Does anyone know why they decided to not give the warpriest a full BAB progression in the advanced class guide? I would understand it if they balanced it more like the magus but it does not appear that they did.
|
The class is all about buffing itself with swift actions , essentially all warpriests are battle-clerics without having to wait to get quicken spells, so they easily have a Bab comparable to full bab classes and they can even pick combat feats as if they were a full bab class and they can use their god special snowflake weapon like any weapon. Which means that Warpriests are very good for any campaign going from level 1 to 12, when clerics can't buff themselves that fast. If you know your campaign is heading to level 13 and above, you might as well just play a cleric because higher level spells OP.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone know why they decided to not give the warpriest a full BAB progression in the advanced class guide? I would understand it if they balanced it more like the magus but it does not appear that they did.
They thought it was too good to have full BAB. I think it should have kept full BAB to stay in competition with the inquisitor. Allowing the warpriest to buff himself with spells by using swift actions does not make up for the lost of full BAB IMHO.
The class is all about buffing itself with swift actions , essentially all warpriests are battle-clerics without having to wait to get quicken spells, so they easily have a Bab comparable to full bab classes and they can even pick combat feats as if they were a full bab class and they can use their god special snowflake weapon like any weapon. Which means that Warpriests are very good for any campaign going from level 1 to 12, when clerics can't buff themselves that fast. If you know your campaign is heading to level 13 and above, you might as well just play a cleric because higher level spells OP.
I'm not saying they aren't good and they do amuse the hell out of me as a class and i'm going to play one as soon as i can it just seems from there general description there ideals and philosophies they would be a full BAB class like a paladin for the gods who would never have a lawful goody toe shoes killer on a chain like Pharasma. To me it makes no sense they aren't full BAB. And there isn't a spell that makes up for BAB not with the number of spells available to the war priest which is why i said if they balanced it more like the magus i would understand. Admittedly the swift action from fervor thing is nice but you can do it such a limited number of times per day one combat and its pretty much your done being a front line fighter for the day from levels 1-10.
|
basically people are mad because it actually balanced the class. I have seen a ton of theory crafting arguments that it is now one of the worst class and doesn't hold up to paladin or inquisitor. I assure you that in actual practice it just as powerful. Advanced Class Origins is coming out Oct 22nd. I assume that war priest will be plenty powerful after some of the options in that book for the theory crafting crowd.
basically people are mad because it actually balanced the class. I have seen a ton of theory crafting arguments that it is now one of the worst class and doesn't hold up to paladin or inquisitor. I assure you that in actual practice it just as powerful. Advanced Class Origins is coming out Oct 22nd. I assume that war priest will be plenty powerful after some of the options in that book for the theory crafting crowd.
I do feel quite limited in my the options for the advanced class guide right now so i'm looking forward to that release. I don't need or want to be the most powerful in fact that is one of the things which annoys me about pathfinder the last character i played was a bard and i enjoyed it even though i was weaker than everyone else. The whole not having a full BAB on a front line melee character just feels wrong is all.
Except the Inquisitor doesn't have full BAB either, and uses the swift action buffing method.Does anyone know why they decided to not give the warpriest a full BAB progression in the advanced class guide? I would understand it if they balanced it more like the magus but it does not appear that they did.They thought it was too good to have full BAB. I think it should have kept full BAB to stay in competition with the inquisitor. Allowing the warpriest to buff himself with spells by using swift actions does not make up for the lost of full BAB IMHO.
That still does not mean the warpriest is equal to an inquisitor since they still have spells, and are a GREAT all around class. The warpriest has less skills and overall utility, and if it is ahead in damage it is not by much. That was the point of my last statement.
Them both using swift actions to buff does not mean much on its own.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
basically people are mad because it actually balanced the class. I have seen a ton of theory crafting arguments that it is now one of the worst class and doesn't hold up to paladin or inquisitor. I assure you that in actual practice it just as powerful. Advanced Class Origins is coming out Oct 22nd. I assume that war priest will be plenty powerful after some of the options in that book for the theory crafting crowd.
What makes you think I have not actually made one or seen one in play? Don't be so quick to shout theorycraft.
|
To me it makes no sense they aren't full BAB.The vast majority of respondents and testors during the playtest clearly felt otherwise.
