Revised Warpriest Discussion


Class Discussion

301 to 350 of 847 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Humphry B ManWitch wrote:

do i seem to be the only one say way hold up here this class is now too powerful. 6th level spells full base attack bonus and swift action Buffs along with rounds per day bonuses to your weapon of choice...

that is too much no fighter could compete with that ever.

It isn't too powerful. Being more useful than a fighter isn't exactly a great feat. It just is a bit rough at the moment. I think it needs to retain MAD a bit (keep it from being OP), have more abilities require move actions or free actions instead of all the swift actions, and perhaps a slightly better capstone. But all in all, it looks like a fairly decent class.
Captain K wrote:
It's better than the Paladin. This ain't right.

Your right its wrong, because they aren't strictly better than a paladin. Paladins are immune to a bunch of stuff, have ridiculous saves, and typically do massive damage when smiting (which is eventually all day), while still having a buff similar to the main offensive buff of the warpriest, and spells like a warpriest (just less). Now, it isn't strictly worse than a paladin, but it is sure as heck not better.


Quandary, an Attack spell is any spell that forces a saving throw or deals damage.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Dispari Scuro wrote:
Danubus wrote:
Did jason rule out that warpriests cannot use fighter feats? There was some talk in first version. If warpriests can't use them then why not? This class should be able to use them since it's a hybrid fighter.
Well, of the new classes that are fighters (warpriest, swashbuckler, brawler), swashbuckler only get a bonus feat every 4 levels, while the other two get one every 3 levels. Warpriest already has an ability to enhance its damage, plus it has blessings that can do that, and it has lots of spells that can do that, and it ups its base damage quite a bit. Even as a fan of the warpriest, I wouldn't say NO to fighter feats, but I don't think it NEEDS them either.

One reason not to count the Warpriest as a Fighter for feat prereqs is the Martial Versatility feat, which allows a human to apply the Weapon Focus feat to a whole fighter weapon group, which then means that whole weapon group would work for Sacred Weapon. Just saying.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

any of you not seeing how a swift action to cast any spell that is prepared is way too over powered is deluding themselves. this class has more in its action economy than any other. not to mention the highest attack bonus of any class.

this class is the martial class. better than fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, bloodrager,

this class will make a summoner look like it is not cheese.

let me give you an example.

with use of the +1 caster level trait and (spell focus evocation 1st verisian tattoo Evocation human 1st)

at second level you get fervor oh now i can swift action Divine Favor with +2 attack and damage

ok so that is now +3 due to casting magic weapon. with a +2 for you attack bonus and +4 for a 18 strength (which is not unreasonable)

a second level character with +9 to hit and +9 to damage (two handed) at third level get power attack and furious focus. then you are looking at +10 att and +12 damage then

it stacks up more at 4th +13 attack +17 damage.

with a swift action???

no other mele character can do that. better than the cleric.

my solution remove the swift action casting of buff spells it is ludicrously over powered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's what I want:

  • Sacred Weapon: One choice, possibly tied to deity's favored weapon, but could really care less.
  • Tie spell casting to CHA, and other class abilities to it as well.
  • No full BAB for using your sacred weapon, totally defeats the purpose of giving them medium BAB in the first place. Instead, have the Warpriest add his CHA to attack rolls with his sacred weapon.

Scale the weapon damage slightly better and make sure it functions properly with spells and weapon enchantments like Lead Blades, Enlarge Person, and Impact and I think you have a fine class here.


Humphry, you are describing a situation where the Warpriest has to expend two resources to self-buff. Sometimes, that's a self-buff that would have been better spent buffing the whole party. And it used up a use of Fervor. Thus, it is not overpowered.

In addition, that swift action you are harping on about has competition. A number of Blessings have powers that use that swift action, so no Fervor buff if you use them. There's also the Sacred Armor ability that also uses that same swift action, and even then there's the Sacred Weapon imbue ability that also takes a swift action.


Just wanted to say, very cool class. I hope to playtest this weekend.

On my first reading, I just think Fervor should be tied to Wis, but that's just a minor complaint.


Humphry B ManWitch wrote:
any of you not seeing how a swift action to cast any spell that is prepared is way too over powered is deluding themselves. this class has more in its action economy than any other. not to mention the highest attack bonus of any class.

It's basically what maguses can already do, except that they can only buff themselves and not use offensive spells, they can only do it a limited number of times a day, and every use of it takes away from their ability to heal for the day. If it's overpowered, so are maguses.

