[PF] Warpriest tips? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Vanitas

2014-02-20, 08:45 AM

One of my players is going to be using a backup character for a while. Our game is on Sunday. He has already decided on a CG drow Warpriest (from the ACG playtest) of Eilistrae.
He is going to use a rhoka (but I'm waving the EWP needed, since the difference between choosing a scimitar, a cutlass or a rhoka for a warpriest is zero) plus a light shield. That's all we have decided.
Any tips for a Warpriest build?

EDIT: Party is Aasimar Paladin 9 (Archer), Half-elf Bladebound Magus 9 (Dervish Dance), Elf Swashbuckler 9 (with homebrewed feat for TWF Precise Strike), Kobold Sorcerer 2/Swordsage 7 (crazy mobile skirmisher)

Psyren

2014-02-20, 08:50 AM

The only advice I have is to make sure you're using the second version of the playtest, otherwise he will be MAD beyond belief.

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-20, 08:51 AM

What's the stat generation method (Point Buy / 3d6 / whatever). Are Traits allowed? What source books?

Vanitas

2014-02-20, 08:56 AM

The only advice I have is to make sure you're using the second version of the playtest, otherwise he will be MAD beyond belief.
We're doing that, yeah.

What's the stat generation method (Point Buy / 3d6 / whatever). Are Traits allowed? What source books?
20 points buy, 2 traits, everything from d20pfsrd.com

Person_Man

2014-02-20, 09:29 AM

Can someone give us a rundown on the new version? I've only had time to skim through the first one.

malonkey1

2014-02-20, 09:36 AM

We're doing that, yeah.

20 points buy, 2 traits, everything from d20pfsrd.com

Including the 3pp stuff, or just Paizo?

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-20, 10:01 AM

We're doing that, yeah.
20 points buy, 2 traits, everything from d20pfsrd.com

That helps a ton. I don't use the 3rd Party stuff much so I can't advise you if anything there will help but I can provide some thoughts based on the Warpriest I'm currently playing.

The class is still quite MAD. I would suggest focusing on a Dex build, especially if you are kind enough to allow him a Dex to Damage feat (house rules, 3rd party content, 3.5 content). Unfortunately you can't really dump any stat, but you can get by with a 12 Wisdom and 10 Charisma if you like. I would suggest the following attributes after racials modifiers: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 13 as a good compromise build for a Drow Character. You can hit well, have a decent Dex bonus to aid AC and you don't need a 13 Wisdom (for spell casting) until level 7. Cha 13 gives you 2 uses of Fervor per day at levels 1 & 2.

The Fervor self heal and channel isn't very impressive in my opinion. Use Fervor to cast buff spells instead. Note, the Cure spells match the requirements for which spells you can cast using Fervor too.

Basic gamplay is pretty simple. You spend round 1 of combat buffing, but with your Blessings & Fervor you should be getting at least 2 decent buffs on yourself in that first turn. At higher levels you can cast a single buff and then attack, and plan on adding a new buff each round.

Feat wise, I actually would suggest Combat Casting as you won't have a very high Wisdom bonus. Other than that, your basic melee combat feats work out well. As a GM you will need to decide if a Warpriest qualifies for Fighter-only feats (the class should IMO).

Think of the class as a Fighter with a bit of buffing magic and it'll work out well.

Vanitas

2014-02-20, 10:02 AM

Including the 3pp stuff, or just Paizo?

Paizo and DSP.

Can someone give us a rundown on the new version? I've only had time to skim through the first one.
There are three main differences, IIRC:
1) Sacred Weapon no longer restricted to deity's favored weapon.
2) Sacred Weapon damage scales with level, similar to monk's unarmed strike.
3) You can spend a limited resource (Fervor) to quicken spells you cast on yourself.

Their channeling spends fervor as well, fervor can be used by itself to heal. Blessings use a pool separate from fervor - wish everything used the same pool, though.

That helps a ton. I don't use the 3rd Party stuff much so I can't advise you if anything there will help but I can provide some thoughts based on the Warpriest I'm currently playing.

The class is still quite MAD. I would suggest focusing on a Dex build, especially if you are kind enough to allow him a Dex to Damage feat (house rules, 3rd party content, 3.5 content). Unfortunately you can't really dump any stat, but you can get by with a 12 Wisdom and 10 Charisma if you like. I would suggest the following attributes after racials modifiers: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 13 as a good compromise build for a Drow Character. You can hit well, have a decent Dex bonus to aid AC and you don't need a 13 Wisdom (for spell casting) until level 7. Cha 13 gives you 2 uses of Fervor per day at levels 1 & 2.

The Fervor self heal and channel isn't very impressive in my opinion. Use Fervor to cast buff spells instead. Note, the Cure spells match the requirements for which spells you can cast using Fervor too.

Basic gamplay is pretty simple. You spend round 1 of combat buffing, but with your Blessings & Fervor you should be getting at least 2 decent buffs on yourself in that first turn. At higher levels you can cast a single buff and then attack, and plan on adding a new buff each round.

Feat wise, I actually would suggest Combat Casting as you won't have a very high Wisdom bonus. Other than that, your basic melee combat feats work out well. As a GM you will need to decide if a Warpriest qualifies for Fighter-only feats (the class should IMO).

Think of the class as a Fighter with a bit of buffing magic and it'll work out well.
Hadn't noticed the class was so light in Wis. Good news for a drow, I think.

Psyren

2014-02-20, 10:20 AM

Can someone give us a rundown on the new version? I've only had time to skim through the first one.

I might be missing some (so anyone can feel free to jump in and fill the gaps) but here were the major changes:

- Sacred Weapon: Instead of being stuck with the deity's favored weapon, they simply get free Weapon Focus for a weapon of their choice - and any/all weapons they have WF for can be used as Sacred Weapons. They also still can use the deity's favored weapon as a Sacred Weapon even if they don't have WF in it. If the deity's favored weapon is unarmed strike, they get IUS for free instead.

- When using a Sacred Weapon they are treated as having full BAB. (This was brought up in your "Full BAB T3s" thread - the Warpriest will be the first such class to be PF official.)

- The Sacred Weapon's damage die scales, similar to a monk's unarmed strike. If the weapon naturally does more (e.g. you pick Greatsword at 1st level) it will use the weapon's dice until such time as the Sacred Weapon better. For example, a Warpriest who chooses Longsword will do 1d8 base as normal until level 10, when it changes to 1d10, then 2d6 etc.

- The big one; Channel Energy is replaced with Fervor, which heals with a touch instead of a burst. However, if the Warpriest uses it to heal himself, it is a swift action, letting them heal themselves and full attack in the same round. Note that you must be good or neutral to use the self-healing, so evil Warpriests will be weaker. Finally ,they can spend two uses of Fervor to Channel Energy.

- Other big change: instead of using fervor to heal/damage undead, the Warpriest can spend uses to autoquicken+autostill self buffs. This can be used on any spell capable of targeting the Warpriest, not just Personal-range spells, but the target is changed to Personal.

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-20, 11:48 AM

So the Warpriest needs Wisdom for spell casting and for DCs on some Blessings, that's it. Since you max out at 6th level spells (and then not till level 16) I strongly recommend picking Blessings which don't require a DC check and focusing on buffing / healing spells.

Blessing usage per day is based purely on Class levels (3 + 1/2 your level). Fervor usage per day scales with Cha and your level (Cha Mod + 1/2 your level). Fervor is basically an alternate version of Lay on Hands with weaker healing progression. Personally, I would treat the Extra Channel / Extra Lay on Hands feats as if they affect Fervor too. Note that Channel DCs still scale on Cha.

With this in mind I think a low Wisdom and moderate Charisma score is the way to build your characters. If you need a dump stat, you are unfortunately only left with Int. However, thanks to the crappy 2+Int skills per level you can get away with dumping Int to 7 and using your Favored Class bonus for an extra skill point. (Minimum skills per level is 1, +1 from FC bonus). For RP reasons I can't ever justify going down this path.

As for your physical ability scores, those will vary based on your preferred combat methods. I'm currently trying a Dex build with my Warpriest. It's ok so far, but other Dervish Dance builds have performed better.

I'm thinking of the class not as a Cleric/Fighter but as a Cleric/Paladin with abilities being about halfway between the two. Nothing about the class has been borrowed from the Fighter so far. :smalltongue:

Another thing to note, expect to be using your swift actions fairly often. Fervor for buffing / healling and Blessings for buffing & some fun actions.

stack

2014-02-20, 11:58 AM

With DSP material on the table, you could go WIS focused instead. Two feats get wisdom to attack (channel smite and guided hand for paizo, blind fight and ...something, forgot the name for DSP). Or just get a guided weapon later.

Psyren

2014-02-20, 12:00 PM

I would do a Dex-focused build with Scimitar as my favored weapon and light armor.

Str 8
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 10 (I hate negative Int personally)
Wis 14
Cha 12

before racial modifiers. Human will get you a bonus feat, +2 Dex (or Wis) and 3 skill points per level. Or you can go Aasimar and hit 16 Wis 14 Cha. Either way, all your stat boosts would go to Dex.

Kudaku

2014-02-20, 12:21 PM

I actually playtested a dervish dance warpriest of Sarenrae fairly similar to Psyren's build when the revised warpriest was released. The original playtest build, as well as some reflections around the class, can be found here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qg0w?Level-4-Warpriest-playtest#1).

The Warpriest is inherently fairly MAD so a race that gives you more ability score bonuses is definitely attractive - Dual talent humans or aasimar variants are very good options.

