Do we?
This doesn't make any sense to me. An Inquisitor can be made to fill many roles, do you need a role clearly defined to play one of those as well?
I'm not trying to be combative here, I'm just pointing out that you can roll a warpriest, play to its mechanical strengths and see what role he or she ends up playing within the group.
Then provide feedback.
The devs already made the decision to work over the Arcanist when people pointed out its shortcomings in the "where does it stand?" department, so I hope they will at least give us a good idea what their intent with the Warpriest is.
"The warpriest turns the divine nature of the cleric into a raw weapon that fuses with the fighter's battlefield mastery."
"Warrior of the faith, skilled at arms and armor, the warpriest is a soldier for his faith. Capable of calling
upon the power of the gods in the form of blessings and
spells, the warpriest blends divine magic with martial
skill. Although many think of the paladin as the ultimate
warrior of faith, the warpriest can serve any deity and his
morals can more closely match those of his god.
Role: Although not as capable as a cleric, the warpriest
can still serve as a capable healer or spellcaster, calling
upon his divine powers from the center of the fight,
where his armor and martial skill can be put to the test."
From the playtest document. It's a fighter-cleric. That's pretty straightforward.
Do we?
This doesn't make any sense to me. An Inquisitor can be made to fill many roles, do you need a role clearly defined to play one of those as well?
I'm not trying to be combative here, I'm just pointing out that you can roll a warpriest, play to its mechanical strengths and see what role he or she ends up playing within the group.
Then provide feedback.
Yes, of course you can roll a Warpriest and play and get results of how it plays. I could probably throw out ten different divine 3/4 BAB 6 level of spellcasting classes with slightly different class abilities, too, to fill up place in a book, but when we already have a class which can fill this space in the game, the questions become "Why do we need this class?" and "What is its role supposed to be in comparison to the already existing classes?" And yes, I think we need an answer to that, so that the class can be playtested in an environment where the answers come back informed with the classes intended role.
The way you are asking this (and, yes, it comes off as combative to me), it kind of makes it seem like you would be happy with any new class, no matter if its role already is taken in the game.
|
Do we?
This doesn't make any sense to me. An Inquisitor can be made to fill many roles, do you need a role clearly defined to play one of those as well?
I'm not trying to be combative here, I'm just pointing out that you can roll a warpriest, play to its mechanical strengths and see what role he or she ends up playing within the group.
Then provide feedback.
I agree, in games I've played I've had inquisitor be an awesome DPSer and another do nothing but buff the group. Other players in my group has played a very social/investigative/jack-of-trades support inquisitor and the one in the latest game has take both tower shield and heavy armor Profiency and is one of our best tanks. The same can be said (and in my group has been done) with the Cleric and now will get done with the Warpriest. There's a lot of freedom in these classes to build a character that you want to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the playtest document. It's a fighter-cleric. That's pretty straightforward.
So, it's the Inquisitor with slightly different abilities. Again, why do we need another one of those when it already exists in a better form?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I recommend in the design of this class:
1. Full BAB - Its the only thing that really makes this class a viable option that will set it apart from all the battle orientated variants of the existing divine classes.
2. D8 Hit Die and Good Will Saves. (No Good Fort saves as this help to differentiate them a little from the fight yet provide good balance with the Full BAB progression.)
3. Access to a domain. (Scrap the Blessings... why re-invent the wheel? Not to mention the great power variance the different blessings offer. I thought the use of these might be limited, but they appear unlimited. The 1st level power of the Strength blessing seems way more useful than most of the conditional blessings, like the Travel blessing).
4. Feat Progression every 3 levels is good. This helps to make them a viable fighter, yet does not overshadow the fighter. The spells used to help self-buff will help put them on par with a fighter... but only if this class gets Full BAB progression.
5. Focus Weapon. This weapon should also qualify for all the feats which are under the weapon focus feat tree (i.e. weapon specialization).
|
|
From the playtest document. It's a fighter-cleric. That's pretty straightforward.So, it's the Inquisitor with slightly different abilities. Again, why do we need another one of those when it already exists in a better form?
