Is it just me, or could the Warpriest Doctrine use some work?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Exocist wrote:
From 1-6 and 11-14, Warpriest is strictly better than cloistered.

A cloistered cleric can start with both a domain and Electric Arc. Electric Arc ignores cover and has range, so AC is less important. With no need for a weapon, the cloistered cleric can wield both a shield and a staff or scrolls. I don't see how that's "strictly inferior".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
whew wrote:
Exocist wrote:
From 1-6 and 11-14, Warpriest is strictly better than cloistered.
A cloistered cleric can start with both a domain and Electric Arc. Electric Arc ignores cover and has range, so AC is less important. With no need for a weapon, the cloistered cleric can wield both a shield and a staff or scrolls. I don't see how that's "strictly inferior".

Electric Arc is not on the Divine list, so the Cloistered Cleric can only access it via ancestry feat.

Which the Warpriest can also do, while having the same spellcasting proficiency until level 7.

The only thing Cloistered Clerics have in their starting package is 1 domain spell, which is just as dependant on deity as Shield Block.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I never understand why people act like it's a bad thing to get shield block.

It's a bonus. Nobody goes warpriest for shield block. You go war priest for everything else that it gives. Shield block is an added bonus.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
ExOichoThrow wrote:

I never understand why people act like it's a bad thing to get shield block.

It's a bonus. Nobody goes warpriest for shield block. You go war priest for everything else that it gives. Shield block is an added bonus.

Getting a bonus you'll NEVER use feels bad: there is no way around it as it feels like you got robbed of a useful ability. It feels like you lost something. It's why a lot of people enjoyed the PF1 archetypes that trained away set class abilities, because it gave the opportunity to trade off abilities you didn't like or never used for ones you DID like and would use.

Add to that that the war priest goes out of it's way to make it a useless ability for some gods because of the favored weapon is 2 hand and is required for the improved proficiency: this leads to people wondering why an organized religion would go out of it's way to train their followers in a feat when it contradicts with their weapon training. You'd look funny at anyone that hands you a great sword and a large shield and expect you to use them both.

With other classes with a free shield block, you aren't locked into a specific weapon: A fighter can opt to use a one handed weapon and a shield or a two-handed [or maybe switch between them] while a warpriest of Yamatsumi HAS to wield a greatclub if they want their increased proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are no bonuses.

There are useful features, bad features, useless features, and straight wtf were they thinking features. But non of them are "bonuses", because every feature has a cost.

The fact those classes got Shield Block means they now could not get anything else. After all they already have Shield Block.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

There are no bonuses.

There are useful features, bad features, useless features, and straight wtf were they thinking features. But non of them are "bonuses", because every feature has a cost.

The fact those classes got Shield Block means they now could not get anything else. After all they already have Shield Block.

To be fair though, its a level 1 General Feat. Thats valued significantly below a Class Feat or Class Feature, and slightly more than a Skill Feat.

Its hardly the end of the world if you can't make use of it regularly.

Heck, I'd argue the main advantage of it at this point isn't even using it - its that it qualifies your for Bastion at level 2 without having to do anything.

And that's no small benefit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I mean, I'd argue the whole premise is less a matter of mechanical impact (it's definitely not the end of the world) and more that it just feels bad in general to get a class feature you might not be able to properly use at all because it's incompatible with the only weapon you get scaling proficiency with.


Kendaan wrote:
whew wrote:
Exocist wrote:
From 1-6 and 11-14, Warpriest is strictly better than cloistered.
A cloistered cleric can start with both a domain and Electric Arc. Electric Arc ignores cover and has range, so AC is less important. With no need for a weapon, the cloistered cleric can wield both a shield and a staff or scrolls. I don't see how that's "strictly inferior".

Electric Arc is not on the Divine list, so the Cloistered Cleric can only access it via ancestry feat.

Which the Warpriest can also do, while having the same spellcasting proficiency until level 7.

Yes, a warpriest can eventually get both Electric Arc and a domain, but even after they do, they're still a class feat behind, so there's still some situation of the player's choice where the cloistered version is better. Slightly better defenses and a slightly better third-action attack using a tertiary attribute is just not "strictly" better at all.

Quote:


The only thing Cloistered Clerics have in their starting package is 1 domain spell, which is just as dependant on deity as Shield Block.