Ability scores, pb 20, Musekin aasimar ability score modifiers included:

Str 10 - primarily for carrying purposes. Can be dropped lower if you feel like it, personally I find very low strength scores somewhat restrictive if you want to stay in the light load category. If your GM doesn't pay attention to encumbrance dump it to the ground.
Dex 18 - attack bonus, damage, AC, reflex saves, initiative. What's not to love?
Con 14 - more HP is good. You'll be in CQC a lot and the Fervor healing is pathetic.
Int 8 - Really the only true dump stat for the warpriest. You're probably not going to be a MENSA member.
Wis 14 - all you need when you start off, it gives you bonus spells per day till you get your +2 wisdom item and since you're primarily casting buff spells you don't need a huge modifier for spell DCs.
Cha 14 - you probably want this to be higher and if you feel comfortable cannibalizing strength further then 16 charisma will help out. Primarily used for Fervor points for self-buffing.

Fate's Favored (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/faith-traits/fate-s-favored) is a very interesting trait for Warpriests - their go-to buffs are frequently Luck bonuses.

Your skills are probably going to be underwhelming and the majority of your spell slots are going to be tied up in buff spells so you should consider other options that allow you to provide utility - Scribe Scroll is surprisingly good for Warpriests since they have full access to the extensive cleric spell list but rarely have the spell slots to prepare the myriad of "niche" spells it contains.

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-20, 01:32 PM

I'm currently playing the Dervish dance build, and I'm kinda wishing I had picked up Power Attack to be honest. It's a feat you may want to consider, keeping in mind that with a dex build the 13 points of Str are somewhat wasted. Of course, if you plan on enforcing item weight / encumbrance rules then a 13 Str is actually pretty desirable.

Since you're the GM, you may want to be nice and allow the Agile weapon property. That would let the player get away with a non-dervish based dex build.

Psyren

2014-02-20, 01:47 PM

Note that there will be at least one new "dex to damage" feat in the release version of ACG.

BlackDragonKing

2014-02-20, 01:53 PM

Note that there will be at least one new "dex to damage" feat in the release version of ACG.

Oh thank god. Dervish Dance and Mythic Weapon Finesse alone were rather restrictive options for getting that without relying on Agile. Being able to Dex-damage without being chained to a scimitar will be nice.

Dusk Eclipse

2014-02-20, 02:04 PM

Isn't there an DSP dex-to damage feat already? Deadly agility or something like that.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-20, 02:06 PM

I might be missing some (so anyone can feel free to jump in and fill the gaps) but here were the major changes:

- Sacred Weapon: Instead of being stuck with the deity's favored weapon, they simply get free Weapon Focus for a weapon of their choice - and any/all weapons they have WF for can be used as Sacred Weapons. They also still can use the deity's favored weapon as a Sacred Weapon even if they don't have WF in it. If the deity's favored weapon is unarmed strike, they get IUS for free instead.

- When using a Sacred Weapon they are treated as having full BAB. (This was brought up in your "Full BAB T3s" thread - the Warpriest will be the first such class to be PF official.)

- The Sacred Weapon's damage die scales, similar to a monk's unarmed strike. If the weapon naturally does more (e.g. you pick Greatsword at 1st level) it will use the weapon's dice until such time as the Sacred Weapon better. For example, a Warpriest who chooses Longsword will do 1d8 base as normal until level 10, when it changes to 1d10, then 2d6 etc.

- The big one; Channel Energy is replaced with Fervor, which heals with a touch instead of a burst. However, if the Warpriest uses it to heal himself, it is a swift action, letting them heal themselves and full attack in the same round. Note that you must be good or neutral to use the self-healing, so evil Warpriests will be weaker. Finally ,they can spend two uses of Fervor to Channel Energy.

- Other big change: instead of using fervor to heal/damage undead, the Warpriest can spend uses to autoquicken+autostill self buffs. This can be used on any spell capable of targeting the Warpriest, not just Personal-range spells, but the target is changed to Personal.*loads up .pdf* A couple of additions/clarifications to this.

- They aren't actually automatically proficient with their deity's favored weapon. :smalltongue: That's an obvious flub, one admitted by the designer, though.

- They are treated as having full BAB for making attacks so it does not count towards CMD or qualifying for feats.

- Correct

- Channel energy isn't replaced by Fervor, it simply requires fervor to power it, so the warpriest can still qualify for PrCs that have it as a prereq. Fervor is based off of Charisma, while spells are still based off of Wisdom, so the class is still very MAD.

- Correct. Additionally, the Warpriest does not need a free hand to cast a spell when using this power.

@Vanitas:
- Consider moving the class's spells to being based of Charisma, or fervor to being based off of Wisdom to help with the MAD.
- Move the bonus feats back 1 level, as this allows the class to access a BAB +7 feat at level 9 instead of level 11.
- Clarify that the class does qualify for fighter only feats, like the Brawler.
- Give them proficiency in the deity's favored weapon because it's obviously supposed to be there.
- Seriously, don't get near the original version. It's terrible.

Also, the piggyback off Psyren and Kudaku, I found that using a Dervish Dancing Warpriest greatly helped out with the MAD, and made the class slightly more proficient in ranged combat.

Psyren

2014-02-20, 02:08 PM

- They aren't actually automatically proficient with their deity's favored weapon. :smalltongue: That's an obvious flub, one admitted by the designer, though.

Yeah they flat out stated they're fixing that so I always mentally insert it.

Also, I did cover them still having Channel Energy, but for the first few levels they don't anymore.

I also covered the "free hand" thing with "autostill."

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-20, 02:15 PM

Yeah they flat out stated they're fixing that so I always mentally insert it.

Also, I did cover them still having Channel Energy, but for the first few levels they don't anymore.

I also covered the "free hand" thing with "autostill."Not needing a free hand ≠ being a still spell. It could be argued that the class still couldn't cast a spell using fervor while pinned, while one could cast a still spell. For a class expected to be in melee, that matters.

Let me check the magic section on that.

*You're right, I'm wrong. It's a still spell. Somatic components are only defined as requiring movements of the hand*

Isn't there an DSP dex-to damage feat already? Deadly agility or something like that.In the upcoming Path of War, I believe.

Psyren

2014-02-20, 02:31 PM

*You're right, I'm wrong. It's a still spell. Somatic components are only defined as requiring movements of the hand*

Yep - it specifically says "ignore somatic components." This goes beyond merely having no hands free, allowing you to do things like cast spells while tied up or pinned, or even (silent) spells while paralyzed.

Person_Man

2014-02-20, 03:03 PM

Psyren

2014-02-20, 03:17 PM

Seems like a good idea to me, in that it gives players a Tier 3ish Cleric, but it also seems to obliterate the Paladin's design space as the holy warrior half caster type.

I heard that a lot during the playtest and I'm just not seeing it. A Paladin is still way more martial than this guy. Fervor doesn't matter since they get LoH and lots of their spells are natively swift already (e.g. the entire Litany line); the damage from PF Smite is going to utterly wreck anything this guy can put out; Paladins are less MAD (no need for Wis at all) and I haven't even gotten into the mount, saves or immunities yet.

No, while this guy might have more potential power overall due to the spells, the paladin's niche is pretty secure. The Warpriest's main purpose is a more martial, lower-tier divine that doesn't have a pesky CoC.

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-20, 04:04 PM

The Warpriest does have a lot of the Paladin feel, but many of the similar abilities are significantly weaker and they lack Smite, which is a big deal. While using Fervor to cast buffs is a really nice power, Paladins can do some fun stuff with LoH through archetypes and they've got much stronger healing options.

I think there's plenty of room for Cleric, Paladin and Warpriest to coexist. I kinda want to see what could be done with an all Divine party now actually.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-20, 04:26 PM

No, while this guy might have more potential power overall due to the spells, the paladin's niche is pretty secure. The Warpriest's main purpose is a more martial, lower-tier divine that doesn't have a pesky CoC.So it's an inquisitor with heavy armor?

Psyren

2014-02-20, 04:29 PM

So it's an inquisitor with heavy armor?

And divine grace and self-healing and mercies and a mount and...

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-20, 04:37 PM

And divine grace and self-healing and mercies and a mount and...That would be the Paladin. I was referring to the Warpriest.

Psyren

2014-02-20, 04:42 PM

That would be the Paladin. I was referring to the Warpriest.

Ah! Well aside from the Warpriest not really being finished yet, Warpriests are more tanky; Inquisitors are the strikers of the bunch. From a thematic standpoint, I would picture Warpriests focusing more on overt enemies of the faith, while Inquisitors do more of the covert ops stuff.

BlackDragonKing

2014-02-20, 04:45 PM

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-20, 05:00 PM

Ah! Well aside from the Warpriest not really being finished yet, Warpriests are more tanky; Inquisitors are the strikers of the bunch. From a thematic standpoint, I would picture Warpriests focusing more on overt enemies of the faith, while Inquisitors do more of the covert ops stuff.Yeah, I agree that there is a niche. I just think that it's tiny, especially when what you're talking about could probably be filled by a melee oriented cleric, though that's partly because of the earlier access the class has to buff spells because the Warpriest doesn't get its own spell list.

Also, I disagree that Inquisitors are necessarily the strikers of the bunch. Warpriests aren't much sturdier than their counterparts. Same HD. Same BAB. Same saves without the stalwart class feature. The Warpriest has heavy armor proficiency, but it's more MAD, and it has fewer skills to invest in things like acrobatics and perception that are very helpful for tank classes to ignore difficult terrain and act in surprise rounds.

Psyren

2014-02-20, 05:14 PM

But unlike an Inquisitor, the Warpriest can self-buff while holding a shield and a weapon. So in practice it's going to be a lot chewier. It can also self-buff in melee without provoking, or while grappled, neither of which are easy for the Inquisitor. Then add in Sacred Armor and the Blessings and I think you'll find they'll be much harder to take down in a frontal assault.

