Advanced Class Guide Preview: Warpriest

Tuesday, June 17, 2014


Illustration by Subroto Bhaumik

Many years ago, back in the days of the Advanced Player's Guide, there were plans to open up the paladin class to characters of any alignment. Unfortunately, the constraints of the class and its many alignment-based abilities made it too much of a challenge to fit in the pages of that book. Fortunately, the Advanced Class Guide gave us the opportunity to revisit the idea in the form of the Warpriest.

Blending together the powers of the fighter and the cleric, the warpriest is a class that allows you to represent the ideals of your deity, but to back them up with cold, hard steel. The class had 6 levels of divine spellcasting, combined with an ability called blessings that work like domains, but grant combat focused abilities. It seemed like a perfect blend, but the first version of the class that we put forth to playtest did not go over very well. The powers and abilities, as initially designed, just did not give the player enough martial ability to get the job done. It had some the spellcasting and some of the combat skill, but the two just did not work well together as initially presented. Fortunately, in round 2 of the playtest, we got it right (or maybe a bit too right). We added an ability called fervor that allows the warpriest to channel energy to heal his allies similar to a paladin's lay on hands, but it also could be spent to cast warpriest spells as a swift action, as long as those spells only targeted the warpriest. We also changed an ability called sacred weapon, which allows the warpriest to designate a weapon (or the favored weapon of his deity) and use that weapon to greater effect, increasing the damage and attack bonus.

Unfortunately, that caused a bit of a problem. The class was a bit too good.

The second round of playtest showed us some really interesting data. Everyone seemed in love with the class, which is certainly good, but our surveys also showed us that the class was now at the top of the power curve. After a number of internal playtests, it became clear that attacking with the full attack bonus of a fighter, combined with swift-casting a number of "buff" spells made the class a juggernaut. Since we really liked how the fervor mechanic worked, the sacred weapon rules had to change. Sacred weapon still increases the damage of weapons and it can still be used to grant special abilities to the weapon, but it no longer increases the attack bonus of the warpriest when using the designated weapon. Just like that, everything seemed to fit.

We also took another look at a wide number of the blessings, bringing them all in line with one another and making them a more seamless part of the class. Take the community blessing for example. The major version of the blessing did not fit really well and was outright useless to a warpriest of Erastil. It got changed to the following.

Fight as One (major): At 10th level, you can rally your allies to fight together. For 1 minute, whenever you make a successful melee or ranged attack against a foe, allies within 10 feet of you gain a +2 insight bonus on attacks of the same type you made against that foe—melee attacks if you made a melee attack, or ranged attacks if you made a ranged attack. If you score a critical hit, this bonus increases to +4 until the start of your next turn.

There are a lot of other exciting changes in the blessings as well, but for those, you will have to wait until the book arrives in stores and at Gencon in mid-August. Come back on Thursday to unleash your inner rage, now improved with magic!

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Igor Grechanyi Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Warpriest
501 to 550 of 1,041 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Dekalinder wrote:
Comparing to the inquisitor is totally unfair, he is by far the strongest class in the current playset after summoner and shroedinger wizard, with both the highest to hit and static damage bonus of any class, as much skill points as a bard and very few madness thanks to his wis to anything approach. O, and btw he also has 6 level spellcasting with heals, but that's just filler.

First of all the inquisitor and magus are the only classes the WP should be compared to. They had the chance to make the WP passable in melee by making it have the bane special weapon quality as an addable quality. Inquisitor just doesn't feel good to play. Whenever I try to build one of those or the magus I realize I'm always just doing less damage than a barbarian, paladin, ranger, or now blood rager. The additional spells gained are minimal given that there are so few and they are so weak relative to the level gained.


Not sure how your building your magus's but they are the highest damage single hit class I've seen short of a mounted charger. Better mobility than most other classes too. And an AC hovering around 30 with a miss chance on top of it. And this goes for two different PC's in a level 8 group with low wealth by level. Balancing anything against a magus would probably be labeled as power creep by a lot of people around here.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Undone wrote:
First of all the inquisitor and magus are the only classes the WP should be compared to. They had the chance to make the WP passable in melee by making it have the bane special weapon quality as an addable quality. Inquisitor just doesn't feel good to play. Whenever I try to build one of those or the magus I realize I'm always just doing less damage than a barbarian, paladin, ranger, or now blood rager. The additional spells gained are minimal given that there are so few and they are so weak relative to the level gained.

Then you're doing it wrong. I just decided to scrap my Inquisitor because he was making the rest of the party look like ineffectual tools in terms of damage. Level 13 archer Inquisitor, damage output of about 200 damage per round. The rest of the party is decently built, but without me using too much optimization and only self-buffing I easily outshone them.


Torbyne wrote:
Not sure how your building your magus's but they are the highest damage single hit class I've seen short of a mounted charger. Better mobility than most other classes too. And an AC hovering around 30 with a miss chance on top of it. And this goes for two different PC's in a level 8 group with low wealth by level. Balancing anything against a magus would probably be labeled as power creep by a lot of people around here.