Unless the campaign doesn't let me pick my deity, I don't see how anyone would think this was a serious point. Yes, if you build a cloistered cleric badly in just the right way, you might be better off with a warpriest, but that's a straw man argument if ever there was one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
whew wrote:
Kendaan wrote:
whew wrote:
Exocist wrote:
From 1-6 and 11-14, Warpriest is strictly better than cloistered.
A cloistered cleric can start with both a domain and Electric Arc. Electric Arc ignores cover and has range, so AC is less important. With no need for a weapon, the cloistered cleric can wield both a shield and a staff or scrolls. I don't see how that's "strictly inferior".

Electric Arc is not on the Divine list, so the Cloistered Cleric can only access it via ancestry feat.

Which the Warpriest can also do, while having the same spellcasting proficiency until level 7.

Yes, a warpriest can eventually get both Electric Arc and a domain, but even after they do, they're still a class feat behind, so there's still some situation of the player's choice where they're not as good. Slightly better defenses and a slightly better third-action attack using a tertiary attribute is just not "strictly" better at all.

Actually, the Warpriest get 3 good General feat + 1 general & 1 class feat that are more situational.

Also a "small" defensive bonus? it is easily +2/3 above a cloistered Cleric at low level, without counting a shield, and that is if the CC heavily invest in Dexterity.

The only thing the Cloistered has is 1 focus spell, they will be able to use once per battle, that might not be of any use anyway.

whew wrote:
Quote:


The only thing Cloistered Clerics have in their starting package is 1 domain spell, which is just as dependant on deity as Shield Block.
Unless the campaign doesn't let me pick my deity, I don't see how anyone would think this was a serious point. Yes, if you build a cloistered cleric badly in just the right way, you might be better off with a warpriest, but that's a straw man argument if ever there was one.

Oh, so a Warpriest with a deity with a 2H weapon is gimped because they can't use shield block, but a Cloistered with a deity giving bad domain is fine bcause they could chose another deity?

Your argument is even more a straw man argument than mine.

I agree that Warpriest need some bonus at higher level, but honestly I am baffled when people say Cloistered have a better package at level 1...


Temperans wrote:
There are no bonuses.

"You gain the Shield Block general feat". It's 100% pure semantics to quibble over it's being a bonus: IMO, it SURE looks like a bonus feat you get...

Temperans wrote:
There are useful features, bad features, useless features, and straight wtf were they thinking features. But non of them are "bonuses", because every feature has a cost.

The overall totality of the features have a cost. I doubt any single feature, or in this case sub-feature of a sub-feature has a quantifiable separate cost. Can you prove that changing "You gain the Shield Block general feat" to 'You gain the Shield Block or Toughtness general feat' would alter the cost balance? Would removing it affect the balance enough to make it a non-viable class? Not IMO.

Temperans wrote:
The fact those classes got Shield Block means they now could not get anything else. After all they already have Shield Block.

There is no proof of that, no magic formula that has been presented with the game. It might be 100% pure bonus for all we know. Without knowing the average base budget, and what variance from that median is acceptable, there is no way to know if a feature is needed to get into that range of if it is merely moving the power level inside the acceptable range [ie, bonus]. If removing or adding a feature doesn't make the class leave the acceptable levels, then it's not true that it's existence is there at the cost of something else.


graystone wrote:
Temperans wrote:
There are useful features, bad features, useless features, and straight wtf were they thinking features. But non of them are "bonuses", because every feature has a cost.
The overall totality of the features have a cost. I doubt any single feature, or in this case sub-feature of a sub-feature has a quantifiable separate cost. Can you prove that changing "You gain the Shield Block general feat" to 'You gain the Shield Block or Toughtness general feat' would alter the cost balance? Would removing it affect the balance enough to make it a non-viable class? Not IMO.

Of course it would alter the cost balance. Getting a choice is worth more than getting a set feat. That's pretty clear from Paizo's design philosophy. Not a lot more if you cannot retrain it, but more. And I see no reason to assume you wouldn't be able to retrain between these two options at the Feat retraining cost.

Removing it would certainly harm the class fantasy of a traditional armored cleric, since you wouldn't be able to play the classic mace and shield cleric until at least 3rd level. So non-viable might be an exaggeration, but I would consider it a design failure.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Of course it would alter the cost balance.

Can you prove it does in the overall cost of the class? If you could, would it make the class unbalanced by going over whatever range there is for classes?

