what is wrong with the Warpriest? (the prc that is)

[ngilop]

Hey guys, ive heard that the war priest is a pretty terrible PrC.

But looking at it, im not quite sure why most think that. I do think that mass heal should be popped down to 8th level and inflame also add to attack bonus instead of just saves.


Do you guys dislike this PrC just because it is only 1/2 casting?

For me that is not such a bad thing as I feel it supposed to be more Fighter/Cleric than Fighter/Cleric

If you understand what I mean by that.

Other than give full casting RAWR, what makes the Warpriest such a bad PrC for a more warrior than priest holy guy?

[Urpriest]

It's the half-casting. Half-casting doesn't help you make a Fighter/Cleric, because the spells you're getting still aren't level-appropriate. It works much better to pick up a class that's actually designed to use lower level spells to augment higher level combat, like Pious Templar or Divine Champion.

[jiriku]

It's the 1/2 spellcasting and it's the fact that most of the class features of the warpriest could be reproduced by a single-class cleric of equivalent level with appropriate domain choices. Frankly, I think you could do better by adding fighter 4/cleric +6 rather than by taking 10 levels of warpriest. At least then you'd qualify for Dungeon Crasher and have three bonus feats, which would open the door to you being able to potentially do something that a single-class cleric couldn't do. That's still worse than 10 levels of cleric IMO, but it would be a slight improvement.

[ngilop]

Hmm, so you think that maybe adding in ways to use turn undead to get cool buffs

like for instance spend 2 turn undeads and get DR X/- where X is your warpriest level for y time

spend 1 to get an extra attack on a full attack

etc etc.


I'm against full casting and full base attack bonus, That's something I will never, ever agree to.



Would adding in some other spells as Spell-likes be wise? like righteous might?

[Venger]

Hey guys, ive heard that the war priest is a pretty terrible PrC.

But looking at it, im not quite sure why most think that. I do think that mass heal should be popped down to 8th level and inflame also add to attack bonus instead of just saves.


Do you guys dislike this PrC just because it is only 1/2 casting?

For me that is not such a bad thing as I feel it supposed to be more Fighter/Cleric than Fighter/Cleric

If you understand what I mean by that.

Other than give full casting RAWR, what makes the Warpriest such a bad PrC for a more warrior than priest holy guy?

yes, it's because it's half casting. that's not a "just" though, that's a huge handicap.

fighter/cleric/warpriest or cleric/fighter/warpriest are both horrible builds regardless of which one is your primary class.

if you lean cleric, then you're ruining your ability to cast spells for no reason since fighter dips and warpriest offer you nothing aside from full BA, which you already have through divine power.

if you lean fighter, then you're crippling yourself by borking your BA through your cleric levels and becoming MAD with one of the few stats you don't already need, further fragmenting your point spread. through the painful prereq levels while you're grinding your way to warpriest, you'll be someone who is neither good at fightning, nor at casting spells, and once you actually enter the PC, things don't get any better.

[ComaVision]

I'm against full casting and full base attack bonus, That's something I will never, ever agree to.

It would be a much better PrC if it was full casting and partial base attack bonus.

[jiriku]

True. If it had full casting and some wide-area AoE buffs that couldn't be reproduced by spells, it could at least claim to be effective at leading troops on the battlefield. That's not exactly a useful niche for a PC in most games, but it would make a legitimate NPC class or villain class for certain kinds of set-piece battles.

[Extra Anchovies]

In addition to the half-casting, it's also the fact that clerics have access to full BAB anyways via divine power.

[Venger]

and it requires combat casting to get in. because if you're willing to set 5 caster levels on fire, you deserve to be punished.

[Extra Anchovies]

and it requires combat casting to get in. because if you're willing to set 5 caster levels on fire, you deserve to be punished.

On that note, I've never quite gotten what's so bad about that feat. Care to explain?

[ComaVision]

On that note, I've never quite gotten what's so bad about that feat. Care to explain?

It's just not good. If I get Toughness for free then great but it's not something I want to take.

