Warpriest using Level as BAB for feats


Rules Questions

201 to 249 of 249 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I disagree since swift action buffing with spells, while cool, only just brings you closer to a real full BAB classes combat power.

The problem is simple. You can do it 3 or more times a combat at high levels. The first spell makes you even, the second puts you above others, the third puts others to shame. It also makes you progressively more powerful as time goes on. Which means encounters must either 1 shot you or lose.


But that's more or less already how it goes with every other strong class anyway?


LoneKnave wrote:
But that's more or less already how it goes with every other strong class anyway?

I disagree. Most classes don't get progressively stronger every round. Save or sucks are binary. They either work or don't each round. Damage stays pretty static for most characters. A barb will do 30-40 damage a turn for 3 turns, the WP will do 25-35, then 30-40, then 35-45 and so on.


Undone wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

I disagree since swift action buffing with spells, while cool, only just brings you closer to a real full BAB classes combat power.

The problem is simple. You can do it 3 or more times a combat at high levels. The first spell makes you even, the second puts you above others, the third puts others to shame. It also makes you progressively more powerful as time goes on. Which means encounters must either 1 shot you or lose.

Not quite.

The first brings you to baseline, since now you operate with essentially full BAB. The second brings you to or close to a full BAB class with combat bonuses like Weapon Training, Favored Enemy, Studied Target, Rage, ect. The third brings you to or above such bonuses depending on the comparison point.

I am of course speaking of base Warpriest as I don't know the math involved for a Crusader Flurry+ Sacred fist combo. I imagine that for them the numbers would be higher.


Undone wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
But that's more or less already how it goes with every other strong class anyway?
I disagree. Most classes don't get progressively stronger every round. Save or sucks are binary. They either work or don't each round. Damage stays pretty static for most characters. A barb will do 30-40 damage a turn for 3 turns, the WP will do 25-35, then 30-40, then 35-45 and so on.

A lot of classes also buff with a higher base-line; like Insain Dragoon said above. Say, a Magus ca swift action use his arcane pool, spellcombat and self buff in the same turn. The buffs also pile up for them.

Bards need to get the performance going, then they also get to cast buff spells (dance of 100 cuts or whatever it was called).

Wizards can place AoE spells that require multiple "saves" (grease, black tentacles, etc) every turn, which means they are piling up on saves you need to make.

etc.

This is also just ignoring that if everyone pre-buffs, they handily beat out the WP.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Plus even with 10 for physical stats I have ways to boost my hitting and damage that the rogue wishes he had.

But you don't get to say how I build my sleuthing investigator. I don't need those garbage stats to do a good job sleuthing. My characters always do combat first and secondary role second. Sleuthing is a secondary role. This is my skill guy investigator that I have. My actual build that I made before responding in this thread. And I'm not rebuilding or hanging him for this discussion
If you want a comparison set the rules and each make a build. I'm confident the investigator wins both areas

EDIT: Also who's the one rebuilding now? In your example you took 2 feats that were not sleuthing, and you can't qualify for one of them with the stats you're suggesting.

Go ahead, build your combat first Investigator. The Rogue takes Fast Learner and Improvisation and blows your Investigator out of the water at non-combat. The Human Rogue is getting 14 skill points per level and a bonus hit point to boot. Your 14 INT Investigator is getting 8 skill points, 9 if human, 10 if you want less hit points. The 10 10 10 18 14 14 Rogue can use every Skill and every Profession and every Perform in the game and get a minimum +4 (+2 on straight physical skills) doing it at 3rd. That's all the Knowledge Skills at max and Perception, Sense Motive, Bluff, and Disable Device. He's better at every skill you don't have and just as good as any Knowledge Skill you don't have maxed. And you're never going to to catch up.

We're not talking about how you build a PC. I made an assertion. I said two PCs build for sleuthing the Investigator wins, but loses on combat. I backed that up. If you want to take the sleuthing Investigator and roll with a 14 INT and take things like Power Attack, then you lose the sleuthing by a country mile. Which means you failed to prove my assertion wrong. So Watson is what I'll call your PC.


shroudb wrote:


The thing is, he does all this, and STILL over performs at skills compared to rogue.

You've asserted an opinion, your welcome to it.