AnimatedPaper wrote:
Getting a choice is worth more than getting a set feat.

That isn't the question. What discrete value is that over another option and is that enough to alter the balance of the class. Would having that option make the war priest unbalanced? What value do you attached to such a feature and compared to it what is the relative differences between the two compared to the overall power budget of the class? Saying 'but it HAS to be more powerful' doesn't answer whether it is an important part of the power budget, ancillary or a bonus tossed in as an afterthought because it was insignificant enough to not change the balance.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
Removing it would certainly harm the class fantasy of a traditional armored cleric, since you wouldn't be able to play the classic mace and shield cleric until at least 3rd level. So non-viable might be an exaggeration, but I would consider it a design failure.

It wouldn't harm it in the least as ANYONE can Raise a Shield. S0 100% able to play that classic mace and shield cleric: Shield Block isn't required for that image as Shield Block didn't exist in the old "fantasy of a traditional armored cleric".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For better or worse, it is pretty clear that the developers of PF2 felt that a character that trains to fight in any kind of regimented, soldierly fashion, learns shield block. Narratively, it is more core to "has traditional military training" than having martial weapon training. It is far more bizarre for druids to get it as a default than it is for warpriests to get it as a default.

I think the thing that really hurts the warpriest is that they don't get martial weapon proficiency until level 3, making it an entirely useless feature. Especially as their proficiency in martial weapons never otherwise improves, they might as well not get martial weapon proficiency at all, as the only archetypes it opens up, in theory, is Hellknight Armiger (but you still need training in heavy armor) and the Marshal archetype, but you can't select either at level 2 as a warpriest anyway, because you don't have the training yet. All the other newer archetype feats give trained weapon proficiencies in the relevant weapons. A warpriest that wants to use martial weapons is much better off (and probably should be encouraged to) picking a relevant archetype or MCing into fighter at level 2, making the level 3 doctrine ability all but useless.

Getting Heavy armor proficiency at level 3, and then Heavy armor expertise at 15 is much more inline with the traditional cleric/warpriest build and is only 1 level behind the MC champion, without having to waste feats on it. Otherwise, the war priest really has to get expert proficiency in martial weapons at some point, but if it is too far behind their favored weapon, it just makes for some really weird dead levels. Armor doesn't really experience that, because of how it interacts with dexterity.

Making the warpriest doctrines focus on armor, and giving them a feat that can let the warpriest counteract effects (perhaps only with necromancy spells to keep their dispel magic from getting too bonkers) at +1 spell level (which is far more interesting and useful that a flat bonus), would pretty much cover the difference in the two doctrines in useful fashion. They should also get expert proficiency in all simple weapons too though at some point. That really does feel like an Errata oversight.


One thing I do understand is that in a Dual Class game, a Fighter//C-Cleric is totally superior to a Fighter//Warpriest; and AFAIK, no other combination is this badly skewered.


graystone wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Of course it would alter the cost balance.
Can you prove it does in the overall cost of the class? If you could, would it make the class unbalanced by going over whatever range there is for classes?

The only proof I have is that, in a edition where Paizo pushed choices into every space it could conceivably occupy without bogging down the game with decision paralysis, they did not offer a choice here. So whether or not I think it was right for the class to have a choice instead of a set feat, you can see how the designers felt.

If any further proof exists, you'll have to take it up with them.


Bonus feats have a mechanical cost. Its not something you can just get for free out of the goodness of Paizo, they give it to fulfill the class balance requirements.

And there are formulas as can be seen by the very linear progression of stats of everything from monsters to shields to the amount of damage.

There is no need to prove there is a formula for features when its clear that everything in this edition follows a formula.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Shield Block is like Deadly Simplicity. If you didn't have Deadly Simplicity, the choice between "deities that give martial weapons" and "deities that give simple weapons" would be too big of a deal. When a Fighter or Champion chooses between two-handed and one-handed weapons, they usually have Shield Block to give one-handed weapons an extra perk. "Gorum for a greatsword" shouldn't just be the answer.

That doesn't address the balance of Warpriest vs. other things, but Warpriest minimizing the push towards a few specific deities is also a worthwhile design goal.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
For better or worse, it is pretty clear that the developers of PF2 felt that a character that trains to fight in any kind of regimented, soldierly fashion, learns shield block. Narratively, it is more core to "has traditional military training" than having martial weapon training. It is far more bizarre for druids to get it as a default than it is for warpriests to get it as a default.

