| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a little surprised by all the talk about the warpriest not being any good here. It is my impression that it is quite strong. Yes the lag of skills is a shame but that os a problem it shares with cleric and sorcerer and it is hardly a problem if you look at strength.
Am i misundestanding the Sound of crying in here or am i just wrong in thinking the WP a good class.
I am not talking wizard/arcanist/cleric/summoner good here, but on par with the other 6th level casters.
Now Warpriest is not the worst class by far. It's somewhere between the real 1-6 casters (Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Skald, Investigator, Alchemist, ect) and the truly bad classes (Fighter, Rogue, Swashbuckler). If I saw one in my group I wouldn't be worried about them being dead weight, but I wouldn't expect too much special awesome from them either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And we, as a community(and by we I mean you), have sunk to a new low. We have FAQ'ed the word 'but'. We are truly approaching the Idiocracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And we, as a community(and by we I mean you), have sunk to a new low. We have FAQ'ed the word 'but'. We are truly approaching the Idiocracy.
I wish I were a rapper so I could use "FAQing the 'but'" in a sweet rhyme.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I were a rapper so I could use "FAQing the 'but'" in a sweet rhyme.
We got nothin left yo
It's all used up soOur time is ending
With the time we're spending
Arguments neverending
FAQ'in the but
I'm not a rapper either D:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it would be simpler to ask what your threshold is for whether a character sucks. What's the minimum required DPR? What kind of bonuses in which skills is sufficient? What save DCs by level do you need?Good question, but allow me to rephrase it slightly:
what is your threshold for whether a class is underperforming?I would say a class is underperforming if it is consistently outperformed at the primary function(s), thematically and/or mechanically, that it's intended to do.
That's a fundamentally different question. I don't really care about the thematics of the class. I care about the theme of the character. For me, I have two requirements when I'm building a character:
Will it be fun to play (highly subjective, including disparate factors from personality and background to playstyle and mechanics)?Will it contribute effectively to a party (more objective, can be quantified by attack bonuses, damage estimates, spell DCs, etc.)?
Whether a class succeeds for me depends on how well I can achieve those two goals with it.
To use your example of the Rogue, I agree that's a bad class. I haven't found a way to make something I'd enjoy playing that doesn't suck. The Spiritualist in its current playtest form is another example. It just mechanically can't achieve what I need it to do in combat (or I'm not capable of finding the right build with it).
I've had no problem building several characters using the Warpriest chassis that can hold more than their weight in a party well into the teen levels. To be clear, I'm not looking to build something that solos encounters. And I think that's what many of the people complaining about the class are looking for.
More importantly, I've found the builds with the Warpriest are doing things no other class can do. I can squeak out more damage for a knife-throwing build with Fighter, but the Warpriest piles on healing and support capabilities that far outweigh it. I can do more damage with a bow than a sling, but the sling lets me do nonlethal damage without penalty or cost of a Feat or weapon enchantment. Which is nice since I like to avoid murderhoboing.
So back to my original question: what do you need to enjoy a character?
Does it have to meet a certain playstyle (e.g. must support TWF or have a way to pounce or allow you to self-heal)? Personally I like to mix things up each time, but I understand there are people who never play casters or hate companion classes.
What does it need to achieve in combat? Do you have a minimum DPR? Minimum attack bonus by level? Minimum number of rounds or encounters you can fight at full capacity? I try to target DPR ≅ (⅓ hp of a CR + 2 creature) on the low end without the assumption of buffs from outside parties.
Anyway, I think we're using different yardsticks to measure the class. By my reckoning, it's fine, but I'm not going to try to convince anyone else to play it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not say the warpriest sucks. I think it can do fine in a game. It has the problem of why choose the warpriest when you can choose _____ or _____ and be better off.
I am sure it has an edge somewhere, but its not really enough of an edge. I think it should have kept the full and/or had better blessings.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better Blessings... Coulda swore I heard that before! Coulda swore I heard it a lot during a certain 3 week period!
