Would the Warpriest be 'fixed' if it had the Inquisitor / Paladin Spell list instead of Cleric?

[Xavier Longsaddle]

Hi,

I am currently playing a Warpriest at 8th level (started at 5).

I chose to go with the Champion of Faith Archetype since I wanted smite and smite is awesome.

Since it came out I have found both offense and resources wise, the inquisitor is a better class.
A better WAR priest.

Why.
The Inquisitor spellist has early access to some awesome spells well before the warpriest.
Deadly Juggernaut for instance and gets some brilliant spells he can't cast at all like Righteous Vigor and Litany of Righteousness (which an inquisitor can't use anyway since he doesn't get an Aura)

"But he gets full cleric spells", you cry.
I know. And because of the 6th level casting gets it way later than the cleric.
This is HUGE. The cleric list is ok but getting stuff 2 levels late makes it suck.

I am not one of those who scream that they should have kept full BAB, but considering the closest Parallel classes (Magus and Inquisitor) are less intensive for resources the class lags a bit.

Example.
A warpriest has to blow a fervor AND a spell to sswift buff+Attack.

A magus can cast+attack all day long via spell strike. Spellstrike doesn't cost anything. Spell combat does a little (-2 to attack) but the cost is negligible considering and Attack+Haste is far more game breaking than Attack+Divine favor.

The right Battle control can trounce an encounter.

Vs a Inquisitor well Judgements as a swift doesn't even cost a spell at all. At low levels a spell is better (point for warpriest) but as soon as second judgement comes online, freely picking +'s to attack, damage or saves FOR ENTIRE FIGHT can tip the balance the other way.

I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with the warpriest mechanism but are strongly feeling Paizo in their efforts to not create any more Unique spell lists could have said
Spells:The warpriest uses the Inquisitor and Paladin lists for spellcasting.

That would grant a Much more offense focused list (remember WARpriest) and a better healer as well. with adding stuff like Righteous Vigor, early Deadly Juggernaut, early lessor restoration, Litany of Righteousness etc. Freaking Holy Sword.

Try it.
It's game changing for the class and better fits the theme.

As for what it's good at I have read Undone's guide and agree with Most of it but have had lengthy back and forth that Warpriest's make pretty good Intimidators and with their bonus feats the combo of
Dazzling Display,
Cornugon Smash, Shatter Defenses
and a Sickening Weapon

To drop Shaken, Flatfooted and Sickened is a pretty potent trick to debuff enemies.

They also make Tank builds (Fullplate, Shield, Ioun Stone, Sacred Armor) whhile still doing great damage (Smite or Destruction Blessing)

Still that damn cleric list bothers me.

[Under A Bleeding Sun]

I haven't noticed anything wrong with it. I have a player playing one in my home game, a game where all players are roughly the same level of optimization and he seems fine so far, only level 5 though.

Have a player who regularly plays one in PFS as well whose level 7 and he seems to be carrying himself well.

I'll keep an eye on both of them and see if I notice any lagging at later levels.

[Rynjin]

Fixed? Iunno.

Better? Hell yes.

[wraithstrike]

I think the inquisitor is the baseline for balance. If the inquisitor is so much better in utility the warpriest should be good deal better in combat. I am not expecting it to do 50% more damage, but it should have had something to make it stand out more. As of now I would just take the inquisitor and its utility even if the warpriest does do more damage. After I made one I was not impressed, having ran an inquisitor before.

[STR Ranger]

That's sorta where I am at right now.

The warpriest doesn't really pull ahead in any way.

Swift Spells Vs Judgement (point for WP-just. Judgement is FREE on top of spells and lasts All combat)

Bane/Gtr Bane vs Sacred Weapon Inquisitor. Same duration. WAY better effect

Bonus feats vs Teamwork Feats+Solo Tactics Inquisitor. Teamwork feats have Huge payoffs. That's why multiple chars have to take them. Inquisitor bypasses that restriction and can even reselect their most recent feat.

Skills Inquisitor of course!

Spellist? Inquisitor easy. Gets early access to alot of powerful spells the WP has to wait 2 more levels for. An access to some of the best Paladin Spells like Litany spells.

AC- 3 points difference. But offset by the fact that the Inquisitor can use a teamwork feat for extra shield bonuses.

Stalwart vs Sacred Armor.
Both nice abilities but I'll take ignoring Fort and Will saves any day.

Fervor vs Monster Lore.
Fervor is just a cap on how many swift spells you get or crap LOH/Channel. Monster Lore lets you KNOW the best way to kill stuff and later can help you use your slaying abilities.

Domain vs Blessings.
Domain all day every day. Some blessings are good (Destruction) but the domain versions are generally better. Like Destruction (Rage) for example.

[Malwing]

I have no clue, mostly because everything I normally cast as an inquisitor are already on the cleric list and there would likely be spells that I'd want that I would lose in this exchange. Gaining the Paladin list in addition to Cleric (like hunter) would be more in line and better to me but really I haven't had any casting problems from warpriest.

BTW why is everyone picking on warpriest. I took it for a test drive and the dude is a murderbeast.

[Adacanavar]

Malwing wrote:

I have no clue, mostly because everything I normally cast as an inquisitor are already on the cleric list and there would likely be spells that I'd want that I would lose in this exchange. Gaining the Paladin list in addition to Cleric (like hunter) would be more in line and better to me but really I haven't had any casting problems from warpriest.

BTW why is everyone picking on warpriest. I took it for a test drive and the dude is a murderbeast.

I don't think it is so much picking on it as a general disappointment in what the end release was for the war priest its not that it isn't a viable class its that the inquisitor seems more like the war priest than the war priest does.

[Malwing]

Adacanavar wrote:

Malwing wrote:

I have no clue, mostly because everything I normally cast as an inquisitor are already on the cleric list and there would likely be spells that I'd want that I would lose in this exchange. Gaining the Paladin list in addition to Cleric (like hunter) would be more in line and better to me but really I haven't had any casting problems from warpriest.

BTW why is everyone picking on warpriest. I took it for a test drive and the dude is a murderbeast.

I don't think it is so much picking on it as a general disappointment in what the end release was for the war priest its not that it isn't a viable class its that the inquisitor seems more like the war priest than the war priest does.

No, in other threads Warpriest is pretty picked on saying that it is not viable. Although even then, I was playing an Inquisitor to solo Carrion Crown. Then switched up having the same character as a Warpriest, and the differences between the classes and what the forums say the differences between the two classes are make me feel like they aren't thinking of this in a practical game and not using the numbers that show an ability being more practical than another.

