So, I was looking through the Advanced Class Guide today, and I don't quite understand why the Warpriest:
a) exists
and
b) is something a person would voluntarily play
From what I understand, the idea of the Warpriest is to combine the Cleric and Fighter classes in a way that allows a player to have a more "martial" divine character without having to play a Lawful Good Paladin. The thing is, the Warpriest only gets 6 spell levels, yet has the same BAB progression as a regular cleric. Instead of getting two domains, they get a much more limited set of "Blessings", and in return they get...Weapon Focus for free. All that they get in return for this, really, is Sacred Weapon (and a matching armor ablity).
Is there something I'm missing here? It doesn't seem like a terribly interesting or flavorful class, and mechanically it seems inferior to being a regular cleric.
I think a lot of people wish it was just an Any-Alignment Paladin. It's not a bad class, by any means. Sacred Fist is a great Monk-ish character, in fact. But it's not what people were expecting, for sure.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been pointed out to me that swift-action spellcasting on self-only buffs is a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problem the traditional fighter/cleric has is the action economy of buff spells - "the buff round" can drag on a bit for a warrior cleric, especially at the higher levels. The Warpriest can sidestep that problem by swift-casting self-targeting spells with Fervor.
That said, if you you don't plan to specialize in a feat-intensive combat style (archery, dex-based TWF etc), and think you have a decent chance of predicting fights and pre-buff appropriately, then I honestly think you're better off playing a cleric.
Edit: I should note that the Sacred Fist is an exception to what's written above - the Sacred Fist is a very good platform for an unarmed/unarmored melee combatant, and well worth a read.
So, I was looking through the Advanced Class Guide today, and I don't quite understand why the Warpriest:
a) exists
Paizo felt a fighter-cleric hybrid was something people wanted, that it would not be a paladin-for-any-alignment, and the warpriest would scratch that itch. Further, the emphasis on fervor and six level casting was deemed more important than full BAB. Finally, it was decided that since the cleric has a favored weapon and fighters are uniquely eligible for Weapon Specialization, that the class would have a link to a particular deity-sanctioned weapon.
andb) is something a person would voluntarily play
A personal philosophical objection to playing a fighter 1/cleric 19.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically, you're missing three things, really:
1. Fervor. And the Action Economy benefit it offers. To do well in melee, Clerics need buff spells, these take rounds to set up. Warpriests can do so while fighting, by spending Fervor to make it a Swift Action. This is the big one, and pretty powerful if used properly.
2. Bonus Feats. A total of 6 Bonus Feats and the ability to take them as if you were a Fighter and had Full BAB is pretty cool. For example, a Warpriest archer can get Manyshot at 6th level, same level a Fighter gets it, and already have Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim to boot.
3. Blessings are actually quite good in some cases, and in almost all more combative than equivalent Domains. They're also the source of several very nice combos (including a no save Sleep effect in one case).
Thematically, Paladins are champions of righteousness, not really of their particular deity as such. Warpriests are the soldiers of their God. It's not the strongest thematic distinction, but it's at least as big a difference as between, say, Wizard and Arcanist.
I'd still basically never play one over, say, an Inquisitor, but there are in fact reasons to do so.
I'd still basically never play one over, say, an Inquisitor, but there are in fact reasons to do so.
"I wish I were playing a Psychic Warrior, but I'll settle for a divine semi-caster."
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes you not want to play it?
The existence of Inquisitors, basically. I like skills, and they do close enough to as well in combat that any difference isn't meaningful.
Seriously, if you're 90-95% as good in combat, and several times better out of combat...you're usually gonna have more fun than the guy who's slightly better in a fight and like a quarter as good outside it.
What makes you not want to play it?
Personally:
- I don't think the thematics match the most effective tactics. Namely, it's supposed to be a fighter-cleric, but in practice, seems to work more as a cleric-summoner-paladin.
- It's supposed to tie in to deity flavor, but really favors weapons with higher crit ratings or useful qualities. If you were sad about having a mace as your favored weapon before, you're still sad about it now.
