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....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?)
Lol true. For some reason I keep thinking WoI and DM are the same book.
For a 1-10 game, 1-7 is most of the play space.
If you play a character which is good at level 1-4, okish at level 5-6 and bad at level 7-10, the only thing you'll remember is that it was a big pile of crap. Having your character getting worse and worse at what it does every level it takes is not a good feeling.
Both may be better overall choices, but nobody wanting a divine gish is going to take Magus, and nobody wanting to spam 4+ aura spells per game day is going to get that from Summoner until at least level 6.
What makes a "divine gish"? If the only difference is the tradition of your 4 slots then that's not much of a difference (especially when you see people stating that the Battle Harbinger should grab Arcane spells like True Strike or Haste). Just play a Staff Magus, grab Fervor Witch Dedication and a Staff with Bless/Bane (level 6 for a Staff of Providence, but your GM may be nice and allow you to use a variation on the Entertainer's Lute or Bagpipes of Turmoil that would be an actual Staff).
As for the Summoner, it casts lots of auras much earlier than level 6. At level 4 you already have 4 slots, and that's without buying any Wand. You should play like a Battle Harbinger much earlier.In a level 1-10 game, a Summoner or a Magus will be more effective than a Battle Harbinger at being a Battle Harbinger. The Battle Harbinger is only a valid choice if you never make it to level 7 (the moment where it really crumbles to pieces compared to actual classes).
|
What makes a "divine gish"?
While I suspect the answer varies for different people, for me the Animist built to be a gish is just about perfect. It can easily switch from the caster to the martial mode within a battle or combine them within a single round. And it scales well across many levels although that scaling does require changing spirits and tactics as you level up.
The martial side does fall off at fairly high levels and you end up with a caster with a dash of the martial as opposed to a true Gish.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both may be better overall choices, but nobody wanting a divine gish is going to take Magus, and nobody wanting to spam 4+ aura spells per game day is going to get that from Summoner until at least level 6. Even then, the Summoner pays a high 'spell opportunity cost' to play that way, while a BH doesn't.
I'm very tempted to make a Warpriest with the Magus archetype, which I believe is absolutely the superior divine gish.
At low levels a regular warpriest kicks the ass out of the battle harbinger. Battle harbinger is just a poorly implemented idea.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.For a 1-10 game, 1-7 is most of the play space. You're talking about telling a player to play for months with a concept they don't want to get up to a somewhat better instantiation of the concept they do want. In a game that may only go months.
Both may be better overall choices, but nobody wanting a divine gish is going to take Magus, and nobody wanting to spam 4+ aura spells per game day is going to get that from Summoner until at least level 6. Even then, the Summoner pays a high 'spell opportunity cost' to play that way, while a BH doesn't.
I am curious given the timing of these things if the battle harbinger was designed before the remaster stuff got finalized. The battle harbinger with the premaster warpriest probably looks like a much stronger comparison. Warpriests got a lot of love in the remaster and really fits the niche of fighty cleric well now.
I am curious given the timing of these things if the battle harbinger was designed before the remaster stuff got finalized. The battle harbinger with the premaster warpriest probably looks like a much stronger comparison. Warpriests got a lot of love in the remaster and really fits the niche of fighty cleric well now.At low levels a regular warpriest kicks the ass out of the battle harbinger. Battle harbinger is just a poorly implemented idea.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.For a 1-10 game, 1-7 is most of the play space. You're talking about telling a player to play for months with a concept they don't want to get up to a somewhat better instantiation of the concept they do want. In a game that may only go months.
Both may be better overall choices, but nobody wanting a divine gish is going to take Magus, and nobody wanting to spam 4+ aura spells per game day is going to get that from Summoner until at least level 6. Even then, the Summoner pays a high 'spell opportunity cost' to play that way, while a BH doesn't.
I doubt it. The two big things the warpriest got from the Remaster arr new feats and better font progression*. Those help the Battle Harbinger more or less just as much- Imagine how bad the battle font would be if it was charisma based, and the Battle Harbinger could always take those warpriest feats too if the archetype wasn't 80% feat tax.
*Master Proficiency in your favored weapon is a nice capstone, but level 19-20 play is pretty rare.