[Xavier Longsaddle]

Well I am level 8 right now playing a Warpriest fighting 2 Orogs and 2 hobgoblin s (got them in a line so can't be surrounded) despite the slightly higher AC would LOVE me some Righteous Vigor to try and tough this one out.

Pretty sure I'm gonna need to run.
Heroism would have been available now too.

[Malwing]

Why not Divine Favor? Should be at 2-3 by Now for a 1st level spell. Or you can armor up for a swift and sacred weapon for a free action to survive easier and hit harder, then full attack the first one. If your accuracy is already fine you can add Defending and go the attrition route since they're in a line.

[Undone]

If it had the paladin spell list it would have access to level 4 litany of righteousness and level 10 holy sword.

Under no circumstance should you allow this.

Did I mention Samsarans already can do this? Which is why the cleric list is better?

For those thinking it needs to be fixed go over it more carefully. The WP is actually very strong as is. I didn't think it would be when I made the guide because I assumed it would be great for something like PFS which is lower level where level's 2 to 8 are emphasized and a WP is just leagues ahead of other classes.

That said after making the guide and reading quicken blessing and all the major blessings I'm convinced that the major blessings can emulate enough powerful spell effects that they even scale well into later levels. Clearly not as well as a cleric but a cleric is worse early on.

[STR Ranger]

Malwing wrote:

Why not Divine Favor? Should be at 2-3 by Now for a 1st level spell. Or you can armor up for a swift and sacred weapon for a free action to survive easier and hit harder, then full attack the first one. If your accuracy is already fine you can add Defending and go the attrition route since they're in a line.

I HAD Divine Favor up. The GM is dragging this fight out. We are in Round 10. A Orc sorcerer currently overhead chucking fireballs. 4 enemies coming at me. Brawler just killed an eel (he is in water). Arcanist is hiding under water from Orc Sorcerer (he got dropped by a fireball. I healed him and told him to get out of LOS.

Now THIS round I cast Greater Stunning Barrier so I can make saves vs the ffireballsand keep my 2 handed AC at 23 and hopefully STUN the Orogs so I can chop them down, while hopefully our crossbow Investigator brings down the Sorc.

I know I can survive this fight.
What concerns me is a 10 round fight using DF, Defending Bone, Gtr Stunning Barrier, Sacred Armor and it's only the first fight
Considering the circumstances Righteous Vigpr would be awesome right now

[Malwing]

STR Ranger wrote:

Malwing wrote:

Why not Divine Favor? Should be at 2-3 by Now for a 1st level spell. Or you can armor up for a swift and sacred weapon for a free action to survive easier and hit harder, then full attack the first one. If your accuracy is already fine you can add Defending and go the attrition route since they're in a line.

I HAD Divine Favor up. The GM is dragging this fight out. We are in Round 10. A Orc sorcerer currently overhead chucking fireballs. 4 enemies coming at me. Brawler just killed an eel (he is in water). Arcanist is hiding under water from Orc Sorcerer (he got dropped by a fireball. I healed him and told him to get out of LOS.

Now THIS round I cast Greater Stunning Barrier so I can make saves vs the ffireballsand keep my 2 handed AC at 23 and hopefully STUN the Orogs so I can chop them down, while hopefully our crossbow Investigator brings down the Sorc.

I know I can survive this fight.
What concerns me is a 10 round fight using DF, Defending Bone, Gtr Stunning Barrier, Sacred Armor and it's only the first fight
Considering the circumstances Righteous Vigpr would be awesome right now

I was more replying to Xavier's situation. In yours Warpriest is just doing his thing. In a long drawn out battle I'd take Inquisitor over Warpriest. In a bunch of small battles I'd take Warpriest over Inquisitor. Both can survive both situations but I think Warpriest favors a lot of medium fights than the Inquisitor.

[Atarlost]

The Warpriest cannot fill any non-martial role satisfactorily and cannot fill the martial role full time. It doesn't matter how good you are at novaing, if you can't properly fill a party role you have no business in a reasonably sized party.

Clerics can, with the right archetype and a one level dip, perform the martial role nearly as well and can be satisfactory healers.

Inquisitors can perform the martial role nearly as well and be the #3 skill class behind bard and investigator.

Paladins can perform the healing role almost satisfactorily (mercies cover most of the stuff they can't remove and they can use restoration wands, but no remove blindness/deafness at a reasonable level) and the martial role full time. Antipaladins are lousy healers, but still full time martials.

The Warprieist is a waste of page space, crowding an already crowded design space and making the fifteen minute adventuring day even more mandatory for parties that contain them.

[Malwing]

@Atarlost, I think that the Warpriest does the opposite of novaing. Paladin comes to mind when it comes to not having the resources to go past a 15 minute work day. The Warpriest has a lot of pools of stuff to do things with so why on earth would he do all of them at once?

I agree that they aren't ideal healers. I agree that they have limited to terrible out of combat utility. But I can't agree that Warpriest isn't a full time martial if Paladin is a full time martial.

[Diego Rossi]

Xavier Longsaddle wrote:

Spellstrike doesn't cost anything.

Sorry?

You call trading touch AC for full AC "nothing"? The magus get a very nice boost in damage and critical chance, but you lose on the to hit department against most monsters.

CR 10? A bebelit has AC 22 vs touch AC 9, Couatl 22/13, Rakshasa 25/13,

CR5? Air elemental (large) 21/17, Gibbering Mouther 19/13, Green Hag 19/11.

[Diego Rossi]

wraithstrike wrote:

I think the inquisitor is the baseline for balance. If the inquisitor is so much better in utility the warpriest should be good deal better in combat. I am not expecting it to do 50% more damage, but it should have had something to make it stand out more. As of now I would just take the inquisitor and its utility even if the warpriest does do more damage. After I made one I was not impressed, having ran an inquisitor before.

Have you considered the utility of fixed know spells vs, the ability to change them every day?

For spamming the same spell in all combats the inquisitor is better, for the ability to prepare for a specific kind of combat the warpriest seem better.

[DM Beckett]

Malwing wrote:

@Atarlost, I think that the Warpriest does the opposite of novaing. Paladin comes to mind when it comes to not having the resources to go past a 15 minute work day. The Warpriest has a lot of pools of stuff to do things with so why on earth would he do all of them at once?

I agree that they aren't ideal healers. I agree that they have limited to terrible out of combat utility. But I can't agree that Warpriest isn't a full time martial if Paladin is a full time martial.

