Paladin or Warpriest?


Advice


I'm looking to build a new character starting from level 1, and I wanted to know which class would be better as a frontline fighter that also contributes significantly to the party's resources. I'm not very familiar with either class, and I'd like some advice from some people who are familiar with them. Which would you choose to fit that role? Why?
For the character's race, I'm thinking I might choose Aasimar, but I haven't decided yet.


Paladins are fantastic melee combatants thanks to their swift-action healing, and are one of the best tanks in the game. With that said, their offensive options are limited in that smite comes only a few times per day, which makes them excellent at fighting bosses, but not as good against most enemies. Compared to that, a Warpriest can do more overall damage at higher levels and has access to better spellcasting, making them more versatile. Both can be good, but I'd personally choose the paladin if you want a melee character.

Scarab Sages

Too soon to tell. From what I have seen of the ACG thread where people are spoiling some details of the ACG, There are feats and or archetypes that allow you to take class features of on class on another.

As of right now, Dragonflyer is pretty spot on. Full BAB + Swift action healing is generally better, but I haven't seen the updated blessings or warpriest archetypes yet. There are apparently feats that can grant warpriests domain powers, lay on hands, and divine grace.

It's going to take some time to absorb everything the ACG offers.


Dragonflyer1243 wrote:
Paladins are fantastic melee combatants thanks to their swift-action healing, and are one of the best tanks in the game. With that said, their offensive options are limited in that smite comes only a few times per day, which makes them excellent at fighting bosses, but not as good against most enemies. Compared to that, a Warpriest can do more overall damage at higher levels and has access to better spellcasting, making them more versatile. Both can be good, but I'd personally choose the paladin if you want a melee character.

This is not accurate. Against anything able to be smite evil'ed paladins do the most damage in the game period (In archer form) in normal 2 handed form unless the war priest uses his 1/day blessings to summon monster the paladin will do more damage and have more self healing (fervor is just a terrible lay on hands). Paladins can take oath of vengeance to keep the smites rolling and really only need power attack to function (I also personally like fey foundling.)

Unless almost all of the war priest swift actions were reduced to free actions it will be worse at it's job than a paladin.

Dark Archive

Undone wrote:
Dragonflyer1243 wrote:
Paladins are fantastic melee combatants thanks to their swift-action healing, and are one of the best tanks in the game. With that said, their offensive options are limited in that smite comes only a few times per day, which makes them excellent at fighting bosses, but not as good against most enemies. Compared to that, a Warpriest can do more overall damage at higher levels and has access to better spellcasting, making them more versatile. Both can be good, but I'd personally choose the paladin if you want a melee character.

This is not accurate. Against anything able to be smite evil'ed paladins do the most damage in the game period (In archer form) in normal 2 handed form unless the war priest uses his 1/day blessings to summon monster the paladin will do more damage and have more self healing (fervor is just a terrible lay on hands). Paladins can take oath of vengeance to keep the smites rolling and really only need power attack to function (I also personally like fey foundling.)

Unless almost all of the war priest swift actions were reduced to free actions it will be worse at it's job than a paladin.

Such is the price of not being chained to Lawful Good and a code that you have to follow.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

both classes can do what you want to do, so one of the big questions you should ask is "do i want to play a pally?" personally i enjoy the roleplaying aspect of having to walk the straight and narrow when its usually a whole lot easier not to, but that's definitely not everyone's cup of tea. if you're intrigued by the challenge go for it, if not build yourself a kickass warpriest (or cleric, or inquisitor, or oracle- they can all be built as solid frontliners) and have fun with it.


Summoners can certainly become a melee presence on the battle field with their eidolon and summoned creatures. Especially summoned creatures… They are also 2/3 casters so essentially you are now controlling a 2/3 utility caster and a whole swath of fighters who you can buff the hell out of before battle.

Cheers!


MrBateman wrote:
I'm looking to build a new character starting from level 1, and I wanted to know which class would be better as a frontline fighter that also contributes significantly to the party's resources. ...

