I may be one of the few people who actually really likes the Warpriest. You just have to play it differently than you normally would a Cleric, Oracle, or Inquisitor.
The Bonus feats and the Human Favored Class bonus, granting it an additional Bonus Feat once every 6 levels, are pretty neat.
Probably the thing that makes the class cool for me is the fact that they can cast buff spells specifically on themselves as Swift Actions. It's kinda like the Cleric & Oracle are Jedi or Sith, while the Warpriest is more like a practitioner of Teras Kasi.
The Warpriest casts Haste on himself as a Swift Action and attacks. Next turn, he casts Righteous Might on himself as a Swift Action and attacks. Turn after that, Bull's Strength, etc. The Warpriest can easily just keep Hulking Out turn after turn.
Sacred Weapon really does, sadly, favor single weapons, instead of two weapons, but that's nothing an Archetype can't fix; the Sacred Weapon ability in the playtest was apparently SO good that they took away the "use your level instead of normal BAB" as it verged on broken. I do think it'd be nice to have a fix for this - maybe a bonus to attacks and CMB/D of +1 per every 4 Warpriest Levels. Again, this is something that an Archetype can fix.
I guess my judgment on it is that it's a solid class, but will need an Archetype or two in order to be a Tier-1 class, besides Sacred Fist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Warpriest casts Haste on himself as a Swift Action and attacks. Next turn, he casts Righteous Might on himself as a Swift Action and attacks. Turn after that, Bull's Strength, etc. The Warpriest can easily just keep Hulking Out turn after turn.
For about one combat. Maybe two. Less if he wants to heal himself.
And he is, at best, making himself as good as the equivalent Inquisitor.
the Sacred Weapon ability in the playtest was apparently SO good that they took away the "use your level instead of normal BAB" as it verged on broken.
No. It really didn't. The original Sacred Weapon pushed it into being a better combatant than a Cleric, equivalent with the other 3/4 BaB 6 level casters, with more staying power since it didn't need to rely on buffs.
The problem now is that it DOES rely on buffs...which it gets less of, from a spell list with very few long duration buffs.
Contrast the Inquisitor, which can also buff as a Swift (with Bane, for a good number of rounds per day, or Judgment, for several combats. Or, even better IMO, the Sanctified Slayer for Favored Target an unlimited number of times), and ALSO can buff with spells...but often spends much of his time pre-buffed, instead of needing to use TWO pools of resources to buff himself, he uses his good long duration (Heroism, Acute Senses, Resist Energy, etc.) and medium duration (Shield of Faith, Expeditious Retreat, Invisibility) when expecting combat, and still has short duration (Righteous Might, Divine Favor, Greater Invisibility, etc.) buffs to use in combat as well.
He has a higher baseline level of competence than the Warpriest, and can then buff himself even HIGHER, using less resources.
The fact that he's god-like out of combat as well, with many useful skills and the number of skill points to take advantage, is just salt in the wound.
I guess my judgment on it is that it's a solid class, but will need an Archetype or two in order to be a Tier-1 class, besides Sacred Fist.
It'll take a hell of a lot more than an archetype to make it a Tier 1 class. Tier 1 is where Wizards hang out.
I agree Rynjin. It should have kept the full BAB. Even if the inquisitor does less damage, it does enough other things better that the warpriest would not be chosen by me. This class could have been a lot better, and I don't think the blessing are all that strong either.
What would be hella funny/broken would be if he got the Paladin's spellist like the Hunter got the Ranger's.
A custom spell list was one of the most sought-after changes in the warpriest play test. Paladin list might be tricky since that one is loaded with good-only spells and the warpriest is meant to be alignment-free, but the inquisitor list would have helped a lot.
It's a shame really, the base concept of the warpriest has a lot of potential but i can't help feeling that changing it to medium BAB really cut the legs out underneath it.
