Warpriest nerf, real?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Contributor

Ahunting wrote:
Now they are subpar divine casters who gave up domains and 9th level spells for weapon focus at first, and couple bonus feats. Not a good trade. If they are part fighter make'em fight like a real martial class.

Except domains are more caster oriented while blessings are combat oriented.

Sit down and read the blessings. They're really, really good. Even the alignment domain blessings.

And also, you're forgetting about fervor, which is essentially a slower-progressing lay on hands coupled with the ability to quicken your buffs when you need them fast.

The warpriest is very, very good.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
Ahunting wrote:
Now they are subpar divine casters who gave up domains and 9th level spells for weapon focus at first, and couple bonus feats. Not a good trade. If they are part fighter make'em fight like a real martial class.

Except domains are more caster oriented while blessings are combat oriented.

Sit down and read the blessings. They're really, really good. Even the alignment domain blessings.

And also, you're forgetting about fervor, which is essentially a slower-progressing lay on hands coupled with the ability to quicken your buffs when you need them fast.

The warpriest is very, very good.

The only blessings I saw which weren't worse than dirt at 1 were trickery and liberation. All the others were garbage. The high level blessings are basically either garbage or "Free summons". That's literally all they are. I'd rather they remove blessings all together and give me full BAB.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Ahunting wrote:
Now they are subpar divine casters who gave up domains and 9th level spells for weapon focus at first, and couple bonus feats. Not a good trade. If they are part fighter make'em fight like a real martial class.

Except domains are more caster oriented while blessings are combat oriented.

Sit down and read the blessings. They're really, really good. Even the alignment domain blessings.

And also, you're forgetting about fervor, which is essentially a slower-progressing lay on hands coupled with the ability to quicken your buffs when you need them fast.

The warpriest is very, very good.

Which blessings are we talking about here?

Liberation Domain, Destruction domain, Animal Domain, Strength domain, and the plant domain and all their subdomains are very combat oriented. Not to mention things like the anger inquisition.

The domains have many combat applications on top of granting you extra spells. Blessings are just bad for the most part.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
Ahunting wrote:
Now they are subpar divine casters who gave up domains and 9th level spells for weapon focus at first, and couple bonus feats. Not a good trade. If they are part fighter make'em fight like a real martial class.

Except domains are more caster oriented while blessings are combat oriented.

Sit down and read the blessings. They're really, really good. Even the alignment domain blessings.

And also, you're forgetting about fervor, which is essentially a slower-progressing lay on hands coupled with the ability to quicken your buffs when you need them fast.

The warpriest is very, very good.

Unfortunately, for those who are either too poor or too lazy to buy the product, we are forced with waiting for the D20 site to copy-paste the stuff, or for them to finally put the info on the SRD. Both of which aren't going to be happening any time soon, if at all.

I've read the playtest blessings though, and I'm going to have to agree with Undone and Chaotic Fighter: The Blessings are garbage. I mean come on, the only time I might have use of the minor Healing Blessing is if I commit to being a group healer. Why the hell would I take that blessing if for the 1st 10 levels I'll never have the spell slots or utility of being a healer, when I'm supposed to be a Warpriest, not a Combat Medic. Also, Fervor does the same exact thing that you want, except for other, more important spells! Crap on a stick, that's what it is.

There are only maybe a couple of blessings that are decent at best, and those are extremely restrictive given the rule of "You must worship a Deity because you're a wimp who doesn't have power that comes from oneself," which throws PFS Warpriests under the bus. And good luck having a homebrew GM let you cherrypick the blessings you want that are anything decent, since he probably follows that same philosophy.

They're better off letting you get access to a single domain instead of the blessings, since the powers from the Domains are 50 times better than anything you can get from a blessing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There's a few cool things you can do with blessings but a lot of them sound gimmicky or unintended like the repose thing.


The playtest blessing were indeed lackluster, but they were improved markedly in the final product. While I still think some blessings are underwhelming (Fire, Death, Community, Healing and Rune all spring to mind) and I'd prefer to have the option to take domains or inquisitions, there are some quite good blessings (Artifice, Destruction, Liberation etc) and a few are downright broken (Repose).


I don't see why they didn't make an archetype or have an option of choosing domains or inquisitions instead...


Scavion wrote:
I don't see why they didn't make an archetype or have an option of choosing domains or inquisitions instead...

I would take that archetype in a heartbeat 100% of the time.


Let me have the travel domain and the animal domain. I'm sold. Love it. Done. Archetype swaps blessings for domains. Done deal. Winning. See you later. We'll take it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I have a huge problem with how sacred weapon works but I would just have liked it to grant extra damage and not full bab (instead of changing the weapon damage).
As for blessings I find Protection decent and the allignment blessings workable (Good is naturally nice because most of the opponents in game will usually be evil), healing blessing is good but I personally would not want to play the class to heal well (I would play a cleric instead... and I do). Hironically I find the WAR blessing terrible... warpriest indeed! :P


Squiggit wrote:
There's a few cool things you can do with blessings but a lot of them sound gimmicky or unintended like the repose thing.

I don't even know what it does that's so broken. A citation for context may be helpful...


Apparently you can take Quicken Blessing to make two touch attacks and cause an enemy to fall asleep in one round.


Rogar Valertis wrote:

I have a huge problem with how sacred weapon works but I would just have liked it to grant extra damage and not full bab (instead of changing the weapon damage).

As for blessings I find Protection decent and the allignment blessings workable (Good is naturally nice because most of the opponents in game will usually be evil), healing blessing is good but I personally would not want to play the class to heal well (I would play a cleric instead... and I do). Hironically I find the WAR blessing terrible... warpriest indeed! :P

If it just added damage, unless it was set damage like +X (weapon training like), it wouldn't count for crits like it does currently.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
There's a few cool things you can do with blessings but a lot of them sound gimmicky or unintended like the repose thing.
I don't even know what it does that's so broken. A citation for context may be helpful...