For a 1-10 game, 1-7 is most of the play space.If you play a character which is good at level 1-4, okish at level 5-6 and bad at level 7-10, the only thing you'll remember is that it was a big pile of crap. Having your character getting worse and worse at what it does every level it takes is not a good feeling.
Both may be better overall choices, but nobody wanting a divine gish is going to take Magus, and nobody wanting to spam 4+ aura spells per game day is going to get that from Summoner until at least level 6.What makes a "divine gish"? If the only difference is the tradition of your 4 slots then that's not much of a difference (especially when you see people stating that the Battle Harbinger should grab Arcane spells like True Strike or Haste). Just play a Staff Magus, grab Fervor Witch Dedication and a Staff with Bless/Bane (level 6 for a Staff of Providence, but your GM may be nice and allow you to use a variation on the Entertainer's Lute or Bagpipes of Turmoil that would be an actual Staff).
As for the Summoner, it casts lots of auras much earlier than level 6. At level 4 you already have 4 slots, and that's without buying any Wand. You should play like a Battle Harbinger much earlier.In a level 1-10 game, a Summoner or a Magus will be more effective than a Battle Harbinger at being a Battle Harbinger. The Battle Harbinger is only a valid choice if you never make it to level 7 (the moment where it really crumbles to pieces compared to actual classes).
Wait if they wanted surestrike and haste wouldn't they pick a deity that adds it to thier spell list?
Like Ragathiel. Actually not a bad option. Surestrike and haste are added to your divine list and you get a d12 weapon as favored.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ragathiel also allows Harm on your Font. A Warpriest of Ragathiel is going to do an excellent impression of a Magus without needing any multiclassing at all starting at level 6.For a 1-10 game, 1-7 is most of the play space.If you play a character which is good at level 1-4, okish at level 5-6 and bad at level 7-10, the only thing you'll remember is that it was a big pile of crap. Having your character getting worse and worse at what it does every level it takes is not a good feeling.
Both may be better overall choices, but nobody wanting a divine gish is going to take Magus, and nobody wanting to spam 4+ aura spells per game day is going to get that from Summoner until at least level 6.What makes a "divine gish"? If the only difference is the tradition of your 4 slots then that's not much of a difference (especially when you see people stating that the Battle Harbinger should grab Arcane spells like True Strike or Haste). Just play a Staff Magus, grab Fervor Witch Dedication and a Staff with Bless/Bane (level 6 for a Staff of Providence, but your GM may be nice and allow you to use a variation on the Entertainer's Lute or Bagpipes of Turmoil that would be an actual Staff).
As for the Summoner, it casts lots of auras much earlier than level 6. At level 4 you already have 4 slots, and that's without buying any Wand. You should play like a Battle Harbinger much earlier.In a level 1-10 game, a Summoner or a Magus will be more effective than a Battle Harbinger at being a Battle Harbinger. The Battle Harbinger is only a valid choice if you never make it to level 7 (the moment where it really crumbles to pieces compared to actual classes).
Wait if they wanted surestrike and haste wouldn't they pick a deity that adds it to thier spell list?
Like Ragathiel. Actually not a bad option. Surestrike and haste are added to your divine list and you get a d12 weapon as favored.
WP will have trained strikes until 7 and expert until 19.
DH will have expert at 5 and master at 13.I'm not convinced by the arguments that it isn't a long time to spend behind on accuracy. Could be the case for them maybe they dont spend much time at any given level, but its not for me.
The other thing that some have dismissed because its pretty minor to them is the class DC having legendary scaling and that auras use that instead of spell DC for DH. So bane and malediction will be as accurate as a cloistered clerics is with them. Warpriest would be behind on accuracy with those compared to a BH. But like I said some people here dont care for those spells and so it means nothing to them.
It also means that if you do something like make a dragonblooded character you can have an accurate breath attack and majestic presence.
Wait if they wanted surestrike and haste wouldn't they pick a deity that adds it to thier spell list?
Like Ragathiel. Actually not a bad option. Surestrike and haste are added to your divine list and you get a d12 weapon as favored.Because not every deitiy flavour/domains/favoured weapon/added spell/uholy or holy 'combo' out there has all 5 characteristics that I want.
