Do the rules for a warpriest's bonus feats that allow for their level to be their BAB also apply to the rules text of the feat?

[claudekennilol]

PRD, Warpriest wrote:

Bonus Feats: At 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, a warpriest gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement. These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as combat feats. The warpriest must meet the prerequisites for these feats, but he treats his warpriest level as his base attack bonus for these feats (in addition to base attack bonuses gained from other classes and racial Hit Dice). Finally, for the purposes of these feats, the warpriest can select feats that have a minimum number of fighter levels as a prerequisite, treating his warpriest level as his fighter level.

Pretty much what the title says. As far as I know there hasn't been a definitive response about this. The above isn't clear, but the part about treating bab as level is in the same sentence as talking about prereqs so can be implied that it only counts as BAB for prereqs.

However, I just saw this interesting post by Owen--note a rules guy, but he may still be privy to information we aren't and he had a hand in writing the class.

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

ShroudedInLight wrote:

It can be a kind of trap for 3/4ths BAB characters since they never gain the last two scaling bonuses that full martial characters obtain.

Except for a war priest who picks up Power Attack as a bonus feat, in which case he treats his class level (+ bab from other sources) as his base attack bonus, and gets the same scaling bonuses as full bab classes.

THIS thread has 27 FAQ requests but is not in Paizo's "must be a question" format.

In case it's not obvious this is a FAQ request. Please do everyone a favor and FAQ both this and the one linked above. I know there are more pressing FAQs, but this is still ambiguous and should be simpler to answer than others that are current (damage dice anyone?).

[Ascalaphus]

It reads to me like it only counts as full BAB for prerequisite purposes. The clause of the sentence talking about full BAB follows the main part of the sentence which is talking about prerequisites. And the next sentence is also talking about prerequisites.

I do think it's easy to get confused about, especially if you're mixing it up with the playtest Warpriest, which acted as if it had full BAB for all purposes when using his sacred weapon.

[Chess Pwn]

I'm guessing we wont have any FAQ on ACG material until their errata is out. Cross your fingers this is already being addressed.

[Undone]

The question format you are looking for is

"At level 4 if a warpriest selects power attack as his 3rd level bonus feat, what is his penalty to hit and bonus to damage?"

Going simply by rules as written it's clear it applies to the aspects of the feat as well or many feats (dazing assault, critical versatility, combat expertise, power attack, exct) all are unable to be taken. For these feats you calculate BAB = Level.

As owens notes this is a question because RAW requires it to add the two words "For Prerequisites" for the second part of it otherwise it isn't just for prerequisites.

[Shane LeRose]

I hope Paizo never gives an answer to this. One simply isn't needed. Anytime someone manipulates the nuances of a rule for an effect they know they're in the wrong. It's obviously for prerequisites. This is a "bug" not a feature.

And it's only a bug because someone wants it to be.

[Jeff Merola]

Shane LeRose wrote:

I hope Paizo never gives an answer to this. One simply isn't needed. Anytime someone manipulates the nuances of a rule for an effect they know they're in the wrong. It's obviously for prerequisites. This is a "bug" not a feature.

And it's only a bug because someone wants it to be.

You're arguing that a Paizo employee is deliberately twisting a rule to be what he wants it to be, despite knowing it's the other case. I don't think you're right.

[Undone]

Shane LeRose wrote:

I hope Paizo never gives an answer to this. One simply isn't needed. Anytime someone manipulates the nuances of a rule for an effect they know they're in the wrong. It's obviously for prerequisites. This is a "bug" not a feature.

And it's only a bug because someone wants it to be.

Yah like flurry of blows power attack it should be based on the BAB of the class not the class feature explicitly made to make them able to be good in combat.

[Ascalaphus]

If you look at the context of the clause, do you really doubt the outcome of an FAQ (if it ever comes)?

The previous sentence is talking about which feats you're allowed to choose. The first part of the sentence is talking about feat prerequisites. And the next sentence is talking about some feats you're allowed to choose that you wouldn't normally be allowed.

So the implication is very strong that the clause in question is also talking about which feats are allowed.

---

Some of you argue that because it's not explicitly talking about prerequisites, that it can or must mean something else.

It certainly doesn't have to mean anything else; the whole sentence makes perfect sense if the clause is about BAB prerequisites only.

It can mean something else, but is that very likely? Given the context, it is very likely that the intended meaning is that it's really only about prerequisites.

[Imbicatus]

The fact that Owen said it functions for more than prerequisites makes me really want an official FAQ/Errata on this.

I can see both sides of the discussion.

