a 10% increase in damage. Again, this is far more significant than you are making it out to be. Without these features, martials would be genuinely weak in Pathfinder, which is why they have them in the first place.
And this isn't to say that everyone needs both at those levels to ever want to Strike at all, either: the Warpriest gets caster-grade weapon specialization and sub-par Strike accuracy, and that's totally fine for them, because they're more of a gishy caster who will often use their third action to Strike, rather than a full gish. If a caster wants to opt into a gishier build, their regular weapon specialization and worse accuracy will be fine for those purposes, because given their niche as a full caster, it is totally okay for them to have worse baseline Strikes than a martial. When the subject of discussion is a full gish, however, one who gives up significant amounts of power to be able to Strike like a martial class, that does become a problem, because the end result is a class that sucks at casting spells, but sucks at committing fully to Strikes as well.
Sorry what I realized was how many levels it was just a 2 damage difference and forgot what others position was Amaya/Polaris did a great job of recounting it (thank you). I really see less impactful the difference in damage is. The class has a font with 4-6 bless or bane per day in exchange for the damage below.
1-6 damage is the same.
From 7-12 the difference is 2.
at 13 and 14 they do the same. Both master and both just weapon spec not greater.
at 15th on the difference is 3.
Have to remove fighter from the comparison because they are on their own track being the only ones who get legendary and the full bonus from greater weapon spec.
Sorry what I realized was how many levels it was just a 2 damage difference
Let's not rewrite history here. You were clearly unaware that martial classes get weapon specialization at 7th level and greater weapon specialization at 15th level:
Just realized something.
Why were people saying battle harbingers dont get weapon spec?
Or were they just upset it doesnt happen until 13th level?
It is therefore unsurprising that you wouldn't know where some of the complaints are coming from, despite your attempts to dismiss them. Continuing to argue from ignorance after being shown that it doesn't pay to remain ignorant of key gameplay elements (the post right above yours demonstrates that the difference in damage from these features is far more significant than you're making it out to be) isn't going to convince anyone else that the Battle Harbinger is in a good state, it just shows an unwillingness to engage with facts and the game elements being discussed.
This will be more for the sake of other readers than for you, but in my opinion, a good way of seeing what's wrong with the Battle Harbinger is to ask how they compare to other classes, and go down the list. For starters, let's begin with core spellcasting: putting aside the battle font for the time being, how does the Battle Harbinger's spell output and power compare to other spellcasting classes, including other bounded casters? Looking at that part of the class archetype, the answer is: not well. They're a bounded caster, so they obviously have fewer spell slots than a full caster, but their spellcasting proficiency caps at expert, making them even worse than other bounded casters, to say nothing of how the gap is likely to widen even further at higher levels if they go for a Strength or Dex apex item. The Battle Harbinger therefore has worse base spellcasting than even other bounded casters.
However, that much in my opinion can be argued to be okay: the Battle Harbinger is not made to be a potent spellcaster, and that's not their niche, so they don't need their spellcasting buffed. That does, however, mean that they should probably make up for it elsewhere. Do they make up for it with their martial proficiencies? Well, when you compare them to other bounded casters: no, they don't. Although they get the same attack proficiency progression, they have the weapon specialization track as a full caster, rather than a martial class or bounded caster, and their Wisdom key attribute sets them behind on Strike accuracy for half the game's levels. The class, therefore, has worse baseline martial proficiency than martial classes and even bounded casters.
At this point, I think the problems with the class should already be apparent: they're meant to be a hybrid between a spellcaster and a martial, but their spellcasting and martial capabilities are both sub-par, and so even compared to other bounded casters (whose baseline martial proficiencies are on par with full martials). However, I can still hear some people interjecting: but wait! What about the special benefits the Battle Harbinger gets? Well, let's compare, and this time specifically refer to bounded casters, who get extremely powerful features such as Spellstrike or an eidolon, as well as other Cleric subclasses which get their divine font. Compared to all of those classes, the Battle Harbinger gets... 4 to 6 extra 1st-rank spells that don't heighten, Reactive Strike at 9th level, and a legendary class DC for the purpose of crit spec and aura DCs. Big woof. This is a significant downgrade to the Cleric's normal divine font, particularly considering the lack of synergy with all of the feats that build upon the font and harm/heal in general, and a martial class can easily access similar or greater spell-based benefits with just a handful of feats. Thus, not only are the Battle Harbinger's spellcasting and martial progression sub-par, what they gain does not make up for what they lose.
And normally, this should be enough to arrive at a pretty clear conclusion, but let's complete this comparison and look at the feats, just so that there's no ambiguity. How do the feats hold up to comparison? And once again, the observation is a pretty resounding: not very well. The dedication feat you're forced to take grants nothing you couldn't easily obtain already, and a large amount of these feats aim to give the Battle Harbinger benefits that are given for free on other classes, like Creed Magic versus studious spells. The highly overvalued Empowered Onslaught feat has a less than a one-half chance of triggering even once in an encounter, Aura Expertise is a straight-up worse Effortless Concentration, and Live the Creed, the archetype's 20th-level capstone feat, lets you (drumroll)... cast one aura for one less action, once per encounter. Womp womp.
So, to be very clear: it's not that I or other critics of the class archetype are over-focusing on one aspect of and ignoring others, like you have in your defense, Bluemagetim. Rather, every aspect of the Battle Harbinger compares worse to existing options that occupy similar niches and similarly hybridize spellcasting and martial combat, such that the total package could easily have done with some more love. The Battle Harbinger could easily have done with martial-grade weapon specialization, a physical key attribute, some of their feats bumped down to a much lower level, and other feats still just given to them for free, including heavy armor proficiency. It's not just that they're missing key elements that are needed to put them on par with other martials, including other bounded casters, they even lack features that were given to the Warpriest, specifically Shield Block. This to me suggests that the class archetype came out half-baked, and could do with a few improvements. If you feel you can enjoy the class archetype as-is, more power to you, but that is different from trying to deny valid criticisms of the class, let alone doing so by deliberately ignoring key design elements of the classes and game being discussed.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry. If you think a mere 2-3 damage gap is enough to break a character and make it unviable and/or unfun, then I just don't think I can take you seriously anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
10% less damage but offers 5% more Accuracy for the whole party.
