Advanced Class Guide Preview: Warpriest

Kudaku wrote:

That said, if the fighter and the cleric only gain 2 skill points per level because of legacy problems, and the warpriest gains 2 skill points per level because his parent classes gain 2 skill points, wouldn't that just be a repetition of old mistakes?

Maybe it would. But sometimes part of legacy design is choosing between two mistakes: obsolescing classes in the core book could also be considered a mistake.

And we don't know from this preview how many skill points the final Warpriest has. I won't really be too surprised one way or the other.

I think it's kind of hard to look at the play test classes and not already feel like certain classes are becoming obsolete.

You're right that the WP might have been bumped up to 4 ranks as part of the "more class features, less BAB" shift. I still have hope :)

Glad they have been brought down a notch. Even now with 3/4 bab all they need is a swift action Divine Favor and they are topping full bab class for hit. And at least now Divine Power is a worthwile spells for them.

So for a few times a day he can meaningfully contribute to combat.

Also there are few reasonable situations (other than the wizard has haste) where it would be better to where Divine power is better than spending your standard action for blessing of fervor. Math is easy on this one.

The class is limited by spells and X/Day abilities. It should be straight up stronger than classes who don't rely on X/Day because if it's not then why take it over someone who can do the same thing but all day. It should be behind when not using them. Unfortunately it's behind in both cases.

With the removal of the full BAB with sacred weapon, I worry that the Warpriest will become a throw away class with below average damage and poor utility. If the class is inferior to the paladin or cleric, I doubt the class will see much playtime. I will reserve judgment until I see the book thou.

Same here but unlike others I know that once I have the book the opportunity for the class to be good is gone. Similar to the magus issue I would have really just liked a remake of the duskblade for the magus.

Maybe more creatures will be added to the choices for the Monstrous Mount feat?

Then, I could get my Unicorn mount.

By the way, can I use my current Warpriest, using the current Playtest, or do I have to use the updates, as per the new Pregens?

It would be hard to update, without the complete class change rules.

This entire discussion makes my Int 18 knowledge-monkey fighter sad.

By the way, can I use my current Warpriest, using the current Playtest, or do I have to use the updates, as per the new Pregens?

I believe you keep using the playtest rules until the book comes out.

This entire discussion makes my Int 18 knowledge-monkey fighter sad.

If he's a Lore Warden, don't feel bad. They're basically a whole different class (a much better one), and not really covered by what we're talking about.

He's not. Two-Handed Fighter archetype, actually.

Looking at the Pregen Warpriest, he has 30 HP, (3d8+9) with a 14 Con.
So looks like 3 Favored Class Bonus goes to HP.

Skills are:
<Rank + Class Skill + Stat>

Heal +8 <1 + 3 + 2 (+2 Healer's Kit)>
Intimidate +6 <2 + 3 - 1 (+ 2 Orc)>
Knowledge (engineering) +4 <1 + 3 + 0>
Knowledge (religion) +4 <1 + 3 + 0>
Sense Motive +6 <1 + 3 + 2> Total of 6 Ranks spent

2 + 0 x3 = 6 Skill Points.

So looks like the Warpriest is a 2+Int class. Yay. . . <sarcasm>

I haven't checked into this thread for a couple days but I just wanted to report that tonight I played my 10th level Warpriest without the full BAB in still managed to have a blast despite forgetting to use any of my blessings. :) I think the class will be fine.

But but but what about the RAWR and the GRAWR and the ANGER?

No the Warpriest can't be "fine" as you so simply put it it must be trash and worthless.

Or something...what was I saying again?

Oh right space hamsters are cool.

Oh right space hamsters are cool.

Are they Ninja Jedi Space Hamsters? With Lightsaber Katanas? Because that would awesomerness!!

Oh right space hamsters are cool.

As long as they GO FOR THE EYES, BOO! GO FOR THE EYES!

havoc xiii wrote:

Oh right space hamsters are cool.

Are they Ninja Jedi Space Hamsters? With Lightsaber Katanas? Because that would awesomerness!!

Would still need fourth level casting for game balance.

But but but what about the RAWR and the GRAWR and the ANGER?

No the Warpriest can't be "fine" as you so simply put it it must be trash and worthless.

Clearly, the other party members he's playing with are all Fighters and Rogues.