And honestly, aside from the critical feats I personally felt that counting power attack as though you had full BAB was worse because of the increased penalty to attack dragging down your already poor ability to hit. I honestly don't see any problem with this common sense ruling about how the feat/prereq issue was resolved.What about the assault feats (Dazing, stunning, exct) that basically require full BAB to have a competitive DC? There are a ton of feats which are just not reasonably able to be taken with this ruling. If you felt this way about power attack conveniently they give you a regular feat at 3 which can also be power attack.
As to the warpriest not being a top tier class...does it need to be? Should it be? There are many options in the game, just because some are weaker than others doesn't mean the developers hate it.While this is true and hate is a slightly too strong of a word the rogue and fighter are being addressed in pathfinder unchained. My question is why would the design team keep making classes which aren't as good as existing options and don't offer anything new? It's not what everyone in the playtest wanted which is exactly what it was in the first two iterations.
I don't think the developers hate monks or rogue or fighters. But each is has its problem, but that doesn't mean there is malice.Apathy about the class is almost as bad as hatred. Just not caring is almost as bad as hating it.
Not everything new needs to be a better option.No but it should be unique. The magus is a straight upgrade from the base WP unless you use archery and have a base magus. Straight upgrades shouldn't available in this game except from NPC->PC such as adept to wizard.
Actually, I was thinking of the assault feats when I wrote this, and not just the critical feats. Though I did fail to express that. Yes, those feats don't work very well you have have 3/4 BAB. Hell, they don't even work that well with full BAB, but you can always get lucky with an enemy rolling a one. Still though, the result is disappointing for warpriest.
The warpriest exists to be a more martial cleric, and in that sense I think it's decently successful. It's not as good a fighter as a full fighter, nor is it as good a cleric as a full cleric. But it does combine them both in a decent way. I think the real problem is that between fervor, swift action buffing, and full BAB the warpriest would have been clearly better than the fighter and 2/3 of a cleric. Now, removing the full BAB did hamper the warpriest, but I also don't know how I would balance it. Giving it back full BAB is a start, but you have to remove something. Except the only powerful thing the warpriest gets it swift aciton buffing through fervor. So I don't see a simple solution. Am I disappointed with the end result? A little, but I still think it accomplishes its main goal of bridging the fighter and cleric.
I also would like to say I don't think the devs have been apathetic about the fighter, rogue, or monk. But rather, those classes inherited a lot of problems from 3.5, and indeed the normal basis of the game. When the CRB was released and that's all we had they weren't so bad. The rogue still had it's niche (at least if there wasn't a bard), the fighter has always been really good at fighting but lacked things to do outside of combat, and the monk...well they mostly had MAD problems. But I think it's not the the developers are apathetic about these problems. They made changes, they tried to improve the classes. It's not as though they were untouched. But as more and more material was released they got worse and worse, but there wasn't a simple solution to the problem. I think they've spent years thinking about how to fix it, and finally arrived at the solution we all knew needed to happen. They needed to scrap those classes as written and come up with completely new ones, with the same name. And I believe that's basically whats happening with Pathfinder Unchained. They're not killing off the old class version because that would be invalidating significant portions of old amterial, but they are saying "Here is an alternative version". Except I've been doing that with other classes not named fighter, rogue, or monk and not worrying about what the name of something is.
Just because they did't know how to fix it, doesn't mean they were apathetic about it.
Boosting WP damage wouldn't have been the way to go.
-4 skill points
-useful blessings
-some additional spells to the spell list, possibly from blessings
-Warpriest feat support
-slightly better d6 scaling on Fervor.
Boosting WP damage wouldn't have been the way to go.
-4 skill points
-useful blessings
-some additional spells to the spell list, possibly from blessings
-Warpriest feat support
-slightly better d6 scaling on Fervor.
Agreed, although I don't consider the blessings useless. Just largely underwhelming.
I would not say the warpriest sucks. I think it can do fine in a game. It has the problem of why choose the warpriest when you can choose _____ or _____ and be better off.
I am sure it has an edge somewhere, but its not really enough of an edge. I think it should have kept the full and/or had better blessings.