Meant to edit this in but missed the time window:
Which is not to say that the warpriest is a complete loss, I think it is a playable class. However in my opinion it doesn't do enough to stand out from the other classes that occupy the same design space and are equally viable in combat (like the fighter 1/cleric x, the paladin, the battle oracle and the inquisitor) but can contribute in other ways as well.
*shrug* To each their own I suppose. I love the Arcanist personally, it gives me everything I want out of the Wizard and nothing I don't. I'll probably never touch a Wizard NPC again without rebuilding them.And that's the problem. Why WOULD you play a Wizard or a Sorc when you can have the Arcanist? With a Bloodrager, you can see why you'd want this, or one of the parents. Barbs get better rage and powers than the Bloodrager and Bloodragers only get 4th level magic. Right there, you have a reason to play any one of the three options. With Arcanist... it seeks to replace the parent classes, and it succeeds with flying colors.
Utterly pointless.
I can think of many times I'd want to play a Sorc over an Arcanist. The obvious one being wanting to play a more Charisma-focused character. More spells is another option. Fuller access to bloodlines, and not having to pay for them, is a third.
I wouldn't ever want to use a Wizard, but that's because I loathe prepared casting. I can see why some people would though - earlier access to spells, more spells, bonus feats, discoveries.
|
I can think of many times I'd want to play a Sorc over an Arcanist. The obvious one being wanting to play a more Charisma-focused character. More spells is another option. Fuller access to bloodlines, and not having to pay for them, is a third.
That third isn't really applicable due to the Blood Arcanist Archetype.
The others are potentially legitimate, though.
I can think of many times I'd want to play a Sorc over an Arcanist. The obvious one being wanting to play a more Charisma-focused character. More spells is another option. Fuller access to bloodlines, and not having to pay for them, is a third.That third isn't really applicable due to the Blood Arcanist Archetype.
The others are potentially legitimate, though.
I wanted to create a Gnome Sage-blooded Sorcerer would be the party's walking Magic Items shop. Because I thought that'd be really cool. I didn't want a Wizard; I wanted a Sorcerer
And then I saw the Arcanist.
That little guy got retconned into an Arcanist in a heartbeat. Yes, the loss of spells kinda stunk, but I got the madcap cast-on-the-fly Spontaneous Caster Nutty Professor I'd imagined, a Bonus crafting feat, extra abilities at every other level which are awesome, got to use my Int natively, and got to take Bloodline Development to get an Arcane Bond (which was supposed to be his ancestor's Staff, but I couldn't take under the Sage bloodline).
All-in-all, I like the fact that the Arcanist is the "consumate caster" - the knowledge of a Wizard, the on-the-fly versatility of a Sorcerer, and yet completely balanced between the two as a wholly new flavor.
Skald:
Got schooled by the HD wizard.
How do you take a d12 and a d8 and "hybrid" into a ….d8?
Yet Ranger and rogue (slayer) which have d10 and d8, make a d8.
oracle/witch d8/d6 (shaman) is a d8.
and bloodrager gets d10 by mixing d12 with d6?
Skald hit dice need an errata.
|
|
You might as well ask how 6 level casting and no casting somehow combine into 6 level casting. The answer is that Skalds are much closer mechanically to Bards than Barbarians, so they round up on the spells and down on the hit dice. If they were more Martial in nature they'd likely have d10 HD and full BAB, as well as notably less spells, but that's simply not the case.
I do wish the slayer did not use intelligence for some of its abilities when determining the DC for the save. It is a tertiary stat. Using strength or dex would have been better. I can even seen wisdom being pushed ahead of int due to sense motive and perception which I don't see too many slayer builds not having ranks in.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you (all) think that we have reached such a level of complexity with classes and class combinations that it is now no longer possible to work out optimised builds - so you might as well pick your classes based on flavour?
And isn't that a good thing?
Richard
Optimization exists even within the context of a single class. More options don't change that. And there's still the fact some classes are inherently more potent than others, so same idea there too.
Yeah gotta agree with Sslarn, the answer to Richard's question is a huge No.
Skald:
Got schooled by the HD wizard.
