Sacred Fist change from Full BAB to 3 / 4 BAB - help understanding


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Rynjin wrote:


Melkiador wrote:
The issue we are dancing around here is that the inquisitor is a little OP. It gets good spells, a lot of good abilities, interesting feats and good skills and they all work together very well.
...Which is called "good design". All classes should be made this way.

It's good design for a solo game. Pathfinder is supposed to be a team game. When one guy can do everything what's the point of having other types of guys there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He can't do everything. He can do ANYTHING.

There's a difference.

It's build dependent. You can build an Inquisitor to cover pretty much any party role, and half-assedly cover a couple more.

That's good. It's how all classes should be, because then you're not stuck with "We NEED a Cleric or we'll all die!" scenarios, and people can just play what class they find fun.

Silver Crusade

If you make it so that every class can do anything, you will end up with a lot more homogenization, which will then lead to the question of why have so many classes.


Then put it like this. First, what classes can do more than an inquisitor? And then notice those classes are usually considered OP too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hrothdane wrote:
If you make it so that every class can do anything, you will end up with a lot more homogenization, which will then lead to the question of why have so many classes.

Inquisitor, Alchemist, Magus (less so), Hunter, and Warpriest can do anything.

Full caster classes can do EVERYTHING.

The former is a much more desirable game principle rather than having classes that do one thing, and classes that do everything.

Yes, it may very well beg the question "Why so many classes?", but that's a separate matter than "Is this well designed or not?".

And you'll notice, that's a DIVERSE list of classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, the Inquisitor is right at the sweet spot of a character: They can be any role you build them to be, while filling some other roles to an extent, without being a Swiss Army knife of solutions.

That's just about the perfect level of power.


I don't think there's much disparity between UnMonk unarmed Dragon Style and UnMonk 2H Crane Style. Both of them can do fun stuff and each build has its own strong and weak points.

I don't think Ki Powers are bad either. Ki Leech is online at level 10. I'd like more ways to restore Ki, but it's hardly a deal breaker.

My UnMonk has been working really damn well to be honest. I just wish I had that Blade of the Sword Saint...

On Inquisitors: I'm not even going to pursue this topic. The Inquisitor is a 3/4 BAB class that requires about half a day to buff itself to compete with other martial classes. Anyone who says they are broken has never played this game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you consider twenty-four seconds to be 'half a day', sure. Less if you don't need certain things.

Plus, UMonk is, honestly, a hot mess of a class. Yeah, it hits harder than a classic Monk, because it hits more often. That's... about all it has over it, to be honest. The full-scale shredding of abilities and powers into a grab-bag of Ki abilities, many of which you now NEED your Ki pool of, on average, if you've got a 24 Wisdom at level 10, TWELVE POINTS, to do anything with...

Yeah, and this is MORE POWERFUL than what the designer of the Unchained Monk originally wanted to do.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

If you consider twenty-four seconds to be 'half a day', sure. Less if you don't need certain things.

Plus, UMonk is, honestly, a hot mess of a class. Yeah, it hits harder than a classic Monk, because it hits more often. That's... about all it has over it, to be honest. The full-scale shredding of abilities and powers into a grab-bag of Ki abilities, many of which you now NEED your Ki pool of, on average, if you've got a 24 Wisdom at level 10, TWELVE POINTS, to do anything with...

Yeah, and this is MORE POWERFUL than what the designer of the Unchained Monk originally wanted to do.

24 seconds is half a day in this game. Unless you have a really nice GM who telegraphs each encounter to your party and kindly allows you to fight all enemies on a row without a break, you will spend a considerable amount of time prebuffing.

And the UnMonk works fine. I think it's more elegant than the regular Monk and it doesn't depend on Ki as much people think. Ki Leech is also very easy to apply.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

If you consider twenty-four seconds to be 'half a day', sure. Less if you don't need certain things.

Plus, UMonk is, honestly, a hot mess of a class. Yeah, it hits harder than a classic Monk, because it hits more often. That's... about all it has over it, to be honest. The full-scale shredding of abilities and powers into a grab-bag of Ki abilities, many of which you now NEED your Ki pool of, on average, if you've got a 24 Wisdom at level 10, TWELVE POINTS, to do anything with...

Yeah, and this is MORE POWERFUL than what the designer of the Unchained Monk originally wanted to do.

