What niche is the Warpriest attempting to fill?


Class Discussion

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After looking over the class in the playtest document and skimming through the class discussion sticky, it seems to me that the biggest issue with the class is where it fits when compared to the other divine casters. Specifically in relation to the balance between it's martial power, and casting ability.

When compared to a Paladin the Warpriest has looser alignment restrictions, a few extra feats, more spell-casting ability, & both armor and weapon bonds as opposed to one. However the Warpriest loses the full BAB progression, the option for a mount, the Smite class feature, enhanced saves, Lay on Hands, & Auras.

When compared to a Cleric the Warpriest gains a few extra feats, more baked in martial ability as opposed to the optional approach the Cleric has, and the weapon and armor enhancement. However the Cleric has full spell-casting, a better Channel Energy progression, & more options when choosing a playstyle.

When compared to an Inquisitor the Warpriest gains access to combat bonus feats as opposed to teamwork feats, Channel energy, Spontaneous casting, & armor bonds and and a more versatile weapon bond. However the Inquisitor has Judgements, more skill points and features that enhance skills, the Stalwart class feature, and more out of combat utility.

(I'm going to skip the Oracle for this analysis due to the amount of variance between mysteries, and revelations within those mysteries).

Between these three comparisons it's hard to pin down a place where a Warpriest would excel. I'm not saying this class is underpowered, just that because of the strengths and versatility of the other divine casters the Warpriest falls a little short and ends up playing second fiddle. I have some ideas on how to remedy this situation. They are a little unorthodox but I think they would give the class a clear niche and a place to excel while avoiding stepping on the toes of the other divine classes.

1. Increase the Warpriest's BAB progression to full. This solidly puts it in a place where it can compete with the Paladin and other martial classes in combat. Although by doing this the number of bonus feats the Warpriest gets may have to be adjusted for balance.

2. Remove spell-casting and spontaneous casting. In exchange for the combat boost something had to be given-up, and I think spell casting is the best candidate. Yes the spells add a lot of versatility to the class, but the also hold it back when attempting to balance the Warpriest against other divine casters. Now while spell-casting is gone, I strongly believe it should keep its access to Channel Energy, Sacred Weapon, and Sacred Armor.

3. Expand on the Blessings mechanic. There are a few ways this could be expanded, but my thought is to move Blessings closer to Bloodlines or Mysteries. Having a longer and more gradual progression, with both active and passive abilities tied to the Blessings chosen by the Warpriest.

With these changes the Warpriest is a full BAB, martial combatant; they call upon the power of their deity not not through spells, but channeling energy to their surrounding allies, opponents, weapons, and armor. And when things look dire they receive divine Blessings from their god/dess to ensure victory.

Would anyone care to share their thoughts on any of the above?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The warpriest is in a difficult spot, for one thing because a lot of fighter cleric hybrids exist already. Two of these are called the paladin and the inquisitor, and a third one is simply called 'the cleric'.

On a scale of most fighter-like to most caster-like I think the Warpriest is trying to fit in somewhere like this:

Fighter -- Paladin -- Warpriest -- Inquisitor -- Cleric -- (Oracle)

It's basically trying to be the divine version of the magus, but it's having trouble with that. There's too much competition, and it lacks the brute strength to compare to the fighter or paladin, while also lacking the casting versatility of the Inquisitor and cleric.

...Like I said, it's trying to be the divine magus; a direct middle-ground between fighter and cleric. Of those divine classes, the inquisitor is probably closest to being called 'the divine magus' (before the Warpriest it was the one to land in the middle of that chain from fighter to oracle), but Inquisitor leans a bit closer to the caster side than the fighter side, and so the Warpriest seems to overcompensate for this. It tries to become more fighter-ish than the inquisitor as a means of becoming more magus-ish than the inquisitor, but can't put enough effort into that or else it would move out of the middle spot and past the paladin to the left. It's also trying to retain some casting power so that it can stay as a middle ground, and the joint-focus just leads to it being abysmal at both fighter stuff and caster stuff. It tries too hard to be both, and ends up not being good enough at either one to the point that it's got nothing going for it in comparison to its allies.

i.e. it's trying to be a magus, but ends up acting more like an Eldritch Knight, which is basically a magus without all the stuff that makes a magus useful.


