Advanced Class Guide Preview: Warpriest

That is nice to hear, maybe there was a little more tweaking done after that module went to print. I heard the Swashbuckler was left with only Reflex as a good save and the parry/riposte mechanic they left in was a just as disapointing as in the play test. Still, at low levels there is only one or two melee attacks coming at you in a round so those are the ones you would parry anyways... but before knowing if its even in the ball park of you AC is just.... arghh, you know? anyways, enough off topic.

I am thinking more and more about resource usage for this class. When not using fervors and buffs I would like the class to fall between cleric and fighter, thanks to bonus feats I believe the class will do that. When using fervors and buffs I want the class to pull ahead of the fighter and while I dont feel good about that I also recognize that I dont know enough about the class to say it cant do that. Does that seem like the right balance for the class? The lower BAB hurts accuracy, number of attacks per round and scaling of Power Attack but in theory all of those attributes can be fixed with fervor... but I keep feeling the class will blow all its buffs just to match a fighter for minutes/day without having anything left to do with class features after that.

The good thing is that researching about what i could do with the warpriest i came up with lots of awesome things for the inquisitor.

So he will be my warpriest version until PF 2.0 when they, hopefuly, admit the mistake.

:)

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>

The pregen is actually not based on the final version of the warpriest, but on the second playtest.

With the exception of the retraining rules, this is actually a strange trend in Pathfinder: feat chains and strange combination of feats, strange combination of abilities, archetypes that lock you into a class if you want X or Y, etc.

Whatever happened to the build-it-yourself attitude that was so fresh in the core book?

I really hope we get more options in this book, if not I can actually see myself giving up on Pathfinder.

Not that I dislike Pathfinder, but the game has become too complicated without offering tools to mold your character the way you want it, unless you specialize hard core. Be it by picking a feat chain or lock yourself into an archetype you really don’t want to play.

Or they could remove all the most unuseful abilities, like sacred armor and the enchant to sacred weapon and just leave the class é a full bab, d8, version of paladin with access to 6lv spells instead of all the paladins nices. Only leaving fervor for insta buffs.

Would be unique, useful, and doesnt need to burn all buffs just to be as good as a fighter without buffs.

I had almost forgotten about sacred armor... mweh. I hope it was altered for the final print. The both of them, change sacred armor to let armor bonus apply against touch attacks and have sacred weapon be a limited per day ability to convert damage to a divine source. Or just some kind of change. As is I don't see sacred armor being used and sacred weapon won't be a big enough boost to come into play until the last few levels of most campaigns.

the loss of full bab kills the class I will just go back to playing an antipally with broken abilities that dont work on anything

the loss of full bab kills the class I will just go back to playing an antipally with broken abilities that dont work on anything

Is there anything else in the release version we should know about?

I know i may not sound like it but i actually dont think the class is dead on arrival, i am actually very anxious to see what was done in the final revision... especially as this class made me go back and look at the Inquisitor and all that class has going for it. Heres hoping the Warpriest was compared against that one in the final write up.

I know i may not sound like it but i actually dont think the class is dead on arrival, i am actually very anxious to see what was done in the final revision... especially as this class made me go back and look at the Inquisitor and all that class has going for it. Heres hoping the Warpriest was compared against that one in the final write up.

I certainly wouldn't call the class DOA either. I just hope it has something in there that can make up for it's BAB. Something good.

Using the APG classes as a baseline for paizo created classes, things are looking good for the final edits to the ACG. I havent seen nearly as much concern raised for the other previewed classes either. Its just unfortunate that the preview in this case portrayed the class as a lesser Inquisitor.

Torbyne wrote:

I know i may not sound like it but i actually dont think the class is dead on arrival, i am actually very anxious to see what was done in the final revision... especially as this class made me go back and look at the Inquisitor and all that class has going for it. Heres hoping the Warpriest was compared against that one in the final write up.

I certainly wouldn't call the class DOA either. I just hope it has something in there that can make up for it's BAB. Something good.

It has six levels of spellcasting. why in the world would you think it needed anything else.

It has six levels of spellcasting. why in the world would you think it needed anything else.

On the one hand we have the Warpriest: D8 HD, 3/4 BAB, strong Fortitude and Will save, 6th level cleric spell list.