I've always seen the Inquisitor as a cleric/rogue/ranger rather than cleric/fighter.
The Warpriest as it stands is a more combative cleric.
I agree, in games I've played I've had inquisitor be an awesome DPSer and another do nothing but buff the group. Other players in my group has played a very social/investigative/jack-of-trades support inquisitor and the one in the latest game has take both tower shield and heavy armor Profiency and is one of our best tanks. The same can be said (and in my group has been done) with the Cleric and now will get done with the Warpriest. There's a lot of freedom in these classes to build a character that you want to play.Do we?
This doesn't make any sense to me. An Inquisitor can be made to fill many roles, do you need a role clearly defined to play one of those as well?
I'm not trying to be combative here, I'm just pointing out that you can roll a warpriest, play to its mechanical strengths and see what role he or she ends up playing within the group.
Then provide feedback.
The problem here is that the Inquisitor is awesome at all the roles you mentioned and the Warpriest is clearly inferior mechanically. And they occupy the exact same niche as each other. So why would anyone want to play a Warpriest over an Inquisitor, outside of "RP flavor" reasons?
I'm not trying to be mean and dismissive here to the class and the developers. At the contrary, I want to love this class as much as I already love the Swashbuckler, Bloodrager and Investigator. But it needs an identity and mission statement of its own, which it then fills out in a way which makes it better in its niche than the most comparable, already existing and "invented by Paizo" class, which is the Inquisitor. And that is so far not the case.
So, it's the Inquisitor with slightly different abilities. Again, why do we need another one of those when it already exists in a better form?
You don't need to know why the designers feel there's room for it in order to playtest it.
In my opinion, it's pretty clearly to fill the niche that the paladin is too narrowly defined to fit; holy warrior, minus the restrictive code.
From the playtest document. It's a fighter-cleric. That's pretty straightforward.So, it's the Inquisitor with slightly different abilities. Again, why do we need another one of those when it already exists in a better form?I've always seen the Inquisitor as a cleric/rogue/ranger rather than cleric/fighter.
The Warpriest as it stands is a more combative cleric.
How is it more combative? The Inquisitor has way better DPR (after level 5). It can get heavy armor proficiency with one feat and has no detriments from taking it. It has access to all relevant ranged weapons and if your deities favored weapon sucks, a better weapon is one feat away. The Warpriest has to deal with having to stick with its deities favored weapon to get some class benefits, which the Inquisitor does not. And then there all the other incredibly nifty tricks the Inquisitor gets on top of all of that. Way more skill points, detect alignment, bonuses on knowledge and intimidate and sense motive. Track, cunning initiative and a better spell list. All at the same base attack bonus and with the same amount of spellcasting.
The only advantage the Warpriest seems to have is that it gets untyped bonus feats, instead of teamwork feats. I don't think that constitutes enough of an identity to justify a new class. So, yeah, I'd like to get a clear mission statement from the developers, as to how this class can carve its own niche, apart from the "same but better " Inquisitor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need to know why the designers feel there's room for it in order to playtest it.
You see, such "shut up you pleb!" comments do nothing to make me desist in asking politely for an answer.
In my opinion, it's pretty clearly to fill the niche that the paladin is too narrowly defined to fit; holy warrior, minus the restrictive code.
So, Inquisitor?
|
|
From the playtest document. It's a fighter-cleric. That's pretty straightforward.So, it's the Inquisitor with slightly different abilities. Again, why do we need another one of those when it already exists in a better form?I've always seen the Inquisitor as a cleric/rogue/ranger rather than cleric/fighter.
The Warpriest as it stands is a more combative cleric.
How is it more combative? The Inquisitor has way better DPR (after level 5). It can get heavy armor proficiency with one feat and has no detriments from taking it. It has access to all relevant ranged weapons and if your deities favored weapon sucks, a better weapon is one feat away. The Warpriest has to deal with having to stick with its deities favored weapon to get some class benefits, which the Inquisitor does not. And then there all the other incredibly nifty tricks the Inquisitor gets on top of all of that. Way more skill points, detect alignment, bonuses on knowledge and intimidate and sense motive. Track, cunning initiative and a better spell list. All at the same base attack bonus and with the same amount of spellcasting.