Huh? The Paladin, while it might not be able to Smite or Channel/Lay on Hands every round of every combat, really doesn't need to. They generally have the BaB, AC, and HP to go toe-to-toe and deal good damage without needing to buff. They are sort of like a Fighter, but can go even longer as they can heal, buff, and fix themselves if they need to when they need it. And a lot of their buffs are either "always on" (Cha to Saves, Immune to Fear, Disease) or in addition to something else they grant that's worth it on it's own, (curing fatigue, sickened, etc and channeling to heal).

Even when they can't cast spells, starting at level one they can also supplement with wands and scrolls (no UMD).

Diego Rossi wrote:

Have you considered the utility of fixed know spells vs, the ability to change them every day?

For spamming the same spell in all combats the inquisitor is better, for the ability to prepare for a specific kind of combat the warpriest seem better.

Not too terribly much in practice, honestly. Like the "Battle Cleric", the Warpriest is not likely going to have a great deal of variation on their prepped spells. They know up front they are going to have one or two spell slots per level devoted to their own self-buffing with Fervor, and probably going to want a few spells ready for "oh Crap I (or my friend), (yah, right, who am I kidding), just got hit with _________ spells just in case. That pretty much covers what a non-9thlevel spont caster knows.

[wraithstrike]

Diego Rossi wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I think the inquisitor is the baseline for balance. If the inquisitor is so much better in utility the warpriest should be good deal better in combat. I am not expecting it to do 50% more damage, but it should have had something to make it stand out more. As of now I would just take the inquisitor and its utility even if the warpriest does do more damage. After I made one I was not impressed, having ran an inquisitor before.

Have you considered the utility of fixed know spells vs, the ability to change them every day?

For spamming the same spell in all combats the inquisitor is better, for the ability to prepare for a specific kind of combat the warpriest seem better.

Yeah. Every spell the warpriest tries to use for utility he loses for combat. Maybe the warpriest would have been better with domains, but he did not get them.

[DM Beckett]

Back on the idea of adding Paladin/Inquisitor spells. While I don't know about just straight porting the spell lists, and option to maybe pick and choose a divine spell, maybe every 3rd level to add to their spell list might be a good idea? Maybe with a notation that if said spell is on any other divine list, including Domain, the Warpriest must take it as the highest level version only.

[Kudaku]

The Warpriest would benefit vastly from gaining a more specialized spell list, preferably with some spell level discounts so it gets personal-range combat buffs like Divine Power at the same level as clerics.

However I'm not sure giving it complete access to the inquisitor or paladin spell lists is the way to go. The paladin list heavily favors Good-aligned warpriests (and the anti-paladin list heavily favors Evil-aligned warpriests) so neutral warpriests get kind of shafted, while the Inquisitor list has a lot of 'bloodhound' or sneaky spells that doesn't really make sense for the rather less subtle Warpriest.

I absolutely think you're onto something by giving them a more fitting spell list though.

[STR Ranger]

Malwing wrote:

STR Ranger wrote:

Malwing wrote:

Why not Divine Favor? Should be at 2-3 by Now for a 1st level spell. Or you can armor up for a swift and sacred weapon for a free action to survive easier and hit harder, then full attack the first one. If your accuracy is already fine you can add Defending and go the attrition route since they're in a line.

I HAD Divine Favor up. The GM is dragging this fight out. We are in Round 10. A Orc sorcerer currently overhead chucking fireballs. 4 enemies coming at me. Brawler just killed an eel (he is in water). Arcanist is hiding under water from Orc Sorcerer (he got dropped by a fireball. I healed him and told him to get out of LOS.

Now THIS round I cast Greater Stunning Barrier so I can make saves vs the ffireballsand keep my 2 handed AC at 23 and hopefully STUN the Orogs so I can chop them down, while hopefully our crossbow Investigator brings down the Sorc.

I know I can survive this fight.
What concerns me is a 10 round fight using DF, Defending Bone, Gtr Stunning Barrier, Sacred Armor and it's only the first fight
Considering the circumstances Righteous Vigpr would be awesome right now

I was more replying to Xavier's situation. In yours Warpriest is just doing his thing. In a long drawn out battle I'd take Inquisitor over Warpriest. In a bunch of small battles I'd take Warpriest over Inquisitor. Both can survive both situations but I think Warpriest favors a lot of medium fights than the Inquisitor.

Xavier IS my Warpriest Char Alias.

I posted under Xavier so people could look aat the char build.

[Undone]

Atarlost wrote:

The Warpriest cannot fill any non-martial role satisfactorily and cannot fill the martial role full time. It doesn't matter how good you are at novaing, if you can't properly fill a party role you have no business in a reasonably sized party.

Clerics can, with the right archetype and a one level dip, perform the martial role nearly as well and can be satisfactory healers.

Inquisitors can perform the martial role nearly as well and be the #3 skill class behind bard and investigator.

Paladins can perform the healing role almost satisfactorily (mercies cover most of the stuff they can't remove and they can use restoration wands, but no remove blindness/deafness at a reasonable level) and the martial role full time. Antipaladins are lousy healers, but still full time martials.

The Warprieist is a waste of page space, crowding an already crowded design space and making the fifteen minute adventuring day even more mandatory for parties that contain them.

You literally cannot be more wrong.

Assume 10 encounters a day or less, considering more is likely to tax the party too hard to continue.

You get Wisdom + Half level per day fervors which you only need 1 of per encounter meaning between 4 and 5 at level 2. So at level 2 you're good for spells/day encounters which should be at minimum 3 or 4 with a pearl 1. By level 4 you probably have 5 fervors at least and at least 5 buff spells which you need 1 of per encounter to be ahead of a martial.

Straight cleric is better than a dip and has significantly reduced combat efficiency until level 17.

If you think paladins can heal well I've got bad news for you.

The WP fills a unique role. It's only out shown by paladins fighting evil outsiders/dragons/undead. The sad truth though is that after level 11 the paladin FALLS BEHIND because +11 damage and +4/+5 to hit is inferior to "I summon a smiting pouncing celestial lion as a swift".

The WP is incredibly powerful.

Quote:

Yeah. Every spell the warpriest tries to use for utility he loses for combat. Maybe the warpriest would have been better with domains, but he did not get them.

Number of spells needed for each combat. One. Number of spells by level 4 assuming 14 wisdom 6. So you have 6 combats worth of spells, and 8 by level 5. Tell me how many combats you EXPECT to have today.