That is why giving martial proficiency and not tying it to favoured weapon is good as it alleviates an artificially created problem of 'the one true harbinger build' by removing one of the criteria that people select deities for.
What deity has sure strike AND a short bow? There is one total. What about long bow? I think there are two. Which of them have the dragon domain? None of them. It gets worse if you can't pick generically unholy dieties and lose half the printed options.
But if I don't have to use the favoured weapon then I could pick Shizuru (katana god) which has the dragon domain as an alternate domain (so L4 feat pick-up) and use a bow. Or I could convince my GM to let me use Samiad the new and immediately murdered greatsword/sure strike/dragon domain god.
You can take adapted cantrip/adpated adept as L1/L5 feats to get something like surestrike onto your spell list, but it won't work for something like Haste.
But... I'd like a game that doesn't predispose everyone to picking humans as the only way to get an actual L1 class feat on a wave caster chassis and ensure they have surestrike on their class list by L5.
This was actually the first thing I brought up about the harbinger. The class favors some dieties over others.
Correction it was like the 4th post or so i made in this thread.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
WP will have trained strikes until 7 and expert until 19.
DH will have expert at 5 and master at 13.
Man I want to gripe about how incredibly dumb staggered proficiency is as a design decision.
The DH is better at hitting things!!! But only 40% of the time (which may actually be 0% of the time or 100% of the time depending on the level range of your campaign).
Is there some high level mathematical equation I can't fathom that explains why the DH should be more accurate than the Warpriest at level 6 but definitely not at level 7?
It strikes me as profoundly dumb and problematic to set up scaling this way, but Paizo keeps doing it so clearly they think it's Very Important for... some reason?
Wouldn't it make so much more sense though for DH to either always be more accurate or never be more accurate? Like how the Fighter scales a tier higher than other martials but at the same rate so they always have that advantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WP will have trained strikes until 7 and expert until 19.
DH will have expert at 5 and master at 13.
Man I want to gripe about how incredibly dumb staggered proficiency is as a design decision.
The DH is better at hitting things!!! But only 40% of the time (which may actually be 0% of the time or 100% of the time depending on the level range of your campaign).
Is there some high level mathematical equation I can't fathom that explains why the DH should be more accurate than the Warpriest at level 6 but definitely not at level 7?
It strikes me as profoundly dumb and problematic to set up scaling this way, but Paizo keeps doing it so clearly they think it's Very Important for... some reason?
Wouldn't it make so much more sense though for DH to either always be more accurate or never be more accurate? Like how the Fighter scales a tier higher than other martials but at the same rate so they always have that advantage.
Same can be said for Champion AC scaling.
And I bet the scaling would be (more) balanced if it was Wave Casting like the Magus.
i put some charts together during the commander/guardian playtest.
Go to Thread with my chart link.
I pulled AC by level from Archives or Nethys.
here is the median ac from monster core creatures at each level.
Its kind of as if at level 4 all classes except fighter are already behind then other martials make up for it at 5. But for the WP they are getting it at 7 and by then another smaller bump hits.
level MEDIAN of ac
-1 15
0 15
1 16
2 17
3 18
4 21
5 22
6 23.5
7 25
8 27
9 28
10 30
11 31
12 33
13 33
14 36
15 36
16 39
17 40
18 42
19 43
20 45
21 47
25 54
|
|
It strikes me as profoundly dumb and problematic to set up scaling this way, but Paizo keeps doing it so clearly they think it's Very Important for... some reason?
I have no idea if this is the reason, but it DOES give Paizo a better ability (at least in theory) to keep classes balanced across levels.
So, for example, if Class A gets AReallyCoolThing (TM) at level 11 then this can be balanced by them not getting expert AC proficiency at level 11 but instead getting at at level 13 (when Class B, which got expert AC proficiency at level1, gets its KindaCoolThing).
Now this is largely theoretical. I'm certainly NOT saying that Paizo does a good job of taking advantage of this flexibility.
Looking at a comparison of median AC from monster core by level to PC to hit at those levels I can see pattern.
Warpriest looks like they get exactly what they need to keep around a 10 to hit and 20 to crit. somtimes they get a bit 9 and 19 sometimes it goes the other direction but its right around that 10 hit 20 to crit.
was going to paste it here but it comes out looking ugly once I hit submit post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the table, Bluemagetim! I attempted to make it a little bit more legible.