The playtest is the reason Shield Block exists. In the playtest, shields were a thing you had proficiency in, and if you used a shield you'd use the lower of your armor and shield proficiency to calculate your AC. However, shield block was a thing anyone could do.

That was a bit bonkers, because it meant that using a shield could lower your AC. So shield proficiency was replaced with the Shield Block feat – now anyone can use a shield for the AC benefit, but only those trained can get the additional blocking benefits.

This does cause some odd effects, like druids getting Shield Block while only being allowed wooden shields which, well, suck for blocking.

Quote:
I think the thing that really hurts the warpriest is that they don't get martial weapon proficiency until level 3, making it an entirely useless feature. Especially as their proficiency in martial weapons never otherwise improves, they might as well not get martial weapon proficiency at all

Yeah, the easy fix to the warpriest without buffing them too much would be to give them martial weapon proficiency at level 1 and then have it advance at the same rate as their other proficiencies. I read an interview with one of the 5e designers (probably Mike Mearls), where he said that they considered the design of the Valor bard to be a mistake, because they get medium armor proficiency at third level and that changes the way they want to prioritize their stats. The same applies to the warpriest – they should have their proficiencies set up at 1st level just like everyone else.

It would also remove the emphasis on a "favored weapon", which is something I think Pathfinder gives too much focus to. Favored weapon was not at all a thing back in AD&D 1e and 2e, and was a minor thing in 3e (it determined the crit range/multiplier of your spiritual weapon spell, and if you had the War domain you would be proficient in it). That meant that favored weapon was only marginally relevant for non-martial deities, and almost entirely a flavor thing instead of a balance thing. In D&D 4e and 5e, it is removed again.

Then Pathfinder 1 changes things from 3e so clerics get proficiency with their deity's favored weapon, which creates weird world-building issues with all clerics for some reason getting training with specific weapons. So you have Desna clerics being taught about living on the road, star-gazing, and weird multi-pronged horribly unwieldy daggers, and Shelyn clerics encouraged to paint, sing, sculpt, wear proper fashion, and HIT THINGS WITH BIG BLADES ON STICKS. It also creates balance issues, because some gods have better weapons than others.

And Pathfinder 2 keeps the favored weapon thing going, but sorts some of the balance issue by way of the Deadly Simplicity feat, bringing sub-par weapons up to par. At the same time, it enshrines the favored weapons deeper, by making spiritual weapon absolutely dependent on them (the 3e version had standard weapons for deity-less clerics), and having them pop up here and there in other places.


I don't think not getting all Martial weapons at Level 1 is that bad for Warpriest, since they are mostly so similar to Cloistereds at that level (at that level Armor proficiency is at best +1 AC while moving stats from DEX to STR which trades +dmg for less Reflex). Using Simple weapons (other than Deity Weapon) at low levels seems fine to me, it's not really that horrible, it doesn't have stat build issue like armor. Once Warpriests do get Martial, it should scale along with everything else to Expert though.

I would kind of like to see Cloistered Clerics NOT gain Deific Weapon proficiency, although if they made that change it would be fair to add Favored weapon proficiency into Deadly Simplicity Feat (although then the name needs to be changed, since it's not JUST useful for simple Deific weapons). That prevents Cloistered from easily grabbing Champion/Sentinel for equal/superior Armor, while getting same free martial Deity weapon that ultimately scales to Expert, which can too heavily overlap Warpriest IMHO. A better progression in single Save at cost of core ability progression (spell proficiency) is not solid basis of a subclass IMHO.

Not to mention the weird interaction where Cloistered gets BETTER than Warpriest in specific area of Deity Weapon: while arriving to equal Expert proficency, their Favored Weapon Crits can use Spell DC which has higher proficiency and stat. Although Brawling is only weapon group whose CritSpec uses DC, it just seems weird to make Warpriest WORSE for Unarmed Favored Weapons in this way.

Anyhow, dropping Favored Weapon proficiency from Cloistered just seems appropriate way to dial back the Favored Weapon ideology which is kind of silly, I see threads here where people ask do they really need to use Favored Weapon or are they lesser Clerics if they don't. I mean, even if some weapon symbolically features in a religion's myths, that doesn't require literal combat training in it, especially not for the subclass that doesn't focus on armed combat. Makes sense for Warpriest? Yes, sure. Cloistered? Not really necessary.

