Advanced Class Guide Preview: Warpriest

thematically it makes sense for the warpriest to have full bab but maybe it was too powerfull with full bab sacred weapon plus fervor plus swift weapon enhancement so ultimately something had to be toned down that said i hope sacred weapon enhancement gets buffed to a min per lvl

I'm still hopeful that the ACG will contain options that boost the struggling core classes as well as introduce their counterparts.

The long-awaited dexterity to damage-feats could help the monk become less MAD, for example.

Ross Byers wrote:

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.

Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.

Actually, it does make it less true.

i hope sacred weapon enhancement gets buffed to a min per lvl

I think this might be appropriate, though I'm not certain it is this way, or that it's necessary. I also like the idea of having the fervor and spellcasting based off the same mental stat. This is what was done for Paladins in the transition from 3.5e to Pathfinder, so I think it would be acceptable here. Then again, the Cleric (one of the "parent" classes of the Warpriest, though that distinction is basically moot now) has two separate stats for channel energy and casting, but the cleric is less martial focused than the Warpriest...

For now, I think that the Warpriest class will be just fine, and I'm ok if the class ends up being "middle of the pack", power-wise. (I think that should be the goal, no?) Regardless, I'm reserving final judgement until I see the full class, at a minimum, preferably see how it plays out on the table for a few months through a few class levels.

Zark wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

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.

Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.

Actually, it does make it less true.

So, for that matter, does going back and actually rereading the original threads, where there were almost no "just make it a full BaB class" posts other than DM Beckett himself, and a decent number of "full BaB, even with just one weapon, is too much" posts. Both of course were massively outnumbered by the posts celebrating the change.

In fact, the only "just about everyone" thing I really saw was that the class was too MAD, with most commenters recommending basing fervor off of Wisdom (and a much smaller number of suggestions to make the class' casting run off of Charisma). So maybe that feedback will be somehow reflected in the final result.

magnuskn wrote:

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.

The point <- ------- -> You

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?

Its always fun to be nobody.

Seriously I am playing, and will continue to play, Monks and Rogues in campaigns that are not hugely RP heavy.

So, for that matter, does going back and actually rereading the original threads, where there were almost no "just make it a full BaB class" posts other than DM Beckett himself, and a decent number of "full BaB, even with just one weapon, is too much" posts. Both of course were massively outnumbered by the posts celebrating the change.

For posterity, I went back and looked through the first 150 posts. There were many calls for full BAB. DM Beckett was the 4th person to state it and far from the last.

Regardless, the designers must have agreed it was needed (to a degree), as they implemented a psuedo full BAB. I didn't review to see positive or negative feedback of the change.

Why did they remove it? That's the question. We don't have access to enough information to determine that. Stay tuned 'til August!

The lack of Paizo presence is always welcome in discussions like these!

If a Paizo employee came in and said

-Sacred weapon got buffed
-Blessings are actually good instead of being worse than a single domain/inquisition
-Fervor was changed in a positive manner

Then people would stop saying how bad this class is going to be.

Unfortunately the silence is probably a sign that the above statements are untrue.

So, for that matter, does going back and actually rereading the original threads, where there were almost no "just make it a full BaB class" posts other than DM Beckett himself, and a decent number of "full BaB, even with just one weapon, is too much" posts. Both of course were massively outnumbered by the posts celebrating the change.

Actually not really. I would rather have had full BaB over the pseudo full BaB, but otherwise could kind of go either way. I was against the "lets make Paladin's of different alignments through this class" though, so against full BaB for 4th level spells idea that kept coming up, which is why I remember that. My suggestion where to try more for Divine Magus type Fighter/Cleric. It was really the only class I had a lot of interest in, so I ran some through mock combats and unofficial PFS scenarios, and reported my findings and opinions. I had other players also run other classes, Hunter, Bloodrager, and Investigator, but I didn't feel I had enough experience in actual play to say much on those.

