Advanced Class Guide Preview: Warpriest

Happy to see the scaling damage kept. A fun little mechanic and very thematic for a divine warrior to be able to deal divine damage no matter what that weapon actually is. And we had a bunch of Full BAB classes already.

Sorry guys, I'm sure this will enrage all the Warpriest blog preview haters. Keep on hatin'. It's...hatey. ;)

Eh, I would have left the Full BAB on too, as was mentioned above, we also hae enough 3/4 BAB divine casters...

I think I'm okay with the sacred weapon losing full BAB progression, but hope that the warpriest can use his class level as fighter levels / BAB for feats.

Let's see how it turns out once it's out.

I'm thinking we Warpriest needs 1/4 BAB, we already have enough 1/2 BAB, 3/4 BAB and full BAB, but 1/4 BAB classes need some love too!

Sure. Or 1.75/1 BAB...

Nothing will stop me from house ruling this class, but I'd prefer it if I didn't have to. When one of my friends DMs, he doesn't want to houserule anything. Heck, I would have been happy with a scaling attack bonus (forcing them to use 3/4th bab progression on power attack), if it just let them keep up with full BaB to-hit.

Only time will tell if they addressed the Warpriest's issues. It just bothers me that they only gave us the bad news, without giving us some good news. They said blessings got better, but I doubt that will be enough. I would rather have heard that Fervor is Wisdom Based and got a recovery mechanic, or that they could count their levels as fighter levels for feats.

Worst case scenario, Warpriest will just play second wheel to the Inquisitor.

Inter class balance is a mess and the Warpriest, if not improved in other areas significantly, will continue to prove that to be the case.

The Action Economy is a lie.

Swift action buffs are nice, but not when I have to waste my swift action casting a spell and can't use my buff.

Swift action casting via class abilities is not that much better than having swift action casting because you have higher level spell slots to prepare quickened spells in.

It IS a whole lot better if you're level 2-8, and a few levels beyond that too.

Worst case scenario, Warpriest will just play second wheel to the Inquisitor.

Actually, even as-is with the above change, I'd argue it's right on par with the Inquisitor in combat. Sacred Weapon does a good job of compensating for the lack of Bane, as does Swift Action spells for the lack of Judgments. Now, the Inquisitor's vastly superior out-of-combat options make it a better class assuming a lack of improvement in the Warpriest, but it's not completely useless or anything.

Inter class balance is a mess and the Warpriest, if not improved in other areas significantly, will continue to prove that to be the case.

I'd bet it will, in fact, be improved. At least by making the Sacred Weapon boosts one minute per level instead of one round per.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Worst case scenario, Warpriest will just play second wheel to the Inquisitor.

Actually, even as-is with the above change, I'd argue it's right on par with the Inquisitor in combat. Sacred Weapon does a good job of compensating for the lack of Bane, as does Swift Action spells for the lack of Judgments. Now, the Inquisitor's vastly superior out-of-combat options make it a better class assuming a lack of improvement in the Warpriest, but it's not completely useless or anything.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Inter class balance is a mess and the Warpriest, if not improved in other areas significantly, will continue to prove that to be the case.

I'd bet it will, in fact, be improved. At least by making the Sacred Weapon boosts one minute per level instead of one round per.

I'm inclined to agree, but I think the Inquisitor spell list is also stronger as a 6/9 caster and the steroids available to the Inquisitor are, at least in my mind, slightly stronger.

I did a playtest with a 4th level Warpriest next to an inquisitor and I already felt I was playing second string at times - the warpriest had less skills, worse spell list, similar AC and a similar to hit bonus. Not particularly happy about the BAB change. I guess I'll have to wait and see.

On the positive side I'm glad they kept the scaling weapon die, it opens up a lot of otherwise lackluster weapon options. Just hope the rest of the class offers class features that makes it perform with the other frontliners.

I will reserve final judgement until I see the finished class, but the hit to Sacred Weapon hurts a lot. I can only hope that we will get some way to replenish our fervor like the other limited pool classes.

Right like Paladins can replenish their Lay on Hands or Clerics can replenish their Channels or Druids their Wild Shapes, or Inquisitors their Judgments ... oh right. They can't.

