Advanced Class Guide Preview: Warpriest

Tuesday, June 17, 2014


Illustration by Subroto Bhaumik

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.

Blending together the powers of the fighter and the cleric, the warpriest is a class that allows you to represent the ideals of your deity, but to back them up with cold, hard steel. The class had 6 levels of divine spellcasting, combined with an ability called blessings that work like domains, but grant combat focused abilities. It seemed like a perfect blend, but the first version of the class that we put forth to playtest did not go over very well. The powers and abilities, as initially designed, just did not give the player enough martial ability to get the job done. It had some the spellcasting and some of the combat skill, but the two just did not work well together as initially presented. Fortunately, in round 2 of the playtest, we got it right (or maybe a bit too right). We added an ability called fervor that allows the warpriest to channel energy to heal his allies similar to a paladin's lay on hands, but it also could be spent to cast warpriest spells as a swift action, as long as those spells only targeted the warpriest. We also changed an ability called sacred weapon, which allows the warpriest to designate a weapon (or the favored weapon of his deity) and use that weapon to greater effect, increasing the damage and attack bonus.

Unfortunately, that caused a bit of a problem. The class was a bit too good.

The second round of playtest showed us some really interesting data. Everyone seemed in love with the class, which is certainly good, but our surveys also showed us that the class was now at the top of the power curve. After a number of internal playtests, it became clear that attacking with the full attack bonus of a fighter, combined with swift-casting a number of "buff" spells made the class a juggernaut. Since we really liked how the fervor mechanic worked, the sacred weapon rules had to change. Sacred weapon still increases the damage of weapons and it can still be used to grant special abilities to the weapon, but it no longer increases the attack bonus of the warpriest when using the designated weapon. Just like that, everything seemed to fit.

We also took another look at a wide number of the blessings, bringing them all in line with one another and making them a more seamless part of the class. Take the community blessing for example. The major version of the blessing did not fit really well and was outright useless to a warpriest of Erastil. It got changed to the following.

Fight as One (major): At 10th level, you can rally your allies to fight together. For 1 minute, whenever you make a successful melee or ranged attack against a foe, allies within 10 feet of you gain a +2 insight bonus on attacks of the same type you made against that foe—melee attacks if you made a melee attack, or ranged attacks if you made a ranged attack. If you score a critical hit, this bonus increases to +4 until the start of your next turn.

There are a lot of other exciting changes in the blessings as well, but for those, you will have to wait until the book arrives in stores and at Gencon in mid-August. Come back on Thursday to unleash your inner rage, now improved with magic!

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Igor Grechanyi Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Warpriest
401 to 450 of 1,041 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Ross Byers wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
When PF came out, the Cleric itself got blasted with nerfs

What about the cleric got worse between 3.5 and PF?

Domains got better. Turn Undead was replaced with the much more useful Channel Energy. They got a better weapon proficiency.

Unless I'm forgetting something major, the only thing that got worse about clerics was losing Heavy Armor Proficiency.

Lost proficiency, Dwarven prof's loss compounded this, domains became infinitely worse not better, (Domains used to be a feat + some other stuff equiv) turn undead is much more powerful than channel as it out right destroys enemies instead of being the worst possible option at any given moment (Because in combat healing is an abomination outside of "Heal"), and 3.5 feats lost made the cleric hilariously worse than 3.5 where divine metamagic made clerics literally god like avatars of destruction. The cleric is the third best base class and the worst of the full casters which says something about full casting. Which is for most of these (Really hate channeling, it's the biggest nerf of the bunch) are needed because DMM + Nightsticks + Persistent spell made you a one man adventuring party which trumps an entire equal level party.

Quote:

Agreed. Both the Magus and Inquisitor and very good and very fun classes. Saying otherwise means you would never like the Warpriest unless they made it stupidly overpowered.

Not everything that comes out of a new Paizo book needs to be power creep people.

Rant ahead

Spoiler:

I disagree. I was expecting more along the lines of the paladin. A battle cleric is better than a war priest past level 4 and doesn't give up world altering magic for pitiful melee attacks. Your damage is never significantly higher than a cleric once spells are accounted for and more importantly once summoned monsters are accounted for in the reach weapon + Sacred summons + Summon good monster build. There are a half dozen similar builds but that's the one that sticks out as invalidating this entire class. You can have your swift action +3/+3 I'll spend my standard to summon 1d3+1 foo lions or celestial lions (Which you can do with SGM not subject to table variation)

The top of the pathfinder power teirs are

Tier 1: Full casting tier: Wizard=Druid=Summoner(W archetypes)>Witch>Shaman=Cleric=Summoner(W/o Archetypes)
Tier 2: Full BAB + any casting: Ranger(Due to companion boon feat) > Paladin > Bloodrager
Tier 3: 3/4ths BAB and spells, or full BAB + "Definitely not spell like abilities": Inquis, Magus, Warpriest (also includes things like barbarian and likely swashbuckeler) but for the sake of discussion just those.