The only advantage the Warpriest seems to have is that it gets untyped bonus feats, instead of teamwork feats. I don't think that constitutes enough of an identity to justify a new class. So, yeah, I'd like to get a clear mission statement from the developers, as to how this class can carve its own niche, apart from the "same but better " Inquisitor.
At lvl 5 the inquisitor can use bane for 5 rounds, whereas the enchant at a +1 isn't that hard to get and is permenant.
Also I see absolutely NONE of the classes, new or old, as filling "niches". They're all built around concepts.
|
|
Please can Mr Bulmahn make an official announcement of the correct Blessings of every deity, has every deity the same blessings that Domains?
One of us mention that Gorum and Nethys has Earth blessing is that correct?
Plz a need the answer until tomorrow!!
Thanks for all!!
I am with the bonus feat at second level for power atack and a similar feats that need +1 BAB!!
Yes, of course you can roll a Warpriest and play and get results of how it plays. I could probably throw out ten different divine 3/4 BAB 6 level of spellcasting classes with slightly different class abilities, too, to fill up place in a book, but when we already have a class which can fill this space in the game, the questions become "Why do we need this class?" and "What is its role supposed to be in comparison to the already existing classes?" And yes, I think we need an answer to that, so that the class can be playtested in an environment where the answers come back informed with the classes intended role.
I'm simply saying test it with an open mind, and don't worry about comparing it to existing classes. The existing classes have already been tested. I agree that as presented an Inquisitor can also fill the role, but we aren't being asked to test what roles an inquisitor can fill.
The way you are asking this (and, yes, it comes off as combative to me), it kind of makes it seem like you would be happy with any new class, no matter if its role already is taken in the game.
Sorry, I really do not intend to be. I would not be happy with any old new class, that is false. I would also not be happy with squandering an opportuniy to play test and have valid feedback to back up my suggested changes.
At lvl 5 the inquisitor can use bane for 5 rounds, whereas the enchant at a +1 isn't that hard to get and is permenant.
Err, yes? And the Warpriest can use Sacred Weapon +1 for four rounds per day at level four, so what's your point, if I may ask?
|
|
You know that the inquisitor can pick a bane that fits what he is fighting, right? Just double checking.
At lvl 5 the inquisitor can use bane for 5 rounds, whereas the enchant at a +1 isn't that hard to get and is permenant.
Yes but the trade off is still the time limit, and with all banes you have a problem if you can't figure out what type the creature is that your fighting.
|
|
At lvl 5 the inquisitor can use bane for 5 rounds, whereas the enchant at a +1 isn't that hard to get and is permenant.Err, yes? And the Warpriest can use Sacred Weapon +1 for four rounds per day at level four, so what's your point, if I may ask?
That DPR will fall if you either have a very long fight or multiple fights per day.
I'm simply saying test it with an open mind, and don't worry about comparing it to existing classes. The existing classes have already been tested. I agree that as presented an Inquisitor can also fill the role, but we aren't being asked to test what roles an inquisitor can fill.
Okay. What exactly you think will be the prevailing opinion of this class if it comes out in nearly the way it is now? I'm pretty sure that my question of "what was the point of this class" will be much more widely asked over the years.
Sorry, I really do not intend to be. I would not be happy with any old new class, that is false. I would also not be happy with squandering an opportuniy to play test and have valid feedback to back up my suggested changes.
No problem, I am probably also way to touchy on this subject right now. And I, too, want to see changes to make this class more awesome, so that it becomes a distinct presence in the game. But for that I feel that we need a clearer mission statement for the Warpriest, especially with an explanation on how it stands related to the Inquisitor, so that we all can work towards making informed suggestions and giving informed playtest feedback.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That DPR will fall if you either have a very long fight or multiple fights per day.At lvl 5 the inquisitor can use bane for 5 rounds, whereas the enchant at a +1 isn't that hard to get and is permenant.Err, yes? And the Warpriest can use Sacred Weapon +1 for four rounds per day at level four, so what's your point, if I may ask?