It could have had 3 blessings (Since blessings are significantly weaker than domains) an archetype which trades blessings for domains and had a separate pool of blessings for each blessing they had.
Archetypes could fix this problem (As evidenced by the SF) but we'll have to see.
I dont know if it is just me but the blessings don't really seem to make much of an impact. The war blessing gives a luck bonus to attacks, but so does divine favor and it's big brother. Honestly I skimmed some and read other so I may have missed something good. Since the blessings don't grant spells I was expecting for them to at least be on par with the better domain powers.
I will probably look at some 3pp material to see if that helps.
I've had no problem building several characters using the Warpriest chassis that can hold more than their weight in a party well into the teen levels.In what party?
Cleric, wizard, shaman parties?
Druid, Summoner, Cleric parties?
Inquisitor, Arcanist, bard parties?
Magus, Sorcerer, Oracle parties?
Sure you'll hold weight at level 10 vs no caster types definitely. By level 10 literally any magic makes you better than no magic.
In any party. I play in PFS, so I tend to avoid over-specialization. If I'm playing a damage-dealing character, I try make sure I can do at least a third of the HP of a CR+2 creature in a round. Assuming at least two other characters are doing the same, that's a one-round combat against a single target. And if it takes more than a round, that's okay with me, too.
I don't care if someone else does more damage than me. I don't care if someone else does less damage than me. I'm not trying to one-shot a BBEG. I have no interest in being the guy who embarrasses the rest of the table with his 'system mastery'. I want other people to have fun, and my fun doesn't depend on me being the 'best' player with the 'best' character at the table.
Benefit: Blunt Arrows deal bludgeoning damage rather than piercing damage. An archer can use a blunt arrow to deal nonlethal damage (at the normal –4 attack penalty for using a lethal weapon to deal nonlethal damage).Ok.
Softstone sling bullets do non-lethal without penalty. Sharpstone bullets allow you to do slashing or piercing. As far as DR goes, the sling is about as good as you can do for ranged weapons. It's underwhelming in every other way, which is part of the fun of making it work for me.
I'm really not impressed with another greatsword or longbow DPR monster. Anyone can make a character that does more than enough damage with those. I'm more interested in finding a niche and seeing what I can do with it. That's why my Arcanist only uses Transmutation spells instead of Conjuration. I don't want to be another dominant pit-creating, creature-summoning arcane caster. I want to try the road less traveled.
I don't think the dev team hate the warpriest, but I do think the class suffered because of the time period the ACG was developed and was published in. Mainly I think the Warpriest could have benefited greatly from a third round of testing after it was regressed to 3/4th BAB.In good faith, I ask what exactly would that test be?
Every time Paizo puts out a new class, people have things they want to change. Invariably people want more. For all those complaining (and I don't include you as one of them) about the WP in its current iteration, I'd like to see some empirical proof that the class is not exactly where it should be?
I should have been more clear, I meant a third round of public playtesting. All the ACG classes went through a public playtest, and based on the feedback the developers realized that the classes needed an extended second playtest. The warpriest in particular benefited immensely from the first play test and dodged a few issues because of the revised class playtest - the original write-up for the class was basically unfinished and extremely underwhelming. For example the original warpriest was medium BAB, D8 hit die, 2 skill points per level, did not have Fervor casting and Sacred Weapon simply gave it weapon focus with a pre-determined weapon. The class was roughly summed up as poor blessings + sacred weapon/sacred armor buffs + poor channel progression + poor cleric spellcasting + bonus feats. It was inferior to a fighter/cleric in every single way. I kept both playtest PDFs as a reminder of how important user feedback is, if you'd care to read it.
Then the revised play test came out and the Warpriest was massively improved. Blessings were made better (though many were still dull), Fervor was added (but charges were based on charisma rather than wisdom), and it gained full BAB and scaling weapon die with its sacred weapon (which was whatever weapon you chose).