I pulled AC by level from Archives or Nethys. Here is the median AC from Monster Core creatures at each level. It's kind of as if, at level 4, all classes except the fighter are already behind. Then, other martials make up for it at level 5 except for the war priest. They are getting it at level 7 and, by then, another smaller bump hits.
Level - Median of AC
----------------------------
-1 - 15
00 - 15
01 - 16
02 - 17
03 - 18
04 - 21
05 - 22
06 - 23.5
07 - 25
08 - 27
09 - 28
10 - 30
11 - 31
12 - 33
13 - 33
14 - 36
15 - 36
16 - 39
17 - 40
18 - 42
19 - 43
20 - 45
21 - 47
25 - 54
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WP will have trained strikes until 7 and expert until 19.
DH will have expert at 5 and master at 13.
Man I want to gripe about how incredibly dumb staggered proficiency is as a design decision.
The DH is better at hitting things!!! But only 40% of the time (which may actually be 0% of the time or 100% of the time depending on the level range of your campaign).
Is there some high level mathematical equation I can't fathom that explains why the DH should be more accurate than the Warpriest at level 6 but definitely not at level 7?
It strikes me as profoundly dumb and problematic to set up scaling this way, but Paizo keeps doing it so clearly they think it's Very Important for... some reason?
Wouldn't it make so much more sense though for DH to either always be more accurate or never be more accurate? Like how the Fighter scales a tier higher than other martials but at the same rate so they always have that advantage.
Weird progressions have also driven me insane playing kineticist. I don't understand why i just randomly wait 2 levels more than other classes for proficiency bumps sometimes. Those levels feel awful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weird progressions have also driven me insane playing kineticist. I don't understand why i just randomly wait 2 levels more than other classes for proficiency bumps sometimes. Those levels feel awful.WP will have trained strikes until 7 and expert until 19.
DH will have expert at 5 and master at 13.
Man I want to gripe about how incredibly dumb staggered proficiency is as a design decision.
The DH is better at hitting things!!! But only 40% of the time (which may actually be 0% of the time or 100% of the time depending on the level range of your campaign).
Is there some high level mathematical equation I can't fathom that explains why the DH should be more accurate than the Warpriest at level 6 but definitely not at level 7?
It strikes me as profoundly dumb and problematic to set up scaling this way, but Paizo keeps doing it so clearly they think it's Very Important for... some reason?
Wouldn't it make so much more sense though for DH to either always be more accurate or never be more accurate? Like how the Fighter scales a tier higher than other martials but at the same rate so they always have that advantage.
Kineticist proficiency scaling mirrors full spellcasters, so they get the same delay that Spell Attack rolls get. And yes, it does feel lousy on the "off" levels.
(Spell Attacks are even worse off as they don't get item bonuses. In the mid level range spell attack rolls are absolute trash to the point of feeling like a trap option.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All respect to Mark Seifter but that kind of sounds like an argument made up after the fact.
Like, fundamentally if 'global' incentives to 'change up' your playstyle from level to level are an important design feature, why do so few options actually work that way and why don't characters have more tools to actually change things up?
Yes, wild shape spells scale awkwardly, and warpriests have odd weapon proficiency... but if I'm a blasting druid instead, almost all my spells scale every level. If I'm a buffing cleric, my spells are likewise fairly evergreen.
Worse, if I'm a Barbarian my progression both follows the standard curve for proficiency and I don't gain a significant number of new actions over time, I'm going to be Striking pretty much all the time forever, by design.
... So the danger of getting bored with a static routine is so important that the game is actively designed to prevent you from leaning on one style of play for your own good, but only if you're a wild shaping druid, a warpriest, or an alchemist?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Ravingdork Lol I still didnt make it look as good as you did.
The weapon scaling looks to mainly limit crit chance on first strikes and more severely limit hit chance on second or third strikes.
Here are some comparisons. To Hit Median (THM)
So thats the to hit median ac and the count of levels spent with that particular to hit median number.
For example Warpriest spends 1 level needing a 12 to hit the median ac. that happens at level 14.