Still is ahead.
If this is the measuring stick you want to use, then everyone should archetype into Cleric and get exactly that same kind of power for just two low-level feats. "5% more accuracy for the whole party" (which itself doesn't make much sense as a statement in a game whose degrees of success are not a binary) also requires at least two actions to deploy and even more actions to bring to a radius or location that will benefit the relevant party members. Having actually tried out this class archetype, I found that trying to focus on my auras meant I was barely spending any time actually Striking, because I generally had to spend at least one turn casting an aura and moving into position, and at least one action on subsequent turns moving, Sustaining the aura, or both to benefit my party. I might as well have just played a Bard and done the job better.
Yes.
If you think that delayed specialization, which is either 2, or 3, damage less per hit is "crucial to deal competent damage" then I simply don't agree.
You are perfectly within your right to do so, my point is that your agreement is irrelevant, because this is objectively the standard for martial classes. You cannot look at the features every martial class receives, including bounded casters, and tell me that it is normal for a martial class to only get the basic weapon specialization, and only at 13th level.
Other features offer much more damage.
Which "other features"? Because if we're talking about Rage, sneak attack damage, and other unique damage-enhancing features, all of those sit on top of the basic features being discussed. These are also features the Battle Harbinger lacks entirely, so this is once again further evidence of the class not being up to par with what exists.
There are no design benchmarks for hybrids. We have at least 3 different hybrid benchmarks in magus-summoner/warpriest/alchemist
Lol, half of those aren't hybrids. The Magus and Summoner are actual hybrids, and are bounded casters like the Battle Harbinger. Both have weapon specialization at 7th level and greater weapon specialization at 15th level. The Warpriest, by contrast, is a full caster with some gish elements (they are also quite obviously meant to be less gishy than a Battle Harbinger), whereas the Alchemist, despite their lack of spellcasting, has always been balanced like a spellcaster more than a martial due to their versatility and AoE-focused damage. Let's perhaps not muddy discussion with obvious red herrings.
I'm sorry. If you think a mere 2-3 damage gap is enough to break a character and make it unviable and/or unfun, then I just don't think I can take you seriously anymore.
I would say that the feeling is mutual after seeing how you've tried so blatantly to mischaracterize my position, but in full honesty I don't take what you say at face value to begin with, given how you have a history of misleading, hyperbolic, and just plain rude statements that has even gotten you reprimanded by Paizo staff. I have yet to see a single opinion on your part that has not been wildly off the mark, and often fuelled by a complete misunderstanding of the subject matter being discussed.
To be clear, and at this point more to the benefit of others than for you, who are deliberately trying to misrepresent what I've said: it's not that a 2-3 damage gap singlehandedly breaks a character, it's that this is the minimum requirement on a martial class's feature track for them to deal competent baseline Strike damage relative to other martial classes. The Battle Harbinger, despite being a bounded caster and therefore normally entitled to the same martial feature track as other bounded casters, is sub-par at this, and this deficiency is not only not made up by their other features, but aggravated by them, as they too are sub-par. They have room to improve, and if 2-3 damage is nothing to you, then there is no reason for you to cry wolf at the mere suggestion that they be given martial-grade weapon specialization.
a)once per day. Sure.
Three times per day, actually, as the basic Cleric spellcasting benefits give you three spell slots. You can even use these slots for higher-rank spells, as well as the entire breadth of Cleric spells at those ranks, rather than needing to take a class feat of the same level to add two spells to the two spells you can prepare, so by your standards that's gotta be a must-pick, right?
But also: how exactly do you think the battle font works? Each font spell slot you get is once-per-day too.
you mean... like alchemist? A perfectly working hybrid regardless his delayed specialization?
Oops, someone didn't read ahead before responding!
Lol, half of those aren't hybrids. The Magus and Summoner are actual hybrids, and are bounded casters like the Battle Harbinger. Both have weapon specialization at 7th level and greater weapon specialization at 15th level. The Warpriest, by contrast, is a full caster with some gish elements (they are also quite obviously meant to be less gishy than a Battle Harbinger), whereas the Alchemist, despite their lack of spellcasting, has always been balanced like a spellcaster more than a martial due to their versatility and AoE-focused damage. Let's perhaps not muddy discussion with obvious red herrings.
Emphasis added for your convenience. Does that answer your questions?
top level buff spells
I hope you're talking about the Battle Harbinger's bounded spell slots, because none of those battle font auras heighten beyond 1st rank. But also: no, these other features do not "offer much more damage", otherwise your divine Summoner would outstrip every martial by virtue of also having access to these exact same buff spells.
"it's not a hybrid, it's a caster with Gish elements" just lol. That's what hybrid means. Loses something, gains something. Warpriest is a hybrid tilted towards a caster, Alchemist is a hybrid tilted towards martial.
If the standard we're using for a hybrid is "loses something, gains something", then literally every class in the game is some form of hybrid, and just picking a spellcasting dedication as a martial or vice versa makes you a hybrid on the same level as a Magus or Summoner. Red Griffyn is right to call you out on this kind of dishonest argumentation.
don't try to gaslight, it ain't working.
Please try not to project, I wasn't even the first to call you out on your specious argumentation. It is clear your argumentative position isn't solid, especially when such easy comparisons can be drawn between the Battle Harbinger and other bounded casters like the Magus or Summoner, so you had to grasp at straws by including classes with a totally different structure and niche like the Warpriest and Alchemist.
I never tried to mischaracterize anything. I just pointed out hyperboles when I saw them, like stating that 2 damage is vital to make a martial work or not.