Fervor isn't a point-pool. I'd not hold my breath waiting for them to add a way to replenish Fervor.

Tels wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

Inquisitor is the skillful counterpart to the warpriest.

Warpriest is the smashy counterpart to the inquisitor.

I dunno, I think an Inquisitor can actually be more smashy than a Warpriest considering they're both 3/4 BAB and the existence of bane/Greater Bane and Judgements.

Not to mention a spell list that was intended to be used for 6/9 casting+more/better skills.

But only for short times. The Warpriest is more 'fightery' in that his smashing goes for longer than the Inquisitor.

What does he have that goes on longer? 3/4th BAB? The Warpriest lost his "forever full BAB" man. The Blessings don't actually buff his atk/dmg in most cases.

Sacred Weapon damage dice advancement is still a thing.

I will repeat my disclaimer of holding off final judgment until I see the finished version.

However.

Let's compare the Swashbuckler and Warpriest for a moment in terms of rough power levels.

Swashbuckler doesn't have spells, let alone a way to drop some of the best self-buffs in the game on himself as a swift action.

Swashbuckler doesn't advance their weapon damage die as they level.

Swashbuckler can't self-heal as a swift action multiple times per combat.

This is a crap comparison. Compare Warpriest to Magus and Inquisitor and things make a lot more sense.

Still would rather see open alignment paladins, it really ISN"T hard at all

A crusader cleric has the same BaB, combat feats, and can cast more spells per day and can cast 9th level spells. They even get a domain.

Is what the Warpriest gets over the Crusader Cleric worth the trade?

Everyone has to answer that for themselves, but you've conveniently left out all the things a Warpriest gets that a Crusader Cleric doesn't.

Warpriest can drop enhancement bonuses and weapon properties on their weapon as a swift action. They can self-buff as a swift action that doesn't provoke. They can self heal as a swift action that doesn't provoke. Their weapon damage die advances as they level.

They're different classes. What you want to do will dictate which is better for you.

The Warpriest playtest was a playtest. There was no feat support for the class. There were no archetypes to specialize the class. There were no favored class bonuses to support the class. The blessings were still in their early stages (many "sanctuary" like blessings) and fervor was also recently conceived. The class did not have it's own unique spell list, nor were there any magic items to support or advance new class abilities... If a playtest class in that early of stages held up well against the Inquisitor THEN I would be worried.

The fact that it seems a bit behind with the adjustment to remove the pseudo full BAB of Sacred Weapon is a good thing! This leaves room for things like magic items, feats, blessings, etc. to actually be helpful without putting the Warpriest in a position where it is superior to what currently exists. I don't want a Warpriest that is better than the Inquisitor or Paladin or Fighter/Cleric or Crusader Cleric, or whatever comparison you want to make... I want a Warpriest that is capable of holding it's own against (on par with) similar classes but with it's own abilities - fervor, blessings, and sacred weapon is still awesome!

The real test will be to put the warpriest next to a fighter 1 / cleric x and see which one will do better in combat. Based on the ACG version but with less bab the cleric will have better BAB, saves, damage, faster spell access, more general utility and be less MAD.

As an example the cleric would get access to Divine Power at 8th level, while the warpriest gets access at level 10.

I think the pseudo-BAB offered to the warpriest helped distance it from the cleric and inquisitor. It also brought it closer to the paladin, and I find it interesting that there were plans for different paladin variants. I hope this is still on the backburner somewhere.

For what it's worth I do want the Warpriest to be "better" than the cleric and inquisitor at what its intended to do - namely cast buff spells and wreck things. At the moment the medium bab, borrowed spell list and slow spell progression means a buffed fighter/cleric will pull ahead in combat. The customized spell list and judgement/bane means the inquisitor will do about as well as the WP, but the inquisitor has numerous other strengths.

I do think the warpriest can work as a medium bab class, but in that case it would really benefit from a customized spell list like the paladin and the inquisitor to give it earlier access to buff spells like Divine Power that are its bread and butter. Unfortunately that most likely won't happen since they've stated a desire to avoid more unique spell lists.