I really like the idea of replacing Blessings with something more akin to Bloodlines. I think the problem with that lies in how to implement it. I doubt anyone wants to create Diety specific bloodlines, because that would then make it really difficult for non-aligned War Priests to really exist. However, it would definately allow the design team to show how they expect a War Priest of Erastil or Desna to work.

Personally, I'm going to try and level a war-priest and take some Holy Vindicator leves, really seal in the whole "Divine Equipment" theme. I've also been viewing the War-Priest as a better tank/buffer than a DPR role though.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think removing spellcasting is a move in the wrong directoon entirely, but I do think that a lot of the issues would be solved by full BaB, and possibly postponing a few things until later upfront.

I also dont think that it should be healing focused at all, so I think that spontanious casting should be purely about wrath of the divine spells, and drop Channel Energy for Alignment Channel or Channeling Smite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:

I think removing spellcasting is a move in the wrong directoon entirely, but I do think that a lot of the issues would be solved by full BaB, and possibly postponing a few things until later upfront.

I also dont think that it should be healing focused at all, so I think that spontanious casting should be purely about wrath of the divine spells, and drop Channel Energy for Alignment Channel or Channeling Smite.

+1


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mortag1981 wrote:
I really like the idea of replacing Blessings with something more akin to Bloodlines. I think the problem with that lies in how to implement it. I doubt anyone wants to create Diety specific bloodlines, because that would then make it really difficult for non-aligned War Priests to really exist. However, it would definately allow the design team to show how they expect a War Priest of Erastil or Desna to work.

I was actually thinking a Bloodline-esque Blessing for each domain, and the Warpriest receives 2 based on deity or GM approval. I feel that with the removal of spell-casting that two of these wouldn't be overpowered.

DM Beckett wrote:

I think removing spellcasting is a move in the wrong directoon entirely, but I do think that a lot of the issues would be solved by full BaB, and possibly postponing a few things until later upfront.

I also dont think that it should be healing focused at all, so I think that spontanious casting should be purely about wrath of the divine spells, and drop Channel Energy for Alignment Channel or Channeling Smite.

My thinking is that removing spellcasting opens up a lot of design space since the Warpriest won't have to worry about stepping on the toes of the other divine classes. And a divine character that can balance spell-casting and combat can already be achieved with every other divine casting class. Having the Warpriest compete for that niche seems unwise.

As for Channel Energy I love the idea of using it for Alignment Channel, Channel Smite, and all the other Channling feats and variants, which is why I would keep it. However I'm not opposed at all to tying the type of Channeling the Warpriest receives to the Blessings they choose.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, I've been making noise about this identity problem for the last few days and so far have been summarily and very pointedly been ignored by Sean and the other devs.

The class lacks an identity of its own, since all the available spots are already occupied. It also is observably worse than the Inquisitor, which is the direct comparison class which already occupies the Warpriests intended spot and that makes me just sad.

A nerfed Channel Energy and having a full spell list to pick from every day do not make up for having four skill points less per level and not having access to the vast list of incredibly nifty features the Inquisitor can use.

The main problem the Cleric always has had in being an effective melee combatant is that you needed several rounds of casting short duration buffs to get going and the fast-paced Pathfinder combat often just doesn't give you that needed time. The Warpriest could probably find a niche by exploiting that gap, although that would probably necessitate re-writing a lot of the class. And I don't see that happening, given most comments from the devs.

Although it seems to be that there is some disagreement between them about how much the playtest can change. It's like Jason says "Everything is on the table", Sean says "We are not going to fundamentally change things anymore" and Stephen seems to fall somewhere in the middle. :p

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I can see the niche the warpriest attempts to fill through the forest...

Let me start by saying, this is one of the classes I'm least excited about the execution of. As others, including me, having pointed out - it's not that different from a Crusader cleric.

However, I believe the niche it is intended to fill, and likely can fill is:

* Hey, I like the idea of having a deity and roleplaying that
* Hey, I like the divine spell lists, although I don't need everything that a full cleric has
* Hey, I'd like to channel energy since my party needs a healer
* Hey, I really like having feats and don't get enough with 1 every odd level for just leveling up

Thus, a class without full BAB, near-full divine progression and the ability to pick up a lot more feats is born.

There are players out there, probably not the expert power gamer ones, who would like a class that delivers on this.

I think it's got a decent baseline if that's the intent (since it basically is nothing more than that baseline). The question is -- how to make it snazzier?