Somewhere between the revised play test and the release of the book Jason (and presumably the rest of the design team) felt that stacking full BAB on top of the warpriest's swift cast self-targeting buffs resulted in too high attack bonuses. That's fair, but regressing the class back to 3/4th BAB meant that it had the exact same saves, hit die and base attack bonus as the cleric and inquisitor - and the warpriest class features are kind of iffy when compared to the cleric's domains and 9th level spellcasting or the incredibly well-designed inquisitor. Jason did fix some of the Warpriest's old problems - his action economy is better (less swift action choking) and blessings were made better (though there are still some stinkers), but in my opinion he didn't quite go far enough.
Given the already extremely pressed time schedule the ACG was published in I understand that a third playtest wasn't really an option, but I can't help but think that the Warpriest would have benefited greatly from a third round of playtesting with 3/4th BAB as a baseline. A big part of why the warpriest went from being one of the most popular classes in the play test to its current not particularly popular status on the boards is that it's lost its biggest toy since the revised play test, and it didn't gain enough to make up for the loss. For example I firmly believe that rounding out the class with other options (improved channel, better spell list, more skill points etc) would have solved the attack bonus problem and simultaneously helped the class stand out compared to the inquisitor and the cleric.
Ultimately the warpriest is a functional class, but I can't help but feel it is dull and a little uninspired, and as Wraith noted - it suffers from "why don't I just use X instead". Rather than being the solid and clear "I want to play a holy warrior of God" martial divine paladin-equivalent for non-LG deities, the warpriest is mainly relegated to quirky fringe builds using unusual weapons.
It's not a complete loss though, it gave us the Sacred Fist! It's the first monk-esque class option I've been genuinely excited to play in years. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, no, no, no. As soon as someone can say who is the best warrior, you've failed as a designer. This the disconnect that plagues so many posters. There is no class that is suppose to be the "best" anything. Each class has an array of things that it is good at and....this is the most important part....a context in which they are good at them. No class or archetype or variant is intended to be the "best" at any one thing in all circumstances. That is by design.
it is by design that the Warpriest might be out DPS'd in some situations by a Cleric or might itself out DPS a Paladin. If there is a clear winner for any functional role in all circumstances, then the devs have failed. You choose one because that character is better suited (in your opinion) at doing the thing you want to do in the situations you want to do them.
Yes, some characters are designed to fight in melee. Some are intended to use spells, and some are intended to offer support. And some....are hybrids. Everyone should be able to argue that X or Y class is actually the best at Z role. No one should be able to prove X or Y is universally the best. As soon as that's possible, the devs have totally failed.
....umm then I guess the PDT failed a lot?
Barbarians-Best melee DPS class. Does more damage, has more HP, has more AC, amazing saves, and has enough skill points to cover "martial" skills.
Druids-Best Shapeshifting class. If you want to be a shapeshifter you want to be a Druid.
Summoner-Best pet class. Pretty hard to argue against that.
Daring Champion Cavalier-Best dex based melee character. The only "competitor" fails fort saves to much to be considered.
I almost said Wizards were the best arcane casters, but Sorcs and Arcanists do have niches. They don't fit the "clear winner at any functional roll in any circumstances"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has it occurred to you that if such were the case, the class would actually be a failure?
No class should be a clear cut winner at anything. If there are no valid weakness or shortcomings in a class, then that is problematic. I would submit that a person who has no functional/mechanical preferences and wants to play a holy warrior of a deity should be unable to decide between inquisitor, cleric, paladin, and warpriest. If any one of those is the clear choice, that is failure on the PDT.
The choice should come down to some arbitrary preference in mechanic or flavor, not effectiveness.
I think you misunderstood what I meant to say - I did not mean that "if the Warpriest doesn't crush the other classes in all DPR comparisons then it's a waste of ink" but rather "This class is meant to do this one very specific thing really, really well at the exclusion of all other things, but it's not particularly good at that one thing and it's hilariously awful at just about all other things."