I don't have a problem with the classes that are lower down the tier but after having several players end up quitting DnD all together because we TPK'ed in Living greyhawk because I was on my rogue who couldn't save the group and couldn't meaningfully contribute to real combat. As a result it's hard for me to consciously select poor options for RP reasons.

The class just gives up too much to gain, well... nothing. Your melee prowess can only add damage. Period that's it. More magic gives you more damage, more defenses, healing, escapes, utility, doesn't matter what. Spells add more damage than all of the features the war priest has. I'd argue that the cleric is better WHEN it has full BAB but at least it takes LONGER to reach the point where the cleric overshadows them in hilarious ways.


Ross Byers wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
I didn't say worse. :)
DM Beckett wrote:
When PF came out, the Cleric itself got blasted with nerfs
I am having difficulty reconciling these two things.

He means the nerfs are good things (IHO).

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Undone, you sound like the only classes you enjoy are 9-level casters. Perhaps this just isn't the class for you.

You might be more interested in the Arcanist and Shaman. Enjoy those. Let the people who wanted a divine magus, prepared spell Inquisitor, or different alignment paladin enjoy the warpriest.


Quote:

[The top of the pathfinder power teirs are

Tier 1: Full casting tier: Wizard=Druid=Summoner(W archetypes)>Witch>Shaman=Cleric=Summoner(W/o Archetypes)
Tier 2: Full BAB + any casting: Ranger(Due to companion boon feat) > Paladin > Bloodrager
Tier 3: 3/4ths BAB and spells, or full BAB + "Definitely not spell like abilities": Inquis, Magus, Warpriest (also includes things like barbarian and likely swashbuckeler) but for the sake of discussion just those.

Every tier list I've seen has reversed your 2 and 3.

(or to be more accurate, broken your Tier 1 down - Wiz, Cleric, Druid, sometimes Witch on Tier 1; Sorc, Oracle, Summoner, and a handful of others on Tier 2 - then made your Tier 3 as Tier 3 and your Tier 2 as sometimes 3 sometimes 4)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Orthos wrote:
Quote:

[The top of the pathfinder power teirs are

Tier 1: Full casting tier: Wizard=Druid=Summoner(W archetypes)>Witch>Shaman=Cleric=Summoner(W/o Archetypes)
Tier 2: Full BAB + any casting: Ranger(Due to companion boon feat) > Paladin > Bloodrager
Tier 3: 3/4ths BAB and spells, or full BAB + "Definitely not spell like abilities": Inquis, Magus, Warpriest (also includes things like barbarian and likely swashbuckeler) but for the sake of discussion just those.

Every tier list I've seen has reversed your 2 and 3.

I think it's clear he prefers specialists to generalists. The 6-level casters, pretty much by definition, are generalists.


Note that the paladin's lay on hands would also only heal for 1D6 at level 3 - we don't know if the fervor healing progression has been changed.

If the WP gets full LoH progression from fervor then I'd say would be a viable alternative to using Fervor to cast a CXW when you need a swift heal. The LoH effect will heal less than swift cure spell of an equal level, but wouldn't cost a spell slot:

Paladin at level 10: Lay on Hands heals for 5d6, averaging out to 17,5.
WP at level 10:
Fervor (assuming progression as a paladin) heals for 5d6, averaging out to 17,5.
Cure Moderate Wounds heals for 2d8+10, averaging out to 19.
Cure Serious Wounds heals for 3d8+10, averaging out to 23,5.
Cure Critical Wounds would (if it was available) heal for 4d8+11, averaging out to 29.

IE the full LoH progression would help the class dedicate spell slots to other things than healing as it levels, offering it more room for utility spells.

On the 3.5 cleric... Honestly, the biggest nerf to the cleric was that Pathfinder doesn't have DMM Persist and nightsticks (unless you allow 3.5 material) and the changes to many of the clerzilla spell staples, like Divine Power no longer giving full BAB progression.

@Undone
...That is an interesting take of the relative power of the classes in Pathfinder. Can't say I agree with it though. Inquisitors and magi function well (the magi can even function a bit too well if you're not prepared for the burst damage) despite having a medium BAB progression. So long as it gets the class features necessary to thrive on the front lines, so can the Warpriest.


