* +2~4 Attack
+25~50% damage
* +1 AC (+3 AC at 17+)
+13% damage mitigation(+40% at 17+)
+2 hp/levelSo, the Fighter makes far more damage and sucks far more damage. Fighter is amongst the best classes right now. The Warpriest is in a tougher spot in my opinion.
Check out my comparison charts, after level 10 the fighter does twice the warpriest's damage
here
You have to look in the linked sheet
Warpriest gets buffs, though. Both defensive and offensive. Warpriest's Heal divine font is, for two actions, approximately half their HP - rounding DOWN on how powerful that is. So in a vaccuum, a Cleric actually has a LOT more HP than the Fighter, and also has some area attacks for, say, groups of enemies.
Fighter is sustained power. The Cleric gets some tricks, including some AOEs and single-target effects. I'd rate the Cleric as better, but only because of the versatility and sheer tankiness their spells grant them.
PF2 system encourages overspecialization while allowing easier versatility.
2 things encourage overspecialization:
- DCs are calculated very tightly, so you can never meet a situation where a +1 is useless.
- Critical failure and successes make every +1 count twice. It's +1 chance to make the check and +1 chance to avoid a critical failure or make a critical success.
So, when the Fighter has +2-4 to attack, in PF1, it would be the equivalent of +4-8 to attack. It's a monstrous advantage, as Citricking is also pointing out.
On the other side, PF2 allows very easy versatility. One feat gets you one skill trained, which would be equivalent to 1 skill point at each level in PF1. 4 feats and you cast level 7 spells (no equivalent in PF1).
So, the Warpriest is versatile. But you should never expect him to deal weapon damage anywhere close to a Fighter.
The warpriest is never going to beat the fighter at attacking with a weapon. That's what fighters are good at above all else.
Instead, they have healing and utility spells, plus enough class features to not be useless when attacking with a weapon.
The fighter is a bad Point of comparison - his Advantage on proficiency has him leading the curve even against other martials. You should rather compare the Warpriest to the Ranger or Barbarian.
Both of those get damage bonuses though.
Or instead of Precision the Ranger can choose lower MAP via Flurry which makes for a harder comparison, especially with the action cost to Hunt Prey.And the Barbarian can unlock so many strange abilities via Instincts, like a reusable AoE.
Yet underneath all of that, the math is tight across the classes, so I think Fighter, where you can focus on its attack bonus, makes for a good comparison.
But along with the simplicity of that is the difficulty of measuring those maneuvers which make for efficient use of actions. On the other hand, the Warpriest can choose new spells each day, which are each more potent than a feat albeit with limited uses.
Which is all to say that both have strengths the other lacks, and luckily in this edition there isn't a way to duplicate another class's abilities while retaining one's own (which you could do w/ PF1 system mastery).
A Warpriest will never be as good as a Fighter at basic attacks, while a Fighter won't have that Heal resilience or equivalent spell capacity.
Each can fill the melee or ranged role in the party, but each does it much differently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter is a bad Point of comparison - his Advantage on proficiency has him leading the curve even against other martials. You should rather compare the Warpriest to the Ranger or Barbarian.
Rangers fighters and barbarians all deal about the same expected damage, rogues too if everyone is facing a flat footed target. It is the standard to compare to.
The fighter is a bad Point of comparison - his Advantage on proficiency has him leading the curve even against other martials. You should rather compare the Warpriest to the Ranger or Barbarian.Rangers fighters and barbarians all deal about the same expected damage, rogues too if everyone is facing a flat footed target. It is the standard to compare to.
Yeah, all the martial classes are pretty close, though the fighter does definitely have an edge with their higher weapon proficiency. Even the rogue keeps up when they get sneak attack on their target, and there are options that really help to ensure that you have high chance of sneak attack.
The biggest things that keep martial focused character above hybrids like Warpriest is their class feat options that do more to support martial combat.
fighters also have a lot of skills they can get to be crazy accurate and consistent with their strikes versus other classes. most of the martials have stuff to make their hits consistent or attack more in a round while staying mobile.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Only' +2~4 hit I think is something OP is really underestimating. Math is fairly tight in this game. Generally speaking a martial is going to have a mostly reliable first attack, a semi-reliable second attack and an unreliable third attack. The warpriest starts half a step or even a full step down compared to the fighter.