Actually, the vast majority of the Playtest responses where to keep the Full BaB and either drop Sacred Weapon extra damage or some spellcasting. That's one major factor in why the Warpriest playtesters in particular basically walked away from that whole ordeal feeling like they had been completely ignored and the general consensus (at least on the boards and my circles) is that the class is basically the largest disappointment in the book. It's not terrible, it just isn't good/great either, and sort of fails at everything it was meant to do.
I'd say Swashbuckler is the biggest disappointment. Warpriest is still a very solid T3 class.
Seeming weak next to the Inquisitor isn't uncommon. It is one of the most well-designed classes in all of PF, after all.
The issue is that it the Warpriest isn't significantly better at combat the Inquisitor. Basically, you get 3 type of swift-action buffing, blessings and heavy armor, and some weapon proficiencies in exchange for the inquisitor's litany spells, banes, judgements, more skill points, stalwart, and a domain. I don't think it's that good a trade off. It's not a runaway victory for the inquisitor, but I think it's a pretty clear one.
All those complaints said, I think the class would have been much more well received if it didn't have the exact same BAB as 9th full divine classes. It relies entirely on swift-action buffing to keep up with those classes if the players builds them for melee. Most people were also really soured with the joke of a class we were presented with at the start of the playtest.
Wow, I was looking at the Warpriest a few weeks ago, and I thought that it had full BAB. Maybe there was an old version posted at d20pfsrd, or maybe I was just confused somehow. Swift action buffs and bonus feats still seem pretty cool though.
I don't know if it is fair to expect every new class to be as powerful as the Inquisitor. I've seen the Inquisitor in play for extended periods, and it seems very strong as well as very easy to build successfully.
@Seranov - What's disappointing about Swashbucklers? Adding your level to damage is pretty cool when Cavalier and Paladins do it a few times per day. Doing it every round sounds great. Maybe there's some big drawback I missed though.
Design philosophy.
Full BAB classes can only gain 4-levels of spells (if they have spells at all).
+3/4 BAB classes can gain 6-levels of spells if arcane or either 6- or 9-levels of spells if divine (if they have spells).
+1/2 BAB classes (typically arcane) gain 9-levels of spells.
Basically, allowing full BAB and 6-levels of spells is more powerful than pretty much any other class in Pathfinder, especially with the divine buff spells on top of that.
Devilkiller, the reason many believe the swashbuckler is the most disappointing are three;
- Really bad Saves. Charmed Live, being a inmediate action on a class that uses too much swift actions, have very little real utility.
- Lack of real bonus to mobility. Many view this a central concept to the class, and has little there.
-The mess of DEX to Damage. This issue is too long to resume here.
On the Warpriest, I wanted the "non-LG Paladin". And the loss of full BAB brakes that. 4 spells levels where enough for me. But the final version, 3/4 BAB and only 2 Skills points... too similar to Cleric and Inquisitor, and for me, loss against both. And too far away from Paladin to be the "non-LG Paladin".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I was looking at the Warpriest a few weeks ago, and I thought that it had full BAB. Maybe there was an old version posted at d20pfsrd, or maybe I was just confused somehow. Swift action buffs and bonus feats still seem pretty cool though.
I don't know if it is fair to expect every new class to be as powerful as the Inquisitor. I've seen the Inquisitor in play for extended periods, and it seems very strong as well as very easy to build successfully.
@Seranov - What's disappointing about Swashbucklers? Adding your level to damage is pretty cool when Cavalier and Paladins do it a few times per day. Doing it every round sounds great. Maybe there's some big drawback I missed though.
There are three problems with the swashbuckler class from an effectiveness standpoint, one inexcusable problem from a flavor standpoint.
Effectiveness first:
- They have the worst saving throw array in the game: Their only good save is reflex. Reflex is the least important save in the game because while damage hurts, it's still less problematic than being disintegrated or being charmed to kill your teammates. This is especially bad as a class that should be a frontliner.
- Too many of it's class features are immediate or swift actions. Most notably parries and charmed life (the key way for the swashbuckler to get around saving throws) are both immediate actions, so using them prevents the swashbuckler from doubling her precise strike damage, using kip ups, menacing swordplay, or dizzying defense.