Might be some confirmation bias. I don't know. Not really interested in retreading that thread ever again. :)

-Blessings are actually good instead of being worse than a single domain/inquisition

Did you miss the part where the blog talks about making blessings better? There's even an example. It's the only actual rules text in the blog, even.

Or did you just mean that you want the Warpriest to have better class features than the Inquisitor?

Unfortunately the silence is probably a sign that the above statements are untrue.

Or it could be a sign that they're busy. Or that they don't want to preview even more material on the preview blog, because there are things they want to reveal at PaizoCon, for future teases, or to be surprises when the book goes on sale.

It's almost as if they have more to worry about than making you happy.

Shisumo wrote:

So, for that matter, does going back and actually rereading the original threads, where there were almost no "just make it a full BaB class" posts other than DM Beckett himself, and a decent number of "full BaB, even with just one weapon, is too much" posts. Both of course were massively outnumbered by the posts celebrating the change.

For posterity, I went back and looked through the first 150 posts. There were many calls for full BAB. DM Beckett was the 4th person to state it and far from the last.

Regardless, the designers must have agreed it was needed (to a degree), as they implemented a psuedo full BAB. I didn't review to see positive or negative feedback of the change.

My post was inaccurate.

I went back and reread the thread (singular) discussing the warpriest post revision, where the pseudo-BaB option was presented. My description applies specifically to that one thread, and I should not have said otherwise.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

-Blessings are actually good instead of being worse than a single domain/inquisition

Did you miss the part where the blog talks about making blessings better? There's even an example. It's the only actual rules test in the blog, even.

Or did you just mean that you want the Warpriest to have better class features than the Inquisitor?

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Unfortunately the silence is probably a sign that the above statements are untrue.

Or it could be a sign that they're busy. Or that they don't want to preview even more material on the preview blog, because there are things they want to reveal at PaizoCon, for future teases, or to be surprises when the book goes on sale.

It's almost as if they have more to worry about than making you happy.

Or that unhappy players are less important than vague previews.

Or it could be a sign that they're busy. Or that they don't want to preview even more material on the preview blog, because there are things they want to reveal at PaizoCon, for future teases, or to be surprises when the book goes on sale.

It's almost as if they have more to worry about than making you happy.

To be fair, if people remember back to the Warpriest Playtest threads, that was the major issue. People had a lot of questions that where very pertinent to the playtesting, but never answered, (or even answered in other threads). There was next to no official feedback or responses which a people figured was universal, until they saw that most of the other playtest threads had very active official feedback and questions being answered about their classes. Not saying this to be mean, but it kind of feels like the same thing all over again. As was mentioned, we see a lot of bad, and a suggestion that maybe one thing is made better, very contrary to <what I recall of> the playtest results suggestions, and not a whole lot of good redeem the class.

Again, not trying to be a jerk or mean, but if everyone has better things to do, than it kind of sounds like the Warpriest at least isn't that important to anyone. Might be wrong, but that's sort of the way we/I am interpreting the words you say, which might not be the way you meant them to come out.

Looking back at the Swashbuckler preview (02Jun2014) and the newer Investigator preview (10Jun2014), this preview thread has nearly twice the number of responses of those two in 2 days, which might be telling that people are not digging the direction chosen for this one.

Not digging.

Seeing a class that had a good, class defining ability nerfed with the promise that its other, lacking abilities will be buffed is literally not enough.

This blog entry took away the certainty that this would be the class a majority of Warpriest fans wanted. Instead, we might get the class we wanted. Blessings were promised to be better, but we have no guarantee they will even be good enough, or that what Paizo sees as buffs will be what we see as buffs.

Meanwhile we got no word on Fervor, Sacred Weapon's buffing ability, or the Warpriest's spell list. In exchange for a big nerf we literally got "No, but its okay! The weak stuff will be buffed! We promise!"

Is it the point where we fill lawsuits, or does that happen on the next page of the thread?

Is it the point where we fill lawsuits, or does that happen on the next page of the thread?

Nah this is the point where we brace ourselves for disappointment, like with Inner Sea Combat.