If the warpreist was thought to be the "magus" for the cleric, then why not make it an hybrid magus/cleric?

Of the classes presented this one is the most easy to replciate with a straight cleric, inquisitor or multiclassing fighter/cleric.

Scarab Sages

DM Beckett wrote:

I think removing spellcasting is a move in the wrong directoon entirely, but I do think that a lot of the issues would be solved by full BaB, and possibly postponing a few things until later upfront.

I also dont think that it should be healing focused at all, so I think that spontanious casting should be purely about wrath of the divine spells, and drop Channel Energy for Alignment Channel or Channeling Smite.

Hate to break it to you but channeling smite doesn't work without channel energy.


magnuskn wrote:


Although it seems to be that there is some disagreement between them about how much the playtest can change. It's like Jason says "Everything is on the table", Sean says "We are not going to fundamentally change things anymore" and Stephen seems to fall somewhere in the middle. :p

If it helps, I've pretty much been reading it as them saying the same thing, but from opposite ends.

Jason: "Everything is on the table" (everything mechanically within the ten classes, which are going to happen, as is the book)

Sean: "We are not going to fundamentally change things anymore" (we are not going to change the class concepts themselves, or the idea of the book, only rules mechanics within each class)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah the more I read other people's opinions and the more I look at the War-Priest I built for Society play, the more I'm wondering if he wouldn't fill a better roles as "party buffer"/tank. I mean, these days we don't see a lot of heavily armored "you can't hit me" types, because the Fighter as a class is better suited (YMMV) to being a melee DPR guy.

That's the other issue I tend to see for all of the classes right now, is that everyone is comparing them based on "Can it out DPR it's parent classes?" While DPR matters, I think the first thing we need to ask is "Would it be fun to play this?" Now for some, if you can't throw up the numbers so to speak, it won't be fun. I think utility is equality as important and contributes just as much, but then that's how I play.

That being said, maybe we could do some Alternate Abilities for Channel Energy? Something like team wide buffs or debuffs? For example:

Aura of Fervor: By expending 1 use of their Channel Energy a War Priest fills his allies with divine furor, granting all allies in 30ft a +1 Holy bonus to attack. (The flip of this would be Aura of Despair and offer a debuff to enemies if you channel negative)

Aura of Sanctuary: Same thing as above but provide either a bonus to AC or Saves?

Maybe have these scale with level, so every 3 or 4 levels the bonus increases by 1? Keeps the ability relevant, and thematically makes the War Priest the "go to" guy for large scale combat. I mean, imagine a group of Gorum's elite fighers surrounding his war priest, and everyone getting a bonus to attack, damage, or armor. Thematically very appropriate and kind of B.A.

Just a thought.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty obvious what niche it's trying to fill - that of a battle cleric. Pathfinder attempted to take that out of the core cleric in the beginning (removal of heavy armor proficiency and the changes to divine power are the first clues) to less than stellar success, and the inquisitor also fills the niche pretty well although that clearly isn't the design goal for it (with the class's focus on skills and unique utility spells, though judgment, bane, and the standard cleric combat buffs being on the spell list let it fill the role anyway).

In my view, efforts to make it more fighter-like are futile - that space is filled by everyone with a full base attack bonus. There is room for this class in its conceptual space, but it doesn't have the tools to fill it at the moment. If the niche is a combat-oriented divine caster, let it be a combat oriented divine caster, that is, let it cast in combat.

To that end, my recommendations are:

1.) Allow warpriest levels to count as fighter levels for the purpose of qualifying for feats.

2.) Move the feat progression to a bonus feat at 2nd level and every three levels thereafter to reduce the class's front-loading and dip potential. (As it stands, most good warpriest builds are warpriest 1/whatever X, just to get the two feats, blessing, and wand/scroll access.)

3.) Fill the dead levels left by item 2 with one of these:

Quote:
Battle Blessing: At 3rd level, the warpriest gains the ability to call upon his deity's blessings in the midst of battle. Once per day while making a full attack or charge, the warpriest can cast any spell he has prepared with a range of Personal and a target of You as a swift action. At 6th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the warpriest can use this ability an additional time per day, to a maximum of six times per day at 18th level.
Quote:
Battle Blessing: At 3rd level, the warpriest gains the ability to call upon his deity's blessings in the midst of battle. Once per day while making a full attack or charge, the warpriest can cast any cleric spell he has prepared as a swift action provided the spell targets the warpriest, his wielded weapon, or his worn armor. At 6th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the warpriest can use this ability an additional time per day, to a maximum of six times per day at 18th level.