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-20, 05:32 PM

A Warpriest would allow you to play a Paladin like character without the LG restriction. Personally I haven't been a fan of Martial Clerics specifically due to issues addressed by the Warpriest.

Maybe this should have been an Archetype or Alternate Class. But the class niche being filled is one that was under served.

Vanitas

2014-02-20, 06:04 PM

So, full armor and weapons, effectively full BAB (just not in their official class table, since that causes the Pathfinder forum to freak out), Wisdom based 6th level divine spells from the Cleric list, and a collection of weapon, armor, and spell buffs.

Seems like a good idea to me, in that it gives players a Tier 3ish Cleric, but it also seems to obliterate the Paladin's design space as the holy warrior half caster type.

My party has an Archer Paladin, so let's see how that goes.

Fate's Favored (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/faith-traits/fate-s-favored) is a very interesting trait for Warpriests - their go-to buffs are frequently Luck bonuses.

This looks very helpful. Thanks!

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-20, 06:07 PM

But unlike an Inquisitor, the Warpriest can self-buff while holding a shield and a weapon. The Inquisitor can do that to, as spontaneous casting makes it pretty easy to do that as long as you take Still Spell. I'll definitely grant you that Warpriests can do it more easily and cheaply. Inquisitor does have the advantage of getting a unique spell list, though.

Then add in Sacred Armor and the Blessings and I think you'll find they'll be much harder to take down in a frontal assault.Inquisitors get domain powers (or inquisitions), which is what blessing are basically a stand in for. Inquisitors also get judgements that can grant themselves sacred bonuses to AC, fast healing, DR, or energy resistance, and their offensive boosts last until the end of combat instead of just round/level.

Psyren

2014-02-20, 06:53 PM

Stilled spells must still be cast defensively so using them in melee is not a practical solution. And not only does the Warpriest not have to take those feats, he gets bonus feats anyway.

Inquisitors get domain powers (or inquisitions), which is what blessing are basically a stand in for. Inquisitors also get judgements that can grant themselves sacred bonuses to AC, fast healing, DR, or energy resistance, and their offensive boosts last until the end of combat instead of just round/level.

Domain powers/inquisitions are generally very weak. And with judgments you typically have to choose between offense and defense round to round, whereas the Warpriest can just throw on Sacred Armor/Weapon and not worry about it afterward.

The real boon to an Inquisitor is Bane, hence their status as strikers. But that doesn't help their defense.

Larkas

2014-02-20, 07:49 PM

Are you dead set on the choice of weapon? An Elvencraft Longbow with Aptitude on the melee side, paired with Dervish Dance and Dead Eye as feats seems like a fun and MAD-reducing choice!

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-20, 07:51 PM

Stilled spells must still be cast defensively so using them in melee is not a practical solution. And not only does the Warpriest not have to take those feats, he gets bonus feats anyway.Warpriest doesn't have to cast defensively only when he uses fervor, which is powered by Charisma, which can't be high for them because they have 3 to 4 other stats that are more important. It will be easier for an Inquisitor to make those checks because they can dump charisma and have a higher wisdom to make the concentration check easier for them.

Again, it's harder for a Warpriest, but it's not like the option isn't there for an Inquisitor. Inquisitors also have access to Litany spells, which Warpriests won't because they have the cleric spell list.

Domain powers/inquisitions are generally very weak. And with judgments you typically have to choose between offense and defense round to round, whereas the Warpriest can just throw on Sacred Armor/Weapon and not worry about it afterward.

The real boon to an Inquisitor is Bane, hence their status as strikers. But that doesn't help their defense.Blessings aren't that great either, but both have their gems for melee or ranged characters. My point was that it's closer to a wash than an absolute win for Warpriests.

The Warpriest doesn't get Sacred Armor until level 7, so the Inquisitor will have defensive buffs available to them 6 levels earlier. Interestingly, that's also the level that Sacred Weapon's activated ability actually lasts long enough that you could use it for an entire fight. Of course, by level 7, the Inquisitor can use her judgements (which last for the entire combat) 3 times per day. And then, right when you think the Warpriest might be beginning to pull away, the Inquisitor gets Second Judgement at level 8, meaning they can use a defensive and offensive buffs at the same time, as a single swift action.

Psyren

2014-02-20, 08:44 PM

Warpriest doesn't have to cast defensively only when he uses fervor, which is powered by Charisma, which can't be high for them because they have 3 to 4 other stats that are more important.

It scales with level too, so Cha doesn't have to be high. And both classes have defensive buffs before 7.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-20, 09:06 PM

It scales with level too, so Cha doesn't have to be high. And both classes have defensive buffs before 7.The only thing that the Warpriest has for defensive buffs before sacred armor at level 7 is the spells it has. If you're talking about spells, then they both have those and that's not really evidence of the Warpriest being superior to the inquisitor as a tank.

Dusk Eclipse

2014-02-20, 09:14 PM

I'm probably missing something, but since they are both divine casters what is preventing them from slapping heavy armour and go to town? Proficiencies?

Psyren

2014-02-20, 09:39 PM

The only thing that the Warpriest has for defensive buffs before sacred armor at level 7 is the spells it has. If you're talking about spells, then they both have those and that's not really evidence of the Warpriest being superior to the inquisitor as a tank.

It gets Fervor before 7 too, remember?

I'm probably missing something, but since they are both divine casters what is preventing them from slapping heavy armour and go to town? Proficiencies?

Inquisitors need a feat or dip to get heavy armor prof.

Kudaku

2014-02-20, 10:02 PM

The inquisitor and the warpriest are a bit similar to the paladin and the barbarian:

By default, the barbarian is more offensively (rage, medium armor, poor saves) minded and the paladin is more defensively (heavy armor, swift action LoH, cha to AC with Smite, excellent saves) minded. However, if you put in some effort you can make excellent defensive barbarian (armored hulk, invulnerable rager, superstitious etc) builds and excellent offensive paladin (Oath of Vengeance, Divine Hunter) builds.

I'd say the warpriest is by default more defensively minded than the inquisitor, but with the right build you can still make an excellent inquisitor tank.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-20, 10:29 PM

It gets Fervor before 7 too, remember?Yes. It let's him heal himself, which isn't really a buff. In terms of defensive buffs it enhances his spells, of which he has the exact same base number per day than the inquisitor. He'll probably have very slightly less per day than Inquisitor because of the Warpriest's MAD. With 14 Cha, and 14 Wisdom (which might be pushing it), he'll only have 2 spells per day and 2 uses of Fervor.

It also doesn't necessarily save the Warpriest any actions compared to the Inquisitor because you can still only take 1 swift action per round, and the Warpriest has 3 abilities vying for that swift action.

*Edit* I would also again point out that as the game increases in level the Inquisitor will gain access to the Litany line of spells, further decreasing the advantage that fervor would give the Warpriest.

*Edit 2* Stuff like the Litany line of spells is why the Warpriest should have its own spell list.

I'm probably missing something, but since they are both divine casters what is preventing them from slapping heavy armour and go to town? Proficiencies?Inquisitors need a feat or dip to get heavy armor prof.Also, Stalwart (Partial Fort and Will Saves are instead negated) doesn't work unless you are wearing medium or light armor. I don't remember how mithral might impact this, though.

Sayt

2014-02-20, 10:46 PM

Mithral makes the armour one category lighter for everything but proficiency, IIRC.

deuxhero

2014-02-20, 11:24 PM

Psyren

2014-02-21, 12:33 AM

Squirrel, we'll have to agree to disagree. Regardless, whether you think there is a niche for them or not; the Warpriest, Inquisitor, Paladin and Cleric are all here to stay, so hopefully you'll come to terms with that fact eventually.

The inquisitor and the warpriest are a bit similar to the paladin and the barbarian:

By default, the barbarian is more offensively (rage, medium armor, poor saves) minded and the paladin is more defensively (heavy armor, swift action LoH, cha to AC with Smite, excellent saves) minded. However, if you put in some effort you can make excellent defensive barbarian (armored hulk, invulnerable rager, superstitious etc) builds and excellent offensive paladin (Oath of Vengeance, Divine Hunter) builds.

I'd say the warpriest is by default more defensively minded than the inquisitor, but with the right build you can still make an excellent inquisitor tank.

Agreed with all of this.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-21, 01:11 AM

Squirrel, we'll have to agree to disagree. Regardless, whether you think there is a niche for them or not; the Warpriest, Inquisitor, Paladin and Cleric are all here to stay, so hopefully you'll come to terms with that fact eventually.I've come to terms that it and everything else in the Advanced Class Guide is going to be published. I just still don't see a reason to like the current version of the class, and am still a little upset that the first version was even considered fit for playtesting. It's not that I don't see potential for the Warpriest to be something better, it's just that I find the current version to somehow be both overly complicated and generic.

Kudaku

2014-02-21, 01:38 AM

In no particular order, here are some of the things I hope to see when the WP is released:

4 skill points per level, or a class feature that improves an iconic skill. Something like the inquisitor's Stern Gaze.
Qualifies for fighter feats.
Considered full BAB progression for feats that tie to their sacred weapon.
Add spells to the Warpriest spell list to make it more "martial" and put it on the same level as the inquisitor - Bed of Iron, Flames of the Faithful, Litany of x, Holy Sword etc.
Fervor keys off of Wisdom instead of Charisma.
Sacred Weapon duration bumped to 1 min/level instead of 1 round/level - allow the WP to enchant his weapon and his armor with the same swift action to ease the action economy.
The Fervor spellcasting can target the Warpriest's weapon as well as the Warpriest.
Rework the Blessing mechanic and/or just cut it - at the moment it's dull and it takes up a good dozen pages in the book - it really doesn't have to.
Give WPs a choice between domains, blessings and inquisitions.

