The sacrifice of your spell DC should mean more too. Just bane and malediction is too small a list for your legendary DC.
My knee jerk reaction was why not allow all spells with the aura trait to be slotted in font. and if not allowed in font why not at least allow them class benefits that apply to the aura font spells like sustain on strike and class DC.
Its a very small list of spells and many are focus spells from other classes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sacrifice of your spell DC should mean more too. Just bane and malediction is too small a list for your legendary DC.My knee jerk reaction was why not allow all spells with the aura trait to be slotted in font. and if not allowed in font why not at least allow them class benefits that apply to the aura font spells like sustain on strike and class DC.
Its a very small list of spells and many are focus spells from other classes.
If the sustain on strike was part of the dedication instead of a feat that competes with expanding your font, it would be a lot better, yeah.
Having access to intimidating strike is an interesting one too. One of the better ways to play I can see is to get your bless up and start intimidating striking. Probably only works out with FA still though.
The sacrifice of your spell DC should mean more too. Just bane and malediction is too small a list for your legendary DC.My knee jerk reaction was why not allow all spells with the aura trait to be slotted in font. and if not allowed in font why not at least allow them class benefits that apply to the aura font spells like sustain on strike and class DC.
Its a very small list of spells and many are focus spells from other classes.
If the sustain on strike was part of the dedication instead of a feat that competes with expanding your font, it would be a lot better, yeah.
Having access to intimidating strike is an interesting one too. One of the better ways to play I can see is to get your bless up and start intimidating striking. Probably only works out with FA still though.
I agree.
Level 2 gives nothing that makes the class archtype function and instead opted to give a skill and toughness.Then level 4 has two very important archtype abilities needed to do its thing. at least one of them should have been given in chassis or at dedication instead of toughness and a skill.
it kind of feels like they wanted to raise the HP die but decided against it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the class would feel way better if the level 20 feat was baked in. That's making this archetype the best at what it does out of the box: get an aura up quickly and wade in.
It's an underwhelming level 20 feat, but as a feature it would feel really goood.
I feel like the class would feel way better if the level 20 feat was baked in. That's making this archetype the best at what it does out of the box: get an aura up quickly and wade in.
It's an underwhelming level 20 feat, but as a feature it would feel really goood.
100%. This change would redeem the whole archetype in my eyes even if everything else was left untouched.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
100%. This change would redeem the whole archetype in my eyes even if everything else was left untouched.I feel like the class would feel way better if the level 20 feat was baked in. That's making this archetype the best at what it does out of the box: get an aura up quickly and wade in.
It's an underwhelming level 20 feat, but as a feature it would feel really goood.
Really?
I have no opinion on this archetype (don't own the book and it doesn't conceptually interest me) but I'm absolutely flabbergasted to find that a L20 class feat becoming a class feature would redeem this archetype. In most campaigns, if you even reach level 20 you're there for a session or 3 at best.
I mean, I suppose in theory I can postulate a class so balanced on the knife edge of "Redeemed" that a change at L20 would push it one way or the other. But I NEVER expected to actually see such a thing occur
|
|
100%. This change would redeem the whole archetype in my eyes even if everything else was left untouched.I feel like the class would feel way better if the level 20 feat was baked in. That's making this archetype the best at what it does out of the box: get an aura up quickly and wade in.
It's an underwhelming level 20 feat, but as a feature it would feel really goood.
Really?
I have no opinion on this archetype (don't own the book and it doesn't conceptually interest me) but I'm absolutely flabbergasted to find that a L20 class feat becoming a class feature would redeem this archetype. In most campaigns, if you even reach level 20 you're there for a session or 3 at best.
I mean, I suppose in theory I can postulate a class so balanced on the knife edge of "Redeemed" that a change at L20 would push it one way or the other. But I NEVER expected to actually see such a thing occur
The idea is to make it a feature in the dedication
I think it would just be better if they get it sooner. It doesnt need to be a level one feature.
If we are being honest 1 action auras from level one is broken.
Really?
I have no opinion on this archetype (don't own the book and it doesn't conceptually interest me) but I'm absolutely flabbergasted to find that a L20 class feat becoming a class feature would redeem this archetype. In most campaigns, if you even reach level 20 you're there for a session or 3 at best.
I mean, I suppose in theory I can postulate a class so balanced on the knife edge of "Redeemed" that a change at L20 would push it one way or the other. But I NEVER expected to actually see such a thing occur
The level 20 feat lets you once per 10 minutes cast one of your Divine Font spells (so Bane/Bless/Benediction/Malediction) for 1 action.
Baking that in or making it available a lot earlier lets the class get its signature thing going without effectively burning a turn on it, since that's still enough actions left to move and strike (or get up a second one if you want to double up that fight).
Given that it's both a 10 minute thing and limited to your Divine Font castings, it's kind of underwhelming coming at level 20. But getting it early would change the feel of the class a lot.