- The class is focused on using what is widely considered to be the worst fighting style in Pathfinder. 1 handed weapon + a free hand/buckler. The class does more to make it work than most, but it's still not a very effective combat style.
Flavor:
Somehow a class called the swashbuckler can more easily (see: at all) add their dexterity to damage using a bastard sword in one hand than they can with a a freaking rapier or dagger.
The other, smaller issues with the class are that the swashbuckler doesn't have any real class abilities that promote battlefield mobility (which you would expect for that fighting style), and that most perceive the daring champion cavalier archetype to more fully realize the swashbuckler concept.
Design philosophy.
Full BAB classes can only gain 4-levels of spells (if they have spells at all).
+3/4 BAB classes can gain 6-levels of spells if arcane or either 6- or 9-levels of spells if divine (if they have spells).
+1/2 BAB classes (typically arcane) gain 9-levels of spells.
Basically, allowing full BAB and 6-levels of spells is more powerful than pretty much any other class in Pathfinder, especially with the divine buff spells on top of that.
Not to say you don't know what your saying but clerics and war priests have the same BAB as do magus and cleric. And i really don't know where they pulled the fervor ability from its like lay on hands that change's into channeling and lay on hands with a weird shudder from time to time as you burn it for a quicken buff at level 4 which is just strange. But if the blessings and sacred weapons and sacred armor don't seem like a fair trade off from the inquisitor if it had a full BAB i would say it was fair right now not so fair maybe they will pop out an archetype that only gets one blessing and gets full BAB i can hope right?
|
|
Wow, I was looking at the Warpriest a few weeks ago, and I thought that it had full BAB. Maybe there was an old version posted at d20pfsrd, or maybe I was just confused somehow. Swift action buffs and bonus feats still seem pretty cool though.
The last playtest version had a pseudo Full BaB with Favored and Sacred Weapon, but that has been removed. Now they only have this sort of weird, unclear ability to count as having full BaB for selecting a few Bonus Feats.
I don't know if it is fair to expect every new class to be as powerful as the Inquisitor. I've seen the Inquisitor in play for extended periods, and it seems very strong as well as very easy to build successfully.
It's less that the Inquisitor is "more powerful" as it (and things like the Cleric/Fighter, "battle" Oracle, or Crusader Cleric) are just outright better at doing the job of a "war" priest. But, what's even worse is that they outside of being a better warpriest, they also tend to be significantly better outside of that as well. The Inquisitor, for example has all kinds of non-combat related abilities. The Cleric/Fighter or Oracle/Fighter has better skill selections and generally more spells for both in and out of combat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's all too easy to blame the play testers for flaws in class post playtest. What no one wants to admit is the involvement of the dev(s). Even if the majority of playtesters said yes to a full bab Warpriest It matters nothing if a dev is dead set against giving the class full bab. Playtest feedback or no. In the end the devs have shown they will ignore it if they choose to.
Wow, I was looking at the Warpriest a few weeks ago, and I thought that it had full BAB. Maybe there was an old version posted at d20pfsrd, or maybe I was just confused somehow. Swift action buffs and bonus feats still seem pretty cool though.
I don't know if it is fair to expect every new class to be as powerful as the Inquisitor. I've seen the Inquisitor in play for extended periods, and it seems very strong as well as very easy to build successfully.
@Seranov - What's disappointing about Swashbucklers? Adding your level to damage is pretty cool when Cavalier and Paladins do it a few times per day. Doing it every round sounds great. Maybe there's some big drawback I missed though.
There are three problems with the swashbuckler class from an effectiveness standpoint, one inexcusable problem from a flavor standpoint.
Effectiveness first:
- They have the worst saving throw array in the game: Their only good save is reflex. Reflex is the least important save in the game because while damage hurts, it's still less problematic than being disintegrated or being charmed to kill your teammates. This is especially bad as a class that should be a frontliner.
- Too many of it's class features are immediate or swift actions. Most notably parries and charmed life (the key way for the swashbuckler to get around saving throws) are both immediate actions, so using them prevents the swashbuckler from doubling her precise strike damage, using kip ups, menacing swordplay, or dizzying defense.
- The class is focused on using what is widely considered to be the worst fighting style in Pathfinder. 1 handed weapon + a free hand/buckler. The class does more to make it work than most, but it's still not a very effective combat style.