The very argument you are producing now is a straw man, one I have already debunked in a prior post:
To be clear, and at this point more to the benefit of others than for you, who are deliberately trying to misrepresent what I've said: it's not that a 2-3 damage gap singlehandedly breaks a character, it's that this is the minimum requirement on a martial class's feature track for them to deal competent baseline Strike damage relative to other martial classes. The Battle Harbinger, despite being a bounded caster and therefore normally entitled to the same martial feature track as other bounded casters, is sub-par at this, and this deficiency is not only not made up by their other features, but aggravated by them, as they too are sub-par. They have room to improve, and if 2-3 damage is nothing to you, then there is no reason for you to cry wolf at the mere suggestion that they be given martial-grade weapon specialization.
So yes, you are in fact trying to mischaracterize reasonable criticisms made of the Battle Harbinger, and you are trying to gaslight me now by trying to brand criticism I took the time to ground in in-game evidence as "hyperbole". Again, I'm not even the only one calling you out on this, so I don't see why you even bother pretending otherwise.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
everyone should archetype into Cleric and get exactly that same kind of power for just two low-level feats.
I think that this highlights a fundamental difference in the way we approach the game.
You seem to think (or at least act like) every little number matters, that if you're not eaking out every possible advantage then it's not worth it at all. (Which, of course, is where the accusations of hyperbole come in.)
Whereas more experienced players/GMs like Shroudb and I know that the numbers are only a tool for facilitating what really matters: fun.
Our experience has shown us that you can play a character without a maxed out ability attribute, or that does a few less damage than average, and still carry our weight within a party, overcome appropriate challenges, and all still have a great time representing our respective character concepts.
So when we look at something like the Battle Harbinger, we too lament that it could have been better and hope to see it get an upgrade, but we don't let that stop us from having fun with it. We don't think of such an upgrade as a necessary fix (it's not so far gone as to be broken or unplayable), but more of a nice to have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that this highlights a fundamental difference in the way we approach the game.
You seem to think (or at least act like) every little number matters, that if you're not eaking out every possible advantage then it's not worth it at all. (Which, of course, is where the accusations of hyperbole come in.)
But that's itself untrue, and your representation of my position is itself hyperbolic. You are correct that I think every little number matters, because that is in fact the case in 2e. The game is very much designed so that every +1 matters, and so that its math does what it's supposed to. To pretend otherwise is to reject the foundation this game is built upon.
However, claiming that I think something isn't worth it at all unless it ekes out every single possible advantage is straight-up false. I believe the Witch is still on the weaker side of casters, for instance, but also love playing the class and value the contributions they bring to the table. One of my longest-running characters, a Strength-based Fighter, uses a whip rather than a more damaging weapon, because I wanted to play like a Belmont from Castlevania and feel even now like they are a strong contributor to their team, even if there is room for optimization. A class or build doesn't have to be top-tier in order for me to enjoy it, though I will still critique things I think could do with improvement.
... which brings me to the Battle Harbinger. It's not that I consider the entire class archetype worthless, because I very much want to play the character fantasy that this class archetype is meant to cater towards. I have tried this class out, despite my reservations, and found it unenjoyable, for reasons I'd pretty much anticipated already (and some I didn't, like a pretty severe reliance on a coordinated team to make the most of their auras). What I am pointing out, and what I am not the only person to point out, is that this class archetype is poorly-designed and poorly-balanced, for reasons that have already been brought up many times. This is, in my opinion, quite obvious to see with just a simple comparison to similarly-structured classes, which is why I gave my critical feedback. By contrast, you have no practical experience with the class, no real understanding of its mechanics or the general design of martial classes in 2e, yet still act like you cannot possibly be wrong or misinformed on anything here. It is therefore unsurprising that you would be called out by several people on separate threads for not contributing very much to discussion.
Whereas more experienced players/GMs like Shroudb and I know that the numbers are only a tool for facilitating what really matters: fun.
You have no experience with this class and wrote a thread waxing lyrical about its potential before you could even have a chance to experience it, while deliberately refusing to acknowledge the various issues that would arise with trying to emulate the aura-stacking playstyle you were advocating. You're not an advocate of fun, you spend most of your time actively dismissing and down-talking other people on these forums because they don't adhere to your personal standard of "fun", just as you're doing here, and no amount of pretentious self-aggrandizement will disguise that fact.
So when we look at something like the Battle Harbinger, we too lament that it could have been better and hope to see it get an upgrade, but we don't let that stop us from having fun with it. We don't think of such an upgrade as a necessary fix (it's not so far gone as to be broken or unplayable), but more of a nice to have.
If this is truly the case, then we are in agreement that the class archetype is flawed and could benefit from improvements. To do so would make it even more fun, whether it's for the people who like it already or who currently aren't satisfied. Why then spend so much time and energy making noise on these forums by arguing against the Battle Harbinger's critics?
No... you completely missing the mark about how Alchemist works doesn't mean that I didn't read... just that I ignored the falsehoods.
How exactly did I "completely miss the mark" about the Alchemist? It sounds an awful lot like your spurious arguments got proven to be less-than-solid, so you're choosing to just dismiss the contrary argument out of hand, repeat and project the same hyperbole that was debunked in the response you're quoting, and similarly project the same kind of gaslighting you are desperately trying to apply to someone who is already wise to your game. You might want to change tactics, methinks.
does 2 damage make or break a martial? Because that's what you wrote before.
It is singularly impressive that you would furnish the quote that answers your question and disproves the mischaracterization of me you are so desperate to generate here, while pretending otherwise. Let me then provide you the quote again:
Martial classes, including bounded casters, get weapon specialization at 7th level, and greater weapon specialization at 15th level (or, in the case of the Summoner, greater eidolon specialization). These features are crucial to supplying the damage per hit that is necessary for martial classes to deal competent Strike damage.