[christos gurd]

Kudaku wrote:

However I'm not sure giving it complete access to the inquisitor or paladin spell lists is the way to go. The paladin list heavily favors Good-aligned warpriests (and the anti-paladin list heavily favors Evil-aligned warpriests) so neutral warpriests get kind of shafted, while the Inquisitor list has a lot of 'bloodhound' or sneaky spells that doesn't really make sense for the rather less subtle Warpriest.

im all for cleric +paladin/antipaladin. neutral warpriests of neutral deities make a choice of paladin or antipaladin at first level and are treated as that alignment for the purposes of spells they cast.

[kestral287]

I am really curious about what single spell you think the Warpriest can use to solve encounters, Undone. I really am.

[Undone]

kestral287 wrote:

I am really curious about what single spell you think the Warpriest can use to solve encounters, Undone. I really am.

It doesn't use spells to solve encounters. It uses spells to self buff like divine favor, channel vigor, divine power, and R Might. If you want to solve encounters with spells pick a different class. You wouldn't pick a paladin to solve encounters with spells either. Do you think the magus shocking grasp solves encounters?

[Malwing]

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

I am really curious about what single spell you think the Warpriest can use to solve encounters, Undone. I really am.

It doesn't use spells to solve encounters. It uses spells to self buff like divine favor, channel vigor, divine power, and R Might. If you want to solve encounters with spells pick a different class. You wouldn't pick a paladin to solve encounters with spells either. Do you think the magus shocking grasp solves encounters?

Yes...

Yes it's a tongue in cheek answer but, I have been theorycrafting a lightning magus that solves all his problems with shocking grasp or a metamagic shocking grasp.

[Undone]

Malwing wrote:

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

I am really curious about what single spell you think the Warpriest can use to solve encounters, Undone. I really am.

It doesn't use spells to solve encounters. It uses spells to self buff like divine favor, channel vigor, divine power, and R Might. If you want to solve encounters with spells pick a different class. You wouldn't pick a paladin to solve encounters with spells either. Do you think the magus shocking grasp solves encounters?

Yes...

Yes it's a tongue in cheek answer but, I have been theorycrafting a lightning magus that solves all his problems with shocking grasp or a metamagic shocking grasp.

I'd rather have +4 hit/damage vs any monster than 9d6 or 10d6 and +3 to hit vs some monsters where sometimes it just doesn't work other times it does 10/20/30 points less damage or zero vs a golem.

[Kudaku]

christos gurd wrote:

Kudaku wrote:

However I'm not sure giving it complete access to the inquisitor or paladin spell lists is the way to go. The paladin list heavily favors Good-aligned warpriests (and the anti-paladin list heavily favors Evil-aligned warpriests) so neutral warpriests get kind of shafted, while the Inquisitor list has a lot of 'bloodhound' or sneaky spells that doesn't really make sense for the rather less subtle Warpriest.

im all for cleric +paladin/antipaladin. neutral warpriests of neutral deities make a choice of paladin or antipaladin at first level and are treated as that alignment for the purposes of spells they cast.

I think that's a great idea for a home game, so long as the GM is willing to step in and rule whenever a "fringe" spell pops up. :)

[kestral287]

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

I am really curious about what single spell you think the Warpriest can use to solve encounters, Undone. I really am.

It doesn't use spells to solve encounters. It uses spells to self buff like divine favor, channel vigor, divine power, and R Might. If you want to solve encounters with spells pick a different class. You wouldn't pick a paladin to solve encounters with spells either. Do you think the magus shocking grasp solves encounters?

To quote you from an earlier post:

Undone wrote:

Number of spells needed for each combat. One. Number of spells by level 4 assuming 14 wisdom 6. So you have 6 combats worth of spells, and 8 by level 5. Tell me how many combats you EXPECT to have today.

To me, that says you think a Warpriest needs to spend one spell slot on each encounter, at least in the early levels. I'm curious as to what that one spell is that's going to consistently give such a decisive advantage, as the experiences I'm seeing others provide says otherwise. I'm still putting my own Warpriest together, but I have a friend who's been running one for a while now and, while he likes the class and has a solid character, he's certainly not only dropping one spell per encounter.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Kudaku wrote:

The Warpriest would benefit vastly from gaining a more specialized spell list, preferably with some spell level discounts so it gets personal-range combat buffs like Divine Power at the same level as clerics.

However I'm not sure giving it complete access to the inquisitor or paladin spell lists is the way to go. The paladin list heavily favors Good-aligned warpriests (and the anti-paladin list heavily favors Evil-aligned warpriests) so neutral warpriests get kind of shafted, while the Inquisitor list has a lot of 'bloodhound' or sneaky spells that doesn't really make sense for the rather less subtle Warpriest.

I'm not sure I would mind the good/evil spell access issue. Neutral Warpriests would still have an advantage over their good and evil brethren in that they could cast spells with both the [good] and [evil] descriptors (like magic circle against X), and be able to summon a wider variety of creatures.

[Undone]

kestral287 wrote:

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

I am really curious about what single spell you think the Warpriest can use to solve encounters, Undone. I really am.

It doesn't use spells to solve encounters. It uses spells to self buff like divine favor, channel vigor, divine power, and R Might. If you want to solve encounters with spells pick a different class. You wouldn't pick a paladin to solve encounters with spells either. Do you think the magus shocking grasp solves encounters?

To quote you from an earlier post:

Undone wrote:

Number of spells needed for each combat. One. Number of spells by level 4 assuming 14 wisdom 6. So you have 6 combats worth of spells, and 8 by level 5. Tell me how many combats you EXPECT to have today.

To me, that says you think a Warpriest needs to spend one spell slot on each encounter, at least in the early levels. I'm curious as to what that one spell is that's going to consistently give such a decisive advantage, as the experiences I'm seeing others provide says otherwise. I'm still putting my own Warpriest together, but I have a friend who's been running one for a while now and, while he likes the class and has a solid character, he's certainly not only dropping one spell per encounter.

Fate's favored divine favor is effectively rage at early levels. If it's good enough for a barbarian and WF makes up for the BAB early on you're effectively almost a barb with 4 + 2/level hp less for every fight you can divine favor. Did I mention that you scale faster too? By 9th you've got +4 hit/damage.

[Malwing]

Undone wrote:

Malwing wrote:

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

I am really curious about what single spell you think the Warpriest can use to solve encounters, Undone. I really am.

It doesn't use spells to solve encounters. It uses spells to self buff like divine favor, channel vigor, divine power, and R Might. If you want to solve encounters with spells pick a different class. You wouldn't pick a paladin to solve encounters with spells either. Do you think the magus shocking grasp solves encounters?