And maybe a Monk.

havoc xiii wrote:

But but but what about the RAWR and the GRAWR and the ANGER?

No the Warpriest can't be "fine" as you so simply put it it must be trash and worthless.

Clearly, the other party members he's playing with are all Fighters and Rogues.

And maybe a Monk.

Honestly, could be rolled stats too. Lucky dice can make up for a lot. But yeah, the changes aren't the end of the world, just a little disheartening.

Very disheartening for me. The class went from being new and exciting to what seems to be a worse Inquisitor.

So many classes to choose from, it's just too bad you still have to play with those you don't like, else Jason Bulmahn will come knocking on your door. :D

And regarding those skill points: Those are class features. Fighter has 2+, Cleric has 2+ (reasons for that non-withstanding), Warpriest gets 2+ as well.

That's like a woman having brown hair and a man having brown hair, so the child will have brown hair as well. Whether the child cuts it short or wears it long is their choice.

That analogue is still bad, but better than that one you gave.

New class. New opportunity to not make the same design mistake. At this point though it's more like intentional negative design.

Yes, it is a shame that a class that had the potential to be a wonderful and fun class was instead pared down into an Inquisitor that that traded all its cool class features for mediocre ones.

As Orthos pointed out, the fighter doesn't have a big role outside of combat because he has a horrible skill list and only two skill ranks, because he doesn't have a big role outside of combat, because he only has two skill ranks. This strikes me as a case of circular reasoning.

But the skills listed previously do not insist on requiring max ranks to be effective. Nor are they required to take advantage of actually use class abilities.

I also find it a bit of a paradox that the gunslinger, the barbarian, the brawler, and the swashbuckler all get more skill points than the fighter. They all exist in more or less the same design space as "classes that focuses heavily on combat", yet they're all get better class skill lists and mechanically twice as "skilled" as the fighter.

Gunslingers actually need more skills to use their class abilities, such as Craft (alchemy). Barbarians actually have more of a 'role' baked into their mechanics which leads to them having the 'guy who lives outdoors and fights well' vibe that they have which leads to them actually having more skills.

Note that all of the skills I listed are opposed checks and frequently have very high DCs - Knowledge checks v monster CR, Perception v Stealth never caps, Sense Motive v Bluff never caps, Heal v Disase DC can reach some gnarly DCs and so on. These are not skills you want to dabble in. You could also make the same argument for the cleric in that they don't need to max their skills - I still don't understand why the cleric should get 4 skill ranks but, for example the paladin shouldn't.

Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, at level 1, 1 rank equals max ranks. Using the paladin as an example, I would expect a level 1 paladin to be diplomatic, be perceptive and have a decent chance to discern lies, and have a decent chance of recognizing his deity's holy symbol. YMMV, of course....

The Perception problem is a metagame decision made by internet forums driven by bad DMs. In editions past we had only one or two scout characters who would bother with spot and listen and the fighters and paladins would focus on other skills. Why that became a thing that everyone decided is necessary to have maxed on every character and thus merits the augmentation of every classes class skill list and number of skill ranks to accommodate for is beyond me.

But the skills listed previously do not insist on requiring max ranks to be effective. Nor are they required to take advantage of actually use class abilities.

I already covered this in my previous post:

Note that all of the skills I listed are opposed checks and frequently have very high DCs - Knowledge checks v monster CR, Perception v Stealth never caps, Sense Motive v Bluff never caps, Heal v Disase DC can reach some gnarly DCs and so on. These are not skills you want to dabble in. You could also make the same argument for the cleric in that they don't need to max their skills - I still don't understand why the cleric should get 4 skill ranks but, for example the paladin shouldn't.

And though I've asked you a few times now, you still haven't explained why you think the cleric deserves 4 skill points, but the paladin doesn't. Or if you think the druid should have 2 or 4 skill points?

Gunslingers actually need more skills to use their class abilities, such as Craft (alchemy).

It's a common misconception that gunslingers need Craft (Alchemy), but Gunsmithing explicitly calls out that they do not need to use craft checks to make ammunition, firearms, or restore firearms, which Gunslingers get as a bonus feat on level 1. Ironically the gunslinger has less incentive to take Craft (Alchemy) than most other classes. None of the classes I listed (the gunslinger, the barbarian, the brawler, and the swashbuckler) have a skill tax.