Grand Lodge

Kalvit, i believe that casters (which the War priest is one of them) should not be able to out pace the martial classes in too hit without spells. this has spells and has a better to hit than any other class the possibility of this class soloing an adventure is very high.

trust me i am usually all for this sort of thing as its a great power but it will mean that every character in PFS will be a summoner or a warpriest they will all be aasimars and tieflings. then paizo will have to up the ante and make the adventures harder due to the game unbalancing powers like swift action buff spells. that will then make all other classes harder to play and push even more people to need to cheese up their characters to warpriest level.

so that is why i am standing up to you all and swaying No Paizo that is a very bad idea!! No swift action casting with fervor!! (although my character building genes love it)

Silver Crusade

Humphry B ManWitch wrote:

any of you not seeing how a swift action to cast any spell that is prepared is way too over powered is deluding themselves. this class has more in its action economy than any other. not to mention the highest attack bonus of any class.

this class is the martial class. better than fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, bloodrager,

this class will make a summoner look like it is not cheese.

let me give you an example.

with use of the +1 caster level trait and (spell focus evocation 1st verisian tattoo Evocation human 1st)

at second level you get fervor oh now i can swift action Divine Favor with +2 attack and damage

ok so that is now +3 due to casting magic weapon. with a +2 for you attack bonus and +4 for a 18 strength (which is not unreasonable)

a second level character with +9 to hit and +9 to damage (two handed) at third level get power attack and furious focus. then you are looking at +10 att and +12 damage then

it stacks up more at 4th +13 attack +17 damage.

with a swift action???

no other mele character can do that. better than the cleric.

my solution remove the swift action casting of buff spells it is ludicrously over powered.

Oh please, +12 two-handed PA damage at 3rd level is peanuts. Stick that 18 Strength on a paladin and turn on smite. Bam, done. Exceeded, even, if we make the not unreasonable assumption of simply owning a +1 weapon at that level. And remember that your buffs are lasting all of one minute - less in the case of Sacred Weapon until 10th level.

Heck, play your enemies smart. A warpriest walks in and blows all his buffs, getting all big and glowy and filled with holy wrath? 30 feet/round movement rate until that stops. Then turn. :p


It seems like the warpriest have alot of ways to buff hmslef as a swift action. As they have full BAB with their favored weapons that means the class have a lot of wyas to warpirest have several ways to buff himself beyond FULL BAB.

That have two problems IMHO.

1) The class can stack buff afther buff every round and still attack/full attack.

2) even if the calss can no t stack bonuses that woudl mean tha the warprist can buff himself (in some way) at the first round of every fight in a anventuring day.

6 fights per day? surely the warpriest will have more than full BAB in every one of those fights.

And the class is still a 6th level caster... This is way too much. The class shoudl not have full BAB.

Grand Lodge

im not saying all of the class is bad i like it im sure you all do it is a great class. just dose not been swift action Buff spells.

and im sure there are better examples of how to make a war priest go nuts with its spells. it is why the Cleric is the most powerful class. (well until warpriest was revised)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did anyone else notice that using Fervor to deal damage to an Undead creature provokes an attack of opportunity?

Silver Crusade

Nicos wrote:

It seems like the warpriest have alot of ways to buff hmslef as a swift action. As they have full BAB with their favored weapons that means the class have a lot of wyas to warpirest have several ways to buff himself beyond FULL BAB.

That have two problems IMHO.

1) The class can stack buff afther buff every round and still attack/full attack.

2) even if the calss can no t stack bonuses that woudl mean tha the warprist can buff himself (in some way) at the first round of every fight in a anventuring day.

6 fights per day? surely the warpriest will have more than full BAB in every one of those fights.

And the class is still a 6th level caster... This is way too much. The class shoudl not have full BAB.

If you want to burn enough ability points on Charisma to make that work, more power to you. You won't be hitting as hard, though, because you'll have to lose power somewhere else to do it.


Neo2151 wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Interesting discussion folks,

I think I am starting to settle on the power level of this class. It feels useful, but not overly so and the required ability scores helps to keep it in check. That said, I think there is a fair bit of tuning that needs to happen. I am concerned about the sacred weapon damage scaling and high crit weapons, but I think I want to see more playtest feedback before I move in any direction on that issue.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Four needed ability scores (five, if you want to do fancy combat maneuvers with Combat Expertise and have anything approximating decent skill use) is crippling at a 15 point buy. You guys recognized that with the Paladin and made it the mechanically best package in the CRB, I hope the Warpriest gets a similar treatment.

This.

You know that requiring 4 ability scores is too much. And we know that you know. As magnuskn says, it's the entire reason you swapped the Paladin to Cha-casting.
Don't go back down that dark road. :(

Paladin is one of the most robust and powerfulclasses. Also one of the few that can survive high level without 'cheese' any game/any DM/any module. HPs and swift healing that adds 100 odd hps, DR pen, smite, saves. As for paladin archers....

Perhaps the mistake isn't warpriest. Perhaps its Paladins not having 4 stats which functioned fine which made them playable and even a favorite class since the original editions!

Dark Archive

With so much to judge and contemplate, I don't have time to read all the threads but here is my feedback. Please break up play tests into smaller sections to digest. I loved the APG play test of a few at a time. This one was less fun with so much to chew at the same time.