[claudekennilol]

Undone wrote:

The question format you are looking for is

"At level 4 if a warpriest selects power attack as his 3rd level bonus feat, what is his penalty to hit and bonus to damage?"

Going simply by rules as written it's clear it applies to the aspects of the feat as well or many feats (dazing assault, critical versatility, combat expertise, power attack, exct) all are unable to be taken. For these feats you calculate BAB = Level.

As owens notes this is a question because RAW requires it to add the two words "For Prerequisites" for the second part of it otherwise it isn't just for prerequisites.

Those feats are all perfectly legal even if the "bonus feat BAB" only applies for prereqs..

[Undone]

They're significantly crippled and in the case of level 12 critical versatility it is simply not usable until a much higher level.

[Shane LeRose]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Shane LeRose wrote:

I hope Paizo never gives an answer to this. One simply isn't needed. Anytime someone manipulates the nuances of a rule for an effect they know they're in the wrong. It's obviously for prerequisites. This is a "bug" not a feature.

And it's only a bug because someone wants it to be.

You're arguing that a Paizo employee is deliberately twisting a rule to be what he wants it to be, despite knowing it's the other case. I don't think you're right.

"Smacks forehead", yeah, that's what I get for posting while spun up. Didn't realize Owen was the origin of the quote. Just figured it was some rules monger trying to take advatantage.

My statement stands (albeit, on shaky ground). I would like to see Owen address this directly as my only conclusion is he misinterpreted the Warpriest bonus feat ability. If this is how it's done around the Paizo office, well, yeah, it really does need to addressed in an errata, because no one in my group is interpreting the bonus feats in this fashion. Maybe other groups share this interpretation, maybe not.

My apologies for coming off like a Richard the Lionhearted. Rules abuse is a huge issue for me. Not a pet peeve, more like a psychotic fracking hatred.

[Nefreet]

I also believed that Warpriests only counted their levels for purposes of prerequisites, and not the utility of a feat.

But I value the opinions of Owen, and other "off-the-cuff" comments by Paizo employees.

Coincidentally, my Warpriest picked up Power Attack as one of his bonus feats, though not because of any interpretation that it helped me advance beyond my BAB.

I suppose now I'll calculate both sets of bonuses/penalties, and bring it to the attention of any GMs I have in PFS.

FAQ'd (though I also hope this gets lumped into the upcoming errata document)

[graystone]

I would have said just prerequisites, but Owen was the one playtesting the warpriest so if anyone would know how it works, it should be him. I'll be curious to see how this turns out. FAQ'd.

[Undone]

My first interpretation of this was and is the same as it is now. I've also asked every GM around here

"If I am level 4 and take power attack as my third level WP bonus feat what is my penalty to hit" and if you want an FAQ this is how it's going to be phrased most likely.

All of them said -2 because most everyone in my area is RAW oriented. They also all pointed out the same missing phrase "For Prerequisites" as the reason.

Quote:

I would have said just prerequisites, but Owen was the one playtesting the warpriest so if anyone would know how it works, it should be him. I'll be curious to see how this turns out. FAQ'd.

Actually this is the only reason I give him weight since he's not saying it in a rules capacity. I believe the way it was changed (Loss of full BAB) was intended to let this stopgap some of the issues with losing psudo full BAB. Loss of iterative hits is still crippling but the ability to take GWF and take power attack at full progression drastically improves the viability of the class as a damage dealer.

[dragonhunterq]

People aren't perfect, and I'm hoping Owen has just mis-spoken or erred. If he hasn't and this is ruled to affect the mechanics of a feat it will get really messy. Feats really shouldn't have different effects depending on whether they are a bonus feat or a regular feat.

[Imbicatus]

dragonhunterq wrote:

People aren't perfect, and I'm hoping Owen has just mis-spoken or erred. If he hasn't and this is ruled to affect the mechanics of a feat it will get really messy. Feats really shouldn't have different effects depending on whether they are a bonus feat or a regular feat.

They already do in practice though. See Rangers and Master of Many Styles.

[Bear Burning Ashes]

It has been confirmed that a Warpriest could select Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at 6th level, despite not yet having an iterative attack.

In practice, this means having 3 attacks, instead of 4, and two of those are off-hand attacks.

[dragonhunterq]

really? name the ones that have a different mechanical effect, that actually functions differently depending on whether it is a bonus feat or not. Not simply changing the level at which you get it.

(That reads off doesn't it? I am genuinely interested as I am not aware of any, and any inferred 'snark' is due to the limitations of type. I have tried re-writing that and I still feel it is a little off, sorry)

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

The warpriest was significantly nerfed from the playtest version, which wasn't excessively powerful IMO. Why shouldn't they get this little bit of a boost? In the case of power attack, it's a whopping increase of 6 damage at level 20 if a two-handed weapon is used. How is that overpowered?