Respite gives you a standard action touch attack that automatically staggers the target if you hit. If the target is already staggered, he falls asleep.

There is a feat that lets you speed up a blessing from a standard action to a swift action if you burn two uses of the blessing.

Swift action bless for the touch attack, staggering your opponent - then use the blessing with a standard action and touch attack your opponent again, making him fall asleep. All without granting a save, you just have to hit the touch AC twice.

Sovereign Court

Long story short, yes. Warpriests lost full BAB. WIS -> CHA for Fervor is a welcome change. A few of the feats are decent, many are ho hum. The new spells are meh. Paizo basically hates Clerics.


Ah, I remember that one. I don't think they changed it from the playtest version at all.

It can be powerful, but when you run into creatures who are immune to mind-affecting effects and the like, it's not as strong as you'd like it. Commonly put, Dragons, Undead, Constructs, Outsiders, some of the most common endgame enemies, won't be bothered by being put to sleep, simply because they can't.

Additionally, even if they don't possess that quickened power, a Ring of Ferocious Action can help negate that penalty quite easily, and for a mere 3,000 gold too. (Everybody should invest in it. 5/day to bypass the Staggered condition from your person for 1 round is a strong, cheap counter to this strategy.)

Also, I doubt people can just snatch that blessing willy-nilly, as I don't think that blessing is shared by a lot of deities, if any, making it a super-niche option that can be either encounter ending or utterly pointless.


Unlike other blessings like Charm and Glory, Repose doesn't have a note that it's mind-affecting, and specifically states that it's even more effective against undead (normally immune to mind-affecting effects), so I'd personally rule that the Repose power would work on dragons and outsiders. That might be a table variation situation though.

The Ring of Ferocious Action would solve the problem, but I'm guessing most bestiary/AP/PFS modules don't take it into account.

The repose blessing is exclusively available to Pharasma - a fairly major deity, though not the goddess I would expect to have tons of war priests running around.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For the sake of people in this thread who don't have access to the blessings:

Air - unchanged, but looks fairly solid to me to begin with. Point Blank Master seems good for a level 1 ability, and fly with upside seems like an ability I'd use a lot.

Animal - Also unchanged.

Artifice - Crafter's Wrath now ignores DR or hardness when attacking constructs or objects. Transfer Magic appears unchanged.

Chaos - Anarchic Strike is no longer limited to melee weapons. Battle Companion is unchanged, but Summon Monster is considered to be one of the strongest spells in the game, and you can summon as a standard action, without dismissing your best class feature like a Summoner.

Charm - Unchanged.

Community - Communal Aid is unchanged. Arrow Deflection was entirely replaced by Fight as One, which was previewed on the blog. And awesome.

Darkness - Enshrouding Darkness is unchanged, but still concealment against anything without blindsight. Darkened Vision went from a melee touch attack to one target within 30' (Will negates).

Death - Unchanged.

Destruction - Destructive Attacks was clarified such that it only functions on weapon damage rolls, but otherwise unchanged. Notably, Heart of Carnage does not specify it doesn't stack with Critical Focus or fortification armor.

Earth - Acid Strike is no longer limited to melee weapons. Armor of Earth no longer stacks with other DR/-, but increases by 1 for every 2 warpriest levels (capped at DR 5/- at 18th).

Evil - See Chaos, replacing Anarchic Strike with Unholy Strike.

Fire - Fire Strike is no longer limited to melee weapons. Armor of Flames is unchanged.

Glory - Unchanged.

Good - See Chaos, replacing Anarchic Strike with Holy Strike.

Healing - Selfish Healer has been replaced by Powerful Healing, which allows you to swift action Empower any cure spell you cast. Fast Healing is unchanged.

Knowledge - Lore Keeper is unchanged. Monster Lore is now a swift action, but now can be triggered through use of Lore Keeper.

Law - See Chaos, replacing Anarchic Strike with Axiomatic Strike.

Liberation - Unchanged.

Luck - Unlucky Presence has been replaced with Lucky Presence, which allows an ally to roll the d20 twice and take the better result on any 1 ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check. The blessing lasts until used. Unlucky Enemy remains unchanged.

Madness - Unchanged.

Magic - Also unchanged.

Nobility - Inspiring Word only affects one of attack rolls, ability checks, saving throws, or skill checks (warpriest's choice) but now lasts 1 minute instead of 1/2 warpriest level rounds. Lead by Example is unchanged.

Plant - the unnamed minor blessing is now Creeping Vines. Battle Companion is Battle Companion (and therefore unchanged).

Protection - Increased Defense now scales every 10 levels instead of every 5, but is now a sacred bonus to both AC and saving throws. Aura of Protection no longer grants a deflection bonus to AC, but the energy resistance to acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic damage is doubled.

Repose - Unchanged.

Rune - Unchanged.

Strength - Strength Surge is unchanged. Strength of Will has been clarified to allow you to add STR to saves against effects that would entangle, paralyze, or stagger you.

Sun - Blinding Strike appears to no longer be a melee touch attack, but I can't find a range. Bane of Undead has been changed to Cleansing Fire, and can add either flaming or undead bane to the weapon - both if you expend two uses of your blessings ability.

Travel - Agile Feet now specifies it even counters difficult terrain created by magical effects, and Dimensional Hop now lets you teleport in 20' increments. Additionally, each ally you bring with you only costs 1 use of blessing, regardless of distance traveled.

Trickery - Copycat has been renamed Double, but otherwise unchanged.

War - Unchanged. Again, note that Battle Lust does not specify it doesn't stack with Critical Focus or other similar effects.

Water - See Fire, replace Fire Strike with Ice Strike and Armor of Fire with Armor of Ice.