All that said, I still hold out hope that the class will turn out all right. It was my baby throughout the playtest and still the class I am most excited about playing.

P.s. my apologies for typos or generally nonsensical sentence structure - typing this on a "smart" phone. The keyboard, at least, is anyth8bg but.

Sacred Weapon damage dice advancement is still a thing.

This is the feature I'm most glad to hear made it through. (: Dagger pistol or shuriken/dart/card throwing fun to be had.

I do think the warpriest can work as a medium bab class, but in that case it would really benefit from a customized spell list like the paladin and the inquisitor to give it earlier access to buff spells like Divine Power that are its bread and butter. Unfortunately that most likely won't happen since they've stated a desire to avoid more unique spell lists.

Eh. Shaman's officially getting a new one, and Bloodrager always was. Warpriest could, too. Or get something else that beefs them up appropriately. We'll just have to wait and see.

That's a good point. I hope they either give them a new spell list, note some spells as available earlier or slip in some of the iconic spells via blessings. Getting Divine Power at 10 to the cleric's 7 etc really hurts the "war" aspect of the warpriest.

That said, medium BAB, customized spell list with earlier access to personal-range buff spells, minute-duration on the weapon enhancement, fervor based off of wisdom, 4 skill ranks, full LOH progression and better blessings could be an interesting class platform.

Removing the pseudo full BAB might have needed to be done, but categorically, it was a "negative" change. And it was a BIG one. I wish they would have expounded a bit more on some of the "positive" changes in the blog as well. Constrasting to a level 10 niche ability positive change was an elephant compared to a mosquito.

Hopefully, future blogs will be more balanced in this regard.

Since they got rid of the pseudo full BAB, I hope they also addressed the swift action conflicts (Sacred Armor is literally the 3rd, potentially 4th, swift action ability category) and the extreme MAD nature (5 stats required - STR, DEX, CON, WIS, CHA) of the class. These two items are the drivers on why I thought there was a credible need for the pseudo full BAB.

I am excited to know this book is coming out in two months!

The way it's written makes me worry that they axed the bab, fixed the blessings and "called it a day".

I doubt that's how it actually went down, but I absolutely agree with Rory that it would have been nice to see a few more positive changes as well, assuming those changes were made.

Fervor from wisdom, full channel/LoH progression, more skill points etc would make the "BAB-change"-pill easier to swallow.

I think the proper comparison here is Warpriest being the Cleric equivalent of Wizard's Magus. Yes Magi are worse spellcasters than Wizards...but that doesn't make them a bad class. Not at all.

I suppose the problem is that the magus is a wizard that fight, something that you can not do just with wizard class. By the other hand the cleric is already a warpriest.

The problem here being that the normal martial classes need 0 rounds to buff and the better action economy of the Warpriest is key in allowing him to act before the fight is already over. You don't need to buff everything you can, only the effective stuff.

Normal martial does not have 6th level spellcasting.

It just bothers me that they only gave us the bad news, without giving us some good news. They said blessings got better, but I doubt that will be enough. I would rather have heard that Fervor is Wisdom Based and got a recovery mechanic, or that they could count their levels as fighter levels for feats.

Removing the pseudo full BAB might have needed to be done, but categorically, it was a "negative" change. And it was a BIG one. I wish they would have expounded a bit more on some of the "positive" changes in the blog as well. Constrasting to a level 10 niche ability positive change was an elephant compared to a mosquito.

Hopefully, future blogs will be more balanced in this regard.

The way it's written makes me worry that they axed the bab, fixed the blessings and "called it a day".

I doubt that's how it actually went down, but I absolutely agree with Rory that it would have been nice to see a few more positive changes as well, assuming those changes were made.

Fervor from wisdom, full channel/LoH progression, more skill points etc would make the "BAB-change"-pill easier to swallow.

These seem like more helpful concerns to raise. I agree that this write-up could have used a bit more positive to balance out the negative. And one or two archetype teases like Stephen's been doing would be nice too!

Looking forward seeing the Warpriest in action in Risen from the Sands. Hopefully that will allay some of the worries expressed in this thread.

Well, we know that Divine Commander is an archetype in the book.