Vanitas

2014-02-21, 05:12 AM

Are you dead set on the choice of weapon? An Elvencraft Longbow with Aptitude on the melee side, paired with Dervish Dance and Dead Eye as feats seems like a fun and MAD-reducing choice!

We already have an archer in this party and we use RAI Aptitude. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

Intuitive Attack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/feats/intuitive-fighting-psionic)
Not sure if it makes sense for this character to be psionic. I'll show it to the player, though.
Now that I think about it, Wis-focused doesn't really look that hot on a Warpriest. You can autoquicken several strength boosting spells (Bull's Strength, Righteous Might, Swallow Your Fear, Boiling Blood - you can't quicken Death Knell, but it's there anyway) while you only get Owl's Wisdom for Wis boosts. Divine Power not granting +Str sure makes other abilities viable, but Str based still looks the most powerful.

Firechanter

2014-02-21, 05:22 AM

While the idea of a "T3 Cleric" is good and long overdue, I am disappointed to read that the Warpriest apparently is _yet another_ Dex-based class. When I hear "Warpriest" I visualise a hulk in fat plate armour with a big fat warhammer and possibly a huge shield.

Vanitas

2014-02-21, 05:42 AM

Firechanter

2014-02-21, 05:52 AM

From the build advice given to you early in this thread.

The class is still quite MAD. I would suggest focusing on a Dex build, especially if *snip*

Vanitas

2014-02-21, 05:53 AM

From the build advice given to you early in this thread.

That's because drow get +2 Dex and Warpriest is a MAD class.

Kudaku

2014-02-21, 06:04 AM

From the build advice given to you early in this thread.

People are suggesting dex builds because that seems to be what the Vanitas' friend is looking to play. Strictly speaking a dervish dance build is counter-intuitive for a warpriest - it does not play particularly well to the strengths of the class.

If you actually want to read the class before expressing disappointment, the ACG PDF can be found here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/advancedClassGuide).

Firechanter

2014-02-21, 06:37 AM

Oh I just noticed, I only had the first version of the playtest. Okay, reading up now.

So the WP effectively gets full BAB for all intents and purposes... though why they find they have to camouflage this is beyond me. Gotta say I really dislike that policy. Either give them full BAB or 3/4, but be upfront about it.
After all, PF is quick to feed you with Attack Bonuses until they come out of your ears, but gives you almost no options to convert excess AB to Damage.

Apart from that, it looks alright. What I'd like to see is a spell level reduction for various restorative spells, for instance shifting down Raise Dead and Heal one level, so they don't come online too late.

Vanitas

2014-02-21, 07:13 AM

So the WP effectively gets full BAB for all intents and purposes...
Not really, you can't use it to qualify for feats, which is probably why they did it that way. It also means they use d8 for HD instead of d10. It also makes it harder for the warpriest to switch weapons.

Kudaku

2014-02-21, 07:38 AM

So the WP effectively gets full BAB for all intents and purposes... though why they find they have to camouflage this is beyond me. Gotta say I really dislike that policy. Either give them full BAB or 3/4, but be upfront about it.

They actually don't get "effectively full BAB for all intents and purposes" - they don't qualify for BAB feats, they won't have full BAB progression on maneuvers, and if they are forced to fight without their favored weapon they're busted down to 3/4th BAB. Basically they've created a 4th "hybrid BAB" alternative between 3/4th and full progression. Most likely they recognized that the class needs a full BAB progression to distance itself from the Cleric but 6th level spellcasting + full BAB breaks some of those unofficial design rules so they made a compromise.

Apart from that, it looks alright. What I'd like to see is a spell level reduction for various restorative spells, for instance shifting down Raise Dead and Heal one level, so they don't come online too late.

I agree that the class could benefit from having a unique spell list, or at least a reorganized one, but I don't necessarily think the restorative spells is where it needs the adjustments. I'm fine with a cleric gaining access to restoration magic spells before the Warpriest.

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-21, 07:56 AM

Personally I think most of the new classes need unique spell lists, but the Paizo devs were really unwilling to write them. And to be fair, they had a point about trying to limit the size of what they feel will be an already large book. It also creates more work to manage in the future.

As for the Dex build vs Str build debate, I'm starting to think a Str build is the way to go for now. This is primarily due to Dervish Dance builds qualifying for neither Power Attack nor Piranha Strike and a melee character is really going to want one of those two options.

I'm waiting to see what the new Dex to Damage feat winds up looking like. If it can be taken with a weapon that qualifies for Piranha Strike then Dex builds become a bit more interesting to use.

Firechanter

2014-02-21, 08:00 AM

I agree that the class could benefit from having a unique spell list, or at least a reorganized one, but I don't necessarily think the restorative spells is where it needs the adjustments. I'm fine with a cleric gaining access to restoration magic spells before the Warpriest.

My idea here is to use the Warpriest as _alternate_ class, i.e. using it _instead of_ the Cleric, not using both in the same group. Say, for a "T3 Game". In such a scenario, it is unnecessarily penalizing to delay stuff like Raise Dead by 4 levels, when SoDs and similar effects may still appear much earlier.

Kudaku

2014-02-21, 08:08 AM

My idea here is to use the Warpriest as _alternate_ class, i.e. using it _instead of_ the Cleric, not using both in the same group. Say, for a "T3 Game". In such a scenario, it is unnecessarily penalizing to delay stuff like Raise Dead by 4 levels, when SoDs and similar effects may still appear much earlier.

In a tier 3 game where 6th level spells would be as high as the game goes? Keeping in mind that SoSs from spellcasters would also be delayed since the primary SoS classes would be banned, I think I'd approach it from the other end by not using monsters with effects like high-DC Disease, Blindness, SoSs etc until the Warpriest is at a level where he has a chance to deal with them.

4th - lesser restoration
7th - remove disease/blindness/deafness/curse
10th - Restoration
13th - Raise Dead

You probably wouldn't be able to play traditional APs without some fairly significant alteration though - it's painfully obvious at times that the AP expects you to have spellcasters with 9th level spell progression.

Psyren

2014-02-21, 08:55 AM

Vanitas

2014-02-21, 08:59 AM

Pathfinder doesn't really have SoDs as we understand them from 3.5 so this isn't as big a deal. Not that I wouldn't mind a special Warpriest spell list but I can understand the aversion to doing it too - every new book they create with divine spells in it might have to have "Cleric X, Inquisitor Y, Paladin/Antipaladin Z, Bard Q, Warpriest K" which could add up quickly.

What they could do is add something like "Warpriest uses the Cleric spell list, but ..." for stuff like this. Say, they use the Cleric spell list, but Heal and some buffs are lower level. Or you could grant them access to higher level spells depending on their Blessings, which would probably be a better idea.

Larkas

2014-02-21, 09:29 AM

we use RAI Aptitude.

Just out of curiosity, what would that be?

Vanitas

2014-02-21, 09:38 AM

Just out of curiosity, what would that be?

Just like Warblade's Aptitude. ToB is a poorly edited book and someone forgot to paste a paragraph in the Aptitude weapon enhancement. That's how we have always played.

Larkas

2014-02-21, 12:04 PM

Just like Warblade's Aptitude. ToB is a poorly edited book and someone forgot to paste a paragraph in the Aptitude weapon enhancement. That's how we have always played.

Hmmm, makes sense. But eh, Dervish Dance is such a reasonable feat for every finesseable weapon that I'd just let it fly anyways. :smallsmile:

Person_Man

2014-02-21, 12:44 PM

They actually don't get "effectively full BAB for all intents and purposes" - they don't qualify for BAB feats, they won't have full BAB progression on maneuvers, and if they are forced to fight without their favored weapon they're busted down to 3/4th BAB. Basically they've created a 4th "hybrid BAB" alternative between 3/4th and full progression. Most likely they recognized that the class needs a full BAB progression to distance itself from the Cleric but 6th level spellcasting + full BAB breaks some of those unofficial design rules so they made a compromise.

In my opinion, virtual full BAB is a huge copout.

It exists because a Paizo writer/editor didn't want to depart too far from the 3.5 OGL for each class (both in terms of the chassis of BAB/Skills/Saves/etc and the names and pacing of class abilities), they didn't want to give a class full BAB and all strong Saves, and a vocal minority of playtesters thought that giving the Monk full BAB was "too much."

Specifically, a Monk with full BAB would get a lot more in their first four levels then a Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, or Rogue. Monk 4 gets 5 Bonus Feats (Imp Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, plus 3 others), Flurry of Blows, improved unarmed damage, Evasion, Fast Movement, Still Mind, Slow Fall. Plus the Pathfinder design team was committed to adding some sort of additional power system to mirror their general design structure of other non-casters, so they ended up shoehorning Ki pool on top of Ki Strike at 4th level. The Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue get far fewer abilities in their first four levels, and they didn't want to rewrite them too extensively because doing so would have required a bigger departure from the OGL.

It's a classic design mistake - looking at the quantity of abilities and the raw numbers on the chart instead of the quality and power of those abilities, and using a previously established Tier 4-5 class as the baseline for what your new/rewritten/fixed class.

And thus the Monk didn't get full BAB. And now that's the threshold that all future potentially full BAB classes are being held to. And thus we have terrible kludgey rules like virtual BAB.

Psyren

2014-02-21, 12:55 PM

Er... PM, there is a full-BAB monk in ACG, it's called the Brawler.

What people didn't want was a full-BAB Magus/Inquisitor/Bard.

Larkas

2014-02-21, 01:00 PM

The problem there lies with the cleric, not the monk. Cleric as a 3/4 BAB full caster shrunk the design space for "half" classes considerably. The image of a "crusader knight" should have been filled only by the paladin. Of course, that's a problem since 3.0.