Without using a lance build (because they are just better than everything else when they work) the barbarian with CaGM or a smiting paladin beat them out on damage especially on the archer front. The magus is literally the duskblade -full bab progression which wasn't OP in the first place. Additionally while AC 30 is cute it's not that important against the real threats of stat drain and spells which again paladins have a far better shot at saving vs. I was really hoping that the war priest would be closer to the paladin in terms of raw power.

Quote:
Then you're doing it wrong. I just decided to scrap my Inquisitor because he was making the rest of the party look like ineffectual tools in terms of damage. Level 13 archer Inquisitor, damage output of about 200 damage per round. The rest of the party is decently built, but without me using too much optimization and only self-buffing I easily outshone them.

You're likely optimized and they are not. A barbarian with CaGM is likely over 300/turn and a paladin smiting is likely over 300 a turn if he's an archer.


Undone wrote:
Inquisitor just doesn't feel good to play. Whenever I try to build one of those or the magus I realize I'm always just doing less damage than a barbarian, paladin, ranger, or now blood rager. The additional spells gained are minimal given that there are so few and they are so weak relative to the level gained.

This has been my experience as well.

I realize some people say if you optimize it, then they can become effective. I don't think everyone should have to play the same cookie cutter, optimized class just to be effective. It should be effective right out of the box.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Undone wrote:
You're likely optimized and they are not. A barbarian with CaGM is likely over 300/turn and a paladin smiting is likely over 300 a turn if he's an archer.

Well, I can cite numbers for my damage if necessary, can you cite numbers for what you claim?

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Inquisitor is an excellent class that I enjoy immensely. It's also quite effective when done properly, with combat taken care of with self-buffing, Bane, and Judgments. It doesn't do as much damage as a Barbarian or Paladin, but on the other hand, more skills plus six level casting from a good list, and more awesome out-of-combat class features than you can shake a stick at make up for that unless your game is purely about combat, with no out-of-combat challenges at all.

However, arguing that it's more overpowered than, say, a Wild Shape focused Druid or remotely optimized Wizard is crazy talk. 9-level casters are the most powerful things in Pathfinder. Period.

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:
Undone wrote:
You're likely optimized and they are not. A barbarian with CaGM is likely over 300/turn and a paladin smiting is likely over 300 a turn if he's an archer.
Well, I can cite numbers for my damage if necessary, can you cite numbers for what you claim?

At 13th level? Heck, I can probably cite those. CAGM Barbarians making seven attacks a turn with a Greatsword with all the Barbarian damage stuff or Smiting Archer Paladins doing six with a Composite Longbow get pretty sick pretty quick.

Inquisitor is excellent, but more because it pumps out enough damage and does things out of combat, too, than because it actually equals Paladin or Barbarian damage numbers.


The magus might actually be a decent analogue for how I hope the Warpriest turns out. Let's compare two builds that both explore the "arcane gish" concept, one using the magus and one using the Eldritch Knight prestige class:

Magus 10
Casts as a 7th level specialized wizard from a sharply focused spell list
BAB of +7
10D8 HD for an average of 45 HP
one bonus feat, counts as a 5th level fighter

Wizard 1 / Lore Warden Fighter 1 / Eldritch Knight 8
= Casts as 8th level wizard
Vastly better spell list than the magus
BAB of +9
9D10 HD + 1D6 HD for an average of 53 HP
three bonus feats, counts as a 9th level fighter

In this somewhat incomplete comparison, the EK build is clearly superior. All the numbers are higher, the options are more varied, and so on.

However of the two builds I'd prefer to play the magus. Why? Because the magus has Spell Combat, Spellstrike and can cast in medium armor. He can enchant his weapon as a swift action, he can regain spells with Spell Recall, and he has Arcanas that help him specialize. In short, he gets a host of class features specifically designed to make him the class that melds spellcasting and melee attacks. Barring spell critical at level 10 the EK does not get similar class features. While the EK has more "raw" power (and with the potential of 9th level spellcasting I'd be hard-pressed to say it is not), I'd prefer to play the magus because he works better within the concept I am trying to make.

For the divine equivalent (build a divine gish) the comparison would be something like:

Fighter 1 / Cleric 9
BAB of +8
9D8 + 1D10 HD
1 bonus feat
Casts as a 9th level cleric + two domains
One bonus feat

Warpriest 10
BAB of +7
10D8 HD
Casts as a 7th level cleric w no domains
3 bonus feats

(Skipping the inquisitor to keep the post sane, feel free to add your own though!)

Again, on paper I'd say the Cleric comes out ahead, and the gap is only going to increase as his spell progression continues to outscale the Warpriest. The cleric also has the option to go into a variety of martial/cleric prestige classes, since the cleric doesn't gain all that much from further levels. What may (or may not) make the difference are the class features the WP gets, and if they're enough to trump the extra goodies available to the cleric.