Yes...

Yes it's a tongue in cheek answer but, I have been theorycrafting a lightning magus that solves all his problems with shocking grasp or a metamagic shocking grasp.

I'd rather have +4 hit/damage vs any monster than 9d6 or 10d6 and +3 to hit vs some monsters where sometimes it just doesn't work other times it does 10/20/30 points less damage or zero vs a golem.

Well, sometimes I'd rather optimize stupid concepts because once I cast a spell that isn't Shocking Grasp, my claim to being a Shocking Grasp mage ends. But as I said, it's a tongue in cheek answer so it isn't about the subject at hand. As my solo Warpriest, my mode of operating in terms of spells usually involves divine favor. I haven't explored much beyond that because I'm running Carrion Crown solo and killing things felt more like a priority, so I'm not sure how well a Warpriest can solve problems with spells.

As for killing things, it seems to do an okay enough job at it so far, and I'm doing it as one dude in an AP.

[Ed Reppert]

Do away with classes. Make everything - feats, skills, class abilities, whatever - a skill. Base beginning skills on a character's back story. Daddy was a mercenary, so you have some access to fighter skills. Or he was a hunter/ranger/druid/whatever so you have access to whatever skills he had. Or whatever. After you start adventuring, you can learn any skill if you can find (and probably pay) someone to teach it to you, or find a book that explains it (spellbook, for example), or from experience. Possibly, in the character generation phase, you learn some basic stuff at a school of magic or a fighting salle or dojo.

No need for classes, or alternate or hybrid classes, or multi-classing. Just "what skills do you want to have?"

It wouldn't be that simple, of course, but it can be done.

[DominusMegadeus]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Do away with classes. Make everything - feats, skills, class abilities, whatever - a skill. Base beginning skills on a character's back story. Daddy was a mercenary, so you have some access to fighter skills. Or he was a hunter/ranger/druid/whatever so you have access to whatever skills he had. Or whatever. After you start adventuring, you can learn any skill if you can find (and probably pay) someone to teach it to you, or find a book that explains it (spellbook, for example), or from experience. Possibly, in the character generation phase, you learn some basic stuff at a school of magic or a fighting salle or dojo.

No need for classes, or alternate or hybrid classes, or multi-classing. Just "what skills do you want to have?"

It wouldn't be that simple, of course, but it can be done.

You're not even playing Pathfinder then. You're playing GURPS or something.

[Undone]

Quote:

As my solo Warpriest, my mode of operating in terms of spells usually involves divine favor. I haven't explored much beyond that because I'm running Carrion Crown solo and killing things felt more like a priority, so I'm not sure how well a Warpriest can solve problems with spells.

As for killing things, it seems to do an okay enough job at it so far, and I'm doing it as one dude in an AP.

Well uh I'm not sure what to say. Do you think the first six levels of spell casting can solve problems on a cleric?

[kestral287]

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

Undone wrote:

Number of spells needed for each combat. One. Number of spells by level 4 assuming 14 wisdom 6. So you have 6 combats worth of spells, and 8 by level 5. Tell me how many combats you EXPECT to have today.

To me, that says you think a Warpriest needs to spend one spell slot on each encounter, at least in the early levels. I'm curious as to what that one spell is that's going to consistently give such a decisive advantage, as the experiences I'm seeing others provide says otherwise. I'm still putting my own Warpriest together, but I have a friend who's been running one for a while now and, while he likes the class and has a solid character, he's certainly not only dropping one spell per encounter.

Fate's favored divine favor is effectively rage at early levels. If it's good enough for a barbarian and WF makes up for the BAB early on you're effectively almost a barb with 4 + 2/level hp less for every fight you can divine favor. Did I mention that you scale faster too? By 9th you've got +4 hit/damage.

... Except the Barbarian has a better to-hit and damage (higher base strength) and better HP (higher Con, better HD). You might equal the Fighter, you're not going to match the Barbarian. And a pair of rage powers, so FF-DF is not effectively Rage anyway.

It might be enough to keep you from being mediocre... but you're no Barbarian, let's be honest.

You also have a very linear view of the Magus. Shocking Grasp is kind of the "well, I just really need to kill the guy in front of me so let's burn a 1st level spell" option. It's a good go-to, but nothing more. They're a lot more flexible than just Shocking Grasp machines-- note that, for an effective use of the spell, you need one trait (either magical or social), one feat (Intensify Spell), and one first-level spell known. In a game going to high levels, add a second feat (Spell Perfection) and a couple other feats you're probably taking anyway (two Metamagics of choice, probably picked from Quicken, Empower, Maximize, or Extend, use a Rod to cover the other two-- I favor rods for Quicken and Extend myself). The entire rest of the build is open to whatever you want to do. Against something resistant or immune to electricity, I'm going to, yanno, cast a different spell instead. I could no-save stagger it with Frigid Touch, or buff myself and my team with Haste or Fly, or drop crowd control on another part of the battlefield entirely with anything from Grease to Black Tentacles.

This is nowhere near the build intensity that you're talking about with the Warpriest. Thus far we're up to the exact same build focus of the Magus' utility spell for the entire game /just/ to keep you in the game in the early levels (one trait, first-level spells, one feat that had to be taken at level one instead of the Magus' feat taken at level 5-7).

[Undone]

kestral287 wrote:

... Except the Barbarian has a better to-hit and damage (higher base strength) and better HP (higher Con, better HD). You might equal the Fighter, you're not going to match the Barbarian. And a pair of rage powers, so FF-DF is not effectively Rage anyway.

So unless the barb goes deep and dumps to get a 20 str which I don't see too many barbs doing, I see a lot more buying 15/16 con to get raging vitality both start wiht 18 str and get equal + to hit thanks to Weapon focus unless the barb gets weapon focus for his feat which sets him back. The introduction of reckless rage does increase the gap but that's the only difference. PA and rage are equal to PA and divine favor until level 5, at level 6 divine favor is better. Additionally which would you rather have -1 hit/+3 damage or +2 damage with no penalty to hit. Because that's reckless rage vs weapon specialization.

As to rage powers yes superstitious is unrivaled. I'm not saying there is no penalty but barbarians also don't get good progression will saves or have a wisdom which is 14-18.

By the time you can get come and get me the WP can have quickened blood crow strikes or have 6+ attacks. You definitely out damage them sometimes but against single large attack monsters or fewer hits the WP actually has more damage unless the barb gets help.

kestral287 wrote:

It might be enough to keep you from being mediocre... but you're no Barbarian, let's be honest.

