I haven't played, not even been around, a Warpriest or an Inquisitor and feel like expanding my horizons. I'm wondering how they stack up against each other with a PC built around archery.
Setting = 20 point buy; all published Paizo, incl. the obscure stuff, except core races only; starting at 1st level and going to about 13th-15th; and 2 to 4 other players (let's assume they are unknown for now).
Goal = Effective Archer character in a group where each is expected to pull their own weight where the GM is known to throw some challenging battles. Secondary considerations include at least some healing abilities and decent saves. Skills, utility and good A.C. are welcome but not essential.
Personally I think the Inquisitor is better, but archery is strong combat style for either.
For me, the biggest thing is that an Inquisitor can pick up the Chivalry Inquisition which grants a mount. Having a mount that allows you to be moved and maintain the ability to full attack.
|
Inquisitor will be behind on Feats, which will matter for a few levels in there (mostly 6th to 8th level if Human), but has the advantage of Bane, and more advantages if they pre-buff. Their Saves will be basically identical.
Let's examine an identically statted build set, shall we?
At 6th, an Inquisitor will have Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim. They may also have two Teamwork Feats, which'll be useful.
A Warpriest will have Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim as well. He will also have Weapon Focus, Manyshot, Clustered Shots, and one other Feat.
With zero rounds of prep (and assuming Str 14, Dex 20 (with Belt), Bracers of the Falcon, and a +1 Longbow) their stats are as follows (including Point Blank Shot):
Inquisitor (using Bane as a Swift): +12/+12 for 1d8+2d6+10 so 43 if they both hit
Warpriest (using Divine Favor as a Swift): +14/+14/+14 for 1d8+11 so 46.5 if they all hit, which is more likely.
The second turn these go to the following:
Inquisitor (maintaining Bane, using Judgment for ): +14/+14 for 1d8+2d6+10 so 43 if they both hit
Warpriest (using Sacred Weapon for +1, since he has few other buffs at 2nd): +15/+15/+15 for 1d8+12 so 49.5 if they all hit, which is more likely...but not as much as it was last round.
So...ignoring the Inquisitor's Teamwork Feats, the Warpriest is better without buffing time, but not by a lot.
Now, the Inquisitor can't keep that degree of offense up as long (Bane being better than Sacred Weapon), but he can also do much better if he pre-buffs (Judgments + Bane are better than Sacred Weapon, and the spell list is the same...the Inquisitor'd add +3 each to hit and damage from Divine Favor with only a single round of buffing...the Warpriest can't get anything as good with one extra round). The Inquisitor's attacks are weaker vs. DR...except that Bane cuts right through DR starting only slightly after this (heck, even at this point it goes through material DR).
So...the Warpriest is ahead in damage for a bit there, at least when not given the chance to prep. The Inquisitor is probably better with prep.
The thing about this is that, with 6+Int Skills per level and spells like Invisibility...Inquisitor is a good scout and can thus give you time to prep. And it has an order of magnitude more out-of-combat stuff.
Frankly, Warpriest is better for some specific stuff (and probably slightly better in combat in some ways), but the Inquisitor is something like 90% or more as good at combat (better under some circumstances) and an order of magnitude better at non-combat stuff.
Wow. Thanks for the studied, helpful replies so far. Feel free to keep them coming though I might not be able to check for a bit.
|
|
Depends on the blessings. Destruction blessing out scales judgement dramatically and can be prebuffed.
Not really. At 4th, both are +2 damage. At 8th, Destruction is +4 damage. Judgment is +2 to hit, +3 damage. At 16th, Destruction is +8 damage, Judgment is +4 to hit, +6 damage.
I'd say Judgment has the edge, there.
He is better out of combat until 10th level when the free SLA's from 8-10 summon monster spells dramatically out does the utility of the inquisitor.
Eh. I'm not seeing anything on Summon Monster IV or V that's on par with basic Inquisitor stuff. I mean, you have access to Greater Teleport to take messages anywhere, but that's all you've got an Inquisitor doesn't, and they have a lot you don't.
Summon Monster VI you're starting to have a point, but that kicks in at 14th level, not 10th. And I'm still not sure if it's better. VII and VIII are mostly only better if you're Evil (or willing to summon Evil stuff)and IX might as well not exist for Warpriest since they don't get it until 20th.