How do you take a d12 and a d8 and "hybrid" into a ….d8?
Yet Ranger and rogue (slayer) which have d10 and d8, make a d8.
oracle/witch d8/d6 (shaman) is a d8.
and bloodrager gets d10 by mixing d12 with d6?
Skald hit dice need an errata.
Bloodrager get d10 because they have full BAB. Just like every other class with a full BAB. Skald, Slayer, and everything else get a d8 because they have a 3/4 BAB.
Paizo did something people suggested in D&D for almost all of 3.5: tie BAB to HD. They even note this in the Core Rulebook.
The Barbarian is the SOLE exception to this. They get a d12 hit die, and this is effectively one of their innate, unique, class qualities, and by farone of the strongest aspects of the class.
The Dragon Disciple is the only other class in the game - and a Prestige Class at that - which gets a d12, because the DD is all about mimicking/becoming a Dragon (who themselves have d12 HD).
The Bloodrager actually has a Caster Level of 4 by the time they get their first spells at lv4; this is the same "break the mold" idea as the Barbarian having a d12 HD. If you gave the Bloodrager a d12 AND this quality, than the Bloodrager is just completely nuts and makes the Barbarian 100% obsolete.
Yeah gotta agree with Sslarn, the answer to Richard's question is a huge No.
Agreed. In just about any game, when you are given 2 or more options which use radically different approaches to playing, 1 will invariably more "optimal".
In the case of games like D&D/Pathfinder, more options just means more ways of optimizing. Adding more options only increases the level of optimization further.
Case in point - in MTG, the "Legacy" format premiered, and cards that cost 3 Mana to play were very viable, because the number of high-efficiency cards that cost 2 or 1 Mana didn't exist. Nearly 10 years on, however, and there have been so many cards have now been printed that 1 Mana cards form the bulk of decks, and 3 Mana cards are treated as "better win you the game, or it's worthless".
That's not to say that Pathfinder will/is suffering from "Powercreep," but some designs, such as an Errol-Flynn-esque swashbuckler, were only marginally possible 3 years ago; now, with the Swashbuckler class, it's very easy to create a Edmond Dantes or Inigo Montoya.
"Optomization" in RPGs just means making a certain character theme/idea as efficient as can be; certain ideas will always be more powerful than others (thus why casters remain eternally at the top-tier of power unless the DM specifically tries to make it harder for them), but you can always fine-tune each character idea more and more with each option that comes out.
Do you (all) think that we have reached such a level of complexity with classes and class combinations that it is now no longer possible to work out optimised builds - so you might as well pick your classes based on flavour?
And isn't that a good thing?
Richard
From what many people would say, the best option for optimizers came in the CRB, and just keeps getting better as they add spells: the Wizard.
Although I suppose now an Exploiter Wizard might be a new competitor.
Do you (all) think that we have reached such a level of complexity with classes and class combinations that it is now no longer possible to work out optimised builds - so you might as well pick your classes based on flavour?
And isn't that a good thing?
Richard
Actually it is easier have optimized builds with flavor than before, and that is a good thing. No more gimped characters because "flavor".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the taste of Gimp in the morning!
Yet Ranger and rogue (slayer) which have d10 and d8, make a d8.
Skald, Slayer, and everything else get a d8 because they have a 3/4 BAB.
Slayer has d10 HD and Full BAB.
Otherwise, he's right: Full BAB = d10 HD. 3/4 BAB = d8. Poor BAB = d6.
The barbarian is an exception to the rule, just as the rogue is an exception to the skill ranks rule.
Slayer has d10 HD and Full BAB.
... That is does. I think I somehow mixed up the Slayer and Investigator.
The Warpriest is, hilariously, hands-down the single greatest unarmed combatant I've ever seen in the game - even if it wasn't intended as such - and I'm happy to say that it's the spiritual successor to the Favored Soul I've been wanting for years.
Elaborate, please?