[Venger]

On that note, I've never quite gotten what's so bad about that feat. Care to explain?

seriously? it's bad for the same reason feats like stealthy or deceitful are bad. it just provides a piddly numerical bonus to one very specific thing instead of granting you a new capability or letting you use something you already had in a different way like a good feat.

if you're the type of character who will be casting in combat a lot, say you're a gish, are playing at a handicap, or are a duskblade or something (who receive it for free anyway) then your concentration modifier is going to be maxed constantly until you can obviate the roll for your highest level spells with a bonus of maximum DC-1. after that point, you will probably stop investing because it is impossible to fail the check.

combat casting gives you a +4 to something that is not in any way a problem. that's not worth a feat slot you could be spending on metamagic

[ngilop]

My gripe abou combat casting is it gives you 4a +4 bonus to a specific type of concentration, when skill focus can give you +3 to all concentration.


If Combat casting had something special built into it or GASP! scaled it would e a worthwhile feat to take over skill focus: concentration.

that bing said 'feat taxes' to get into a PrC is something that to me is not bad you sould have to give up something to get something.

[Extra Anchovies]

My gripe abou combat casting is it gives you 4a +4 bonus to a specific type of concentration, when skill focus can give you +3 to all concentration.


If Combat casting had something special built into it or GASP! scaled it would e a worthwhile feat to take over skill focus: concentration.

that bing said 'feat taxes' to get into a PrC is something that to me is not bad you sould have to give up something to get something.

But you're already giving up casting (and lots of it), so the entry taxes are unnecessary.

[ngilop]

But you're already giving up casting (and lots of it), so the entry taxes are unnecessary.

I know, I did not mean specifically for this class but in general.

like having to grab endurance and die hard for a PrC called the Dreadnaught... Hmm I think I might make that an actual PrC... calling dibs now.

[ComaVision]

I know, I did not mean specifically for this class but in general.

like having to grab endurance and die hard for a PrC called the Dreadnaught... Hmm I think I might make that an actual PrC... calling dibs now.

What's in a name? That which we call a Warpriest by any other name would suck as bad.

[ngilop]

What's in a name? That which we call a Warpriest by any other name would suck as bad.

and there is always room for ice cream.. your point?

[ngilop]

I understand how anything is pure suck in the optimizing game if you are not full casting you are absoluey garbage..


but I for the life of me cannot figure out how losing 1 BaB makes you such a failure of a character than going full fighter?

especially when you consider the fact that you still get 6th level cleric casting ( which contrary to popular beleif nets you some decent spells like energy resistance shield of faith and such) and somehow that makes you such a terrible character that you need to rip up your sheet and just roll straight fighter?



and besides slapping on full casting, how can youmake the class abilities worhthwile to make it a decently attractive PrC for a fighter/cleric hybrid

[Extra Anchovies]

I understand how anything is pure suck in the optimizing game if you are not full casting you are absoluey garbage..


but I for the life of me cannot figure out how losing 1 BaB makes you such a failure of a character than going full fighter?

especially when you consider the fact that you still get 6th level cleric casting ( which contrary to popular beleif nets you some decent spells like energy resistance shield of faith and such) and somehow that makes you such a terrible character that you need to rip up your sheet and just roll straight fighter?

and besides slapping on full casting, how can youmake the class abilities worhthwile to make it a decently attractive PrC for a fighter/cleric hybrid

1. Nobody's said ten levels of warpriest is worse than ten levels of fighter.
2. There is no reason to play a fighter/cleric. Even without Divine Power, Cleric 20 is better at fighting than Cleric x/Fighter y for any values of x and y totaling 20.

Warpriest is bad because it's redundant.

[ngilop]

1. Nobody's said ten levels of warpriest is worse than ten levels of fighter.
2. There is no reason to play a fighter/cleric. Even without Divine Power, Cleric 20 is better at fighting than Cleric x/Fighter y for any values of x and y totaling 20.

Warpriest is bad because it's redundant.

SO why even play anything but wizard, druid, or cleric then?

I mean warpriest has full BaB d10 HP and all armor shield and weapon prof. that cries out to me warrior not priest.

and I know that full casting and having 9th Trumps everything.