Yes, and so will the one of the Warpriest. Again, what's your point here?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been running some builds--basically same more or less stats, feats, etc. in different classes --- warpriest, cleric, multiclass fighter-cleric, paladin, inquisitor. 10th level.
Just to really look at the different divine classes side by side. One thing the developers have said is they are trying to accomplish something multiclassing alone can't do, or that you couldn't do elsewhere, and based on what's below I don't think they've done that YET with the warpriest, but they COULD.
I'm not finished yet--I messed up adding some equipment, and need to check a lot of the math, but I've seen enough to share some initial observations, which I think are worth sharing. This is based on looking at actual builds and comparing statblocks line by line, not just a general impression:
Warpriest versus....
Cleric: Warpriest gets slightly better to-hit thanks to sacred weapon (eventually) and weapon focus, and of course can ultimately have better AC due to heavy armor proficiency (although at usual cost of movement and ACP). Not by much. Cleric has VASTLY more flexibility however with full spell casting, and gets many good buffs earlier, so with the caveat of taking the time to buff, could actually equal or exceed the warpriest in to-hit/damage (would be interesting to see the two together in a playtest). Warpriest also doesn't get the versatility of domain spells. Cleric of course has much better channel. Domains vs blessing seems tradeoff--similar bonuses, cleric has more limited application but gets earlier and has some nice bonuses, blessings last longer but major one comes later. Warpriest bonus feats of course help if you want to build either a good fighting style and/or get some cool clericky feats like extra channel, etc.
Fighter/Cleric: Compared was fighter 2/cleric 8 to warpriest 10. Interestingly, fighter/cleric casts at same level per day, but actually gets more 4th level spells (incl. domain). If using magical knack trait, has same effective caster level. Fighter/cleric has better BAB -- and while has two fewer bonus feats than warpriest, that little-bit-higher BAB helps her qualify for more feats sooner (e.g., Improved Critical). Fighter/cleric gets 1 more channel damage die, but has lower DC than Warpriest. Again domains vs. blessings more or less trade off. Sacred weapon and armor gives warpriest advantage fighter/cleric doesn't have, though of course takes some time to get and advance. Fighter/cleric gets tower shield proficiency (meh, but it's a difference). Warpriest seems slightly more effective in certain areas, but multiclass actually has certain advantages as well and it's a tradeoff--and if the warpriest is supposed to accomplish what the multiclass can't, it needs to be more than JUST a tradeoff.
Paladin: Paladin is definitely the better warrior, naturally, with higher BAB. While sacred weapon is a little more versatile and better than divine weapon bond, the warpriest just can never catch up to the paladin in ability to hit because the paladin is still going to get enough divine bond bonuses. Paladin has less MAD, as primary needs are Str and Cha, not Str, Wis, and maybe Cha for channeling. Biggest discrepancy I think needs to be noted: Paladin channels as cleric, so even though she gets it later than the warpriest, she is BETTER AT CHANNELING than the warpriest, while also still better at fighting. Of course paladin has FAR less spellcasting--although her spell list is tailored to her role whereas the warpriest's is less so, but the warpriest has some versatility there. Paladin's defensive abilities are far superior--and paladin has best saves by far. For divine *fighting* champion, paladin is likely going to beat warpriest, but this is also something worth playtesting out to see. The only advantage warpriest has in fighting over paladin is more feats, but that doesn't help attack/damage much since as written, warpriest can't get the fightery feats that would even the field.