What makes Paladin LoH strong is

-less class swift actions
-mercies


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Balancing around the fighter class is hard. On the one hand, the fighter is a little soft in some areas... low skill points and little or utility abilities. On the other hand, because fighters get so many bonus feats, they get a cumulative benefit far beyond what almost any other character can get from the same selections. They are also similar to the wizard in that they can generate a lot of damage, but that's not always the best thing they could be doing. Straight numeric comparisons aren't always the best test... sorcerers and wizards cast the same spells but have different strategies. A sorcerer and a wizard's fireball can both do 6d6 damage, but sorcerers can cast more often and wizards have a ton more spells. It's hard to compare "well, I can cast more fireballs" to "ok, but I can teleport and create illusions."

So, you can't just yank some bonus feats out of the fighter's progression, replace it with some other cool stuff, and then compare the result to a fighter numerically. Obviously, if it's too far off, that's a problem. But it's kind of okay if a divine caster can do somewhat more damage than a fighter in a bursty way, because the fighter still has more feats.


Quote:
Which is for most of these (Really hate channeling, it's the biggest nerf of the bunch) are needed because DMM + Nightsticks + Persistent spell made you a one man adventuring party which trumps an entire equal level party.

... and you consider that a good thing?


The paladin is fairly spoiled for Swift action options as well - divine bond, lay on hands, smite evil and numerous spells (Paladin's Sacrifice, Litany of X etc) are all excellent options.

That said, I won't deny that there is a lot of stuff competing for swift actions on the Warpriest end - I hope they tweak the weapon/armor/blessing swift actions, either by combining them (in the case of the weapon/armor enhancement) or by making more of them free actions.

This is where I find the blog post encouraging: It notes that the design team made blessings "more seamless" and the new blessing doesn't have any action requirements at all.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

What makes Paladin LoH strong is

-less class swift actions
-mercies

and LoH does not eat up smites, while fervor is used for self healing, self buffing, and channeling energy.

I am still on the wait and see for the Warpriest, but I think comparing LoH to the Warpriest's own self healing is a false comparison. LoH rarely has action competition, while the Warpriest has at least 5 abilities that are swift actions. Playtest 2 Warpriest's self healing capped out at 7d6. This may have been changed, but we still don't know. Lastly, the LoH is strong debuff removal, which is a game changer when the paladin needs it.

Scarab Sages

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Just saw the pregens. Fervor self healing is a joke.

Also for whatever reason they gave Warpriests spontaneous heal or inflict.

If the devs actually think those have value I can see why they thought Warpriest was OP!

Rogues get 10 rogue Talents you know! That's a lot of class features! They must be OP too! I mean quantity>quality.

Spending fervor to cast a healing spell as a swift action is not a joke.


Kudaku wrote:

The paladin is fairly spoiled for Swift action options as well - divine bond, lay on hands, smite evil and numerous spells (Paladin's Sacrifice, Litany of X etc) are all excellent options.

That said, I won't deny that there is a lot of stuff competing for swift actions on the Warpriest end - I hope they tweak the weapon/armor/blessing swift actions, either by combining them (in the case of the weapon/armor enhancement) or by making more of them free actions.

This is where I find the blog post encouraging: It notes that the design team made blessings "more seamless" and the new blessing doesn't have any action requirements at all.

Divine Bond is a Standard Action.

Most of the paladin's swift actions are to be consumed by either declaring a smite, healing, or casting a spell being usually Hero's Defiance, Litany of Righteousness, or a Dimension Door to utilize the Dimensional Dervish/Savant feats. Once the smite is declared, you basically pick whether or not you wanna use a spell or heal that round.

The warpriest has like four class abilities not including the quickened spell feature of fervor that have to compete for his swift action meaning that he has to spend just as many turns buffing because to access his class ability buffs, he has to spend a standard action casting which defeats the whole point of even having that ability.


Kudaku wrote:

The paladin is fairly spoiled for Swift action options as well - divine bond, lay on hands, smite evil and numerous spells (Paladin's Sacrifice, Litany of X etc) are all excellent options.

That said, I won't deny that there is a lot of stuff competing for swift actions on the Warpriest end - I hope they tweak the weapon/armor/blessing swift actions, either by combining them (in the case of the weapon/armor enhancement) or by making more of them free actions.

This is where I find the blog post encouraging: It notes that the design team made blessings "more seamless" and the new blessing doesn't have any action requirements at all.

Yeah, that new Blessing power previewed is actionless. But the pregen Warpriest has a 1st level blessing power that is also a swift. So I am not sure how to feel about Blessings being buffed.