The bold part is the key.

What do you want to do other than hit things? How much emphasis do you want to give up from hitting things to those other things?

Paladin really really is good at hitting evil things.
* It has some healing, which is mostly used on self to last longer while hitting things.
* Has some buff spells, which are mostly used on self to be even better at or last longer while hitting things.
* Has great saves and auras can help others on some types of saves.
* Mercies to remove a few conditions.
* Can channel against undead, but not as often as clerics or life oracles.
* Has good charisma, so can be party face (assuming you don't need to lie) if devote some of scarce skill points into diplomacy ranks.
* Many do not like the straight-jacket brought on by the code. Some love it.

Warpriest is much better caster. Though obviously not as good as full cleric. So has all of the broad range of possibilities provided by the spell selection.
Warpriest is probably also better at hitting things IF many of them are not evil. This kinda depends on the campaign. In some, almost all the serious opponents are evil. In others, most things are neutral or even good.

Another possibility to consider is Inquisitor. Not quite as good of a melee beat stick as either of the others, but can still hold their own and do the job. However, it brings a lot of other stuff to the table. Many more skills, some pretty kool inquisitions, spells, monster knowledges, judgements, etc...

So again, it comes down to what do you mean by, "... contributes significantly to the party resources..." specifically?


nate lange wrote:
both classes can do what you want to do, so one of the big questions you should ask is "do i want to play a pally?" personally i enjoy the roleplaying aspect of having to walk the straight and narrow when its usually a whole lot easier not to, but that's definitely not everyone's cup of tea. if you're intrigued by the challenge go for it, if not build yourself a kickass warpriest (or cleric, or inquisitor, or oracle- they can all be built as solid frontliners) and have fun with it.

That's more a GM issue. If the GM hates paladins it doesn't matter how close you follow the code you'll fall. If the GM isn't a jerk then the code basically never comes up.

Quote:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

You just have to avoid willfully committing evil acts.

Not lying is easily gotten around. Just say nothing. It's not dishonorable to ignore what your allies are doing.

Not using poison is whatever most people I know don't use them anyway.

Not cheating is really easy.

Respecting legitimate authority is only respecting good or neutral authority. No evil tyrant is legitimate in the eyes of good aligned deities. (Where paladins get their power)

Helping those in need is more or less what every single good aligned character would want to do.

Punish those who harm innocents for any definition of innocent is again something good aligned characters should be doing anyway.

So if you're fine being good aligned you're fine being a paladin. If you come across a jerk DM you'll fall when you fail to give all your loot to a random beggar because somehow keeping rightfully earned loot is selfish and evil. If the DM wants to make you fall he can. He can also take the holy symbol from the cleric, the spellbook from the wizard, stick the sorcerer in an AMF, rust monster all of the fighters/barbarians gear, and rock fall's everyone dies if he doesn't like your characters.

Playing any character is subject to how much the GM hates them.


Undone wrote:

...

Not lying is easily gotten around. Just say nothing. It's not dishonorable to ignore what your allies are doing.

...

Respecting legitimate authority is only respecting good or neutral authority. No evil tyrant is legitimate in the eyes of good aligned deities. (Where paladins get their power)

Helping those in need is more or less what every single good aligned character would want to do.

Punish those who harm innocents for any definition of innocent is again something good aligned characters should be doing anyway.
...

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you on a lot of that.

I would say that knowingly letting you allies lie for you is very definitely dishonorable.

There is a fair amount of ground between neutral authority and evil tyrant. I would say that is where most governments actually are and where many gaming groups spend a lot of their time operating.

A simulated feudal-type society will have so many 'in-need' that a paladin could easily find themselves with out time to go on an adventure because they will keep seeing someone in need that they have to help.

The last one is even more difficult. What is your definition of 'harm' and of 'innocent'? Because I guarantee you, you will get a surprising amount of variation in the response based on who you ask. Some will be very easy to work with, some won't.