If a hybrid class sacrifices general utility in order to focus on one specific aspect of the parent class, I expect it to be able to do that job better than the more generalized parent class. Since you mentioned the investigator, let's use it as an example: I expect the Investigator to be able to "investigate" better than a typical alchemist, and indeed it does - the investigator gets a host of class features not available to a normal alchemist in order to excel at its particular area of expertise, but in turn it misses out on other things not related to investigation that the alchemist does better - bombs, for example, or the myriad of mutagen options. If I sit down at the table with a Sherlock Holmes character concept in mind, I would expect the investigator to make that character concept work better than most other classes because that's one of the iconic character types the investigator was designed to help put together.
The warpriest gives up 9th level spellcasting and domains in order to become a better "martial cleric". It should be able to excel at being a martial cleric when compared to a cleric that has a ton more spellcasting power and utility in the form of 9th level spellcasting and domains, or an inquisitor who has a ton of other useful abilities in addition to impressive combat skill. If the warpriest doesn't manage to stand out in the one thing the class is intended to excel at, and it's soundly beaten in all other areas, that very much strikes me as a design failure.
Coincidentally this is also one of the common arguments against the fighter - it's a class designed to be 100% focused on "fighting", but when you get down to it it's not very good at actual combat compared to the other martials (ranger, paladin, barbarian etc) and it has the utility and effectiveness of an unusually strong commoner outside of combat.
Honestly, I think the issue with the warpriest is primarily due to the design space it tried to cover. Basically, because clerics are 3/4ths BAB 9th level casters there really wasn't much the warpriest could be without being mediocre or overshadowing an existing class. They couldn't be Full BAB/6th level casters cause there goes every other full BAB class being overshadowed. A Full BAB/4th level caster is just a reworked paladin. That leaves a 3/4th BAB 6th level caster. Now the warpriest is heads up against Inquisitors, one of the (arguably) best balanced/designed all-around classes and the cleric itself. Avoiding the inquisitor design space means neglecting skills as a class focus. That leaves trying to be a more combaty cleric, which appears to be what they did. Unfortunately, that's not a great trade off because clerics are already good at combat, so you end up trading spellcasting for being better at something you are already good enough at, and be constrained from further improvements in combat by the Paladin class. There just isn't enough combat difference between Paladins and Clerics to leave a sufficient design space for the warpriest.
This is indeed one of the biggest problems for the Warpriest. It's a very crowded design space, and it's hard to break new ground without stepping on someone's toes in the process. That said I don't think the Warpriest is fundamentally flawed, but rather that it lost a bit too much with the BAB change and didn't fully regain the lost ground. Relatively small changes such as the ones Dragoon have mentioned earlier would make the class much more attractive without overshadowing the other classes.
Full Channel Progression would make a "Positive/Negative Channel Warpriest" a viable character concept and 4 skill points per level would fix a problem that's been haunting cleric players for a long, long time. Letting them use their Warpriest level as BAB for all feats rather than just bonus feats wouldn't break anything and it'd make it much less annoying to keep track of what feats meet what BAB requirements.
A specialized spell list is a bigger change, but I honestly think it's the single change the Warpriest would have benefited the most from. A spell list with fewer utility spells (less Control Weather, more Chain Lightning) but some level discounts so they gain access to single-target buff spells at the same level as the cleric would also be a great way to help it stand out as the premiere self-buffing class. It's really hard to get excited about Channel Vigor when the Cleric is casting Blessing of Fervor and Divine Power, and that gap just grows bigger and bigger with each passing level.
....umm then I guess the PDT failed a lot?Barbarians-Best melee DPS class. Does more damage, has more HP, has more AC, amazing saves, and has enough skill points to cover "martial" skills.
Druids-Best Shapeshifting class. If you want to be a shapeshifter you want to be a Druid.
Summoner-Best pet class. Pretty hard to argue against that.
Daring Champion Cavalier-Best dex based melee character. The only "competitor" fails fort saves to much to be considered.
1. Many of the things you listed aren't even design goals. "Shapehifter" is not a functional roll". Paizo does not care who the best shapshifter is. They do care who is most useful in melee or at casting or ranged combat.