Emphasis added. While I understand the topic of competence may not be immediately familiar, there is a world of difference between "incompetent", and "unplayable" here. A martial that had only weapon specialization at 13th level and nothing beyond that would deal incompetent baseline Strike damage for a martial, which would have knock-on effects for character-building options too (for instance, the Eternal Legend's Mythic Weapon Specialization feat, which requires greater weapon specialization): they wouldn't be unplayable, because even a martial that had no other class features beyond that bare-bones chassis could still be technically playable, but they would certainly be objectively sub-par in their base chassis compared to other martial classes, and would require additional compensation to be brought up to par. That is how balance works, and that is why martial classes follow a consistent framework (as it turns out, lots of things in 2e follow standard frameworks, because that just makes gameplay, balance, and design more consistent).
So to recap: no, a 2-3 damage difference would not "break" a martial by whichever arbitrary metric you have set, and that is not what I have ever argued. What I have argued, however, is that this damage difference is meaningful, makes the Battle Harbinger sub-par in their baseline Strike damage even compared to other bounded casters, and contributes to the class archetype's issues. It is, in my opinion, a design oversight that would benefit the class archetype if it were corrected. Now, answer me this: why do you believe a 2-3 damage difference in Pathfinder 2e is not meaningful?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
does 2 damage make or break a martial? Because that's what you wrote before.
Why not examine the opposite here too, since you seem pretty keen on protecting the status quo:
Is the delayed specialization critical to the archetype's balance? Would it be broken if it got normal damage progression for a martial? Is it a better character for being slightly worse at hitting things than its peers for no discernible reason?
Sorry what I realized was how many levels it was just a 2 damage differenceLet's not rewrite history here. You were clearly unaware that martial classes get weapon specialization at 7th level and greater weapon specialization at 15th level:
Just realized something.
Why were people saying battle harbingers dont get weapon spec?
Or were they just upset it doesnt happen until 13th level?It is therefore unsurprising that you wouldn't know where some of the complaints are coming from, despite your attempts to dismiss them. Continuing to argue from ignorance after being shown that it doesn't pay to remain ignorant of key gameplay elements (the post right above yours demonstrates that the difference in damage from these features is far more significant than you're making it out to be) isn't going to convince anyone else that the Battle Harbinger is in a good state, it just shows an unwillingness to engage with facts and the game elements being discussed.
This will be more for the sake of other readers than for you, but in my opinion, a good way of seeing what's wrong with the Battle Harbinger is to ask how they compare to other classes, and go down the list. For starters, let's begin with core spellcasting: putting aside the battle font for the time being, how does the Battle Harbinger's spell output and power compare to other spellcasting classes, including other bounded casters? Looking at that part of the class archetype, the answer is: not well. They're a bounded caster, so they obviously have fewer spell slots than a full caster, but their spellcasting proficiency caps at expert, making them even worse than other bounded casters, to say nothing of how the gap is likely to widen even further at higher levels if they go for a Strength or Dex apex item. The Battle Harbinger therefore has worse base spellcasting than even other bounded casters.
However, that much in my opinion can be argued to be okay: the Battle Harbinger is not made...
The great thing about what I say and mean is that they are what I say and mean.
Not what you say I mean.
does 2 damage make or break a martial? Because that's what you wrote before.Why not examine the opposite here too, since you seem pretty keen on protecting the status quo:
Is the delayed specialization critical to the archetype's balance? Would it be broken if it got normal damage progression for a martial? Is it a better character for being slightly worse at hitting things than its peers for no discernible reason?
My thought is there is a trade off for keeping a spell font.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the problem isn't one specific little thing, its the multiple little things that make the archetype feel inconsistent and weak.
The battle harbinger loses (among other things) access to 10th-level spells and 24 spell slots in exchange for a battle font that is likely going to run out in 2 or 3 combats due to how frequently the archetype expects you to use it and better accuracy for a few levels.
This archetype was sold like an even more martial warpriest archetype, though it doesn't even have the full martial chassis (doesn't fully scale with all martial weapons at 13th level and has a caster's weapon specializtion) and its unique gimmick being the aura spells is severely lacking. A regular warpriest cleric could use the 24 spell slots (way more slots than what the font gives you) that it doesn't need to trade to cast bane, bless, benediction, or malediction if they want already.
Not to mention Paizo again felt the need to print a feat to give BH access to heavy armor rather than just give it to them. I still would want to know why cloistered cleric have to go in robes while druids (which have a way better spell list) can go around with a breastplate with ease. Cloistered clerics should have light armor, while warpriests and BHs should have both medium and heavy armor. The cleric was known for being an armorede caster in earlier editions (they had heavy armor proficiency) so it feels extra weird that casters (specially post-Remaster) have easier access to armor while cloistered clerics remain cloth casters.
I guess that's a cleric problem and not a BH problem, but I digress.
Red Griffyn
I agree on your #5 edit:last part actually about enhanced auras. I actually would guess no one disagrees on that point. Getting a skill and toughness at level 2 for the dedication benefits was not very exciting instead of getting something in the class feat category that fuels the class like enhanced auras. Most people will probably have wanted to use a general feat for toughness at some point anyway.
One point I would argue though is tandem onslaught is actually pretty good for a level 4 feat. Its basically doing the same thing as the level 16 feat since BH is trying to get in strikes already. So early on bane gets the benefit of extra will rolls on sustain without any extra actions to sustain.
Replenishment of War would be my level 10 pick despite anything else available.
On your point 2 about alternatives to casting bless. If your playing a BH you do have bless though already no extra investment and can cast probably as much as you'll ever want to cast it. Marshal would take 2 extra feats and diplomacy and could still fail to succeed every once in a while. Not saying its not a good archtype ability but its extra resources a BH doesnt need to invest to get a +1 status bonus to allies in a growing radius. (But hey if bless in general is something you would never use that your call to make.)
On point 3. I dont think it helps or is warranted to say someone is being dishonest. If they misunderstood you clarify, If you think they are wrong say they are wrong.
They can defend being told your wrong. But your being dishonest is not defensible in any tangible way or knowable in any tangible way for that matter on a chat forum.
