Advanced Class Guide Preview: Warpriest

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.

I believe the Celestial beings were intended to be more powerful than their evil counterparts because the evil ones out-number the good ones.

From a fluff perspective, yes.

From a mechanical perspective I'm pretty sure the reason they felt justified doing it was because they never factored in PCs using Evil options though.

Like, the evil versions of spells are always weaker as well.

Look at Holy Smite vs Unholy Blight, or Holy Word vs Blasphemy.

They seem to have balanced the game with a pretty lopsided view of the power scheme, it's kinda disappointing since it makes you want to steer away from the Evil counterparts of other wise good Good spells.

It's like the CR system was based off of the evil version of stuff and you may as well chuck it out the window for good creatures because a CR 10 Demon and a CR 10 Angel are in a whole different league.

From a fluff perspective, yes.

From a mechanical perspective I'm pretty sure the reason they felt justified doing it was because they never factored in PCs using Evil options though.

Like, the evil versions of spells are always weaker as well.

Look at Holy Smite vs Unholy Blight, or Holy Word vs Blasphemy.

They seem to have balanced the game with a pretty lopsided view of the power scheme, it's kinda disappointing since it makes you want to steer away from the Evil counterparts of other wise good Good spells.

It's like the CR system was based off of the evil version of stuff and you may as well chuck it out the window for good creatures because a CR 10 Demon and a CR 10 Angel are in a whole different league.

Ghaele Azata can kick the crap out of most evil counterparts (demons, devils, daemons) up to the CR 17 range or so.

Looking forward to breaking the new version of warpriest like i broke the test play version. Lol
i would like to see the weapon buffs last longer than a round and want to see the new versions of the blessings.

I'm glad weapon damage scaling stayed, it was actually my favorite aspect of the warpriest. In my mind there are a lot of weapons that don't get much use in play. With this we can see characters using weapons not normally used and still be able to catch up.

Which means I'm probably going to abuse the scythe. Go warscythe!

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.

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.

Could someone link me to the current version of Warpriest that we're all talking about?

Could someone link me to the current version of Warpriest that we're all talking about?

It's not currently available but we know it doesn't have the full BAB effects charisma appears 0 times in the class and that the very minor buffs from domains are reviving slight improvements.

So they made everything based on wisdom, then? Splendid, I'm okay with that sacrifice.

Assuming a ranger invests in an amulet of mighty fists +2 or 3 or if you really want optimization a Vicious, Holy amulet of mighty fists by level 13 and invests in the feat that improves their effective druid level by 4 (Up to hitdice) for animal companion purposes then the full AC as a lion does Bite (2d6) 2 Claws (1d8) 2 Rake (1d8) (Increased natural weapon dice feats) on a pounce with to hit bonuses a STR score of 22 without any magical items is +6 str, +6 PA, +7 vicious damage, +7 holy damage. At this point you have to spend more gold than just an AoMF If you are unwilling then for 36000 gold you improve your damage by 173 points. So I was slightly off. It's about 55-60% of a barbarian, more if they don't take beast totem.

Well, first off, Rangers can't get Big Cats. Their Animal Companion choices are sharply circumscribed. There's at least one Archetype that fixes this, but it's still worth noting.

Second, the lion you list above has a +11 to hit (it would be +10 with the Str you list, but a 13th level Big Cat has a 25). At 13th level. You can improve that somewhat, but it's probably gonna max at +17 or so. And that's a at least 5 and maybe more like 10 points or so below the amount a Barbarian that level would have on their primary attack, and they probably have only half the HP. And likely Saves that are, say, half as high. Less on Will Saves.

So...calling it even half a Barbarian is not gonna fly. I love Animal Companions quite a bit, and they're one of the single best damage enhancers in the game, but they aren't the equal of having another martial PC in the party. Not even close.

Undone wrote:

Assuming a ranger invests in an amulet of mighty fists +2 or 3 or if you really want optimization a Vicious, Holy amulet of mighty fists by level 13 and invests in the feat that improves their effective druid level by 4 (Up to hitdice) for animal companion purposes then the full AC as a lion does Bite (2d6) 2 Claws (1d8) 2 Rake (1d8) (Increased natural weapon dice feats) on a pounce with to hit bonuses a STR score of 22 without any magical items is +6 str, +6 PA, +7 vicious damage, +7 holy damage. At this point you have to spend more gold than just an AoMF If you are unwilling then for 36000 gold you improve your damage by 173 points. So I was slightly off. It's about 55-60% of a barbarian, more if they don't take beast totem.