Dusk Eclipse

2014-02-21, 01:00 PM

His overall point still stands, it is needlessly complicated to have virtual BAB, because for everything that actually matters, what is the difference between having full BAB and Virtual BAB? From my understanding you get your second attack at the same level, you get to qualify for feats at the same level (save with some exceptions like the Warpriest IIRC), so what is the point of it except to placate people who claim "Full BAB is too stronk! OMG nerf plz"

Psyren

2014-02-21, 01:04 PM

It's not the first time we've had "virtual full BAB" - just the only one that's tied to a weapon instead of a specific situation/calculation. Tetori has virtual full BAB when calculating grapple checks for instance. I don't think it's all that complicated at all.

Kudaku

2014-02-21, 01:26 PM

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-21, 02:51 PM

If I'm not horribly mistaken the PF monk actually has full BAB progression (-2 for TWFing) when he's using Flurry of blows.

For instance at level 10 he has four attacks at +8/+8/+3/+3 when using Flurry, similar to a fighter with TWF and ITWF.

Another variant of the "hybrid" BAB, I guess.

You are correct, the Monk gets virtual full BAB with flurry and with Maneuvers too. Really, most of the martial 3/4 BAB classes have some kind of class feature that boosts them up to close to full BAB bonuses. The full BAB classes tend to gain that extra iterative attack and to qualify for feats earlier.

Vanitas

2014-02-21, 03:03 PM

Person_Man

2014-02-21, 03:13 PM

And part of my point is that having all of these variations of virtual full BAB is needlessly convoluted. I can tell you from personal DMing experience that its difficult enough for newer players just to make iterative attacks, especially if Two Weapon Fighting or some similar fiddly modifier is involved. Each additional variation of modifiers just makes it more difficult, especially it's treated differently for different classes playing at the same table.

More importantly, adding in some fiddly sometimes used but sometimes not used modifier does not have a significant impact on make the crunch more balanced. It just makes it more difficult, especially at low-mid levels when we're talking about a +1 or +2 difference.

Vanitas

2014-02-22, 12:32 AM

And part of my point is that having all of these variations of virtual full BAB is needlessly convoluted. I can tell you from personal DMing experience that its difficult enough for newer players just to make iterative attacks, especially if Two Weapon Fighting or some similar fiddly modifier is involved. Each additional variation of modifiers just makes it more difficult, especially it's treated differently for different classes playing at the same table.
I really don't mind. I think it provides further granularity, which is a good thing. Yes, it makes it slightly more difficult, but the game is already convoluted anyway.

malonkey1

2014-02-22, 08:35 PM

I really don't mind. I think it provides further granularity, which is a good thing. Yes, it makes it slightly more difficult, but the game is already convoluted anyway.

Personally, I disagree. Granularity is only a good thing if it improves play. "Virtual BAB" is just a way for them to avoid breaking their needlessly rigid "This BAB MUST go with this hit die!" mentality. I love a lot of the stuff Paizo's come up with, but this one neurosis always bugged me. Why can't we have, say, full BAB and d8, or d10 and medium BAB?

Psyren

2014-02-22, 09:32 PM

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-22, 10:43 PM

I don't think it's so much about the hit die as it is about the spellcasting. Full BAB and 6ths (or more) is just off-putting to many DMs.

As I said in the Full BAB T4 thread, Fighters and Barbarians may be weak here on the boards but at tables they do well for a variety of reasons.No, fighters do what they're expected to at just about every table. Honestly, most people don't really change the story about their fighter when their useful and good and fun from when their resource-sinks and bad and boring. The fighter can do lots of damage when they're in combat. I've never heard someone talk about how good fighters are because they made a bunch of skill checks, or transported the party across a city, or something else unrelated to beating a bad guy with a stick.

Their performance at tables is dependent on the expectations of the class and/or what the table's definition of quality contribution is. To use an example from the Full BAB T4 thread at paizo, there was a poster who expressed the belief that because combat was the most important part of the day, and the only part of the day that a character could count on, fighters were good classes because they were good at combat. I could disagree with his expectations for D&D games, and about the fighter's performance in combat. I can't refute what the fighter is doing in his game, though.

Vanitas

2014-02-23, 12:46 AM

No, fighters do what they're expected to at just about every table. Honestly, most people don't really change the story about their fighter when their useful and good and fun from when their resource-sinks and bad and boring. The fighter can do lots of damage when they're in combat. I've never heard someone talk about how good fighters are because they made a bunch of skill checks, or transported the party across a city, or something else unrelated to beating a bad guy with a stick.

But that does not refute anything Psyren said. It's barely related to what he said at all. Btw, here is someone talking about a Fighter who does not only beat guys with a stick in PF (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16067631&postcount=229).

Their performance at tables is dependent on the expectations of the class and/or what the table's definition of quality contribution is. To use an example from the Full BAB T4 thread at paizo, there was a poster who expressed the belief that because combat was the most important part of the day, and the only part of the day that a character could count on, fighters were good classes because they were good at combat. I could disagree with his expectations for D&D games, and about the fighter's performance in combat. I can't refute what the fighter is doing in his game, though.
Exactly, which is what Psyren said. Why are you denying what he said when you in fact agree with him? :smallconfused:

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-23, 01:48 AM

But that does not refute anything Psyren said. It's barely related to what he said at all. Btw, here is someone talking about a Fighter who does not only beat guys with a stick in PF (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16067631&postcount=229).

Exactly, which is what Psyren said. Why are you denying what he said when you in fact agree with him? :smallconfused:I'm not denying it, well, I guess I am. Only in degrees, though. His statement was that fighters "may be weak here on the boards but at tables they do well for a variety of reasons." I'm simply saying that their performance doesn't really change from table to table. That they're pretty much always doing the same thing at every table.Perhaps he meant to say what I am saying, and I didn't see it. That's my bad.

To the real point about 6 levels of spells + Full BAB: How do we know that Full BAB + Spellcasting would be off-putting to DMs? Has paizo or anyone even ever tried it before? How many tables would feel that way or even notice?

Vanitas

2014-02-23, 02:34 AM

To the real point about 6 levels of spells + Full BAB: How do we know that Full BAB + Spellcasting would be off-putting to DMs? Has paizo or anyone even ever tried it before? How many tables would feel that way or even notice?
They have the feedback from their playtests. Most of Paizo's fanbase is conservative when it comes to power levels, mostly because most players don't optimize much. Lower ceilings are preferred, I guess.

Anyway, if anyone could suggest some feats for my player's character, it would be very cool.

Firechanter

2014-02-23, 04:09 AM

To the real point about 6 levels of spells + Full BAB: How do we know that Full BAB + Spellcasting would be off-putting to DMs? Has paizo or anyone even ever tried it before? How many tables would feel that way or even notice?

Well, we've had Full BAB and 9 spell levels for many years know in 3.5, especially via Divine Power (persisted or not). My take is that a spellcaster hitting things with a stick is always more manageable than one blowing out a high-level spell every round.
However, in PF a Full/6 character would probably remind the Fighter rather painfully of its extremely narrow focus and the worthlessness of Paizo feats.

Psyren

2014-02-23, 09:45 AM

I'm simply saying that their performance doesn't really change from table to table. That they're pretty much always doing the same thing at every table.

You say that like it's a bad thing. The tier system downgrades fighters because all they can do is fight, and that without wealth they are pretty bad at even that; but at actual tables, people who choose Fighters do simply want to fight overall, and they almost invariably get the tools they need to be successful at it.

But you're still misunderstanding me. As I said before, they would not compare a full BAB + 6ths character to the fighter - they would compare it to the Magus, the Bard, and the Inquisitor, and that would be result in the calls to nerf.

To the real point about 6 levels of spells + Full BAB: How do we know that Full BAB + Spellcasting would be off-putting to DMs? Has paizo or anyone even ever tried it before? How many tables would feel that way or even notice?

Want to find out? Homebrew a class that has it, pitch it to the forums over there, and share the response you get with us. Or ask Person_Man, IIRC he did the same thing.

Well, we've had Full BAB and 9 spell levels for many years know in 3.5, especially via Divine Power (persisted or not). My take is that a spellcaster hitting things with a stick is always more manageable than one blowing out a high-level spell every round.
However, in PF a Full/6 character would probably remind the Fighter rather painfully of its extremely narrow focus and the worthlessness of Paizo feats.

1) Divine Power was nerfed in PF for just that reason.

2) Again, the fighter comparison is only part of what would go against this guy. The Magus/Bard/etc. comparison would be the other nail in its coffin.

Beowulf DW

2014-02-23, 10:11 AM

They have the feedback from their playtests. Most of Paizo's fanbase is conservative when it comes to power levels, mostly because most players don't optimize much. Lower ceilings are preferred, I guess.

Anyway, if anyone could suggest some feats for my player's character, it would be very cool.

Big Game Hunter can be pretty useful depending on the prevalence of large enemies.

Channel Smite and Guided Hand could help reduce the levels of MAD. I can't remember if Warpriests get Channel Energy, so forgive me if that doesn't work.

Personally, I think that metamagic feats aren't worth it on anything other than a full caster, so I'd recommend avoiding those.

Bloodletting might be decent at low levels, though I've never tried it myself, before.

Power Attack may seem off for a one-handed build, but I find that just about anything focusing on melee benefits from it. Just need a Str of 13 and you're golden.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-23, 12:35 PM

Want to find out? Homebrew a class that has it, pitch it to the forums over there, and share the response you get with us. Or ask Person_Man, IIRC he did the same thing. Person man brought up tiers as a shorthand for power level and those that discussed it (myself included) almost immediately turned the thread into a debate about the validity of tiers.