I really like that both uses of fervor can be done as swift actions on the warpriest.

War priest eventually get the channel energy class feature but at the cost of two fervor. What about the extra channel feat? Does this give them two channels, four fervors, mix and match? Will there be an extra fervor feat?

I would like the warpriest bonus feats to allow divine feats as options also, not just combat feats.

We need better action economy on the blessings, most of the blessing are very poor as standard actions on ourself. This is why I am still leaning towards tricky & healing. With no god having both of them and the ability to apply focus weapon to any martial weapon, I am more likely to pick no god at all and just pick the only two blessings I especially like.

Please put somewhere easy to find weather we can use a blessing on ourself when using the term ally. Not just in the CRB but in this classes general information about blessings.

Sacred weapon is still not strong enough to cause anyone but the most die hard role players to use a gods favored weapon for at least 10 levels in the vast majority of cases. It is not good enough to actually motivate people to use it over so many other superior martial weapons at least through level 9 in most cases. I guess it is not too bad to reward the players willing to hamstring themselves by employing a favored weapon but how many will actually do so when it takes so damn long for it to become a better choice than so many other martial choices. Not just in damage dice potential but also in qualities such as critical range and multiple, plus such like reach, trip, disarm, ect.

Thank you for not punishing the people who want to avoid being hamstrung by the gods favored weapon by allowing the use of other martial weapons as focus weapons. You have to know the vast majority of people are just going to go for the two handers. One handed weapons are just negligible damage. Even my inquisitor with bane feels like he does poor damage with an 18 strength and long sword.

I really dislike that as a 3/4 bab class, a warpriest will never be able to be proficient with an exotic weapon till level 3 and by that point, they already had to pick something else at 1st as a focused weapon. How about deity weapon proficiency at 1st and swap fervor down to level 1 when extra fragile from only one level of HP. Then select a bonus feat and focus weapon at 2nd(take away the bonus feat at level 3 if you want)? This is one of the few classes with enough feats to justify the feat expenditure on an exotic weapon, but not when he has to spend 2 feats at level 3 to do so, instead of getting that free focus weapon option at level 1. How about, each day when preparing spells, or any time with a 5 minute prayer, the war priest can select one weapon he is proficient in to apply focus weapon to?


Raymond Lambert wrote:
War priest eventually get the channel energy class feature but at the cost of two fervor. What about the extra channel feat? Does this give them two channels, four fervors, mix and match? Will there be an extra fervor feat?

There's already a FAQ that covers that.

Gaining uses of Channel is just that, uses of Channel, it doesn't affect Fervor.

Quote:
We need better action economy on the blessings, most of the blessing are very poor as standard actions on ourself... Please put somewhere easy to find weather we can use a blessing on ourself when using the term ally. Not just in the CRB but in this classes general information about blessings.

Also in the FAQ I believe... 'Ally' always includes yourself. Sometimes you may not be able to well utilize a buff if it only lasts 1 round. Plenty last minutes though... They all clearly state the duration, so there you go.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I am concerned about the sacred weapon damage scaling and high crit weapons, but I think I want to see more playtest feedback before I move in any direction on that issue.

Please keep some kind of scaling damage for the sacred weapon. That was the ability that actually sold me on this class, because you could use flavorful but weak weapons to actually do impressive things.

Dark Archive

I can think of a few reasons why I wouldn't use a high crit range weapon with this class:

1) high critical multiplier
2) extra damage with two-handed weapon
3) reach
4) trip property, disarm property, etc.
5) my deity's favoured weapon is actually usable now even if it isn't the most powerful option available
6) etc.

I really don't think the damage progression is a big deal.

And I honestly can't believe people are railing on about this class being overpowered. The fighter, inquisitor, cleric, and paladin all have compelling advantages over the warpriest, even if the warpriest now also has compelling advantages over them. The swift buffs are a really awesome take on a spell/combat synergy mechanic and really, really not a big deal on a class without full spellcasting. That mechanic is merely the warpriest's equivalent to rage, smite, or favoured enemy (all of which are swift action or faster to activate to keep the fighting classes fighting).


balance-wise, worries about the sacred weapon damage subsitution could be dealt with by saying: use the regular stats OR these (scaling) stats: including DMG, Crit Range, and Crit Multiplier... you get the whole package or nothing (although the other Enhancement bonus part still applies regardless).
Perhaps have different stats for Light, 1H, 2H (you can choose which one you are invoking, but if you have a Dagger Sacred Weapon you are free to choose the 1H stats, the Light is only there for 2WF or certain Light Weapon only scenarios...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LadyWurm wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I am concerned about the sacred weapon damage scaling and high crit weapons, but I think I want to see more playtest feedback before I move in any direction on that issue.
Please keep some kind of scaling damage for the sacred weapon. That was the ability that actually sold me on this class, because you could use flavorful but weak weapons to actually do impressive things.