Well, first off, Rangers can't get Big Cats. Their Animal Companion choices are sharply circumscribed. There's at least one Archetype that fixes this, but it's still worth noting.

Second, the lion you list above has a +11 to hit (it would be +10 with the Str you list, but a 13th level Big Cat has a 25). At 13th level. You can improve that somewhat, but it's probably gonna max at +17 or so. And that's a at least 5 and maybe more like 10 points or so below the amount a Barbarian that level would have on their primary attack, and they probably have only half the HP. And likely Saves that are, say, half as high. Less on Will Saves.

So...calling it even half a Barbarian is not gonna fly. I love Animal Companions quite a bit, and they're one of the single best damage enhancers in the game, but they aren't the equal of having another martial PC in the party. Not even close.

I may as well point out that the one archetype that gives Rangers access to pouncers causes them to no longer give their pets their favored enemy bonus.

I think the feat that can give a ranger a gryphon is an option that works with favored enemy bonuses though.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Undone wrote:

Assuming a ranger invests in an amulet of mighty fists +2 or 3 or if you really want optimization a Vicious, Holy amulet of mighty fists by level 13 and invests in the feat that improves their effective druid level by 4 (Up to hitdice) for animal companion purposes then the full AC as a lion does Bite (2d6) 2 Claws (1d8) 2 Rake (1d8) (Increased natural weapon dice feats) on a pounce with to hit bonuses a STR score of 22 without any magical items is +6 str, +6 PA, +7 vicious damage, +7 holy damage. At this point you have to spend more gold than just an AoMF If you are unwilling then for 36000 gold you improve your damage by 173 points. So I was slightly off. It's about 55-60% of a barbarian, more if they don't take beast totem.

Well, first off, Rangers can't get Big Cats. Their Animal Companion choices are sharply circumscribed. There's at least one Archetype that fixes this, but it's still worth noting.

Second, the lion you list above has a +11 to hit (it would be +10 with the Str you list, but a 13th level Big Cat has a 25). At 13th level. You can improve that somewhat, but it's probably gonna max at +17 or so. And that's a at least 5 and maybe more like 10 points or so below the amount a Barbarian that level would have on their primary attack, and they probably have only half the HP. And likely Saves that are, say, half as high. Less on Will Saves.

So...calling it even half a Barbarian is not gonna fly. I love Animal Companions quite a bit, and they're one of the single best damage enhancers in the game, but they aren't the equal of having another martial PC in the party. Not even close.

I may as well point out that the one archetype that gives Rangers access to pouncers causes them to no longer give their pets their favored enemy bonus.

I think the feat that can give a ranger a gryphon is an option that works with favored enemy bonuses though.

I was actually not using the FE bonuses. If you want to use those just use the feat that gives you a griffon.

My response did not use Favored Enemy bonuses either (and those certainly help when they apply or you burn the spell)...but that doesn't help the defenses I mention at all.

"I don't like the Warpriest because he's not damage op."

Pfft.

listen up you OP lovers, how many people are in your roleplaying group on average per session minus the DM?

The usual number is four. which means you got four able body adventurers to do the job.

now, the Warpriest is not yet fully revealed and the developers probably changed the numbers a little more than you think. so don't go, "this can't be OP." until you see the final results.

second, the point of an adventuring party is by pooling your strengths together to get a better advantage. if you notice in many of the AP series iconics, at least two of the members are always combat efficient. so unless you have only one player playing a combative class, their is no need or necessity to OP.

In many ways it is the supportive roles that make a difference, the combat ones are just meat shields and slegehammers, the supportive roles can't handle such conditions so the combat ones do it for them.

*exhale* Sorry, had to get that off of my chest.

"I don't like the Warpriest because he's not damage op."

Pfft.

listen up you OP lovers, how many people are in your roleplaying group on average per session minus the DM?

The usual number is four. which means you got four able body adventurers to do the job.

now, the Warpriest is not yet fully revealed and the developers probably changed the numbers a little more than you think. so don't go, "this can't be OP." until you see the final results.

second, the point of an adventuring party is by pooling your strengths together to get a better advantage. if you notice in many of the AP series iconics, at least two of the members are always combat efficient. so unless you have only one player playing a combative class, their is no need or necessity to OP.