On point 3. I dont think it helps or is warranted to say someone is being dishonest. If they misunderstood you clarify, If you think they are wrong say they are wrong.
They can defend being told your wrong. But your being dishonest is not defensible in any tangible way or knowable in any tangible way for that matter on a chat forum.
When someone insists on repeating the same "misunderstanding" after it's been clarified repeatedly, that is being dishonest. You are correct that people are allowed to have honest disagreements or misunderstandings; this is not what happened here, as the few people defending the Battle Harbinger have been attempting to do so by deliberately misrepresenting their opponents' position, ignoring the facts, and at times just straight-up lying. That to me is a pretty clear sign that there is a contingent of people on here whose objective is to derail topical discussion of the Battle Harbinger, not contribute to it, as often happens on these forums.
Onto more productive conversation: I think part of what makes the Battle Harbinger such a hard sell is the battle font, specifically the fact that absolutely none of the font spells heighten. Having four 1st-rank spells at level 1 might be quite good, even if the spells themselves are fairly mid, but when you're even just 7th-level and the Warpriest can use all of their lower-rank slots to do the same thing as you, while having a far better font of their own, that kinda stings.
This conversation has itself been done to death on a separate thread, but I feel it would've been to the Battle Harbinger's significant benefit if the status bonus or penalty increased at certain spell ranks, let's say 2 at 5th rank and 3 at 9th rank: this would, in my opinion, justify these spells taking up the Cleric's font, which is meant to have the perk of giving you not just bonus spell slots, but bonus spell slots heightened to your highest spell rank. Independently of the Battle Harbinger, this would also IMO justify the use of these spells at higher levels on any other caster, at a point where heroism and even cantrips like forbidding ward provide better bonuses. This may not necessarily jive well with Empowered Onslaught, but IMO that feat is a trap and nowhere near as effective as it looks to begin with.
On point 3. I dont think it helps or is warranted to say someone is being dishonest. If they misunderstood you clarify, If you think they are wrong say they are wrong.
They can defend being told your wrong. But your being dishonest is not defensible in any tangible way or knowable in any tangible way for that matter on a chat forum.When someone insists on repeating the same "misunderstanding" after it's been clarified repeatedly, that is being dishonest. You are correct that people are allowed to have honest disagreements or misunderstandings; this is not what happened here, as the few people defending the Battle Harbinger have been attempting to do so by deliberately misrepresenting their opponents' position, ignoring the facts, and at times just straight-up lying. That to me is a pretty clear sign that there is a contingent of people on here whose objective is to derail topical discussion of the Battle Harbinger, not contribute to it, as often happens on these forums.
Onto more productive conversation: I think part of what makes the Battle Harbinger such a hard sell is the battle font, specifically the fact that absolutely none of the font spells heighten. Having four 1st-rank spells at level 1 might be quite good, even if the spells themselves are fairly mid, but when you're even just 7th-level and the Warpriest can use all of their lower-rank slots to do the same thing as you, while having a far better font of their own, that kinda stings.
This conversation has itself been done to death on a separate thread, but I feel it would've been to the Battle Harbinger's significant benefit if the status bonus or penalty increased at certain spell ranks, let's say 2 at 5th rank and 3 at 9th rank: this would, in my opinion, justify these spells taking up the Cleric's font, which is meant to have the perk of giving you not just bonus spell slots, but bonus spell slots heightened to your highest spell rank. Independently of the Battle Harbinger, this would also IMO justify the...
I'm sorry but we are not reading the same thread. A person is not being dishonest when trying to distil and explain a difference without complicating it with every minutia. And really from some of your responses I would have guessed you are trolling people if I wasn't giving the benefit of the doubt.
That last suggestion for example removes the need for teamwork as it provides from one character a 6 point swing all by themselves for the entire party.And if I was pointing out examples it would be on those suggestion that a single target spell that requires sustaining like forbidding ward should be compared to a area of effect spell that naturally expands on sustain but stays up on its own for a minute without sustaining. Heroism is a higher rank spell so it has more to it and lasts longer great but its still not a party buff and it never becomes one for heightening. Have you seen any examples already in the game that provide a +3 party buff that lasts a minute? Bards dont even do this.
To my knowledge the only class that can increase status bonuses they give to an area are BH and they have a limitation so they cannot do it on command. Instead its a fun mechanic(subjective opinion but if I didn't write this disclaimer I am guessing it would have stirred an uproar) that rewards criting which will happen and help snowball or turn a fight in the party's favor. In fact that ability is so good it should not have been opt in, instead a core feature of any battle harbinger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry but we are not reading the same thread. A person is not being dishonest when trying to distil and explain a difference without complicating it with every minutia. And really from some of your responses I would have guessed you are trolling people if I wasn't giving the benefit of the doubt.
This is itself a dishonest attempt to reframe the narrative of this thread, where information as elementary and necessary to informed discussion, such as weapon specialization on martial classes, becomes "minutia", and where deliberately trying to distance the conversation from any factual grounding and create confusion becomes an attempt to "distil" (sic)... whatever it is you're claiming. On that note, your stance in this argument still isn't very clear, as you've been focused more on dismissing and downplaying what others have expressed on the matter than producing any kind of original or informed opinion.
That last suggestion for example removes the need for teamwork as it provides from one character a 6 point swing all by themselves for the entire party.
... for 4 actions, assuming the entire party is within 15 feet of you, and the enemy is within 10 feet of you, at 17th level at minimum. The mere fact that I have to spell this out to you confirms that you are not arguing from facts or experience, so much as sheer, willful ignorance.
And if I was pointing out examples it would be on those suggestion that a single target spell that requires sustaining like forbidding ward should be compared to a area of effect spell that naturally expands on sustain but stays up on its own for a minute without sustaining.