Wow. Thanks for the studied, helpful replies so far. Feel free to keep them coming though I might not be able to check for a bit.
You're quite welcome. I'm always happy to be of assistance. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Inquisitor gains some real advantage from Teamwork Feats, thanks to his Solo Tactics workaround:
- Friendly Fire Maneuvers means allies never provide cover for your shots. It's a big deal for a class that doesn't qualify for Improved Precise Shot until level 15.
- Coordinated Shot grants +1 to hit any target being threatened by an ally, +2 if your allies are flanking the target.
- Target of Opportunity works well if you have another ranged attacker in the party (and don't plan to use Judgement or Bane in the following round). If they hit a target within 30' of you with a ranged attack, you get an Immediate Action attack against that target.
Yeah, with a single round in combat the inquisitor can cast a spell and activate judgment. On the 2nd round he activates bane. Bane + Judgment + Divine Favor/Power I believe is better in total terms of bonuses than the Warpriest's Sacred Weapon + Divine Favor, especially once Greater Bane comes into play.
Of course, the Warpriest has other abilities that come into play.
Overall, as archer's they're going to be pretty close.
Channel Vigor is on the Inquisitor list too. Unless I've missed something that makes it better for a Warpriest, which is possible since it's not a class I've played or even looked at in much detail.
|
|
If you don't have HiPS you pretty much cannot hide at high levels. The actual rules for stealth make invisibility pretty much meh. By 7th most of the stuff you face has some form of extra sensory stuff which negates it. Sure some won't but that tends to be either the exception or easy encounters which you dont need resources for.
Very few of those have any range to speak of (even Dragons only have Blind Sense 60 ft., True Seeing only goes 120 ft., and those are the highest ranges available, not the low ones). You can sneak to within 100 to 150 feet of almost all of them (ie: close enough to know of their existence anywhere but really enclosed areas) and still maintain the benefits of invisibility. And in enclosed areas, you probably don't need invisibility since there's a door in the way of them spotting you (and seeing through that is what Gloves of Reconnaissance are for, BTW). Then you return to the party, buff, and attack.
It's not gonna work all the time, but it does most of it.
And besides, all that is at high levels only. As a tactic, it certainly works up into the double digits...and that's more than half the game for most people.
|
As mentioned above, the combination of friendly fire maneuver and coordinated shot with 6+ skill points/lvl and some very powerful inquisition/domain choices makes the inquisitor the clear winner in my book. The warpreist has good damage and more feats to play with, but what keep me from making one is that they bring the skills of a combined cleric/fighter, which is little/none. Out of combat I just don't feel like they are as interesting.
Personally I think the Inquisitor is better, but archery is strong combat style for either.
For me, the biggest thing is that an Inquisitor can pick up the Chivalry Inquisition which grants a mount. Having a mount that allows you to be moved and maintain the ability to full attack.
If you want a mount, the divine commander archetype for the warpriest gives a mount. Plus, teamwork feats.
If you want a mount, the divine commander archetype for the warpriest gives a mount. Plus, teamwork feats.Personally I think the Inquisitor is better, but archery is strong combat style for either.
For me, the biggest thing is that an Inquisitor can pick up the Chivalry Inquisition which grants a mount. Having a mount that allows you to be moved and maintain the ability to full attack.
Honestly, I would say that actually puts them closer to the same footing than really helping the warpriest be better.
The war priest gives up blessings, which can be really good but not necessarily good for archery, and most of the extra combat feats. The extra combat feats is what would really keep the warpriest in the lead for archery, if there is really a lead to be had. Archery is very feat intensive, and there aren't a lot of good archery related teamwork feats. The ones that there are, worth better with Solo Tactics than with Battle Tactician.
Both classes can be good, but we are starting to compare things that aren't about who makes a better archer.
THanks everyone for the info. Since a very rough consensus is that the classes are pretty close for an archery focused PC, I'm probably gonna go with Inquisitor for the skills (even though I made that a 3rd tier consideration in my original post!). Out of combat they seem to have more potential. The teamwork feats, which underwhelm me anyways, seem particularly lame for archery, so I'll go Preacher archetype which has the bonus of helping my buds.
PS: I've found the distinctions you all made between the two classes educational- good job.