- I don't like tracking multiple self-buffs. I'd rather just hit stuff, honestly.
- Fighter 1/Cleric X is routinely simpler, more effective, and more versatile. Ditto for inquisitor. Ditto for ranger 1/druid X.
- Different warpriests don't seem to have as unique a schtick as different clerics.
Seriously, if you're 90-95% as good in combat, and several times better out of combat...you're usually gonna have more fun than the guy who's slightly better in a fight and like a quarter as good outside it.
... which is basically a problem it inherited from the fighter class. Fighters don't suck at fighting. They rock. It's just, they are not much fun/good at non-fighting.
|
|
... which is basically a problem it inherited from the fighter class. Fighters don't suck at fighting. They rock. It's just, they are not much fun/good at non-fighting.
Seriously, if you're 90-95% as good in combat, and several times better out of combat...you're usually gonna have more fun than the guy who's slightly better in a fight and like a quarter as good outside it.
Oh totally. I don't feel much incentive to play a Fighter over a Slayer either, and for similar reasons.
Mechanically, you're missing three things, really:
1. Fervor. And the Action Economy benefit it offers. To do well in melee, Clerics need buff spells, these take rounds to set up. Warpriests can do so while fighting, by spending Fervor to make it a Swift Action. This is the big one, and pretty powerful if used properly.
2. Bonus Feats. A total of 6 Bonus Feats and the ability to take them as if you were a Fighter and had Full BAB is pretty cool. For example, a Warpriest archer can get Manyshot at 6th level, same level a Fighter gets it, and already have Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim to boot.
3. Blessings are actually quite good in some cases, and in almost all more combative than equivalent Domains. They're also the source of several very nice combos (including a no save Sleep effect in one case).
Thematically, Paladins are champions of righteousness, not really of their particular deity as such. Warpriests are the soldiers of their God. It's not the strongest thematic distinction, but it's at least as big a difference as between, say, Wizard and Arcanist.
I'd still basically never play one over, say, an Inquisitor, but there are in fact reasons to do so.
I get the action economy argument, but...is that really worth giving up all spells above 6th level? And drastically slowing down your spell progression in general? Far too many of the Blessings boil down to "add a d4 to your damage" for my taste...full Domains seem far superior. Travel, Luck, heck, even the Fire Domain seem better than any of the Blessings I saw, particularly since they grant bonus spells as well.
The Warpriest isn't martial enough for me to buy it as a real front-liner, and its casting is flat-out inferior. Inquisitors get a pretty huge synergy with Teamwork feats, and a set of Judgements that, IMO, are just plain better in combat than Blessings in most situations (especially since you can switch between them freely).
|
While I haven't played a war priest myself, I have played along side of one. This past summer we were playing a PFS 10-11 tier adventure.....I had a cleric of sarenrae with healing and the sun domains, The war priest....well i'm not quite sure whom the war priest worshiped.
The war priest proved to be quite a durable front liner and he dished out allot of damage.
My character hung back healed and buffed. The war priest did a great job getting in the monster's faces and well beating on them.
|
|
I get the action economy argument, but...is that really worth giving up all spells above 6th level? And drastically slowing down your spell progression in general?
Depends on what you're aiming for. As a spell caster or healer? No. As a melee combatant? Maybe. Swift Action +3 attack and damage help quite a bit from 6th level onward.
Far too many of the Blessings boil down to "add a d4 to your damage" for my taste...full Domains seem far superior. Travel, Luck, heck, even the Fire Domain seem better than any of the Blessings I saw, particularly since they grant bonus spells as well.
Huh? Only Fire, Water, and the Alignment Blessings do anything like that (and Alignment Domains aren't that exciting either). Most of the rest do other, interesting, stuff. Is it as good as Domains? Maybe not, but it's a lot more focused on combat, and many of them are quite good.
The Warpriest isn't martial enough for me to buy it as a real front-liner, and its casting is flat-out inferior. Inquisitors get a pretty huge synergy with Teamwork feats, and a set of Judgements that, IMO, are just plain better in combat than Blessings in most situations (especially since you can switch between them freely).