The second is more flexible/powerful than the first (and makes the Healing blessing obsolete as written), but either one accomplishes the goal of making a combat oriented divine caster - one who can make use of the many clerical combat buffs while actually in combat. Alternatively this could be combined with the suggestion for a sacred pool, giving some sort of points pool to fuel this, sacred weapon, sacred armor, and possibly channeling (though giving the class this might warrant toning down or eliminating sacred weapon/armor). Outside of 3.5 Divine Metamagic shenanigans, this is something the cleric has never been able to effectively do, that the warpriest could - which would give it the space to stand beside the cleric and inquisitor, and not be entirely overshadowed by either one.


Would people be mad at me if I attempted to hijack this thread and turn it into the official "DIVINE MAGUS NICHE" thread?

For real though, I see it as the best way of avoiding repetition of the cleric and the inquisitor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am waiting for an answer to this also. It is hard to give advice on the class without knowing what it is supposed to do.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Would people be mad at me if I attempted to hijack this thread and turn it into the official "DIVINE MAGUS NICHE" thread?

I do not see a need for a divine magus.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was excited for the Warpriest class. I like the idea of a VERY martial divine caster. I just think the class features could interact with each other more, like a pool mechanic that Channel, Sacred Armor and Sacred Weapon pull from, in addition to a limited ability to buff during combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Trent wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Would people be mad at me if I attempted to hijack this thread and turn it into the official "DIVINE MAGUS NICHE" thread?
I do not see a need for a divine magus.

And no one sees the need for a Warpriest hence this thread.


Mortag1981 wrote:

That's the other issue I tend to see for all of the classes right now, is that everyone is comparing them based on "Can it out DPR it's parent classes?" While DPR matters, I think the first thing we need to ask is "Would it be fun to play this?" Now for some, if you can't throw up the numbers so to speak, it won't be fun. I think utility is equality as important and contributes just as much, but then that's how I play.

That being said, maybe we could do some Alternate Abilities for Channel Energy? Something like team wide buffs or debuffs? For example:

Aura of Fervor: By expending 1 use of their Channel Energy a War Priest fills his allies with divine furor, granting all allies in 30ft a +1 Holy bonus to attack. (The flip of this would be Aura of Despair and offer a debuff to enemies if you channel negative)

A tanky battlefield buffer/debuffer would also be a good niche for the Warpriest to fill, although it can be filled reasonably well by the Cleric and certain Oracles already. But tuning the class to excel in that role seems like it would also be a good idea to strive for. Adding some auras and Channel abilities seems like a good way to take it.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Would people be mad at me if I attempted to hijack this thread and turn it into the official "DIVINE MAGUS NICHE" thread?

For real though, I see it as the best way of avoiding repetition of the cleric and the inquisitor.

I'd rather not delve into that territory in this thread as I feel the Warpriest doesn't quite fit as divine Magus-esque class. At least not as the focus for the base class, an archetype seems like a good fit though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shaa'ghi wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Would people be mad at me if I attempted to hijack this thread and turn it into the official "DIVINE MAGUS NICHE" thread?

For real though, I see it as the best way of avoiding repetition of the cleric and the inquisitor.

I'd rather not delve into that territory in this thread as I feel the Warpriest doesn't quite fit as divine Magus-esque class. At least not as the focus for the base class, an archetype seems like a good fit though.

The reality is that the Warpriest was meant to by a hybrid of the fighter and cleric. The magus was directly parallel to this idea as being fighter and wizard. Playing this class should feel like I get the best of both being a cleric and a fighter, but the way it looks now I just get to play a cleric with heavy armor for free, and can waste some actions on getting some paladin-esk weapon and armor choices.

Spell Combat is such a good mechanic for fighter/caster hybrids, hell I want to see Spell Combat as a feat that any caster could take.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Matthew Trent wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Would people be mad at me if I attempted to hijack this thread and turn it into the official "DIVINE MAGUS NICHE" thread?
I do not see a need for a divine magus.
And no one sees the need for a Warpriest hence this thread.