The base Monk basically just needed an ability that said "At level 4, you gain a +1 Bonus to each attack made as part of your Flurry. This Bonus increases by +1 at lv8 and every 4 levels thereafter.

Add in a few extra Ki-based abilities not covered by the Qinggong Monk, and you're set.

That would have given the Monk the Unchained Rogue treatment: same abilities as the original plus added abilities, so all Archetypes still work; the result is the class is significantly more accurate and useful.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

still waiting to find out how chbgraphicarts's build is illegal, I can't spot it


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaelryr wrote:
still waiting to find out how chbgraphicarts's build is illegal, I can't spot it

I think Mother's Tooth might not be legal for Adopted, but as I said - that's not even NECESSARY to make the build work, since at the very worst you just take Animal Fury as a Rage Power and eat up another, more-useful Trait. At best I KNOW Tusked works, so that frees up a Rage Power (and potentially a Feat, since you'd just take Lesser Draconic Blood sooner).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:


On Inquisitors: I'm not even going to pursue this topic. The Inquisitor is a 3/4 BAB class that requires about half a day to buff itself to compete with other martial classes. Anyone who says they are broken has never played this game.

One round's swift for judgement of justice and one round's swift for bane. Most of the other self buffs can be applied before the fight.

Really the only full BABs that seem to do better are the Barbarian and the Paladin vs evil, and they have less out of combat usefulness. There are also a few outlier full BAB archetypes that do very well, but the same could be said for the inquisitor.

But consider this, what 3/4 BAB combat class does better than the inquisitor?

Edit: I always forget the ranger and his cheesy instant enemy spell.


Melkiador wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


On Inquisitors: I'm not even going to pursue this topic. The Inquisitor is a 3/4 BAB class that requires about half a day to buff itself to compete with other martial classes. Anyone who says they are broken has never played this game.

One round's swift for judgement of justice and one round's swift for bane. Most of the other self buffs can be applied before the fight.

Really the only full BABs that seem to do better are the Barbarian and the Paladin vs evil, and they have less out of combat usefulness. There are also a few outlier full BAB archetypes that do very well, but the same could be said for the inquisitor.

But consider this, what 3/4 BAB combat class does better than the inquisitor?

Edit: I always forget the ranger and his cheesy instant enemy spell.

Does the Pre-Unchained Synthesist Summoner count?

'Cause really there isn't much else...


Melkiador wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


On Inquisitors: I'm not even going to pursue this topic. The Inquisitor is a 3/4 BAB class that requires about half a day to buff itself to compete with other martial classes. Anyone who says they are broken has never played this game.

One round's swift for judgement of justice and one round's swift for bane. Most of the other self buffs can be applied before the fight.

Really the only full BABs that seem to do better are the Barbarian and the Paladin vs evil, and they have less out of combat usefulness. There are also a few outlier full BAB archetypes that do very well, but the same could be said for the inquisitor.

But consider this, what 3/4 BAB combat class does better than the inquisitor?

Edit: I always forget the ranger and his cheesy instant enemy spell.

As much as I rag on the Warpriest, we DID up thread prove that the Warpriest does, at minimum, match the Inquisitor in combat.

Alchemists can shred shit pretty hard too. Battle Oracle is probably a contender.


Melkiador wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


On Inquisitors: I'm not even going to pursue this topic. The Inquisitor is a 3/4 BAB class that requires about half a day to buff itself to compete with other martial classes. Anyone who says they are broken has never played this game.

One round's swift for judgement of justice and one round's swift for bane. Most of the other self buffs can be applied before the fight.

Really the only full BABs that seem to do better are the Barbarian and the Paladin vs evil, and they have less out of combat usefulness. There are also a few outlier full BAB archetypes that do very well, but the same could be said for the inquisitor.

But consider this, what 3/4 BAB combat class does better than the inquisitor?

Edit: I always forget the ranger and his cheesy instant enemy spell.

Hunter.

A decently built Hunter can put a lot of things to shame. In fact it easily does more damage than what a lot of encounters expect.


I haven't seen the math but I've heard the Sacred Huntsmaster basically does the hunter thing but better. Is this false?


That, I will admit, is a spectacular example of BAD design. Though to be fair, the loss of Judgement is kind of a hit.


Another weird thing I noticed is that the inquisitor is basically a non-contributer to the hybrid classes. Even the summoner throws some of its stuff to an archetype. The inquisitor meanwhile stands alone. Nothing else gets judgment. Ever.