Inquisitor: It's funny people keep comparing warpriest and inquisitor because when you look at them side by side, they are least alike in this list. Inquisitor really is far more skill oriented than combat oriented and is much more of a support type character than a warpriest. That said, while they are roughly comparable, the versatility of judgment has an attractiveness compared to sacred weapon/armor and the inquisitor gets it earlier. They have about the same spells/level, of course inquisitor is spontaneous which gives it a nice flexibility, and again, inquisitor has a spell list customized to it and, importantly, is designed for a class that only goes up to 6th level, where the warpriest suffers from slow advancement of a spell list designed for a full casting class. Their bonus feats work out differently because of course inquisitor only gets teamwork feats, highlighting its support role, whereas the warpriest is getting any combat feat. Especially because the inquisitor is so skill oriented and has a lot of skill-based class abilities, I think the warpriest and inquisitor could exist side by side and not step on each others' toes, not even if they were even in the same party. Of course this is something else that can be tested out.
Based on the above, suggestions for the warpriest (these can also be tested out):
1. Count warpriest class levels as fighter levels for weapon focus and specialization at least (maybe disruptive and spellbreaker too, it could be a good anti-caster caster class). This alone would help the warpriest accomplish what the fighter/cleric cannot, and also help shore up some of its potential to hit/damage weaknesses compared to a buffed cleric or paladin.
2. Let him channel as a cleric.
3. Make blessings more unique and versatile---versatility is what the warpriest lacks most compared to his other divine cousins, even the paladin feels more versatile. Perhaps let blessings improve three or four times rather than two. The improvements don't need to be powerful, just add a little something extra the cleric doesn't have (since the cleric has full casting instead).
4. Consider giving the warpriest a modified/expanded version of the paladin spell list, or maybe the inquisitor spell list (I think building on the paladin list, adding orisons and a 5th and 6th level, would be most flavorfully appropriate, but would require the most work). I know it getting its own spell list is out of the question, but the cleric spell list does not accommodate its advancement well; the remaining solution therefore is to use an existing spell list that accommodates slower divine spell advancement better.
Will post builds once I am done and if people are interested.
|
|
Yes, and so will the one of the Warpriest. Again, what's your point here?That DPR will fall if you either have a very long fight or multiple fights per day.At lvl 5 the inquisitor can use bane for 5 rounds, whereas the enchant at a +1 isn't that hard to get and is permenant.Err, yes? And the Warpriest can use Sacred Weapon +1 for four rounds per day at level four, so what's your point, if I may ask?
Oh wait my bad, I thought Sacred Weapon was measured in minutes like the Paladins Divine Bond, hmmm will have to double check the Warpriest when I get back home.
|
I like the weapon specialization suggestion, and I don't see that stepping on fighter toes given it is still a 3/4 BaB class. I would also no be opposed to a weapon training for favored deity's weapon being a part of the class, if no other additional bump is going to be given to sacred weapon.
Again, it is still a 3/4 BaB so I don't see this encroaching on the fighter and it would give a more clear niche for the war priest.
Warpriest seems slightly more effective in certain areas, but multiclass actually has certain advantages as well and it's a tradeoff--and if the warpriest is supposed to accomplish what the multiclass can't, it needs to be more than JUST a tradeoff.
I think this is a big part of the problem that people are having with these new classes. Are they there to allow players with a particular concept to roll a character without worrying about multi-classing, or are they there to provide something which would be beyond a multi-class character?
If the aim is to provide simplicity for those who want a single class character, I definitely feel Warpriest is more of a hassle to deal with than a couple of levels of fighter. Too many things to keep track of.
Inquisitor: It's funny people keep comparing warpriest and inquisitor because when you look at them side by side, they are least alike in this list. Inquisitor really is far more skill oriented than combat oriented and is much more of a support type character than a warpriest. That said, while they are roughly comparable, the versatility of judgment has an attractiveness compared to sacred weapon/armor and the inquisitor gets it earlier. They have about the same spells/level, of course inquisitor is spontaneous which gives it a nice flexibility, and again, inquisitor has a spell list customized to it and, importantly, is designed for a class that only goes up to 6th level, where the warpriest suffers from slow advancement of a spell list designed for a full casting class. Their bonus feats work out differently because of course inquisitor only gets teamwork feats, highlighting its support role, whereas the warpriest is getting any combat feat. Especially because the inquisitor is so skill oriented and has a lot of skill-based class abilities, I think the warpriest and inquisitor could exist side by side and not step on each others' toes, not even if they were even in the same party. Of course this is something else that can be tested out.