[Nefreet]

I'm actually more worried about the increased to-hit penalty, since your BAB is still 3/4.

[Imbicatus]

dragonhunterq wrote:

really? name the ones that have a different mechanical effect, that actually functions differently depending on whether it is a bonus feat or not. Not simply changing the level at which you get it.

(That reads off doesn't it? I am genuinely interested as I am not aware of any, and any inferred 'snark' is due to the limitations of type. I have tried re-writing that and I still feel it is a little off, sorry)

Granted, I was just saying that both classes can grant access to feats significantly earlier than otherwise allowed.

Nefreet wrote:

I'm actually more worried about the increased to-hit penalty, since your BAB is still 3/4.

This is a warpriest, so there will likely be massive buffs to make up the to-hit penalty.

[Undone]

dragonhunterq wrote:

really? name the ones that have a different mechanical effect, that actually functions differently depending on whether it is a bonus feat or not. Not simply changing the level at which you get it.

(That reads off doesn't it? I am genuinely interested as I am not aware of any, and any inferred 'snark' is due to the limitations of type. I have tried re-writing that and I still feel it is a little off, sorry)

Stunning fist. Regular monks get it and a slew of abilities related to it as bonus feats. If you're a monk without stunning fist thanks to an archetype but take the feat you lose that functionality and that's a core/APG only example.

[dragonhunterq]

Bear Burning Ashes wrote:

It has been confirmed that a Warpriest could select Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at 6th level, despite not yet having an iterative attack.

In practice, this means having 3 attacks, instead of 4, and two of those are off-hand attacks.

This is a good example of what I mean. Mechanically this grants 2 offhand attacks at -0/-5. It doesn't change whether it's a bonus feat or a regular feat. Whether you have an iterative attack at the time isn't a function of the feat.

Power Attack at 8th level under the reading that your BAB affects the mechanics will produce two different results depending on whether you took it as a regular feat (-2/+4), or as a bonus feat(-3/+6).

Maybe it's just me being ...well me I guess, but I can't see how that can be right.

[Nefreet]

Imbicatus wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

I'm actually more worried about the increased to-hit penalty, since your BAB is still 3/4.

This is a warpriest, so there will likely be massive buffs to make up the to-hit penalty.

My buffed to-hit isn't what I'm worried about.

I think, at level 9, with 1 or 2 spells and a Blessing, I'm like +19/+19/+14/+14 to-hit.

But I've found that staying power during long modules can be difficult. I burn thru buffs quickly. Any more than 3 combats and resources become scarce.

[dragonhunterq]

Undone wrote:

Stunning fist. Regular monks get it and a slew of abilities related to it as bonus feats. If you're a monk without stunning fist thanks to an archetype but take the feat you lose that functionality and that's a core/APG only example.

Not to be awkward, but the feat does one thing, a class ability gives you the rest, expanding on the feat. Monk stunning fist doesn't just give you the feat.

Which does give me something to think about, just in a roundabout way.

[Imbicatus]

Nefreet wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

I'm actually more worried about the increased to-hit penalty, since your BAB is still 3/4.

This is a warpriest, so there will likely be massive buffs to make up the to-hit penalty.

My buffed to-hit isn't what I'm worried about.

I think, at level 9, with 1 or 2 spells and a Blessing, I'm like +19/+19/+14/+14 to-hit.

But I've found that staying power during long modules can be difficult. I burn thru buffs quickly. Any more than 3 combats and resources become scarce.

True. In those cases, it's likely a good idea to not use power attack if you are low on resources.

[Nefreet]

It's not unheard of for a class to function differently than every other.

Just because a Warpriest may treat feats differently depending on when they were taken, is not a bad thing.

But the original question of this thread does require an answer, in light of this new evidence.

[Undone]

Nefreet wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

I'm actually more worried about the increased to-hit penalty, since your BAB is still 3/4.

This is a warpriest, so there will likely be massive buffs to make up the to-hit penalty.

My buffed to-hit isn't what I'm worried about.

I think, at level 9, with 1 or 2 spells and a Blessing, I'm like +19/+19/+14/+14 to-hit.

But I've found that staying power during long modules can be difficult. I burn thru buffs quickly. Any more than 3 combats and resources become scarce.