In many ways it is the supportive roles that make a difference, the combat ones are just meat shields and slegehammers, the supportive roles can't handle such conditions so the combat ones do it for them.

*exhale* Sorry, had to get that off of my chest.

My argument is his utility is dwarfed by all 3 of the full BAB 4th level caster classes in addition to his damage being much lower.

My response did not use Favored Enemy bonuses either (and those certainly help when they apply or you burn the spell)...but that doesn't help the defenses I mention at all.

you're right about the saves but the AC on the animal companion should be in the 30s easily.

My argument is his utility is dwarfed by all 3 of the full BAB 4th level caster classes in addition to his damage being much lower.

As I mentioned about a page back, this is not correct at all in regards to utility. Which has nothing to do with combat. And is a lot less true in damage than you seem to think.

You still haven't responded at all to those in-depth criticisms of your argument, I'll note.

you're right about the saves but the AC on the animal companion should be in the 30s easily.

I never mentioned low AC for precisely this reason. I mentioned HP and Saves.

*exhale* Sorry, had to get that off of my chest.

While I'm glad you're feeling better about yourself now, I really don't think a post like that is going to improve the mood in the thread.

I'm going to ask you to either edit to make it less antagonistic, or delete it completely.

My argument is his utility is dwarfed by all 3 of the full BAB 4th level caster classes in addition to his damage being much lower.

Uh.....He's six levels of spell casting not four.

Undone wrote:

My argument is his utility is dwarfed by all 3 of the full BAB 4th level caster classes in addition to his damage being much lower.

Uh.....He's six levels of spell casting not four.

I think that was part of his point. That he's arguing that this six-level caster is worse than a lot of 4-level casters.

zergtitan wrote:

*exhale* Sorry, had to get that off of my chest.

While I'm glad you're feeling better about yourself now, I really don't think a post like that is going to improve the mood in the thread.

I'm going to ask you to either edit to make it less antagonistic, or delete it completely.

I apologize for the rudeness of my post, though it doesn't change the point.

Plus, I can't edit that post anymore.

If it seemed selfish, it was not my intention. when I tend to get irritated by a subject I tend to become "I and Me" in an argument when I'm trying to say "We" in the spur of a moment. I was trying to voice an opinion "bluntly" to try to cease the whining on a class not yet fully released in it's entirety and therefore cannot yet be truly judged.

zergtitan wrote:

Undone wrote:

My argument is his utility is dwarfed by all 3 of the full BAB 4th level caster classes in addition to his damage being much lower.

Uh.....He's six levels of spell casting not four.

I think that was part of his point. That he's arguing that this six-level caster is worse than a lot of 4-level casters.

Ah. well I guess we won't really know until August whether or not their larger amount of spell casting can make the difference to equal them out and if the abilities of the Warpriest are better than we think.

This thread has made me go back and take a long, hard look at the Inquisitor... man, I forgot how much that class gets! Especially with some of those Inquisition options. I'm starting to hope that the Warpriest was compared against them for balancig. Or failing that, I can build most of the same concepts with a book I already have and would only need to dip into the Warpriest for weird weapon weilders (A WWWW if you will.)

Did it ever get answered how Weapon Focus(Ray), and Weapon Focus(Net) interact with the Sacred Weapon ability?

There are actually a number of Deities that have the Net as their favored weapon, so I ask.

I am still waiting to find out if Sacred Weapon damage can change a nonlethal weapon to lethal. Something tells me that will be unchanged though.

Undone wrote:

My argument is his utility is dwarfed by all 3 of the full BAB 4th level caster classes in addition to his damage being much lower.

As I mentioned about a page back, this is not correct at all in regards to utility. Which has nothing to do with combat. And is a lot less true in damage than you seem to think.

You still haven't responded at all to those in-depth criticisms of your argument, I'll note.

Undone wrote:

you're right about the saves but the AC on the animal companion should be in the 30s easily.

I never mentioned low AC for precisely this reason. I mentioned HP and Saves.

As I mentioned animal companions, immunity auras, inborn spells and the ability to fly all mimic spells often times important. The difference being these function in all cases and provide allies with valuable abilities (resistances to fear, disease, exct) passively. Nothing the WP gets compares to paladin auras, the AC, <flight> +5 foot reach, free resistances, or 4 levels of arcane spells vs divine spells (The magus being closest with the blood rager being the weakest of the three as printed due to no personalized spell list).