On the other hand we have the Cleric: D8 HD, 3/4th BAB, strong Fortitude and Will save, 9th level cleric spell list.

More than any other ACG class, the class features will make or break the Warpriest. Come on too strong and it might will the fighter or even the paladin, come on too weak and it'll be ignored for the Cleric and the inquisitor.

It's a tricky class to balance because it's trying to make a niche for itself in a fairly crowded design space.

Hopefully this class becomes the new Monk. Mediocre, but with awesome archetypes that make it worth playing.

Hopefully the class is perfectly fine and capable on its own and we just don't know all of the awesome edits made yet and there are awesome archetypes available to customize it.

Squeakmaan wrote:

It has six levels of spellcasting. why in the world would you think it needed anything else.

On the one hand we have the Warpriest: D8 HD, 3/4 BAB, strong Fortitude and Will save, 6th level cleric spell list.

On the other hand we have the Cleric: D8 HD, 3/4th BAB, strong Fortitude and Will save, 9th level cleric spell list.

More than any other ACG class, the class features will make or break the Warpriest. Come on too strong and it might will the fighter or even the paladin, come on too weak and it'll be ignored for the Cleric and the inquisitor.

It's a tricky class to balance because it's trying to make a niche for itself in a fairly crowded design space.

100% agree. I'm looking forward to seeing the complete class because of the possibilities of the class feature. I almost of the belief the ONLY full BAB in the game should have been the fighter. Barbarian, ranger and a paladin should use 3/4 BAB and use their class abilities to compensate.

Hopefully the class is perfectly fine and capable on its own and we just don't know all of the awesome edits made yet and there are awesome archetypes available to customize it.

I really, really, really want this to be true. But I'm still pretty nervous.

Torbyne wrote:

Hopefully the class is perfectly fine and capable on its own and we just don't know all of the awesome edits made yet and there are awesome archetypes available to customize it.

I really, really, really want this to be true. But I'm still pretty nervous.

From what I gather in this thread, that is a common enough view point but notice how the designers seem to think we are over reacting. They collectively have, likely, over 200 years of play and development on their team and have done wonderful work since before pathfinder was even a thing... I suppose we can extend them some level of trust when it comes to further developing their own game. But yeah, the preview here was quite the shocker.

What's the general opinion of Gunslingers these days? I know a few fantasy purists still rage at the notion of Firearms in their pristine medieval mancrushes.

Along with the Roland wannabes who insist that fantasy isn't fantasy unless we turn Greyhawk into Dodge City.

Sweeping generalizations cut both ways.

Aratrok wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Hopefully the class is perfectly fine and capable on its own and we just don't know all of the awesome edits made yet and there are awesome archetypes available to customize it.

I really, really, really want this to be true. But I'm still pretty nervous.

From what I gather in this thread, that is a common enough view point but notice how the designers seem to think we are over reacting. They collectively have, likely, over 200 years of play and development on their team and have done wonderful work since before pathfinder was even a thing... I suppose we can extend them some level of trust when it comes to further developing their own game. But yeah, the preview here was quite the shocker.

No. The crunch in books such as Inner Sea Combat, Blood of the Elements, and Inner Sea Gods, along with the power levels of core classes such as the Fighter and Rogue prove that experience does not equal ability. Archetypes released in later books only increased the disparity in power between classes. For instance, arcane discoveries rock, but the rogue talents in Inner Sea Combat blow chunks hard.

Torbyne wrote:

Aratrok wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Hopefully the class is perfectly fine and capable on its own and we just don't know all of the awesome edits made yet and there are awesome archetypes available to customize it.

I really, really, really want this to be true. But I'm still pretty nervous.

From what I gather in this thread, that is a common enough view point but notice how the designers seem to think we are over reacting. They collectively have, likely, over 200 years of play and development on their team and have done wonderful work since before pathfinder was even a thing... I suppose we can extend them some level of trust when it comes to further developing their own game. But yeah, the preview here was quite the shocker.

No. The crunch in books such as Inner Sea Combat, Blood of the Elements, and Inner Sea Gods, along with the power levels of core classes such as the Fighter and Rogue prove that experience does not equal ability. Archetypes released in later books only increased the disparity in power between classes. For instance, arcane discoveries rock, but the rogue talents in Inner Sea Combat blow chunks hard.