I really like that feature as well, and hope it stays in some form. As it is though it really does tend to favor just flocking to specific weapon setups because it eliminates damage as a variable.

Quandary wrote:

balance-wise, worries about the sacred weapon damage subsitution could be dealt with by saying: use the regular stats OR these (scaling) stats: including DMG, Crit Range, and Crit Multiplier... you get the whole package or nothing (although the other Enhancement bonus part still applies regardless).

Perhaps have different stats for Light, 1H, 2H (you can choose which one you are invoking, but if you have a Dagger Sacred Weapon you are free to choose the 1H stats, the Light is only there for 2WF or certain Light Weapon only scenarios...)

It might be complicated, but it might also be necessary. It's basically trying to emulate something monks get, but monks effectively only have one possible weapon. This creates a lot more variables that I think need to be addressed somehow.


Benn Roe wrote:

I can think of a few reasons why I wouldn't use a high crit range weapon with this class:

1) high critical multiplier
2) extra damage with two-handed weapon
3) reach
4) trip property, disarm property, etc.
5) my deity's favoured weapon is actually usable now even if it isn't the most powerful option available
6) etc.

I really don't think the damage progression is a big deal.

And I honestly can't believe people are railing on about this class being overpowered. The fighter, inquisitor, cleric, and paladin all have compelling advantages over the warpriest, even if the warpriest now also has compelling advantages over them. The swift buffs are a really awesome take on a spell/combat synergy mechanic and really, really not a big deal on a class without full spellcasting. That mechanic is merely the warpriest's equivalent to rage, smite, or favoured enemy (all of which are swift action or faster to activate to keep the fighting classes fighting).

The biggest compelling feature the Inquisitor has over Warpriest is that it feels like a complete whole.

Stern Gaze, Track, Monster Lore, Detect Alignment, Judgments, Discern Lies, and Bane all point the class in a similar direction. They all point the character towards the direction of some sort of Divine bounty hunter or monster slayer versatile enough to tackle any of their church's foes. They're all tools that build upon each other towards the class' concept.

Honestly I think Inquisitor is one of the best overall designed classes in the game.

I bring up the Inquisitor here, because I think it really spotlights why I would probably not seriously play a Warpriest despite being drawn to its concept.

Whereas the Inquisitor's features feel whole and satisfying, the Warpriest feels a little jumbled to me.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The BAB fix works, but it feels a little funky. While it does not allow a player to spend feats on what the community as a whole seems to want (higher BAB requirement stuff, or Fighter only feats), it does allow the class to potentially experiment with maneuvers. At least that is something else for most Warpriests to fill those feat holes with.

The Weapon access is technically a good fix, but to me it sort of poos on the concept's flavor.

Meanwhile: If a Warpriest can just use whatever weapon they want anyway, why bother making them do more damage? Furthermore, if the team is just trying to find a way to add damage to the class in general, why bigger dice? It is a grossly inefficient way to go about things.

Blessings fit, but feel forced and a little unnatural. Like a square peg that has managed to be partially squeezed into a round hole. Maybe I'm just not receptive to what Blessings are supposed to be. Domains, oh but they're not Domains. So Inquisitions then? Yeah, wait no. I dunno.

Channel just feels taped on at this point. I honestly feel the class could completely lose the Channel class feature and probably not even miss it.

The Swift Action Economy is a nightmare, but I don't think Action Economy is the problem. The class just has too much stuff.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The Inquisitor feels like a really well made Swiss Army Knife. It does everything I need it to and it feels satisfying to use it all.

The Warpriest feels like a knife, a corkscrew, a leather punch, a screw driver, and a snack pack of pudding (Channel) all wadded up in duct tape. Yeah it has what I need, and yeah I can sort of use it all, but it's kind of a hot mess.

I know this is a part of the design process and that Warpriest is essentially in that awkward, knock-kneed, zit covered, puberty phase. I'm just pointing out that I don't believe the class really feels like a successful amalgam of its features just yet.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If the scaling for sacred damage stays as is, I will probably house rule that characters treat their effective warpriest level as -2 for weapons with high threat/multipliers (19-20 or x3) or as -4 for weapons with very high threat/multipliers (either 18-20 or x4) when determining damage. That way they will eventually get bonus damage, but not as much as the more moderate threat ones.


ChainsawSam wrote:

The biggest compelling feature the Inquisitor has over Warpriest is that it feels like a complete whole.

Stern Gaze, Track, Monster Lore, Detect Alignment, Judgments, Discern Lies, and Bane all point the class in a similar direction. They all point the character towards the direction of some sort of Divine bounty hunter or monster slayer versatile enough to tackle any of their church's foes. They're all tools that build upon each other towards the class' concept.

Honestly I think Inquisitor is one of the best overall designed classes in the game.

I bring up the Inquisitor here, because I think it really spotlights why I would probably not seriously play a Warpriest despite being drawn to its concept.