I mentioned alteration for higher HPs for Warpriest earlier, but the thing I like about Armor Spec as alternative to that is it would only be gained at mid levels where Cloistered gets it's DC/Spell Attack advantage, so wouldn't give Warpriest further boost in early game. Giving Warpriest (later) Armor Spec, and swapping Shield Block for Emblazon Armament, and removing Cloistered's Favored Weapon, I think it's sufficiently distinguished... and while Cloistered CAN still "catch up" in Armor at relatively low cost, it's that much harder to do that AND get scaling martial weapon(s). Even then, Cloistered still easily manages Archer build with just Cleric 1 Feat for Favored Weapon: Bow OR Ancestry Bow proficiency, and DEX making scaling armor not really needed (at least for vanilla AC, Fortification aside, but archer should be getting smashed less often anyways).


When it comes to Warpriest as far as Golarion and PF1 are concerned they were great at using weapons and a buffing themselves. They got free weapon focus on the Deity weapon, weapons that had weapon focus dealt more damage (similar to the monk ability), and they could x times per day buff as a swift action. That is just how Warpriest was.

PF2 switched that up by reducing the action economy and martial focus of the Warpriest and giving them more spellcasting.

I dont even think Warpriest was part of the Playtest. At least not at first.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'd be cool with warpriests losing divine font for more melee power.


Divine Font is a difficult one.

Considering that Warpriest had access to Channel Energy like Paladins via an alternate use of Fervor.

It would also make a lot of sense to replace Divine Font with Lay on Hand and better martial power.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think warpriests need to be great healers. They still have all those divine spells. They wouldn't be any worse off than any none plant druid as a party healer. Balance wise they really need to give up something good to get something good as a striker IMO. Plus this would help set them up better to distinguish themselves from CCs.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think it's a big deal for warpriests to be better healers than druids. I was just making a reference to another class that has a battle type order that has a built in pseudo master proficiency.

I don't think expert in all weapons is that great. As a cleric I'd use my deities weapon anyway this ability would be unused. The warpriest should be able to be a warpriest without having to take an archetype which was my goal.

Also if warpriests are unable to take advantage of divine font due to MAD then it'd be just as well to take it away. Give them a nice focus spell that gives them a +2 status attack bonus for one action that lasts 1 minute. This way they can cast heroism on the fighter instead of themselves and actually have a chance of being competent in battle.

They would still be 1 behind on attack stats and not be able to take advantage of bard attack buff so I don't think this would step on any warrior class toes. Anyway this was just my idea. It's cool if it's not liked.

EDIT:Well the post I was replying to was deleted. Oh well.

Grand Lodge

Camellen wrote:
Is it just me, or could the Warpriest Doctrine use some work?

Not just you, but mostly you


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Divine Font is a difficult one.

Considering that Warpriest had access to Channel Energy like Paladins via an alternate use of Fervor.

It would also make a lot of sense to replace Divine Font with Lay on Hand and better martial power.

Not to mention about a 3rd to 1/2 pf the cleric’s class feats run off it one way or another.

In some ways, Divine Font is more central to the mechanical design of the class than the deity.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
In some ways, Divine Font is more central to the mechanical design of the class than the deity.

SACRILEGE!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
ExOichoThrow wrote:

I never understand why people act like it's a bad thing to get shield block.

It's a bonus. Nobody goes warpriest for shield block. You go war priest for everything else that it gives. Shield block is an added bonus.

Getting a bonus you'll NEVER use feels bad: there is no way around it as it feels like you got robbed of a useful ability. It feels like you lost something. It's why a lot of people enjoyed the PF1 archetypes that trained away set class abilities, because it gave the opportunity to trade off abilities you didn't like or never used for ones you DID like and would use.

Add to that that the war priest goes out of it's way to make it a useless ability for some gods because of the favored weapon is 2 hand and is required for the improved proficiency: this leads to people wondering why an organized religion would go out of it's way to train their followers in a feat when it contradicts with their weapon training. You'd look funny at anyone that hands you a great sword and a large shield and expect you to use them both.

With other classes with a free shield block, you aren't locked into a specific weapon: A fighter can opt to use a one handed weapon and a shield or a two-handed [or maybe switch between them] while a warpriest of Yamatsumi HAS to wield a greatclub if they want their increased proficiency.