We also know that the pic on this blog post is titled "Divine Commander".

So...

Clearly the warpriest doesn't have an archetype called the Divine Commander.

Zark wrote:

One problem with the first draft of the Warpriest was:

- why play a Warpriest with 3/4 BAB and 6 spell levels when you can play a Crusader with same BAB and 9 spell levels.

I hope this problem has been fixed.

Crusader as in the Cleric archetype?

If I recall, that archetype trades one of its domains and has diminished spellcasting in exchange for Weapon Focus feats with your favored weapon. That's not really the same as having a full BAB.

I think that removing the BAB scaling from sacred weapon was the right call. I thought that having the scaling was very wonky the first time that I read the playtest. Dropping it ought to make this class shine even more. Plus now there's absolutely no chance that the warpriest will invalidate the paladin. (Wasn't likely before, but now they both have very clearly defined roles.)

The full BAB nerf isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I hope they fixed the MAD problem, more skills per level would be nice, and grant it bonus feat and level 2 instead of at level 3. Having to wait until level 3 to get power attack is frustrating.

What I think tick some people off is the fact that when the book was announced we were actually first promised a full BAB holy warrior class, but that was changed. Instead we got a 3/4 BAB class with 6 level casting. Among other things the medium BAB means you can’t pick power attack at level 1.

Well, we know that Divine Commander is an archetype in the book.

We also know that the pic on this blog post is titled "Divine Commander".

So...

Clearly the warpriest doesn't have an archetype called the Divine Commander.

Sure. And it looks like it could be a good fun archetype, judging from the picture! All I'm suggesting is that it would have been nice to have a paragraph along the lines of Stephen's teases of archetypes for the Swashbuckler and Investigator (reproduced below). Those worked well as a good note to land on for those write-ups, I thought: a couple distinctive character types built around the class to get excited about. I missed having that in this write-up. And especially in context of the "some good news too please" discussion, it seems like something to mention. :-)

With the fine-tuning of class abilities complete, we moved on to archetypes, which allowed us create fun and interesting variants on the theme. In the book you’ll find (among others) the flying blade (hint: the blade are flying, not the swashbuckler, unless the wizard decides to do her a solid), the mysterious avenger (so you can make your own flavor of Zorro), and the picaroon (for those of you who like a little bang-bang alongside your flashing blade). Add this to the various combat and panache feats along with magic items tailor made for the swashbuckler, and you will find a lot of options to make exactly the swashbuckler that you always wanted to play.

Lastly, while the various incarnations of Sherlock Holmes were the inspiration for the investigator, there are many types of investigators floating around the creative consciousness. When designing archetypes, we wanted to cover as many of those bases as space allowed. In the book you'll find the mastermind (an investigator that manipulates via a group of minions), the sleuth (a gumshoe who uses luck instead of inspiration), the spiritualist (a detective who gains insight from the world beyond), and much, much more.

I do agree that listing the archetypes would be nice. Maybe Mark can do that?

This post, compared to previous ones, is lousy.
Sorry, but it is.
Do they limit themselves in what they can describe by word count?
There's just not enough preview going on here, other than to tell us that two things have changed.

There is still the possibility that some of these concerns can be fixed by the spell list. If we get a list , with something like Blessing of fervor or even Divine Power as a 3rd level spell, things would be looking a bit more rosy.

Summoners getting haste a level early is a good example of a time when they've been willing to take these sorts of measures to ensure the 6 spell level casters are still good at their field of magic, and a warpriest's specialty is pretty clearly buffing up to kick butt.

So the full BAB is gone and the MAD issue may not be revolved since it didn't even get a mention in the blog. My excitement for this class is falling by the wayside, and I'm not that enthused with the others either.

I'm playing the playtest v2 warpriest in Way of the Wicked right now, and I must say, this change has me concerned.

As it is, I am ALWAYS running out of swift actions and fervor and am barely keeping up with the fighter on the offensive side.
All too often I wish I had played a martially bent cleric instead, as access to those higher level spells would be a game changer at this point.
The pseudo full BAB is nice, but I still don't qualify for most combat feats I need. Power attack, improved critical, and the like are all just out of reach when I need them most.
The increased damage die is a nice trick, but if you sacred a big weapon, not an incredibly useful one (Oloch ain't getting squat from that for some time).