Whereas the Inquisitor's features feel whole and satisfying, the Warpriest feels a little jumbled to me.

This is a good point, and a common problem. It's actually one I've been trying to make myself, but it's hard to put into words, and some people don't listen.

I agree about the Inquisitor. It works so well not just because of mechanical balance or other such issues, but because everything in the class serves the concept of that class. It's many parts making up the desired whole, rather than just dumping eggs in one basket and saying "well, it's balanced, what more do you want?"

The bottom line is: The inquisitor is a good inquisitor. They have the tools, talents, skills and abilities to match their job description. In fact, the first question anyone should ask about any class is "Is X a good X?"

If the answer is "no", then clearly work is needed. So, we ask the question...is the warpriest a good warpriest? Well, "warpriest" implies a divine character who excels at warfare. This says several things:

1. The warpriest should have minimal interruption to their ability to stay in and participate in battle.

2. The warpriest should have more to contribute to straight-up fighting than other divine classes.

3. The warpriest should be generally better at combat than they are at magic.


LadyWurm wrote:


1. The warpriest should have minimal interruption to their ability to stay in and participate in battle.

2. The warpriest should have more to contribute to straight-up fighting than other divine classes.

3. The warpriest should be generally...

I think we're really close. 1 and 2 are pretty much there. 3 is most definitely true.

Dark Archive

I like this revision. Reminds me of the Psychic Warrior.

Those are a lot of resources to track, though. I know that it's in the *Advanced* Class Guide, but how about giving it a single Fervor Pool to fuel its abilities, similar to the magus. The blessings, many of which are currently rather underwhelming, could modify how fervor works or add new uses for it. Each blessing could also add a weapon enhancement to the list of options, like Good - Holy, Healing - Merciful or Destruction - Breaking.


I think the thing with Blessings is that the tie to Domains needed to be increased.
Domain Spells, either via Domain/Blessing slot, added to spell list, or Spontaneous Substitution, would do that.
Also tying in with Channel with Domain Channeling would do that.
More broadly, I'm not sure if Channel is so necessary, if anything I might just remove the normal damage option
and ONLY leave Domain Channel and allow them to take Alignment Channel/Turn Undead/etc.
(retaining the damage/cure dice is necessary or most convenient if Channel Force is important to retain compatability with...???)
That emphasizes the tie to Domains (while remaining different) and further plays up the difference vs. Inquisitors.
Conceptually, Warpriests aren't really their own thing, they ARE Cleric-Fighter-Paladin hybrids,
but playing up the Cleric-y/Paladin-y stuff that Inquisitors DON'T do is exactly what they need to emphasize their different role vs. Inqs.
Inquisitors have a more limited version of Domains (1 vs 2, no spells), with Warpriests less unique spell list I think including the Domain spells somehow would be justified and allow more 'customization' of each Warpriest appropriate to their Deity (there is very little variation in terms of class abilities so far) .


I like the Blessings. They are more combat oriented than the Domains. I think that is appropriate for a war priest. They are the combat arm of a church, their abilities should be focused on bringing the hammer.


Been mulling over this class with some friends, and while we generally really love the class, there's a slight balance issue we noticed that may make Sacred Weapon rather unbalancing. I did a quick Ctrl-F of the thread, and haven't seen anyone post this yet, so here goes:

Consider a Warpriest with Weapon Focus: Heavy Shield and Two Weapon Fighting. If we are reading the class correctly, such a priest with a pair of +1 Bashing Shields is able to swing for 3d6 damage with each hand at 5th level (1d8 up to 3d6 for Huge). With access to Enlarge Person and potentially UMD'ing Lead Blades onto himself, he can fairly easily swing for 5d6 damage, and can even enhance the shields as weapons for further hilarity. All this for a gold investment of less than 10k.

I would very much love to be reading this wrong, so please, PLEASE tell me it works differently.


Otagian wrote:

Been mulling over this class with some friends, and while we generally really love the class, there's a slight balance issue we noticed that may make Sacred Weapon rather unbalancing. I did a quick Ctrl-F of the thread, and haven't seen anyone post this yet, so here goes:

Consider a Warpriest with Weapon Focus: Heavy Shield and Two Weapon Fighting. If we are reading the class correctly, such a priest with a pair of +1 Bashing Shields is able to swing for 3d6 damage with each hand at 5th level (1d8 up to 3d6 for Huge). With access to Enlarge Person and potentially UMD'ing Lead Blades onto himself, he can fairly easily swing for 5d6 damage, and can even enhance the shields as weapons for further hilarity. All this for a gold investment of less than 10k.

I would very much love to be reading this wrong, so please, PLEASE tell me it works differently.

I think the game busts a little at that point lol. Actually Lead Blades doesn't stack with Bashing. They both SET the size and therefore you only take the better. Lead Blades in fact specifically says "...deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are." In this case, while Enlarge Person'd you are Large. Leads Blades sets it to Huge, but Bashing sets it to Gargantuan since it's two steps higher than Large.