I'm sure there would be folks at the Paizo forums who would be upset by the idea. That's not what I'm talking about though. I doubt most Pathfinder GMs are the stereotypically reactionary fan who sees discussions of balance as some pro-spellcaster agenda, and you've often stated that the pro-optimization/high game mastery crowd is also not the majority of DMs.

The largest amount of players is probably people who simply don't care. Their DMs or players who use Pathfinder because they liked 3.5, and probably wouldn't care that the Warpriest was a full BAB class+6 levels of spells.

2) Again, the fighter comparison is only part of what would go against this guy. The Magus/Bard/etc. comparison would be the other nail in its coffin.The Magus has more direct damage spells, and the Bard has a great ability to contribute in every other part of the game, so I feel I could make a case. The most difficult one would probably be the Inquisitor, or upcoming Hunter. That said, if the paizo designers were to ever feel that the decision to keep those classes from have full BAB was a mistake, they shouldn't make the same decision with the Warpriest.

@Vanitas: Feats I would suggest (working with deities Sarenrae or Gorum)
Sarenrae (stereotypical Dex Build)
Level 1: Weapon Focus [Longbow], Weapon Finesse
Level 3: Dervish Dance, Power Attack
Level 5: Combat Reflexes
Level 6: Step Up
Level 7: Toughness

Gorum (Stereotypical Strength Build)
Level 1: Weapon Focus [Greatsword], Toughness
Level 3: Power Attack, Step Up
Level 5: Step Up
Level 6: Cornugon Smash
Level 7: Combat Reflexes

You will notice that there are a couple similar feat selections in my builds. That's most just all good stuff that you'll always want as a tanky character, in my opinion. Some things you could take outside of what I suggested:
- Extend Spell
- Point Blank Shot/Precise Shot/Rapid Shot
- Imp Bull Rush/Sunder/Overrun
- Channel Smite + Guided Hand (Just takes quite while to get them)

Psyren

2014-02-24, 01:10 PM

Person man brought up tiers as a shorthand for power level and those that discussed it (myself included) almost immediately turned the thread into a debate about the validity of tiers.

I'm sure there would be folks at the Paizo forums who would be upset by the idea. That's not what I'm talking about though. I doubt most Pathfinder GMs are the stereotypically reactionary fan who sees discussions of balance as some pro-spellcaster agenda, and you've often stated that the pro-optimization/high game mastery crowd is also not the majority of DMs.

The largest amount of players is probably people who simply don't care. Their DMs or players who use Pathfinder because they liked 3.5, and probably wouldn't care that the Warpriest was a full BAB class+6 levels of spells.

What you're proposing here is Pascal's Wager at its finest. If your claim is true and the majority don't care whether they invalidate the Magus/Bard/Fighter or not, then they have very little to gain from actually putting in all the dev time designing a new class that does that. After all, if the players don't care - if they're apathetic - then the effort won't yield the returns Paizo wants because the players will be "meh" about the new offering, and you may as well have done nothing.

But if they do care, then that new class will cause a backlash, result in PFS bans (and forum bans) as those DMs complain, and generally give the dev team a black eye. Therefore, the most logical choice is to preserve the status quo.

{table=head] | Players Care about Existing Classes | Players Don't Care about Existing Classes
Devs Make New Class | Backlash | No significant gain or loss
Devs Do Nothing | No gain or loss | No significant gain or loss
[/table]

The devs' decision to not make such a class, and instead skirt the issue with "situational full BABs" is the most rational given the assumptions above.

Now, that may change as Pathfinder ages and they (a) run short on existing design space and/or (b) introduce greater power creep to the system such that the baseline for full BAB classes changes. Who knows, the Warpriest may even be an intermediary step before they really take the plunge and give a genuine full-BAB class with 6th-level spells a try. But hopefully you can see why they're in no real hurry to do so even then.

Larkas

2014-02-24, 01:33 PM

Vanitas

2014-02-24, 01:33 PM

Psyren

2014-02-24, 01:47 PM

Well, when you have a hammer, every problem looks like it needs to disobey the gravitational laws :smalltongue:

Vanitas

2014-02-24, 01:50 PM

Person_Man

2014-02-24, 02:45 PM

I'm of the opinion (not at all well thought out) that full casting should come with half BAB, 3/4 BAB should be paired to 2/3 casting (or equivalent) and full BAB should come with 1/2 casting (or equivalent). Yeah, this means that many classes don't conform to my idea.

I would argue that spell progression is less important then spell list.

For example, I would have no trouble with a Full BAB class that had 1st through 9th level spontaneous spells, limited exclusively to non-broken blasty Evocation magic and some low level utility magic. Conversely, I think that the Warpriest should probably have it's own more limited spell list (or 3/4 BAB without virtual full BAB), because the Cleric spell list is basically the kitchen sink.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-24, 04:21 PM

So my player actually took the whole Drow Nobility chain with his feats. He also took Power Attack and a few filler feats (Toughness, Dodge, don't remember the others). He was a bit stingy with his fervor, but things worked out fine.

This doesn't have much to do with Warpriest, but we noticed how incredibly useful at will levitate is. It helped move a golem from its place, it made the whole party avoid slowing down because of snow, it helped look for a key in a crumbled building's remains, it was just very useful all around.Including Noble SR? The Warpriest might be one of the few classes for whom what wouldn't be a bad feat. They can heal and buff themselves, and have a bad reflex save, so some extra protection from direct damage spells would be nice.

What you're proposing here is Pascal's Wager at its finest. If your claim is true and the majority don't care whether they invalidate the Magus/Bard/Fighter or not, then they have very little to gain from actually putting in all the dev time designing a new class that does that. After all, if the players don't care - if they're apathetic - then the effort won't yield the returns Paizo wants because the players will be "meh" about the new offering, and you may as well have done nothing.

But if they do care, then that new class will cause a backlash, result in PFS bans (and forum bans) as those DMs complain, and generally give the dev team a black eye. Therefore, the most logical choice is to preserve the status quo.

{table=head] | Players Care about Existing Classes | Players Don't Care about Existing Classes
Devs Make New Class | Backlash | No significant gain or loss
Devs Do Nothing | No gain or loss | No significant gain or loss
[/table]

The devs' decision to not make such a class, and instead skirt the issue with "situational full BABs" is the most rational given the assumptions above.

Now, that may change as Pathfinder ages and they (a) run short on existing design space and/or (b) introduce greater power creep to the system such that the baseline for full BAB classes changes. Who knows, the Warpriest may even be an intermediary step before they really take the plunge and give a genuine full-BAB class with 6th-level spells a try. But hopefully you can see why they're in no real hurry to do so even then.Oh, I fully understand the business reason that they're doing what they're doing. Pathfinder exists successfully because people didn't want all of the change brought by 4e. From the business perspective of not wanting to change to much, they've done a very good when it comes to designing new classes, especially in the Advanced Class Guide. That book is ultimate in design conservatism, or at least advertised conservatism.

I'm just tired of them not takings risks in design, and seemingly not embracing the lessons the 3.5 designers did near the end. They're no longer the underdog trying to stake their claim against Wizards of the Coast. They've grown enough, and have the clout and trust of their fanbase, that they can afford to challenge their audience.

Larkas

2014-02-24, 04:24 PM

I would argue that spell progression is less important then spell list.

Oh, absolutely! That's why the "or equivalent" part is there :smallsmile: What I meant to say is that a "strong" (but not broken) list should come with 1/2 BAB, a "regular" list should come with 3/4 BAB and a "limited" list should come with full BAB. You could easily expand a "regular" list to 9 levels (think Warmage here), and you could turn a "limited" list into something that isn't even spellcasting (think Wildshape Ranger). You could even compress a "strong" list into 6 levels, but then you'd have to be very careful.

Of course, I'm going by gut feeling here.

Psyren

2014-02-24, 04:26 PM

As I said, when they start running out of design space in the "safe zones" you'll probably see that envelope getting pushed a little. There's just no reason to do so now.

If ACG showed us anything it's that there are plenty of design concepts left to uncover within the framework they've already established. 10 new classes with distinct mechanics and fluff, just like that.

And besides, their refusal to play in the more BAB-friendly space leaves a wider playing field for 3PP publishers to make a name for themselves by scratching that itch. I'd call that a win for everyone involved.

Person_Man

2014-02-24, 04:57 PM

I'm just tired of them not takings risks in design, and seemingly not embracing the lessons the 3.5 designers did near the end. They're no longer the underdog trying to stake their claim against Wizards of the Coast. They've grown enough, and have the clout and trust of their fanbase, that they can afford to challenge their audience.

I wholeheartedly agree. At this point, everyone who is sticking with 3.5 or who has transferred over to 4E has already done so. They've got X loyal Pathfinder players, and Y players of convenience. It's possible that the convenience group might leave Pathfinder for D&D Next. But they're not going to lose their loyal fanbase by adding supplements with mechanics that break from the design norm. People who don't like some subcategory simply won't buy that subcategory.

Psyren

2014-02-24, 05:18 PM

But neither of you have put forward a good reason to have a full BAB T3 class yet besides "it'd be different." Would the Magus or Swordsage have been improved by being full BAB? Obviously their players would have been happier, but both classes can do just fine in any party with 3/4.

What I can say (and possibly agree with you on, depending on your own views) is that I don't want any more 3/4 BAB T4s - no more dull Rogues or oddly-niche Dreads. But I think Full BAB T4s and 3/4 BAB T3s are fine.

Vanitas

2014-02-24, 06:12 PM

Including Noble SR? The Warpriest might be one of the few classes for whom what wouldn't be a bad feat. They can heal and buff themselves, and have a bad reflex save, so some extra protection from direct damage spells would be nice.
You can only take the SR feat at 13th level, IIRC.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-24, 07:38 PM

You can only take the SR feat at 13th level, IIRC.*checks again* Ah, that's correct. What deity did your warpriest end up going with, out of curiosity?