I've played, played with, and GM'd Investigators and they suck at combat comparatively unless they can buff up and then it's still mediocre at best. I've seen low and mid level Rogues just Quisinart things in combat. Investigators don't come close to that unless they are doing all kinds of stuff that is totally independent of actually being an Investigator or burn up the extracts.

In any one battle that the Investigator can prepare for? Sure.


Imbicatus wrote:


The investigator has a longspear and enlarge person. 2d6 with an extra attack per round from AoOs makes up for the rogues sneak attack. At level one, with straight 10s for physical ability scores.

And how many times a day can you use Enlarge at 3rd level?

You get an AoO? Great, hows that work against multiple targets? As someone points out, with a Long Spear and Enlarge, you've got a dead zone inside your Reach. What are doing once the NPC moves in?

You want to win the combat battle against my investigating Rogue? You can do that, but you're not winning the skills battle at the same time and that's the challenge.

Scarab Sages

N N 959 wrote:
shroudb wrote:


The thing is, he does all this, and STILL over performs at skills compared to rogue.

You've asserted an opinion, your welcome to it.

I've played, played with, and GM'd Investigators and they suck at combat comparatively unless they can buff up and then it's still mediocre at best. I've seen low and mid level Rogues just Quisinart things in combat. Investigators don't come close to that unless they are doing all kinds of stuff that is totally independent of actually being an Investigator or burn up the extracts.

In any one battle that the Investigator can prepare for? Sure.

Were these anecdotal investigators played at level 1-3? Studied Combat is one of the best class ability self buffs available in the game and makes a rogue cry.

By default, they are weaker 1-3 when not under the effects of an extract or mutagen, and better when they are. At level 4, they are better all the time, and the difference grows from there.


Well, a lot of the investigator talents that buff skills also buff combat, because inspiration can be used on both.

If you're arguing that the investigator doesn't have all day power, then this is mostly true. But this is Pathfinder. A game that is skewed towards a few short combats per day.


N N 959
I will do this if you do 2 things.
1) Create a new thread so we can stop derailing this one.
2) In that thread expressly say what you're meaning when you say "sleuthing".

In my response to that I will be using archetypes and feats and perhaps items, because that's what you'd do if you are building a character.

Also you did not back up that the Investigator loses on combat. If you'd like to include where you did that in the new thread that would be great as to find out why you feel the rogue was doing better combat, because I don't think you backed up that statement at all.

This is the last I'll respond to you in this thread.

Scarab Sages

N N 959 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:


The investigator has a longspear and enlarge person. 2d6 with an extra attack per round from AoOs makes up for the rogues sneak attack. At level one, with straight 10s for physical ability scores.

And how many times a day can you use Enlarge at 3rd level?

You get an AoO? Great, hows that work against multiple targets? As someone points out, with a Long Spear and Enlarge, you've got a dead zone inside your Reach. What are doing once the NPC moves in?

You want to win the combat battle against my investigating Rogue? You can do that, but you're not winning the skills battle at the same time and that's the challenge.

A third level investigator should be able to enlarge four fights per day. Spiked gauntlets allow you to attack in your dead zone if it's needed, but you can always just step back.

The investigator is winning the skills battle too. You lose 2 skills per level in exchange for +1d6 to every skill roll. Not to mention that in practice, any given investigator is going to have an intelligence two to four points higher than the rogue, making the skill points per level identical. Then add the fact that the empiricist sets several skills to be int-based gives them a further boost.


Imbicatus wrote:


Were these anecdotal investigators played at level 1-3?

No. But nice try.

Quote:
Studied Combat is one of the best class ability self buffs available in the game and makes a rogue cry.

That's your opinion. I disagree. Studied Combat, out of the box, requires that one uses a melee weapon. It last a very short while unless you want to start burning your Inspiration.

PRD wrote:
This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to his Intelligence modif ier (minimum 1) or until he deals damage with a studied strike, whichever comes first.

Chess Pawn's 14 INT Inv is getting two rounds of Studied Combat. A Rogue can get Sneak damage indefinitely given the right circumstances. I play with a bunch of Rogue/Rogue Dippers, they have no problem getting flanking. The issue is far more that creatures are immune to Precision Damage.