It's also really +2~5 to hit, because the Warpriest is going to have an inferior attacking attribute at levels 1-4, 10-14 and 20.
To be honest, I'm more concerned about whether or not the warpriest's spells are enough to make up for that gap than the other way around after playing around with martial casters for a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+5 (remember maxed STR) to hit is insurmountable. Almost nothing in the game can even come close to bridging this. The best buffs are Heroism and Haste and even togetther they don't add up to that Damage increase. Against weaker enemies it's crits all day and against boss-tier enemies you can hit them at all on your first attack very reliably.
Early levels warpriest can hang in the frontlines very well with the other martials, but they end up being relegated to buff/heal only teens. Those buffs probably are going on a Martial, not yourself.
What was cool about PF1 Warpriests was access to some good self-only buffs that you could quick-cast using Fervor. Perhaps it was too good? But it sure let them stay good in melee for their entire career rather than supporting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Only' +2~4 hit I think is something OP is really underestimating. Math is fairly tight in this game. Generally speaking a martial is going to have a mostly reliable first attack, a semi-reliable second attack and an unreliable third attack. The warpriest starts half a step or even a full step down compared to the fighter.
It's also really +2~5 to hit, because the Warpriest is going to have an inferior attacking attribute at levels 1-4, 10-14 and 20.
To be honest, I'm more concerned about whether or not the warpriest's spells are enough to make up for that gap than the other way around after playing around with martial casters for a while.
The advantage for the warpriest is more about what she's doing for everyone else in the party, I think. Bless doesn't make up the difference, but you're not the only one getting the benefit of Bless. On the defensive side you still have the damage mitigation/healing argument between Fighters having better armor and a warpriest cleric potentially having a ton of Heal casts if you abandon your DC's and go for charisma over wisdom.
I think accuracy enhancers (higher weapon training, avoiding MAP) are really not to be underestimated.
+4 to attack is almost halfway to a crit in comparison and given now nasty crits can be thats a pretty enormous advantage. I think until people play it more and really understand how much more powerful the + to hit really are damage wise it will be undervalued.
I think accuracy enhancers (higher weapon training, avoiding MAP) are really not to be underestimated.+4 to attack is almost halfway to a crit in comparison and given now nasty crits can be thats a pretty enormous advantage. I think until people play it more and really understand how much more powerful the + to hit really are damage wise it will be undervalued.
At level 1, as a non-fighter, vs. a typical level 1 creature, flatfooted is the difference between a PF1 style 20/x2 crit and a 18-20/x2 crit, just by applying the flat footed condition.
+to attacks are very good.
You know what? This apple here has much smoother skin and is a lot redder than that orange over there. Someone really needs to look at the balance of this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what? This apple here has much smoother skin and is a lot redder than that orange over there. Someone really needs to look at the balance of this.
Given that both the builds the OP are talking about feature fighting with weapons, it doesn't really seem all that absurd that someone might want to compare how well they fight and how well their non-fighting tools contrast with each other.
|
If you want to be a cleric that is on the front line, you should be able to build one. Comparing it to other martials makes a lot of sense.
That being said, something I put together for a good aligned cleric was utilizing the champion dedication. Cloistered Cleric, Versatile Human with Toughness at 1st level, +Str/Wis/Cha, -Dex/Int makes you a dumb cleric but can net you 16 Str/10 Dex/10 Con/8 Int/18 Wis/14 Cha at level 1. Champion Dedication for heavy armor (pick up splint mail until 5th, switch over to full plate once you get 18 Str). By level 11 you pretty much have EVERYTHING the warpriest gets as a cloistered cleric, so you'll also get legendary spellcasting too. And 14th level nets you expert in heavy armor, only one level after a warpriest gets expert in medium. The downside to this setup is that from levels 7-10 this character is still stuck with trained proficiency in weapons while the WP gets expert. But after hitting 11th the cloistered cleric just outpaces the warpriest in pretty much every way.
|
|
My post got eaten by the forum gods (fickle creatures, they are), let's try again.