At level 16+ yes and at some levels, but the base Hunter gets

Outflank at level 2 as a bonus feat (compared to buying it at level 7 as Inquisitor)

Second animal focus at 8 instead of like 17. This is pretty big for your animal companion and for you.

Ranger spells (Have you ever used First level slots on protection from energy? It's nice)

Raise companion at 10th

A lot of the cool things you can do that define a Hunter don't come online until way later on the Inquisitor.

Also the ACG archetype section was written by a bunch of baboons with no proper dev to vet their submissions and is a huge mess. I generally ignore that part of the book.


By itself Judgement isn't all that good. It's transient and can be easily wasted.

It works on the Inquisitor because it works towards making him a Jack of All Trades. To an extent the Inquisitor can do a bunch of stuff, but not for as long or as well as other classes. Judgement reflects that design philosophy.

Something like that sounds bad for archetypes.


Melkiador wrote:
Another weird thing I noticed is that the inquisitor is basically a non-contributer to the hybrid classes. Even the summoner throws some of its stuff to an archetype. The inquisitor meanwhile stands alone. Nothing else gets judgment. Ever.

I want to design a Cleric archetype that gives up one domain for a version of Judgements. Call the archetype "Arbiter". I just haven't gotten around to it.


There's a Stalker archetype in Path of War that gives Judgement for what it's worth.


Correct me if I'm wrong- there's no way Warpriest can use Guided Hand with a gun. Right? You'd need a deity who has a gun as their favored weapon, and I'm pretty sure none of them have a creed that contains "in the name of the gun" or anything like that.


Rynjin wrote:
My main concern is whether you can hit anywhere near those same numbers as an Unarmed character.

It's somewhat similar since with a Monk's Robe dice are 2d6, and flurry is 1xSTR either way. It's a -2 from Power Attack, maybe a -1 enhancement, and a very roughly 4/8% loss from crits. Based on my previous numbers, post-nerf would come out closer to 80 than 100, and pre-nerf would be closer to 110 than 130. However that's without any Style feats or other features taken into consideration - just tossing a Weapon of Awe on there goes a long way with all those hits.

If you throw Dragon Style/Ferocity in to get effective two-hander strength (when even a two-hander with flurry is at normal strength), or even maybe just Jabbing Style since it's comparable on a full-attack, the numbers turn way over. The Sacred Fist gets hobbled though by the fact that they only get to count as a Monk for Style feats at 6 and then 12 and they can't get Dragon Ferocity until 12 anyways because they don't have Stunning Fist.

Anyhow they can always do the dipping thing and go all Pummeling Ferocity nice and quick. Personally I like weapons better; flurry with a greatsword or katana or sansetsukon or whatever is much cooler. Particularly if you slip in a Human FCB bonus feat to pick up Elemental Fist/ Shaitan Style/ Shaitan Skin by 12 and get 5/day acid-stagger weapon strike.


My Self wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong- there's no way Warpriest can use Guided Hand with a gun. Right? You'd need a deity who has a gun as their favored weapon, and I'm pretty sure none of them have a creed that contains "in the name of the gun" or anything like that.

Works fine for homegames, but, no, there hasn't been a gun-based Deity introduced yet.

Maybe when PFS FINALLY visits Andoran we'll get The Spirit of the West as a Deity (complete with his signature poncho), but until then Guided Hand with a Gun is largely a homegame thing, though I think most DMs would allow it.

Liberty's Edge

My Self wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong- there's no way Warpriest can use Guided Hand with a gun. Right? You'd need a deity who has a gun as their favored weapon, and I'm pretty sure none of them have a creed that contains "in the name of the gun" or anything like that.

Well, there's an imperial lord whose favored weapon if the blowgun, but I'm guessing that's not really what you were looking for.

Sovereign Court

chbgraphicarts wrote:
My Self wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong- there's no way Warpriest can use Guided Hand with a gun. Right? You'd need a deity who has a gun as their favored weapon, and I'm pretty sure none of them have a creed that contains "in the name of the gun" or anything like that.

Works fine for homegames, but, no, there hasn't been a gun-based Deity introduced yet.

Cixyron of the Daemon Harbingers has Musket as a favored weapon.

However, Daemon Harbingers are not allowed in PFS.