Weather - See Fire, replace Fire Strike with Storm Strike and Armor of Fire with Wind Barrier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
Long story short, yes. Warpriests lost full BAB. WIS -> CHA for Fervor is a welcome change. A few of the feats are decent, many are ho hum. The new spells are meh. Paizo basically hates Clerics.

Nah, they like powering up Clerics. That's why they have a full spellcasting progression, and with each splatbook, they've gotten more and more powerful, with expanded spell options, a few niche (though fairly useful) feats, and other goodies. It's anything that's martial-related that gets the shaft.

In this case, because the Fighter is involved, Paizo says "Well, we can't make it too strong, otherwise it won't be the gimpy Fighter everyone hates and knows that it sucks, and it might make players think we're starting to change our vision. We also still think the Fighter is perfectly fine the way it is, and if we make the Warpriest somehow better than the Fighter (even though the math says everything is better than the Fighter), we'll go against our vision that is completely right and stuff."

And so, Pseudo-BAB goes bye-bye (because the pseudo-BAB Warpriests got is essentially all that BAB is really needed and used for anyway). Even if the character is less MAD, 3/4 BAB means you might as well not even bother going up and hitting things, or staying in the back and shooting things unless it's touch AC.

**EDIT**

+1 to Sevus for clarifying changes from 2nd Playtest to Official Published Copy; helps rate the power balance. Some have improved, others (like Healing Blessing) actually got worse than their counterparts(, since you can't Fervor the Cure spell and Empower it in the same round); overall, about the same level of strength across the board, so no changes.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
Long story short, yes. Warpriests lost full BAB. WIS -> CHA for Fervor is a welcome change. A few of the feats are decent, many are ho hum. The new spells are meh. Paizo basically hates Clerics.

Nah, they like powering up Clerics. That's why they have a full spellcasting progression, and with each splatbook, they've gotten more and more powerful, with expanded spell options, a few niche (though fairly useful) feats, and other goodies. It's anything that's martial-related that gets the shaft.

In this case, because the Fighter is involved, Paizo says "Well, we can't make it too strong, otherwise it won't be the gimpy Fighter everyone hates and knows that it sucks, and it might make players think we're starting to change our vision. We also still think the Fighter is perfectly fine the way it is, and if we make the Warpriest somehow better than the Fighter (even though the math says everything is better than the Fighter), we'll go against our vision that is completely right and stuff."

And so, Pseudo-BAB goes bye-bye (because the pseudo-BAB Warpriests got is essentially all that BAB is really needed and used for anyway). Even if the character is less MAD, 3/4 BAB means you might as well not even bother going up and hitting things, or staying in the back and shooting things unless it's touch AC.

Rouge.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
3/4 BAB means you might as well not even bother going up and hitting things, or staying in the back and shooting things unless it's touch AC.

Magi, alchemist, bards, inquisitors, druids, battle clerics, synthesist summon, ect.

In my experience 3/4 BAB classes tend to be better at hitting things than the fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chaotic Fighter wrote:
Rouge.

*smirks*


Kudaku wrote:

Unlike other blessings like Charm and Glory, Repose doesn't have a note that it's mind-affecting, and specifically states that it's even more effective against undead (normally immune to mind-affecting effects), so I'd personally rule that the Repose power would work on dragons and outsiders. That might be a table variation situation though.

The Ring of Ferocious Action would solve the problem, but I'm guessing most bestiary/AP/PFS modules don't take it into account.

The repose blessing is exclusively available to Pharasma - a fairly major deity, though not the goddess I would expect to have tons of war priests running around.

I believe the Undead Bloodline power for Sorcerers is the only other effect that allows mind-affecting effects to work against Undead creatures, and I find the Repose Blessing would fall under that level of strength in that regard.

Given the level of editing on the book, which has declined extremely in comparison to the other publishings, I think it not stating "this is a mind-affecting effect" is a publishing/errata error that needs to be addressed on a thread here. Creatures like Dragons and Constructs simply don't sleep, so they would still remain unaffected.

Given that the Ring of Ferocious Action is a UE-specific Ring, it's no shock that it's not in any APs. That being said, Paizo APs are built around 15 point buy characters, and PFS Scenario power levels are a complete joke anyway, so it's not shocking that it's a practically unheard of item.

Precisely my point; it's very exclusive, so good luck trying to justify it in PFS, given the "You can't do cool things unless you mooch off of some super powerful dude" rule regarding divine casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chaotic Fighter wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
Long story short, yes. Warpriests lost full BAB. WIS -> CHA for Fervor is a welcome change. A few of the feats are decent, many are ho hum. The new spells are meh. Paizo basically hates Clerics.

Nah, they like powering up Clerics. That's why they have a full spellcasting progression, and with each splatbook, they've gotten more and more powerful, with expanded spell options, a few niche (though fairly useful) feats, and other goodies. It's anything that's martial-related that gets the shaft.

In this case, because the Fighter is involved, Paizo says "Well, we can't make it too strong, otherwise it won't be the gimpy Fighter everyone hates and knows that it sucks, and it might make players think we're starting to change our vision. We also still think the Fighter is perfectly fine the way it is, and if we make the Warpriest somehow better than the Fighter (even though the math says everything is better than the Fighter), we'll go against our vision that is completely right and stuff."

And so, Pseudo-BAB goes bye-bye (because the pseudo-BAB Warpriests got is essentially all that BAB is really needed and used for anyway). Even if the character is less MAD, 3/4 BAB means you might as well not even bother going up and hitting things, or staying in the back and shooting things unless it's touch AC.

Rouge.

I suppose a French-titled color would be worse than a Fighter...it'd be racist to say the least...