2. No, a barbarian is not the best melee DPS class in all circumstances. I can design an innumerable number of situations where the Barbarians weaknesses (low AC and Rage Dependent) are counterproductive and allow some other class to do more damage and more importantly, be more effective.
3. It is impossible for Paizo to "balance" the game because there is no such thing in an RPG. What Paizo can do is make the game seems fair. Fairness is subjective. You cannot please everyone, it ain't going to happen. Especially when people are subscribed to the wrong paradigms.
4. Because "balance" empirical balance is not even a valid concept when applied to an RPG, it is inevitable that some classes will be perceived to be "better." Yes, Druid is one of those classes that borders on unfairness. But Paizo can't really go back and change classes once they've been out. So to the extent someone(s) screwed up and made the Druid too good, the solution isn't to raise everything up to that level.
Nah man it's actually been proven that Barb is number one. Yes he is the melee martial with one of the higher ACs actually. Only beaten by Monks. Rage is not a weakness. It has been shown that past level 4ish you actually have enough rage rounds that you're more likely to get enough XP to level up before you run out of rage.
In other words, yes. The Barbarian is in fact the best melee DPS class. Other classes are viable, but will not outperform the Barbarian.
Honestly arguing with you is quite arduous as it's very obvious you don't actually have experience in optimized parties.
I don't even think a specialized spell list is necessary. Just giving Blessings additional spells known would be good enough. It would give them a chance to take non-Cleric spells and even get some spells at a discounted level.
Yes, when you actually have to prove something, other than by assertion, it must be difficult. I see a lot of opinion, I see zero facts.
Nah man it's actually been proven that Barb is number one. Yes he is the melee martial with one of the higher ACs actually. Only beaten by Monks. Rage is not a weakness. It has been shown that past level 4ish you actually have enough rage rounds...
Barbarians can have literally infinite rage as long as they have something to sunder. And that's just off the top of my head, I bet you can get a more reliable way to do it somehow.I see this response a lot. Someone points out a weakness of the nominal class and someone counters with, "No, I can buidl this..."
The problem is build options become mutually exclusive. You can't make a build that can do it all. And as a GM I can easily design encounters to stress any build.
And to clear, I'm not going to debate the game past level 15. I'm not going to design the entire class around what happens at level 15 and higher. At that point, the GM has more than enough tools deal with any build.
Level 20 is actually where the fighter manages to close the gap most.....
Levels 1-5 are the Barbarian's worst levels and the most likely to have them die from random stuff. Fortunately at these levels a non-raging barbarian has numbers with 1 or two of the other classes.
6 is when they start getting crazy.
There are more Knowledge skills than you can possibly put points into
Really? There are 10, so an investigator with an 18 int has NO issue picking every one.
Sure, if you don't want to put points into anything else. Like...i don't know...Perception or Sense Motive? Kind of important for "Investigator," wouldn't you think?There are more Knowledge skills than you can possibly put points intoReally? There are 10, so an investigator with an 18 int has NO issue picking every one.
So the investigator can't get EVERY skill at first... how is this different than any other class? When was the last time you had every skill you thought your fighter should have at first...
What context do you need?
In that comparison both classes were optimized for damage yet the Barbarian has
1. 2 more skill points per level
2. a larger class skill list containing more relevant skills
3. higher damage
4. better saves
5. the ability to full attack on a charge
6. immune to flanking
7. immune to sneak attack
8. Trap sense
9. the same movement speed
10. some piddly DR
As for comparisons with other classes
Ranger- Ranger will have more hit/dmg vs favored enemies, worse saves, more skills, lower HP, lower AC. A trade off, but I'm gonna hand this to Barb in that the Barb is harder to shut down and doesn't need a favored enemy.
Paladin- Might possibly have better saves and effective HP than the Barb. Kills evil stuff, but smite is unreliable. Less skill points, less AC, less speed.
I would say that I think you get my point, but....