In a vacuum, warpriests seem like they are able to keep up with a fighter in terms of martial capability, but the reality is, a Fighter will (or should) have access to status and circumstance buffs just like a warpriest, because mechanically speaking a heroism being placed on a fighter gets more bang for its buck than on a warpriest.
That being said, warpriests are still full casters and a warpriest has every right to reserve their spells for self-buffs. And while the divine spell list is small (only for now, hopefully), there are a good few gems on there.
* +2~4 Attack+25~50% damage
* +1 AC (+3 AC at 17+)+13% damage mitigation(+40% at 17+)
+2 hp/levelSo, the Fighter makes far more damage and sucks far more damage. Fighter is amongst the best classes right now. The Warpriest is in a tougher spot in my opinion.
Hold my beer.
I made both a Fighter level 12 and a Warpriest of Gorum and strictly at that level I would say Gorum is better. Fighter AC is about 2-3 higher. Gorum's amount of damage he can mitigate is noteworthy. First of all Shield Spell cantrip will absorb 15 damage then be destroyed (he doesn't use an actual shield because he's wielding a greatsword), then he's got Enduring Might 2x which mitigates 16 damage each time it's used. Not to mention 5 heals a day at his highest level and that's without sacrificing any of his spell slots he could easily acquire more but that would likely be overkill. His 2 action heal does 6D10+48 each time. He uses his lower level spell slots for spells such as Heroism, and multiple True Strikes saving those for daily boss fights. His accuracy when using Heroism is only 1 or 2 less then a Fighter at the same level but with True Strike also in the equation vs a boss he's more accurate than the Fighter. Since he also has high charisma he demoralizes enemies quite well with his intimidating prowess. Still the Fighter does get AOO and that is a boon along with the ability to hit harder, but not massively harder. The Warpriest is incredibly tanky as he could theoretically absorb 500+ HP worth of damage if he were to exhaust all his heals on himself, but he may only use a couple heals on himself let's say well his HP at that level is 152, Shield Absorbs 15, Enduring Might 2x another 32 so that's 47, throw in just two 2 action self heals 162 HP there, and that's now a total of a mere 361 HP. Fighter is around 202 HP at that level (made him a dwarf with both toughness and stoutness) he also has significant damage mitigation with his steel shield the exact number I didn't go into detail before it breaks but I'm sure it's decent, I just don't know if he's anywhere near as tanky as the War Priest.
Ya we are talking about either one or the other, I was talking strictly up to level 12, obviously you can buff a fighter with all sorts of stuff, but you can't expect a team is going to be perfectly suited to buff you. A war priest is utterly self sufficient, can easily fill the role of a tank if no fighter is in the group, he just won't lay out as much damage certainly and wont have AOO, but he can heal himself and his allies for days. The accuracy difference is not much if at all, actually is in Forums favor as my earlier post mentioned. Because a fighter will need outside help to get Heroism etc, and cant get True Strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hold my beer.
I made both a Fighter level 12 and a Warpriest of Gorum and strictly at that level I would say Gorum is better. Fighter AC is about 2-3 higher. Gorum's amount of damage he can mitigate is noteworthy. First of all Shield Spell cantrip will absorb 15 damage then be destroyed (he doesn't use an actual shield because he's wielding a greatsword), then he's got Enduring Might 2x which mitigates 16 damage each time it's used. Not to mention 5 heals a day at his highest level and that's without sacrificing any of his spell slots he could easily acquire more but that would likely be overkill. His 2 action heal does 6D10+48 each time. He uses his lower level spell slots for spells such as Heroism, and multiple True Strikes saving those for daily boss fights. His accuracy when using Heroism is only 1 or 2 less then a Fighter at the same level but with True Strike also in the equation vs a boss he's more accurate than the Fighter. Since he also has high charisma he demoralizes enemies quite well with his intimidating prowess. Still the Fighter does get AOO and that is a boon along with the ability to hit harder, but not massively harder. The Warpriest is incredibly tanky as he could theoretically absorb 500+ HP worth of damage if he were to exhaust all his heals on himself, but he may only use a couple heals on himself let's say well his HP at that level is 152, Shield Absorbs 15, Enduring Might 2x another 32 so that's 47, throw in just two 2 action self heals 162 HP there, and that's now a total of a mere 361 HP. Fighter is around 202 HP at that level (made him a dwarf with both toughness and stoutness) he also has significant damage mitigation with his...