I think theres a massive disconnect here. Shield block is given to warpriest so that they dont feel forced to use specific weapons. It gives them more options, regardless of if you think you'll use it or not. I really don't see how you can interpret shield block as anything but a small feature compared to the majority of what Warpriest gives.

Compare it to Cloistered Cleric at level 1.

Cloistered gets.. a focus spell. Warpriest gets: armor proficiency, expert in another save, deadly simplicity, and the shield block reaction.

Shield block is clearly tacked on so sword and board clerics dont feel screwed. But if you just gave any other general feat, it could be u balanced quickly. Toughness is a far more universally good feat, so is fleet.

Since we can rate feats based on how niche and how widely usable they are, the only general feat that really makes sense and works for the warpriest is shield block.

IMO warpriest is stronger than cloistered for the majority of levels anyways, and anyone expecting one of the strongest classes in the game to get buffed even more IMO are greedy and short sighted. You're already playing a full caster with divine font being a thing.


Quandary wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
In some ways, Divine Font is more central to the mechanical design of the class than the deity.
SACRILEGE!

I was a little surprised to discover that myself! And it was even worse in the playtest, where 22 of 33 feats were either interacting with Channel energy or casting Heal/Harm, while only 7 I think referenced your deity in any way.

I think James Jacobs made a post that this was deliberate; that part of what separated clerics from being mere clergy was that channel ability.

Which is immediately undercut by that ability not being a part of the multiclass archetype, so *shrug*. Maybe there will be an archetype that gives a lesser version of Divine Font in Secrets of Magic.


Squiggit wrote:

I mean, I'd argue the whole premise is less a matter of mechanical impact (it's definitely not the end of the world) and more that it just feels bad in general to get a class feature you might not be able to properly use at all because it's incompatible with the only weapon you get scaling proficiency with.

I still maintain there's not meaningful psychological difference between "feature I can't use effectively" and "feature I'll never use because its incompatible with my operating procedure." A fighter based around two weapons or a two-handed weapon is very unlikely to ever use a shield (among other things he'd have to be taking up space hauling one around when he won't under any normal circumstances use it) so how is he, in practical or perceptual terms, any worse off than the warpriest here? Same applies as I noted to any Champion who actually uses the divine weapon his god has that's two-handed (and there's good reasons to do so)?


I am quite happy for what concerns the current hybrid class situation.

Probably the only thing I don't really appreciate is that a warpriest is forced to use a specific weapon. I know it could be appropriate in terms of lore, but I would have preferred things handles in a different way.

For example, instead of a specific weapon there could have been a weapon repertory for that specific deity ( for example a cleric of Shelyn could decide between a dagger or a glaive, or eventually even a third option ).

Then a warpriest would have the possibility to choose among the weapons "sponsored" by its deity, probably far from the freedom given by "all simple/martial weapons", but still better and even thematic.

Silver Crusade

HumbleGamer wrote:


Probably the only thing I don't really appreciate is that a warpriest is forced to use a specific weapon. I know it could be appropriate in terms of lore, but I would have preferred things handles in a different way.

I know that people go about character creation differently, but for me this is a total non issue.

Sometimes I'd go "I really want to create a warpriest of Shelyn. That would be cool. Hmm, she grants a glaive as a weapon. Right, I'll build around the glaive".

Other times I'd go "I really want to play a warpriest archer who ends up as an Eldritch Archer. Lets see what dieties give me a bow as a favored weapon. Ah, Erastil seems interesting"

Yet other times I'd go "I really want to reproduce a character from <insert work of fiction> or one that matches <insert picture>"< If it was a picture of a cleric of Shelyn, it probably has a glaive :-). If it is some fictional clericy sort worshiping a nature god with a bow, well that is clearly best matched by Erastil.

In other words, I sometimes pick the diety and that decides what weapon I use, sometimes I pick the weapon and that resticts my choice of weapon. In either case, my favoured weapon IS what I actually want the character to wield.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

When it comes to Warpriest as far as Golarion and PF1 are concerned they were great at using weapons and a buffing themselves. They got free weapon focus on the Deity weapon, weapons that had weapon focus dealt more damage (similar to the monk ability), and they could x times per day buff as a swift action. That is just how Warpriest was.

PF2 switched that up by reducing the action economy and martial focus of the Warpriest and giving them more spellcasting.

I dont even think Warpriest was part of the Playtest. At least not at first.