You do know that it's a different set of designers working on the Golarion-specific lines than are working on the ACG, right? And that the arcane discoveries you are praising are the only part of that whole list that come from the setting-neutral rules books...? (Disregarding the fighter and rogue, which are legacy classes and are still far, far improved to their core 3.5 counterparts.)

Adam B. 135 wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Aratrok wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Hopefully the class is perfectly fine and capable on its own and we just don't know all of the awesome edits made yet and there are awesome archetypes available to customize it.

I really, really, really want this to be true. But I'm still pretty nervous.

From what I gather in this thread, that is a common enough view point but notice how the designers seem to think we are over reacting. They collectively have, likely, over 200 years of play and development on their team and have done wonderful work since before pathfinder was even a thing... I suppose we can extend them some level of trust when it comes to further developing their own game. But yeah, the preview here was quite the shocker.

No. The crunch in books such as Inner Sea Combat, Blood of the Elements, and Inner Sea Gods, along with the power levels of core classes such as the Fighter and Rogue prove that experience does not equal ability. Archetypes released in later books only increased the disparity in power between classes. For instance, arcane discoveries rock, but the rogue talents in Inner Sea Combat blow chunks hard.

You do know that it's a different set of designers working on the Golarion-specific lines than are working on the ACG, right? And that the arcane discoveries you are praising are the only part of that whole list that come from the setting-neutral rules books...? (Disregarding the fighter and rogue, which are legacy classes and are still far, far improved to their core 3.5 counterparts.)

Yes I am aware of them being different teams. I am also aware that both teams suffer from similar flaws, such as giving rogues piles of doodoo when it comes to new rogue talents. My post was meant to be read as implying that both the Core and the Inner Sea teams do not deserve "trust" considering both of their track records.

Being a legacy class and being improved compared to 3.5 have nothing to do with the fact that they are still bad. Bad is bad, even if the origin was worse. Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin were also buffed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, yet you don't see constant threads complaining about their weaknesses (compared to other martials. Not in martial vs caster threads).

Yes I am aware of them being different teams. I am also aware that both teams suffer from similar flaws, such as giving rogues piles of doodoo when it comes to new rogue talents. My post was meant to be read as implying that both the Core and the Inner Sea teams do not deserve "trust" considering both of their track records.

Given Paizo's record at class design specifically...yes they do. Name a Class Paizo's done from the ground up that was too weak.

All I'm coming up with is Cavalier, and they get both a fully leveled Animal companion and Challenge, plus they get to be gods of charging (and thus have some of the highest raw damage in the game), which is sorta absurd in and of itself. That seems about as weak as it gets when Paizo writes the entire class.

Now maybe the book'll prove me wrong, who knows? But they definitely deserve some leeway until then.

Being a legacy class and being improved compared to 3.5 have nothing to do with the fact that they are still bad. Bad is bad, even if the origin was worse. Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin were also buffed between 3.5 and Pathfinder, yet you don't see constant threads complaining about their weaknesses (compared to other martials. Not in martial vs caster threads).

Yes, they do have something to do with each other. Fighter was significantly worse in 3.5, and Rogue was better only because of material outside the class itself. Barbarian and Ranger were better than both to start with, and while Paladin was worse, that means they did a really good job on Paladin, not necessarily a bad job elsewhere.

Were the final versions of those classes less than ideal? Sure. Was that obvious at the time? Not nearly as much.

Were the final versions of those classes less than ideal? Sure. Was that obvious at the time? Not nearly as much.

I will totally argue that the problem with rogues is not in the core book but with the years of abandonment.

if not were from the amazing barbarian rage powers after core the barbarian would be in the underpowered class camp. The monk clasa have been improved by a lot too.

The fact that paizo insist in printing really bad rogue talents puzzles me.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Were the final versions of those classes less than ideal? Sure. Was that obvious at the time? Not nearly as much.

I will totally argue that the problem with rogues is not in the core book but with the years of abandonment.

if not were from the amazing barbarian rage powers after core the barbarian would be in the underpowered class camp.

The fact that paizo insist in printing really bad rogue talents puzzles me.

Yeah, that's probably fair to some degree. And a bit odd.