Im not looking at this and saying what can make cleric 10 warpriest 10 good.

im asking what can make fighter 7 cleric 3 warpriest 10 decent.



Im not asking form a 'tier' one optimizing stance, Im asking form a 'normal' WoTC expected table where most peeps play in the 'tier'4 to 'tier' 3 range. where you are not trying to 'best-est' your character but make a competent one and just have fun with your friends.

[Extra Anchovies]

SO why even play anything but wizard, druid, or cleric then?

I mean warpriest has full BaB d10 HP and all armor shield and weapon prof. that cries out to me warrior not priest.

and I know that full casting and having 9th Trumps everything.

Im not looking at this and saying what can make cleric 10 warpriest 10 good.

im asking what can make fighter 7 cleric 3 warpriest 10 decent.

Cleric 10/Warpriest 10 is playable, but it doesn't to anything Cleric 20 can't so Cleric 20 is a better option for "fighty priesty dude" than Cleric 10/Warpriest 10. Same goes for Fighter 7/Cleric 3/Warpriest 10; they can't do anything that even Cleric 10/Warpriest 10 can, except take Weapon Specialization (yuck). The best way to make Fighter 7/Cleric 3/Warpriest 10 decent is to replace the Fighter levels with Cleric levels. If you want a mid-power fighty priesty dude, Cleric/Warpriest can work, but you'd be better of playing Cleric 20, avoiding DMM, and not picking OP spells, because it's easier to make a strong option weaker than it is to make a weak option stronger. When you get to the point that your highest-level slots are entirely OP spells or worthless spells, fill those slots with Extended or Chained versions of your lower-level spells.

Im not asking from a 'tier' one optimizing stance, Im asking form a 'normal' WoTC expected table where most peeps play in the 'tier'4 to 'tier' 3 range. where you are not trying to 'best-est' your character but make a competent one and just have fun with your friends.

The "WotC expected table" was in no way T3-T4; it's Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter. That's two T1s, a T4, and a T5. If you're aiming for T3 you shouldn't have clerics (replace them with backports of Inquisitor or Warpriest from PF) or they should tone themselves down by avoiding the OP spells and build options.

[Divayth Fyr]

I mean warpriest has full BaB d10 HP and all armor shield and weapon prof. that cries out to me warrior not priest.

And which Warpriest features (aside from Haste gotten at lvl 7) make you a better warrior? Most of them are for helping your allies - which could be done better with spells - and BaB/HD could come from Fighter and be the same (or from a Barbarian for better HD).

[Venger]

I understand how anything is pure suck in the optimizing game if you are not full casting you are absoluey garbage..

but I for the life of me cannot figure out how losing 1 BaB makes you such a failure of a character than going full fighter?

especially when you consider the fact that you still get 6th level cleric casting ( which contrary to popular beleif nets you some decent spells like energy resistance shield of faith and such) and somehow that makes you such a terrible character that you need to rip up your sheet and just roll straight fighter?

and besides slapping on full casting, how can youmake the class abilities worhthwile to make it a decently attractive PrC for a fighter/cleric hybrid

so if we don't all play multiclassed to hell fighter/clerics with toughness for every feat then we are just lousy rollplayers. this is known as the stormwind fallacy.

if your goal is to be a melee brute, good for you. your goal is full BA the same way a caster's is full caster level. retarding that delays when you get your iteratives and makes you worse at what you're trying to do.

no one has ever said 6th level cleric casting is not good. it's just not as good as higher level cleric casting.

no one told you to roll straight fighter. contrary to wotc's belief, fighter10/cleric10 is not as good as cleric 20

you can't, because fighter/cleric is not viable. it gives the cleric nothing it doesn't already have. the problem is not with warpriest, it's with mixing disparate classes that do not complement each other.

[Extra Anchovies]

you can't, because fighter/cleric is not viable. it gives the cleric nothing it doesn't already have. the problem is not with warpriest, it's with mixing disparate classes that do not complement each other.

Those classes being, of course, 3.5 Fighter and literally any other PC class.