Judgments are better than lesser Blessings in many cases, but you get less of them per day. And Teamwork Feats are very nice, but probably not as good as, y'know, any Combat Feat you want. I'd still say Inquisitor is a vastly better Class, but it's only on par in combat, its superiority comes in its vast out-of-combat advantages.
I have a sacred warpriest in my campaign and he does more damage then any other character I have had my table between attacks and his self buffinng. He is also very tough with his self healing. YMMV
|
Is it worth giving up higher level spells? Yes, it is. Clerics can't swift cast spells until they manage to either get their hands on a rod of quicken spell (75 000 gp) So technically if your dm is generous, you could get it at level 12 or you are using the quicken spell feat from level 9 and above to quicken first level spells only.
Warpriest simply makes an easy Battle Cleric. If your game is going to end by level 11 or 12, you have no need to play a battle cleric and the warpriest would do the job quite nicely.
Not every games out there goes to level 15 or 20, actually they are pretty rare. I've seen people ends game as early as level 9 or 10.
Usually it would depend what the dm will let you know about the campaign. If the dm tells you this campaign is going to level 20, just play a cleric, it might be hard at first but you will be much better off. If the game is ending by level 9, warpriest would do the job nicely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes you not want to play it?
That is an interesting question... Hm. Let's see:
1. There's no "wow" factor. There's no class feature that really grabs me the way Spellstrike or Studied Combat did when I read the magus and the investigator. The class gets 6th level spellcasting, medium BAB, two good saves, 2 skill points - solid but unexceptional. Reading over the class features I'm left with the same feeling - it feels uninspired. I wish it had something that made it *stand out* a bit more. Fervor used to be that when it was a full BAB class, but as a medium BAB class Fervor goes from "this awesome thing I can do sometimes" to "this thing I need to use in order to be relevant".
2. For a class that's all about casting personal-range divine buff spells, it gets access to those spells later than its compatriots, and loses out on a bunch of spells available to the paladin, ranger, hunter and the inquisitor. It could have really benefited from a spell list buff the way the hunter did. It's kind of hard to get excited about casting Channel Vigor at level 7 when the cleric is toting Blessing of Fervor and Divine Power.
3. It has a bajillion different resources to keep track of. Spell slots/duration, Blessing charges, Sacred Weapon Rounds, Sacred Armor Minutes as well as Fervor uses. Add to that all the spells the class will be using, there is a lot of different stuff to keep track of. It would have been nice if it had a central "pool" that offered charges for all the various abilities the way the Magus does.
4. Because you're using both Fervor charges and personal-range buff spells to compete in melee, you have to dedicate a lot of your spell slots to combat buff spells. Combine that with a class that has two skill points per level and no reason to invest in intelligence, you're going to have a hard time contributing outside of combat. In contrast the inquisitor has 6 skill points per level and can save his spell slots for other things, while matching the warpriest's to hit and damage with Bane and Judgement. The cleric has enough spells that he can afford to leave some spell slots open, and get access to things like Wind Walk when you've just figured out Dispel Magic.
5. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, for being a class that's all about war - the class isn't really all that good at combat. If you compare the cleric, the inquisitor and the warpriest numbers, the warpriest only pulls ahead if there are no chances to pre-buff. If that chance does appear, the warpriest gets destroyed by both the cleric and the inquisitor. He can't keep up with the cleric's superior spell slot access, or the Inquisitor stacking cleric buffs on unique buffs (Litany of X) on top of Bane and Judgement.
With all that said, it's not a bad class. In a party that's often surprised or rarely choose when to engage in combat Fervor is a great ability. All the bonus feats come in handy if you want to pursue a combat style like archery or dex-based TWF, which is hard to pull together at a reasonable level with a class that gets few or no bonus feats. Sacred Weapon is a fun mechanic if you want to use an otherwise underwhelming weapon, like the starknife.
The warpriest is a good class. The reason I find it a little disappointing is that it had the potential to be an exceptional class, and in my opinion it didn't quite get there.
What makes you not want to play it?
lots of book keeping and abilities all over the chart…. its like the half elf of old!