Or the point where you (collective 'you') decide to perhaps wait a little more patiently to see whether or not your fears are justified or not?

Again, not trying to be a jerk or mean, but if everyone has better things to do, than it kind of sounds like the Warpriest at least isn't that important to anyone. Might be wrong, but that's sort of the way we/I am interpreting the words you say, which might not be the way you meant them to come out.

I think comparing the importance of the blog to the importance of the class is comparing apples to oranges. I'll give you the same caution I was trying to give to Insain Dragoon: don't read too much into Paizo's response, or lack thereof, to this thread.

Looking back at the Swashbuckler preview (02Jun2014) and the newer Investigator preview (10Jun2014), this preview thread has nearly twice the number of responses of those two in 2 days, which might be telling that people are not digging the direction chosen for this one.

I think that's because certain people respond much more vocally when a class is adjusted downward, rather than upward. This is regardless of if those adjustments are merited or not.

TL:DR; There are mountains and there are molehills. The two are sometimes confused.

Also, rumor has it that Jason is out sick today.

It's his blog. He'd be the one to respond.

Hitler, Stormwind Fallacy, Caster/Martial Disparity.

Move along, move along.

Or the point where you (collective 'you') decide to perhaps wait a little more patiently to see whether or not your fears are justified or not?

It takes all of the fun out of it ;)

What?! Your all going off on a sick man! You should all be ashamed of yourselves, ashamed I say!

I still think basing a class largely around a minor detail of the cleric class (favored weapon) probably hampered what could be done with it; we already have a 3/4 BAB class that is strongly inclined toward the deity's favored weapon, it's called a cleric.

3/4 BAB and high damage puts this in the same problem area as a monk. Monks lack for accuracy boosts. Maybe the warpriest will fare better. I would much have preferred to see full BAB. No damage boost, or even just setting a flat minimum, would have made made more sense to me.

I don't see this effectively replacing a paladin or a melee-focused cleric.

Or the point where you (collective 'you') decide to perhaps wait a little more patiently to see whether or not your fears are justified or not?

Generally my fears are justified when it comes to Paizo classes.

What?! Your all going off on a sick man! You should all be ashamed of yourselves, ashamed I say!

** spoiler omitted **

Stephen got the drop on Jason and he suffered one too many blows from The Gauntlet?

havoc xiii wrote:

What?! Your all going off on a sick man! You should all be ashamed of yourselves, ashamed I say!

** spoiler omitted **

Stephen got the drop on Jason and he suffered one too many blows from The Gauntlet?

It's that Touch of Corruption (Diseased) combined with Plague Bringer. Remember, Stephen suffers no effects from diseases, but he can still spread them and he can outright inflict them via Touch of Corruption. Just being near Stephen practically ensures you're going to catch something.

I don't see this effectively replacing a paladin or a melee-focused cleric.

It's almost as if the design goal of the Warpriest class is to avoid replacing any classes that currently exist...

Just saying.

I still think basing a class largely around a minor detail of the cleric class (favored weapon) probably hampered what could be done with it;

That got dropped in the 2nd playtest. The Warpriest was free to specialize in any weapon he had Weapon Focus in, he just got to apply his Sacred Weapon benefits to his Deity's Favored Weapon for free.

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?

Not even a tiny bit. Every group I play with includes either a monk or a rogue, often both.

I still think basing a class largely around a minor detail of the cleric class (favored weapon) probably hampered what could be done with it; we already have a 3/4 BAB class that is strongly inclined toward the deity's favored weapon, it's called a cleric.

3/4 BAB and high damage puts this in the same problem area as a monk. Monks lack for accuracy boosts. Maybe the warpriest will fare better. I would much have preferred to see full BAB. No damage boost, or even just setting a flat minimum, would have made made more sense to me.

I don't see this effectively replacing a paladin or a melee-focused cleric.

I agree, bonus damage does not mean anything unless you can hit. I will still try out the class but sadly I think with this change will doom the class to none use as the paladin does pretty much everything a warpriest does but better.

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?