Warpriest vs Median Monster AC from monster core
THM - COUNT
9 - 4
10 - 10
10.5 - 1
11 - 4
12 - 1
Battle Harbinger
THM - COUNT
8 - 4
8.5 - 1
9 - 6
10 - 7
11 - 2
A true martial(other than fighter)
THM - COUNT
7 - 1
8 - 5
8.5 - 1
9 - 9
10 - 4
Fighter
THM - COUNT
5 - 1
6 - 5
6.5 - 1
7 - 9
8 - 4
The PC to hit is including stat boots + weapons at appropriate levels an apex item at 17 and proficiency increases for the class.
The Median monster AC comes from pulling the AC values from monster core creatures from Archives of Nethys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bluemagetim: All you really need to do is add a 0 before the single digit numbers to get all the columns to line up properly.
Those with the ".5" remainders will still be a bit offset unless you append ".0" to the end of all the other numbers to line everything up again, but I'm not sure that would be worth it.
I swear there was a Reddit post somewhere about spell slot progression that went into the reason for the proficiency a bit as well, like they got delayed at 5 because 3rd level slots is when you start getting big AoE s*~+.
It was mostly about how odd numbered spell slots give new tools that change up how you can play the game and I might have been inferring, but that makes sense to me.
I remember reading the same thing. The reason why early levels feel so awful for casters is essentially by design, specifically out of a desire to replicate the feel of prior tabletop editions. Everyone starts out squishy relative to damage levels so that combat starts out really swingy, and casters get their big break at level 5 when they start getting access to their fireballs and other big-ticket spells. This has unfortunately led to an enduring perception that casters are weak, as they feel their early squishiness the hardest but don't yet have the major spells that can completely turn a fight around (their spell attack accuracy also lags behind martial attacks), and also makes early levels fairly unstable when it comes to encounter balance (PL+2 monsters at levels 1-2 tend to be extreme threats, and PL+3 monsters can easily cause TPKs). Such is the impact of legacy design.
One way to use the legendary class DC is if you can get exemplar MC (big ask) and then Only the Worthy feat at level 8. You drop your ikon on something pinned, and they can only free themselves with a Force Open against your class DC, not an Escape action.
This means they will never escape if they have no athletics skill at all (rare but it happens, including a few high level things), but Force Open also has a -2 penalty if you don't use a crowbar. So things will be making their check to free themselves at effectively legendary class DC progression +2.
Obviously also applies to the kineticst, but they'll have less use for a held/droppable ikon since they don't make strikes. Commanders will definitely have a use for a weapon ikon.
Another point that comes to mind from the AC by level is that some levels throwing a +1 or +2 monster is much worse than at other levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the fact per level scaling is slightly uneven (because of prof bumps/items/etc.) means that some PL+ thresholds are scarier to cross over than others. The levels before a weapon proficiency upgrade are especially scary. PL+2 the level before you get master is different from PL+2 the level after.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been meaning to chime in on this for a while.
I think there's a real place for this Archetype.
I think it scratches a different itch than Warpriest. I played a Core Rulebook Warpriest for 20 levels through Extinction Curse. I did so partly because of the poor online reputation of the Doctrine, and I never regretted it. Loved the character & loved the Doctrine.
This would be different. There's a real psychological benefit, IMHO, to getting your Expert Proficiency with Strikes at the same time as everyone else. I imagine it will be most pronounced in 1-10 campaigns. I know the Warpriest player in my Abomination Vaults campaign has been eagerly waiting to catch up with the others at L7.
Not as strong a Spellcaster, to be sure, but I think that's ok. You still have four strong slots on top of your Battle Auras, and then there's the Creed Magic slots. To be honest, when I was playing Ellisar, my Warpriest, a lot of times I wasn't casting all that many spells in an Encounter.
Also, I like the mechanic. Put up a Bless (something Ellisar did a lot), and then start hitting things.. and starting at 4th the Emanation will increase 10'.
I like Empowered Onslaught as well. The idea that a Crit can start a slippery slope is pretty cool. Because with Bless, a Crit leads to an equal Status Bonus to Strike as Rank Six Heroism... For everybody in the party, including yourself. Which makes a second Critical just that much more likely... And that's Rank 9.
About the only thing I really don't like is that Aura Expertise doesn't play well with Empowered Onslaught if you only have one Aura up.