The chassis isn't great, but some really good Rogue Talents would definitely help. I think a lot of the problem is the Rogue's lack of some resource to expend to power good effects (even Barbarians have a limited number of rounds of Rage and must be Raging to use their tricks).

I kind of think about the Rogue/Fighter/Monk being specialist classes for different flavours of game. If you are playing in a gritty game with low magic and lots of attrition type fights a fighter can do better than a barbarian who would run out of rage and monks have baked in abilities that are far more mystical than a caster who never finds any scrolls or other wizards to learn spells from. In most games with high magic and all of that, sure those classes can get left behind but they are options for those that want to try a different kind of play at least.

Aratrok wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

Hopefully the class is perfectly fine and capable on its own and we just don't know all of the awesome edits made yet and there are awesome archetypes available to customize it.

I really, really, really want this to be true. But I'm still pretty nervous.

From what I gather in this thread, that is a common enough view point but notice how the designers seem to think we are over reacting. They collectively have, likely, over 200 years of play and development on their team and have done wonderful work since before pathfinder was even a thing... I suppose we can extend them some level of trust when it comes to further developing their own game. But yeah, the preview here was quite the shocker.

Myself and 3 friends have, collectively, ~40 years of experience playing Halo, doesn't mean we're going to beating top Halo players. Some people are just better than others.

It may very well come to pass that the Warpriest is a solid, playable class... it just doesn't match up well against other classes Paizo has designed. It might be that of all the classes Paizo has made, the Warpriest ends up the 'weakest' one, but that doesn't mean it's a bad class.

The Warpriest's biggest flaw, is have a niche that is over-crowded. There are a total of 5 classes in this game that are capable of filling a 'priest of war' role; so the Warpriest is going to need to bring something pretty substantial to the table in order to make him the definitive 'priest of war' class. This is something that's extremely hard to do, and it may not be possible. Doesn't mean he won't be an adequate or even good Warpriest.

Hears to hoping the the ACG gives some love to rogues...

Hears to hoping the the ACG gives some love to rogues...

Why? So Cosmo can enjoy our tears even more when we raise our hopes up fully knowing we'll be disappointed?

Yes, they do have something to do with each other. Fighter was significantly worse in 3.5, and Rogue was better only because of material outside the class itself.

The 3.5 Fighter had 3.5 Power Attack. They had the 3.5 CLEAVE. They had a ton of amazing Feat options with no Pathfinder equivalent most of the time, and they had a Spiked Chain with 10ft Reach that threatened both 10ft and 5ft. Yah, 3.5 fighter stomps the crap out of the PF Fighter, hands down.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yes, they do have something to do with each other. Fighter was significantly worse in 3.5, and Rogue was better only because of material outside the class itself.

The 3.5 Fighter had 3.5 Power Attack. They had the 3.5 CLEAVE. They had a ton of amazing Feat options with no Pathfinder equivalent most of the time, and they had a Spiked Chain with 10ft Reach that threatened both 10ft and 5ft. Yah, 3.5 fighter stomps the crap out of the PF Fighter, hands down.

Okay...but all that's outside the Class itself. Which makes it not a class design issue per se. Which was sorta my point.

You want to argue Paizo write some bad stuff, I won't argue (everyone does). But Classes pretty much aren't one of those things. Looking at the class by itself, it's better than the 3.5 version.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yes, they do have something to do with each other. Fighter was significantly worse in 3.5, and Rogue was better only because of material outside the class itself.

The 3.5 Fighter had 3.5 Power Attack. They had the 3.5 CLEAVE. They had a ton of amazing Feat options with no Pathfinder equivalent most of the time, and they had a Spiked Chain with 10ft Reach that threatened both 10ft and 5ft. Yah, 3.5 fighter stomps the crap out of the PF Fighter, hands down.

IIRC, 3.5 Power Attack was a time waster. PF Power Attack saves time and still works just as good, and causes a lot less table arguments ("I had -3/+9, not -5/+15, so my attack hit!" "Nuh-uh, you already called out a full-strength Power Attack, you reneger.")

And 3.5 Cleave eventually got implemented into PF as "Cleaving Finish" in the UC Rulebook. The problem is it made the original PF Cleave (which is one of the worst feats in the world post-6) pre-requisites for that feat chain, upped the otherwise previous requirements to not have it available at earlier levels, and reduced its overall effectiveness in the early game, making it no longer a feat that people would take.