Not even a tiny bit. Every group I play with includes either a monk or a rogue, often both.

Same, I still see groups with both.

Rathendar wrote:

havoc xiii wrote:

What?! Your all going off on a sick man! You should all be ashamed of yourselves, ashamed I say!

** spoiler omitted **

Stephen got the drop on Jason and he suffered one too many blows from The Gauntlet?

It's that Touch of Corruption (Diseased) combined with Plague Bringer. Remember, Stephen suffers no effects from diseases, but he can still spread them and he can outright inflict them via Touch of Corruption. Just being near Stephen practically ensures you're going to catch something.

Or he's faking sick to avoid the gauntlet punch...

Tels wrote:

Rathendar wrote:

havoc xiii wrote:

What?! Your all going off on a sick man! You should all be ashamed of yourselves, ashamed I say!

** spoiler omitted **

Stephen got the drop on Jason and he suffered one too many blows from The Gauntlet?

It's that Touch of Corruption (Diseased) combined with Plague Bringer. Remember, Stephen suffers no effects from diseases, but he can still spread them and he can outright inflict them via Touch of Corruption. Just being near Stephen practically ensures you're going to catch something.

Or he's faking sick to avoid the gauntlet punch...

Which, funnily enough, can be delivered via a Touch of Corruption. It might be he's already been punched and then caught an illness.

You know, I certainly hope that we get more information.
I'm a bit disappointed right now with this class, but I want to know what changes were made to the blessings. I want Glory to do something more than it did in the playtest: a hopped up sanctuary which is somewhat useful and a demoralize that uses a swift action. We need our swift actions! I want Glory to be like the Glory domain is for cleric: not necessarily awesome because of the abilities but awesome because of the spells it adds. I'd love Glory to add some sort of buff similar to Holy Sword only on the Warpriest. Same with the other domains. They have such opportunity for awesomeness that emphasizes the Warpriests damage dealing, with status, critical strikes, etc.

RJGrady wrote:

I still think basing a class largely around a minor detail of the cleric class (favored weapon) probably hampered what could be done with it;

That got dropped in the 2nd playtest. The Warpriest was free to specialize in any weapon he had Weapon Focus in, he just got to apply his Sacred Weapon benefits to his Deity's Favored Weapon for free.

Obviously, it did not get dropped, or you would not need Weapon Focus.

RJGrady wrote:

I don't see this effectively replacing a paladin or a melee-focused cleric.

It's almost as if the design goal of the Warpriest class is to avoid replacing any classes that currently exist...

Just saying.

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

Just sayin'.

Anyway, my point, which you may or may not have detected as you composed your post, was not that it should replace and retire any other option, but that I don't think a warpriest can fill the general role that can be filled by either a paladin or a melee-focused cleric. I.e. the warpriest may not be as good a warpriest as an inquisitor is an inquisitor.

It's really too bad. The class was almost good. Without full BAB I'd rather just play a paladin. It's spell progression is too low anyway. Anything without full BAB, full casting or crazy utlity (bard/investigator/summoner) is just a mathematically under powered and more importantly uninteresting class.

Thats kinda the problem. Plus, Holy Vindicator has some abilities and some bonuses that make the Warpriest's look weak by comparison, and that's only a prestige class!
Edit: One level of cleric, nine levels of two handed fighter, and ten levels of Holy Vindicator and you have a damage dealing psychopath that can crack skulls with the best of them.

Suma3da wrote:

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.

I disagree. the barbarian was at the powerlevel of fighters now they are juggernauts thanks to post core material. Those classes are weak because paizo have neglected them all these years.

EDIT: ACtually the monk is a good example for a class that is jsut straight better now than in the past due to non-core material.

Literally the only thing I wanted out of this class was the full BAB and spells.

All of the other swift action stuff is largely garbage compared to having full BAB. I'd have given up fervor entirely for the full BAB with 6th level spells. Without full BAB in an edition where divine power doesn't give full BAB but instead doesn't work with haste the war priest is just under powered.

Your marshal power is too weak.

Your casting is too weak.