The big issue with 'divine magus' is there's already one of those: the Inquisitor. Potentially the warpriest could have dedicated more space to having Magus-like abilities (spellstrike, a divine pool instead of arcane, etc.), but as far as actual role goes that's just not different enough from what the Inquisitor's going to do (it's also probably a bit too similar to the actual Magus to ever be used), and comes across as redundant.

...What the Warpriest basically wants to be is a decently-competent caster, but not as good as the inquisitor/cleric/oracle, and also a decently-competent fighter, but not as good as the paladin and fighter. It's trying to make itself the middle ground and it technically does that, but it fails at the 'decently-competent' part. It's a middle ground purely because it doesn't do anything better than anybody, so it's stuck as the least caster-ish caster and least fighter-ish fighter.


What it tries to be: A more martial oriented Cleric, with less spells and more Feats, able to kick ass for the lord a lot better than the base Cleric, and have nifty powers based around the god that no other class can get.

What it actually is: Fighter 3/Crusader Cleric X, for the lazy. And with slightly amped up Inquisitions instead of Domains.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I feel like the class needs to better define what is should be.

How is a warpriest different from a cleric focusing on buffing and fighting? Not just in terms of making sure warpriest is better but also what is the difference?

A cleric that buffs and goes into melee is already pretty good if you have time to buff.

Should warpriest get their own version of spellcombat for personal buffs so they will benefit from buffing in advance but can also wade in to melee and buff as they go if need be?

Or should they have full BAB and reduced casting so that they are already good in melee but only have limited buff spells so sometimes a few times per day if the warpriest knows there is an encounter coming up it can use its few spells to buff and become ridiculously powerful for that combat.

Also how is it different from inquisitor which has reduced spell casting and gets buffs in return to attacking while keeping 3/4 BAB. Inquisitors get judgement, warpriest get sacred weapons, but if both wind up doing the same thing it does not really matter what you call it.

They are too close together right now (with warpriest just being weaker). I feel that if one is better than the other the other will never be played because they are virtually the same class so buffing the warpriest is not the solution.

Giving a magus like ability instead of the same bonii but in different form would help make the class seem different sort of like bard vs magus.

The other solution is to make them more like paladins and then worry about instead stepping on their toes but at least they are alignment restricted so I feel less bad because as is not everyone can make a holy warrior if their alignment is not right.

Both of the above options are good, but for some reason I am enamored with the idea giving full BAB and 9th level casting with very few class features and reduced casting getting 0 per day at 1 4 6 8... up to 2 total memorized.


I hope the op can appreciate my restraining myself at doing a very inappropriate comeback to this title. it may be 4:40 am but I ain't gone yet.

as to the warpriest...I still think they should use their level as BAB for feats, and it needs to be 100% clarified on whether or not they count as fighters for feats. This affects it in a big way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

Would people be mad at me if I attempted to hijack this thread and turn it into the official "DIVINE MAGUS NICHE" thread?

For real though, I see it as the best way of avoiding repetition of the cleric and the inquisitor.

It'd be nice if you would make your own thread, instead of disrupting this one by trying to hijack it. So, yes, I would be upset.


I was also thinking something along the lines of a personal range spell cast as part of a charge. When I played my Battle cleric last campaign, I hated having to sit back a turn or two and buff up rather than charge into the fray. This would give them great flavor as being on the Frontlines for their deity, a rallying point for their forces.

I feel like either what a lot of people really want in the Warpriest is a Paladin/Cleric Hybrid, or that is what they're seeing. The Armor and Weapon bonds to me clearly feel Paladiny, but it loses the auras, smite and defenses that really make a Paladin. I really just don't see a whole lot of Fighter here besides Bonus Feats.

It comes off feeling like a Cleric/(Fighter/Paladin).

I think they need less Cleric, and more of whatever they were going for on the other end of the spectrum. I'm personally a fan of dropping or lowering the Spell casting and giving auras or other buffs.

Maybe the way you differentiate it is to go the route of 4 Levels of Spontaneous casting. You give it a little more spell casting ability than the Paladin, but differentiate it from the Inquisitor a bit.

Liberty's Edge

I would love to just swap it to Monk/Cleric instead of fighter, but the idea of stripping casting from it completely and having a truly martial holy warrior intrigues me.