@Deadmanwalking: You'd think with their "~200 years of gameplay experience" that them removing and/or nerfing these subjects, combat feats, something which Fighters get as a class feature (and Rogues if they spam Combat Trick every time), resulting in an overall effectiveness decrease, would be something they'd take into consideration when balancing those classes out?

By the looks of things, apparently not, since 1. The Core class disparity between the martials is quite obvious, and 2. The rulebooks to follow the Core only increased that disparity (except for Monks, though they're still somewhat sub-par) by giving those higher-up on the food chain more and more better options and those on the lower-end of the food chain absolutely nothing to work with. Heck, by the time the infamous "3.5 Cleave" reached PF, the devs butchered it to hell by ramping up the pre-reqs, i.e. including feat taxes that become useless once you are able to take "3.5 Cleave," and making them pointless to pursue by the endgame due to your obvious character flaws of having no skill points (unless you archetype, but that's few and far between), having no utility (all you ever do in a game is swing at things, and you aren't even the best at it), and unless you sacrifice your ability to kill or survive, you're a drooling pus, making it easy for others to just dominate you and turn you against the party.

You can sit there and defend the good choices Paizo has done, and that's fine; nobody is arguing about the good designs they've created. What everyone is arguing about is whether the choices they are making with this class (which steps on so many toes with the choices we've come up with) are good or bad, as well as the other bad stuff they designed (or ripped off).

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yes, they do have something to do with each other. Fighter was significantly worse in 3.5, and Rogue was better only because of material outside the class itself.

The 3.5 Fighter had 3.5 Power Attack. They had the 3.5 CLEAVE. They had a ton of amazing Feat options with no Pathfinder equivalent most of the time, and they had a Spiked Chain with 10ft Reach that threatened both 10ft and 5ft. Yah, 3.5 fighter stomps the crap out of the PF Fighter, hands down.

Okay...but all that's outside the Class itself. Which makes it not a class design issue per se. Which was sorta my point.

You want to argue Paizo write some bad stuff, I won't argue (everyone does). But Classes pretty much aren't one of those things. Looking at the class by itself, it's better than the 3.5 version.

I disagree, specifically because it is so, so many changes like this that really stick it to the Fighter, (or the Rogue, or the Monk), and that is specifically things that are Paizo's Design/Balance experience. Similar with the Cleric. The vast majority of the nerfs that hit the Cleric are not actually the Cleric class, but rather things like changing a lot of spells, or altering Turning to Channeling which makes some of the older material just no longer work (such as the Fire Domain with Turning/Rebuking Fire and Water Creatures). I like Pathfinder, but honestly, 3.5, in my opinion was better, and a lot of the little changes that PF made from 3.5 to make it their own are also some of the worst parts about PF. Not even the ones that are setting centric, just the ones to the base D20 system. That doesn't mean they didn't do some good things too. They did. That also doesn't mean that the Fighter, for example, didn't get some cool things. They did. But a lot of it is also very subjective, or it could just be things that people hadn't realized had changed until much later, like the issues with diagonal reach in PF.

But, we should probably get back to the Warpriest now that this is going again.

I'm not gonna get into a huge argument about minutia or the conversion process for Fighter and Rogue, this isn't the thread for it.

My point was and is that creating a new class from scratch for a system you know well and adapting a preexisting Class to a new (slightly modified) system you're still working on are pretty different things. Therefore, Rogue, Fighter, and Monk are not evidence Paizo of anything regarding Paizo's ability to design Classes from scratch. Which is pretty damn good thus far (erring on the side of overpowered, if anything).

I'm not gonna get into a huge argument about minutia or the conversion process for Fighter and Rogue, this isn't the thread for it.

My point was and is that creating a new class from scratch for a system you know well and adapting a preexisting Class to a new (slightly modified) system you're still working on are pretty different things. Therefore, Rogue, Fighter, and Monk are not evidence Paizo of anything regarding Paizo's ability to design Classes from scratch. Which is pretty damn good thus far (erring on the side of overpowered, if anything).

If all classes are overpowered then none of them are.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'm not gonna get into a huge argument about minutia or the conversion process for Fighter and Rogue, this isn't the thread for it.