No, I am not a jerk GM. I hand wave it and basically let the player decide what the code means to them. I very rarely impose any limitations based on any of the code. Only when the player gets really far out in weeds do I say anything.
(Once had a paladin try to sell an entire village into slavery to maintain his cover. Justified based on the greater good.
No. Just no.)


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you on a lot of that.

I would say that knowingly letting you allies lie for you is very definitely dishonorable.

There is a fair amount of ground between neutral authority and evil tyrant. I would say that is where most governments actually are and where many gaming groups spend a lot of their time operating.

A simulated feudal-type society will have so many 'in-need' that a paladin could easily find themselves with out time to go on an adventure because they will keep seeing someone in need that they have to help.

The last one is even more difficult. What is your definition of 'harm' and of 'innocent'? Because I guarantee you, you will get a surprising amount of variation in the response based on who you ask. Some will be very easy to work with, some won't.

No, I am not a jerk GM. I hand wave it and basically let the player decide what the code means to them. I very rarely impose any limitations based on any of the code. Only when the player gets really far out in weeds do I say anything.
(Once had a paladin try to sell an entire village into slavery to maintain his cover. Justified based on the greater good.
No. Just no.)

Helping everyone in need is not required by the code. If it was every paladin would fall instantly because there would be moments where they slept instead of helping someone. Because this is a relative scale it's literally up to the DM what actions make you fall. They can be as much of a jerk as they want.

Legitimate authority is relative. Depending on the god you worship (Abadar vs say Iomede) I seriously doubt for example Serenrea would tolerate any legal system which permitted animating the dead neutral or not. Torag has specifically in his tenants to kill, convert, or forgive all foes taking no prisoners under any circumstance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Undone and Kydeem, y'all are getting a bit off topic.


Agreed, I am just disagreeing with the point that the code is no problem or the GM is a jerk. There is a long field between those goal posts.
I don't mind playing to the code sometimes, but I know some people hate it or even hate having it in the group.


Haven't tried out a Warpriest yet but from the looks of it I'd prefer it over Paladin. Offensively, it just doesn't do much and what it does do happens so infrequently that it relies too much on the idea of boss monsters existing and the 15 min workday.


Undone wrote:
Dragonflyer1243 wrote:
Paladins are fantastic melee combatants thanks to their swift-action healing, and are one of the best tanks in the game. With that said, their offensive options are limited in that smite comes only a few times per day, which makes them excellent at fighting bosses, but not as good against most enemies. Compared to that, a Warpriest can do more overall damage at higher levels and has access to better spellcasting, making them more versatile. Both can be good, but I'd personally choose the paladin if you want a melee character.

This is not accurate. Against anything able to be smite evil'ed paladins do the most damage in the game period (In archer form) in normal 2 handed form unless the war priest uses his 1/day blessings to summon monster the paladin will do more damage and have more self healing (fervor is just a terrible lay on hands). Paladins can take oath of vengeance to keep the smites rolling and really only need power attack to function (I also personally like fey foundling.)

Unless almost all of the war priest swift actions were reduced to free actions it will be worse at it's job than a paladin.

Fervor isn't used for healing. It's a very lousy self heal. You use Fervor in order to cast swift action Divine Power and other buffs on yourself, which brings your attack and damage further in line with the Paladin. The Paladin is superior in a campaign with predominantly evil creatures due to smite evil and lay on hands makes a paladin a better tank, but the Warpriest is effective if the party has another tank-like melee character, as well as providing more versatile spellcasting than the Paladin.


MrBateman wrote:

I'm looking to build a new character starting from level 1, and I wanted to know which class would be better as a frontline fighter that also contributes significantly to the party's resources. I'm not very familiar with either class, and I'd like some advice from some people who are familiar with them. Which would you choose to fit that role? Why?

For the character's race, I'm thinking I might choose Aasimar, but I haven't decided yet.

I'm not familiar with the warpriest, but I am familiar with the paladin and all the baggage it brings to the table with its ludicrous code. Warpriest all the way.