's called a paladin (with that light order).

though with the ACG talking about having a section on their design process and advice on how to build your own hybrids, i could see folks throwing together a monk/inquisitor or or monk/cleric (or monk/paladin for a perfect champion of irori entry class) for some niceness.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

it seems to me that if we're creating spectrums they should probably look more like:

fighter-warpriest-cleric
ranger-inquisitor-cleric

i haven't playtested one yet but it looks like the warpriest should be better in combat than an inquisitor but at the cost of out of combat usefulness. they seem like different roles to me. there are some pretty solid melee builds for clerics, so the necessity of this make be questionable from that standpoint... i'm assuming (based on what has already been said about the brawler) that warpriests will count their levels (or at least some of them) as fighter levels, which will help move them a little closer to fighter than melee-cleric...


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nate lange wrote:

it seems to me that if we're creating spectrums they should probably look more like:

fighter-warpriest-cleric
ranger-inquisitor-cleric

i haven't playtested one yet but it looks like the warpriest should be better in combat than an inquisitor but at the cost of out of combat usefulness. they seem like different roles to me. there are some pretty solid melee builds for clerics, so the necessity of this make be questionable from that standpoint... i'm assuming (based on what has already been said about the brawler) that warpriests will count their levels (or at least some of them) as fighter levels, which will help move them a little closer to fighter than melee-cleric...

I agree that the inquisitor out of combat is very different, specifically because it has lots of out of combat skill based abilities and that is something that helps the class differentiate if the warpriest remains 3/4 BAB too.

This issue is in combat they play exactly the same basically. They have special abilities to enhance their attack bonus and damage to make up for the mediocre BAB and also have level 6 casting so can do a little bit of the cleric buff routine on themselves if there is time before combat (right now inquisitor is just better at this as well as being better out of combat but that is a separate issue)

If warpriest remains with 3/4 BAB and i would probably prefer it has full, I think our go to examples of good 3/4 casters that seem pretty distinct should be magus and bard. Bard for sure is much better out of combat similar to an inquisitor vs warpriest but that is not enough. In combat, even though they are both medium casters they play very differently.

The magus focuses more on blasting spells and adding to his attack to do more damage and sometimes using a few utility spells with spell combat if need be. His arcane pool helps him wade into melee with 3/4 BAB and still hit while also casting spells, but can also be used to increase his spells creating more flexibility depending on what you need.

The bard cannot cast and fight at the same time and unless he is trying to conserve spells, does not usually enter combat directly because of this. Bardic music is used to buff the entire party and bard spells are very good for buffing, making bard one of if not the best buffer in the game. If not buffing, bards also get early access to a bunch of debuff spells as well in the enchantment spells and these can be game changing fight enders.

Now even despite all this, I feel like the classes are close to (but do not) stepping one each others toes. Usually my players that play one or the other wind up in between the two classes even though they are pretty different, because they are both at the end of the day medium BAB arcane casters with cool abilities.


I think there was an obvious bigger (d10 full-BAB) gap in the class structure... but I guess we'll have to wait and see if the ACG customization rules will give advice on how to make Paladin variants for other alignments and flavors.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A large issue, I think, is that one thinks of the Magus example too simply.
Lemme explain: Fighter/Wizard. Two classes that are different in every possible way, play completely different from one another 95% of the time, and fill incredibly different niches.
So a Magus class has a LOT of room to work and mix and match and find its place in the middle.

Meanwhile, Cleric/Fighter is a much smaller gap at their base. There's only one step of BAB between them, they both already have good Fort saves, and the Cleric's abilities/skills often require/involve being right in the midst of melee.
So building something that bridges that gap is MUCH tougher, especially when Skill focus is already used up by Inquisitor.

So what niche is it trying to fill? I don't have an answer, but I can explain why it's not fair to compare it to the Magus- because the Magus had WAY more room to wiggle between its parent classes.
If one were just looking to slap class abilities on the same list and call it a new class, then a hybrid Cleric/Fighter would be extremely easy, whereas a Fighter/Wizard would be much harder.

But when you're actually trying to create a legitimately "new" class that stands on its own, the opposite is true.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Coridan wrote:
I would love to just swap it to Monk/Cleric instead of fighter, but the idea of stripping casting from it completely and having a truly martial holy warrior intrigues me.

Yeah, the game is missing that "true warrior type" inspired by religion. Where are hammer lords of Thor, greatsword followers of Surtur, etc. We have not even touched on the champions of other religions or faiths.

The current write up feels like a watered down spell caster. The inquisitor or a cleric / 2 fighter split are a lot more solid builds atm. The class really should be a full bab with 4 level casting.