That's right. So you end up having a bunch of low to moderate modifiers compared to specific classes that have maxed modifiers. You can't be moderate at lock picking/disarming traps. You have to keep several skills maxed if you want to actually feel like you're good at something. You can't put points in it all and if you try, you're going to end up sucking at something.So the investigator can't get EVERY skill at first... how is this different than any other class? When was the last time you had every skill you thought your fighter should have at first...Sure, if you don't want to put points into anything else. Like...i don't know...Perception or Sense Motive? Kind of important for "Investigator," wouldn't you think?There are more Knowledge skills than you can possibly put points intoReally? There are 10, so an investigator with an 18 int has NO issue picking every one.
You missed one of the main features of the class. You add Inspiration to those rolls. so a minimum of a 1d6 to them. There is NO reason you shouldn't be rolling extra dice with your skill checks.
You want to be a master of locks/traps? Underworld Inspiration
You want tracking? Perceptive Tracking
You want perception? Expanded Inspiration
You get these talents at 3rd + every two levels + with a feat if you wish. Again, NO reason you shouldn't be rolling that extra dice with your skill rolls. No need to max ranks unless you want to. With skill points in the double digits, you can easily max some skills and have points left over to put a few in the other ones.
I've had no problem building several characters using the Warpriest chassis that can hold more than their weight in a party well into the teen levels. To be clear, I'm not looking to build something that solos encounters. And I think that's what many of the people complaining about the class are looking for.
I dont think its fair to assume you know anyone's motives or clump a bunch of people together especially when they have stated in no uncertain terms what their reasons were and your idea goes very much against what they said. Them not liking the class as is does not make them power hungry, which is what you said without actually saying it.
I don't know if you skipped a lot of post or just dont beleive anyone but I stated earlier that the warpriest was viable so obviously my problem is not one of power. My problem as I stated before was that I have no reason to choose it over the cleric, inquisitor, or paladin. It needs something more to separate itself from those classes.
Some have said it sucked due to power level but you will have to ask them why they think so.
Can you show me where a dev said this?
I never said that was a dev statement, I said it was how I see the Warpriest. If this is the level of argumentation you're at then frankly I don't see much point in continuing the debate.
I think you've got the backwards. Hybrids combine two specialized roles and create a more robust roll. A "hybrid" vehicle is one that borrows both ICE and electrical propulsion system to give you better gas mileage than a strictly ICE car and better performance (range, top speed) than an electric car.
Note that I said "IF a hybrid class...", I wasn't making a blanket statement on all hybrids.
Now, I haven't read the memos on the Warpriest
That would be an excellent starting point! The play test thread, revised play test thread, the "Meeting the Warpriest" blog and preview of the Warpriest blog posts would all be useful reading, as well as the commentary threads on the latter two blog posts. You could also take a look at Undone's Guide to the Warpriest, which is a very interesting read. If you spend some time reading up on the topic it will make it easier for you to understand the problem areas that are repeatedly referred to in this thread. If you're interested in the original play test documents I'd be happy to send them to you. :)
I play two Investigators, one with high INT and one with a more balanced stat base. The base class absolutely sucks at investigation. (Cut the quote short here for convenience)
This is interesting, because it runs completely counter to what my experience has been while playing an investigator! I'm at 14th level at the moment and combining the mutagen, infusions for the other martial characters and the massive Studied Combat bonus I am having absolutely no problem contributing massively both in and out of combat. Investigator is probably one of the most fun classes I've ever played! While I didn't choose to focus on knowledge checks as we have a wizard in the group, my disable device bonus is in the low 30s while my perception check is in the low 50s before counting Inspiration. That's with an INT of 16 and a wisdom of 10.
I can also say with some confidence that the investigator is not forced into melee by studied strike, since I haven't made a single melee attack in the last five levels and I'm doing just fine.
All that said, I 100% agree that Detect Magic should be available to the Investigator by default. It's a very odd omission, and one I hope and expect will be solved with additional material down the line. In the meantime it's hardly an insurmountable problem - you can take the rogue talent Minor Magic to get Detect Magic 3/Day as an SLA, or buy a Lantern of Auras for 2000 GP.