I have nothing against holding your beer, but I tend to disagree with what you write.
First, you can't use all of that at the same time. Heal + True Strike + Strike = 4 actions per round. So, in a vacuum, your warpriest does a lot of good things, but in truth:- He won't use True Strike much because he doesn't have that many spells. Also, it's an action. The Fighter gets an extra attack with the same action. 2 attacks with high accuracy is better than True Strike + 1 attack with average accuracy.
- Heroism can be used on the Fighter for higher efficiency. So, best to ignore it.
- The more you heal yourself, the longer the fight lasts, and the bigger the amount of resources you have to use. A standard combat lasts for 4 rounds. Because you used 4 actions to heal yourself, you have to consider that you'll take 40% more damage with your Warpriest.
- You forgot to add the 13% damage mitigation of high AC to the Fighter hit points. You need that for comparison.
So, the Warpriest doesn't hit as hard as a Fighter and doesn't tank more efficiently than a Fighter. Also, after one such a fight, the Warpriest needs a long rest, when the Fighter just needs healing.
There is no way the Warpriest can be on par with a Fighter in terms of melee power.
* +2~4 Attack+25~50% damage
* +1 AC (+3 AC at 17+)+13% damage mitigation(+40% at 17+)
+2 hp/levelSo, the Fighter makes far more damage and sucks far more damage. Fighter is amongst the best classes right now. The Warpriest is in a tougher spot in my opinion.
As a PF1e way of looking at things:
* +2 to hit = weapon focus + greater weapon focus + improved critical.* +4 to hit = the above + weapon training 2 + keen enhancement on your weapon
Its really easy to underestimate the impact of a bonus on your to hit, but that's the equivalent of 3 feats on a measly +2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly disagree on the idea that damage is better than healing. Heal spells can keep 2 allies standing in a combat and dealing damage of their own. No character can be built where they equal the damage output of 2 other characters so it's a fair trade.
Alternatively if your highest damage dealer almost goes down, you can trade your 2nd and 3rd worst attack to keep them standing and dishing damage. If you have haste running you can still get 2 attacks off yourself at your highest attack bonuses. That's an extremely good use of the action economy.
I feel like it's worth noting that none of that accounts for class feats. Fighters get some excellent tricks, not the least of which is Certain Strike. Clerics get great feats too but mostly not straight combat enhancers. Just saying, class feats add a world of variance. Also if someone gives the Fighter Heroism, watch out. You can give the high-proficiency Fighter Heroism but you can't give the Heroism Cleric high proficiency, in actual play that matters.
Also Fighter getting Evasion eventually and getting Master Fort before Cleric is nothing to sneeze at. Anti-fear is great too as Frightened is one of the more effective debuffs in the game.
Also I didn't see if the damage difference was addressed. Weapon Specialization on Cleric vs greater weapon spec on Fighter is a 6 point damage difference. That's not factoring feats that add damage or debuffs for fighter, and again lets not underestimate the accuracy difference.
If you want to argue that the cleric is better off casting heroism on the fighter, that's fine. But the cleric gets to claim credit for the increased damage that the fighter dishes out.
Fighters should be straight up better by the numbers. A cleric has so much versatility with their spells that they should have to pay for that versatility with a reduction in pure damage. But if a cleric devotes 100% of their spells on their damage output they should come close. But that healing from divine font should still keep them a bit behind.
Hold my beer.