Actually fighter has the Martial Master archetype which gives them the Martial Flexibility ability which is kinda the Brawler's gimmick and with that along with all those feats makes it very easy to get prereqs for flexible feats. (Also the Extra Martial Flexibility feat gives you +3 more uses per day)
I like Swashbuckler, but I feel it needs to pull back on how many swift and immediate actions it needs to rely on. Also add 1/2 level to your Panache points would give them enough so you do not need to rely on the Extra Panache feat.
Slayer has d10 HD and Full BAB.... That is does. I think I somehow mixed up the Slayer and Investigator.
That'll happen when ten new classes all come out at the same time. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Warpriest is, hilariously, hands-down the single greatest unarmed combatant I've ever seen in the game - even if it wasn't intended as such - and I'm happy to say that it's the spiritual successor to the Favored Soul I've been wanting for years.Elaborate, please?
It requires a slightly-specific build, BUT...
You either choose Human or Scion of Humanity Aasimar.
As a Scion of Humanity Aasimar, you count as a Human for Favored Class Abilities ( according to the FAQ from the ARG concerning creatures which have 2 creature/subtypes). This is very important
Even without taking Sacred Fist (I don't like it as much as the normal Monk OR the normal Warpriest, actually), you get Improved Unarmed Strike at lv1 if you worship Irori or other God with Unarmed Strike as a Favored Weapon. You also get Weapon Focus (Unarmed) as a free feat. If you take Two-Weapon Fighting as your CL1 Feat, you make full-attacks at a natural -1/-1, dealing 1d6 damage; this is already better than the Monk.
Starting at 2nd level, you get Fervor, and can burn Fervor to cast spells as a Swift Action; Blessed Fist, a new 1st level Cleric spell, states that if you have IUS, gives you +1 to attack and damage for up to 1 minute/level at a time. In addition to this, you can cast Enlarge Person as a swift action, burning a second Fervor, upping your damage to 1d8 per hit. So at 2nd level, you can attack for +1/+1 and deal 1d6+1 each, OR you attack for +0/+0 and deal 1d8+2 each (+2 from the strength bonus).
As you advance, you'll be able to cast Haste as a Swift action, as well as Righteous Might, Bull's Strength, Bear's Endurance, etc.
You also count as a Fighter and gain Bonus Combat Feats every 3rd Level, so you get Feats like Weapon Spec., Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Spec. which will both negate your penalties to fight two-handed, AND will add +4 to all Unarmed Attacks natively.
And as a Human, you get a free Bonus Feat every 6th level. This means that you will have as many feats as a Fighter.
You are also allowed to wear Armor - something that Monks can't do, which means you can both up the bonus from Sacred Armor and/or add special Armor-only enhancements to it.
If you take Aasimar Racial feats, like Angelic Flesh, you gain a +1 Natural Armor bonus and your Attacks count as Cold Iron naturally. You can also gain Wings, and then Metallic Wings, which you can then use another instance of Weapon Focus (Wings), to increase their damage to full. To be fair, this can be done at CL13 at the earliest, so for PFS this specific utility is debatable, but for home games it's quite spectacular.
If you take the Artifice Blessing, after lv10, carry around 2 magic daggers with 1 ability on each; you spend 2 uses of your Artifice Blessing to give each of your arms special abilities (like Flaming, or Frosting, etc.), though you'll probably want an Amulet of Mighty Strikes with Impact on it to begin with.
---
The reason I said what I said is because you get 6/9 spells, your damage is only 1 die lower than a Monk, you have better AC than the Monk, you get as many Feats as the Fighter, you gain access to Fighter-only Feats, you can cast personal Buffs as Swift Actions, you gain Channel and the equivalent of Lay on Hands, and if you take Artifice Domain, you can both get the effects of an Amulet of Mighty Strikes AND syphon off the effects of magic items for a duration that's longer than your Sacred Fist duration.
You get fewer attacks than the Monk, yes, but the total effect is fantastic - you hit almost as hard (and more consistently), with good accuracy (no worse - in fact better, really - than a Magus or Battle Cleric), have as many Feats open as the Monk, get insta-buffs, and get Channel and spellasting, on top of spontaneous healing.