But who knows, maybe the spell list will make it all worth while...

I very much wish the static weapon damage had gotten cut because I believe it forces warpriests into using the silliest weapons with the smallest damage dice. They're already permitted to use a weapon other than their deities favored as a sacred weapon (thus alloying a warpriest of any god to use whatever weapon suits him best), so I don't see the point in up-scaling low damage weapons. Is it just for the lolz of smacking you enemy with a 1d10 damage torch?

I also find the loss of full BAB a pity, though I did find that mechanic sloppy. Conditional BAB adjustments are odd, despite monks doing it with flurry (I also hate programming it into a sheet-keeping applications). I would have rather seen it become a static attack bonus, as opposed to adjusting BAB. With that they could have stuck the bonus at +1 for every 5 levels or +1 for every 6 levels and ended up somewhere between average and good BAB (a decent compromise). Additionally, there'd be reduced payoff for BAB dependent feats (like power-attack). I think that would have suitably weakened the class.

As for my experience playing the class: I had changed a character from a nodachi wielding fighter/oracle to a warpriest during the playtest and enjoyed the change immensely. Except that I found myself wielding a scimitar instead of a nodachi. Quite crushing to my flavor as I was from Minkai and really liked the pseudo-samurai style. I just couldn't justify still using a nodachi since a scimitar now dealt the same damage, with the same threat range, and could be one-handed in a grapple or on a horse I failed to control with my knees. Maybe I need to abandon power for flavor more often... But when class abilities tell flavor to go **** itself, it's a tough decision. If this is how the final printing is I suspect I will be changing back.

I wish you could choose the Full BAB or the increased damage dice on sacred weapon, because if you're using a weapon with a 1d8 or higher, you're not going to see any significant benefit until like 15th level. This will hurt ranged builds, like my gun warpriest, who rely on full attacks to stay relevant.

At the very least, I hope the class no longer scales with Charisma. Gish classes are MAD enough without having to invest in TWO mental statistics.

I'm inclined to agree, but I think the Inquisitor spell list is also stronger as a 6/9 caster and the steroids available to the Inquisitor are, at least in my mind, slightly stronger.

The Inquisitor is a spontaneous caster, which means that the Warpriest has access to a wider array of spells, because he isn't limited to a list of spells known.

Removed a post and reply. Let's leave personal jabs out of the conversation, please.

Conversely the inquisitor spell list was custom written for him and includes a number of unique spells as well as other spells borrowed from the ranger and the paladin lists.

I find it strange that the warpriest doesn't get access to the Litany of X-spells, for instance.

I do agree with you that prepared spellcasters are generally more flexible than spontaneous casters, but I think the point was that the custom and unique list of the inquisitor better enables him to do his job. In comparison the warpriest list is a little underwhelming.

On a side, but relevant note, litany spells are WAY better for spontaneous casters.

They are powerful, swift action, spells with very little durations, if you had to memorize them, you would almost never pick it up, but having the ability of spontanous casting them at the right time is a huge factor.

The warpriest come from a powerfull class made for singlecass a warrior/priest(as the name implies) and have a unique spot on a party (like the magus to the wizard/fighter) to a class that have the spot of a fighter or a cleric from levels 2-4 and them become outclassed every passing level.

The only "powerful" solution that i see to make the warpriest competitive against a cleric is making fevor work on any spell, not only self buffs, but that would make it even stronger as a caster and people will come with a variant cleric no-fighter.

Since the cleric is already 3/4 bab, the WP needed a to-hit boots to be competitive since it will always be weaker as a caster.

I am since yesterday figuring out builds for the new warpriest and always come with a better cleric build that around level 5 do everything the warpriest do, just plain better.

Access to 7+ level spells is VERY powerful, you need a powerful tradeoff to compensate for the inability to reach this high level spells. (A full bab with swift casting self buffs were a good trade)

Now swift cast underlevel spells self only will not make up for the diference after first few levels.