Quote:
By default, they are weaker 1-3 when not under the effects of an extract or mutagen, and better when they are. At level 4, they are better all the time, and the difference grows from there.

Better all the time? Your 40 minute STR mutagen is taking 2 points off our INT. So you're paying a price for that.

This response and all others like it subscribe to the Munckin Fallacy. it's the believe that if I can produce a build that can win under specific set of assumptions, then I've proven it to be true in all cases.


Imbicatus wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:


The investigator has a longspear and enlarge person. 2d6 with an extra attack per round from AoOs makes up for the rogues sneak attack. At level one, with straight 10s for physical ability scores.

And how many times a day can you use Enlarge at 3rd level?

You get an AoO? Great, hows that work against multiple targets? As someone points out, with a Long Spear and Enlarge, you've got a dead zone inside your Reach. What are doing once the NPC moves in?

You want to win the combat battle against my investigating Rogue? You can do that, but you're not winning the skills battle at the same time and that's the challenge.

A third level investigator should be able to enlarge four fights per day. Spiked gauntlets allow you to attack in your dead zone if it's needed, but you can always just step back.

The investigator is winning the skills battle too. You lose 2 skills per level in exchange for +1d6 to every skill roll. Not to mention that in practice, any given investigator is going to have an intelligence two to four points higher than the rogue, making the skill points per level identical. Then add the fact that the empiricist sets several skills to be int-based gives them a further boost.

I love the goal post shifting.

1. No, the Rogue is built for skills so the Inv doesn't have higher Int. And if you're using a STR mutagen, then your INT skills are taking a persistent -2 penalty.

2. You don't get 1d6 on all skills. You get it on SPECIFIC skills and only those for which you've put Ranks in. In order to expand that list, it costs you Talents. Those same Talents you're using for Mutagens/Infusions/etc.

3. You don't get to bring in variants. You don't see me bringing up Knifemasters do you? We're talking about the base class and the decisions to fix something with Warpriest is going to be based on the base class, not an archetype.


N, stop posting in this thread and go make a separate thread on your percieved issues.

We just finally got back on topic then this happens.


i'l agree that investigator vs rogue needs a seperate thread, make that, and a lot of people can make an investigator that can shame rogues in combat and skills after the first few levels.

back on topic:

i actually disagree that warpriest needs more skill points. At this point, every 2+int class needs more skill points, but that ddetracts from it's design philosophy (hybrid of fighter and cleric, both of which classes suck at skills)

the thing is, if i want to build a skill using holy warrior, or even a combat capable divine hybrid, that can also be good at other things, i can always go to inquisitor, and outskill warpriest, even if wp had 4+ skills.

warpriest was meant to be a divine full martial class. self buffing himself and starting tearing faces up.
They suffer at their intended roles because their self buffing gets delayed due to no specialized list of spells.
and they suffer because pathfinder is rocket tag combat, when you need 3 rounds to put your class features up in a game where combat at high levels is usually done by round 4-5, then there is a problem.
one solution would be to simply change to sacred weapon+sacred armor thing to free action, that would free 1 round.
then change the blessings to move action as baseline and remove the quicken blessing feat.

that would allow round 1 to activate blessing, fervor a spell, and activate sacred weapon+armor.
at this point, they should be at a bit less combat capabilities of a fighter and etc but they would have lost one round and a bit of resources.
second round, they wade into melee, swift fervor another spell, and now they are at the combat capabilities of a barbarian.

with the differance being: barbarian already had 2 turns rampaging the battlefield with pounce. barbarian still has his rage powers. barbarian still has a lot more durability. which i find a good compromise personally.


shroudb wrote:


i actually disagree that warpriest needs more skill points. At this point, every 2+int class needs more skill points, but that ddetracts from it's design philosophy (hybrid of fighter and cleric, both of which classes suck at skills)

Completely agree.

Quote:
...and they suffer because pathfinder is rocket tag combat, when you need 3 rounds to put your class features up in a game where combat at high levels is usually done by round 4-5, then there is a problem.

Yup. All classes that self buff have this design flaw. So you have to ask if the devs do it intentionally to mitigate the benefit of the bonuses.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

N, stop posting in this thread and go make a separate thread on your percieved issues.