Orthos wrote:
Quote:

[The top of the pathfinder power teirs are

Tier 1: Full casting tier: Wizard=Druid=Summoner(W archetypes)>Witch>Shaman=Cleric=Summoner(W/o Archetypes)
Tier 2: Full BAB + any casting: Ranger(Due to companion boon feat) > Paladin > Bloodrager
Tier 3: 3/4ths BAB and spells, or full BAB + "Definitely not spell like abilities": Inquis, Magus, Warpriest (also includes things like barbarian and likely swashbuckeler) but for the sake of discussion just those.

Every tier list I've seen has reversed your 2 and 3.

(or to be more accurate, broken your Tier 1 down - Wiz, Cleric, Druid, sometimes Witch on Tier 1; Sorc, Oracle, Summoner, and a handful of others on Tier 2 - then made your Tier 3 as Tier 3 and your Tier 2 as sometimes 3 sometimes 4)

To be fair I class those as tier 1.5 because they are essentially just weaker versions of their full caster selves. I generally ignore them when making tier lists because they are almost as good as their respective non druid counter parts.

Quote:

Undone, you sound like the only classes you enjoy are 9-level casters. Perhaps this just isn't the class for you.

You might be more interested in the Arcanist and Shaman. Enjoy those. Let the people who wanted a divine magus, prepared spell Inquisitor, or different alignment paladin enjoy the warpriest.

I have 2 PFS full casters and 6 full BAB characters. I am not a fan of 3/4ths BAB classes excluding bard, summoner(I still hate whoever wrote this class), cleric, and druid.

Not having full BAB, full spells, or a ton of utility just makes for weaker classes. This was the most interesting new class to me with the second being the blood rager and then the swashbuckler, unfortunately without full BAB this is just another inquisitor boring, repetitive, and not great. I'd rather lose some superfluous worthless swift actions (like the weapon and armor enhancements) than the BAB. The BAB makes PA worse, but more importantly robs you of iterative hits which is literally the most important thing for characters that want to attack after hitting.


Ross Byers wrote:

Undone, you sound like the only classes you enjoy are 9-level casters. Perhaps this just isn't the class for you.

You might be more interested in the Arcanist and Shaman. Enjoy those. Let the people who wanted a divine magus, prepared spell Inquisitor, or different alignment paladin enjoy the warpriest.

It almost sounds like he wants a gestalt Fighter/Cleric so he can have full BAB and full 9th level casting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, I could call the Inquisitor many things, but boring and repetitive and lacking in utility would never be among them. I couldn't disagree more.


Artanthos wrote:
Spending fervor to cast a healing spell as a swift action is not a joke.

I'm reasonably certain he means using the Lay On Hands version of Fervor:

Revised play test:
With one use of this ability, a good warpriest (or one who worships a good deity) can touch a creature to heal 1d6 points of damage plus an additional 1d6 points of damage per 3 warpriest levels above 2nd (to a maximum of 7d6 at 20th level). Using this ability is a standard action, unless the warpriest targets herself, in which case it’s a swift action.

The problem is the painfully slow scaling. Average of 7 at level 5, 10.5 at level 8, 14 at level 11 etc.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Divine Bond is a Standard Action.

Learn something new every day - time to have a wee chat with the party paladin :)

Adam B. 135 wrote:
Yeah, that new Blessing power previewed is actionless. But the pregen Warpriest has a 1st level blessing power that is also a swift. So I am not sure how to feel about Blessings being buffed.

I never thought to mine the pregen for the new blessings! Looks like both of the blessings he's using (Strength Surge from the Strength Blessing and Battle Mind from War Blessing) are unchanged from the playtest.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:

Tier 1: Full casting tier: Wizard=Druid=Summoner(W archetypes)>Witch>Shaman=Cleric=Summoner(W/o Archetypes)

Tier 2: Full BAB + any casting: Ranger(Due to companion boon feat) > Paladin > Bloodrager
Tier 3: 3/4ths BAB and spells, or full BAB + "Definitely not spell like abilities": Inquis, Magus, Warpriest (also includes things like barbarian and likely swashbuckeler) but for the sake of discussion just those.
Every tier list I've seen has reversed your 2 and 3.

The whole Class Tier thing is pretty bias and really only concerns itself with one particular play style, so I wouldn't put too much stock into it. It assumes that all casters are "schrodinger's" Wizards/Clerics/etc. . . while also assumes that things like Fighters will max Str, Dex, and/or Con and dump Int, Wis, and Cha, be unable to take consumables to cover their weaknesses, (and while it's ok to assume that if there is a spell for it, the caster has it, it's generally not ok if there is a Feat for it, that they might likewise have that).