Which brings me to a point of slight worry. I think the Investigator is head and shoulders better than the rogue, but I think it's well balanced with the alchemist. I share a concern I saw voiced in the Investigator and slayer(?) threads - I worry that the WP might be scaled back to avoid making one of its parent classes look bad.
The telemetry mentioned in the blog post said that a lot of people thought the Warpriest was "at the top of the power curve". Compared to a straight fighter, the Warpriest was a brute and I can easily see why people would consider it much better than the fighter. Compared to a fighter/cleric... There I think it's more iffy. With 20/20 hindsight and with a note that I can't recall the exact phrasing of the questionnaire at the end of the playtest, I can't help but wonder if the "power rating" question should have asked people to compare the power level of the ACG class with other classes as well as rank it in a general sense.

TL;DR I hope the Warpriest turns into the divine equivalent of the magus to the eldritch knight and that they balance the WP around combat clerics, not fighters.

Silver Crusade

I don't know, I went the Dervish Dance style and added the Conversion Inquisition, which really helped a lot. I wouldn't say it's optimized (or overly), but it is incredibly fun to play and easily able to contribute to just about anything he's come across so far in PFS. It feels more like what a Cleric should have been, (or close to anyway), though a bit more on the spellcasty Ranger/divine Bard side.

It's spellcasting actually reminds me a lot of playing a 1st Ed or 2nd Ed Cleric, where they where sort of a warrior type with a bit of spellcasting , (not weak, but also not really their main go to ability).

I have two PFS Warpriests. One is level 1+ and the other is level 4. I built both to work well in PFS, so having a little bit of social ability, investigation, and focusing on things that come up a lot. Both I designed around atrial deity's so the extra damage is not going to come up, (basically a wasted class feature like it should be for just about any deity that aught to have Warpriests). One went with more average scores, the other low Cha. Both are really going to hut when they loose Full BaB, but (from what I know so far) I can't tell which, if either I would even want to restat (if that's even an option).

The one thing I've seen multiple times, and I hope gets changed, is to the Alignment Blessings. Not actually overcoming DR of the appropriate Alignment usually invalidates their power. I still hope that Warpriests that use their Deity's Favored Weapon that is not augmented by increased Damage get some sort of perk for doing so. I still find that ability incredibly counterintuitive to the concept of the class, and one more slap to the Fighter's face.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
Comparing to the inquisitor is totally unfair, he is by far the strongest class in the current playset after summoner and shroedinger wizard, with both the highest to hit and static damage bonus of any class, as much skill points as a bard and very few madness thanks to his wis to anything approach. O, and btw he also has 6 level spellcasting with heals, but that's just filler.
First of all the inquisitor and magus are the only classes the WP should be compared to. They had the chance to make the WP passable in melee by making it have the bane special weapon quality as an addable quality. Inquisitor just doesn't feel good to play. Whenever I try to build one of those or the magus I realize I'm always just doing less damage than a barbarian, paladin, ranger, or now blood rager. The additional spells gained are minimal given that there are so few and they are so weak relative to the level gained.

0_o

I'm not really sure what to say to this...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Undone wrote:
You're likely optimized and they are not. A barbarian with CaGM is likely over 300/turn and a paladin smiting is likely over 300 a turn if he's an archer.
Well, I can cite numbers for my damage if necessary, can you cite numbers for what you claim?

At 13th level? Heck, I can probably cite those. CAGM Barbarians making seven attacks a turn with a Greatsword with all the Barbarian damage stuff or Smiting Archer Paladins doing six with a Composite Longbow get pretty sick pretty quick.

Inquisitor is excellent, but more because it pumps out enough damage and does things out of combat, too, than because it actually equals Paladin or Barbarian damage numbers.

I can't see how the Paladin does so much more than an Inquisitor, aside from a few rounds of nova with Litany of Righteousness. And I have no idea how a Barbarian at lvl 13 can get 6 attacks (aside from someone please telling me what CAGM is, you can't assume that everybody knows every acronym).


Does the character shown in the picture get a Profession synergy bonus to her AC?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
s (aside from someone please telling me what CAGM is, you can't assume that everybody knows every acronym).

LOL


CAGM=Come And Get Me.

IDK, I feel like an optimized Inquisitor/Magus can prbably stand up to either if you go into cheese territory (mystic past life).

Magus especially, with archetypes can far outgrow the need for things like "damage".


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LoneKnave wrote:
CAGM=Come And Get Me.

Ah, yeah, that one. :-/ Well, Robilar's Gambit was bad in 3.5, Come and Get Me is bad in 3.P.

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
CAGM=Come And Get Me.
Ah, yeah, that one. :-/ Well, Robilar's Gambit was bad in 3.5, Come and Get Me is bad in 3.P.

Not really, no. -4 AC and -4 DR, while annoying, are very much worth it in exchange for large numbers of extra attacks for a Barbarian. It's part of the optimal Barbarian build, and is so for a reason.