See, the problem I see is that the Inquisitor can do all the stuff you pointed out (being skill/support based) and fight on an equivalent level than the Warpriest. It drinks the Warpriests milkshake and because the Inquisitor was designed earlier than the Warpriest, that's kinda baffling.
Oh wait my bad, I thought Sacred Weapon was measured in minutes like the Paladins Divine Bond, hmmm will have to double check the Warpriest when I get back home.
np, it's a new class, we all make mistakes there. :) I'll be off in 1 1/2 hours for my second RP group, so I'll probably only respond tomorrow.
|
|
Oh wait my bad, I thought Sacred Weapon was measured in minutes like the Paladins Divine Bond, hmmm will have to double check the Warpriest when I get back home.np, it's a new class, we all make mistakes there. :) I'll be off in 1 1/2 hours for my second RP group, so I'll probably only respond tomorrow.
Good, I'll need that time to prepare proper feedback and formulate ze counterattack :3
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I haven't followed this thread, but I want to throw out a question about the warpriest.
This account is my 9th-level PFS cleric. He's built as a frontliner: unbuffed AC of 32. I generally cast divine favor on round 1 (who wants to move+attack and hand the monster a full-attack?) and either have heroism pre-cast or (via domain powers) can activate an aura of heroism as a swift action on-demand; either way, I pretty much always have it up while attacking, without having to spend a round casting it. Oh, and I pre-cast greater magic weapon each day, since it lasts 9 hours.
So as a melee cleric, I spend one round buffing/positioning, and then have the following attack routine (with Power Attack) at 9th level:
One-handed (keeping an AC of 32): +16/+11 for 1d8+15; or
Two-handed (losing 4 AC from my buckler for a 28): +15/+10 for 1d8+19
So that's me in melee as a cleric at 9th level.
The warpriest, in theory, is more martial than a cleric.
Does it beat me?
Because if not, then no thanks; I still have full move speed, two Knowledge skills in the teens, something like +19 Diplomacy with touch of glory, channel 3/day for 5d6+9 vs undead (and they get no channel resistance on their saves) and I'm casting up to 5th-level spells. If I'm going to give up all those perks in order to be a warpriest, I sure hope said warpriest can at least out-melee me.
Inquisitor: It's funny people keep comparing warpriest and inquisitor because when you look at them side by side, they are least alike in this list. Inquisitor really is far more skill oriented than combat oriented and is much more of a support type character than a warpriest. That said, while they are roughly comparable, the versatility of judgment has an attractiveness compared to sacred weapon/armor and the inquisitor gets it earlier. They have about the same spells/level, of course inquisitor is spontaneous which gives it a nice flexibility, and again, inquisitor has a spell list customized to it and, importantly, is designed for a class that only goes up to 6th level, where the warpriest suffers from slow advancement of a spell list designed for a full casting class. Their bonus feats work out differently because of course inquisitor only gets teamwork feats, highlighting its support role, whereas the warpriest is getting any combat feat. Especially because the inquisitor is so skill oriented and has a lot of skill-based class abilities, I think the warpriest and inquisitor could exist side by side and not step on each others' toes, not even if they were even in the same party. Of course this is something else that can be tested out.See, the problem I see is that the Inquisitor can do all the stuff you pointed out (being skill/support based) and fight on an equivalent level than the Warpriest. It drinks the Warpriests milkshake and because the Inquisitor was designed earlier than the Warpriest, that's kinda baffling.
The warpriest I think can beat the inquisitor via his bonus feats, and likely definitely would if they were allowed to take some fighter feats. The warpriest also gets a much better potential AC. I think if they make some other tweaks to blessings and boost channeling, they will look and feel very different.
Alright, I haven't followed this thread, but I want to throw out a question about the warpriest.