---
This is the build I was describing:
Race ???
CL1 Wrp1 Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Improved Unarmed Strike
CL2 Wrp2
CL3 Wrp3 Weapon Finesse, Double Slice
CL4 Wrp4
CL5 Wrp5 ???
CL6 Wrp6 Weapon Specialization - Unarmed, ???
CL7 Wrp7 ???
CL8 Wrp8
CL9 Wrp9 Greater Weapon Focus Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
CL10 Wrp10
CL11 Wrp11 ???
CL12 Wrp12 Greater Weapon Specialization, ???
(??? is where you can place any Feat you desire to customize - my personal favorites are either a Tripper build, spamming Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip, or using Metallic Wings to get as many attacks as the Monk, AND being able to fly naturally; I actually do both, though I realize that's more fluff and "cool factor" than complete optimal play)
Interesting. Thanks.
Give her time. I just ran a Hunter through Dragon's Demand and I had a great time with it. The free teamwork feats give the Hunter a unique edge with her animal companion, don't discount them.I am currently running a hunter, but I have only been in one session so far, so I haven't seen what his combat is going to be like, yet.
Oh, I know those teamwork feats are going to pay off. My wolf and 2 other players are melee types, (monk and rogue), so there will be plenty of flanking to set off those feats. And they take a nice chunk out of the negatives to my attack from the various feats and whatnot I have going on.
I adore the ... Sacred Fist Warpriest,
Warpriest- Sacred Fist
Sacred Fist.
I'm glad you liked this archetype. It was alot of fun to write.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I adore the ... Sacred Fist Warpriest,Warpriest- Sacred FistSacred Fist.I'm glad you liked this archetype. It was alot of fun to write.
You may well be one of my favorite people in the world. :)
For the most part, I found the hybrid classes both conceptually and mechanically redundant. But then again, I'm very much a "core-only" guy, so the book wasn't really aimed at me.
Besides, I still bought the book in PDF for PFS purposes, because the price was so reasonable, and just to reward Paizo's digital-friendly behavior.
Also if I wanted one of the kick-ass schools like Void
That kind of mirrors my gut feeling about the Arcanist, which is that it's calibrated a notch or three higher than many of the Core Rulebook options, but not necessarily higher than later book options for Sorcerer or Wizard, such as the Void school, False/Razmiran Priest, etc.
It will be a while before I get the chance to personally test the gut feeling, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I adore the ... Sacred Fist Warpriest,Warpriest- Sacred FistSacred Fist.I'm glad you liked this archetype. It was alot of fun to write.
It's basically the only worthwhile thing about the class. Take that as you will.
It's basically the only worthwhile thing about the class. Take that as you will.
Thank you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like that.
Especially if they also involve classes that punch things. I can never get enough of classes that punch things. =)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I honestly think this book shows a ton of creative power, but absolutely no editorial faculties.
Personally i think hunter was a waste , could have been a nice new pet class ... instead it is what it is.
Since i would have liked a new pet class like the summoner to play with , i did get annoyed by it.
With that said , i do think there are a few nice new classes in there worth taking a look.
The only classes that interest me in the book are brawler, investigator, and slayer.
Brawler - I like playing non-caster characters. Magic types in general have never interested me that much, and I have long wanted to play a non-weapon using combatant that wasn't a monk. I'm about to start playing a Brawler, in fact, so we'll see how it works out in actual play. I think I have figured out a way to simplify the issue of martial flexibility / feats measurement, so we'll see if I'm on the right track or not.
Investigator - I like the idea and many of the mechanics, but just have no interest in the alchemist part of it, or the optional Sleuth luck. I would have preferred to see an option to play (essentially) a very skill heavy Empiricist type. It's not a bad class, though.
Slayer - The slayer is the first decent hunter class I have seen. It really should have been called Hunter.