Personally, I prefer more defensive characters than that, but from a pure optimization standpoint Offense>Defense in Pathfinder and action economy is king...so three or four extra attacks a turn is eminently worth the price paid.

Shadow Lodge

MrRetsej wrote:
Pfft to the naysayers. The Warpriest will still allow me to finally make a decent Simon Belmont themed, whip toting PC and that's all I could ask for.

Use a Scorpion Whip and the Inquisitor is already pretty good at this.


1d3+7/9 you will get from judgment+whip is better than 2d8 you will get from sacred weapon... and judment will also give you +5 or +6 to hit...

Even on your desire, Inquisito>>>>>failpriest.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, we will actually be able to get a Nightmare Mount?

I am pretty damn hyped about that.

Now, if only there was a way to get an Unicorn mount...


Hmm, I think Fervor got a substantial change before we got to the pregen. Oloch has 3 uses of Fervor per day. He has a Charisma of 8. Previous version of Warpriest had Fervor tied into Charisma. That would have normally given him zero uses of Fervor. So either Fervor has uses per day equal to level (which could be good), or they switched the dependent stat to Wisdom. If the latter is the case, then one of the issues we still had when the playtest finished may have been addressed.

In that case, I'm less worried about the change to Sacred Weapon. And making the Blessings make more sense is perfectly fine by me. I shall enjoy my opportunity to retinker with my PFS Warpriest when the ACG comes out.

Liberty's Edge

RafaelBraga wrote:

1d3+7/9 you will get from judgment+whip is better than 2d8 you will get from sacred weapon... and judment will also give you +5 or +6 to hit...

Even on your desire, Inquisito>>>>>failpriest.

Comparing two non-equivalent class features in isolation is an awful measure for anything. wait until we see the final version before b!#%#ing too much, would you?

Kalvit wrote:

Hmm, I think Fervor got a substantial change before we got to the pregen. Oloch has 3 uses of Fervor per day. He has a Charisma of 8. Previous version of Warpriest had Fervor tied into Charisma. That would have normally given him zero uses of Fervor. So either Fervor has uses per day equal to level (which could be good), or they switched the dependent stat to Wisdom. If the latter is the case, then one of the issues we still had when the playtest finished may have been addressed.

In that case, I'm less worried about the change to Sacred Weapon. And making the Blessings make more sense is perfectly fine by me. I shall enjoy my opportunity to retinker with my PFS Warpriest when the ACG comes out.

Jason Bulmahn dropped in and explained this. Everything's Wisdom based now, not Charisma.

EDIT: Linked.


Ah, I looked for information like that. So I must have missed that post before making mine. Still good things.

Shadow Lodge

He actually said that Cha was not used for any class features, which is a bit different than saying it is tied to Wis. It might be, but we don't know.

I think it might honestly just be tied to Class Level. But we will see.

Liberty's Edge

DM Beckett wrote:

He actually said that Cha was not used for any class features, which is a bit different than saying it is tied to Wis. It might be, but we don't know.

I think it might honestly just be tied to Class Level. But we will see.

I suppose that's true. I'd bet real money that it's Wisdom based, though.


i wouldn't mind fervor counting as channel energy because then you could channel smite to burn fervor as part of an attack, and you could then pick up guided hand to play wisdom focused builds.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
RafaelBraga wrote:
1d3+7/9 you will get from judgment+whip is better than 2d8 you will get from sacred weapon...

Not when you also include the additional +4 from bonus feats the inquisitor has no access to.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
CAGM=Come And Get Me.
Ah, yeah, that one. :-/ Well, Robilar's Gambit was bad in 3.5, Come and Get Me is bad in 3.P.

Not really, no. -4 AC and -4 DR, while annoying, are very much worth it in exchange for large numbers of extra attacks for a Barbarian. It's part of the optimal Barbarian build, and is so for a reason.

Personally, I prefer more defensive characters than that, but from a pure optimization standpoint Offense>Defense in Pathfinder and action economy is king...so three or four extra attacks a turn is eminently worth the price paid.

I didn't mean "bad" as in "not very useful" bad, but rather in the sense of "cracks open game balance and roots around in it for victims" bad. It's one of those feats/abilities which are way, waaay too good.


Hmmm, I want to know more about the archetypes.
I never use Inquisitor Archetypes, the straight Inquisitor is best all around and the others I feel don't add enough flavor.
I'd hope that the archetypes for Warpriest got some more badass martial abilities, as well as those that had more hardcore spellcasting or sacred abilities.

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:
I didn't mean "bad" as in "not very useful" bad, but rather in the sense of "cracks open game balance and roots around in it for victims" bad. It's one of those feats/abilities which are way, waaay too good.

Ah, gotcha. I'm not sure I quite agree given the ways around it (ranged attacks in general leap to mind...) but I get where you're coming from. It's a bit absurd.

Still, when arguing whether an optimized Inquisitor is more powerful than an optimized Barbarian, such things must be taken into account.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
I didn't mean "bad" as in "not very useful" bad, but rather in the sense of "cracks open game balance and roots around in it for victims" bad. It's one of those feats/abilities which are way, waaay too good.