Silver Crusade

chbgraphicarts wrote:
My Self wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong- there's no way Warpriest can use Guided Hand with a gun. Right? You'd need a deity who has a gun as their favored weapon, and I'm pretty sure none of them have a creed that contains "in the name of the gun" or anything like that.

Works fine for homegames, but, no, there hasn't been a gun-based Deity introduced yet.

Maybe when PFS FINALLY visits Andoran we'll get The Spirit of the West as a Deity (complete with his signature poncho), but until then Guided Hand with a Gun is largely a homegame thing, though I think most DMs would allow it.

There actually is one deity with musket as his favored weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:

There's so many other classes I want to play that I feel comfortable not playing a 3/4 BaB 6 level caster with a gimped spell list (before the ACG, all 6 level casters had tailor made spell lists. There was a reason for that), only 2+Int skills, bad case of the MADs, and inferior versions of paladin and Cleric features (Sacred Weapon's ability to add Enhancement is a crappy version of Divine Bond, Blessings are bad Domains, Sacred Armor is likewise a worse version of a Paladin archetype ability).

"Ooh it gets to deal 2d6 damage with a dagger eventually" yippee skippy. It has nothing else that piques my interest except maybe Fervor.

Its only redeeming quality as a class was "Monk that doesn't suck", so Paizo in their infinite wisdom decided to nerf it to "Monk who sucks less" instead.

I'll play an Inquisitor or a Psychic Warrior again any day.

Rynjin, look the magus spell list in the Um book and then say that it "tailored".

The spells are a selection of the wizard spells with the same level and no spell from other classes.

So your statement is patently wrong.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

There's so many other classes I want to play that I feel comfortable not playing a 3/4 BaB 6 level caster with a gimped spell list (before the ACG, all 6 level casters had tailor made spell lists. There was a reason for that), only 2+Int skills, bad case of the MADs, and inferior versions of paladin and Cleric features (Sacred Weapon's ability to add Enhancement is a crappy version of Divine Bond, Blessings are bad Domains, Sacred Armor is likewise a worse version of a Paladin archetype ability).

"Ooh it gets to deal 2d6 damage with a dagger eventually" yippee skippy. It has nothing else that piques my interest except maybe Fervor.

Its only redeeming quality as a class was "Monk that doesn't suck", so Paizo in their infinite wisdom decided to nerf it to "Monk who sucks less" instead.

I'll play an Inquisitor or a Psychic Warrior again any day.

Rynjin, look the magus spell list in the Um book and then say that it "tailored".

The spells are a selection of the wizard spells with the same level and no spell from other classes.

So your statement is patently wrong.

Ultimate Magic Magus spells:

Frostbite: Not a Wizard spell (Druid, Witch, Magus).

Force hook Charge: Magus only

Arcana Theft: Magus Only

Wall of Sound: Magus 4, Wizard 5


Diego Rossi wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

There's so many other classes I want to play that I feel comfortable not playing a 3/4 BaB 6 level caster with a gimped spell list (before the ACG, all 6 level casters had tailor made spell lists. There was a reason for that), only 2+Int skills, bad case of the MADs, and inferior versions of paladin and Cleric features (Sacred Weapon's ability to add Enhancement is a crappy version of Divine Bond, Blessings are bad Domains, Sacred Armor is likewise a worse version of a Paladin archetype ability).

"Ooh it gets to deal 2d6 damage with a dagger eventually" yippee skippy. It has nothing else that piques my interest except maybe Fervor.

Its only redeeming quality as a class was "Monk that doesn't suck", so Paizo in their infinite wisdom decided to nerf it to "Monk who sucks less" instead.

I'll play an Inquisitor or a Psychic Warrior again any day.

Rynjin, look the magus spell list in the Um book and then say that it "tailored".

The spells are a selection of the wizard spells with the same level and no spell from other classes.

So your statement is patently wrong.

Even if it is true I would like to note that Paizo's response to that was to release new and discounted spells for the Magus to play with in all future splat books.

Note how the Magus got stronger with every new release due to unique or discounted spells.


Or did you mean Ultimate Combat?