Barbarians actually have more of a 'role' baked into their mechanics which leads to them having the 'guy who lives outdoors and fights well' vibe that they have which leads to them actually having more skills.

Barbarians have a role that requires them having more skills, yet the whole point of the fighter is that he is "vanilla" so the player can input his own theme and role on him - a fighter can be a caravan guard, an officer, a mercenary, a savage, a knight, a swashbuckler, a brawler, a gladiator... Yet he's still stuck with two skill points and an awful skill list, which means that many of the concepts I describe above doesn't really work. Fortunately the introduction of traits (which I think, when used right, are one of the best game mechanics in the game) help patch over this deficiency, but I find it's still a problem.

Fighters having/needing a role comes down to player opinion, and some disagree with the notion that more skill points 'fix' the fighter class. That said, I myself have even made a thread or two about that particular class so you won't see a lot of arguments from me other than 'the way the fighter is currently written does not warrant the need to errata it into having more skills." There was a homebrew fighter fix by a user that I can never seem to remember that actually had a list of different career choices for fighters which had different class skills attached to them in a way that mirrored the Cavalier's Order and I will always continue to praise it as gold because it actually gives the fighter not only something to do out of combat, but a reason to have that role also which I find just as important as baking in those coveted skill points.

It sounds like we generally agree on the state of the fighter then. I remember liking the same homebrew, but I can't recall the details or who made it.

The Perception problem is a metagame decision made by internet forums driven by bad DMs. In editions past we had only one or two scout characters who would bother with spot and listen and the fighters and paladins would focus on other skills. Why that became a thing that everyone decided is necessary to have maxed on every character and thus merits the augmentation of every classes class skill list and number of skill ranks to accommodate for is beyond me.

That's a bit of a sweeping generalization... Please read what I wrote before jumping down my throat and accusing me of making metagame decisions. Note I didn't ever state that "all classes must have maxed perception". Here's what I actually said:

...I would expect a cleric of Sarenrae to be trained in Heal, Knowledge (Religion) and Spellcraft. The average first level cleric is only able to put ranks in two of those skills, and clerics of Sarenrae get off easy.

Erastil covers farmers, hunters, trade, family, community... So I'd expect a cleric of Erastil to be trained in Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Nature), Survival, and ideally also Spellcraft.

In fact, I did the exact opposite - when listing skills for two different cleric concepts I specifically didn't include perception despite that being an excellent skill for a class with a high wisdom modifier.

I typically find that paladins want, at a minimum: Diplomacy, Knowledge (Religion), Perception and Sense Motive.

However, I do expect a paladin (and a fighter, for that matter) to have ranks in Perception because Perception includes "guard duty". Standing guard or doing security work is thematically very much a fighter/paladin thing. The paladin even gets spells (Keep Watch, for instance) that makes him able to perform the duty better. However in reality it's usually the inquisitor, the rogue or the bard that are stuck on watch duty since they have Perception as a class skill, enough skills to pop ranks into perception, and/or a positive wisdom modifier.

New class. New opportunity to not make the same design mistake choice I disagree with.

Fixed for you again.

New class. New opportunity to not make the same design mistake. At this point though it's more like intentional negative design. Maybe I won't like it, but others might.

That one was a little harder, but I think I managed to pull it off.

Seriously though, why wait until the class is released already? This isn't the playtest thread - nothing you say has any chance of influencing the designers or resulting in any chances to the class. All you're doing is complaining about a class whose details you haven't seen to a bunch of other people... who also haven't seen the details.

Seriously though, why wait until the class is released already? This isn't the playtest thread - nothing you say has any chance of influencing the designers or resulting in any chances to the class. All you're doing is complaining about a class whose details you haven't seen to a bunch of other people... who also haven't seen the details.

Honestly? I think the "class preview" thread is the best place to discuss the class based on the preview we've gotten. Note that the original preview showcased an major unexpected negative change (WP lost pseudo-BAB) and an expected (imo minor) positive change (we tweaked blessings). People expressed concern about those changes, Jason posted to assuage those concerns, and now we know more about the upcoming class - namely that it's less MAD now, and that it uses its warpriest level to qualify for bonus feats. Stating legitimate concerns about the class based on the preview is not necessarily a futile exercise.