Ah, gotcha. I'm not sure I quite agree given the ways around it (ranged attacks in general leap to mind...) but I get where you're coming from. It's a bit absurd.

Still, when arguing whether an optimized Inquisitor is more powerful than an optimized Barbarian, such things must be taken into account.

True, but then again I did not optimize, because I conciously avoided the really cheesy stuff. I think the most "cheese" thing I took is Clustered Shots, the rest are mostly core book feats/spells or non-combat related things. And, still, 200 damage per round.

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
I didn't mean "bad" as in "not very useful" bad, but rather in the sense of "cracks open game balance and roots around in it for victims" bad. It's one of those feats/abilities which are way, waaay too good.

Ah, gotcha. I'm not sure I quite agree given the ways around it (ranged attacks in general leap to mind...) but I get where you're coming from. It's a bit absurd.

Still, when arguing whether an optimized Inquisitor is more powerful than an optimized Barbarian, such things must be taken into account.

True, but then again I did not optimize, because I conciously avoided the really cheesy stuff. I think the most "cheese" thing I took is Clustered Shots, the rest are mostly core book feats/spells or non-combat related things. And, still, 200 damage per round.

Dedicated archers are one of the single highest damage builds in the game, making them one of the most powerful 'martial' builds. And just walking up the chain to Manyshot and Clustered Shot and grabbing Deadly Aim is pretty damn close to as optimized an archer as you can have. A dedicated Fighter or Ranger archer is gonna probably do around as much as the Inquisitor you're talking about at the same level. It's the archery, not the class, that does it, at least a lot of it is.

Or to put it another way: Archers of any class with the default, corebook, Feats are pretty cheesy. ;)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
I didn't mean "bad" as in "not very useful" bad, but rather in the sense of "cracks open game balance and roots around in it for victims" bad. It's one of those feats/abilities which are way, waaay too good.

Ah, gotcha. I'm not sure I quite agree given the ways around it (ranged attacks in general leap to mind...) but I get where you're coming from. It's a bit absurd.

Still, when arguing whether an optimized Inquisitor is more powerful than an optimized Barbarian, such things must be taken into account.

True, but then again I did not optimize, because I conciously avoided the really cheesy stuff. I think the most "cheese" thing I took is Clustered Shots, the rest are mostly core book feats/spells or non-combat related things. And, still, 200 damage per round.

Dedicated archers are one of the single highest damage builds in the game, making them one of the most powerful 'martial' builds. And just walking up the chain to Manyshot and Clustered Shot and grabbing Deadly Aim is pretty damn close to as optimized an archer as you can have. A dedicated Fighter or Ranger archer is gonna probably do around as much as the Inquisitor you're talking about at the same level. It's the archery, not the class, that does it, at least a lot of it is.

Or to put it another way: Archers of any class with the default, corebook, Feats are pretty cheesy. ;)

When you tack on magical enhancements and specialized enchanted ammunition, they can become pure gouda.


Archers get 2 extra attack via rapid/manyshot, witch is g&%#!!n awesome when you have around +17-20 static bonus damage from class alone as an inquisitor.

Sczarni

Orthos wrote:
MrRetsej wrote:
Pfft to the naysayers. The Warpriest will still allow me to finally make a decent Simon Belmont themed, whip toting PC and that's all I could ask for.
Use a Scorpion Whip and the Inquisitor is already pretty good at this.

The problem with a Scorpion Whip, especially in PFS is that it's a tangled jumblef*** of rules that require far too many feats to make viable. And it only does 1d4 damage. Even if you take the one Ancient Osirion god that has Scorpion Whip as it's favored weapon to get proficiency, you still won't threaten at 5 ft with it unless you also take Whip Mastery, but then you need normal Whip Proficiency to get that and if you don't have Scorpion Whip Proficency you take the -4 non proficiency penalty if you want it to do lethal damage unless you use it as a whip but then you're back to needing normal Whip Proficiency and Whip Mastery and ugh... I could go on about how much of a problem it is but it really needs a freakin' flow chart to show just how crappy the Scorpion Whip is.

Whip Warpriest/Corpse Hunter Infiltrator Ranger of Ahriman for me, dagnabbit.


Actually, you can use it with whip prof without the scorpion whip prof... I think? Okay, yeah, it's a mess. I don't even know how far "use it as a whip" goes. Maybe it doesn't even get 15ft reach. Maybe it uses whip dmg and does non-lethal. I have no idea.

Sczarni

LoneKnave wrote:

Actually, you can use it with whip prof without the scorpion whip prof... I think? Okay, yeah, it's a mess. I don't even know how far "use it as a whip" goes. Maybe it doesn't even get 15ft reach. Maybe it uses whip dmg and does non-lethal. I have no idea.

Since the Scorpion Whip is a "Reach" weapon, using it as a Scorpion Whip it only has a range of 10ft and doesn't threaten at 5ft. As a Whip it has 15ft reach and doesn't do lethal damage and doesn't threaten unless you also have Whip Mastery and Improved Whip Mastery.