Returning Weapon: Magus 1, Wizard 2

Warding Weapon: Magus 1, Wizard 2

Ablative Barrier: Magus 2, Wizard 3

Communal Returning Weapon: Magus 2, Wizard 3

Pellet blast: Magus 4, Wizard 3 (Ouch)

Wreath of Blades: Magus 4, Wizard 5

Walk Through Space: Magus 6, Wizard 7

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

There's so many other classes I want to play that I feel comfortable not playing a 3/4 BaB 6 level caster with a gimped spell list (before the ACG, all 6 level casters had tailor made spell lists. There was a reason for that), only 2+Int skills, bad case of the MADs, and inferior versions of paladin and Cleric features (Sacred Weapon's ability to add Enhancement is a crappy version of Divine Bond, Blessings are bad Domains, Sacred Armor is likewise a worse version of a Paladin archetype ability).

"Ooh it gets to deal 2d6 damage with a dagger eventually" yippee skippy. It has nothing else that piques my interest except maybe Fervor.

Its only redeeming quality as a class was "Monk that doesn't suck", so Paizo in their infinite wisdom decided to nerf it to "Monk who sucks less" instead.

I'll play an Inquisitor or a Psychic Warrior again any day.

Rynjin, look the magus spell list in the Um book and then say that it "tailored".

The spells are a selection of the wizard spells with the same level and no spell from other classes.

So your statement is patently wrong.

Ultimate Magic Magus spells:

Frostbite: Not a Wizard spell (Druid, Witch, Magus).

Force hook Charge: Magus only

Arcana Theft: Magus Only

Wall of Sound: Magus 4, Wizard 5

I stand correct, he get 2 unique spells, 1 non wizard spell and 1 spell at a lower level.

"Tailored" indeed.

Liberty's Edge

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

There's so many other classes I want to play that I feel comfortable not playing a 3/4 BaB 6 level caster with a gimped spell list (before the ACG, all 6 level casters had tailor made spell lists. There was a reason for that), only 2+Int skills, bad case of the MADs, and inferior versions of paladin and Cleric features (Sacred Weapon's ability to add Enhancement is a crappy version of Divine Bond, Blessings are bad Domains, Sacred Armor is likewise a worse version of a Paladin archetype ability).

"Ooh it gets to deal 2d6 damage with a dagger eventually" yippee skippy. It has nothing else that piques my interest except maybe Fervor.

Its only redeeming quality as a class was "Monk that doesn't suck", so Paizo in their infinite wisdom decided to nerf it to "Monk who sucks less" instead.

I'll play an Inquisitor or a Psychic Warrior again any day.

Rynjin, look the magus spell list in the Um book and then say that it "tailored".

The spells are a selection of the wizard spells with the same level and no spell from other classes.

So your statement is patently wrong.

Even if it is true I would like to note that Paizo's response to that was to release new and discounted spells for the Magus to play with in all future splat books.

Note how the Magus got stronger with every new release due to unique or discounted spells.

You are implying that "warpriest only" spells will never be published?

Or that any spell added too The cleric list isn't added to the warpriest list?I seriously doubt that.

So you argument apply to the warpriest too. It get stronger with every release of new spells that he can use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's highly unlikely the Warpriest will ever get unique spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:


I stand correct, he get 2 unique spells, 1 non wizard spell and 1 spell at a lower level.
"Tailored" indeed.

That's a solid 1/3 of the new spells he got in Ultimate Magic.

Don't get pissy just because you made a statement that was, how did you put it? Ah, yes, "patently wrong".

Diego Rossi wrote:


You are implying that "warpriest only" spells will never be published?

It's doubtful, since the Warpriest doesn't, you know...have his own spell list.

They can't add spells to the Warpriest spell list since he doesn't have one. He has the Cleric spell list, with the last 3 levels of spell trimmed off.

Liberty's Edge

Insain Dragoon wrote:
It's highly unlikely the Warpriest will ever get unique spells.

You are joking? With all the supplements and contributors I will bet that we will get some warpriest spell that isn't identical to a cleric spell before the end of the year.

Probably we will never see them in the hardbound books, but the probability of getting some in the softbound is very high.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:


You are joking? With all the supplements and contributors I will bet that we will get some warpriest spell that isn't identical to a cleric spell before the end of the year.
Probably we will never see them in the hardbound books, but the probability of getting some in the softbound is very high.

But there is no such thing as a warpriest spell list....

Shadow Lodge

There are a few Oracle only spells.


But I think it's patently proven that the Warpriest, if a bit buggy, is a viable class missing a bit in the way of skills.