Flavor:
Somehow a class called the swashbuckler can more easily (see: at all) add their dexterity to damage using a bastard sword in one hand than they can with a a freaking rapier or dagger.The other, smaller...
Well I do find the Swift/Immediate Action bottleneck to be a handicap it is overall a pretty decent class over all. Their Dodge deed allows them to add Cha to AC for that round, if the foe misses or hits doesn't matter you now step too far away for a full attack. Yes it provokes which I think is a little silly but it works to five foot step around a foe. Now light armor and Buckler is a little weak when it comes to AC so adding Cha to AC is nice but situation based and it too uses Immediate actions.
I think the developers took into account very carefully the opinions of the Players/playtesters. It is a very professional team at Paizo and they are responsible for a game played by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world.
When a handful of players scream: "The warpriest needs full BAB!" they have to exactly do that and put aside their own ideas/concerns and blindly follow the loudest crowd. Why, that is how things work in the game industry, is it not?
I find it funny when people on the messageboards say things like:
"The devs hate the monk."
"They ignore their customers completely."
"The devs don't want martials to have nice things."
Do you listen to yourselves? Do you really belive what you are saying?
Back to the topic. The warpriest is a very solid class. Read the thread about the Warpriest Guide in the Advice Forum. There are a lot of strong options. Of course, you can go on whining and compare it to other classes if that's your thing.
I don't like all the mechanics of the Warpriest (sacred weapon seems rather weak too me for example), but that is my personal opinion. I too think that the Inquisitor is tad stronger, but I'd rather play a Warpriest, because I like a ton of feats (human favourite class Bonus I am looking at you). I am quite sure: if you really want a battle cleric, warpriest is better than cleric (though I admit cleric is better overall).
I’m currently playing a Fighter with a low Will save, so I understand the pain poor saves can bring. That said, the same game has a Ninja who sucks at Fort saves too. I guess the Swashbuckler is kind of in the same boat. I think maybe it would be nice if low saves were a little higher and high saves were a little lower so that saving throws didn’t so often come down to “I need a 20” or “Just don’t roll a 1”.
@Squirrel_Dude - I know that a lot of people agree with you that sword and board is "not a very effective combat style". My shield and buckler toting PCs have actually done pretty well and enjoyed their high AC, but having something like the swashbuckler's Precise Strike to boost damage output might be really nice too.
@DM Beckett - Thanks for clarifying that there was a transition from high to medium BAB. I thought maybe I was going nuts since a few weeks ago I’d noted that the full BAB Warpriest would be a valid cohort for the Squire feat. At the time the Skald was too, but I just checked, and apparently it also got nerfed down to ¾ BAB.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@turgan
If you think the devs don't ignore feedback when it suits them. Guess again. The fanbase told them not to have guns target touch AC but they decided to do it anyway. I get you like Psuzo and the devs. They can and will ignore feedback to write their own thing.
It shows how difficult it is to balance classes. A non-archetype warpriest is usually outperformed by a cleric that dips a level or two into fighter. The archetypes are really the only uses for warpriest (the one pseudo-paladin of any alignment, and the I wanna be a monk warpriest archetypes come to mind as the most useful).
Giving the warpriest a full BAB takes it over the top enough to shadow over the inquisitor and paladin. Giving it full BAB and only four levels of spells makes a pseudo-paladin without the smiting or need to be LG only.
In the end, what is done is done, and serves as learning experiences for product yet to come.
(And back to back forum posting by Kestral/Kestrel, hooray!).
Other than not being a multi-alignment Paladin and adding to the crowd of 3/4 BAB divine casters I haven't seen or had any real problems with Warpriest. Aesthetically I feel like it's more of a divine Magus than which is good enough I guess but I was looking forward to a multialignment Paladin. It also puts Inquisitor in an odd place thematically.
I do remember that Warpriest had a mechanic that effectively gave it full BAB but it was taken away for being too powerful.
Overall personally it was no skin off my nose and I see a lot of fun things I want to do with the class so I stopped caring.
I'm not the person to ask because although I did take part in the early weeks of the playtest, even running a character through a self-designed gauntlet, I stopped paying attention near the end. I know there are other posters who were upset with how the class was designed around using a deities favored weapon, were happy to see that overly restrictive design concept removed, and then watched it get brought back in the form of a feat chain they were told would make the class more viable.