Like I said, jumblef***.

Liberty's Edge

Dekalinder wrote:
Archers get 2 extra attack via rapid/manyshot, witch is g#@*@$n awesome when you have around +17-20 static bonus damage from class alone as an inquisitor.

This is true. But most combative classes have ways to get some significant static damage on attacks. For example, I think a 13th level Fighter is likely to have +7 from class features/Fighter only Feats, another +2 over the Inquisitor from Deadly Aim, and possibly +11 from Items that the Inquisitor can't use to add more (though that does include a Bane Baldric which is somewhat cheesy)...and that's off the top of my head. So that's +11 or +20 right there, and that's from a Fighter (a class with less than stellar static damage bonuses compared to many). Said Fighter also has one more attack than the Inquisitor to boot.

The Inquisitor's definitely a better class than the Fighter, mind you, I'm just noting that Everybody gets more than enough static damage that extra attacks are excellent.


Gorbacz wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
s (aside from someone please telling me what CAGM is, you can't assume that everybody knows every acronym).
LOL

TROLOLOL, or more of a *Point and Laugh* LOL?


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Inquisitor is an excellent class that I enjoy immensely. It's also quite effective when done properly, with combat taken care of with self-buffing, Bane, and Judgments. It doesn't do as much damage as a Barbarian or Paladin, but on the other hand, more skills plus six level casting from a good list, and more awesome out-of-combat class features than you can shake a stick at make up for that unless your game is purely about combat, with no out-of-combat challenges at all.

However, arguing that it's more overpowered than, say, a Wild Shape focused Druid or remotely optimized Wizard is crazy talk. 9-level casters are the most powerful things in Pathfinder. Period.

Right, I'm not arguing that. 9th level magic is the strongest thing you can do pre mythic.

What I'm saying is if you can't do magic (the 6th level casting classes don't get spells which are effective enough at the level they receive them.) you need to be effective in some way. full BAB is the easiest way to do that.

As for this...

Quote:
Well, I can cite numbers for my damage if necessary, can you cite numbers for what you claim?

This isn't even hard. 13/13/13/13/8/3 BAB to hit with Arrows smiting evil at 13 is +13, +6 STR, +5 Weapon, +1 PBS, +8 Deadly aim, 7 (Holy from bonded weapon average) 4.5 average D8. Without awesome optimization it's averaging 44.5 (you get better bonded weapon im just lazy) self buffs, LoR(Which doubles damage output to the 600 range). Barbarians get way more damage with Come and get me.

You literally only out shown them because of system mastery. I could make a rogue who gets upward of 200 damage.

Liberty's Edge

Undone wrote:
Right, I'm not arguing that. 9th level magic is the strongest thing you can do pre mythic.

Okay, noted. Though it was more of a general response than to you specifically.

Undone wrote:
What I'm saying is if you can't do magic (the 6th level casting classes don't get spells which are effective enough at the level they receive them.) you need to be effective in some way.

Okay, here's the heart of our disagreement. 6-level casting is not ineffective at all, it's highly effective if done properly...it's just an entirely different beast from 9-level spellcasting and can't be treated the same.

A 6-level caster is something else (an archer, a melee fighter, whatever) and a caster as well...and is not well equipped to neglect that first part, you're right on that. You can do an offensive 6-level caster, but they're definitely somewhat suboptimal (especially if they don't have something else to fall back on), the way to use spells most effectively as a 6-level caster is a combination of enhancing your mundane capabilities and utility effects. In terms of both of those, most 6-level casters are right on par with 9-level ones...better in many cases. And with that combined with the more combative class Features something like a Bard or Inquisitor has you have something of the best of both worlds, using a combination of spells and skills to be as versatile as a 9-level caster out-of-combat, and the aforementioned combat options to keep up in combat.

You probably won't do quite as much damage as a dedicated martial, but the extra skill points an Inquisitor or Bard gets and the utility spells they all have access to make them a lot more useful than many martial characters outside of it...and give them a few more options even in it.

Undone wrote:
full BAB is the easiest way to do that.

Easiest? Sure. Best? Maybe not.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Undone wrote:
Right, I'm not arguing that. 9th level magic is the strongest thing you can do pre mythic.

Okay, noted. Though it was more of a general response than to you specifically.

Undone wrote:
What I'm saying is if you can't do magic (the 6th level casting classes don't get spells which are effective enough at the level they receive them.) you need to be effective in some way.

Okay, here's the heart of our disagreement. 6-level casting is not ineffective at all, it's highly effective if done properly...it's just an entirely different beast from 9-level spellcasting and can't be treated the same.