Rather than making more threads calling the sacred fist flurry change a slap in the face before running numbers, or saying that inquisitors are op when the Warpriest can match them in output, defences and utility...

... Why not just ask for more Warpriest unique spells?

My view is that most people here complain much more than they edify, and are quick to condemn Paizo if they don't do things just the way they would have liked rather than testing and seeing if it's good or not.


DM Beckett wrote:
There are a few Oracle only spells.

Yup. New warpriest spells are certainly possible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's certainly possible that they'll add Warpriest-only spells to the cleric list, a "fix" I'd personally welcome.

However if we look to the Oracle for reference, it's not encouraging. The Oracle has been released for five years and has, near as I can tell, five spells on his spell list that the cleric does not: Embrace Destiny, Oracle's Burden, Borrow Fortune, Oracle's Vessel, and Divine Vessel. Three of those spells were in the same book as the Oracle (the APG, released in 2010), one is from Ultimate Magic released a year later, and one is from Lost Kingdoms, a softcover released in 2012. No non-cleric oracle spells have been added in the last three years.

In comparison the ACG and the Warpriest have been out for a year, and he has a grand total of zero non-cleric spells available to him.

While it's possible we will see a few warpriest-only spells released, I'll be very surprised if the class gets a noticeable buff on the spell list front.


Let's agree that the oracle needs anything but buffs though. They never required the unique spell list.

A better comparison would be how many new mysteries were released.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hm... I think that's a shaky comparison, since it takes much more development time to write a Mystery than a domain or a blessing. Shaman spirits make a better parable to Oracle Mysteries.

That said, I did a quick headcount. I found 22 mysteries, 37 domains (not counting subdomains which easily triples that number) and ~35 blessings (covering the same options as domains except Ruins and Vermin). The WP launched with 33 blessings, Scalykind and Void were added in the Advanced Class Origins.

Only vaguely related, but looking over the vast amount of Domain options and then the comparatively wimpy Blessing list made me sad. I really wish the Warpriest could pick Domains in place of blessings.

Shadow Lodge

Kudaku wrote:

It's certainly possible that they'll add Warpriest-only spells to the cleric list, a "fix" I'd personally welcome.

However if we look to the Oracle for reference, it's not encouraging. The Oracle has been released for five years and has, near as I can tell, five spells on his spell list that the cleric does not: Embrace Destiny, Oracle's Burden, Borrow Fortune, Oracle's Vessel, and Divine Vessel. Three of those spells were in the same book as the Oracle (the APG, released in 2010), one is from Ultimate Magic released a year later, and one is from Lost Kingdoms, a softcover released in 2012. No non-cleric oracle spells have been added in the last three years.

In comparison the ACG and the Warpriest have been out for a year, and he has a grand total of zero non-cleric spells available to him.

While it's possible we will see a few warpriest-only spells released, I'll be very surprised if the class gets a noticeable buff on the spell list front.

To be honest, I hope they do not do this, ever. Battle Clerics are still a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
To be honest, I hope they do not do this, ever. Battle Clerics are still a thing.

Still a thing? At my table battle clerics dominate Warpriests.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
To be honest, I hope they do not do this, ever. Battle Clerics are still a thing.
Still a thing? At my table battle clerics dominate Warpriests.

And thisis the heart of the problem. The Warpriest is an amazing class, really it is. But the Cleric has the same BAB and 9th level spell casting.


Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
To be honest, I hope they do not do this, ever. Battle Clerics are still a thing.
Still a thing? At my table battle clerics dominate Warpriests.
And thisis the heart of the problem. The Warpriest is an amazing class, really it is. But the Cleric has the same BAB and 9th level spell casting.

I disagree.

I think the problem is that the Cleric can, eventually, pick up all the important feats for being good at battle.

If there were more attractive combat feats that the Warpriest could exploit, then it would be more competitive.

This is why the TWF and Vital Strike builds are popular: because they are feat intensive, and Clerics could not hope to imitate them in power.

As feat selection broadens up, so will the power of Warpriests.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Considering they just killed Slashing Grace-based TWF, one of the few combat styles that's so convoluted and feat intensive that the Warpriest is the only divine caster that could reliably pull it off at low-mid levels... Eh. Unless there's going to be a dramatic policy change on the relative power level of feats I don't think there will be a noticeable change.

101 to 150 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Sacred Fist change from Full BAB to 3 / 4 BAB - help understanding All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.