But neither of you have put forward a good reason to have a full BAB T3 class yet besides "it'd be different." Would the Magus or Swordsage have been improved by being full BAB? Obviously their players would have been happier, but both classes can do just fine in any party with 3/4.The swordsage was less impacted by it than the Magus and other Pathfinder classes are. There were fewer, to my memory, combat/melee feats that had BAB prerequisites than there are currently in Pathfinder. Also successful combat maneuver attacks and defense were far less tied to to-hit modifiers than it is in Pathfinder. Virtual BAB adds extra complication to attack rolls to a game system that can already be a little byzantine, without any substantial gain for the player.

What I can say (and possibly agree with you on, depending on your own views) is that I don't want any more 3/4 BAB T4s - no more dull Rogues or oddly-niche Dreads. But I think Full BAB T4s and 3/4 BAB T3s are fine. I don't necessarily tie it to BAB, but PF/3.5 could do with fewer classes that can struggle in combat and can only fill one or two niches outside of combat, yes.

He says as the swashbuckler comes running around the bend.

Psyren

2014-02-24, 08:22 PM

The swordsage was less impacted by it than the Magus and other Pathfinder classes are. There were fewer, to my memory, combat/melee feats that had BAB prerequisites than there are currently in Pathfinder. Also successful combat maneuver attacks and defense were far less tied to to-hit modifiers than it is in Pathfinder. Virtual BAB adds extra complication to attack rolls to a game system that can already be a little byzantine, without any substantial gain for the player.

The Magus has nothing to worry about in the maneuvers department thanks to all the bonuses they can get from their spells (including the granddaddy of them all, True Strike), arcane pool, spells that use caster level in place of BAB to perform maneuvers etc. In the face of that, delayed access to some feats is only fair.

I don't necessarily tie it to BAB, but PF/3.5 could do with fewer classes that can struggle in combat and can only fill one or two niches outside of combat, yes.

He says as the swashbuckler comes running around the bend.

Swashbuckler, like the Fighter/Barbarian/Gunslinger before it, is a limited-scope full BAB class designed for people that already don't want to do much outside of combat. About the only thing Barbarians can do outside of a combat context is being intimidating, and Gunslingers even less than that, yet that hasn't hurt either class's popularity.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-24, 09:06 PM

The Magus has nothing to worry about in the maneuvers department thanks to all the bonuses they can get from their spells (including the granddaddy of them all, True Strike), arcane pool, spells that use caster level in place of BAB to perform maneuvers etc. In the face of that, delayed access to some feats is only fair.True strike helps on making maneuvers land more often. Correct. It doesn't aid in maneuver defense, as CMD doesn't take into account situational bonuses to your attack modifier. This is less of an issue for the Magus and Inquisitor (which is why I don't really care about them not getting full BAB), as those are classes encouraged to use light armor and have moderate to high dexterity and strength scores.

The Warpriest isn't. The warpriest is expected to be the heavily armored muscle of a party. They're more MAD compared to the Magus and Inquisitor, and with their heavy armor proficiency, so dexterity is probably one of the first things to be dumped.

Swashbuckler, like the Fighter/Barbarian/Gunslinger before it, is a limited-scope full BAB class designed for people that already don't want to do much outside of combat. About the only thing Barbarians can do outside of a combat context is being intimidating, and Gunslingers even less than that, yet that hasn't hurt either class's popularity.The swashbuckler is not like the fighter and barbarians. Those classes are proficient with more than one style of combat. At least the gunslinger is designed to show off/use a fighting style that was new to Pathfinder, and used a new system. The Swashbuckler is mediocre at its own fighting style, and its fighting style isn't even a new one.

I disagree that Gunslingers are bad outside of combat. Their roles are somewhat limited, but not entirely.
- Gunslingers make great party scouts with their wisdom bonus, perception as a class skill, and high dexterity focus. They have sleight of hand as a class skill if they need to pilfer some stuff, too. The rules for crafting gunpowder make them fantastic for multiplying party wealth. They can also go for party face if they wan to be a mysterious stranger, but that archetypes not great, so meh.

Also, how dare you downplay the Barbarians proficiency as a trapfinder.

Psyren

2014-02-24, 09:19 PM

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-24, 10:20 PM

But Strength adds to CMD too, and the Warpriest's is likely to be high if he is dumping Dex. At the very least we can say that one or the other will likely be high, and almost certainly high enough to account for the other, which will be a 0 or -1 modifier at worst. And they have spells to boost it higher, as well as add other bonuses that count towards CMD (e.g. Deflection and Dodge).While one will be high, it won't be as high as it would on the Magus or the Inquisitor or another class that is less MAD than the Warblade. See, it's not that the penalty is 0 or -1. It's that it's 0 or -1 compared to +1 or +2 or +3, so it's a 10 to 15% swing most of the time. The melee cleric can get around this because he has far more spell per day than the warpriest will, and gets the higher level spells of the same list sooner than the warpriest will. The Inquisitor and Magus are less MAD so they can get around it with higher physical stats.

Without Stealth, a Gunslinger's capacity to scout is limited (and not all of them are Wis-focused either, nor are the ones that are likely to be much higher than 14.) And even if they come across something, taking it out without alerting every other enemy for miles is not one of their strengths.Taking a relative -3 to a skill doesn't make them bad at stealth, especially when the class can throw everything into dexterity for their damage. Whether or not something is a class skill doesn't predict the character being bad at that skill.

I don't consider facechecking/noisily sundering traps to be all that useful. Oftentimes, the worst capability of traps is not their stopping power, but their ability to alert more serious threats deeper in the dungeon.True. I was mostly joking. Barbarians also have +4 skills points, like the swashbuckler. They're probably equal in out of combat usefulness.

Sayt

2014-02-24, 10:47 PM

I threw a swashbuckler together during the play test, but unfortunately I didn't get a chance to play it, but it seemed pretty decent. With deed on opportune parry and riposte and a high dex it seemed relatively survivable in combat, and functionally getting its bab added to damage against most enemies seemed decent, although mandated getting shadow strike, and the charisma synergy let's you be thr party face.

That said, saves are awful and mind-buttressing armour is almost a must.

Psyren

2014-02-24, 11:25 PM

While one will be high, it won't be as high as it would on the Magus or the Inquisitor or another class that is less MAD than the Warblade. See, it's not that the penalty is 0 or -1. It's that it's 0 or -1 compared to +1 or +2 or +3, so it's a 10 to 15% swing most of the time. The melee cleric can get around this because he has far more spell per day than the warpriest will, and gets the higher level spells of the same list sooner than the warpriest will. The Inquisitor and Magus are less MAD so they can get around it with higher physical stats.

I'm not seeing this at all. Take a Dex Warpriest and Dex Magus - both are either going to want to dump Str and max Dex with DD, or 13 Str and the rest in Dex for PA+DD. Both will probably aim for 16 in their casting stat and rely on items to boost it further. How will one be any worse off than the other?

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-24, 11:50 PM

I'm not seeing this at all. Take a Dex Warpriest and Dex Magus - both are either going to want to dump Str and max Dex with DD, or 13 Str and the rest in Dex for PA+DD. Both will probably aim for 16 in their casting stat and rely on items to boost it further. How will one be any worse off than the other? Because with a point buy the Warpriest has to further devote points to Charisma, while the Magus can dump both Charisma and Wisdom if they so choose. If the Warpriest wants to do combat maneuvers they will have to further devote points to intelligence.

It's 4 stats for the Magus vs 5 stats for the Warpriest. Simple as that.

Vanitas

2014-02-25, 05:06 AM

*checks again* Ah, that's correct. What deity did your warpriest end up going with, out of curiosity?
Eilistrae.

Also, I have a Swashbuckler in my game. Though he does use a homebrewed feat to use Precise Strike+TWF, he is been very efficient. I think my party ended up with a good balance, which increased now that our Iaijutsu Master was replaced by a Warpriest.

Psyren

2014-02-25, 08:54 AM

Because with a point buy the Warpriest has to further devote points to Charisma, while the Magus can dump both Charisma and Wisdom if they so choose. If the Warpriest wants to do combat maneuvers they will have to further devote points to intelligence.

It's 4 stats for the Magus vs 5 stats for the Warpriest. Simple as that.

I'll give you the Cha but a Warpriest is never going to need more than 12-14 base. It's not a dealbreaker except at the lowest of point buy.

I don't see the point of comparing to a melee cleric, all three of the T3s listed lose there.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-02-25, 12:49 PM

I'll give you the Cha but a Warpriest is never going to need more than 12-14 base. It's not a dealbreaker except at the lowest of point buy.

I don't see the point of comparing to a melee cleric, all three of the T3s listed lose there.The Warpriest uses the exact same chassis and the exact same spell list and has the exact same ability score requirements as a melee cleric. They both need a high Str or Dex, Con, Wis, some Cha and Dex/Str. No other tier 3 class is like that.

Vanitas

2014-02-25, 12:56 PM

The Warpriest uses the exact same chassis and the exact same spell list and has the exact same ability score requirements as a melee cleric. They both need a high Str or Dex, Con, Wis, some Cha and Dex/Str. No other tier 3 class is like that.

I don't know about that, the Warpriest needs less Wisdom. A lot less Wisdom.

Psyren

2014-02-25, 12:58 PM

The Warpriest uses the exact same chassis and the exact same spell list and has the exact same ability score requirements as a melee cleric. They both need a high Str or Dex, Con, Wis, some Cha and Dex/Str. No other tier 3 class is like that.