A 6-level caster is something else (an archer, a melee fighter, whatever) and a caster as well...and is not well equipped to neglect that first part, you're right on that. You can do an offensive 6-level caster, but they're definitely somewhat suboptimal (especially if they don't have something else to fall back on), the way to use spells most effectively as a 6-level caster is a combination of enhancing your mundane capabilities and utility effects. In terms of both of those, most 6-level casters are right on par with 9-level ones...better in many cases. And with that combined with the more combative class Features something like a Bard or Inquisitor has you have something of the best of both worlds, using a combination of spells and skills to be as versatile as a 9-level caster out-of-combat, and the aforementioned combat options to keep up in combat.

You probably won't do quite as much damage as a dedicated martial, but the extra skill points an Inquisitor or Bard gets and the utility spells they all have access to make them a lot more useful than many martial characters outside of it...and give them a few more options even in it.

Undone wrote:
full BAB is the easiest way to do that.
Easiest? Sure. Best? Maybe not.

So let's look at the three I'm talking about, ranger, paladin, blood rager. I'd contend each of these have

1) More utility
-Paladin-Immunities, DR bypass, auras, granting smites, moderate in combat self heals, saves that are almost comically high.
-Blood rager- Dependent on bloodline but arcane, aberrant and celestial leave you with effectively free actions to fly, haste, blur, displace, resistance, and others while one permanently extends your reach by 5 feet.
-Ranger-Good utility spells, animal companion requires a single feat to be as effective as about 75% of a barbarian(The bring it to druid level feat).
-WP- offers slighly improved spellcasting at any given level, weaker saves and damage than the paladin at all levels in all situations, Has swift action casts which saves 12000 on boots of speed.
-Magus- Honestly needs some help. It needs like 10 feats to do reasonably against any devil, demon, or significant monster with SR+Resistances. The class is just not good enough.
-Inquisitor- The best of the three by a lot simply because bane let's you bypass a lot of DR. It's spell list simply doesn't go over things like LoR or heroic defiance.

2) Damage is unquestionably in favor of paladin (W Smite) and ranger (W animal, personally I think lion) I've not yet optimized a blood rager so thats in the air.

So they have more utility (after 4) especially in combat and the damage is almost comically lopsided. The 6 levels of casting classes (Especially when they don't have their own lists) are just underwhelming. Paladins/ranger get incredible level 4 spells that are way better than most level 5s and some level 6s. Heck some of the spells ARE level 6 spells. The only REAL exception to the 6 levels of casting is the summoner who gets "Six" levels of casting read 6 as "We can spam gate and get 9th level wizard spells".


Undone wrote:
What I'm saying is if you can't do magic (the 6th level casting classes don't get spells which are effective enough at the level they receive them.) you need to be effective in some way. full BAB is the easiest way to do that.

I'm sorry, 6th level casting classes are very strong and versatile. Sure, they're not as OMGWTF powerful as 9th level casters are, but they can go toe-to-toe with any full BAB class in combat and still have bucket loads of non-combat utility and versatility.

The difference is, the 6th level classes tend to be 'less forgiving' power wise when it comes to builds. If you make a couple of bad choices in design, it can severely weaken your class. Full BAB and full 9th level casting are far more forgiving in this aspect.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:

So let's look at the three I'm talking about, ranger, paladin, blood rager. I'd contend each of these have

1) More utility
-Paladin-Immunities, DR bypass, auras, granting smites, moderate in combat self heals, saves that are almost comically high.

Uh...that's not utility. Utility is the ability to use spells to actively solve or circumvent problems, rather than combative stuff. That's all pure combat ability. Glibness or Invisibility are utility.

Undone wrote:
-Blood rager- Dependent on bloodline but arcane, aberrant and celestial leave you with effectively free actions to fly, haste, blur, displace, resistance, and others while one permanently extends your reach by 5 feet.

See my note on Paladin above (okay, Fly is utility...but not nearly as much when it's only while raging).

Undone wrote:
-Ranger-Good utility spells, animal companion requires a single feat to be as effective as about 75% of a barbarian(The bring it to druid level feat).

Rangers actually do have some pretty good utility with skills and some decent utility spells...but are a bit less damage-y than the rest of the Martials listed.

Also...you are aware that Inquisitors can also have an Animal Companion, as can anyone willing to invest three of Feats, right?

Undone wrote:
-WP- offers slighly improved spellcasting at any given level, weaker saves and damage than the paladin at all levels in all situations, Has swift action casts which saves 12000 on boots of speed.

We don't have enough info on the final version to say that.

Undone wrote:
-Magus- Honestly needs some help. It needs like 10 feats to do reasonably against any devil, demon, or significant monster with SR+Resistances. The class is just not good enough.

Uh...have you actually ever seen a Magus played? It's pretty casually easy to avoid the pitfalls you stipulate if you actually think about spell selection as opposed to just preparing infinite iterations of Shocking Grasp.

Undone wrote:
-Inquisitor- The best of the three by a lot simply because bane let's you bypass a lot of DR. It's spell list simply doesn't go over things like LoR or heroic defiance.

Uh...there are a lot of ways past DR. Magus Arcane Pool actually does it better and for longer than Bane.