Correct, forbidding ward is a cantrip... and yet, it still outperforms benediction past a certain rank when it comes to leveraging raw numerical protection. You appear to have forgotten that these aura spells need to be Sustained as well to start covering a reasonable radius, otherwise they'd require even more action investment for the entire rest of the team to put to use (while also putting everyone at significant risk of getting AoE'd). On the subject of cantrips, though, courageous anthem blows bless out of the water, as a spell that does more, across a farther radius, and for fewer actions. You can even spend a Focus Point to either have it last the whole encounter or provide a +3 to all of its bonuses! By your prior logic, the Bard should then have no spell slots at all, yet here we are.
Heroism is a higher rank spell so it has more to it and lasts longer great but its still not a party buff and it never becomes one for heightening.
Notice that the changes I am discussing only occur at levels where heroism is available. In fact, at those ranks, lower-rank casts of heroism become extremely cheap with both spell slots (if you're a full caster) and spell scrolls, so you absolutely can use the spell to buff your party, and to greater effect. Unless your argument is that a 3rd-rank heroism is as strong as a 1st-rank spell, I think it's safe to say that at the spell ranks where heroism becomes available, all of those aura spells will have already started to fall off.
Have you seen any examples already in the game that provide a +3 party buff that lasts a minute? Bards dont even do this.
Bards absolutely can do this with three casts of fortissimo composition, which for three actions and three Focus Points will give you that +3 to last the whole encounter. Because there's no daily resource expenditure needed to achieve this, Bards can in fact do this every encounter, while casting a two-action slot spell on the same turn each time, and so as early as level 7. Methinks there is room for the two-action, short-ranged aura slot spell that affects only one stat to increase its modifier every eight levels.
To my knowledge the only class that can increase status bonuses they give to an area are BH
You literally just mentioned the Bard. How can you even accuse others of trolling when you keep doing this?
Instead its a fun mechanic(subjective opinion but if I didn't write this disclaimer I am guessing it would have stirred an uproar) that rewards criting which will happen and help snowball or turn a fight in the party's favor. In fact that ability is so good it should not have been opt in, instead a core feature of any battle harbinger.
Or, perhaps, the Battle Harbinger could've been allowed to output competent auras without having to jump through unnecessary hoops, given that that's meant to be the class archetype's central mechanic. As someone who has now tried the class archetype out in limited measure, I can tell you that even with a +3 aura, the Battle Harbinger is still going to need to spend more actions getting into position and/or Sustaining before they can start benefiting their whole team reliably, and if you want to cast more than one aura in the same encounter, it may be several rounds before you even get to Strike at all. I'd go as far as to say that the class could very well not have been given martial proficiencies at all, if it meant giving them better auras so that they could actually fulfill their niche better, but in all cases I can pretty confidently say that there's plenty of room for them to improve, and they certainly wouldn't become overpowered if they were given the weapon specialization track of an actual bounded caster.
No i am saying what i say genuinely. I saw what i saw.
And I am glad to clarify my point if you still find it unclear.
Bards absolutely can do this with three casts of fortissimo composition, which for three actions and three Focus Points will give you that +3 to last the whole encounter. Because there's no daily resource expenditure needed to achieve this, Bards can in fact do this every encounter, while casting a two-action slot spell on the same turn each time, and so as early as level 7. Methinks there is room for the two-action, short-ranged aura slot spell that affects only one stat to increase its modifier every eight levels.
See this is what I mean. I said for a minute not 3 rounds. that matters.
Also given what you suggested the BH would for 2 actions at the start of the encounter give a +3 from bless for a minute for 2 actions and no focus points and then a -3 from malediction swinging 6 points without anyone else doing anything.The bard has to devote an action and a skill point and make a skill check with crit success each round and only can do it for 3 rounds.
Notice that the changes I am discussing only occur at levels where heroism is available. In fact, at those ranks, lower-rank casts of heroism become extremely cheap with both spell slots (if you're a full caster) and spell scrolls, so you absolutely can use the spell to buff your party, and to greater effect. Unless your argument is that a 3rd-rank heroism is as strong as a 1st-rank spell, I think it's safe to say that at the spell ranks where heroism becomes available, all of those aura spells will have already started to fall off.
if heroism cast 4 times for a party of four or 7 times for a party of 7 is comparable to 1 two action cast of bless as you've suggested giving a scaling bonus up to 3 we are not talking the same language still. thats not even in same ballpark of resource use.
And to address seemingly a strawman thrown in there, No, I do not think bless is as strong as Heroism, I think heroism is a stronger spell requiring increasingly higher rank slots to get its scaling effect which does more than just affect to hit. Bless fills a different space as it is an emanation that can benefit more party members but it is not as powerful and is costed appropriately for that difference.
... for 4 actions, assuming the entire party is within 15 feet of you, and the enemy is within 10 feet of you, at 17th level at minimum. The mere fact that I have to spell this out to you confirms that you are not arguing from facts or experience, so much as sheer, willful ignorance.
Why say its only limited to those emanation radii? they wont stay that way on a BH.
Should a BH elect to get the feats it is 15 ft bless on round one move in. 25ft on round two after casting malediction and striking. Malediction and bless both increasing on one strike on round 3 to 35 and 20ft respectively. round three its going to be 45ft and 30ft and all just by striking.In fact its after round 2 that the action economy is freed up completely and the benefits still remain.and if lucky one of those bonuses increase with crit.
And to make a point here this is only something anyone would do in a fight that needs that much swing. In otherwords if your team doesnt need two auras dont use two.
See this is what I mean. I said for a minute not 3 rounds. that matters.
Okay, to what extent? Most encounters last 3 minutes, so that's a +3 for the totality of your encounter in most cases, and a +3 for the majority of your encounter in other circumstances. If you care more about feeling like you're in the right than saying anything meaningful, just say that.
Also given what you suggested the BH would for 2 actions at the start of the encounter give a +3 from bless for a minute for 2 actions and no focus points and then a -3 from malediction swinging 6 points without anyone else doing anything.
Right, this is the part where I'm going to have to call you out for repeating the same debunked claim, which I'll just respond with my prior response to that same claim:
... for 4 actions, assuming the entire party is within 15 feet of you, and the enemy is within 10 feet of you, at 17th level at minimum.