Overall, I think the book and classes would have been more appealing if they had gone with new, unique feats, skills, etc., rather than mashing two existing ones together. Why hybridize when you can come up with something new and interesting (like a true Shapeshifter)?
My 2 cents:
Arcanist - Interesting concept, but the fact that CHA is not really necessary is a bit of a let down. I wish it truly forced Arcanists to balance INT and CHA.
Bloodrager - It's nice, but it sometimes feel too close to the actual Barbarian.
Brawler - Great class, I just don't get why a class that's supposed to be based on flexibility gets anchored with Maneuver Training that tilts your playstyle towards a single maneuver.
Hunter - I don't play pet classes so I haven't even playtested it. I know people who may like it, but it might be tricky to convince them to play this over a Ranger (if they wanted to focus on combat) or a Druid (if they wanted to focus on spells or animalistic transformation).
Investigator - Cool class, too bad the Studied Combat focus only comes relevant very very late. I wish there was an archetype that improved Studied Combat at the cost of spellcasting or what not.
Shaman - Alright concept, suffers from the same playstyle woes of the Witch. #ChantSpam
Skald - Great class, why doesn't it have Perform (Wind)?
Slayer - Perfect.
Swashbuckler - A mess.
Warpriest - It's lacking an extra something.
Personally i think hunter was a waste , could have been a nice new pet class ... instead it is what it is.
It's the most powerful pet class in the game, excluding the cheesiness of the broken Summoner.
The Hunter's Animal Companion has everything the Druid's has and a lot more with buffs and teamwork feats. What more could you ask for?
I would ask for a polished class instead of what we got , the hunter seems a filler that had to be made to meet the quota of the book.
Dont get me wrong , there are good classes in this book , it is a pity being a person who quite enjoys having "pets" ingame i cant say hunter is one of them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree with Lazar, the Hunter is a great class chassis. The only thing I'd have liked them to do a better job with is clarifying how the skirmisher tricks are supposed to work. Going off the reading that the AnC learns and uses the same way as Handle Animal tricks and is treated as "the Ranger" for determining which powers he can use and how he uses them has been solid though.
It's a class that's absolutely excellent during the 1-15 range and does as well as any non-full caster after that though, so it's one of the few classes in the ACG I'm thoroughly pleased with, alongside the Investigator and a few specific archetypes for other classes like the Vanguard and Daring Champion.
Why is the Swashbuckler a mess? (Sincere question as I've not looked too closely at it yet.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the Swashbuckler a mess? (Sincere question as I've not looked too closely at it yet.)
I think the only thing really "messy" about it is the fact that so many of its best tricks rely on swift or immediate actions making it feel like the class has less synergy than it should, it doesn't have the mobility that some folks wanted from the class, and its two poor saves make it a pretty poor front-liner, especially when one of those poor saves was a strong save for both parent classes.
I, personally, am pretty ambivalent on the class. I prefer my bucklers of swash to be charismatic leaders as well as warriors, so if I wanted to try the mechanics I'm much more likely to go with the Daring Champion Cavalier archetype than the core Swashbuckler.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the Swashbuckler a mess? (Sincere question as I've not looked too closely at it yet.)
IMHO, the biggest reason is that it completely fails at living up to its class description. They're supposed to be an "fast and agile combatants" who "dart in and out of combat".
However, they are no more agile or mobile than any other martial class in the game. They are just another flavor of "stand still or suck". Their class features all depend on swift action, including Charmed Life, which not only spends a immediate action, but also has limited uses per day and doesn't really compensate for having both bad Fort and bad Will, despite many playtesters mentioning time and time again that this is a huge problem for any frontliner.
To add insult to injury, their 6th, 10th, 14th and 18th levels are extremely boring, as all they get is an additional use of Charmed Life, making them basically dead levels.
All in all... Swashbucklers are decent BSFs, but they are awful swashbucklers. IMHO, they are one of the biggest disappointments in all of Pathfinder.
It doesn't help that Paizo managed to screw up a simple Dex-to-Damage feat as well...