I made both a Fighter level 12 and a Warpriest of Gorum and strictly at that level I would say Gorum is better. Fighter AC is about 2-3 higher. Gorum's amount of damage he can mitigate is noteworthy. First of all Shield Spell cantrip will absorb 15 damage then be destroyed (he doesn't use an actual shield because he's wielding a greatsword), then he's got Enduring Might 2x which mitigates 16 damage each time it's used. Not to mention 5 heals a day at his highest level and that's without sacrificing any of his spell slots he could easily acquire more but that would likely be overkill. His 2 action heal does 6D10+48 each time. He uses his lower level spell slots for spells such as Heroism, and multiple True Strikes saving those for daily boss fights. His accuracy when using Heroism is only 1 or 2 less then a Fighter at the same level but with True Strike also in the equation vs a boss he's more accurate than the Fighter. Since he also has high charisma he demoralizes enemies quite well with his intimidating prowess. Still the Fighter does get AOO and that is a boon along with the ability to hit harder, but not massively harder. The Warpriest is incredibly tanky as he could theoretically absorb 500+ HP worth of damage if he were to exhaust all his heals on himself, but he may only use a couple heals on himself let's say well his HP at that level is 152, Shield Absorbs 15, Enduring Might 2x another 32 so that's 47, throw in just two 2 action self heals 162 HP there, and that's now a total of a mere 361 HP. Fighter is around 202 HP at that level (made him a dwarf with both toughness and stoutness) he also has significant damage mitigation with his...
I have nothing against holding your beer, but I tend to disagree with what you write.
First, you can't use all of that at the same time. Heal + True Strike + Strike = 4 actions per round. So, in a vacuum, your warpriest does a lot of good things, but in truth:
- He won't use True Strike much because he doesn't have that...
Obviously you can't use all those actions in one round that's not what I said. If he needs to deal damage he will demoralize, true Strike, attack, that's a pretty decent chance to Crit there or whatever he needs to do. He doesn't put out the damage a fighter does, but he's not grossly behind either like I mentioned. If it's heal himself he will two action heal then attack. He's got 3 true strikes and that's not for mooks that's for the boss. So minimum 3 rounds of it. Not sure why you think he has average accuracy when he's got Heroism active, he's not far behind at all from the Fighter maybe 2 points that's about it, and with True Strike he's actually ahead (I'm comparing level 12 vs level 12). Since you said fight lasts 4 rounds, he should have no issues there. If another ally goes down in combat, the War Priest can use his reaction to save that hero via breathe of life, just an example of the versatility he has. He's going to heroism himself (we are assuming one or the other, not both war priest and fighter on same team, and we are assuming there's no pocket Bard to buff a fighter thats not fair. Big part of the benefit of the War Priest are those buffs and powers). In a battle vs mooks, fighters way better all day long, his resources just don't get exhausted really. The War Priest is certainly better in a boss fight where he will have access to all his tricks, right after combat he will refocus with the rest of the party. But ya I'm not sure how on earth you have the fighter tanking more damage then the War Priest who's got 5 heals (without even spending any from his normal spell slots) and Shield + Enduring Might mitigation. Not only should the fighter tank less, he should be tanking significantly less but of course he hits harder. Remember the Fighter has AOO he may use his reaction there, the War Priest is only using his for defensive purposes such as damage mitigation via the two ways mentioned earlier or he's saving someone else who's squishees life via breathe of life.
True strike attack does less expected damage than attack attack. You should be using true strike for getting through concealment or with searing light instead of trying to use it to raise damage.
Not saying warpriest isn't good, heal is very powerful. But fighting wise it is pretty far behind. That's okay, it's spells do make up for it, but in a different way. They shouldn't be casting buff spells on themselves.
Who should they buff then if they are the tank in the group, makes sense to Heroism the front liner (assuming War Priest is the fighter replacement).
Who should they buff then if they are the tank in the group, makes sense to Heroism the front liner (assuming War Priest is the fighter replacement).
Well then they are in a party of 4 casters, I guess they don't have to buff anyone with heroism. But if you're in a situation where you have time to pre buff it might make sense.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriests seem to fall behind in essential ways.
First their doctrine is weirdly mostly defensive, largely improving their proficiency with fortitude saves and armor with their earlier expert proficiency in weapons being the only offensive benefit over cloistered.
Their accuracy is almost always worse from either not having strength or dexterity as key stats or having lower proficiency.
They fall behind in flat damage from their class three times over compared to fighters and other martials from weapon specialization. Their proficiency is often lower reducing the damage they gain from it, they get it 6 levels later than other martials and they never gain greater weapon specialization.
Plus they are worse at condition removal than a cloistered cleric as most of those require a counteract check which is determined by your wisdom and proficiency.
Then they lack the buffs to close the math distance and the ones that should close the gap are either unreliable (death knell) or work better on better combatants (heroism).