Tends to assume casters have access to nearly everything, like extra spell options, scrolls, and wands, but not so for non-casters, casters usually have full spells or only do 1-4 encounters before resting, and things like that.

It also assumes a combat/dungeon heavy game rather than a more balanced one that might involve social, intrigue, traps, combat, and investigation. Basically focusing on certain areas that some classes shine while ignoring others that other classes tend to. It's basically good for things like theory craft, in a limited capacity.

Besides, this is PF. . .:

Tier 1: Bard
Tier 3ish: everything else

Like I said, I wouldn't put too much stock into it, but we should probably get back on topic. :)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Quote:

[The top of the pathfinder power teirs are

Tier 1: Full casting tier: Wizard=Druid=Summoner(W archetypes)>Witch>Shaman=Cleric=Summoner(W/o Archetypes)
Tier 2: Full BAB + any casting: Ranger(Due to companion boon feat) > Paladin > Bloodrager
Tier 3: 3/4ths BAB and spells, or full BAB + "Definitely not spell like abilities": Inquis, Magus, Warpriest (also includes things like barbarian and likely swashbuckeler) but for the sake of discussion just those.

Every tier list I've seen has reversed your 2 and 3.

(or to be more accurate, broken your Tier 1 down - Wiz, Cleric, Druid, sometimes Witch on Tier 1; Sorc, Oracle, Summoner, and a handful of others on Tier 2 - then made your Tier 3 as Tier 3 and your Tier 2 as sometimes 3 sometimes 4)

I was thinking the same thing.

And you know, I actually had a pretty long discussion on multiple forums not too long ago about how often classes really end up with more goodies by having 3/4 BAB. An Inquisitor with his Judgement(s) up, his buffs on, and Bane running can be a monster on the battlefield, especially if you pick the Rage Subdomain, Anger Inquisition, or something similarly combat focused. They're losing the attack least likely to hit but can stack on all kinds of other goodies to deal out huge amounts of damage with excellent accuracy.

By endgame levels, an Inquisitor with Bane and his judgment up is rocking a +22 to hit with 4d6 extra damage to the Fighter's +24 and 4 extra damage with Weapon Training. If the Inquisitor chose one of the domains that grants rage, he's at +24 (tied with the Fighter) with 4d6 + 2 (3 for a two-hander) extra damage, putting him about 6 points ahead of the Fighter, or more than the Weapon Specialization feats will net him. If he gets to actually buff with his spells... 32 to hit before factoring in his base Strength, bonuses from feats, weapon enhancements, etc. is something he can get to with two spells. That means an Inquisitor with a +5 weapon, 2 rounds to buff, and a starting strength of 18-20 is only missing a Tarrasque on a natural 1 for his first two attacks.

The Warpriest is going to perform very similarly in combat, with the biggest difference being that he is guaranteed to get those buffs, even if he doesn't have time to prebuff. He's also going to have access to Fighter specific feats that can push beyond that. Basically, he really doesn't need the full BAB unless his class features are way worse than the Inquisitor's Judgements, which seems unlikely to me (though we won't know for sure for a while yet). An Inquisitor is already a very capable combatant; a Warpriest, with swift buffs and self-healing, would seem to already be stepping beyond that, while keeping access to key cleric spells like planar ally.

As a warpriest, I'd imagine that their focus should be on serving their god by beating things up, and they seem like they're well positioned to do exactly that.
**EDIT**
One thing I forgot to mention, both the Warpriest and the Inquisitor can do that whole "hitting things well and hard" bit without sacrificing their effectiveness in other areas. The Inquisitor still has whole swaths of skill utility and enough spells to select good narrative abilities, and the Warpriest's access to the cleric spell list means he also has some excellent narrative options at his disposal.


Artanthos wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Just saw the pregens. Fervor self healing is a joke.

Also for whatever reason they gave Warpriests spontaneous heal or inflict.

If the devs actually think those have value I can see why they thought Warpriest was OP!

Rogues get 10 rogue Talents you know! That's a lot of class features! They must be OP too! I mean quantity>quality.

Spending fervor to cast a healing spell as a swift action is not a joke.

It kinda is. It eats 2 uses of your Fervor to accomplish, and uses of Fervor aren't exactly plentiful to begin with.

Combined with the fact that the first real useful healing spell in combat is Cure Serious (which he doesn't get until 7th) and it's kinda bad.

Fervor as a quick buff? Solid.

Fervor as healing? Lolno.

Shadow Lodge

Rynjin wrote:

It kinda is. It eats 2 uses of your Fervor to accomplish, and uses of Fervor aren't exactly plentiful to begin with.