We just finally got back on topic then this happens.

I was trying to make a point but it seems it's been lost in the wall of text trying to support the rogue.

Fervor is a mechanic so powerful that it's literally not available to another base class until 8th level with a feat investment a maximum of 1 time a day (With a tiny amount more as you level generalist wizard) by neutering your own spells per day.

The closest is the magus which while good at it's job can't also self heal the same way the WP can. The magus is stronger than the base WP (There's little question) unless you use archery/lancing.

Quote:
then change the blessings to move action as baseline and remove the quicken blessing feat.

I'd literally rather you remove the class from the game than remove quicken blessing.


Studied Combat, alone by itself, really isn't very good. But Quick Study is a talent you can and should be getting if you want to do damage as an investigator. And with just Quick Study, Studied Combat becomes a very good ability. Origins also added a few talents for pumping up Studied Combat, but you probably aren't interested in those.


I think part of it is the short duration of the sacred weapon/armor. Rounds per day for such a limited bonus using a swift. It means that the +1 you're getting has to be better than a spell. at 8th a +2 needs to be better than any spell you're casting. And divine favor is equal with these and better with Fate's favored.

Dark Archive

tl;dr;

Ok, may I interject on the original question of this thread?

It would appear that the BaB is only for the purposes of qualifying for a feat, not for the use of one.

Why do I say this? I was looking at the level 4 Warpriest (Oloch), who has a BaB of +3, right? Well, his description of Power Attack states that he takes a -1 to hit to gain +3 damage (not -2 to hit for +6, which is what his level as BaB would indicate).

So, unless the pregen is wrong (which honestly could be the case), I am going to be using this as the basis of what my personal ruling will be.


Silbeg, they released a FAQ or Errata preview that said how it's officially ran. So you do have the correct interpretation, but it's not just your personal ruling, it's the official ruling.


Chess Pwn wrote:
I think part of it is the short duration of the sacred weapon/armor. Rounds per day for such a limited bonus using a swift. It means that the +1 you're getting has to be better than a spell. at 8th a +2 needs to be better than any spell you're casting. And divine favor is equal with these and better with Fate's favored.

I'd much rather it be 1/min level with 1 use at 4, 2 at level 8 3 and level 12 exct. Similar to the paladin divine bond.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

N, stop posting in this thread and go make a separate thread on your percieved issues.

We just finally got back on topic then this happens.

What I am doing is directly applicable to this thread. There's a large contingency of players that subscribe to fallacies about comparing builds and what that means about classes. These underlying errors in analysis that plague this discussion on the Investigator are similar to ones I see with the Warpriest.

If you're subscribed to the wrong paradigms on how the Devs see the classes, then your conclusions are going to be wrong. Sean k Reynolds called Undone out on this very thing when Undone tried to put forth the idea that the current form of the Warpriest is a function of the devs hating the class.


Chess Pwn wrote:
I think part of it is the short duration of the sacred weapon/armor. Rounds per day for such a limited bonus using a swift. It means that the +1 you're getting has to be better than a spell. at 8th a +2 needs to be better than any spell you're casting. And divine favor is equal with these and better with Fate's favored.

To be fair, you can activate Sacred Weapon as a free action when activating Sacred Armor. But yeah, Sacred Weapon and Armor should have been completely replaced. They don't scale well with level and eat up your action economy.

I really think they would be fine if you fought many small battles through a long adventuring day, since you would need to manage resources and use one on small fights and the other on big fights. But very few adventures or modules work this way.


shroudb wrote:

i actually disagree that warpriest needs more skill points. At this point, every 2+int class needs more skill points, but that ddetracts from it's design philosophy (hybrid of fighter and cleric, both of which classes suck at skills)

the thing is, if i want to build a skill using holy warrior, or even a combat capable divine hybrid, that can also be good at other things, i can always go to inquisitor, and outskill warpriest, even if wp had 4+ skills.

I think you're misinterpreting 4+skill ranks as actually being good at skills as opposed to just meeting the baseline to function in the game.