Conversely the inquisitor spell list was custom written for him and includes a number of unique spells as well as other spells borrowed from the ranger and the paladin lists.

and bard and wizard list.

I do agree with you that prepared spellcasters are generally more flexible than spontaneous casters, but I think the point was that the custom and unique list of the inquisitor better enables him to do his job. In comparison the warpriest list is a little underwhelming.

The warpriest is a "kill it with my stick" class. it doesn't and shouldn't need to be flexible.

The fact that it gets Divine Power at level 10 is a bit underwhelming, but then I had hoped it shouldn't really be a caster class, but more of a martial class that get some divine spells and a lot of cool abilities.
A
nyway, as pointed out before me the blog is a bit strange in that it really only previewed a nerf, nothing more. I fear that the MAD problem remains and that it still only get 2 skills per level.

I wish you could choose the Full BAB or the increased damage dice on sacred weapon, because if you're using a weapon with a 1d8 or higher, you're not going to see any significant benefit until like 15th level. This will hurt ranged builds, like my gun warpriest, who rely on full attacks to stay relevant.

At the very least, I hope the class no longer scales with Charisma. Gish classes are MAD enough without having to invest in TWO mental statistics.

I agree. Funny thing is, I remember suggestions to drop the increased damage in the playtest, but not a single one comes to mind about BaB decreasing. In fact, it really seemed like just about everyone suggested making it a straight Full BaB class, even if that meant only 4th level spells.

It probably wouldnt be a bad idea to give them some Inquisitor like abilities as sell. Like +1/2 level to Init or Know checks to help counter the MAD and crap skills.

In fact, it really seemed like just about everyone suggested making it a straight Full BaB class, even if that meant only 4th level spells.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing.

Maybe it's just me...but isn't anyone else worried about how we keep getting these new classes that push the envelope of being broken while Iconic classes like Rogue and Monk wallow in obscurity to the fact that nobody plays them anymore because most consider them non-viable in anything but a hugely heavy RP campaign?

Maybe it's just me...but isn't anyone else worried about how we keep getting these new classes that push the envelope of being broken while Iconic classes like Rogue and Monk wallow in obscurity to the fact that nobody plays them anymore because most consider them non-viable in anything but a hugely heavy RP campaign?

I'm not worried at all. Monks and Rogues suffer largely due to mechanics inherited from older editions of D&D/d20. Without an overhaul of their class mechanics those classes will continue "wallow in obscurity". Slayer/Investigator and Brawlers are the attempts to overhaul those classes into a viable form while creating a chassis for more archetype expansions.

Maybe it's just me...but isn't anyone else worried about how we keep getting these new classes that push the envelope of being broken while Iconic classes like Rogue and Monk wallow in obscurity to the fact that nobody plays them anymore because most consider them non-viable in anything but a hugely heavy RP campaign?

It’s to late to worry now. The future is here, the Inquisitor!

Slayer/Investigator and Brawlers are the attempts to overhaul those classes into a viable form.

And the swashbuckler.

DM Beckett wrote:

In fact, it really seemed like just about everyone suggested making it a straight Full BaB class, even if that meant only 4th level spells.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing.

It doesn't make it less true.

Kayland wrote:

Maybe it's just me...but isn't anyone else worried about how we keep getting these new classes that push the envelope of being broken while Iconic classes like Rogue and Monk wallow in obscurity to the fact that nobody plays them anymore because most consider them non-viable in anything but a hugely heavy RP campaign?

I'm not worried at all. Monks and Rogues suffer largely due to mechanics inherited from older editions of D&D/d20. Without an overhaul of their class mechanics those classes will continue "wallow in obscurity". Slayer/Investigator and Brawlers are the attempts to overhaul those classes into a viable form while forming a chassis for more archetype expansions.

Monks, Rogues and Fighters you mean. And yes, it is a major problem that those classes are being left behind. Sadly, they were left behind at Pathfinder's very inception, and asking Paizo to rewrite 3 core rulebook classes is impossible. The sad truth is that making new classes to replace these old ones is almost mandatory now. Thankfully a lot of these new classes inherited their spirits, not just their mechanics.