This account is my 9th-level PFS cleric. He's built as a frontliner: unbuffed AC of 32. I generally cast divine favor on round 1 (who wants to move+attack and hand the monster a full-attack?) and either have heroism pre-cast or (via domain powers) can activate an aura of heroism as a swift action on-demand; either way, I pretty much always have it up while attacking, without having to spend a round casting it. Oh, and I pre-cast greater magic weapon each day, since it lasts 9 hours.
So as a melee cleric, I spend one round buffing/positioning, and then have the following attack routine (with Power Attack) at 9th level:
One-handed (keeping an AC of 32): +16/+11 for 1d8+15; or
Two-handed (losing 4 AC from my buckler for a 28): +15/+10 for 1d8+19So that's me in melee as a cleric at 9th level.
The warpriest, in theory, is more martial than a cleric.
Does it beat me?
Because if not, then no thanks; I still have full move speed, two Knowledge skills in the teens, something like +19 Diplomacy with touch of glory, channel 3/day for 5d6+9 vs undead (and they get no channel resistance on their saves) and I'm casting up to 5th-level spells. If I'm going to give up all those perks in order to be a warpriest, I sure hope said warpriest can at least out-melee me.
Would you mind posting a detailed build?
The warpriest I think can beat the inquisitor via his bonus feats, and likely definitely would if they were allowed to take some fighter feats. The warpriest also gets a much better potential AC. I think if they make some other tweaks to blessings and boost channeling, they will look and feel very different.
Am I missing something here about Channel Smite? It seems, in terms of combat, useless when not used against Undead opponents or you have to take negative channeling.
The better potential AC is something I'd like to dispute. Nothing stops the Inquisitor from spending one single feat on getting heavy armor proficieny. It can get Magic Vestment like a Warpriest, too. The Warpriest may end up overall with slightly better armor class (though with the Protection judgement probably not), but that doesn't outweigh all the other advantages the Inquisitor offers.
The only real advantage so far for the Warpriest seem to be the bonus feats. I'm not sure if that outweighs 4 skillpoints more, detect alignment, monster lore, etc etc etc. You get the picture.
|
|
@Paladin of Baha-who?: You can get a lot of it (except gear and skills) by clicking on my name to view my profile. If there's other stuff you need, let me know.
But does it matter? All I'm asking about is martial ability, since that's where the warpriest is supposed to shine. I can achieve the attack numbers I listed with one round of buffing/positioning. So if the warpriest is more martial than the cleric, he should be able to achieve a better attack line (higher to-hit, higher damage, or both) and/or higher AC withou 0-1 rounds of buffing.
Can he?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I haven't followed this thread, but I want to throw out a question about the warpriest.
This account is my 9th-level PFS cleric. He's built as a frontliner: unbuffed AC of 32. I generally cast divine favor on round 1 (who wants to move+attack and hand the monster a full-attack?) and either have heroism pre-cast or (via domain powers) can activate an aura of heroism as a swift action on-demand; either way, I pretty much always have it up while attacking, without having to spend a round casting it. Oh, and I pre-cast greater magic weapon each day, since it lasts 9 hours.
So as a melee cleric, I spend one round buffing/positioning, and then have the following attack routine (with Power Attack) at 9th level:
One-handed (keeping an AC of 32): +16/+11 for 1d8+15; or
Two-handed (losing 4 AC from my buckler for a 28): +15/+10 for 1d8+19So that's me in melee as a cleric at 9th level.
The warpriest, in theory, is more martial than a cleric.
Does it beat me?
Because if not, then no thanks; I still have full move speed, two Knowledge skills in the teens, something like +19 Diplomacy with touch of glory, channel 3/day for 5d6+9 vs undead (and they get no channel resistance on their saves) and I'm casting up to 5th-level spells. If I'm going to give up all those perks in order to be a warpriest, I sure hope said warpriest can at least out-melee me.
I am pretty much with you here in that I think something needs to be done about the Warpriest's action economy compared to the Cleric (who can have all these quickened buff spells and long burning buffs at level 10). The problem may just be that Clerics are already amazing Battle Priests.