If you want to cast a cleric is better.
If you want to melee and have prep time a cleric is better.
If you want to melee and have no prep time it breaks even with a cleric until about 7th level at which point cleric hops on 4th level spells and runs it over.

It's straight up a bad cleric without full BAB.

Not sure how a Warpriest can be that powerful, given they are heavily restricted by Action Economy, resources per day, and being MAD with at least 2, if not 3, stats. Needing Charisma for DCs of Blessing and other similar effects, Wisdom for casting, and Strength for damage dealing, it's practically a gimped version of the Cleric, since they are only a partial caster, and counting their class level as their BAB when using specific weapons is the only saving grace, albeit a very weak one to boot. It's also the only way a class designed to be in melee can ever really do anything.

At this point, their effectiveness is about as promising as a Monk's effectiveness; although not as severe, the concept is still there. Needing 3 statistics to be truly effective really hurts them being both an aspect of War and a Priest. They can only ever be one or the other, and not both as the class name seems to suggest, because the Point Buys aren't there, and if you're going to ever designate as one or the other, why even choose this class, when logic (and Point Buy) dictates you won't be able to be good at both at the same time, except for maybe the low levels?

And now the only saving grace this class had to offer gets lost in the dust. Very disappointed. This was one of the few classes I was looking forward to having released; the Skald was a disappointment from square 1 because the mechanics are conflicting and nothing was ever done to fix them, there were hardly any new or exciting mechanics introduced, and the only Bardic Performance they get (that's right, only one Bardic Performance) simply mimics a spell they get at 2nd level. Now that it's out, it's simply a waste of space, with arguably one of the most interesting Iconic characters Paizo released turned into a complete joke.

It's really too bad. The class was almost good. Without full BAB I'd rather just play a paladin. It's spell progression is too low anyway. Anything without full BAB, full casting or crazy utlity (bard/investigator/summoner) is just a mathematically under powered and more importantly uninteresting class.

I agree, a class is only interesting because of its mechanics. There is absolutely no other reason to play a class besides it. This is not a Roleplaying game after all.

Oh, wait...

Undone wrote:

It's really too bad. The class was almost good. Without full BAB I'd rather just play a paladin. It's spell progression is too low anyway. Anything without full BAB, full casting or crazy utlity (bard/investigator/summoner) is just a mathematically under powered and more importantly uninteresting class.

I agree, a class is only interesting because of its mechanics. There is absolutely no other reason to play a class besides it. This is not a Roleplaying game after all.

Oh, wait...

Roleplaying a Priest of War when he can only either effectively a Priest or an Aspect of War doesn't really do itself many favors. Not to mention, mechanics are a foundation used to support the roleplay. When the mechanics don't reflect the concept you're supposed to roleplay, it just comes off as bad class design, which is what we're pointing out.

Mechanically, you either have the Strength and lower-level Buffs to back up your melee attacks, or you have the Wisdom and Bonus Spells to serve as a makeshift buff-healer, albeit a much weaker one.

Thematically, you either have the muscles and martial prowess of an Aspect of War, or you have the knowledgable success of a true patron for your deity. The mechanics simply can't support you being able to accomplish both and being good at them, which is exactly what you're trying to imply, and is a requirement for a Warpriest to actually be a Warpriest. He's otherwise just a "beefy" or "enlightened" "Cleric" with wimpy abilities and gimped spellcasting.

the Skald was a disappointment from square 1 because the mechanics are conflicting and nothing was ever done to fix them, there were hardly any new or exciting mechanics introduced, and the only Bardic Performance they get (that's right, only one Bardic Performance) simply mimics a spell they get at 2nd level.

We already know from an older preview blog post that Skalds got some love. "The Skald got access to a few more powers from its parent classes, including versatile performance and uncanny dodge. It also got a few new songs that it can use in place of its raging song, such as the song of the fallen."

Undone wrote:

It's really too bad. The class was almost good. Without full BAB I'd rather just play a paladin. It's spell progression is too low anyway. Anything without full BAB, full casting or crazy utlity (bard/investigator/summoner) is just a mathematically under powered and more importantly uninteresting class.