I’m currently playing a Fighter with a low Will save, so I understand the pain poor saves can bring. That said, the same game has a Ninja who sucks at Fort saves too. I guess the Swashbuckler is kind of in the same boat.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the ninja or rogue saves, either. That said, their problem is slightly dampened by the fact that they aren't expected to be frontline characters, who should be expected to tank those fort saves.
I think maybe it would be nice if low saves were a little higher and high saves were a little lower so that saving throws didn’t so often come down to “I need a 20” or “Just don’t roll a 1”.
Agreed. The game's saving throw math is weird like that.
@Squirrel_Dude - I know that a lot of people agree with you that sword and board is "not a very effective combat style". My shield and buckler toting PCs have actually done pretty well and enjoyed their high AC, but having something like the swashbuckler's Precise Strike to boost damage output might be really nice too.
My issue is less with sword and board as style overall. as Paizo has done a pretty good job of supporting that style. It's still not totally optimal, but the creampuffs in the bestiary don't require totally optimal characters to beat them. It is a bit trickier to set up than other fighting styles (and a bit more feat intensive), but it's solid enough.
My issue is more specifically with the swashbuckler's variation of it. The kind where they don't get the extra AC/ability to attack with heavy spiked shield, and also don't get the extra damage or reach from a two-handed weapon. Theoretically, it's a fighting style best fit with maneuverable characters who dart around the battlefield, avoiding full attacks, but CMD progression makes tumbling really hard as the game progresses.
For some reason though, the swashbuckler didn't really get any class abilities to help them be more mobile.
Does anyone remember the 3.5 Duskblade? Full casting, five levels of arcane spells. And somehow it never comes up in discussions of overpowered classes. Ever.
The thing is, full BAB rarely comes into play with casting-oriented characters. So a full BAB warpriest would be a warpriest with more hit points, and a nice full-attack routine. It would still be burning swift actions to keep up with the fighter and barbarian's attack bonus.
I'm not the person to ask because although I did take part in the early weeks of the playtest, even running a character through a self-designed gauntlet, I stopped paying attention near the end. I know there are other posters who were upset with how the class was designed around using a deities favored weapon, were happy to see that overly restrictive design concept removed, and then watched it get brought back in the form of a feat chain they were told would make the class more viable.
** spoiler omitted **...
I agree the Warpriest comes off as Magus like and while that is no bad, I feel full BAB would have suited them better and allowed them to at least feel stronger and use their favored weapon more effectively allowing weaker weapons to shine.
I agree though that perhaps they should have been given some other ability to help them move, maybe letting them use five foot steps more often in different situations. But you can always take the Step Up line of feats, though I agree they should have been given free as a minimal to help with the mobility issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the person to ask because although I did take part in the early weeks of the playtest, even running a character through a self-designed gauntlet, I stopped paying attention near the end. I know there are other posters who were upset with how the class was designed around using a deities favored weapon, were happy to see that overly restrictive design concept removed, and then watched it get brought back in the form of a feat chain they were told would make the class more viable.
** spoiler omitted **...
I agree the Warpriest comes off as Magus like and while that is no bad, I feel full BAB would have suited them better and allowed them to at least feel stronger and use their favored weapon more effectively allowing weaker weapons to shine.
** spoiler omitted **
The magus is a bit different, though. Building a Gish is something that had previously required multiclassing. There wasn't really anything like the Magus' Gish-in-a-can design except for one or two bard archetypes. The warpreist is a battle cleric, which is a concept that has always existed since the cleric class was first printed for 3.5.
It's not called Cleric-or-Druidzilla for nothing.
The latter is more of an issue with the awfulness that is charmed life. I really don't know why charmed life wasn't just made a constant ability for a class with the worst saving throw array in the game (commoners not withstanding), when it was considered a perfectly balanced ability for the Paladin, who already has the second best saving throw array in the game
As for mobility. I think getting step-up feat line for free might be nice, and maybe a higher-level ability to take multiple five-foot steps would working in the right direction. If we wanted to move beyond standard mundane stuff, something that let them increase their base movement speed for a turn would also be interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After having seen a warpriest in play for a few months now, I think they are a viable if unimaginative class. Truth be told, I think they're kind of dull.