With 2 skill ranks a Warpriest is going to want a rank in climb and swim at level 1. What about all those other skills that would make sense for a warpriest to have ranks in/be good at? Knowledge Religion since it makes no sense for a devout follower and divine caster of a deity to have no knowledge of their own religious doctrines. Survival, profession, possibly acrobatics, and various other skills also fit their role as a WARpriest too. With 4 skill ranks per level they can actually fulfill that role.

note: With the Cleric and Fighter 2 skill ranks per level was a huge mistake and shouldn't be used as the example for why the mistake was perpetuated in the Warpriest.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

What does the awkward orgy of Rogue love happening here, have to do with the Warpriest?

Seriously, move that to another thread.


Melkiador wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
I think part of it is the short duration of the sacred weapon/armor. Rounds per day for such a limited bonus using a swift. It means that the +1 you're getting has to be better than a spell. at 8th a +2 needs to be better than any spell you're casting. And divine favor is equal with these and better with Fate's favored.

To be fair, you can activate Sacred Weapon as a free action when activating Sacred Armor. But yeah, Sacred Weapon and Armor should have been completely replaced. They don't scale well with level and eat up your action economy.

I really think they would be fine if you fought many small battles through a long adventuring day, since you would need to manage resources and use one on small fights and the other on big fights. But very few adventures or modules work this way.

There's a solution to sacred/weapon armor completely within the possibilities we have.

"Improved sacred weapon
Prerequisite: Sacred weapon class feature
Activating sacred weapon is a free action.
Normal: Activating sacred weapon is a swift action."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would you take a rank in swim or climb as a warpriest? You can use those untrained. In my opinion, one of those ranks should be spellcraft to use with your detect magic. Knowledge religion would be good flavor.


climb and swim DCs are relatively easy at most levels, so a single rank is generally enough to give you +7 to +8 on those checks. If you rely only on strength then it's a +3 or +4.

Also ACP man, unless you sprung for a chain shirt at level 1 they're pretty brutal.

So either place a rank in those and have a pretty huge chance of failing the checks while wearing armor, a decent chance of failure if you strip.

Even without a Rank in climb or swim, with just two skill points you're very limited in how well you represent yourself through skills.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

climb and swim DCs are relatively easy at most levels, so a single rank is generally enough to give you +7 to +8 on those checks. If you rely only on strength then it's a +3 or +4.

Also ACP man, unless you sprung for a chain shirt at level 1 they're pretty brutal.

So either place a rank in those and have a pretty huge chance of failing the checks while wearing armor, a decent chance of failure if you strip.

Even without a Rank in climb or swim, with just two skill points you're very limited in how well you represent yourself through skills.

So I attach my notched rope to my grappling hook and throw it until I need a DC 5 to climb which I can do on a take 10. Swim matters exactly 0 times in PFS in my experience.


I had a bigger response lined up, but the site ate it.

What it boiled down to was that PFS is not representative of all games and that I've been in plenty of situations where taking a 10 or even using a knotted rope+grappling hook combo wasn't possible. Hence my habit of puting a rank in swim/climb at level 1.

Even without climb/swim 2 skill points is utterly horrible for role play.

Grand Lodge

Undone wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

climb and swim DCs are relatively easy at most levels, so a single rank is generally enough to give you +7 to +8 on those checks. If you rely only on strength then it's a +3 or +4.

Also ACP man, unless you sprung for a chain shirt at level 1 they're pretty brutal.

So either place a rank in those and have a pretty huge chance of failing the checks while wearing armor, a decent chance of failure if you strip.

Even without a Rank in climb or swim, with just two skill points you're very limited in how well you represent yourself through skills.

So I attach my notched rope to my grappling hook and throw it until I need a DC 5 to climb which I can do on a take 10. Swim matters exactly 0 times in PFS in my experience.

You've missed the several scenarios where having a low Swim score can very easily get you killed, then.