Oh crap! I forgot I had that ability, I would have made that saving throw/perception/etc….
everyone said the barb with a rage pool was too much book keeping… that's what the WP is, sub par with too much book keeping.
I have a sacred warpriest in my campaign and he does more damage then any other character I have had my table between attacks and his self buffinng. He is also very tough with his self healing. YMMV
more damage that a dual wielding gunslinger?
I like the class, I just don't get some major blessings. Some of them go like:
At 10th level, you can touch an ally...
Does that mean you cannot use it on yourself?
Sacred weapon, if I got this correctly, is nice for those people who always wanted to carry a weapon like the sling for example, while later it's a damage upgrade for all weapons I guess. Free buffing is the signature of the class, while the bonus feats and all the rest is just icing on the cake.
Just made my first Warpriest. A sacred fist (because I like the idea of monks, but don't like the monk mechanics).
I'm enjoying it a lot and don't find it hard to keep track of anything. Maybe that will change as the character levels up, but so far it isn't bad.
I feel like it isn't accurate to be comparing them to a full caster. They are a martial class that has a decent casting ability. They are best thought of as a Divine version of the Magus.
here's some highlights that I've figured out for a low-level war priest.
Taking the Fate's Favored trait and being able to Fervor Divine Favor is stupid good.
The Airless Touch blessing from the Void domain is an enemy caster-shutdown from level one. Combine it with the Travel blessing or Dragon Style to ensure maximum mobility and you can effectively run up on a caster and silence them with no save. Combine it with a Conductive weapon or amulet and you can do it as part of a regular attack.
Seriously, the Warpriest doesn't look like much at first, but if you pick the right combination of abilities they are seriously fun.
The most viable and useful Warpriest builds involve Archery, Divine Commander Lance Charge build, and unarmed Sacred Fist AKA Monk2.0
It's an ok class as something different, but every time I look at at the Warpriest I just come away thinking that I'd rather play a cleric.
I think the warpriest is more analogous to the Magus than it is to a Paladin. 3/4 BAB with reduced spell progression, and a self-buffing ability.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are always your own ally.I like the class, I just don't get some major blessings. Some of them go like:
At 10th level, you can touch an ally...Does that mean you cannot use it on yourself?
Unless you worship Zon-Kuthon. Then it's open for debate.
The only thing I don't like about the warpriest is the lack of full BAB, but the developers thought the class was too strong with full BAB. Even without it, being able to swift cast divine favor and later divine power makes the warpriest effectively have full BAB and then some. And he's still got so many other spells and things he can do.
Its a solid class without being overpowered. But if you're not paying attention to fervor and what it can do, it's easy to understand why you wouldn't think it's very strong.
Only thing I haven't seen mentioned is that Warpriest doesn't care about charisma.
My worries about playing a warpriest are:
1) Swift action starved.
2) Overly favors weapons with odd attributes over weapons with straight damage.
3) Not much to do out of combat.
|
My worries about playing a warpriest are:
1) Swift action starved.
2) Overly favors weapons with odd attributes over weapons with straight damage.
3) Not much to do out of combat.
1) Yes, but the same can be said of the inquisitor, which is the Warpriest's main competitor. That Said, Fervor is always your strongest option, but it's not necessarily your best option. You need to be able to pick your best swift action use for the moment.
2) Not really. A big weapon that does solid damage is going to be stronger than a whip or a blowgun for a long time, but sacred weapon does mean that your weapon crit profile is more important in the long run than your weapon base damage.
3) You are still a prepared divine caster, you can leave a slot open to prepare utility spells when needed, and some of the blessings can be used out of combat. 2 skills per level hurts, but a cleric has the same problem.
I am playing a dwarf warpriest in one of my campaigns and having a blast. I am using a dorn duergar with the plan on making it a one handed weapon so I can use shield at around level 6 or 7. Fervor is your friend. This is not "the best" class but is it fun? Yep. And I'm not using the Sacred Fist warpriest which is indeed one of the better class options.
Only thing I haven't seen mentioned is that Warpriest doesn't care about charisma.