The other way around, actually. What became the warpriest was the only version of the cleric that was in the playtest.

Here's the secret: the Warpriest is not the class from the Advanced Class Guide. It's the PF1 cleric: medium armor, good Will and Fortitude, full casting. The only thing it really has over the old cleric is proficiency with all martial weapons, and since that doesn't scale it's not so useful.

But people wanted there to be room for non-fighty priests as well. After all, a heavily armed and armored priest might fit perfectly for Torag or Sarenrae, but it is a poor fit for gods like Shelyn, Desna, Nethys, or Pharasma. This way, you get an option for non-martial clerics as well.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
The other way around, actually. What became the warpriest was the only version of the cleric that was in the playtest.

Not quite.

The playtest version got Legendary in spells (and didn't get Master Fortitude). This was apparently considered overtuned, so it was powered down by having its abilities split between Warpriest and Cloistered, with both getting some stuff to make up for their losses, but not as much as they gave up IMO.

Warpriest is in many ways very close to the PF1 Cleric, but without the ability to effectively max out Save DCs, it remains behind in a specific and vital area.


Having it feel anything like the 1e Warpriest would be great, so far it's just a cleric by another name. So Focus abilities working like Fervour and Boons, feats for weapon skills, and limited casting mainly useful minor healing and self buffs.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
The other way around, actually. What became the warpriest was the only version of the cleric that was in the playtest.

Not quite.

The playtest version got Legendary in spells (and didn't get Master Fortitude). This was apparently considered overtuned, so it was powered down by having its abilities split between Warpriest and Cloistered, with both getting some stuff to make up for their losses, but not as much as they gave up IMO.

Warpriest is in many ways very close to the PF1 Cleric, but without the ability to effectively max out Save DCs, it remains behind in a specific and vital area.

And here was I thinking that the only true thing overtuned about clerics in the playtest was the sheer amount of healing output.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Temperans wrote:

When it comes to Warpriest as far as Golarion and PF1 are concerned they were great at using weapons and a buffing themselves. They got free weapon focus on the Deity weapon, weapons that had weapon focus dealt more damage (similar to the monk ability), and they could x times per day buff as a swift action. That is just how Warpriest was.

PF2 switched that up by reducing the action economy and martial focus of the Warpriest and giving them more spellcasting.

I dont even think Warpriest was part of the Playtest. At least not at first.

The other way around, actually. What became the warpriest was the only version of the cleric that was in the playtest.

Here's the secret: the Warpriest is not the class from the Advanced Class Guide. It's the PF1 cleric: medium armor, good Will and Fortitude, full casting. The only thing it really has over the old cleric is proficiency with all martial weapons, and since that doesn't scale it's not so useful.

But people wanted there to be room for non-fighty priests as well. After all, a heavily armed and armored priest might fit perfectly for Torag or Sarenrae, but it is a poor fit for gods like Shelyn, Desna, Nethys, or Pharasma. This way, you get an option for non-martial clerics as well.

IIRC, that mostly parallels how the Warpriest was originally greeted during the ACG playtest. "Er.. we already have an fighty-armored cleric. That would be the cleric. Could we get a caster unarmored one?"

Not trying to bag on the warpriest; I'm just amused if the same conversation happened a second time.


Kendaan wrote:
Oh, so a Warpriest with a deity with a 2H weapon is gimped because they can't use shield block, but a Cloistered with a deity giving bad domain is fine bcause they could chose another deity?

If not strictly better meant the same thing as gimped, then the answer might be yes. I'm just in this thread because the post I first responded to used "strictly better" improperly, so that all I had to disprove is the "strictly" part.

Strictly better - MTG Wiki:
Strictly better describes a card which is, in isolation from other effects, superior to another card in at least one respect, while being worse in zero respects.

Strictly better - game theory:
(a strategy) That leads to a better outcome no matter what the other player does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people try to do the wrong (suboptimal) things with warpriest/the subclass is misnamed. If "Battle Medic" wasn't already taken, I think that would be a better name. Particularly after the release of APG, I see a lot of the upside to warpriest, given their easy access to both Sentinel and Bastion (and to a lesser extent Marshal and Medic). This allows them to move up and defend their allies while healing/buffing them. While it *sounds* appealing, and despite the name, I think a warpriest is at their best when they're *not* making attacks.

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Is it just me, or could the Warpriest Doctrine use some work? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.