Undone wrote:
2) Damage is unquestionably in favor of paladin (W Smite) and ranger (W animal, personally I think lion) I've not yet optimized a blood rager so thats in the air.

Damage is in favor of Paladins while Smiting, certainly. Ranger I'm a lot less certain you're correct on.

Undone wrote:
So they have more utility (after 4) especially in combat and the damage is almost comically lopsided. The 6 levels of casting classes (Especially when they don't have their own lists) are just underwhelming. Paladins/ranger get incredible level 4 spells that are way better than most level 5s and some level 6s. Heck some of the spells ARE level 6 spells. The only REAL exception to the 6 levels of casting is the summoner who gets "Six" levels of casting read 6 as "We can spam gate and get 9th level wizard spells".

Actually, most 6-level casters get some higher level stuff. Overwhelming Presence for Bards and Inquisitors leaps to mind and is pretty cool.

And the damage is way closer than you're implying. Heck, in bursts, Magi can probably do more damage than just about anyone.


Undone wrote:
-Magus- Honestly needs some help. It needs like 10 feats to do reasonably against any devil, demon, or significant monster with SR+Resistances.

I highly recommend you look up some builds because that right there doesn't exist if the player knows what he's doing. Elemental Spell trumps resistances easily and SR has never been an issue for any caster with a brain past very low levels.


Undone wrote:
-Ranger-Good utility spells, animal companion requires a single feat to be as effective as about 75% of a barbarian(The bring it to druid level feat).

HAHAHAHA!!! Yeah... No. An Animal Companion is *not* 75% as effective as a Barbarian. If they are in your games, it's either due to obscene wealth, or, more likely, s$$%ty Barbarians.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Undone wrote:

This isn't even hard. 13/13/13/13/8/3 BAB to hit with Arrows smiting evil at 13 is +13, +6 STR, +5 Weapon, +1 PBS, +8 Deadly aim, 7 (Holy from bonded weapon average) 4.5 average D8. Without awesome optimization it's averaging 44.5 (you get better bonded weapon im just lazy) self buffs, LoR(Which doubles damage output to the 600 range). Barbarians get way more damage with Come and get me.

You literally only out shown them because of system mastery. I could make a rogue who gets upward of 200 damage.

For starters, I doubt that you can get a +5 weapon and +6 Strength at normal WBL without lacking much of everything else you would want to have. Divine Bond is an option, but given that we have been talking about self-buffing efficiency, it will not always be applicable. I am assuming that you are including self-buffed haste in your six attacks above. And Litany is overpowered BS and will not be available very often.

Let's see, my Inquisitor had a +1 Holy Composite Longbow, upgraded to +3 via Greater Magic Weapon, Greater Bracers of Archery and, due to budgetary constraints to WBL, only a +4 DEX enhancer. And I think that's it, outside of judgements. Let's assume that the Divine Bond goes off and nets you much of the same effect, making your bow +4 Holy. 15 point buy. Meaning that you are severely lacking in building points to build a strong + dexterous + charismatic Paladin. I'd say that puts you more at 14 STR, 22 DEX and 20 CHA, or less if you go for Unsanctioned Knowledge.

So, not even taking into account to-hit numbers, we get 40 damage per hit, for 240 damage per round, on the right targets, maybe doubled for one or two enemies. So, yeah, maybe you are right and I was above the level of optimization of the group. Since I've now "downgraded" to a Swashbuckler, it'll be more equal from now on.

Liberty's Edge

Tels wrote:
Undone wrote:
-Ranger-Good utility spells, animal companion requires a single feat to be as effective as about 75% of a barbarian(The bring it to druid level feat).
HAHAHAHA!!! Yeah... No. An Animal Companion is *not* 75% as effective as a Barbarian. If they are in your games, it's either due to obscene wealth, or, more likely, s@#*ty Barbarians.

I read that as Ranger + Animal Companion = 75% of a Barbarian...perhaps incorrectly. I agree with your statement if you're right about the intended meaning.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tels wrote:
Undone wrote:
-Ranger-Good utility spells, animal companion requires a single feat to be as effective as about 75% of a barbarian(The bring it to druid level feat).
HAHAHAHA!!! Yeah... No. An Animal Companion is *not* 75% as effective as a Barbarian. If they are in your games, it's either due to obscene wealth, or, more likely, s@#*ty Barbarians.
I read that as Ranger + Animal Companion = 75% of a Barbarian...perhaps incorrectly. I agree with your statement if you're right about the intended meaning.

I read it as an animal companion + 1 feat = 75% of Barbarian.


Scavion wrote:
SR has never been an issue for any caster with a brain past very low levels.

Unless you're playing in an evil campaign.

Celestials OP pls nerf Piazo

Seriously between nearly everything having a g#% d!@n Lesser Globe of Invulnerability and SR higher than average for evil creatures of the same CR and them having rad saves on top usually it's pretty annoying.

501 to 550 of 1,041 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Paizo Blog: Advanced Class Guide Preview: Warpriest All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.