Depending on the level selected the barb will either edge you out or get crushed in damage especially at high levels or while bursting.

kestral287 wrote:

You also have a very linear view of the Magus. Shocking Grasp is kind of the "well, I just really need to kill the guy in front of me so let's burn a 1st level spell" option. It's a good go-to, but nothing more. They're a lot more flexible than just Shocking Grasp machines-- note that, for an effective use of the spell, you need one trait (either magical or social), one feat (Intensify Spell), and one first-level spell known. In a game going to high levels, add a second feat (Spell Perfection) and a couple other feats you're probably taking anyway (two Metamagics of choice, probably picked from Quicken, Empower, Maximize, or Extend, use a Rod to cover the other two-- I favor rods for Quicken and Extend myself). The entire rest of the build is open to whatever you want to do. Against something resistant or immune to electricity, I'm going to, yanno, cast a different spell instead. I could no-save stagger it with Frigid Touch, or buff myself and my team with Haste or Fly, or drop crowd control on another part of the battlefield entirely with anything from Grease to Black Tentacles.

Does it surprise you the WP can do the same thing and has the exact same linear views from people who haven't looked through it as much as I have.

kestral287 wrote:

This is nowhere near the build intensity that you're talking about with the Warpriest. Thus far we're up to the exact same build focus of the Magus' utility spell for the entire game /just/ to keep you in the game in the early levels (one trait, first-level spells, one feat that had to be taken at level one instead of the Magus' feat taken at level 5-7).

I'm just going to have to disagree. The WP requires 1 spell(divine favor/channel vigor/divine power/R Might level dependent), 1 trait(fate's favored), and 1 feat(Quicken blessing) to be incredible and have more versatility than the magus simply by having 4 or more free summon monster spells per day.

[Ed Reppert]

DominusMegadeus wrote:

You're not even playing Pathfinder then. You're playing GURPS or something.

Well, it would be a very different Pathfinder, at least. :)

[Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Do away with classes. Make everything - feats, skills, class abilities, whatever

All feat no classes Pathfinder here.

[STR Ranger]

Well I am not finding that he needs only one spell at all.

So far I have tried two versions of a Champion of Faith.

One with
WF (1st level bonus), Fey Touched, Dazzling Display Power Attack Divine Protection Cornugon Smash and Shatter Defences.

I totally owed by debuffing foes he hit with Shaken and Flat footed. With his first strike.
(This would be even better with a SICKENING weapon

This is a pretty tried and true route which is touted as awesome for pretty much any class that power attacks as a matter of course and has a good intimidate.

Then I decided to try a Turtle
With Shield Focus and the normal Weapon spec feats on his bastard sword.

I would like to try a Tripper build and the Fortuitous enchant.

Spell wise I am usually dropping Defending Bone for an All day buff.

1st round of Combat is a swift Divine Favor, Destruction Blessing and a move to close.

Rd 2 is use my Swift for BATTLECRY, And start full attacking.

That is a great combo in a Vaccum.
Doesn't work in the game.

Example 1.
Enemy wizard dropped a stinking cloud on the party (and some of his own guys)
I made the save easily but my whole party had to retreat.
luckily I am paranoid about drowning and had prepped AIR BUBBLE.
So I popped a fervor on that, stayed in the ccloud and kept wrecking face while laughing maniacally.
Was loving the class at that moment.

2 spells used.

Next day at level 8.
We NEEDED to go underwater. I am the ONLY foe who can cast it so one of my precious 3rd level slots went on that. 2 left.
Went underwater to access underwater cave.

Got attacked by huge octopus thing and had to smash it with my cestis, DF, Destruction Blessing, THANK GOD it chose to fight on the bottom of the sea floor since I am in Fullplate and my swim skill sucks (thanks to 2skills per level)

Then we climb out of pool and the Gnome Arcanist wants to sneak past the two guards and bypass the encounter. I was overruled by the party who agreed.
ANYWAY we got bumped with enemies in front and behind

Now I had to buff DF again, Destruction Blessing rd1.
Rd 2 smashy smash, BATTLECRY.
RD3-10 more foes arrive. (I pop a Bulls Str to up damage- faster I kill, less damage I take. We are all getting hit (Brawler, WP, Arcanist, Imvesrigator)

More enemies arrive (mostly mooks but the clincher is the Flying Sorcerer with Gtr Imvis on and spamming fireball)

I have to disengage to revive the Arcanist (who is summoned a pterodactyl to fight the sorcerer and hasted us) who got dropped by fireball. CSW and he is up and Pushed him into water (so Sorc can't target him)

Brawler is Dragon punching foes to death nicely but there are so many foes and the Investigator is the only archer keeps missing the Sorc (bad rolls)

I have to pop Greater Stunning Barrier to try and up my saves and hopefully stun the melee coming my way.
3 fighters, 1 warchanter and the bloody fireballs. I am at 1/2 hp and have two enemies on me.

Mission is time sensitive so if we run away we lose.

Now I think we will survive but considering I have killed 4 foes on top of all this a RIGHTEOUS VIGOR spell would have been a WAY better spell than bulls since it would stack with DF and mitigate the damage I am taking with temp hp.

I if we had any ability drain to deal with I would struggle with that.

Access to Either the pally or Inquisitor list would change this class entirely.

[Ed Reppert]

Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

Do away with classes. Make everything - feats, skills, class abilities, whatever

All feat no classes Pathfinder here.

Interesting.

[swoosh]

It might be nice, but the premise of the thread is a bit flawed. Most of the gripe about Warpriests are from a design standpoint. Power wise the class is a solid T3 or T4 at the worst, it doesn't really need "Fixes", even if it could be a lot nicer.

[wraithstrike]

swoosh wrote:

It might be nice, but the premise of the thread is a bit flawed. Most of the gripe about Warpriests are from a design standpoint. Power wise the class is a solid T3 or T4 at the worst, it doesn't really need "Fixes", even if it could be a lot nicer.

I think it is functional, but it has the problem of not having anything that makes it really stand out.

[swoosh]

wraithstrike wrote:

I think it is functional, but it has the problem of not having anything that makes it really stand out.

You can absolutely make that argument, and probably for more than a few classes too. I think the Bloodrager and Slayer suffer from the same issue, with the former being just a variant barbarian with renamed rage powers and the latter being a rather generic combatant who just put a twist on the investigator's studied combat as its attempt at having unique class features (twice!).