My point was and is that creating a new class from scratch for a system you know well and adapting a preexisting Class to a new (slightly modified) system you're still working on are pretty different things. Therefore, Rogue, Fighter, and Monk are not evidence Paizo of anything regarding Paizo's ability to design Classes from scratch. Which is pretty damn good thus far (erring on the side of overpowered, if anything).

If all classes are overpowered then none of them are.

Very few classes I've seen are called balanced.
I suppose the classes that no one talks about are the ones that we can call balanced.
But no one wants to talk about those classes.

That's... actually not what he said. He said that Paizo's history of developing new classes from scratch (not the ones they updated from 3.5) have mostly been fine, if a little on the OP side.

Amongst those heralded as OP of the new classes, are usually the Gunslingers, Summoners, debuff Witches, certain Alchemists and certain Oracles.

The Cavaliers/Samurai, Ninja, Inquisitor and Magus usually aren't seen as OP, though Cavaliers can lay down stupid damage on a charge, Magi can unleash great nova damage and Inquisitor is just an all around solid class (Ninja basically obviates the Rogue).

Witches, Alchemists and Oracles are generally all right, with Witches and Oracles being powerful choices due to full casting, while the Witch also has awesome debuff potential. The Alchemist can unleash a torrent of status effects, damage and control in a very short order, but he also runs out; or he can go total mutagen beast and make many martials feel bad about themselves.

The Gunslinger can just destroy everything in front of him and makes many full-attack classes disappointed.

I will mention, that I've often seen the Bard and Inquisitor heralded as probably the two most balanced classes to date (excluding ACG classes). They can both fight well (even sometimes outpacing martials if done right under optimal conditions) while bringing a host of utility and flavor to bear.

I actually don't think any of the Paizo-designed classes are overpowered at all as compared to corebook classes (okay, maybe Summoner a little).

I was just saying that if they err in either direction, well, I don't hear people talking about them as underpowered very often, y'know?

I actually don't think any of the Paizo-designed classes are overpowered at all as compared to corebook classes (okay, maybe Summoner a little).

I was just saying that if they err in either direction, well, I don't hear people talking about them as underpowered very often, y'know?

I agree, with the exception of Gunslingers and Summoners, the only time I legitimately see people calling the 'Paizo' classes OP, it's because of either an extremely optimized build (possibly including cheese rule interpretations) or 15-minute work days (in the case of Nova classes).

There are, however, Paizo 'options' that can make classes be regarded as OP, like several of the Barbarian rage powers being heads above all of the others; sometimes to the point you're looked at as stupid for *not* taking them.

I actually don't think any of the Paizo-designed classes are overpowered at all as compared to corebook classes (okay, maybe Summoner a little).

I was just saying that if they err in either direction, well, I don't hear people talking about them as underpowered very often, y'know?

Paragon Surge Oracle is pretty much borken although that is probably more to do with Surge than just the Oracle.

Even the Gunslinger's problems are more ancillary rules (the way guns work) than they are the Class itself.

And yeah, some overpowered options definitely slip in...as do some underpowered ones (those just get talked about a lot less), but core Class design is almost universally really solid.

Hmmm, do you guys think that they gave one warpriest Archetype weapon training and armor training?

Probably not. It seems they were scared to give the warpriest a boost on his attack rolls beyond what sacred weapon already does. If there is such an archetype, I can pretty much guarantee they squashed spellcasting to compensate.

I can imagine a Warpriest archetype that gains Weapon Training with their deity's favored weapon, for example.

I'd be very surprised if I see both weapon and armor training on the same archetype though.

I can imagine a Warpriest archetype that gains Weapon Training with their deity's favored weapon, for example.

I'd be very surprised if I see both weapon and armor training on the same archetype though.

Honestly, I'd rather see one that focuses more in Armor Training/Defenses. There isn't really a true tank type class in Pathfinder (ala Crusader from ToB) that could both make enemies want to attack him or her and also soak up the punishment. Warpriests, with their spells, healing, and blessings, would make a fine chassis for that role.

Going on the idea that healing never keeps up with damage out put in combat, be the unhittable healbot all you want, you will still be ignored. if you want to be a tank you need something like the Brawler Archetype where you can anchor an enemy down in melee with you. Warpriest doesnt have anything like that in any preview or playtest i've seen. They might be able to get AC up to some of the Kensai Magus's i have seen but i doubt they will be able to match that with the miss chance and mobility i see on those builds. And their DPR isnt likely to compare either. I'd stick to that if you want a tanky character.