Shadow Lodge

I have found a few roles for the class:

Divine Magus(I will probably call this the divine magus to new players like I call the Oracle the Divine Sorcerer and the Inquisitor the Divine Bard, because similar-ish class abilities (combat stuff, magic stuff, defense stuff) and same spell design but divine instead of arcane (2/3 arcane).

Ultimate Reach Cleric(doesn't really work, but it tries really hard IMO)

Make Monks Feel Good(Another MAD class with no real role and a 3/4 BAB)


I feel like the only way this class ever makes sense is to change the Cleric/Oracle into pure "caster" classes: Drop down to high Will save only, and 1/2 BAB. But we all know that won't happen.

I'm also very curious to know why the Devs haven't/won't comment on this issue. The Arcanist had a better time fitting into a niche/concept than this class does, but they had no problem quickly coming to announce that they're changing that one.
:/


I feel like what makes the Inquisitor work (and the Inquisitor is my favorite class) is in part that it expands in directions that none of its obvious relative classes expand in - knowledge and social skills, on top of just having a lot of skill points (the class actually a lot in common with the bard, but fewer people make that connection because the thematics are so divergent.) In addition, it also has a lot of personality; an inquisitor is something specific and the class touches on that idea in a few ways without making the character over-focused or unsuitable for other things.

The Warpriest is playing in what's no-question the most densely crowded space in the game, class-wise, and it's not really bringing anything new to the table (although it has individual cool abilities). It doesn't have a meaningfully different attitude compared to a cleric, which is already a very martial interpretation of the priestly archetype. Unlike, say, the Skald, its abilities aren't an interesting alchemy of the constituent classes; it's just a watered-down cleric with bonus feats and the standard patch-me-to-full-BAB feature that every fighty 3/4 BAB class has.

Here's what I would do: Double down on the class's connections to equipment. That's moving maybe a hair too far in the paladin's direction, but it's better to be too close to the paladin than to the cleric, because paladins are at least alignment-locked. The class's most interesting features are equipment-related, as are many of the blessings, and clerics don't really play in that space at all. That at least gives the class something of a personality, and from there you can

Grand Lodge

Neo2151 wrote:

I feel like the only way this class ever makes sense is to change the Cleric/Oracle into pure "caster" classes: Drop down to high Will save only, and 1/2 BAB. But we all know that won't happen.

I'm also very curious to know why the Devs haven't/won't comment on this issue. The Arcanist had a better time fitting into a niche/concept than this class does, but they had no problem quickly coming to announce that they're changing that one.
:/

Could be a hobby horse issue. The Arcanist 'belonged' to one Dev and the WP belongs to another who is more closely 'wed' to the concept. It could be because while the team have the bandwidth to re-do one class, they don't have time for another.

It could ALSO be that they are taking notes, and nodding their heads but they don't want to throw changes or updated model out there as yet.

The whole 'We aren't changing names and classes' stance MAY be broadly true (otherwise they'd never get out of playtest without the more passionate of the fanbase setting the forums on fire to get THEIR 'hobby horse' in the ACG) but they've shown a willingness to take stuff back to the drawing board before and I'm trusting them to do that here.

Mind you I am still somewhat sour over Samurai still having shield use :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's what I think
1. Have Warpriest levels count as BAB levels for qualifying for feats
2. Have Warpriest Levels count as Fighetr levels for Feat qualification
3. Change to D10 for HP
3. Eliminate channeling

this makes you a more martially inclined holy warrior with better staying power than Cleric/Inquisitor/Oracle but still not quite as good as a pure melee non spellcaster


The only way Warpriest gets more staying combat power than the Inquisitor is if it get bumped to full BAB.
The Judgement/Bane combo see to that.

And the only way the full BAB Warpriest can contend with the staying combat power of the Paladin is (IMO) to gain some additional bonus, such as the one thrown around in the other thread about Weapon Training in the favored weapon.

And all of that is too good to stick on a 6-level caster. *Drags the drawing board back out.*


Unklbuck wrote:

Here's what I think

1. Have Warpriest levels count as BAB levels for qualifying for feats
2. Have Warpriest Levels count as Fighetr levels for Feat qualification
3. Change to D10 for HP
3. Eliminate channeling

this makes you a more martially inclined holy warrior with better staying power than Cleric/Inquisitor/Oracle but still not quite as good as a pure melee non spellcaster

That hit die comment is coming up a lot in these gish threads but here is the problem:

In pathfinder, hit die is tied to base attack progression. It would be breaking pathfiner's internal rules to give the Warpriest 3/4 BAB and a d10 hit die.