The issue is simple.

The WP has almost exclusively combat passive abilities for class features.
The WP has to use his spells for combat or utility.
The Paladin (what I feel is closest) has utility passively in auras, immunities, and a bond or mount.
The paladin has stronger in combat capabilities.
The cleric has similar combat abilities if you make use of scrying or are at levels >4 or >6 (Depending on the cleric).
The cleric has significantly more utility.

Either it's worse than the paladin or worse than the cleric. That's my problem with it when it hasn't full BAB. When it has full BAB it's closer to the paladin in damage and can focus spells on utility making those spells actually useful instead of shoring up it's shortcomings in combat.

I'm trying to wrap my head around what your saying...and I'm really really have a hard time doing it.

I was disappointed when I read the initial blog post. I was a fan of the 'crusader' build available in the old Skills and Powers book - essentially a divine buffing warrior.

I'm still eager to see the final class.

I'm trying to wrap my head around what your saying...and I'm really really have a hard time doing it.

It's probably best just to smile and nod and walk away.

Remember when people played different classes simply because they sounded fun?

This thread has made me go back and take a long, hard look at the Inquisitor... man, I forgot how much that class gets! Especially with some of those Inquisition options. I'm starting to hope that the Warpriest was compared against them for balancig. Or failing that, I can build most of the same concepts with a book I already have and would only need to dip into the Warpriest for weird weapon weilders (A WWWW if you will.)

Aye, Paizo did a phenomenal job while designing Inquisitors to be Divine Bards. Yea, it may not have the innate group support of baseline Bards, but the Inquisitor chassis is still extremely versatile and can be built to fill a wide variety of party roles. The sheer number of Domains and Inquisitions it has access to really open up some interesting options for them.

Remember when people played different classes simply because they sounded fun?

Not only do I remember those days, but I regret decisions made those days. Being a Fighter because it sounded fun next to a Barbarian, Archer Ranger, Battle Cleric, and Sorcerer? We all built what we thought was fun. Guess who ended up feeling burned by their choices?

But it was okay! I played a rogue after that because it sounded freaking cool! And boy was I burned for that too.

It turns out that certain classes are by nature unable to support the concepts you have in mind. A class that does a bad job supporting the desired concept (tough tower shield fighter, sneaky assassin dude, religious warrior) is actually the opposite of fun. Is our goal really to make sure that the Warpriest is overpowered, or is it to ensure that future Warpriest players can actually be the character they want to be?

I would love to see the Warpriest get the option to take Domains or Inquisitions instead of his warpriest blessings. Anger Inquisition coupled with some Warpriest buffs and bonuses. What's not to like?

I find it a little depressing that posters are being ridiculed here for voicing concerns regarding the Warpriest when those same concerns, voiced in the ACG play test, helped make the WP what it is today. If people were happily nodding along to to the original class as put forward by Paizo the Warpriest would be the paladin take on the Warrior NPC class.

Remember when people played different classes simply because they sounded fun?

Do you know what class I played because I thought it sounded fun? The Truenamer! Learning the secret language of the universe! Awesome! Altering the state of things around me by uttering their true name? Woo! Mastering the Lexicon of the Evolving Mind, Crafted Tool and the Perfected Map? Can't wait!

Since then I've come to realize that I'd like classes to have more to them than a catchy name.

It would be great if they could give us something. Other than the book I mean.

Such as........?

As I mentioned animal companions, immunity auras, inborn spells and the ability to fly all mimic spells often times important. The difference being these function in all cases and provide allies with valuable abilities (resistances to fear, disease, exct) passively.

Almost none of these are utility powers in the sense normally used. They're all almost exclusively useful in direct combat and nowhere else. To reiterate, that's not what utility means.

Nothing the WP gets compares to paladin auras, the AC, <flight> +5 foot reach, free resistances, or 4 levels of arcane spells vs divine spells

They have the full Cleric list up to level 6. That's a huge amount of utility if they prep right.

(The magus being closest with the blood rager being the weakest of the three as printed due to no personalized spell list).

I...have no idea what you just said.

The issue is simple.

The WP has almost exclusively combat passive abilities for class features.

Possibly, but he also has the Cleric list. And going through the Warpriest's shortcomings, while certainly relevant to this thread, is not sufficient for your argument with me, since you made a lot of general statements about all 6-level casters that I was disagreeing with, not just ones about the Warpriest (which I wouldn't have disputed the same way...since we simply don't know enough about the final version to say much about it).