With a nice little side order of this:
You appear to have forgotten that these aura spells need to be Sustained as well to start covering a reasonable radius, otherwise they'd require even more action investment for the entire rest of the team to put to use (while also putting everyone at significant risk of getting AoE'd).
This is before even getting to how malediction requires a save and is therefore not guaranteed either, so please, enough with the hyperbole, enough with the repetition of debunked arguments, and enough with playing coy about your tactics. It is severely damaging to discussion when you act willfully ignorant like this.
The bard has to devote an action and a skill point and make a skill check with crit success each round and only can do it for 3 rounds.
A skill check the Bard will be exceptionally good at succeeding against. At 7th level, a Wis-based character with expert Will would have a Will DC of 25, whereas a Bard putting skill increases into Performance would have a modifier of +18, for an effective DC of 7. That's a 70% chance of granting at least a +2 bonus, and a 25% chance of applying a +3 bonus, far more than a Battle Harbinger's chance of increasing their bonus even once in an average fight. At 20th level, with a Performance mod of +38, they would still be able to turn their own max Will DC of 46 into an effective DC 8, so they outstrip the Battle Harbinger at every level with no daily resource expenditure. Meanwhile, bane and malediction require failing a saving throw (and a Sustain action to repeat the save each time), so not only are you expending more resources and actions, you're also less likely to apply the effect (at 20th level against a moderate save for your level, this is likely to be only a 50% chance, for instance). So yeah, the Bard does in fact completely outdo the BH here.
if heroism cast 4 times for a party of four or 7 times for a party of 7 is comparable to 1 two action cast of bless as you've suggested giving a scaling bonus up to 3 we are not talking the same language still. thats not even in same ballpark of resource use.
We are indeed not speaking the same language if you're using a party of 7 as your standard. A party of four, by contrast, is perfectly standard, particularly as several of them will not necessarily want to attack, but everyone will benefit from the bonuses to saves and skill checks. Given how trivially cheap scrolls become past a few levels, and how heroism is designed to be used for prebuffing (so no action expenditure during combat), this too can easily beat auras at their own game, even with that ridiculous party of 7.
And to address seemingly a strawman thrown in there, No, I do not think bless is as strong as Heroism, I think heroism is a stronger spell requiring increasingly higher rank slots to get its scaling effect which does more than just affect to hit. Bless fills a different space as it is an emanation that can benefit more party members but it is not as powerful and is costed appropriately for that difference.
Good, I'm glad you agree that one of the strongest spells in the game is stronger than a middling spell of much lower rank. Then how about you answer this follow-up question: all else held equal, what do you think would be the generally better expenditure of a 3rd-rank or higher slot, the stronger 3rd-rank spell that also heightens, or the middling 1st-rank spell that doesn't heighten? Tell me, what does the battle font meaningfully do that a full caster can't do with spare low-rank slots?
Why say its only limited to those emanation radii? they wont stay that way on a BH.
Yes, they will. You have feats that let you expand the radius of your auras as you hit with Strikes (so already, this means this isn't innate to the BH, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise), but those effects still remain contained to your aura radii. This means typically having to spend your third action on your first round moving into position, having allies spend actions of their own moving into your aura's radius, and then spending your reaction if you hit with your Strike (which doesn't always happen), thereby also preventing you from using the Reactive Strike you get from your creed. You're spending an awful amount of time asking me to believe you, yet you don't seem to want to hear me when I tell you that this archetype is janky and not terribly internally coherent, and this is something you could easily try out for yourself.
... oh, and by the way, that feat you'd pick to raise your aura's modifier? It only triggers if you crit and sustain a battle aura. If you hit and sustain an aura, and then crit, no dice. It's not a very well-written feat.
Should a BH elect to get the feats it is 15 ft bless on round one move in.
Already, that's three actions to maybe grant the benefit to potentially (but not always) your entire team. This is already worse than a Bard spending one action a turn in a three-round encounter casting courageous anthem, without even going into fortissimo or lingering composition.
25ft on round two after casting malediction and striking.
So again, less than half the radius of a Bard composition, and if your Strike misses, no dice. Also, we're now at two spell slots expended, and malediction starts off at a 10-foot radius... and it also requires a save. Not exactly a favorable comparison to a fortissimo'd anthem, despite the Battle Harbinger needing to commit more class feats (let's not forget their mandatory dedication).
Malediction and bless both increasing on one strike on round 3 to 35 and 20ft respectively.
On one hit, specifically, and again, while you're doing all this, the Bard can keep plinking on from 60 feet, triple the radius of malediction at this stage and nearly double that of bless. Oh, and at this stage you've committed four class feats for the trouble, and need to be at least 12th-level.
round three its going to be 45ft and 30ft and all just by striking.
... which is, again, less than the Bard's 60-foot radius. At this point you've committed... seven actions at least, is it? Two spell slots? Four feats? All to be worse than a lower-level Bard at the thing your build revolves around.
In fact its after round 2 that the action economy is freed up completely and the benefits still remain.
And it only took two full rounds, six actions, two spell slots, and four class feats to get there! Truly, the one-pot, six-pan, 10-wok, 25-baking sheet dinner of character builds.
and if lucky one of those bonuses increase with crit.
I was wrong: it's five class feats, for a less than one-in-two chance of increasing one of your modifiers by 1 across the whole encounter! Oh, and it also costs your reaction and might not trigger even if you do crit.
And to make a point here this is only something anyone would do in a fight that needs that much swing. In otherwords if your team doesnt need two auras dont use two.
You know who else can choose how many battle auras they want to deploy in a combat? Literally any mid-to-high-level Warpriest. In fact, they get to deploy more battle auras than the Battle Harbinger, have the luxury of being able to prepare whichever spells they want in those slots without having to pay a feat tax, and still get to hit as accurately as a Battle Harbinger across more than half the game's levels! Oh, and they get an actual divine font and a spell DC that isn't utterly awful.