Its a neat trick though. I wonder if theres an extended Larger Weapons table somewhere.

EDIT: Found it. Look up the Improved Natural Attack Chart.

It comes out to,
1d8 bumped up to 2d6 from a Large Warpriest Sacred Weapon
2d6 two size categories up due to Bashing is 4d6.


I made this post in the Revised Brawler thread, but I figured I'd repost it here.

Tels wrote:

Sean, one of the reasons why Monks never had an 'easy' method of enhancing their attacks, or having a decent crit range, is that they have the highest damage dice in the game, for PC races.

The Warpriest has the ability to freely enhance their armor, their weapons, and they get the second highest damage dice of the PC classes that applies to any weapon.

A Warpriest could dual-wield Kukris and by 20th level, have a crit range of 15-20x2 that deals 2d8 points of damage per hit.

Why is it that the Monk/Brawler class don't get similar abilities? The idea that 'Monk unarmed strikes need to be bad because they have high damage dice' is kind of non-existent now.

[Edit] I'm kind of looking forward to the "Warpriest - Vital Strike" threads that involve the Warpriest using Lead Blades + Enlarge Person (or capstone) for 4d8 damage dice and then Improved Vital Striking for 12d8 damage on a hit.

BTW, I will be reposting this comment in the Warpriest thread.


Trying to 2WF with 2x Heavy Shields isn't the best idea considering they are not Light Weapons and so the attack penalties are hideous.


Quandary wrote:
Trying to 2WF with 2x Heavy Shields isn't the best idea considering they are not Light Weapons and so the attack penalties are hideous.

If your starting at a high level, Shield Master is pretty amazing with it.


The point still stands with light shields, given that the damage doesn't change at all. It just reduces your maximum AC by 1.


Otagian wrote:
The point still stands with light shields, given that the damage doesn't change at all. It just reduces your maximum AC by 1.

Its definitely a nice build, but it doesn't come fully together till 11th/15th if you can't take weapon specific feats with full BAB.


It definitely gets a lot better at high levels, as you finally shed that pesky dual wielding penalty entirely. However, it's still rather effective before that point, keeping pace with dual wield fighters/rangers/whatevers pretty well (and probably surpassing them). You lose out on off hand iteratives until a few levels later, but you massively out-damage them.

It honestly just gets silly at 15th, you're swinging for 6d6 with just Enlarge Person and Bashing (as a local so kindly pointed out, 4d6 scales to 6d6, not 5d6), not to mention the plethora of enhancement based bonuses you're getting on your main hand through Sacred Weapon as well.

I do really like the sacred weapon mechanics in general, it's just that there's a few potentially abusive builds like this one that (in my opinion) ought to be addressed somehow.


I posted a playtest build here, along with some thoughts around the class in general. Any feedback, thoughts or critique is welcome :)


On the subject of dual-shields, I made a FAQ thread on Shield Master a little while ago to demonstrate just how powerful that feat really is.

Please go read the thread before deciding that twin shield bashing isn't good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

"In addition, the warpriest sacred weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type."

So, if you got Weapon Focus (net). Would now do damage with a net?


Yeah, I'd actually just Dump the full BAB bit and advancing damage bonus in favor of

Sacred Weapon Training. At 6, 12, and 18th level. Works with any weapon in the fighter weapon group the deities weapon belongs to.

This way you are encouraged to use either the deities weapon or similar. Allows for SOME variety and emphasis on a warpriest being a bit more fighter-y without the craziness of Full BAB and bonus damage.

He'd be a med BAB class with +3 to hit and damage and the ability to buff as a swift action AND sacred weapon to stack on enchantments, similar to a Magus arcane pool.

The Magus does huge burst damage via spell damage.

The war priest could do great damage via Favored Weapon Group Training and Buff Spells

Wpn Training and Warpriest levels counting as fighter levels is a less tacked on solution than a new 'full bab' mechanic and nods to the classes fighter heritage


JiCi wrote:
That's why Sacred Weapon should apply solely to the deity's favored weapon.

I see three problems with this:

1. Some favoured weapons are ranged, some melee. I'd expect a martial character to want to be at least viable with both ranged and melee.

2. Some favoured weapons are simple, not martial. Again, seems reasonable for a martial character to want (at least the equivalent of) martial weapons.

3. It doesn't leave room for e.g. racial preferences such as dwarves liking axes/hammers.

Bear in mind that simple/martial isn't just the flat weapon damage, it's also the increased effect of critical hits.


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
JiCi wrote:
That's why Sacred Weapon should apply solely to the deity's favored weapon.

I see three problems with this:

1. Some favoured weapons are ranged, some melee. I'd expect a martial character to want to be at least viable with both ranged and melee.

2. Some favoured weapons are simple, not martial. Again, seems reasonable for a martial character to want (at least the equivalent of) martial weapons.