Combined with the fact that the first real useful healing spell in combat is Cure Serious (which he doesn't get until 7th) and it's kinda bad.

Fervor as a quick buff? Solid.

Fervor as healing? Lolno.

It's an option though. Something to also keep in mind about using Fervor to cast a Cure spell, you actually have to have that Cure Spell prepped, (no spontaneous casting), so while that LoH might be very low, it is probably only going to be used when you nearly get one-shotted. It's not really a general in-combat heal.

Scarab Sages

DM Beckett wrote:


It's an option though. Something to also keep in mind about using Fervor to cast a Cure spell, you actually have to have that Cure Spell prepped, (no spontaneous casting), so while that LoH might be very low, it is probably only going to be used when you nearly get one-shotted. It's not really a general in-combat heal.

Actually, based on the playtest pregen, it looks like they gave the Warpriest Spontaneous casting, sooo....

You actually aren't losing slots to have cure spells prepared, and can bust them out as needed.


DM Beckett wrote:
Something to also keep in mind about using Fervor to cast a Cure spell, you actually have to have that Cure Spell prepped, (no spontaneous casting), so while that LoH might be very low, it is probably only going to be used when you nearly get one-shotted. It's not really a general in-combat heal.

This is something I hope they have changed. The WP already has very strong incentive to prepare self-targeting buff spells, meaning he will have sharply limited spell slots available. Having to prepare Healing spells in order to heal himself is one more thing reducing the chance of WPs preparing any utility spells.

Or, to put it bluntly, "one more reason to play a fighter/cleric".

Edit:

Ssalarn wrote:

Actually, based on the playtest pregen, it looks like they gave the Warpriest Spontaneous casting, sooo....

You actually aren't losing slots to have cure spells prepared, and can bust them out as needed.

The playtest called out that Fervor only works with prepared spells. There's a fairly strong case that spontaneously cast healing spells do not qualify, since they aren't prepared. The Healing blessing runs into the same problem, which I brought up in my playtest back in the day. That said, we don't really know if it's a case of "Playtest Language" or an intended limitation.


Rynjin wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Just saw the pregens. Fervor self healing is a joke.

Also for whatever reason they gave Warpriests spontaneous heal or inflict.

If the devs actually think those have value I can see why they thought Warpriest was OP!

Rogues get 10 rogue Talents you know! That's a lot of class features! They must be OP too! I mean quantity>quality.

Spending fervor to cast a healing spell as a swift action is not a joke.

It kinda is. It eats 2 uses of your Fervor to accomplish, and uses of Fervor aren't exactly plentiful to begin with.

Combined with the fact that the first real useful healing spell in combat is Cure Serious (which he doesn't get until 7th) and it's kinda bad.

Fervor as a quick buff? Solid.

Fervor as healing? Lolno.

I concur. That said, I was all for a Divine iteration of Spell Combat that only worked while the Warpriest was wielding his Sacred Weapon.

IMO that would have made all of these swift action buffs a lot more bearable.

Scarab Sages

Kudaku wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Something to also keep in mind about using Fervor to cast a Cure spell, you actually have to have that Cure Spell prepped, (no spontaneous casting), so while that LoH might be very low, it is probably only going to be used when you nearly get one-shotted. It's not really a general in-combat heal.

This is something I hope they have changed. The WP already has very strong incentive to prepare self-targeting buff spells, meaning he will have sharply limited spell slots available. Having to prepare Healing spells in order to heal himself is one more thing reducing the chance of WPs preparing any utility spells.

Or, to put it bluntly, "one more reason to play a fighter/cleric".

See my post directly above yours. Oloch's pregen for Risen from the Sands has Spontaneous cure spells, so it looks like that's another of the changes we'll be seeing.


Ssalarn wrote:
See my post directly above yours. Oloch's pregen for Risen from the Sands has Spontaneous cure spells, so it looks like that's another of the changes we'll be seeing.

See my edit. xD


Yes, while Warpriests could spontaneously heal/inflict during playtest, the ambiguity came in the "As a swift action, a warpriest can expend one use of this ability to cast any one warpriest spell he has prepared." line. There was some debate over rather or not a spontaneous cure still counts as a prepared spell. Oloch's sheet still has the same language on his pregen sheet for Fervor and Spontaneous Casting.

Scarab Sages

That seems... Unnecessarily nitpicky, but it might be worth having a designer chime in. I'm feeling pretty certain that as far as they're concerned, pregen Oloch can use Fervor to cast CLW on himself.


I do not see anything in the RAW that would not allow you to use Fervor to put a Cure spell on you.

You can expend any prepared spell to cast a Cure spell of the same level.