Okay here it is, better than the skill rogue and only using base investigator. I was going to do this in another thread, but it was lost and I don't want to redo that work.

skill investigator:

This guy is more focused on skills, but still is wanting to contribute to combat. I had done a write up of my 18 str 16 int Empiricist, which rocked combat hard and skill was right up there in skills with the rogue. But it was lost and I don't feel like redoing it right now.
human lv3
str 14, dex 10, con 11, int 16+2, wis 12, cha 12
HP: 21 (8+5+5+3)
traits: ?
feats: quick learner, improvisation, extra talent (Expanded Inspiration)
inspiration: 5 a day
Talent: Underworld Inspiration
Extracts, same as above, maybe preps more social ones a day.

damage
(2+2)=+4 for 1d8+3. DPR 3.65
flanking
(2+2+2)=+6 for 1d8+3. DPR 4.44

skills. He gets (6+4+1+1) 12 skills a level

we’ll put 2 ranks into all knowledge, and max perception, diplomacy, bluff, disable device, and sense motive and 1 rank into spellcraft. (3x5+10X2+1)=36 ranks used

this makes his perception, diplomacy, bluff and sense motive are (3+3+1+1d6)=+8-13
his knowledges are (3+2+4+1d6)=+10-15
his disable device are (3+3+1d6)=+7-12
his spellcraft is (3+1+4+1d6)=9-14
And he can add 1d6 to any skill for an inspiration point.


comparison:

the rogue is using 1 shortsword since it can't TWF with a dex of 10.
It's damage is +3 for 1d6, DPR= 1.52
Flanking it's +5 for 3d6, DPR=5.66

So here his base damage is double the rogue’s and flanking is only 1 point behind the rogue. This is before the investigator uses any extracts or has studied target. Also not including any AoO you get because of reach. Also you can get mutagen later for more combat effectiveness.

skills the rogue has 9 out of ten knowledge checks maxed and perception, sense motive, diplomacy, disable device, and bluff.
His knowledges are (3+3+4)=10
his disable device is (3+3)=6
his other maxed skills are (3+3+2)=8

So here the investigator better at all the skills than the rogue and has 2 more good skills. Damage is definitely not behind the rogue, and is more constant and it will only get better for the investigator, as this is one of the weak levels for an investigator without the bonuses listed above. I’d also say he is safer since he doesn't need flanking to work and has a reach weapon, meaning he can be in safer spots and skill attack well.

The best levels to compare to help the rogue are odd levels, Even levels give an even bigger edge to the investigator.

What do you have to say about this, N N 959?

Shadow Lodge

Jeff Merola wrote:
You've missed the several scenarios where having a low Swim score can very easily get you killed, then.

Several might be exaggerating a tad, but I've seen maybe 2 or 3, and even then, it wasn't something a character that knew they couldn't swim couldn't avoid relatively easily.

The only two I can think of that it is even an honest threat are a single part of Song of the Sea witch and a particular part of The Hydra's Fang Incident (where listed tactics specifically say they attempt to push characters in the water).


Chess Pwn wrote:
What do you have to say about this, N N 959?

Take it to another thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So when people beat you in an argument it's new thread time, but when everyone is telling you to take it to a new thread you're "on topic."


Insain Dragoon wrote:
So when people beat you in an argument it's new thread time, but when everyone is telling you to take it to a new thread you're "on topic."

So when people disagree with you, you tell them to take it to another thread, but when they agree with you, you say nothing.

You want me to talk about it here or not? Because right now you're a total hypocrite. And I was waiting for you to prove it. Thanks.

Make the call ID, on topic or not?


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

...and a particular part of The Hydra's Fang Incident (where listed tactics specifically say they attempt to push characters in the water).

Yeah, when I GM'd that I really thought it was brutal. Part of the reason why I don't mess with Season 0 scenarios any more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is the Topic we are on Warpriest______________________ This is where we are ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _DIDILY


N N 959 wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
So when people beat you in an argument it's new thread time, but when everyone is telling you to take it to a new thread you're "on topic."

So when people disagree with you, you tell them to take it to another thread, but when they agree with you, you say nothing.

You want me to talk about it here or not? Because right now you're a total hypocrite. And I was waiting for you to prove it. Thanks.

Make the call ID, on topic or not?

Actually I flagged every single post about Investigators including mine, so I find it hard to believe that I am for the perpetuation of Investigator discussion in a Warpriest thread.

To quote me

Insain Dragoon wrote:

N, stop posting in this thread and go make a separate thread on your percieved issues.

We just finally got back on topic then this happens.

Wow, it seems I already told you to take Investigators out of the thread!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
So when people beat you in an argument it's new thread time, but when everyone is telling you to take it to a new thread you're "on topic."