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Chaotic Fighter wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
Long story short, yes. Warpriests lost full BAB. WIS -> CHA for Fervor is a welcome change. A few of the feats are decent, many are ho hum. The new spells are meh. Paizo basically hates Clerics.

Nah, they like powering up Clerics. That's why they have a full spellcasting progression, and with each splatbook, they've gotten more and more powerful, with expanded spell options, a few niche (though fairly useful) feats, and other goodies. It's anything that's martial-related that gets the shaft.

In this case, because the Fighter is involved, Paizo says "Well, we can't make it too strong, otherwise it won't be the gimpy Fighter everyone hates and knows that it sucks, and it might make players think we're starting to change our vision. We also still think the Fighter is perfectly fine the way it is, and if we make the Warpriest somehow better than the Fighter (even though the math says everything is better than the Fighter), we'll go against our vision that is completely right and stuff."

And so, Pseudo-BAB goes bye-bye (because the pseudo-BAB Warpriests got is essentially all that BAB is really needed and used for anyway). Even if the character is less MAD, 3/4 BAB means you might as well not even bother going up and hitting things, or staying in the back and shooting things unless it's touch AC.

Rouge.
I suppose a French-titled color would be worse than a Fighter...it'd be racist to say the least...

Curse this terrible piece of technology I call a phone... Rogue...


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
(...)Given the level of editing on the book, which has declined extremely in comparison to the other publishings, I think it not stating "this is a mind-affecting effect" is a publishing/errata error that needs to be addressed on a thread here.(...)

While I agree with you that the book could have benefited from another round of editing I doubt that the mind-affecting effect is an ommission here, since that would make the ability useless against undead - which are fairly high on Pharasma's priority list of targets. You might still want to make a FAQ thread in Rules Questions though?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
(...)Creatures like Dragons and Constructs simply don't sleep, so they would still remain unaffected.(...)

Undead don't sleep either and have the same language as dragons and constructs, but near as I can tell they are still very much affected by this ability. Personally I see the blessing's effect less as "sleep" and more as the literal definition of repose (lay at rest), that way the power's interaction with creatures that do not normally sleep makes more sense to me. Like I said though, YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
3/4 BAB means you might as well not even bother going up and hitting things, or staying in the back and shooting things unless it's touch AC.

Magi, alchemist, bards, inquisitors, druids, battle clerics, synthesist summon, ect.

In my experience 3/4 BAB classes tend to be better at hitting things than the fighter.

Magi have Arcanas that allow them to add Intelligence to attack rolls, target touch AC, and spells which increase their to-hit (Shocking Grasp, for example). One exception of many.

Alchemists have bombs that target touch AC. They also get Mutagens and such which skyrocket their scores nearly as high as a Barbarian, plus some other crazy goodies, though they're still a tad behind because 3/4 BAB.

Bards require specific archetypes that sacrifice group utility and party buffs to be melee competent, a sacrifice most players will say is not worth it to do, and would probably say you should instead play a Barbarian or Paladin for that. (I share those sentiments, by the way.) I'm not saying Bards can't get into the thick of things; I've made a Bard who can, whom has the survivability and defenses to remain nearly unscathed, force enemies to focus him instead of others, and can contribute to combat somewhat effectively. But he doesn't deal direct damage to the enemy like typical martials do, and if that's what you're asking, enjoy not granting your melee types Inspire Courage or some other neat bonuses, since you decided to be greedy!

Inquisitors have Bane, plus Judgements and Litanies which increase hit and damage; the scale on those keep them in line with the other typical martials.

Battle Clerics are iffy. With 3/4 BAB, their buffs make them only as strong as a typical Fighter (which isn't particularly strong). Most competent martials will outshine them; the only reason they're so strong is because they still retain full spellcasting, and that's the most powerful thing in Pathfinder ever.

Synthesist Summoner seems to have too much hype, but it's just a min-maxers wet dream. You can max out the Summoner's mental stats and dump the physical stats because they're replaced by the Eidolon's physical stats, and vice versa, when it comes to combat anyways. You throw it in the hands of a casual player, they're gonna go "WTF?" Throw it in the hands of a min-maxer, they're gonna go "GG EZ."


Kudaku wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
(...)Given the level of editing on the book, which has declined extremely in comparison to the other publishings, I think it not stating "this is a mind-affecting effect" is a publishing/errata error that needs to be addressed on a thread here.(...)

While I agree with you that the book could have benefited from another round of editing I doubt that the mind-affecting effect is an ommission here, since that would make the ability useless against undead - which are fairly high on Pharasma's priority list of targets. You might still want to make a FAQ thread in Rules Questions though?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
(...)Creatures like Dragons and Constructs simply don't sleep, so they would still remain unaffected.(...)
Undead don't sleep either and have the same language as dragons and constructs, but near as I can tell they are still very much affected by this ability. Personally I see the blessing's effect less as "sleep" and more as the literal definition of repose (lay at rest), that way the power's interaction with creatures that do not normally sleep makes more sense to me. Like I said though, YMMV.

It would not; it provides a specific written exception to Undead, the same as how the Undead Sorcerer Bloodline provides an exception for Mind-Affecting Effect spells they cast to affect Undead as well. That's it.

And I'm not sure how the heck it could equally apply to Dragons and Constructs in comparison; the former is a mythical creature of immortality, the latter an artificial creation that does not function on the scale of life and death like natural beings do. Undead, on the other hand, are creatures who were once alive but are brought back from their "repose" for whatever nefarious reasons.

Even if the language regarding their immunity is similar, the intent for Repose to affect the subject creatures in comparison is a complete joke in terms of RAI, and doesn't hold ground in RAW since it doesn't mention them specifically like it does with Undead, and the subjects in question are immune to sleep anyway, meaning even if they were hit with it twice, they wouldn't be affected.