3. It doesn't leave room for e.g. racial preferences such as dwarves liking axes/hammers.

Bear in mind that simple/martial isn't just the flat weapon damage, it's also the increased effect of critical hits.

1. And? If divine characters can use their deity's favored weapons, pretty sure they are accustomed to their use.

2. Again, and? The mace, spear, dagger, sickle and crossbow are viable.

3. You might wanna blame Paizo for not expanding racial panthéons as much as the Forgotten Realms did.

Point is, you're a divine soldier who's supposed to be an expert of his or her deity's favored weapon, regardless of what it might be.

- An Abadar warpriest should be a crossbowman.
- A Cayden Cailean warpriest should be a swashbuckler.
- An Erastil warpriest should be an archer.
- An Irori warpriest should be a monk.
- A Norgorber warpriest should be a rogue.
- A Rovagug warpriest should be a barbarian.

I used classes as general ideas here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

Point is, you're a divine soldier who's supposed to be an expert of his or her deity's favored weapon, regardless of what it might be.

- An Abadar warpriest should be a crossbowman.
- A Cayden Cailean warpriest should be a swashbuckler.
- An Erastil warpriest should be an archer.
- An Irori warpriest should be a monk.
- A Norgorber warpriest should be a rogue.
- A Rovagug warpriest should be a barbarian.

I used classes as general ideas here.

I don't agree with this sentiment - I find these niches very limiting.

There's about 800 posts worth of arguments on this topic in the previous Warpriest and Jason clearly put a lot of effort into making the Warpriest weapon-agnostic while also making all Favored Weapons viable for the class. The class still has some issues but I don't think the weapon selection is one of them.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of using the Warpriest level as BAB for attacking; I'd rather use level as BAB for qualifying for feats, and just let his buff spells make up for the lower BAB when making attacks.


JiCi wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
JiCi wrote:
That's why Sacred Weapon should apply solely to the deity's favored weapon.

I see three problems with this:

1. Some favoured weapons are ranged, some melee. I'd expect a martial character to want to be at least viable with both ranged and melee.

2. Some favoured weapons are simple, not martial. Again, seems reasonable for a martial character to want (at least the equivalent of) martial weapons.

3. It doesn't leave room for e.g. racial preferences such as dwarves liking axes/hammers.

Bear in mind that simple/martial isn't just the flat weapon damage, it's also the increased effect of critical hits.

1. And? If divine characters can use their deity's favored weapons, pretty sure they are accustomed to their use.

2. Again, and? The mace, spear, dagger, sickle and crossbow are viable.

3. You might wanna blame Paizo for not expanding racial panthéons as much as the Forgotten Realms did.

Point is, you're a divine soldier who's supposed to be an expert of his or her deity's favored weapon, regardless of what it might be.

- An Abadar warpriest should be a crossbowman.
- A Cayden Cailean warpriest should be a swashbuckler.
- An Erastil warpriest should be an archer.
- An Irori warpriest should be a monk.
- A Norgorber warpriest should be a rogue.
- A Rovagug warpriest should be a barbarian.

I used classes as general ideas here.

1) And the melee warpriest will totallysucksuck at range, and the one with a range weapon will suck at melee.

2) crossbow sucks.

3) Fortunately the class now focus in being good nstead of being limited by the favored weapon of the god.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

1. And? If divine characters can use their deity's favored weapons, pretty sure they are accustomed to their use.

2. Again, and? The mace, spear, dagger, sickle and crossbow are viable.

3. You might wanna blame Paizo for not expanding racial panthéons as much as the Forgotten Realms did.

Point is, you're a divine soldier who's supposed to be an expert of his or her deity's favored weapon, regardless of what it might be.

- An Abadar warpriest should be a crossbowman.
- A Cayden Cailean warpriest should be a swashbuckler.
- An Erastil warpriest should be an archer.
- An Irori warpriest should be a monk.
- A Norgorber warpriest should be a rogue.
- A Rovagug warpriest should be a barbarian.

I used classes as general ideas here.

Like Kudaku said, there's 50 pages of arguing about this back in the old warpriest thread, which is still available for reading.

- Many fighting styles simply Do Not Work without taking levels in an entire class built around making them work, and/or dumping lots and lots of feats and magic into making them just barely function. And several (whips, crossbows, thrown weapons) just can't be made to work at all with the material we have in the game right now, no matter how much you invest in them. Right out the gate you're giving a huge advantage to warpriests of gorum, lamashtu, shelyn, and szuriel while giving everyone else the middle finger.

- You can argue that deities with impotent weapons shouldn't have warpriests (many people in the old thread did) but this makes no sense: I can come up with reasons for just about any deity to have militant, offensive worshippers. Pharasmins who hunt undead. Desnans who fight the Umbral Court in Nidal. Black Butterfly worshippers who fight the cults of the Old Ones. You're killing off perfectly good character concepts for literally no reason.