The WP has to use his spells for combat or utility.

Yes. And?

The Paladin (what I feel is closest) has utility passively in auras, immunities, and a bond or mount.

Those aren't utility. They're very nice, but don't meet the definition of utility abilities that other people are using.

The paladin has stronger in combat capabilities.

Possibly. Hard to tell given we lack the full class at the moment.

The cleric has similar combat abilities if you make use of scrying or are at levels >4 or >6 (Depending on the cleric).

You can only scry creatures you're familiar with, and Clerics can only scry at 9th level plus...and Warpriests can do the same from 13th if they like.

The cleric has significantly more utility.

Yes, he does. But he might have less direct combat capability. We'll just have to wait and see.

Either it's worse than the paladin or worse than the cleric.

A 6 level caster is supposed to be a middle ground between a 4 level caster and a 9th level one. I'm not sure I see the problem.

That's my problem with it when it hasn't full BAB. When it has full BAB it's closer to the paladin in damage and can focus spells on utility making those spells actually useful instead of shoring up it's shortcomings in combat.

Or it could burn those spells on combat like it was designed to...and maybe be too good in combat. Which would be why the change. Now, we'll have to see if what was gained makes up for that in other ways, but it's very possible.

Getting hyped again looking at this class. Have a half formed idea for a small sized PC using spells and bonus feats for a ridiculous charge hit. Really need a mounted archetype now though.

The art on the post suggests just such an archetype.

:) that's what got me thinking about it in the first place.

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...

I have a suspicion that that's actually a fiendish warhorse. I say that because it would be much easier to balance a class that gets an animal companion with a template than getting a Nightmare outright.

I suppose if you could get a celestial warhorse it might kinda look like a unicorn.

The artwork above is titled "Divine Commander". Could be an archetype that gives a freebie Leadership feat with a score bonus like the Nobiliy Domain does. From there the mount might just be a cohort.

The artwork above is titled "Divine Commander". Could be an archetype that gives a freebie Leadership feat with a score bonus like the Nobiliy Domain does. From there the mount might just be a cohort.

That's true, but I'm not sure 'fancy mount' is the default way I'd want to illustrate that class. (On the other hand, I'm not sure why 'Commander' would get a fancy mount, in particular, either.)

I guess we'll just have to see what happens when the book comes out.

Maybe the fancy horse is related to one of the blessings? A paladin-style mount would make sense for the Animal domain, actually.

In any case, I'm now a little more excited about the warpriest now that it's mechanics are cleared up. I think that removing the restriction for Sacred Weapon to be your deity's favoured weapon could allow for some interesting character concepts.

Maybe the fancy horse is related to one of the blessings? A paladin-style mount would make sense for the Animal domain, actually.

In any case, I'm now a little more excited about the warpriest now that it's mechanics are cleared up. I think that removing the restriction for Sacred Weapon to be your deity's favoured weapon could allow for some interesting character concepts.

Wait I'm confused. I thought the sacred weapon didn't have to be your deity's favored weapon.

TerminalArtiste wrote:

Maybe the fancy horse is related to one of the blessings? A paladin-style mount would make sense for the Animal domain, actually.

In any case, I'm now a little more excited about the warpriest now that it's mechanics are cleared up. I think that removing the restriction for Sacred Weapon to be your deity's favoured weapon could allow for some interesting character concepts.

Wait I'm confused. I thought the sacred weapon didn't have to be your deity's favored weapon.

It doesn't. However, it did in the first playtest version, though not the second.

TerminalArtiste wrote:

Maybe the fancy horse is related to one of the blessings? A paladin-style mount would make sense for the Animal domain, actually.

In any case, I'm now a little more excited about the warpriest now that it's mechanics are cleared up. I think that removing the restriction for Sacred Weapon to be your deity's favoured weapon could allow for some interesting character concepts.

Wait I'm confused. I thought the sacred weapon didn't have to be your deity's favored weapon.

It did during the first play test but they changed it to any weapon you have weapon focus with.

Edit: Deadmanwalking beat me too it.

That's correct. It's been like that since the 2nd playtest.

Whoops. Double ninja'd.

So many ninjas. Didn't realize the class was that popular.

Only on the forums. You never see them in play... if they are being played right ;p

Only on the forums. You never see them in play... if they are being played right ;p

If you think you've seen a Ninja, it was just a fake.