If this had been around when I played Extinction Curse, I might've chosen it. No regrets at all, but still, maybe.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s also a way to play a lower cog load “warpriest” preparing 4 quick powerslots and go.
That said, it would be satisfying if its proficiency and specialization kept up with pure martials.
And maybe one more trick out the gate, like 1-action activation font, or something.
|
Just took a look myself. Problem is action economy to get use out of your features and the missing weapon specialization.
Feels bad to have to spend actions on rank one spells to use your mechanics. If the dedication included a free action upon initiative casting of a battle aura that would cool to get right into the flow of the archetype. Or just have the level 20 feat be a part of the dedication.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanic is font. I just dont agree with the feels bad sentiment.
Ive read all the arguments here. I find them subjective value judgments with comparisons to very unlike things with all their own costs to obtain and all their own limitations.
2 actions for a buff lasting the battle and affecting the party and always having the same change on the game math in a game structured around a +1 being always good does not feel bad.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The draw of the archetype can't just be the value of the battle aura spells by themselves since any caster or even martials multi classing with access to those can make use of them. Battle harbinger has to offer more to support the use of those spells and what support it has is too little and too late.
The most notable thing it has is a better DC for bane and malediction for someone with martial progression but to make the best use of that, you would need to have at least 2 auras active and that's a lot of actions to dedicate to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The draw of the archetype can't just be the value of the battle aura spells by themselves since any caster or even martials multi classing with access to those can make use of them. Battle harbinger has to offer more to support the use of those spells and what support it has is too little and too late.
The most notable thing it has is a better DC for bane and malediction for someone with martial progression but to make the best use of that, you would need to have at least 2 auras active and that's a lot of actions to dedicate to.
Thats like saying you cant decide when 1 aura is enough.
Its the combination of melee accuracy with wave casting from the divine list(with diety given spells) and a font of auras and the option to get feat support on sustaining auras.Missing a 2-4 damage is kind of minor IMO.
I do think the class is geared for higher die weapons though so not all deities get equal treatment from what the class offers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The draw of the archetype can't just be the value of the battle aura spells by themselves since any caster or even martials multi classing with access to those can make use of them. Battle harbinger has to offer more to support the use of those spells and what support it has is too little and too late.
The most notable thing it has is a better DC for bane and malediction for someone with martial progression but to make the best use of that, you would need to have at least 2 auras active and that's a lot of actions to dedicate to.
Thats like saying you cant decide when 1 aura is enough.
Its the combination of melee accuracy with wave casting from the divine list(with diety given spells) and a font of auras and the option to get feat support on sustaining auras.
Missing a 2-4 damage is kind of minor IMO.
I do think the class is geared for higher die weapons though so not all deities get equal treatment from what the class offers.
The wave casting isn't really what I'm contending though. I don't mind the wave casting with martial progression (aside from the missing weapon specialization) since that's just the chassis. The class features on top of that are the issue. A few extra slots of aura spells is not great compared to what the other wave casters get.
The mechanic is font. I just dont agree with the feels bad sentiment.
Ive read all the arguments here. I find them subjective value judgments with comparisons to very unlike things with all their own costs to obtain and all their own limitations.
2 actions for a buff lasting the battle and affecting the party and always having the same change on the game math in a game structured around a +1 being always good does not feel bad.It's really going to depend on how many fights you get into in a day.
If you have more than 2 or 3 it's going to suck. If you have more than 5 with any regularity it's going to feel awful.
But why assume you need to cast 2 aura's per fight?
I wouldnt do that.What i would do is cast 1 aura from font and likely 1 spell from slots per fight.
For 4 of those 5 fights its great because you have the spells to burn.
If a fight is less than moderate maybe in that one I dont use resources.
If its a harder fight I might use up more resources. Its no different than any other decision to use resources in the game.
The biggest problem is the font.
The archetype encourages you to use auras constantly but with the size of the font it is going to run out in like 2 encounters.
The mechanic is font. I just dont agree with the feels bad sentiment.
Ive read all the arguments here. I find them subjective value judgments with comparisons to very unlike things with all their own costs to obtain and all their own limitations.