I think it would just be better if they get it sooner. It doesnt need to be a level one feature.
If we are being honest 1 action auras from level one is broken.
In a game where Exemplar Dedication exists, being able to quicken a level 1 spell once per combat a small number of times a day is really not what I'd call "broken".
I dont know.
I havnt really looked at it more than at a glance, too many options to sift through.
Exemplar is a Rare class though. Is it tuned for mythic campaigns?
The exemplar isn't meant to be a stronger class just because its rare. I'd say its pretty balanced, and while it has its own strong points, I don't see it nowhere near the heavy hitters of the system. Bards also have, for all intents and purposes, an infinite-use 1A bless already at 1st level.
In the very first comments on this thread I mentioned I would personally would have taken the 20th level feat and bake it into the dedication, and if people thought it was too much (I don't think it is) that if you were to cast an aura as 1A it would only last until the beggining of your next turn rather than 1 minute (this would also remove the once per minute limit that feat has). I think this make the feat to sustain auras way more useful since making the area bigger barely matters in most encounters. This would potentially allow you to use 2 auras in the first round of combat. This still doesn't solve the problem of the font being too short and all the other little problems like the lack of GWS and other things, but I would at least see the battle harbinger as the best user of these aura spells in the system. Right now I feel a regular warpriest is effectively as good as them.
I dont know.
I havnt really looked at it more than at a glance, too many options to sift through.
Exemplar is a Rare class though. Is it tuned for mythic campaigns?
Exemplar the Class is perfectly fine. It's good, but not out of line, is IMO really fun in play, and has great flavor. It's rare because of its story/lore, not because having one in a game risks derailing things (similar to Starlit Sentinel or Gunslinger).
Exemplar the Dedication is completely absurd in how much it gives you for a single feat and if it's allowed is far and away the strongest feat in the game for basically every martial character. Like we're talking about Battle Harbinger needing to use 2 actions and a Divine Font to get a +1 status bonus to attacks for them and their allies?
Exemplar Dedication has an option that simply does that, passively, all the time, while also giving a 1 action "everyone can immediately reroll saves against ongoing effects" that has no cooldown or daily limit on usage except needing to spend 2 actions to shift the Ikon back afterward.
You get that all that from the Dedication feat, no extra feats required.
In the very first comments on this thread I mentioned I would personally would have taken the 20th level feat and bake it into the dedication, and if people thought it was too much (I don't think it is) that if you were to cast an aura as 1A it would only last until the beggining of your next turn rather than 1 minute (this would also remove the once per minute limit that feat has). I think this make the feat to sustain auras way more useful since making the area bigger barely matters in most encounters. This would potentially allow you to use 2 auras in the first round of combat. This still doesn't solve the problem of the font being too short and all the other little problems like the lack of GWS and other things, but I would at least see the battle harbinger as the best user of these aura spells in the system. Right now I feel a regular warpriest is effectively as good as them.
The risk in it being short duration is that if you get unlucky and miss, it's going down and now you're burning another use (and another turn) putting it back up. Against "boss" type encounters where you really want it the most, that may not feel very good.
It's an option, but I feel in this case it's easier to just let them do it. And you're right: it makes them better than Warpriest at putting these auras up, because right now they're not without several more feats (especially since Warpriest can do it more times a day while also popping a pile of Channel Smites off).
The risk in it being short duration is that if you get unlucky and miss, it's going down and now you're burning another use (and another turn) putting it back up. Against "boss" type encounters where you really want it the most, that may not feel very good.
I agree but I think this could give the class a somewhat fun rotation of having to think if its worth it to spend that extra action to cast the aura spell and effectively forget it exists for the remainder of the encounter or risk it and cast as 1A. Not like its a big risk since having martial accuracy and most likely a +1 from bless since that's one of the aura spells that's likely going to be used the most for BHs should translate into the BH being capable of reliably sustaining the aura.
How I would probably play this BH is using bless as 2A and bane as 1A. You want to keep sustaining bane because each time you sustain it the foes that succeded against it have to make a new save against it. It would be unlikely for a BH to keep 2 auras sustained if both were cast as 1A.
I guess it could also be that rather than last until the beggining of your next turn, it could last until the end of your next turn. This could help too.
One of the things that bothers me about the Battle Harbinger is that it doesn't change how Font spells are handled. Meaning you need to actually prepare the slots with bless or bane instead of getting the flexibility of choosing when you cast. So even if you only cast one Font aura per combat, you might not have the one you want in each encounter.
Yeah, I noticed this too. It probably is an oversight but it could be intended. In either way, I would prefer for the font to be spontaneous.
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.
Scrolls, wands and staves don't count as battle auras.
Any feats and effects that refer to a battle aura refers to these spells,...
Thanks for the correction.