I agree, a class is only interesting because of its mechanics. There is absolutely no other reason to play a class besides it. This is not a Roleplaying game after all.

Oh, wait...

The above poster made some good points but my method of character building is simple.

I start with a concept. I wanted to make a worshiper of shelyn that was an artsy woman that fought evil because it was ascetically horrific and ugly.

I can either make her a cleric which gets full casting and needs less stats to be effective or I can be a warpriest which PRETENDS to have more marshal prowess (In reality less so because access to +1 spell levels trumps swift action self only buffs) or I can make her a cleric who has such superior casting progression that nothing this class offers improves upon the cleric.

The cleric gets full casting progression vs War priest +1 to hit (WF)a few bonus feats, and sacred weapon/armor could be sooo good but they left off BANE from the list making it underwhelming, the warpriest effectively always has self buffs running which is great because he'll always be behind a self buff from long duration buffs a level or three worth of spells the cleric has on him.

It's still an ok class, significantly better than a rogue or a monk but it's more like it's overshadowed by the cleric existing. It's just worse in every way.

Bummer. I was hoping the scaling damage would get dropped or modified/nerfed, and they'd keep the pseudo-full BAB.

I suspect the guy playing a war priest in my WotR game is going to be really disappointed.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

the Skald was a disappointment from square 1 because the mechanics are conflicting and nothing was ever done to fix them, there were hardly any new or exciting mechanics introduced, and the only Bardic Performance they get (that's right, only one Bardic Performance) simply mimics a spell they get at 2nd level.

We already know from an older preview blog post that Skalds got some love. "The Skald got access to a few more powers from its parent classes, including versatile performance and uncanny dodge. It also got a few new songs that it can use in place of its raging song, such as the song of the fallen."

I will talk of this no more so as to keep on topic.

I always felt like the warpriest had too many superfluous abilities.

1) Blessings are a neat idea, but most of them are terrible and only work for melee warpriests. I'm glad they're getting buffed, but I'm not sure how much.

2) Fervor's healing scales horribly and its usage is based on Charisma. Gish classes already suffer from MAD, but relying on TWO mental stats is insane. You will only use Fervor for the swift action spell usage because of the limited amount of times you can use it.

3) Channel energy's healing scales as bad as fervor and consumes two uses of fervor. You'll probably never use channel energy.

4) Sacred weapon's extra bonus abilities feel like a worse version of the magus's arcane pool. Worse scaling and only works for rounds instead of a minute. I'm fairly certain the list of abilities will expand, but I feel like this doesn't really add much to the class. If they wanted sacred weapon to get bonus abilities, I would have preferred a list of unique on-hit abilities based on god domains, which would have allowed the designers to remove those lame "your melee attacks do 1d4 energy damage) blessings. Perhaps it could use up a use of blessing to do so rather than be measured in rounds.

5) I actually have no problem with bonus feats. It opens up more combat options that were intentionally denied from other divine classes.

6) Sacred armor seems like an interesting premise, but it honestly feels like filler. I doubt any warpriest will remember to actually use this ability, especially when they already have to keep track of spell slots, fervor uses, blessing uses, and number of sacred weapon rounds expended. Yowza, that's a lot of bookkeeping!

I expect the warpriest will get tidied up, especially if full BAB sacred weapon will get cut. However, if these abilities go mostly unchanged, the warpriest will essentially be a bad cleric that wishes he was a paladin.

The Song of the Fallen summoning a bunch of useless low-level barbarians at levels where they become extremely outscaled defeats the purpose of having them there in the first place. At best, they serve as cannonfodder. At worst, you're shorting yourself of a valuable selling item. That's not counting how it takes 10 performance rounds just to get them summmoned!.

Except for the name, the new Song of the Fallen isn't anything like the old Archetype Skald's version.

tomorrow a new Iconic shall appear. Who will it be?

*please be the Arcainist, Skald, or Slayer*