So when people disagree with you, you tell them to take it to another thread, but when they agree with you, you say nothing.

You want me to talk about it here or not? Because right now you're a total hypocrite. And I was waiting for you to prove it. Thanks.

Make the call ID, on topic or not?

Actually I flagged every single post about Investigators including mine, so I find it hard to believe that I am for the perpetuation of Investigator discussion in a Warpriest thread.

To quote me

Insain Dragoon wrote:

N, stop posting in this thread and go make a separate thread on your percieved issues.

We just finally got back on topic then this happens.

Wow, it seems I already told you to take Investigators out of the thread!

So trying to call me out me for it isn't cool.

I'm more than happy to respond to Chess Pawn. But to continue to do so in this thread is not necessary.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok now that there is a thread for it, can we talk more about Warpriests and whether Fervor is too good to let them have other toys or if they're fin in damage and just need more skills or spell access?

BTW I am aware that Sacred Fist+Crusader Flurry is absolutely amazing, but my posts will always be in reference to base WP since I have a huge bias against the archtype section of the ACG.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
BTW I am aware that Sacred Fist+Crusader Flurry is absolutely amazing, but my posts will always be in reference to base WP since I have a huge bias against the archtype section of the ACG.

Actually my problem is that if you go down the list of builds you could make the sacred fist is not better than the core WP at

Lancing
Archery/other ranged
...
..
.

That's literally it. It's better at absolutely everything else.

Sword and board? Sacred Fist with a level of fighter.
Two handed? Sacred Fist is better.
Reach weapon? Sacred Fist is better.
Unarmed? Well this isn't surprising and I actually hoped this was the case so that's fine
TWF? Well you can use two weapons to flurry but flurry is strictly better.
Vital strike? Flurry is better.

So... Yeah. For the above only and I mean ONLY archery is good as a base build. Lancing ->Divine commander is AWESOME due to the monstrous mount feat but that's not the base WP.


Agreed on all points! My bias is actually based on how ACG archetypes throw internal class balance out the fricken window.

Sacred Fist is a great, balanced, and fun character. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at one in my game, I know they'd pull their weight, no problem! However they are a mess of an archetype. Archetypes should be trades, not upgrades!

I could go into a lot of ACG archetypes with this problem, but Warpriest focus in this thread.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

Agreed on all points! My bias is actually based on how ACG archetypes throw internal class balance out the fricken window.

Sacred Fist is a great, balanced, and fun character. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at one in my game, I know they'd pull their weight, no problem! However they are a mess of an archetype. Archetypes should be trades, not upgrades!

I could go into a lot of ACG archetypes with this problem, but Warpriest focus in this thread.

To be fair the sacred fist is as much as a part of the WP as invulnerable rager is part of the barbarian.

That said a warpriest archer isn't bad. It ranks up there with other archers (not a zen archer builds) and can get point blank mastery along with a fantabulous AC.

The divine commander is a bit different since it's a very narrow archetype while the sacred fist is broad and diverse.

I like the class because there is nothing I like more than self buffing as a mechanic. The thing I like the second most is wisdom based casting. I'd like the magus more if it was divine but I like it as is.


The main thing about the sacred fist is that it trades out the low worth sacred weapon for the better in every way flurry of blows. It's as if the archetype was created from a point in the development cycle where sacred weapon was great.


Melkiador wrote:
The main thing about the sacred fist is that it trades out the low worth sacred weapon for the better in every way flurry of blows. It's as if the archetype was created from a point in the development cycle where sacred weapon was great.

I suspect it came about during the second dev cycle when scared weapon gave full BAB. I should note trading THAT sacred weapon for flurry is 100% a fair and equal trade with benefits and costs to both.


Actually I really like Divine Commander, it makes some trade offs and sort of pushes you in a specific combat style direction.

I don't like Sacred Fist because it basically trades away nothing to give you full BAB and the ability to flurry and doesn't push you in a specific direction. If it actually forced unarmed combat/no armor I'd be fine with it.

For context clarification: I'd probably never play a Warpriest because I hate having 2 skill points per level and don't like the slow Cleric progression. I do however appreciate other parts of its design.

1 to 50 of 249 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Warpriest using Level as BAB for feats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.