My worries about playing a warpriest are:
1) Swift action starved.
2) Overly favors weapons with odd attributes over weapons with straight damage.
3) Not much to do out of combat.1) There's a tier system for swift actions. Quickened Summoning blessings>Fervor Spell=Ki attack>Sacred weapon>other swifts. The only choice "Is this combat worth effort?" Assuming 16 Wis by level 4 the answer should almost always be "Oh hell yes." since it's rare to have 6 fights.
2) The only favored weapons of the WP are bows and lances, with a minor favoring toward reach weapons for generic builds. Whips and such are STILL BAD people just feel compelled to use the useless sacred weapon dice progression. Honestly the class would be better off if it just DIDN'T HAVE IT because then people wouldn't be baited into using it.
3) You have spells which aren't first level. Any of them can be used for utility until 12th level where you need a few of your 4th level spells.
I am playing a dwarf warpriest in one of my campaigns and having a blast. I am using a dorn duergar with the plan on making it a one handed weapon so I can use shield at around level 6 or 7. Fervor is your friend. This is not "the best" class but is it fun? Yep. And I'm not using the Sacred Fist warpriest which is indeed one of the better class optionsThis is actually one of the best ways to play normal basic WP's.
Thank you. I had the flavor for the character in my head and when I started looking at the warpriest it really clicked. Having a unique reach weapon that also lets you have a shield keeps my WP up front with some damage. Two of the guys I play with have copies of my char sheet for their own games because they enjoy the idea of the build as much as I do.
two feats(and 15 dex req) to use it one handed seems kind of taxy
Not really when you consider the feats you'd need for most any other martial build. The bonus with that weapon is you can use it as a reach or non reach weapon one handed with the feats.
|
|
By the time you spend those feats with the DD, you can spend the same feats for whip mastery, having longer reach, some out of combat utility, and threaten adjacent and reach without needing to waste a swift action to switch between them.
Sacred weapon damage negates the only advantage a DD has over a whip, which is the 1d3 vs 1d10.
By the time you spend those feats with the DD, you can spend the same feats for whip mastery, having longer reach, some out of combat utility, and threaten adjacent and reach without needing to waste a swift action to switch between them.
Sacred weapon damage negates the only advantage a DD has over a whip, which is the 1d3 vs 1d10.
Not sure if you were counting the exotic weapon feat, but a dwarf gets that weapon as martial.
Maybe the switching from reach to non-reach feat is two feats though. Anyone have the name of that?
You need Dorn Duergar master and darting viper feats to make it work as a one handed weapon you can use switch between reach and nonreach. IIRC that weapon is the only weapon that can qualify as both a reach and normal weapon.
Keep in mind for the person asking about whips I was not trying to create some power build. I had in my mind the image of a dwarf with a shield in one arm and a morningstar type weapon in the other. Little bit of digging and I came up with a build that works with that character.
Well if you have the two whip feats it's also both. The whip has other problems but it's not the worst weapon. It's best when used the way you'd use a normal reach weapon. The dwarven weapon is better overall unless you're not a dwarf due to the feat cost.You need Dorn Duergar master and darting viper feats to make it work as a one handed weapon you can use switch between reach and nonreach. IIRC that weapon is the only weapon that can qualify as both a reach and normal weapon.
Keep in mind for the person asking about whips I was not trying to create some power build. I had in my mind the image of a dwarf with a shield in one arm and a morningstar type weapon in the other. Little bit of digging and I came up with a build that works with that character.
Which dovetailed nicely since the character I wanted to make was a dwarf warpriest.
I also feel that it's worth noting that balancing the game around a cleric's level of power is in many way inherently problematic, though probably unavoidable in any discussion in which optimization is a factor, or when just going by knee jerk reactions. Cleric is quite simply too powerful in comparison with the VAST majority of classes.
Comparisons with the more reasonably balanced inquisitor is probably fairer. Though I'm not exactly an expert on either class, the comparison seems more apt though still in the Inquisitors favor when utility is on the line (but hey, WP still got more to do than a fighter or playtest kineticist at least!).