- Most deities (especially minor deities like empyreals or demon lords) had their favored weapons basically picked out of a hat with no relation to the deity's flavor at all. Tanagaar favors the Kukri... why exactly?

- For most deities it makes no sense why they'd require the warpriest to stick to one fighting style. Why does Gorum refuse to bless you if you're not using a greatsword? The deities's Heralds completely ignore favored weapons: The herald of Abadar uses a giant gavel. It's unfortunate that "All clerics must be depicted wielding their favored weapon" seems to be an art requirement, because the idea is very silly.

- Many deities who actually have a reason to favor their particular weapon do so for non-combat purposes. Shelyn's glaive is never used in combat because it eats souls. Pharasma's skanes are used to cut the umbilical cord and many priests refuse to use them to take a life. Requiring warpriests of shelyn to run around killing people with glaives and warpriests of shelyn to run around using their skane actually goes against the established flavor of that deity.

- Finally, doing this kills many, many character concepts: Kudaku posted a really good Archer cleric of Irori concept in the old thread, one that would have been impossible to build with a warpriest if they were restricted in fighting style choice.


Azouth wrote:

"In addition, the warpriest sacred weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type."

So, if you got Weapon Focus (net). Would now do damage with a net?

Seems someone else came up with the same idea I had. Although I went through the prd to attempt to see what the rules would be for throwing a net and doing damage.

First of all, I could not find any text saying "nets do no damage" in spite of a few people asserting that there was such text. Second, a net is a thrown weapon, and this text refers to damage when throwing a weapon: "Thrown Weapons: Daggers, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, and nets are examples of thrown weapons. The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons)." Since a net is not a splash weapon, it should do damage equal to your strength modifier*. With the Warpriest's special abilities you would be doing d6+str damage with a net.

*To note a DM I know interpreted " applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt" as requiring a base damage to apply. Its a potential interpretation, but the sentence is too ambiguous to come to that conclusion.

And afterwards come some other arguments. Many of them came from a person that called me an idiot for rejecting them, because the arguments were based on interpretations, and consequences of an item intended to do no damage actually doing damage. The interpretations I'll ignore, but she did bring up some good points on the problems with a net doing damage.

Probably the biggest issue is that its one of the few weapons with no typed damage. So, what type of damage would it do: typed or untyped? A more minor issue is the lack of a critical modifier. This however is less of an issue, because you could easily play it as "nets cant crit". Many questions are raised when RAW seemingly defies itself.

After that It was mostly arguments related to Rules as Intended, what the symbol "-" means on the table (she pointed out that it means N/A or "cant do damage" while I argued that she was assuming too much and clarification is needed).

In summary, this brings up an interesting question. Two interesting questions for myself: Is RAW poorly written in a way that would allow nets to normally do damage and how would this work for the Warpriest? Hopefully these questions can be answered.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChainsawSam wrote:
teribithia9 wrote:
Captain K. wrote:

It's too powerful.

It's better than the Paladin. This ain't right.

It has 6th level spells so it will always be better than the Paladin in most ways, but don't make it better at fighting than us good guys.

A Warpriest of Iomedae is probably a better warrior than a Paladin of Iomadae. This isn't right.

It doesn't get smite.

You just can't beat smite.
You can beat it quite easily against anything that isn't evil.

The warpriest also isn't immune to fear, isn't immune to charm, isn't immune to disease and doesn't get to add charisma to all saves. The warpriest also doesn't have full BAB on any weapon he/she picks up, or d10 hit dice. My point is that just getting the fervor ability doesn't make the warpriest better than the paladin. It just makes the warpriest much better as a class. They're two different, but fairly equal classes.


Nets can't do damage unless through a very rare set of occurences you throw the net in such a way as it chokes someone/ hits a weak spot/ dislocates a joint etc etc.

Of course if a deity was favouring you they might be making sure that everytime you threw your net that these "flukes" just happened to keep occurring ;)

Silver Crusade

STR Ranger wrote:

Yeah, I'd actually just Dump the full BAB bit and advancing damage bonus in favor of

Sacred Weapon Training. At 6, 12, and 18th level. Works with any weapon in the fighter weapon group the deities weapon belongs to.

This way you are encouraged to use either the deities weapon or similar. Allows for SOME variety and emphasis on a warpriest being a bit more fighter-y without the craziness of Full BAB and bonus damage.

He'd be a med BAB class with +3 to hit and damage and the ability to buff as a swift action AND sacred weapon to stack on enchantments, similar to a Magus arcane pool.

The Magus does huge burst damage via spell damage.

The war priest could do great damage via Favored Weapon Group Training and Buff Spells

Wpn Training and Warpriest levels counting as fighter levels is a less tacked on solution than a new 'full bab' mechanic and nods to the classes fighter heritage

That's actually pretty spot on.

301 to 350 of 847 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / Class Discussion / Revised Warpriest Discussion All Messageboards