But if you really think it's FAQ worthy, we can open a thread; I'll gladly discuss it...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
LazarX wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
That seems to be the general consensus from what I can tell, (I agree).

When you have a range of highly discordant opinions, you don't have a consensus. What you are focusing on are the vocal disappointments from folks who found their DPR Champion had been brought back down in line.

The class succeeds in what it's meant to do... be a midway fighter/cleric mashup. When I played the play test version of the character, I never realized that the Sacred Weapon gave full BAB advancement, so I've already had practise playing the character this way through several PFS scenarios. Did I dominate play? No... but I pulled my weight, and that is my definition of viable.

I've not yet heard a single person present a single reason to play a WP for any reason but flavor.

You're going to find that I'm not only one of those weird buckets who consider flavor not only important, but the biggest make it or deal breaker aspect of a character build. But I also recognize that that's me and not someone else. And that's okay. Not every class, not every option is going to be the go to for everyone. And that's also okay.

Undone wrote:


Damage - Inferior to Cleric, Inquisitor, and paladin.
Saves - Average for divine
Base stats - Weaker than Cleric. Equal to Inquisitor, and Paladin.
Spell list - Equal to cleric, Inferior to Inquisitor, and paladin.
Class Features - Inferior to Paladin, Cleric and Inquisitor.

There is nothing it excels at. It's not even middle of the road all around. If the bard is the jack of all trades this is the 2 of all trades. It's bad at everything.

You really aren't getting the value of the Sacred Weapon and armor buffs. They may be of shorter duration, but they can be applied a single SWIFT action, as opposed to the standard action required of the Magus, Paladin divine weapon bond buffs, in fact all other weapon boosters of this kind. It's a frontline meleer that brings support as well as combat.


Warpriests are fine.

Even before the release I ran some numbers and found the cleric just barely inched out ahead with two rounds of buffing purely because of higher level spells.

However Warpriests won the action economy game by a lot. And this was with Fervor based on charisma. So I don't doubt I can get decent numbers without needing charisma that much.


LazarX wrote:
Undone wrote:
LazarX wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
That seems to be the general consensus from what I can tell, (I agree).

When you have a range of highly discordant opinions, you don't have a consensus. What you are focusing on are the vocal disappointments from folks who found their DPR Champion had been brought back down in line.

The class succeeds in what it's meant to do... be a midway fighter/cleric mashup. When I played the play test version of the character, I never realized that the Sacred Weapon gave full BAB advancement, so I've already had practise playing the character this way through several PFS scenarios. Did I dominate play? No... but I pulled my weight, and that is my definition of viable.

I've not yet heard a single person present a single reason to play a WP for any reason but flavor.

You're going to find that I'm not only one of those weird buckets who consider flavor not only important, but the biggest make it or deal breaker aspect of a character build. But I also recognize that that's me and not someone else. And that's okay. Not every class, not every option is going to be the go to for everyone. And that's also okay.

Undone wrote:


Damage - Inferior to Cleric, Inquisitor, and paladin.
Saves - Average for divine
Base stats - Weaker than Cleric. Equal to Inquisitor, and Paladin.
Spell list - Equal to cleric, Inferior to Inquisitor, and paladin.
Class Features - Inferior to Paladin, Cleric and Inquisitor.

There is nothing it excels at. It's not even middle of the road all around. If the bard is the jack of all trades this is the 2 of all trades. It's bad at everything.

You really aren't getting the value of the Sacred Weapon and armor buffs. They may be of shorter duration, but they can be applied a single SWIFT action, as opposed to the standard action required of the Magus, Paladin divine weapon bond buffs, in fact all other weapon boosters of this kind. It's a frontline meleer that brings support as well as combat.

What is quicken spell for 500? Long Duration buffs like eagle soul for 1000?

I totally understand the swift action buffs. They're inferior to higher spell level access.

Sacred weapon gains are largely pointless for breaking DR since grey flame and similar absurd enchantments exist along side great long duration spells.

It doesn't bring much support. Your spells are mostly dedicated to making yourself not suck for one or two combats.

As for swift action buffs you realize the WP is swift action gated right? You only get 1 or 2 of those buffs at any given time. The armor and weapon buffs are very very weak and short duration buffs. a +2 weapon enhancement which consumes your swift every round is a waste of actions. It's only mildly useful at bypassing DR.


Flavor is very important to me, personally. My favorite class is the fighter. I don't care how many people claim the fighter isn't up to snuff in terms of performance, it's still my favorite class to play.

But flavor needs to be reflected in mechanics to a certain degree. And bab is a big part of the flavor for me. To me, a class having full bab says, from a flavor standpoint, that this class is supposed to be at the peak of martial training in terms of skill, technique, and reflexes.

Is that always reflected in practice? No, it isn't. But it's a big part of the flavor that the classes with full bab - barbarian, bloodrager, brawler, cavalier, fighter, gunslinger, paladin, ranger, and slayer - that they're at the top of the heap when it comes to martial skill.

To me, from a flavor standpoint, that was a large part of the attraction for the warpriest. I've wanted a divine warrior type class, like the paladin, that's on the full bab tract -representing that they're on that tier of martial fighters - that wasn't bound by a paladin or anti-paladin's alignment restriction. That's the flavor I wanted. A class that could fill the fluff-niche of a paladin without being lawful good or chaotic evil.

That's what I wanted. That concept more than any other is what sold me on the Advanced Class Guide at all. The fact that it is gone means this is just one purchase I'm just not going to make.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with FormerFiend in that regard (though I did buy it and don't regret it).

From a purely flavor standpoint (and a mechanical standpoint) the idea that the supposedly martial focused warpriest has the same amount of innate martial expertise (BAB) as the dedicated priest class is a bit disconcerting.

It makes him even harder to differentiate from the Inquisitor and Cleric too in that regard.