It seems like the warpriest that pours most of their spells and abilities into being a martial combatant still ends up rather unimpressive at it. A fighter spending all their feats on the cleric multiclass would make a better warpriest than a warpriest.
The one use I see for them is in very small groups where being able to pull double duty as a frontliner and caster is of much more value than having a specialist in each role but even then the fighter still gets a lot of the utility from spellcasting with the mutliclass feats without compromising their frontlining abilities as much as being a cleric does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First their doctrine is weirdly mostly defensive, largely improving their proficiency with fortitude saves and armor with their earlier expert proficiency in weapons being the only offensive benefit over cloistered.
I feel like Paizo kind of wrote themselves into a corner with proficiency. They can't give a full caster the same weapon proficiency as a full martial (i.e. Master) but then you end up in this weird position where the "warpriest" archetype ostensibly focused around martial combat is only actually better at swinging a weapon from levels 7-10.
In general I feel like with how important accuracy is this edition, making that the primary way to differentiate tiers of martial combat might have been a mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First their doctrine is weirdly mostly defensive, largely improving their proficiency with fortitude saves and armor with their earlier expert proficiency in weapons being the only offensive benefit over cloistered.I feel like Paizo kind of wrote themselves into a corner with proficiency. They can't give a full caster the same weapon proficiency as a full martial (i.e. Master) but then you end up in this weird position where the "warpriest" archetype ostensibly focused around martial combat is only actually better at swinging a weapon from levels 7-10.
In general I feel like with how important accuracy is this edition, making that the primary way to differentiate tiers of martial combat might have been a mistake.
I really feel like the warpriest should have gotten master proficiency in their deity's weapon at some point. Being behind in armor should be penalizing enough right?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really feel like the warpriest should have gotten master proficiency in their deity's weapon at some point. Being behind in armor should be penalizing enough right?
First their doctrine is weirdly mostly defensive, largely improving their proficiency with fortitude saves and armor with their earlier expert proficiency in weapons being the only offensive benefit over cloistered.I feel like Paizo kind of wrote themselves into a corner with proficiency. They can't give a full caster the same weapon proficiency as a full martial (i.e. Master) but then you end up in this weird position where the "warpriest" archetype ostensibly focused around martial combat is only actually better at swinging a weapon from levels 7-10.
In general I feel like with how important accuracy is this edition, making that the primary way to differentiate tiers of martial combat might have been a mistake.
I dunno, we'd need to do a more detailed analysis between say a ranger or barbarian and a warpriest that theoretically had master proficiency in their deities weapon.
And imagine what that would look like in terms of capability and if the drawbacks they would still have in combat would keep them distinct from those martials.
I think as long as they have full casting progression they just can't be allowed to creep too close to other martial characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think as long as they have full casting progression they just can't be allowed to creep too close to other martial characters.
I agree completely, but at the same time if they (and other caster-gishes) really end up that far behind other martials, especially fighters, in terms of physical combat capabilities the whole premise of becoming a martially inclined caster ends up feeling a little bit misleading.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really feel like the warpriest should have gotten master proficiency in their deity's weapon at some point. Being behind in armor should be penalizing enough right?
I really hate deity's favored weapons. As soon as you give bonuses to them, all Warpriests become Cleric of the same deity (or a bunch of them).
The Warpriest is incredibly tanky as he could theoretically absorb 500+ HP worth of damage
No, the Warpriest is not much tanky, and clearly less than a Fighter. Being a healer doesn't make him a tank. But I encourage you to test your Warpriest, and you'll discover that against a boss he can't hold the line like a Fighter can.
The Warpriest is nice as secondary melee character, to handle the mooks. Against the boss, he can then just heal the Fighter who's the one able to handle a real boss. The Warpriest is a caster, not a martial. He's not supposed to go into melee unless the situation's relatively safe.
I really hate deity's favored weapons. As soon as you give bonuses to them, all Warpriests become Cleric of the same deity (or a bunch of them).
Ideally there are many interesting weapons available among deities because the weapons should be balanced. There shouldn't ever be a flickmace deity and the cleric's simple weapon damage dice increase (feat? I don't remember) would keep the others relevant, but I get your point.