Hmm I'm not sure how optimized your games are but by (We'll say 9th) You shouldn't need more than 1-2 buffs an encounter. Assuming you've got 18 wisdom (Seems reasonable with a +2 item) and sacred weapon you've got 6 Level 1's and probably a PoP1 for we'll call it 4 Divine favors, 5 if you really want 5 level 2's, and 4 level 3's which can be channel vigor's. You have at least 4 combats worth of spell buffs alone with 9 rounds of sacred weapon as supplemental buffs and the (Rather weak) sacred armor. In addition in one level you get major blessings for potentially more swift actions. At 9th you'd have 8 fervors which is 2 per fight for 4 fights. There should also (At least in published AP's) be at least 1 easy fight out of those 5 which doesn't need much if any buffing.

[Nefreet]

For him, TWFing burns through his rounds of Sacred Weapon.

His Wisdom is only 14 (that's with a +2 headband).

If I was in a home game, all of my 1st level spells could be Divine Favor, but generally for PFS I have to be more versatile, since I don't know who else I'll be playing with.

So half my spells are buffs, and the other half are utility.

He's a wrecking house through scenarios, but I played thru a level 8 module recently and burned up quick.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

Did you dump Charisma back down after it was eliminated as a contributor to fervor? Oh, TWF. Yeah, that's pretty MAD.

[claudekennilol]

I'm not as MAD as Nefreet's, but my PFS warpriest's abilities look like this (at level 5).

str: 21 (+2 human, +1 lvl 4, +2 belt)
dex: 14
con: 14
int: 12
wis: 14 (+2 head band)
cha: 7

Point being that wisdom isn't actually all that important of a stat for warpriests. Most of their spells are for buffing themselves and that doesn't need a DC. Wisdom is great for bonus spells, but it's mostly for a higher DC which these simply don't need. I will say that I bought the head band before I bought the belt since I really wanted that extra spell slot, though..

I would have left my dex at 12 but I needed it for combat reflexes and some teamwork feat usability (outflank and a crit build partner).

As it turns out, I also took Power Attack as a bonus feat at third level--and just like nefreet, not for any pseudo-BAB increase it may (or may not like I've been assuming all along) give me. I just picked it there because I couldn't get it at level 1 and it worked with my feat progression--at level three I needed both Greater Weapon of the Chosen and PA and it just happens that I filled PA in the "bonus" slot.

[Undone]

TWF Is fairly MAD and TWF WP burn resources pretty hard so that comes with the territory.

As for wisdom it should be noted that you get an additional quickened spell per day if you have a higher modifier. Wisdom is as, if not more, important than Con to many WP's. With the above build I'd definitely still have left dex 12 and bought an ioun stone later.

I feel that this specific wording is compensation for gutting the BAB of the class over the iterations of play testing..

[Melkiador]

A high wisdom isn't exactly needed, but I'm surprised people are semi-dumping it. Every bonus of wisdom is another use of fervor. Eventually, you will get enough fervor from your level to make things work, but a low wisdom at low level sounds painful.

[wraithstrike]

Owen is NOT a rules guy and he is incorrect.

[LazarX]

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The warpriest was significantly nerfed from the playtest version, which wasn't excessively powerful IMO. Why shouldn't they get this little bit of a boost? In the case of power attack, it's a whopping increase of 6 damage at level 20 if a two-handed weapon is used. How is that overpowered?

With full operant BAB, warpriests are EXTREMELY powerful, a new form of CodZilla. The adjustment was definitely needed. Now, they're just about right.

[Undone]

LazarX wrote:

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The warpriest was significantly nerfed from the playtest version, which wasn't excessively powerful IMO. Why shouldn't they get this little bit of a boost? In the case of power attack, it's a whopping increase of 6 damage at level 20 if a two-handed weapon is used. How is that overpowered?

With full operant BAB, warpriests are EXTREMELY powerful, a new form of CodZilla. The adjustment was definitely needed. Now, they're just about right.

The sacred fist is fine with better than full BAB and 6 levels of spells and is even stronger than the base WP. The warpriest, magus, and inquisitor probably all should have had a few class features trimmed for full BAB because it makes a better more balanced fighty type class.

[graystone]

wraithstrike wrote:

Owen is NOT a rules guy

In just about any other situation I'd agree with you but his being the playtest guy for that class makes it tougher to dismiss him.

wraithstrike wrote:

and he is incorrect

This may be true but I'm less sure of my reading of the ability after reading his post. It can't hurt to FAQ it.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

Undone wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The warpriest was significantly nerfed from the playtest version, which wasn't excessively powerful IMO. Why shouldn't they get this little bit of a boost? In the case of power attack, it's a whopping increase of 6 damage at level 20 if a two-handed weapon is used. How is that overpowered?

With full operant BAB, warpriests are EXTREMELY powerful, a new form of CodZilla. The adjustment was definitely needed. Now, they're just about right.