Assuming neither side has time to buff, I find that the WP is better defensively and worse offensively than an inquisitor If they do have time to pre-buff, the inquisitor pushes way ahead in offense and tightens the race considerably defensively since all his class features stack and judgments & bane annihilate sacred weapon & blessings. Obviously the inquisitor pretty much destroys the warpriest for general utility.
Assuming neither side has time to buff, the warpriest will do somewhat better than a combat cleric in melee/ranged combat, but obviously lose on the spellcasting front. If the party does have time to buff, a combat cleric will absolutely obliterate the warpriest since he has the same spell list but many more spell slots and much faster progression through it - the cleric is casting Righteous Might a level before the Warpriest has figured out Divine Power.
Giving the class medium BAB is actually not killing it, but the change really underlined that it desperately needed its own "combaty" spell list - ideally a spell list borrowing "battle-themed" spells from the cleric, druid, inquisitor, and the paladin/anti-paladin spell lists, with spell level discounts where appropriate. This was requested numerous times in the playtests, but since one of the design goals of the ACG was "no more unique spell lists" the warpriest got shafted in that department.
So on the one hand you have the medium-armor inquisitor running around with Bed of Iron, Keen Edge and the Litany of Warding - all spells that are not on the warpriest spell list, yet thematically extremely appropriate for him. On the other hand the Warpriest can cast Read Weather, Tap Inner Beauty, and Pilfering Hand - spells that make minimal sense for a class that's meant to represent the military arm of any religion.
The extreme lack of skill points, underwhelming Sacred Weapon duration and the fact that you can't target your own weapon with fervor spells is really just icing on the blandness that is the WP. :-/
Only distantly related but I quite like the Sacred Fist archetype. It makes a solid viable spiritual/religious monk-type character much easier to pull together, and adding Flurry to the WP baseline gives it that extra "oomph" it needs to stand out from the inquisitor and the cleric in combat.
Assume the following is true
-The WP does more damage than even the paladin/cleric/inquisitor
-The WP Has less utility in exchange for that damageIs that a fair trade assuming both are true?
Not in my experience, but I don't think it's a runaway win for utility. I'm not entirely convinced it will do more than inquisitors or Paladins, but I doubt I've looked at the full class as closely as you have, so I'll take your word for it.
Though I am confused about where you're finding a warpriest that can quicken summon monster 7 or 8 (I'm assuming with fervor uses). They never get those spells. They can't even use spell completion or trigger items to cast them without a UMD skill check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combination of any of the alignment Blessings and Quicken Blessing allows it. It seems that a lot of people overlook this fact and fixate on the fact that Warpriests lost their full BAB.
|
|
Except for everyone else can do the Quick Summon Monster too, but they have a lot more options and number of uses. Or they can use options like Summon Good/Nuetral/Evil Monster earlier and not worry about Quicken or Rods.
The Cleric/Inquisitor/Paladin I most likely going to be doing mass buffs too, for all their Summons, as well as racking up all that extra damage their team mates do with things like Blessing of Fervor. Sorry, the only way I can see those things being "assumed true" is if you ignore a lot of things that counter your desired result, and sense they are not true, why bother asking if something else is fair, assuming so?
|
|
Though I am confused about where you're finding a warpriest that can quicken summon monster 7 or 8 (I'm assuming with fervor uses). They never get those spells. They can't even use spell completion or trigger items to cast them without a UMD skill check.
He/She means by using a few of the Blessings later powers (that grant a limited Summon Nature's Ally or Summon Monster) and a Feat that lets you use them as a Swift Action.
Battle Companion (major): At 10th level, you can summon a battle companion. This ability functions as summon monster IV with a duration of 1 minute, but for only a chaotic outsider or an animal with the entropic creature simple template (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2 293). This ability can summon only one creature, regardless of the list used. For every 2 levels beyond 10th, the level of the summon monster spell
increases by 1 (to a maximum of summon monster IX at 20th level).
You can deliver one of your blessings with greater speed. Prerequisites: Access to a blessing’s major power†, blessings† class feature.
Benefit: Choose one of your blessings that normally requires a standard action to use. You can expend two of your daily uses of blessings to deliver that blessing (regardless of whether it’s a minor or major effect) as a swift action instead.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you do,
you choose a different blessing.