I will contradict you on something though: doesn't the War Priest's magic weapon stack with its sacred weapon ability? I mean: that is pretty neat, I guess. You can wake up in the morning and turn your masterwork sword into something magic and then set it on holy fire later. So Greater Magic weapon by itself does not completely supplant the sacred weapon ability.
It is all redundant with things you can buy with cash monies and achieve with other spells, though (especially with the eventual acquisition of a type 1 meta-magic rod of quickening or the like).
|
|
Ok I didn't exactly read through all of the above posts...............
The Sacred Weapon doesn't scale very well IMO. Furthermore with a cap on how high this can go.
These bonuses stack with any existing bonuses the weapon might have, to a maximum of +5.
The enhancement bonus is capped at +5, but the total effective bonuses of the weapon are not (although I am curious if the total effective bonuses are capped at +10 like normal magical weapons are). Its unclear, but obvious, once you realize that a brilliant weapon (which the warpriest can do) is a minimum of a +6 effective bonus.
I think it helps give the warpriest a lil bit of an edge, possibly giving them access to weapon abilities or bonuses at an earlier level than they might normally acquire them on an item.
The enhancement bonus is capped at +5, but the total effective bonuses of the weapon are not (although I am curious if the total effective bonuses are capped at +10 like normal magical weapons are). Its unclear, but obvious, once you realize that a brilliant weapon (which the warpriest can do) is a minimum of a +6 effective bonus.
I think it helps give the warpriest a lil bit of an edge, possibly giving them access to weapon abilities or bonuses at an earlier level than they might normally acquire them on an item.
Unless you build smart and focus your weapon on special abilities and get the enhancement bonus via Greater Magic Weapon. ^^
Has it been determined yet whether the warpriest's levels count as fighter levels?
What DeathQuaker said.
He managed to to put everything I thought about the class on paper way better then I could organize.
I like the blessings and hope they keep those.
I agree that it could use fighter attack bonus and HD.
I like the bonus feats.
I like channeling but wouldn't mind if it got lay on hands instead. I would to have some non-paladin classes to get that ability.
Is there any rule the spell progression for a fighter HD/AB class can only have up to 4th level spells how about 5th level. Though could gain domain related spell like abilities instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"In addition, if the warpriest is chaotic, he can add anarchic and vicious. If he is evil, he can add mighty cleaving and unholy. If he is good, he can add holy and merciful. If he is lawful, he can add axiomatic and ghost touch."
Sounds like Neutral don't any add, why?
|
|
Okay went back and looked at WP and Sacred Weapon lasts a number of Rounds while Sacred Armor lasts a number of minutes, that's what threw me off. I find this odd that they made the abilities last vastly different amounts of time, they should be the same.
Also I'm highly for them getting full BAB.
The Cleric has Secondary BAB and 9th level spells.
(For Completions sake the Oracle has Secondary BAB and 9th level spells.)
(For Completions sake the Druid has Secondary BAB and 9th level spells.)
The Inquisitor has Secondary BAB and 6th level spells.
The Paladin has Primary BAB and 4th level spells.
As it stands the WP has Secondary BAB and 6th level spells.
The Cleric, Druid, Inquisitor, and Oracle all have d8s.
The WP also has d8s.
The Paladin has d10s.
While an increase to HD would be nice the main thing this class desperately needs is FULL BAB.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think blessings need to be a swift action when cast on yourself. This would allow them to be used much more often and not make the warpriest lose out on a round of combat to buff which it already has to do for spells to be competetive with the fighters of the world. I would also move channel back to the full clerics channel. reducing it really just weakens what is mostly out of combat healing or a minor AOE attack versus very specific enemies.
I will contradict you on something though: doesn't the War Priest's magic weapon stack with its sacred weapon ability?Like I know?
I don't care how he does it, I just want to know whether the warpriest can out-melee me.
I am just saying that the War Priest can have magic weapon and sacred weapon going at once so the war priest will probably have weapons that are more magical than your cleric build. Have not done the math to see if he can come out ahead.