But that doesn't necessarily mean any of them are terrible, and I see a lot of people talking about straight buffs, which aren't necessary.

And frankly, giving it the Inquisitor list doesn't seem to do a lot to make it stand out either, now it'd just have a bunch of oddly inappropriate spells (all the Inquisitor's hunting spells) and would look even more like an archetype (trade judgements for blessings and bane for sacred weapon and your lore skills for bonus feats!).

[kestral287]

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

... Except the Barbarian has a better to-hit and damage (higher base strength) and better HP (higher Con, better HD). You might equal the Fighter, you're not going to match the Barbarian. And a pair of rage powers, so FF-DF is not effectively Rage anyway.

So unless the barb goes deep and dumps to get a 20 str which I don't see too many barbs doing, I see a lot more buying 15/16 con to get raging vitality both start wiht 18 str and get equal + to hit thanks to Weapon focus unless the barb gets weapon focus for his feat which sets him back. The introduction of reckless rage does increase the gap but that's the only difference. PA and rage are equal to PA and divine favor until level 5, at level 6 divine favor is better. Additionally which would you rather have -1 hit/+3 damage or +2 damage with no penalty to hit. Because that's reckless rage vs weapon specialization.

As to rage powers yes superstitious is unrivaled. I'm not saying there is no penalty but barbarians also don't get good progression will saves or have a wisdom which is 14-18.

A Warpriest has three major stats to worry about: Str, Con, Wis. A Barbarian has two, though their Dex will probably end up slightly higher. Ergo a Barbarian can afford to push stats higher. Pretty straightforward.

At level 4-- the level you referenced originally-- a Warpriest is one point behind in BAB. Weapon Focus makes up for this... but now you've burned your level 3 advantage to keep up. They Rage, you pop your DF, now you're equal. Besides, of course, the aforementioned higher stats. And the fact that they have two rage powers to swing into play. Though it's likely one is the largely-useless Lesser Beast Totem, a single Rage Power still puts them ahead in the level 4 math.

Your claim was that a Warpriest could match a Barbarian in the early levels besides the HP difference. I'm not seeing it.

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

It might be enough to keep you from being mediocre... but you're no Barbarian, let's be honest.

Depending on the level selected the barb will either edge you out or get crushed in damage especially at high levels or while bursting.

The 'level selected' was 4, based on your earlier assertation.

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

You also have a very linear view of the Magus. Shocking Grasp is kind of the "well, I just really need to kill the guy in front of me so let's burn a 1st level spell" option. It's a good go-to, but nothing more. They're a lot more flexible than just Shocking Grasp machines-- note that, for an effective use of the spell, you need one trait (either magical or social), one feat (Intensify Spell), and one first-level spell known. In a game going to high levels, add a second feat (Spell Perfection) and a couple other feats you're probably taking anyway (two Metamagics of choice, probably picked from Quicken, Empower, Maximize, or Extend, use a Rod to cover the other two-- I favor rods for Quicken and Extend myself). The entire rest of the build is open to whatever you want to do. Against something resistant or immune to electricity, I'm going to, yanno, cast a different spell instead. I could no-save stagger it with Frigid Touch, or buff myself and my team with Haste or Fly, or drop crowd control on another part of the battlefield entirely with anything from Grease to Black Tentacles.

Does it surprise you the WP can do the same thing and has the exact same linear views from people who haven't looked through it as much as I have.

Which is why I asked. Thus far all you've given are a tiny handful of buff spells (massively less than what the Magus can do since they're all single-target if you want to use them and attack; whereas the Magus can buff herself and her party, or go single-target offense, or go crowd control... and that's off level one spell slots alone), summoning (only available at level 10+), and... what?

I think the Warpriest is linear in combat because every example that's been given proves that it is. That's the experience that my friend running one has had-- he buffs himself up and smacks the other guy upside the head. He's effective, but straightforward. That's the experience posts around here that I've seen have given (as the most outside-the-box from that that I've seen is... "And I went to go heal the caster who ate a fireball"). And that's the experience that you're telling me: until level 10, they're one-trick selfish buffers. At level 10, they get a second trick in summoning. That's... pretty linear when you have to wait half your adventuring life (or much more, for PFS) to get the tools necessary to not be called a one-trick pony.

I'm honestly interested in the Warpriest and want one that isn't a Sacred Fist to be awesome. I've read your guide and am following your discussions across two threads. And I'm not seeing anything that points to the Warpriest as anything but linear. At best, I've seen that you can pick a few different weapons to specialize in, from unarmed-via-the-boring-Sacred-Fist to reach weapons to archery. But once you settle into one of those... linear.

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

This is nowhere near the build intensity that you're talking about with the Warpriest. Thus far we're up to the exact same build focus of the Magus' utility spell for the entire game /just/ to keep you in the game in the early levels (one trait, first-level spells, one feat that had to be taken at level one instead of the Magus' feat taken at level 5-7).

I'm just going to have to disagree. The WP requires 1 spell(divine favor/channel vigor/divine power/R Might level dependent), 1 trait(fate's favored), and 1 feat(Quicken blessing) to be incredible and have more versatility than the magus simply by having 4 or more free summon monster spells per day

Divine Favor, Channel Vigor, Divine Power, and Righteous Might add up to four spells, not one. You might only be using one at a time... but you need all four, and they're taking up progressively better spell slots while the Magus comparison is taking up nothing but first-level slots (where their other good initial options become gradually worse with levels, pretty much bringing it down to Shocking Grasp with the occasional Chill Touch for mook-slaying).

The Warpriest isn't getting their 'incredible' trick and more versatility until level ten. And it's costing them five more feats to do it, assuming that the Warpriest goes all-in on summoning as you suggested. Is this good? Yes. Does this prove my point about the Warpriest's tricks being incredibly more build-intensive than the Magus? Also yes.

At level 10 the Human Magus has seven feats, and sank one into a build requirement. At level 10 the Human Warpriest using the FCB has ten feats, and sank /six/ of them into the build you're suggesting-- Spell Focus (Conjuration), Augmented Summoning, Superior Summoning, Summon Good Monsters, Quicken Blessing, Weapon Focus. Note that among those six, three are totally useless until level 10 (but you have to have taken the first of them at level 6 via Human FCB to get them all online in time). Spell Focus isn't exactly of a lot of use to you either since a lot of your spells are buffs and thus lack saves.