Fervor lets you cast any spell you have prepared as a swift.

The process of converting the prepped spell to a Cure does not specify any action restrictions. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that you may convert via Fervor.


It's not even overpowered, as you are still expending that slot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Moreover, there is this quote from the Magic chapter.

"The divine energy of the spell that the cure or inflict spell substitutes for is converted into the cure or inflict spell as if that spell had been prepared all along."


Kryptik wrote:
many good arguments on the fervor spontaneous casting problem.

It's not really my argument to make, it was originally brought up and bandied about for a bit in the revised Warpriest discussion thread, though I don't think anyone found a conclusive answer.

Personally I hope spontaneously converted spells would qualify both for Fervor and the Healing blessing.

Shadow Lodge

I'm pretty certain they said that that was intentional, (no spontaneous Cures) because it's unbalanced for Negative Energy Warpriets, and also that was the cost for better healing, it had to actually be prepped and it cost more, vs it cost less and could be used on the fly.

Scarab Sages

Kryptik wrote:

Moreover, there is this quote from the Magic chapter.

"The divine energy of the spell that the cure or inflict spell substitutes for is converted into the cure or inflict spell as if that spell had been prepared all along."

That to me would pretty much be the clincher on that dispute. If the converted spell is now treated though the cure or inflict spell had been prepared all along, there's no reason at all this shouldn't work with Fervor.


Ssalarn wrote:
Kryptik wrote:

Moreover, there is this quote from the Magic chapter.

"The divine energy of the spell that the cure or inflict spell substitutes for is converted into the cure or inflict spell as if that spell had been prepared all along."

That to me would pretty much be the clincher on that dispute. If the converted spell is now treated though the cure or inflict spell had been prepared all along, there's no reason at all this shouldn't work with Fervor.

Exactly. And until the opposition provides a quote, so shall it be run.


Kryptik wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Kryptik wrote:

Moreover, there is this quote from the Magic chapter.

"The divine energy of the spell that the cure or inflict spell substitutes for is converted into the cure or inflict spell as if that spell had been prepared all along."

That to me would pretty much be the clincher on that dispute. If the converted spell is now treated though the cure or inflict spell had been prepared all along, there's no reason at all this shouldn't work with Fervor.
Exactly. And until the opposition provides a quote, so shall it be run.

Though I don't think the opposition actually wanted to be right. To me, that quote would be enough evidence to let them use fervor to spontaneously cast a healing spell. Hopefully Paizo will give us word.


Curiosity coming in here: I was looking at Warpriest builds and considering how Sacred Weapon works now, i had rough drafts for a whip priest who still gets use out of it from level 1. Yay. Next up was a two handed build using a falchion or nodachi and i am not sure i would switch even the falchion over to a defining class feature until the point most campaigns are ending. Boo. Most recently i have been thinking about a mounted charger, which seems it will be supported by an archetype (bonus Yay for that) and, of course, using a lance. Which will eventually see use of Sacred Weapon in mid to late play. Overall i cant see Sacred Weapon actually doing anything until the last few levels, especially for those poor fools in PFS.

How about anyone else, i am still excited for the rest of the class but this cool and defining aspect of the class is starting to look... umm, not good. can someone hype me up for it again?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
I didn't say worse. :)
DM Beckett wrote:
When PF came out, the Cleric itself got blasted with nerfs
I am having difficulty reconciling these two things.

New to Beckett, aren't you? :)


Gorbacz wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
I didn't say worse. :)
DM Beckett wrote:
When PF came out, the Cleric itself got blasted with nerfs
I am having difficulty reconciling these two things.
New to Beckett, aren't you? :)

I'm just wondering what he has to put right every week before his next leap. :)

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
New to Beckett, aren't you? :)

Honestly surprised it took you this long. :P


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Because you will be wearing heavy armor, can swift-cast spells, and your bonus feats use your level as your BAB and allow you to qualify for fighter only feats...

Oops.. was that another spoiler. My apologies.. the illness, it must still be affecting me.

Jason

(but this will be the end of my added spoilers.. for the rest you will have to wait and see)

Oh hail Asmodeus, you just kept my Way of the Wicked warpriest viable! Whelp, my fears are officially put to rest.

Sidenote, THIS is why I play Paizo products. Actually listening to active player feedback, intelligent and thought out concept creation and execution, and general community interaction. I love you guys!