As an additional note: I have tended to focus on action economy as being the means to making the Warpriest a more viable cleric-fighter hybrid.
(giving it something like spell combat but only for buffs or the ability to quicken a certain number of Warpriest spells per day for free)


I'd like to see these guys built more around the channel energy mechanic to be honest. Drop sacred armor, drop sacred weapon, give them extra things they can do with a channel energy. Perhaps they could apply energy resistance after channeling or delay poison, at high levels they could apply death ward and other protections.

I think doing so would give them an interesting nitche as more cleric like, rather than simply trying to compete with the inquisitor straight up with attack and defense bonuses.


Permanent Divine Favor effect would alleviate some BAB issues.


I really think that a viable fighter-cleric hybrid really needs to have full BAB to compete well against the cleric itself and the inquisitor. The paladin does this just fine...but is severely alignment-restricted.


I'd say just give ti d10 HD and full BAB. it likely will count as cleric and fighter levels for feats (as the brawler has been announced for that, so there's a precedent). it'd not step on the inquisitors toes so much then (and act as a sort of half-step between inquisitor and paladin on the holy-martial scale).

Grand Lodge

After reading the discussion back and forth I am really for the following.

Make it a Full BAB/D10 HP character
Martial Weapons with option to take fighter feats at some future point (8?)
4 levels of spell casting
Favoured Weapon/Armour Schtick is nice but some flexibility would be nicer (ie Gods Favoured Weapon or any Simple Weapon). If you want to look at the magus mechanics for that, it would probably work.
Aura/Blessing to flavour.
Alignment 1 step from deity as per cleric rules. Fluff same as cleric for keeping tenents.
Cha as casting stat? Meh, I like keeping Wisdom otherwise it becomes too much like the Pally. It has a roll on effect of 'helping' the War Priest to keep their Will saves in decent order if they want to cast more than level 1 spells but really, as a level 4 caster, they don't need a better Wis than 14 to get all spells.

It is different from the paladin, it is different from the Cleric, it is different from the fighter.

The only fear I have at that point would be, "Who would play a fighter?" Bonus feats probably need to be tightly looked at else the fighters niche would be eroded.

Yet Another 3/4 BAB divine caster? Meh.


just do what the brawler/swashbuckler are doing--bonus feats at a slower rate.


Spellcombat.


Paladins alone should enjoy the complete set of Full BAB Lay on Hands Mount, Smite, Martial weapons and heavy armor/shields.

So simply give Warpriest full BAB and better spells. Done. No need for extra special blessings that mimic domains or abilities that try to make up for a mediorcre BAB. Just a better spell list than paladin and the same proud BAB. Keeping with simple and diety weapons is a good flavorful limitation that helps define the class. There are always racial weapons as well.

So I think:
Full BAB
Simple/Diety favored weapons
4+int mod ranks/level
Paladin spell progression with short but sweet spell list

Easy


Frederic wrote:

Paladins alone should enjoy the complete set of Full BAB Lay on Hands Mount, Smite, Martial weapons and heavy armor/shields.

So simply give Warpriest full BAB and better spells. Done. No need for extra special blessings that mimic domains or abilities that try to make up for a mediorcre BAB. Just a better spell list than paladin and the same proud BAB. Keeping with simple and diety weapons is a good flavorful limitation that helps define the class. There are always racial weapons as well.

So I think:
Full BAB
Simple/Diety favored weapons
4+int mod ranks/level
Paladin spell progression with short but sweet spell list

Easy

So you want them to invalidate the paladin class rather than invalidate the melee cleric, which is what they wanted to do?

I would rather see the Warpriest be the ultimate battle cleric, so that my clerics can focus on casting. This class should be the obvious choice in that sense, still capable of healing, but also fully capable of combat.

Think clericzilla from 3.5, minus the cleric part but all of the zilla.


I think Mount+Smite+Martial+LayHands is pretty unique combo to Paladin. I don't suggest Invalidating them. My suggestion is different. A priest who can fight. A War-Priest if you will.

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / Class Discussion / What niche is the Warpriest attempting to fill? All Messageboards