So, you're talking about using 60% of your feats available before level ten, only a third of which (Weapon Focus and Quicken Blessing) are useful. With the way feats are spaced, you're talking about investing in these from level 3 at the latest, and investing in the largely useless ones at level 5. More likely, Weapon Focus and a feat of choice at level 1, and then you only have your Bonus Combat Feats 'free'. And of course, anyone non-human gets two less feats to play with there... leaving with Weapon Focus at level 3, Quicken Blessing at level 1, and nothing but a pair of combat feats available to customize. This is ignoring that you also mentioned Power Attack earlier to keep up with the Barbarian, further closing off build space (at that point, you almost have to take one of the two combat feats at level 3 or you have /no/ space to play with).

That puts the final tally of things you've jotted down so far as more-or-less essential at one trait (Fortune's Favored), a gradually upward scaling selection of spells (Divine Favor, Channel Vigor, Divine Power, and Righteous Might), six feats possibly plus Power Attack (Weapon Focus, Quicken Blessing, Spell Focus: Conjuration, Augmented Summoning, Summon Good Monster, Superior Summoning),

That's what I mean by linear. For all of the Warpriest's beautiful number of feats-- and beautiful they are, ten feats at level 9 is what I'd generously call insane-- this idea of an optimized summoner Warpriest requires an insane amount of investment to work. And that's also why I call the Magus nonlinear. One trait and one feat feat (which even slots nicely into the level they get a bonus feat at, and which /fits/ into that bonus feat slot) for their main trick, everything else is up in the air with a great many nasty options to choose from.

Now, the Warpriest has more room for all of that than the Cleric does, certainly... but the Cleric can actually use the summon feats before level ten. That's a big deal in most games.

[BadBird]

I'm not sure how the 'Linear'-ness of a Warpriest is worse than playing all sorts of other 'smack them up the head' characters. The unique trimmings it gets allow for some interesting melee build options, like a rather hurtful TWF Warpriest of Shizuru I posted a bit ago elsewhere. I like the fact that if you ask 'how can I exploit these class features to do a concept I couldn't do as well with another class' you get a lot to think about. A big pile of feats and some unique class abilities is a big invitation to get creative.

[Diego Rossi]

Kudaku wrote:

The Warpriest would benefit vastly from gaining a more specialized spell list, preferably with some spell level discounts so it gets personal-range combat buffs like Divine Power at the same level as clerics.

A number of spell discounts roughly equivalent to that of the bard, yes, to the level of the summoner, no thanks. Giving him the paladin spell list is nearer to giving him the equivalent of the summoner spell list than the equivalent of the bard spell list.

I suspect that the summoner is the main reason why later classes get very little in the way of specialized spell lists. Giving a 3/4 BAB arcane spellcasting class a 9 levels spell list masquerading as a 6 levels spell lsit was a bad move.

[kestral287]

BadBird wrote:

I'm not sure how the 'Linear'-ness of a Warpriest is worse than playing all sorts of other 'smack them up the head' characters. The unique trimmings it gets allow for some interesting melee build options, like a rather hurtful TWF Warpriest of Shizuru I posted a bit ago elsewhere. I like the fact that if you ask 'how can I exploit these class features to do a concept I couldn't do as well with another class' you get a lot to think about. A big pile of feats and some unique class abilities is a big invitation to get creative.

Worse? Not inherently. A lack of flexibility is not, in and of itself, problematic. When all you have is a hammer, everything might look like a nail... but when it's a big enough hammer, everything /is/ a nail.

But when the Warpriest is being touted as flexible, and compared unfavorably to the Magus' "specialization"? Yeah that's a problem.

The problem is, though, that if you follow Undone's logic (and note that he's told us he has a character with all four of those summon feats at 9th level, so he practices what he preaches), then the Warpriest needs to devote an insane amount of resources to going off, and that doesn't happen until level ten, and doing it requires an insane feat investment that doesn't leave room for a lot of creativity.

Or, if you don't follow Undone's logic... then I'm still back to trying to figure out how to build a capable Warpriest. I want to love it but I haven't found anything to /make/ me love it yet.

Basically: the problem is that we have one player who's massively pushing for how awesome the Warpriest is, based on its (admittedly solid) summoning tricks... and while yes, those tricks are good, they take a huge investment to pull off, in feats and in time both.

[STR Ranger]

kestral287 wrote:

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

... Except the Barbarian has a better to-hit and damage (higher base strength) and better HP (higher Con, better HD). You might equal the Fighter, you're not going to match the Barbarian. And a pair of rage powers, so FF-DF is not effectively Rage anyway.

So unless the barb goes deep and dumps to get a 20 str which I don't see too many barbs doing, I see a lot more buying 15/16 con to get raging vitality both start wiht 18 str and get equal + to hit thanks to Weapon focus unless the barb gets weapon focus for his feat which sets him back. The introduction of reckless rage does increase the gap but that's the only difference. PA and rage are equal to PA and divine favor until level 5, at level 6 divine favor is better. Additionally which would you rather have -1 hit/+3 damage or +2 damage with no penalty to hit. Because that's reckless rage vs weapon specialization.

As to rage powers yes superstitious is unrivaled. I'm not saying there is no penalty but barbarians also don't get good progression will saves or have a wisdom which is 14-18.

A Warpriest has three major stats to worry about: Str, Con, Wis. A Barbarian has two, though their Dex will probably end up slightly higher. Ergo a Barbarian can afford to push stats higher. Pretty straightforward.

At level 4-- the level you referenced originally-- a Warpriest is one point behind in BAB. Weapon Focus makes up for this... but now you've burned your level 3 advantage to keep up. They Rage, you pop your DF, now you're equal. Besides, of course, the aforementioned higher stats. And the fact that they have two rage powers to swing into play. Though it's likely one is the largely-useless Lesser Beast Totem, a single Rage Power still puts them ahead in the level 4 math.

Your claim was that a Warpriest could match a Barbarian in the early levels besides the HP difference. I'm not seeing it.

Undone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

It might be enough to keep you from being mediocre...

...

Great Points.

Generally if I take a Long feat chain, it needs a big payoff.

Any class with Fighter fluff and the Wpn Fcs/Spec/Gtr Wpn Fcs line is trumpted as a great use of feats.

While it's not bad for something like a Magus this is inferior to say Combat Exp, Blind fight and Moonlight Stalker.

Why? Because the net bonus is still +2 to hit and damage.
Yes the Fcs/Spec tree is always on but that's all it does.

Combat Exp can help you tank if you want, Blindfight is always useful and Moonlight Stalker gets the bonus on ANY weapon you use.

The summoning line doesn't build.
It justs 5 feats then BANG at level 10 Finally you learn an awesome trick.