Quote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Undone wrote:

Tier 1: Full casting tier: Wizard=Druid=Summoner(W archetypes)>Witch>Shaman=Cleric=Summoner(W/o Archetypes)

Tier 2: Full BAB + any casting: Ranger(Due to companion boon feat) > Paladin > Bloodrager
Tier 3: 3/4ths BAB and spells, or full BAB + "Definitely not spell like abilities": Inquis, Magus, Warpriest (also includes things like barbarian and likely swashbuckeler) but for the sake of discussion just those.
Every tier list I've seen has reversed your 2 and 3.

The whole Class Tier thing is pretty bias and really only concerns itself with one particular play style, so I wouldn't put too much stock into it. It assumes that all casters are "schrodinger's" Wizards/Clerics/etc. . . while also assumes that things like Fighters will max Str, Dex, and/or Con and dump Int, Wis, and Cha, be unable to take consumables to cover their weaknesses, (and while it's ok to assume that if there is a spell for it, the caster has it, it's generally not ok if there is a Feat for it, that they might likewise have that).

Tends to assume casters have access to nearly everything, like extra spell options, scrolls, and wands, but not so for non-casters, casters usually have full spells or only do 1-4 encounters before resting, and things like that.

It also assumes a combat/dungeon heavy game rather than a more balanced one that might involve social, intrigue, traps, combat, and investigation. Basically focusing on certain areas that some classes shine while ignoring others that other classes tend to. It's basically good for things like theory craft, in a limited capacity.

** spoiler omitted **

Like I said, I wouldn't put too much stock into it, but we should probably get back on topic. :)

It's not even shrodingers cleric vs shrodingers war priest. The specific character I wanted to create was a human worshiper of Shelyn using a reach weapon who was beautiful and fought evil because it was ugly.

This actual PFS character is significantly weaker in damage output as war priest because a standard action to summon starting at level 2 (Fervor level) out damages the WP and it only gets worse as levels go up. She can still hit things for 85-90% of the damage that the WP can without the cleric self buffing. As levels go up and you hit 7th forceful strike is a great swift action damage spell, there are also other swift action spells.

For what reason would I ever pick a war priest over the cleric?

It could be the cleric is OP and those classes with 3/4ths BAB and 2/3rds casting are balanced but honestly they are not fun to play. All I wanted from this class was a divine duskblade but honestly they failed to deliver big time.

Scarab Sages

Kudaku wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Spending fervor to cast a healing spell as a swift action is not a joke.

I'm reasonably certain he means using the Lay On Hands version of Fervor:

I know what he meant, and I know what I said.

If healing is critical, I'm going to burn fervor to swift cast a healing spell for a non-trivial amount. Only if I am out of healing spells would I burn fervor to directly heal.

Just as the magus has less than optimal uses for his arcane pool, the warpriest has less then optimal uses for fervor.


Hmm. I wonder if the Warpriest can be as good in terms of staying in the fray as a Holy Vindicator.


My money is on the Shield Champion archetype getting some of Holy Vindicator's toys.

Dark Archive

Tels wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:

Undone, you sound like the only classes you enjoy are 9-level casters. Perhaps this just isn't the class for you.

You might be more interested in the Arcanist and Shaman. Enjoy those. Let the people who wanted a divine magus, prepared spell Inquisitor, or different alignment paladin enjoy the warpriest.

It almost sounds like he wants a gestalt Fighter/Cleric so he can have full BAB and full 9th level casting.

I played one of those in 3.x. That crazy Dwarf bastard is still one of my all time favorite characters.


Artanthos wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Spending fervor to cast a healing spell as a swift action is not a joke.

I'm reasonably certain he means using the Lay On Hands version of Fervor:

I know what he meant, and I know what I said.

If healing is critical, I'm going to burn fervor to swift cast a healing spell for a non-trivial amount. Only if I am out of healing spells would I burn fervor to directly heal.

Just as the magus has less than optimal uses for his arcane pool, the warpriest has less then optimal uses for fervor.

So... You deliberately chose to misrepresent his view? I don't really see the point in that.


Artanthos wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Spending fervor to cast a healing spell as a swift action is not a joke.

I'm reasonably certain he means using the Lay On Hands version of Fervor:

I know what he meant, and I know what I said.

If healing is critical, I'm going to burn fervor to swift cast a healing spell for a non-trivial amount. Only if I am out of healing spells would I burn fervor to directly heal.

Just as the magus has less than optimal uses for his arcane pool, the warpriest has less then optimal uses for fervor.

I guess man...

I mean blow a fervor to swift action cast cure serious wounds (a third level spell, which you only have one or two of) for 3D8+7 at level 7, which is barely meaningful. I mean you just blew a lot of resources on something not too impressive.


Huh. I stand corrected.

401 to 450 of 1,041 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Paizo Blog: Advanced Class Guide Preview: Warpriest All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.