Paladin baggage is relative to how difficult your GM wants it to be and how good you (as a player) are at fending off GM-based rules oppression. Default paladin by PF rules only is great to play. Some GMs remember other editions and throw additional non-core stuff at you.

I'm assuming your GM is not going to make the paladin hard to play, so I would say you're safe either way.


Zhayne wrote:
MrBateman wrote:

I'm looking to build a new character starting from level 1, and I wanted to know which class would be better as a frontline fighter that also contributes significantly to the party's resources. I'm not very familiar with either class, and I'd like some advice from some people who are familiar with them. Which would you choose to fit that role? Why?

For the character's race, I'm thinking I might choose Aasimar, but I haven't decided yet.
I'm not familiar with the warpriest, but I am familiar with the paladin and all the baggage it brings to the table with its ludicrous code. Warpriest all the way.

The war priest is great if you have a 15 minute adventuring day and 1 encounter per day. If you start out at level 1 it will be level ~10 before you can do 5 encounters a day effectively.

I strongly recommend against the WP and recommend the paladin.

WP: 3/4ths BAB Fort/Will 6th level spells D8
Fervor is burned through very fast but needed to be mildly useful.
Self buff spells like divine power are very weak in this edition.
Your weapon buff leaves off Bane which is naturally the most important. It's a small improvement on the paladins personal buff
Bonus feats which are weaker (Worse PA less iterative hits)

Pally: Full BAB Fort/Will 4th level spells D10
Cha to saves is worth 16,000, 25,000, or even more gold if you're over +5 charisma.
Immunity to fear, disease, and some mind effecting is incredibly powerful.
There is no analog to litany of righteousness, the other litany spells, or heroes defiance. The spells may be called "1st level" and "2nd level" but give me LoR over Divine power literally every single day. In the rare event there is nothing evil all day (It's society excluding some RP adventures there's always something evil.)
Smite evil is literally unequaled in society. It's a BBEG slayer.

Paladin is significantly more powerful in PFS given the ~4 combat nature. You have to use all your spells/swifts to break even with the pally's BAB via Fervor'ed Divine favor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was super excited for the Warpriest during the playtest but since they lost the full BAB w/sacred weapon I can't fathom why I would take one over a Battle Cleric or Oracle.

I've heard that the Sacred weapon buff stays at 1/round and since you only get a few its not really that useful, if it is 1/minute, then I may change my opinion some.

So you've got the blessings, which are pretty much all worse than domains/mysteries, limited spellcasting and a costly (few per day) weapon/armor buff. You do get the swift buff/heal which is nice, but you don't really have that many spells to use it with. WITH full BAB I thought it was a good trade off. Without, its not, IMO.

So for your front line fighter, Paladin all the way IMO.

Shadow Lodge

I really like the war priest, they will be my new monk class until the monk gets overhauled in the unchained book (if they are actually coming out).

As for pally versus war priest, my suggestion is this.

Think what you want your character to do, then choose the class that best represents that character. I like duel wielding kukuris so a war priest will be much better for that then a pally, but if I want sword and board a normal pally is much better then a war priest.


MrBateman wrote:

I'm looking to build a new character starting from level 1, and I wanted to know which class would be better as a frontline fighter that also contributes significantly to the party's resources. I'm not very familiar with either class, and I'd like some advice from some people who are familiar with them. Which would you choose to fit that role? Why?

For the character's race, I'm thinking I might choose Aasimar, but I haven't decided yet.

The Paladin is a better frontline fighter.

A War Priest contributes significantly to the party's resources.