[ngilop]

so if we don't all play multiclassed to hell fighter/clerics with toughness for every feat then we are just lousy rollplayers. this is known as the stormwind fallacy.

if your goal is to be a melee brute, good for you. your goal is full BA the same way a caster's is full caster level. retarding that delays when you get your iteratives and makes you worse at what you're trying to do.

no one has ever said 6th level cleric casting is not good. it's just not as good as higher level cleric casting.

no one told you to roll straight fighter. contrary to wotc's belief, fighter10/cleric10 is not as good as cleric 20

you can't, because fighter/cleric is not viable. it gives the cleric nothing it doesn't already have. the problem is not with warpriest, it's with mixing disparate classes that do not complement each other.

Bolded part bolded and enlarged because

Spoiler: VENGER

Show

At no single point at all anywhere in this whole thread or any of my post at any time in the history of my existence on the internet have I ever EVER said that playing an optimized character makes one a horrible roleplayer

Spoiler

Show

( or as you put it rollplayers)

In fact, I find it EXTREMELY rude and insulting that you are even insinuating that I suggested as much.

[ngilop]

and besides slapping on full casting, how can youmake the class abilities worhthwile to make it a decently attractive PrC for a fighter/cleric hybrid

this is really my main point. Im not going to but on getting a 'gish' divine character full casrting and full base attack. it is just something that I will never agree with.

and you can stop hammering me to death over the head about nothing beats full (

Spoiler

Show

insert random full teir 1/2 caster here

) everybody in the world already at least assumes if not outright knows that.

that is not what I am looking for the old GiTP ' just play a wizar/cleric' that is ever so popular.


what I want is what can I do with or what kind of abilities could I add that would better hybridize the two disparate classes ( i.e fighter & cleric)


side note.. did you know & used to be a letter?

[Extra Anchovies]

Bolded part bolded and enlarged because

Spoiler: VENGER

Show

At no single point at all anywhere in this whole thread or any of my post at any time in the history of my existence on the internet have I ever EVER said that playing an optimized character makes one a horrible roleplayer

Spoiler

Show

( or as you put it rollplayers)

In fact, I find it EXTREMELY rude and insulting that you are even insinuating that I suggested as much.

Yo, the big text is unnecessary. Let's keep this civil.

You asked what was wrong with fighter/cleric, we told you cleric/nothing was better in every way, you clearly weren't satisfied with the answer, so Venger (from how I see it) assumed you thought that choosing the strongest option meant a player didn't intend to roleplay effectively.
Also "rollplayers" was pretty clearly a spelling error.
Anyways, to get back on topic, the answer to your question

SO why even play anything but wizard, druid, or cleric then?

Is "because none of those classes can emulate the character concept I have in mind as effectively as I would like my build to". Sometimes you can better carry out what you want to do with your character through a less theoretically powerful class, e.g. Binder, Totemist, Dragonfire Adept, etc.

and besides slapping on full casting, how can youmake the class abilities worhthwile to make it a decently attractive PrC for a fighter/cleric hybrid

You can't. I told you already, I told you again, there is nothing that can make fighter/cleric an attractive option because cleric/nothing is better in every way. The only things fighter grants are HD (you'll average 1 point per level more than cleric, but cleric can cast Bear's Endurance), proficiencies (mostly overlapping with the cleric's), and bonus feats (but there aren't enough of them and they aren't good enough to go past a 2-level dip).

[HaikenEdge]

SO why even play anything but wizard, druid, or cleric then?

Because the archetypical hero is a not-so-smart guy with a sharp stick? Because sometimes, wizard, druid and cleric just don't fit your character concept?

[Karl Aegis]

Because the archetypical hero is a not-so-smart guy with a sharp stick? Because sometimes, wizard, druid and cleric just don't fit your character concept?

Man, the shapeshifting peg will fit more square holes and round holes than either the round peg or the square peg.

[Invader]

I always thought ordained champion made a much better war priest than war priest. Sure you give up two caster levels but you get reasonable compensation and it compliments a more melee centric cleric very well.