Squeakmaan wrote:

It has six levels of spellcasting. why in the world would you think it needed anything else.

On the one hand we have the Warpriest: D8 HD, 3/4 BAB, strong Fortitude and Will save, 6th level cleric spell list.

On the other hand we have the Cleric: D8 HD, 3/4th BAB, strong Fortitude and Will save, 9th level cleric spell list.

More than any other ACG class, the class features will make or break the Warpriest. Come on too strong and it might will the fighter or even the paladin, come on too weak and it'll be ignored for the Cleric and the inquisitor.

It's a tricky class to balance because it's trying to make a niche for itself in a fairly crowded design space.

This post was the best of all the 794 posts so far... (i read them all since the begining)

This pretty much sumarize all the problems people are expressing since the first page and fanboys keep diminishing or making the awesome "let see the class finished".

They previewed ONE blessing, and the blessing just MADE the chance WORSE(the blessing procs on hits, while they nerfed your ability to hit, WOW, a blessing "buff" is in reality a nerf)

The single thing everyone reported on the playtest is how fast you burn ALL your resources... with full bab, you dont have to waste every resource in every fight, now, if you wanna use you lv10 previewed blessing, you NEED to buff your too hit before(divine power or divine favor, possible with fervor, 3 resources, 1 fight, right of the start)... if you hit without problem without buffs, there is no single reason to use the blessing at all, since all the attackers will be reliable hitting anyway since all class hit at least as well as the warpriest, and many hit better. So the "unuseful lv10 community blessing" is now the "more unuseful lv10 blessing unless your want to burn 2 more resources right of the bet".

The problem is that if one archetype "fixes" it, the archetype will become the core class and the class will only be a worse archetype (like Monk-Qinggong).

The only thing i can see one the final version that would change that is if you regain spells after downing enemies, but i really doubt it.

That would actually be pretty awesome, but would lead to people only using one spell so that they can keep regaining. Sort of reminds me of the 3.5 Crusader, though.

What's the general opinion of Gunslingers these days? I know a few fantasy purists still rage at the notion of Firearms in their pristine medieval mancrushes.

I would argue that with it's almost exclusive focus on combat, the Gunslinger is an incomplete class. A more well rounded class would have features that allow it to contribute in a wide range of non-combat and combat situations at all levels.

Kudaku wrote:

I can imagine a Warpriest archetype that gains Weapon Training with their deity's favored weapon, for example.

I'd be very surprised if I see both weapon and armor training on the same archetype though.

Honestly, I'd rather see one that focuses more in Armor Training/Defenses. There isn't really a true tank type class in Pathfinder (ala Crusader from ToB) that could both make enemies want to attack him or her and also soak up the punishment. Warpriests, with their spells, healing, and blessings, would make a fine chassis for that role.

Oh, I can definitely see a "defensive" warpriest (akin to the Divine Defender or Sacred Shield paladin archetypes) that focuses on self-preservation.

Blackpowder Witch wrote:

What's the general opinion of Gunslingers these days? I know a few fantasy purists still rage at the notion of Firearms in their pristine medieval mancrushes.

I would argue that with it's almost exclusive focus on combat, the Gunslinger is an incomplete class. A more well rounded class would have features that allow it to contribute in a wide range of non-combat and combat situations at all levels.

But the Gunslinger has more out of combat options than a fighter, at least they can handle things like locks and things that are bleeding to death.

Caedwyr wrote:

Blackpowder Witch wrote:

What's the general opinion of Gunslingers these days? I know a few fantasy purists still rage at the notion of Firearms in their pristine medieval mancrushes.

I would argue that with it's almost exclusive focus on combat, the Gunslinger is an incomplete class. A more well rounded class would have features that allow it to contribute in a wide range of non-combat and combat situations at all levels.

But the Gunslinger has more out of combat options than a fighter, at least they can handle things like locks and things that are bleeding to death.

Agreed, but those are pretty paltry non-combat options and I'd still argue it makes them an incomplete class. Not as poorly off as the Fighter, but still not completely baked.