If the Warpriest had been presented as a 3/4th BAB class in the revised play test then I for one would have pushed significantly harder for 4 skill points and full LoH / Channel progression than I did. I accepted the 2 skills and staggered progression as more or less inevitable for a ~full BAB class with a 6th level spell list, but for a 3/4th BAB class that has zero mechanical incentive to put ranks in intelligence I don't think 4 skill points is out of line. As noted above, there is quite a lot of precedence for that already.

That said, I'm nowhere near ready to declare any kind of "summary judgement" on the class. It could turn out great, or... not so great. We don't really know yet, it all depends on how the trade-offs for the BAB change balance out.

Either way I'm more excited for the ACG to be released than any other Paizo book to date, and I can't wait to take a look at the new classes and see how they turned out! :)

Because a lot of people had high hopes for the class, but are not liking what we are seeing. While it might be too late to change the book, a fact of life is that people are going to argue the most about/for the things they like the most. Wait and see isnt helpful if what people do see is not what they are looking for. If you like what you see, great. No one is mad that you seem to be getting what you want.

And regarding those skill points: Those are class features. Fighter has 2+

Yes, they are class features. A bad choise for the class feature.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

New class. New opportunity to not make the same design mistake choice I disagree with.

Fixed for you again.

"Mistake" and "design choice I disagree with" aren't mutually exclusive.

It's a common misconception that gunslingers need Craft (Alchemy), but Gunsmithing explicitly calls out that they do not need to use craft checks to make ammunition, firearms, or restore firearms, which Gunslingers get as a bonus feat on level 1. Ironically the gunslinger has less incentive to take Craft (Alchemy) than most other classes. None of the classes I listed (the gunslinger, the barbarian, the brawler, and the swashbuckler) have a skill tax.

Pedantic note: Actually, to make Alchemical Cartridges (which is pretty much required to be a good Gunslinger) they do need precisely one rank in Craft (Alchemy).

They never need to roll it or put a second rank in though, and I agree with the rest of your post.

Franz Lunzer wrote:

And regarding those skill points: Those are class features. Fighter has 2+

Yes, they are class features. A bad choise for the class feature.

It might be a bad choice.

It might be a decision with reasons (implied parenthood, backwards compatibility... you name it).

Insain Dragoon wrote:

New class. New opportunity to not make the same design mistake choice I disagree with.

Fixed for you again.

Disagreeing with a desing choise that is also a mistake is not a bad thing.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

New class. New opportunity to not make the same design mistake choice I disagree with.

Fixed for you again.

Okay, seriously dude, knock it off. "Fixed it for you" makes me want to punch faces.

If you disagree, then say you freaking disagree. But don't go saying "here, this is what you meant to say". What the guy said is what the guy meant to say.

All of this over 2 skill points per level, which can be remedied by having your FCB go to skills, being Human for an extra skill/level, not dumping Intelligence (Guided Weapon makes you SAD), and some other things that I probably forgot to mention.

These things should not be required for the class to function as intended. What weapon enhancements and junk you can get is going to be the purview of your GM, and again, a class should not need a specific item to be able to function properly - or if they do, it should be a feature built into the class. And frankly the idea of a class only being able to do the skills it needs to do to do its job if all its members are Humans pisses me off to no end, as someone who wants to see far, far less of "Humans are the best race for everything".

Not QUITE as much as "Fixed it for you", but close.

These things should not be required for the class to function as intended. ...

What skills are required for the warpriest to function as intended then?

knowledge (religion)? probably, though he has no class feature depending on it.
heal? same as knowledge (religion).
spellcraft? hardly, there are most likely other casters in the party.
perception? always useful, but not really a requirement either.

So depending on a (perceived) required level of competence, a warpriest can do with 2 skill points per level, IMHO.

For what it's worth, i'm pretty stoked for the Warpriest ... newest revelations and all.

Orthos wrote:

These things should not be required for the class to function as intended. ...

What skills are required for the warpriest to function as intended then?

knowledge (religion)? probably, though he has no class feature depending on it.
heal? same as knowledge (religion).
spellcraft? hardly, there are most likely other casters in the party.
perception? always useful, but not really a requirement either.

So depending on a (perceived) required level of competence, a warpriest can do with 2 skill points per level, IMHO.

I guess we must disagree then. I see all four of those as bare-minimum necessities. I can't see a party not getting frustrated over a divine-caster character who doesn't have those first three maxed or very very near maxed, at the very least.