2 actions for a buff lasting the battle and affecting the party and always having the same change on the game math in a game structured around a +1 being always good does not feel bad.It's really going to depend on how many fights you get into in a day.
If you have more than 2 or 3 it's going to suck. If you have more than 5 with any regularity it's going to feel awful.
But why assume you need to cast 2 aura's per fight?
I wouldnt do that.
What i would do is cast 1 aura from font and likely 1 spell from slots per fight.For 4 of those 5 fights its great because you have the spells to burn.
If a fight is less than moderate maybe in that one I dont use resources.
If its a harder fight I might use up more resources. Its no different than any other decision to use resources in the game.
Because most people like doing their schtick more than once a fight.
And even if you're conservative you're still likely not going to be able to do it every fight. I've had many more 6+ combat days than I have 3-5 outside of West Marches servers that specifically state a maximum number of combats.
Thats true.
But wouldnt you also want to bring some magic items and scrolls/wands/staves to supplement those longer adventuring days?I know theres an action economy hit there for two handed weapon users but the class can cast from items too so its still possible.
Maybe my calculation would be to burn items in easier fights if I know its going to be a long day.
The biggest problem is the font.
The archetype encourages you to use auras constantly but with the size of the font it is going to run out in like 2 encounters.
This is what I meant by subjective.
You dont have to do that. I dont feel encouraged the same way you might.Especially if I never pick up the feat that sustains two auras at a time.
It also could be said it encourages casting one aura and growing that one every round.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I need magic items to supplement my main gimmick from running out then we can agree there's a problem, right? A bard can't run out of courageous anthems, a ranger of hunt preys, or a barbarian of rages. If you think its fine for the battle harbinger to use their (really low amount) of spell slots and consumable magic items to use their gimmick I don't think we are going to agree here.
Again, if you yourself are saying you aren't planning to use your auras more than once per combat then why not play just any caster in the system and use your spell slots to cast any of them? Even a regular martial with archetype spellcasting that devotes all their spell slots to cast bless or bane once per combat is going to effectively perform more or less the same as a battle harbinger. This isn't a subjective take, we are quite literally describing the battle harbinger as is.
|
|
If we're comparing it to the other wave casters, there's definitely some room in the power budget. For one, harbinger could use some kind of focus spell(s) to support its suggested gameplay.
The sacrifice of your spell DC should mean more too. Just bane and malediction is too small a list for your legendary DC.
If I need magic items to supplement my main gimmick from running out then we can agree there's a problem, right? A bard can't run out of courageous anthems, a ranger of hunt preys, or a barbarian of rages. If you think its fine for the battle harbinger to use their (really low amount) of spell slots and consumable magic items to use their gimmick I don't think we are going to agree here.
Again, if you yourself are saying you aren't planning to use your auras more than once per combat then why not play just any caster in the system and use your spell slots to cast any of them? Even a regular martial with archetype spellcasting that devotes all their spell slots to cast bless or bane once per combat is going to effectively perform more or less the same as a battle harbinger. This isn't a subjective take, we are quite literally describing the battle harbinger as is.
For the second main gimick of the class, full martial accuracy strikes.
It has both spellcasting and strikes. Comparing to a bard perfectly fine but dont leave out that bards have caster accuracy with strikes.Although they have more a bard can still run out of slot spells or at least high rank slots but they are not going to fall back on strikes like a class with full martial accuracy.
And again with the marshal with spellcaster archtype, its fine to compare but dont leave out that basic spellcasting is level 4, costs 2 feats to have and at that point you get exactly 1 level 1 spell slot. want more than 3? you need to put in more feats.
also you dont get the on rank wave casting.
There are important differences.
If we're comparing it to the other wave casters, there's definitely some room in the power budget. For one, harbinger could use some kind of focus spell(s) to support its suggested gameplay.
The sacrifice of your spell DC should mean more too. Just bane and malediction is too small a list for your legendary DC.
You know I do feel the focus spell is important.
Every time i drafted a BH to see what i would make I pick human so I can get a cleric domain spell.With CC vs WP your getting Domain spell or Deadly simplicity.
But with BH maybe getting deadly simplicity is not as big a deal. I mean that I would want to mainly consider d12 or d10 weapon deities to use most of which wont get anyhting out of deadly simplicity.