Squiggit wrote:

I agree with FormerFiend in that regard (though I did buy it and don't regret it).

From a purely flavor standpoint (and a mechanical standpoint) the idea that the supposedly martial focused warpriest has the same amount of innate martial expertise (BAB) as the dedicated priest class is a bit disconcerting.

It makes him even harder to differentiate from the Inquisitor and Cleric too in that regard.

Honestly the problem is the cleric more than anything...

The cleric makes things hard because, with so many good things, how do you make something better than the cleric in a field without breaking the class? The class is already a melee monster.. so how do you make a class that is better at melee while not completely invalidating other Martials? Especially the Paladin....

See with arcana it's easy because full caster arcane are pretty poor at melee (short of transmutation shenanigans) so a gosh is easy to do without feeling invalidating that parent halves. The cleric though , with its d8 HD, 2 good saves, full casting, AND armour, AND BAB, makes it hard to do anything unique because he is Dan near good at everything. The inquisitive managed to get by because he did the ONLY thing clerics are not good at... skills. Warpriests though are getting pushed out because the cleric was just too good to begin with.. Honestly clerics should have been clothies...


K177Y C47 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I agree with FormerFiend in that regard (though I did buy it and don't regret it).

From a purely flavor standpoint (and a mechanical standpoint) the idea that the supposedly martial focused warpriest has the same amount of innate martial expertise (BAB) as the dedicated priest class is a bit disconcerting.

It makes him even harder to differentiate from the Inquisitor and Cleric too in that regard.

Honestly the problem is the cleric more than anything...

The cleric makes things hard because, with so many good things, how do you make something better than the cleric in a field without breaking the class? The class is already a melee monster.. so how do you make a class that is better at melee while not completely invalidating other Martials? Especially the Paladin.....

I honestly don't see a full bab warpriest as invalidating the cleric or the paladin. I see it maybe invalidating melee clerics, maybe - I'm not about to crunch any numbers on that - but that honestly seems to be the intended goal of the class, to be the melee cleric.

As for paladin, I see it as being a viable alternative to paladin, not something that would completely overshadow it.

In any event, I've already given my two cents on this; I'm house-ruling that the bab feature from the playtest remain a part of the class, and others in my group are on board with that. What anyone else does is their own business.


FormerFiend wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I agree with FormerFiend in that regard (though I did buy it and don't regret it).

From a purely flavor standpoint (and a mechanical standpoint) the idea that the supposedly martial focused warpriest has the same amount of innate martial expertise (BAB) as the dedicated priest class is a bit disconcerting.

It makes him even harder to differentiate from the Inquisitor and Cleric too in that regard.

Honestly the problem is the cleric more than anything...

The cleric makes things hard because, with so many good things, how do you make something better than the cleric in a field without breaking the class? The class is already a melee monster.. so how do you make a class that is better at melee while not completely invalidating other Martials? Especially the Paladin.....

I honestly don't see a full bab warpriest as invalidating the cleric or the paladin. I see it maybe invalidating melee clerics, maybe - I'm not about to crunch any numbers on that - but that honestly seems to be the intended goal of the class, to be the melee cleric.

As for paladin, I see it as being a viable alternative to paladin, not something that would completely overshadow it.

In any event, I've already given my two cents on this; I'm house-ruling that the bab feature from the playtest remain a part of the class, and others in my group are on board with that. What anyone else does is their own business.

If a War priest had full BAB he would have:

the same BAB as a Paladin...
The ability to enchant their season faster than a pally
Shift action casting
Better spells
And the ability to ramp up their weapons dice damage...

Oh and they have no alignment reductions AND they don't have to worry about falling... they can also gain CHA to saves with a single feat...

The only thing that would separate the war priest from the pally is his smite. While good, I feel that the war priest would pretty much take over the pally...


K177Y C47 wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I agree with FormerFiend in that regard (though I did buy it and don't regret it).

From a purely flavor standpoint (and a mechanical standpoint) the idea that the supposedly martial focused warpriest has the same amount of innate martial expertise (BAB) as the dedicated priest class is a bit disconcerting.

It makes him even harder to differentiate from the Inquisitor and Cleric too in that regard.

Honestly the problem is the cleric more than anything...

The cleric makes things hard because, with so many good things, how do you make something better than the cleric in a field without breaking the class? The class is already a melee monster.. so how do you make a class that is better at melee while not completely invalidating other Martials? Especially the Paladin.....

I honestly don't see a full bab warpriest as invalidating the cleric or the paladin. I see it maybe invalidating melee clerics, maybe - I'm not about to crunch any numbers on that - but that honestly seems to be the intended goal of the class, to be the melee cleric.

As for paladin, I see it as being a viable alternative to paladin, not something that would completely overshadow it.

In any event, I've already given my two cents on this; I'm house-ruling that the bab feature from the playtest remain a part of the class, and others in my group are on board with that. What anyone else does is their own business.

If a War priest had full BAB he would have:

the same BAB as a Paladin...
The ability to enchant their season faster than a pally
Shift action casting
Better spells
And the ability to ramp up their weapons dice damage...

Oh and they have no alignment reductions AND they don't have to worry about falling... they can also gain CHA to saves with a single feat...

The only thing that would separate the war priest from the pally is his smite. While good, I feel that the war priest would pretty much take over the pally...

I wasn't aware of the char-save feat. That does alter my view a bit.

At the same time though, I'd probably just start playing the world's smallest violin for the paladin.


FormerFiend wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I agree with FormerFiend in that regard (though I did buy it and don't regret it).

From a purely flavor standpoint (and a mechanical standpoint) the idea that the supposedly martial focused warpriest has the same amount of innate martial expertise (BAB) as the dedicated priest class is a bit disconcerting.

It makes him even harder to differentiate from the Inquisitor and Cleric too in that regard.