** spoiler omitted **

I'm quite aware. It's something I have and will continue to grumble about and dislike.

MechE_ wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

New class. New opportunity to not make the same design mistake choice I disagree with.

Fixed for you again.

Okay, seriously dude, knock it off. "Fixed it for you" makes me want to punch faces.

If you disagree, then say you freaking disagree. But don't go saying "here, this is what you meant to say". What the guy said is what the guy meant to say.

I believe you are referring to the phenomena that some scholars refer to as, "the sound that makes me want to punch babies."

Anyways, here is my rant for Warpriests; I am a Warpriest with the mount archetype (assumption, I know but go with it.) I was blessed by being Human and even have an above average intelligence. The religious institute I went to taught me these things: Riding a horse, Training a horse. Because I pick up on things very fast I also dabbled in learning a thing or two about this divine entity that has empowered me to deliver righteous beatings on all of the things. And since I am smarter than most I also read a book or two about all this magic stuff I keep doing on the training field. Obviously, I graduated top of my class. I don’t expect anyone else to achieve such academic heights anytime soon either.

Guess I'll get this out there

What I want from the Warpriest
-Better Sustained combat than the Inquisitor
-Blessings that offer meaningful contribution to situations
-It not to play like an inquisitor (Right now it seems the Warpriest is gonna spend a few rounds swift action buffing with short buffs on a limited use per day. That gameplay is exactly like the inquisitor)
-Capable of being effective at a group of skills that are useful to itself and the party. Also hopefully 4+ skill points
-For it to suceed at being a "any alinement Paladin!"

What I don't want
-For it to be an Inquisitor in medium armor
-For it to be a worse "Warpriest" than a Martial1/Cleric19 or similar "beatstick faith based PrC/multiclass" since the whole point of this book seems to be obsoleting those.
-For it to have trouble offering a new gameplay experience
-Buffed blessing that are still terrible (Standard action blessings that offer tiny gains? Blech)

Only time will tell how the Warpriest turns out, but I find it hard to believe that many abilities were added between V2 and final since they had to rush these classes to meet a publication deadline (SKR said as much in several threads). As things stand it really seems that the Warpriest will play as an Inquisitor in medium armor, the cleric spell list on slow progression, with few skill points, and few compelling class features that offer narrative power.

This saddens me because Warpriest was actually viable in V2 and now it seems the new Warpriest is struggling to find its identity among the scraps of other classes features.

Also to clarify. I say it seems that it will play like an inquisitor because its

Swift action buff
Move
Attack

Swift action buff
Full attack

Except the Inquisitor gets better swift action buffs.

Potentially the Warpriest will have better swift buffs though. Once i get the book i want to do some side by sides with the same concepts built on a Warpriest and an Inquisitor chasis, right now it looks like the Warpriest will have better AC and the Inquisitor will have a slightly higher damage output but who knows what will be in that book.

Removed a post and the replies to it. This kind of real world comparison isn't appropriate on paizo.com.

Potentially the Warpriest will have better swift buffs though. Once i get the book i want to do some side by sides with the same concepts built on a Warpriest and an Inquisitor chasis, right now it looks like the Warpriest will have better AC and the Inquisitor will have a slightly higher damage output but who knows what will be in that book.

Eventually yeah they get some sweet buffs. They also drain their resources super duper fast. Swift action spell costs a fervor and a spell slot after all.

Maybe I'm wrong and Paizo added a bunch of class features to make Warpriest competitive, but considering how rushed the ACG was I sort of doubt that.

So is it confirmed that the Warpriest gets his own spell list or is it just up to level 6 of the clerics spells?

Looks like 6th level Cleric list, though I wouldnt be surprised if they get a small selection of spells earlier.

So is it confirmed that the Warpriest gets his own spell list or is it just up to level 6 of the clerics spells?

Nothing has been said about it changing, are they any abnormal spells listed for the pregen?

Major_Blackhart wrote:

So is it confirmed that the Warpriest gets his own spell list or is it just up to level 6 of the clerics spells?

Nothing has been said about it changing, are they any abnormal spells listed for the pregen?

No...but Investigators use the Alchemist list and the Investigator's the only other caster. So, that doesn't seem to mean much.

So maybe the pregens arent made using the absolute final version of the ACG?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the pregens used the rules "as they were" at a specific point in time. I want to say March, but I can't say for sure.