However, doing so eats up 2 of the Warpriests 8-13 Blessings/Day, which A.) all use the same pool, and B.) eats up their Swift Action for a Class that is overwhelmed with Swift Actions.
I'm not entirely convinced major alignment blessings qualify for Quicken Blessing. One could argue that "This ability functions as summon monster IV" includes the normal casting time for summoning spells, which would mean that the Summoning blessings do not qualify for Quicken Blessing. That's probably not a discussion for the General Discussion though.
On a thematic note I think Kestral raises a good point - it's odd how the Warpriest focus changes from "divine martial" to "summoner" once he hits level 10.
On utility: The WP relies on fervor and his limited spell slots to keep up in combat with other classes - when the inquisitor uses Judgment, the Warpriest casts Divine Favor - when the inquisitor uses Bane, the Warpriest casts Bull's strength. That means that while he does have a spell list with a lot of utility, he typically doesn't really have the spell slots to prepare them.
I'm not the person to ask because although I did take part in the early weeks of the playtest, even running a character through a self-designed gauntlet, I stopped paying attention near the end. I know there are other posters who were upset with how the class was designed around using a deities favored weapon, were happy to see that overly restrictive design concept removed, and then watched it get brought back in the form of a feat chain they were told would make the class more viable.
** spoiler omitted **...
I agree the Warpriest comes off as Magus like and while that is no bad, I feel full BAB would have suited them better and allowed them to at least feel stronger and use their favored weapon more effectively allowing weaker weapons to shine.
** spoiler omitted **The magus is a bit different, though. Building a Gish is something that had previously required multiclassing. There wasn't really anything like the Magus' Gish-in-a-can design except for one or two bard archetypes. The warpreist is a battle cleric, which is a concept that has always existed since the cleric class was first printed for 3.5.
It's not called Cleric-or-Druidzilla for nothing.
** spoiler omitted **...
Yeah the more I look, the more I look at it seems like it needs a heck of a lot of feats to function. Slashing and Fencer's Grace should have been a class feature which would have freed up a feat slot, perhaps even Weapon Finesse to have Focus attached (Inspired Blade does this).
I think I may have to houserule this class to be given those two feats as automatic feats awarded.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't feel that denying it full BAB makes the WP suck any more than I believe granting it would make it OP. Or, to be a little more clear, I don't think the difference is as large as it seems. Partially, this is because I play levels 1-10, where BAB is a mere +3 difference at its best, more than I play 11-20 where it can be really significant. I mean, they get accuracy-boosters, they get damage-boosters, and they get good saves, AC, and overall damage on top. Bonus feats are gravy. The class isn't crippled or useless, it just isn't at the top of tier 3(actually, I'd say its around the bottom).
I do, however, feel that ultimately the inquisitor is better in a lot of cases. I'm still not certain its better at fighting alone, as the optimal judgments can be replicated by Divine Favor, and I'm not sure Bane surpasses the swift-action extra attacks from Channel Vigor/Blessing of Fervor. That said, I am certain the Inquisitor is equal defensively(3 points less AC at best, but better initiative, better spells/level, and better save potential from Stalwart), and surpasses in utility(Insane skills, great utility spells, detect alignment stuff, and good feat support).
That said, Inquisitor is IMO better than a lot of classes in a lot of cases, as it is one of the best designed "jack of all trades" classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because demeaning you and calling you a bad person is more important than having an honest discussion on the topic, duh.basically people are mad because it actually balanced the class. I have seen a ton of theory crafting arguments that it is now one of the worst class and doesn't hold up to paladin or inquisitor. I assure you that in actual practice it just as powerful. Advanced Class Origins is coming out Oct 22nd. I assume that war priest will be plenty powerful after some of the options in that book for the theory crafting crowd.What makes you think I have not actually made one or seen one in play? Don't be so quick to shout theorycraft.
Yeah, everyone knows that the first rule of reasonable debate is to assume that anyone who has a different opinion from you is an evil scumbag who has no logical basis for their opinions, and is just trying to manipulate the facts to advance their evil agenda of evilness.
I know just the other day, I had a great time at the meeting of the Evil Alliance of Theorycrafting Scum, where we discussed our villainous plans to ruin Pathfinder for the Real Roleplayers.