Honestly the problem is the cleric more than anything...

The cleric makes things hard because, with so many good things, how do you make something better than the cleric in a field without breaking the class? The class is already a melee monster.. so how do you make a class that is better at melee while not completely invalidating other Martials? Especially the Paladin.....

I honestly don't see a full bab warpriest as invalidating the cleric or the paladin. I see it maybe invalidating melee clerics, maybe - I'm not about to crunch any numbers on that - but that honestly seems to be the intended goal of the class, to be the melee cleric.

As for paladin, I see it as being a viable alternative to paladin, not something that would completely overshadow it.

In any event, I've already given my two cents on this; I'm house-ruling that the bab feature from the playtest remain a part of the class, and others in my group are on board with that. What anyone else does is their own business.

If a War priest had full BAB he would have:

the same BAB as a Paladin...
The ability to enchant their season faster than a pally
Shift action casting
Better spells
And the ability to ramp up their weapons dice damage...

Oh and they have no alignment reductions AND they don't have to worry about falling... they can also gain CHA to saves with a single feat...

The only thing that would separate the war priest from the pally is his smite. While good, I feel that the war priest would pretty

...

In the hands of a warpriest the violin deals as much damage as the paladin's greatsword.


In the hands of a Warpriest, you can throw darts that deal the damage of a Greatsword.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, what do you think, guys? If they just swapped out the Warpriest's spell list, entirely, for the Inquisitor spell list, would it solve some of the problems?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That one spell that causes you to deal double damage when you have an aura of good is probably enough by itself.


One thing I don't like about the Warpriest is that his weapon buffing ability sucks in comparison to the Inquisitor and Magus. Both of those classes have abilities that buff their weapons (Judgement & Arcane Pool). Each of these buffs are pretty long lasting, and fairly quickly you can expect to have them up for several fights a day.

Warpriest can only use their class-granted weapon buff for 1 round per day per level. 1 round. That's just weak.


You're right about the Arcane pool for the Magus, but to be fair, they probably have the best weapon buffing ability out of every class in the game.

It's not really fair to compare Sacred Weapon to Judgment. They do vastly different things. It's better to compare Sacred Weapon to the Inquisitor's Bane, which is much more similar both in damage increasing output and duration.


Lyra Amary wrote:

You're right about the Arcane pool for the Magus, but to be fair, they probably have the best weapon buffing ability out of every class in the game.

It's not really fair to compare Sacred Weapon to Judgment. They do vastly different things. It's better to compare Sacred Weapon to the Inquisitor's Bane, which is much more similar both in damage increasing output and duration.

Except bane comes online at level five and most campaigns are over before sacred weapon is at the 2d6 level. Plus sacred weapon is just the 2d6 while bane is that on top of weapon base damage. And comes with the free +2 attached. Also extend bane exists but there is no extend sacred weapon.


Torbyne wrote:
Lyra Amary wrote:

You're right about the Arcane pool for the Magus, but to be fair, they probably have the best weapon buffing ability out of every class in the game.

It's not really fair to compare Sacred Weapon to Judgment. They do vastly different things. It's better to compare Sacred Weapon to the Inquisitor's Bane, which is much more similar both in damage increasing output and duration.

Except bane comes online at level five and most campaigns are over before sacred weapon is at the 2d6 level. Plus sacred weapon is just the 2d6 while bane is that on top of weapon base damage. And comes with the free +2 attached. Also extend bane exists but there is no extend sacred weapon.

The ability to enhance your sacred weapon (like bane) and the increased dice damage are separate things.


TarkXT wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Lyra Amary wrote:

You're right about the Arcane pool for the Magus, but to be fair, they probably have the best weapon buffing ability out of every class in the game.

It's not really fair to compare Sacred Weapon to Judgment. They do vastly different things. It's better to compare Sacred Weapon to the Inquisitor's Bane, which is much more similar both in damage increasing output and duration.

Except bane comes online at level five and most campaigns are over before sacred weapon is at the 2d6 level. Plus sacred weapon is just the 2d6 while bane is that on top of weapon base damage. And comes with the free +2 attached. Also extend bane exists but there is no extend sacred weapon.
The ability to enhance your sacred weapon (like bane) and the increased dice damage are separate things.

I am comparing the Inquisitor's Bane against two Warpriest features, the altered weapon die and the ability to enchant for rounds per level. That seems to me to a very favorable comparison and even then the inquisitor looks better. For a swift action the Warpriest can add a +2 to their weapon for rounds per level. For the same action the Inquisitor can add +2 plus 2D6, or a +2 to hit and an average +9 to damage for the same number of rounds. This is in addition to the base damage of the weapon which for most builds will be equal to or greater than the sacred weapon die change. With a single feat the inquisitor can jump ahead of the Warpriest for the rounds per day. There is also a magic item to grant extra rounds of bane, as far as i have seen in the book the Warpriest cant match either the baseline power or extra support given to the Warpriest.


I was only considering the active enchantment of Sacred Weapon, not its damage die increase. The weapon die increase is not useful until higher levels anyway.

What's useful about Sacred Weapon is the abilities to stick abilities on it. You can stack extra d6s on your weapon using the alignment or elemental enchantments as long as it works on the enemy. Later you can screw any enemy that relies on armor with Brilliant Energy. Obviously Sacred Weapon is much more limited in application compared to Bane simply due to its nature and weaker, I would agree. But your example was hardly doing Sacred Weapon justice. It looked like you were deliberately ignoring some of its abilities to make it sound weaker.

Now, I'm not saying the Warpriest is better than an Inquisitor, it's not. But it also does not fall short very far.


Lyra Amary wrote:

I was only considering the active enchantment of Sacred Weapon, not its damage die increase. The weapon die increase is not useful until higher levels anyway.