The sacred fist is fine with better than full BAB and 6 levels of spells and is even stronger than the base WP. The warpriest, magus, and inquisitor probably all should have had a few class features trimmed for full BAB because it makes a better more balanced fighty type class.

Sacred fist is kind of my point. They took away full BAB from the warpriest... except for one archetype, which turns out to be the one everyone is using. If Sacred Fist is OK, then full BAB-with-sacred-weapons warpriest should have been OK too.

[claudekennilol]

graystone wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Owen is NOT a rules guy

In just about any other situation I'd agree with you but his being the playtest guy for that class makes it tougher to dismiss him.

wraithstrike wrote:

and he is incorrect

This may be true but I'm less sure of my reading of the ability after reading his post. It can't hurt to FAQ it.

My thoughts exactly

[Insain Dragoon]

FAQ requested and hoping maybe this will be clarified in the Crouching Tiger Hidden Errata that's in the works.

[wraithstrike]

graystone wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Owen is NOT a rules guy

In just about any other situation I'd agree with you but his being the playtest guy for that class makes it tougher to dismiss him.

wraithstrike wrote:

and he is incorrect

This may be true but I'm less sure of my reading of the ability after reading his post. It can't hurt to FAQ it.

The rules guys are the PDT. That is it. Nobody else, and that is official, not just my opinion.

There are only 3 people on the PDT.

Note that I did not say he did not have any insight. He works there, so just like the other devs I am sure he talks to the PDT at times, but he is still not a rule guy.

[Undone]

wraithstrike wrote:

Owen is NOT a rules guy and he is incorrect.

While it's true he's not the rules guy if he play tested it and asked how Jason how it worked and Jason told him that's how it worked (What he posted in another thread) I'm inclined to believe it.

For prerequisites isn't something that's commonly forgotten in pathfinder.

[wraithstrike]

Undone wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Owen is NOT a rules guy and he is incorrect.

While it's true he's not the rules guy if he play tested it and asked how Jason how it worked and Jason told him that's how it worked (What he posted in another thread) I'm inclined to believe it.

For prerequisites isn't something that's commonly forgotten in pathfinder.

He actually might be right, but if so the sentence needs to be rewritten. <----Basing that on him quoting Jason.

[Undone]

wraithstrike wrote:

Undone wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Owen is NOT a rules guy and he is incorrect.

While it's true he's not the rules guy if he play tested it and asked how Jason how it worked and Jason told him that's how it worked (What he posted in another thread) I'm inclined to believe it.

For prerequisites isn't something that's commonly forgotten in pathfinder.

He actually might be right, but if so the sentence needs to be rewritten. <----Basing that on him quoting Jason.

Either way the sentence needs to be rewritten. Considering For Prerequisites doesn't even push it off to an extra line there is no excuse for it not to be there other than it has some rules meaning.

[graystone]

wraithstrike wrote:

Undone wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Owen is NOT a rules guy and he is incorrect.

While it's true he's not the rules guy if he play tested it and asked how Jason how it worked and Jason told him that's how it worked (What he posted in another thread) I'm inclined to believe it.

For prerequisites isn't something that's commonly forgotten in pathfinder.

He actually might be right, but if so the sentence needs to be rewritten. <----Basing that on him quoting Jason.

LOL Well a good bit of the book needs rewritten. Just toss this on the pile too.

[Ascalaphus]

Yeah, if functioning at full BAB for all purposes is intended, it seriously needs to be spelled out explicitly. Because now it really is the less-likely interpretation of an ambiguous statement.

[Undone]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah, if functioning at full BAB for all purposes is intended, it seriously needs to be spelled out explicitly. Because now it really is the less-likely interpretation of an ambiguous statement.

The less likely interpretation to me is that people mentally add the words "For Prerequisites" to the end of sentence in which they do not appear.

[deuxhero]

If Warpriest was from anywhere else I'd take it as being intended, but its from the error filled ACG so it could be an oversight.

[Ascalaphus]

Undone wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

Yeah, if functioning at full BAB for all purposes is intended, it seriously needs to be spelled out explicitly. Because now it really is the less-likely interpretation of an ambiguous statement.

The less likely interpretation to me is that people mentally add the words "For Prerequisites" to the end of sentence in which they do not appear.

The sentence before is talking about which feats you're allowed to pick, the start of the sentence itself is talking about it, and the next sentence is also talking about which feats you're allowed to pick.

BAB is a fairly common prerequisite of combat feats.

In that context, I think it's the most likely interpretation that the clause is about BAB prerequisites, that it was so obvious to the author/editor that "for prerequisites" seemed redundant, and so it got left out.