So yeah, if you wanted a divine caster who could cast lots of auras, you could already have that with an existing Cleric; the reason you don't see many Warpriests spamming bane and bless is because they generally have far better spells to cast. Even with these feats, the Battle Harbinger isn't terribly functional at their intended niche, and in my experience they just felt really clunky. I was really looking forward to a full divine gish, but even when I tried to make this one work, it didn't really feel like I was actually playing an active role in combat, so much as just being sorta there. Even in the domain of an aura-centric class, there was more that could've been done, like having your harmful auras damage enemies within or apply additional debuffs (and this would've all likely been a better fit on the Champion, too). Thus, I do think the class archetype has a lot of room for improvement, and I don't find it terribly amusing to see people dismiss valid criticism of the class and constructive feedback overall with arguments from ignorance and disdain for one's fellow players.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
In an absolute vacuum the battle aura isn't bad, but the +1/-1 status bonus is the most occupied buffing space in the game and bless is one of the worst possible ways to apply that buff. Battle Auras makes it better, but not that much better, especially since you still have a usage limit via font.
Like, if your font was entirely at-will and the archetype had normal weapon specialization and had full martial weapon proficiency, it would still be mostly just okay, a low damage martial with some decent utility.
My takeaway from the Battle Harbinger isn't so much that it's bad (although I do consider it weak) but that there are a number of disappointingly conservative design choices that make it weaker or more restrictive than it needs to be for no real benefit, like the writers were afraid of making something good.
It feels somewhat regressive, more like the APG than the last few rulebooks which have been much more willing to allow things to be good and interesting. This is especially disappointing because Paizo publishes major features like this so infrequently, the battle harbinger being a miss means everyone who wanted something in the divine magus headspace is screwed for the foreseeable future, unless Paizo course corrects with errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but that there are a number of disappointingly conservative design choices that make it weaker or more restrictive than it needs to be for no real benefit, like the writers were afraid of making something good.
Which feels extra weird because in the same book we got avenger rogue that's quite literally ruffian++ when Paizo was seemingly too afraid to make changes with the ruffian before (at least seeing how the only change it received was up to d6 martial and advanced weapons which is...not really that meaningful to be honest. Though thinking about it in that same book they buffed thief which already was the best rogue racket. I guess this is a trend with rogues for some reason?)
In an absolute vacuum the battle aura isn't bad, but the +1/-1 status bonus is the most occupied buffing space in the game and bless is one of the worst possible ways to apply that buff. Battle Auras makes it better, but not that much better, especially since you still have a usage limit via font.
Like, if your font was entirely at-will and the archetype had normal weapon specialization and had full martial weapon proficiency, it would still be mostly just okay, a low damage martial with some decent utility.
My takeaway from the Battle Harbinger isn't so much that it's bad (although I do consider it weak) but that there are a number of disappointingly conservative design choices that make it weaker or more restrictive than it needs to be for no real benefit, like the writers were afraid of making something good.
It feels somewhat regressive, more like the APG than the last few rulebooks which have been much more willing to allow things to be good and interesting. This is especially disappointing because Paizo publishes major features like this so infrequently, the battle harbinger being a miss means everyone who wanted something in the divine magus headspace is screwed for the foreseeable future, unless Paizo course corrects with errata.
This is a fair take.
But I wouldnt go as far to say anyone is screwed. its still going to allow concepts that were not as easy to achieve with other classes.
...but that there are a number of disappointingly conservative design choices that make it weaker or more restrictive than it needs to be for no real benefit, like the writers were afraid of making something good.Which feels extra weird because in the same book we got avenger rogue that's quite literally ruffian++ when Paizo was seemingly too afraid to make changes with the ruffian before (at least seeing how the only change it received was up to d6 martial and advanced weapons which is...not really that meaningful to be honest. Though thinking about it in that same book they buffed thief which already was the best rogue racket. I guess this is a trend with rogues for some reason?)
I don't agree that Avenger is not ruffian++. There was a typo- You can only sneak attack with a non-standard weapon if you're attacking your hunted prey*. That action tax hurts if you don't have a hunter's edge to make up for it.
I guess you could argue Avenger is a better precision ranger, but I don't know if anyone's done that math, but there's still needing the target to be off guard.
*While still needing to have the target off guard or otherwise eligible for sneak attack.
...but that there are a number of disappointingly conservative design choices that make it weaker or more restrictive than it needs to be for no real benefit, like the writers were afraid of making something good.Which feels extra weird because in the same book we got avenger rogue that's quite literally ruffian++ when Paizo was seemingly too afraid to make changes with the ruffian before (at least seeing how the only change it received was up to d6 martial and advanced weapons which is...not really that meaningful to be honest. Though thinking about it in that same book they buffed thief which already was the best rogue racket. I guess this is a trend with rogues for some reason?)
While I agree Avenger is quite good, they aren't in the same book. Battle Harbinger is Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries, Avenger is War of Immortals.
This is a fair take.
But I wouldnt go as far to say anyone is screwed. its still going to allow concepts that were not as easy to achieve with other classes.
Which concept? The whole problem of the Battle Harbinger is that you can build a Magus or Summoner to just be a superior Battle Harbinger with everything the Battle Harbinger brings to the table but better. At least, some classes, like the Investigator, have unique features that make them appropriate choices in some circumstances. But for the Battle Harbinger, unless you play a game that never goes to 7, there are strictly superior choices.
But I wouldnt go as far to say anyone is screwed. its still going to allow concepts that were not as easy to achieve with other classes.
That's not the point Squiggit is making. What they're saying is that the "divine gish" space is now occupied by the Battle Harbinger, which means we're unlikely to see another attempt at a divine gish for a very long while, despite the tools all being there to implement one that plays more like a Magus (such as Channel Smite). If someone wants to play an aura bot, then they'll have the Battle Harbinger, though even then, I'd say that niche could have been done a lot better, and a better fit for it would've probably been the Champion, i.e. the divine martial class that already has an aura.