What's useful about Sacred Weapon is the abilities to stick abilities on it. You can stack extra d6s on your weapon using the alignment or elemental enchantments as long as it works on the enemy. Later you can screw any enemy that relies on armor with Brilliant Energy. Obviously Sacred Weapon is much more limited in application compared to Bane simply due to its nature and weaker, I would agree. But your example was hardly doing Sacred Weapon justice. It looked like you were deliberately ignoring some of its abilities to make it sound weaker.

Now, I'm not saying the Warpriest is better than an Inquisitor, it's not. But it also does not fall short very far.

The Sacred Weapon properties are very limited in what can be given, considering the list you can choose from them is crap compared to a Paladin or Magus'. At best, you can give Ghost Touch, which makes incorporeals a joke, or the ability to bypass certain DR via enhancement bonuses, but the former becomes pointless when you actually get cash to buy enhancements, and the latter is replicated quite easily via Bane, and on a much better level.

Balanced? Perhaps. But it doesn't do the Warpriest as many favors as you claim it does.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Lyra Amary wrote:

I was only considering the active enchantment of Sacred Weapon, not its damage die increase. The weapon die increase is not useful until higher levels anyway.

What's useful about Sacred Weapon is the abilities to stick abilities on it. You can stack extra d6s on your weapon using the alignment or elemental enchantments as long as it works on the enemy. Later you can screw any enemy that relies on armor with Brilliant Energy. Obviously Sacred Weapon is much more limited in application compared to Bane simply due to its nature and weaker, I would agree. But your example was hardly doing Sacred Weapon justice. It looked like you were deliberately ignoring some of its abilities to make it sound weaker.

Now, I'm not saying the Warpriest is better than an Inquisitor, it's not. But it also does not fall short very far.

The Sacred Weapon properties are very limited in what can be given, considering the list you can choose from them is crap compared to a Paladin or Magus'. At best, you can give Ghost Touch, which makes incorporeals a joke, or the ability to bypass certain DR via enhancement bonuses, but the former becomes pointless when you actually get cash to buy enhancements, and the latter is replicated quite easily via Bane, and on a much better level.

Balanced? Perhaps. But it doesn't do the Warpriest as many favors as you claim it does.

Of course, with the cash you're not spending on enhancements, you can buy things you couldn't otherwise afford.

A belt of Giant Strength +4 costs 16,000gp. So do 4 Level 2 Pearls of Power. For an average PFS scenario, you can now have the effects of that belt as a Swift action 5 times per day with one spell slot. (I'm not saying you would buy 4 Pearls of Power with that money, but you could).

And for each encounter that didn't require you to be in combat, you've now got free spell slots for other uses.

And you also have your belt slot free for something else (like a Blinkback Belt if you wanted to make a Starknife throwing Warpriest).

For me, the Warpriest represents a great degree of flexibility. You can afford to keep weapon enchantments and other buffs ready on demand and spend your resources elsewhere.

It's not perfect (and there a lot of rules ambiguities that need to be ironed out), but I don't think it's nearly as bad as people are making it out to be.


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


None of this really makes the PF Cleric or Druid anything like a Codzilla. Allow me to share a few bits of a quote from 2008 I think really sums the whole sort of online urban legend that was the codzilla.

CoDzilla is a largely mythical beast. It is known to roam the Internet and the Character Optimization boards. On occasion, a particularly careless DM may enable one to exist at a table, but this is rare.

CoDzilla feeds on splatbooks, nightsticks, and indulgent DMs.
CoDzilla is very slow-moving, taking considerable time to reach full strength and running out of energy quickly. CoDzilla can be thwarted by foes temporarily withdrawing or taking cover behind a tower shield for one minute.
<Dispel Magic>“

It makes me happy to see a six-year-old quote of mine from EnWorld brought up. Allow me to expound on it a little bit even if it is a bit of a tangent...

Some campaigns, such as Anzyr's, probably do feature a level of optimization that I usually consider to be the realm of theorycrafting. My experience for the past 14 years, in 4 cities and varying gaming environments, has been much lower-op than that. No campaign that I have played in has seen CoDzilla (nor stacks of Explosive Runes, for that matter). Not in 3.0, nor 3.5, nor PF. Is CoDzilla possible? Sure. Is it common? Incredibly NOT so, in my experience. My 3.5 Drd20 WAS the most powerful PC in his party, but not the best melee combatant. The reasons for this are myriad, but include, as noted in my EnWorld post, the prep time, the vulnerability to Dispel, and, importantly, my desire to avoid ruining the game.

I did not want to get into an arms race with the DM. I did not want to overshadow other PCs. I did not want to mine splatbooks for a class that simply did not need more power. In an actual game, these are real considerations that actual players think about. This is what I meant when I said that CoDzilla is largely mythical. Most players either don't have the optimization ability to make CoDzilla, dislike that level of optimization, or recognize the damage that can be caused to game balance and willingly refrain from wrecking things. A very few (in my estimation) campaigns have high-op-preferring DMs and players and embrace Nightstick-DMM, Venomfire Fleshrakers, and Tippyverse Traps. If that isn't the sort of game you are in, then deploying the high-op demonstrates ineptitude in the most important dimension of system mastery, which is making the game more fun for everybody.

Like 3.5, PF requires players to willingly abstain from overpowered choices. The "optimal" choice is the one that maximizes fun, not the broken combo that could ruin a game. This is an inevitable consequence of a game with so many options available. You can't patch every single broken combo, though fixes like PF's wildshape change are great. But beyond that, I try to slightly nudge the TTRPG culture, to reiterate that player restraint for the sake of the group's fun is a GOOD thing and a mark of system mastery.

Aldizog (Paizo/Giantitp) aka Brother MacLaren (EnWorld)

51 to 100 of 201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Warpriest nerf, real? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.