No it doesn't. More than 16 Wis is nice to have but not nearly as required as it is for a Cleric.

Person_Man

2014-02-25, 01:26 PM

No it doesn't. More than 16 Wis is nice to have but not nearly as required as it is for a Cleric.

Agreed. The Warpriest strongly encourages buffs and healing, and not spells with a Saving Throw. (Which would be sub-par anyway, since you have 3/4 spell progression). So assuming Cha dependency doesn't come back, it's only slightly MAD. You can't dump Wis, but you won't need to invest magic items in it either.

But neither of you have put forward a good reason to have a full BAB T3 class yet besides "it'd be different."

Tier 3ish - Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area - is the balance point that I generally prefer to write and play. I've found that if I'm DMing in a game with all Tier 3 classes, I need very few house rules to prevent a player from breaking a game, or overcompensate in some way to help a certain player out. I can plan out whatever campaign I want with CR appropriate encounters, and they usually work out as intended. (Though certainly not always - CR has plenty of issues, players do surprising things, etc).

Now I'm not advocating that all classes should be Tier 3. I'm just saying that full BAB classes have a certain play style, and it'd be nice if there was a selection of full BAB classes that were Tier 3, because that's what I personally prefer in my games.

Having said that, if there is a good reason why full BAB classes have to be Tier 4-ish, or why Tier 3-ish classes like the Warpriest need "virtual" full BAB for some reason, I'm open to discussion. But despite my best efforts, I haven't seen such a rationale articulated.

Kudaku

2014-02-25, 01:41 PM

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-25, 02:11 PM

I don't know about that, the Warpriest needs less Wisdom. A lot less Wisdom.

This is optional. A Warpriest has access to the Cleric spell list, so potentially you might want to use some spells with save DCs. In that case a moderate to high Wisdom is desirable. This isn't the best use for the class though (IMO), and if you want to go a caster route I would push you towards the Cleric or Oracle instead.

A 16 Wisdom is the minimum you need by level 16 however. This does mean that you need to plan to boost your Wisdom as you level in order to cast your highest level spells. Fortunately this is relatively easy to do with a starting Wisdom of 12.

When you compare to say a Magus or an Inquisitor, they do look less MAD at first glance. And while they could also get away with a starting casting stat of 12, realistically both classes will want to use some spells that require save DCs. So a Warpriest can get away with a 12 and 13 in Wisdom and Charisma, split (coin flip on which stat is the higher) while generally I would want a Magus and Inquistor to start with a 14 in their casting stat. For all 3 classes that would be 5 points in a point buy build with the remaining stats being split among the physical ability scores.

Larkas

2014-02-25, 02:57 PM

If 3.X material is available, there are a few things to make the Warpriest Wis SAD:

- a one level dip into Shiba Protector yields +Wis to hit and damage;

- a two level dip into Swordsage yields +Wis to AC in light armor;

- if your DM can agree to a little homebrewing, Serenity working for Warpriest makes sense, and nullifies the need for Cha.

Psyren

2014-02-25, 03:09 PM

Couldn't you make the same argument for a melee (fighter 1/cleric x) cleric? He doesn't need a maxed wisdom for saving throws since he primarily uses his spells to augment his melee powers. 16 Wisdom will carry you to level 13 before it causes an issue, and the 4k for a +2 Wisdom headband is trivial compared to your total WBL at 13.

I won't presume to speak for Squirrel, but from my perspective I was referring to the score after items. A Warpriest can actually do fine with a starting Wis of 14 or even 12, only worrying about hitting 15/16 later. After all, for a Warpriest, there is literally no difference in spells/day between a 14 or a 16 until 7th level, by which point he should be able to afford at least a headband of insightful Wis +2, if not +4.

Tier 3ish - Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area - is the balance point that I generally prefer to write and play. I've found that if I'm DMing in a game with all Tier 3 classes, I need very few house rules to prevent a player from breaking a game, or overcompensate in some way to help a certain player out. I can plan out whatever campaign I want with CR appropriate encounters, and they usually work out as intended. (Though certainly not always - CR has plenty of issues, players do surprising things, etc).

The thing is though, you don't have to adjust your campaign even if there are T4s in the mix. There will probably be segments (e.g. stealth or social) that the T4 bruisers will sit out, but I would wager that anybody who rolled Barbarian or Gunslinger (for example) went in with the expectation that they wouldn't be doing much outside of combat.

And while I do think WotC and to a lesser extent Paizo have overvalued BAB in the past, I do think it has some value, and so a full BAB 2/3 caster is going to feel strictly better than a Bard or Inquisitor or Magus. I don't think such a class would be an easy sell at all.

Having said that, if there is a good reason why full BAB classes have to be Tier 4-ish, or why Tier 3-ish classes like the Warpriest need "virtual" full BAB for some reason, I'm open to discussion. But despite my best efforts, I haven't seen such a rationale articulated.

The question you need to answer is "how does this not invalidate Bards and Magi?" And while you could say "the T1 classes do that!" those tend to be less of a problem in practice due to the sheer breadth of options they have, as well as their limited ability to bring that force to bear. (Druid puns!) For example, it's pretty easy to see that a Wildshape Druid can outmelee a Magus, but the Magus still has very unique things it can do, such as not needing to shift or buff at the start of a battle, or being able to cast True Strike and make a trip attempt in the same round.

Vanitas

2014-02-25, 05:09 PM

Larkas

2014-02-25, 05:12 PM

In PF itself, there is the Guided weapon enhancement.

Agreed. And the Guided Hand feat too. But Shiba Protector trumps them both.

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-25, 06:14 PM

In PF itself, there is the Guided weapon enhancement.

The only problem with that option (or the Agile enchant if allowed) is that the cost generally restricts you from gaining a Guided weapon until around level 7. I'm really hoping the final version of the Warpriest changes Fervor to work off a Wisdom modifier. At that point you can plan on Cha being the classes' dump stat.

Person_Man

2014-02-26, 03:54 PM

The question you need to answer is "how does this not invalidate Bards and Magi?" And while you could say "the T1 classes do that!" those tend to be less of a problem in practice due to the sheer breadth of options they have, as well as their limited ability to bring that force to bear. (Druid puns!) For example, it's pretty easy to see that a Wildshape Druid can outmelee a Magus, but the Magus still has very unique things it can do, such as not needing to shift or buff at the start of a battle, or being able to cast True Strike and make a trip attempt in the same round.

Well, my answer is that the Bard and Magus both have decent spell lists and solid supporting class features. (Though without access to 3.5 Feats and PrC, I feel that Bardic Music is pretty weak). A full BAB caster with access to 6th level spells would just need a slightly weaker spell list and/or weaker supporting features. Or you could take something like the Ranger, remove the Animal Companion and Spellcasting, and give him PF Druid Wildshape. That would be Tier 3ish, but without stepping on the Bard or Magus at all.

Psyren

2014-02-26, 03:58 PM

Vanitas

2014-02-26, 05:13 PM

Well, my answer is that the Bard and Magus both have decent spell lists and solid supporting class features. (Though without access to 3.5 Feats and PrC, I feel that Bardic Music is pretty weak). A full BAB caster with access to 6th level spells would just need a slightly weaker spell list and/or weaker supporting features. Or you could take something like the Ranger, remove the Animal Companion and Spellcasting, and give him PF Druid Wildshape. That would be Tier 3ish, but without stepping on the Bard or Magus at all.

Well, different spell lists are a problem in that they either take up a lot of space on the next books or they make a class suffer for lack of support, so at least we know why they are avoiding those.

Vanitas

2014-02-28, 06:44 AM

NightbringerGGZ

2014-02-28, 07:43 AM

This spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/heroic-fortune) looks quite good for Warpriests. Cast it as a swift, spend your hero point for a standard action and you have two spells you can cast at anyone.

Hmm... that's not a bad usage at all. A little bit expensive at 100g and 3 spells for the effect of 2, but a decent option to throw out in an emergency.

Person_Man

2014-02-28, 10:13 AM

A full BAB without spellcasting that was still somehow T3 (e.g. Wildshape Ranger) is the only way I can really see this working. Like "virtual full BAB" it would be enough of a departure from what the Bard and Magus do to not seem off to players and DMs alike (who are currently satisfied with the status quo.)

I disagree with you in theory. I think that you or I or lots of other people could write a Tier 3 full BAB Pathfinder class.

But I think you're right in practice. There's just too many Pathfinder players who would be put off by the "feel" or look of a full BAB caster-ish class that appeared to be superior to the Bard or Magus (even if it had a weaker spell list or other abilities), and that for some odd reason not putting full BAB on the class chart but hiding it in the abilities section as virtual full BAB for most things appeases this group.

It doesn't seem logical to me, but it does appear to be empirically true.

Psyren

2014-02-28, 10:31 AM

I disagree with you in theory. I think that you or I or lots of other people could write a Tier 3 full BAB Pathfinder class.

You misread me - I'm not saying that you couldn't do it. Indeed, Paizo themselves have done it with Sacred Servant Paladin. I'm saying instead that the best way to do it would be to make it without having the T3-ness come from spellcasting; give it another resource like Incarna or Maneuvers or Wild Shape or a calling SLA or Vestiges or Psionics instead. (Well, Psionics might be a hard sell to for that matter, thanks to the Psywar and Cryptic.)

For example, looking at Pact Magic, I would put the Totemic Sage (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/radiance-house---barbarian-archetypes/totemic-sage) Barbarian at T3 easily; they give up DR and Uncanny Dodge for the ability to bind a vestige daily with full binder progression. The Warshade (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/radiance-house---fighter-archetypes/warshade) Fighter gets there too - not only can they bind spirits, they can even take occult feats in place of combat feats, though they need Capstone Binder to get the most out of their vestige.