The Paladin has good saves as a front line fighter, which is very rare unless it's a druid or monk. The Paladin can also heal himself as a swift action. Like a dual cursed oracle, the Paladin doesn't add to your resources as much as save your party resources. Instead of healing the Paladin the Paladin can do it himself and still contribute offensively. Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, and Greater Bull Rush may further contribute if you have alot of melee characters. Extra Channeling will give you 4 more uses of lay on hands. The main issue with paladins is that they are feat starved and a little MAD. As a frontline fighter you need to get your enemies to focus on you by doing damage, so your feats will most likely be concentrated on doing damage. The Paladin also offers a few skills, diplomacy is your main non-combat skill. If you are playing a higher point buy system you may even be able to play a Dex paladin which gives you a survivable scout with the proper traits. Keep combat manuevers in mind but only if you have other party members to back you up. Greater Bullrush and Greater Overrun are ridiculously good. (Keep the campaign in mind) Later in the game you grant the entire party smite, have good paladin spells to align your weapon and strong litany's, that can easily be regarded as 1-2 spell levels higher than they actually are. In addition, the Paladin's weapon can become ridiculously enhanced to do some real damage to single targets.

I don't have the new PDF for the war priest so I don't know. I'll get it on Thursday.


Thanks for all the responses so far, guys. I really do appreciate it.

Based on some new information from my group's DM regarding his house rules, I might be allowed to have an alignment within 1 step of Lawful Good if I decide to play a Paladin. Additionally, the fact that the Warpriest is a hybrid of the Fighter and Cleric just gives me a really bad feeling, considering how the Fighter is designed in Pathfinder. Right now, I'm starting to lean very heavily towards Paladin. I do have a couple more questions, though. If I choose Paladin, should I choose a weapon for the Divine Bond, or a mount? Would it be worth it to take the Oath of Vengeance Oathbound archetype?


Most will take the weapon. I personally prefer the mount. But talk to your GM about what they campaign is likely to entail. If it mostly going to be indoors or underground, the mount is probably a poor choice (unless you take a small race).

The Oath of Vengeance is pretty potent. But I feel like I would often have to play as kind of a jack hole to stick with it. Personal preference. The vanilla paladin is already an extremely effective class if there are a lot of evil opponents.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

yeah- the weapon bond will make you more effective in combat most of the time, but the mount can add more utility... if you're going to have a lot of fights in the open field a good mount plus some mounted combat feats could be pretty useful i suppose, but that is typically not the case.

i like oath of vengeance... it gives you a little more flexibility in your resource management (in that you can trade some swift healing for extra smites if you have a healer, or want to end combat faster and use wands or other OoC heals between fights), and wrath and blessing of fervor are both useful spells they get to add. (a sacred servant of ragathiel with the rage domain's 8th level power and the wrath spell can get a lot of mileage out of a furious/courageous weapon- it makes them dangerous against big bads who aren't evil, and absolutely devastating when they stack it with smite).


The only question you need to ask yourself is simple, would I give my kingdom for a horse?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

Most will take the weapon. I personally prefer the mount. But talk to your GM about what they campaign is likely to entail. If it mostly going to be indoors or underground, the mount is probably a poor choice (unless you take a small race).

The Oath of Vengeance is pretty potent. But I feel like I would often have to play as kind of a jack hole to stick with it. Personal preference. The vanilla paladin is already an extremely effective class if there are a lot of evil opponents.

I've played a Vengeance Paladin as my first paladin in a Wrath of the Righteous campaign. I've gotten tired enough of them, that my current Paladin is a standard Paladin with a much nicer personality.

Scarab Sages

You may want to check out this post by Owen Stephens and the following posts in the thread for some more insight into the final Warpriest.


Imbicatus wrote:
You may want to check out this post by Owen Stephens and the following posts in the thread for some more insight into the final Warpriest.

Okay, after reading that part of the discussion, the Warpriest definitely seems interesting, but I don't think I'm going to pick it. I used to play Fighters sometimes, and getting feats as a class feature often felt underwhelming and generally poorly-balanced relative to the other classes that filled the same role, such as Barbarians with their Rage Powers. I've generally found that Feats are a poor replacement for good class features, considering how poorly-balanced most feats are and how ridiculously heavy the feat tax is on some of the more useful feats. I really don't want to have to deal with lots of feats anymore, it just makes me sad when I look through the list and see all the wasted potential.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Paladin or Warpriest? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice