The One True Build, x47


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So we've got 47 different Pathfinder classes (including NPC classes). We have the AM Barbarian, the Shroedinger's Wizard (A crafter and conjuration specialist, naturally), the Shocking Grasp Scimitar Magus, and the Zen Archer Monk (Build and class). What are the other "one true build"s?

Classes:

Core:
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard

Base:
Alchemist
Cavalier
Gunslinger
Inquisitor
Magus
Oracle
Summoner
Witch

Hybrid:
Arcanist
Bloodrager
Brawler
Hunter
Investigator
Shaman
Skald
Slayer
Swashbuckler
Warpriest

Alternate:
Antipaladin
Ninja
Samurai

Unchained:
Barbarian Unchained
Monk Unchained
Rogue Unchained
Summoner Unchained

Occult:
Kineticist
Medium
Mesmerist
Occultist
Psychic
Spiritualist

NPC: (heh)
Adept
Aristocrat
Commoner
Expert
Warrior


Do you really think there's one per class? The Rime Frostbite Mindblade Magus and the Tetori Monk are each arguably as good as your OTBs for monk and magus. For some classes the closest thing to a OTB is strictly inferior to that offered by another class (q.v. core/unchained rogue, other NPC classes).

Edit: & for still others, multiclassing might be part of the OTB.


Dex based swashbuckler.

Yes. You are confused. "there is a NOT dex based swashbuckler?"

But you can work with strength though. Oddly, the mechanics of the swashbuckler mitigate almost all the reasons to go dex based.

-AC- this is a class with nonTWF sword and board (giving two sources for AC enhancement- making it cheaper) and scaling AC bonus. Also, you can grab medium mithral with armor expert trait.
-Saves- this class's only good save is reflex.
-initiative- not as big as the others, but the class still does give a bonus here.

So one of the main reasons to go with dex is AoOs (and even that can be questionable).

So yeah- do you want to save the feats needed to go dex based, and just go strength based instead? It is a ligit option. This class built more around 'salvaging unoptimized fighting styles' and it is only 'very dex friendly'.

EDIT- oh- I also kind of go against the idea that only zen archers are acceptible monks. Soheis have the bonuses in the right places (and they can grab gloves of dueling), and they can grab light armor (either saves them from going pure dex/wis early on to survive, allowing them to go str based, or gives a magic armor slot for brawling armor). They work very, very well as nodachi flurries, reach flurries, or pumped up unarmed pummelers.

Silver Crusade

Barbarian: Invul Rager + Beast + Super, it's the standard that all other builds are judged by in relation to barbarians.

Alchemist: Beastmorph Vivi, at least for melee. Personally, I consider just straight Grenadier with Focusing Flask/Hybridization Funnel shenanigans to be the ranged version of it.

Gunslinger: Bolt Ace 5/Other classes X, straight up better than any other build. The knees were chopped out from underneath other builds while BA only got better.


avr wrote:
Do you really think there's one per class?

I'm asking you guys. As for the ones that are arguably as good, I'd like to see the ones that are generally considered to be the best.

Edit: Also, I want to know how much weight the concept of "one true build" holds.


Fighter: This is practically a condradiction in terms to say Fighter has a one build to rule them all. That said, if you are not going with the new Advanced Weapon Training and Eldritch Guardian you better have a good reason!

Cavalier: Step 1, take Horse Master. Step 2, stop playing this horrible class. Seriously, if my PC didn't have an infection I might just write a Cavalier guide about how balls they are.


The Mortonator wrote:
Cavalier: Step 1, take Horse Master. Step 2, stop playing this horrible class. Seriously, if my PC didn't have an infection I might just write a Cavalier guide about how balls they are.

???

Anything particularly bad about the class? I mean, besides usual complaints about martials?

With chain challenge at level 7, you can possibly smash a few encounters.

That assumes a bit of CHA, of course...but actually, I can find good reasons to write off some CHA. The tactician ability is a bit out of sync with one of the best teamwork feats to randomly give your team- coordinated charges (or 'psuedo pounce for everybody' with tactician).

So a dip into...lets say 2 level of archaeologist bard is actually a rather nice deal (a bit of magic, multiclass saves, a boost mechanic that can affect...almost everything you care about with attack/damage/saves/skills). Needs some investment, but I can make something that is a nice little build at level 11. One that has almost everyone pouncing about as immediate actions.


lemeres wrote:
The Mortonator wrote:
Cavalier: Step 1, take Horse Master. Step 2, stop playing this horrible class. Seriously, if my PC didn't have an infection I might just write a Cavalier guide about how balls they are.

???

Anything particularly bad about the class? I mean, besides usual complaints about martials?

The class's focus on mounted combat can be a problem for a lot of adventures that happen in mount-unfriendly territory.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
lemeres wrote:
The Mortonator wrote:
Cavalier: Step 1, take Horse Master. Step 2, stop playing this horrible class. Seriously, if my PC didn't have an infection I might just write a Cavalier guide about how balls they are.

???

Anything particularly bad about the class? I mean, besides usual complaints about martials?

The class's focus on mounted combat can be a problem for a lot of adventures that happen in mount-unfriendly territory.

It's not just that. I keep running the stats over and over again and coming to the same conclusion: Fighter with either 4-5 lvls of Cavalier (depending on if you want Standard Bearer for a +2 on charges) just stats up better. Period.

The Cavalier is littered with horrible class features. Like, just awful. If you play an E6 game they can work, but otherwise the further you get past 6th the more and more that the class costs you without giving anything back.

Mighty Charge is extremely loaded, Horse Master is good economy compared to Animal Ally. After that, the basic math says any other martial will be better. In game design we have a principle that says specialised characters are, in effect, a drawback. That's why I don't think the Fighter is quite as horrible a class as people claim, because they are the generalist (it'sa me, Mario!) and certain homegames will favor that based on players and GMs. However, the Cavalier is specialised and on par with Fighters for class features. That's just bad design.


Int-to-everything Empiricist Investigator. You're boss at Knowledges, Face, UMD, Rogue skills, etc. You give up... poison skills. Rarely a reason to go any other way.

Martial Master/Mutation Warrior/Eldritch Guardian. A "Fighter" who gives up every single Fighter class feature so as to actually contribute in a mid-high-level fight. Flight, Mutagens, Mauler Familiar, on the fly feat selection. You can sub out the Martial Master if you want to get Weapon Training for Gloves of Dueling.


The idea of a "one true build" is sort of strange, but there are some builds that really stand out.

Melee barbarians, alchemists, and bloodragers can do so well with natural weapons that most other options pale in comparison.

Saurian Shaman druids are incredible, wild shaping into allosauruses and fighting alongside their allosaurus companions and whatever other dinosaurs they've decided to summon.

And then there are some builds I think just work out really cleanly, things like whip magi and cleaving warpriests and elven-branched-spear-using unchained rogues.


*sighs* Another "Cavalier sucks!" doubter.... Time to post this again.

mourge40k wrote:
Let's see here.... Azata-Blooded Aasimar Daring Champion Cavalier of the Order of the Cockatrice, using that lovely favored class bonus to get more challenge damage. At level 4 alone, that is a grand total of +2 from order, +4 from Challenge, +4 from precise strike (+8 with Panache spent), +1 from FCB. This means you get a grand total extra of +11 to your damage without dex or strength added in there too. If you really want something to die, you use a panache point to up it to +19. It only goes up from there.

And if that's not enough, you can go for a Beast Rider/Luring Cavalier. Get rid of those silly charge dependencies, and become able to do ranged challenges while having an animal companion as well! I mean, just have a Tiger for pounce-charge goodness.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Martial Master/Mutation Warrior/Eldritch Guardian. A "Fighter" who gives up every single Fighter class feature so as to actually contribute in a mid-high-level fight. Flight, Mutagens, Mauler Familiar, on the fly feat selection. You can sub out the Martial Master if you want to get Weapon Training for Gloves of Dueling.

This was what I would've said about Fighter, but one of my players showed me the new Advanced Weapon Trainings and it looks like a solid step up from Martial Master. You can get a few decent feats and keep the progressing weapon damage from Weapon Training. Otherwise 100 % agreed.

mourge40k wrote:

*sighs* Another "Cavalier sucks!" doubter.... Time to post this again.

mourge40k wrote:
Let's see here.... Azata-Blooded Aasimar Daring Champion Cavalier of the Order of the Cockatrice, using that lovely favored class bonus to get more challenge damage. At level 4 alone, that is a grand total of +2 from order, +4 from Challenge, +4 from precise strike (+8 with Panache spent), +1 from FCB. This means you get a grand total extra of +11 to your damage without dex or strength added in there too. If you really want something to die, you use a panache point to up it to +19. It only goes up from there.
And if that's not enough, you can go for a Beast Rider/Luring Cavalier. Get rid of those silly charge dependencies, and become able to do ranged challenges while having an animal companion as well! I mean, just have a Tiger for pounce-charge goodness.

Wait, hold on. So, I point out that past low levels Cavalier sucks. Your counterargument is to use a low level build that gives up the best Cavalier class features for being a Swashbuckler with Challenge. Wut? Why would that convience me? At best that would show how bad base Cavalier is because you would rather just be a Swashbuckler with Challenge.


mourge40k wrote:

*sighs* Another "Cavalier sucks!" doubter.... Time to post this again.

mourge40k wrote:
Let's see here.... Azata-Blooded Aasimar Daring Champion Cavalier of the Order of the Cockatrice, using that lovely favored class bonus to get more challenge damage. At level 4 alone, that is a grand total of +2 from order, +4 from Challenge, +4 from precise strike (+8 with Panache spent), +1 from FCB. This means you get a grand total extra of +11 to your damage without dex or strength added in there too. If you really want something to die, you use a panache point to up it to +19. It only goes up from there.
And if that's not enough, you can go for a Beast Rider/Luring Cavalier. Get rid of those silly charge dependencies, and become able to do ranged challenges while having an animal companion as well! I mean, just have a Tiger for pounce-charge goodness.
Wait, hold on. So, I point out that past low levels Cavalier sucks. Your counterargument is to use a low level build that gives up the best Cavalier class features for being a Swashbuckler with Challenge. Wut? Why would that convince me? At best that would show how bad base Cavalier is because you would rather just be a Swashbuckler with Challenge.

All Daring Champion gives up is the mount focus. It is a completely mountless Cavalier. You were the one saying earlier that they got bad class features, and agreed with the fact that mounts were limited. Well, I gave you not one, but two options that fixed that.

The Daring Champion gives you a lot of the perks of being a Swashbuckler in exchange for removing your mounted combat focus. If you're willing to go for 1/4 per level damage less, you can be a Human instead of an Aasimar, and can pick up Fencing (or Slashing) Grace at first level. Even better, it's not just a Swashbuckler with Challenge. You also get bonus combat feats, the ability to hand out free teamwork feats, and a Back Banner that buffs people for a charge with no action on your part. The way I see it, you're trading out some of the worst things that Cavalier gives you for nothing but good things. You know, things like bonus Initiative, your level in extra damage period, essentially free disarm/trips/staggers, etc. In short, a very worthwhile trade-off that doesn't need a mount to work.

The Beast Rider/Luring Cavalier takes a slightly different approach. It takes advantage of the fact that a Cavalier has an Animal Companion and full BAB. Using Beast Rider, you get an augmented list of things you can take as a mount, including such goodies as an allosaurus, or an ankylosaurus, or a T-Rex. However, while this is certainly good on it's own (I mean, let's face it, if Druids like it...), you can just treat it like a Druid would treat its animal companion thanks to Luring Cavalier. With this, you can focus fully on Archery (which is simply the strongest way to fight martial-wise), and can issue ranged challenges. Hell, he even gets a no-save "move closer to me!" crit at 11th level. Like, imagine hitting a caster with that while they're within your "mounts" AoO area.

All of this comes without analyzing the ways to make use of all the Order abilities as well. I'm not saying that Cavalier is one of the best classes. I'm just saying it's far from being as useless as people paint it.


The Mortonator wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
lemeres wrote:
The Mortonator wrote:
Cavalier: Step 1, take Horse Master. Step 2, stop playing this horrible class. Seriously, if my PC didn't have an infection I might just write a Cavalier guide about how balls they are.

???

Anything particularly bad about the class? I mean, besides usual complaints about martials?

The class's focus on mounted combat can be a problem for a lot of adventures that happen in mount-unfriendly territory.

It's not just that. I keep running the stats over and over again and coming to the same conclusion: Fighter with either 4-5 lvls of Cavalier (depending on if you want Standard Bearer for a +2 on charges) just stats up better. Period.

The Cavalier is littered with horrible class features. Like, just awful. If you play an E6 game they can work, but otherwise the further you get past 6th the more and more that the class costs you without giving anything back.

Mighty Charge is extremely loaded, Horse Master is good economy compared to Animal Ally. After that, the basic math says any other martial will be better. In game design we have a principle that says specialised characters are, in effect, a drawback. That's why I don't think the Fighter is quite as horrible a class as people claim, because they are the generalist (it'sa me, Mario!) and certain homegames will favor that based on players and GMs. However, the Cavalier is specialised and on par with Fighters for class features. That's just bad design.

...and you can't just go hunt master? They trade away a lot of the mounted junk, and instead, you get a nice flank buddy...THAT SHARES IN THE HUGE DAMAGE BOOST OF CHALLENGE.

That makes the bird (with its three primary natural attacks) fairly deadly. And can get free dirty tricks on a successful attack too (which can result in deafening or blinding- both great conditions when you are tossing them out as free actions on attacks)

Admittedly, this archetype makes the tactician only affect your animal companion...but that is fine- coordinated charge is still an option with your flank buddy giving you the pseudo pounce (admittedly, I usually do the same thing with eldritch guardian fighters and their familiars).

Overall, it does fine when you and the animal companion grab things like outflank.

Oh, and course, there are like...another 3-4 other archetypes that trade away mounted combat stuff. Huntmaster is just the one that comes to mind the most.


mourge40k wrote:
All Daring Champion gives up is the mount focus. It is a completely mountless Cavalier. You were the one saying earlier that they got bad class features, and agreed with the fact that mounts were limited.

Can be limited, can be. I actually like mounts. Just not enough to have an entire class of gimped features for. The first Charge ability is also insanely about curve for simular abilities. It's an effective +2 AC and Attack. Shame I can't say the same for anything else.

mourge40k wrote:
You also get bonus combat feats,

Okay, but common. (And Fighter does it better.)

mourge40k wrote:
the ability to hand out free teamwork feats,

Overrated. (And Fighter does it better.)

mourge40k wrote:
Back Banner that buffs people for a charge with no action on your part.

Situational. Situational to the entire party. Situational to the entire party when you are the one who, in theory, is the frontliner not the support. And a Moral Bonus on top of that. I want to like this, I really do but it's just so painful.

mourge40k wrote:
The way I see it, you're trading out some of the worst things that Cavalier gives you for nothing but good things.

Or you could look at it as a Swashbuckler with half their deeds missing for a few new class features. Past lvl 4 multiclassing is objectively, mathmatically better. You just have too many blank/situational class features.

mourge40k wrote:
The Beast Rider/Luring Cavalier takes a slightly different approach. It takes advantage of the fact that a Cavalier has an Animal Companion and full BAB.

I will admit, that's pretty good. I just wish was a feat that did just that. Maybe it should require you to take a dumb feat like Nature Soul first as a tax. If there was I could play my favorite ranged class of choice with a mount!

Of course, if it also had wording that allowed you to dip another class to unlock your animal companion choices it would be insanely better than a Beast Rider. Hahahah.


lemeres wrote:
Oh, and course, there are like...another 3-4 other archetypes that trade away mounted combat stuff.

You misunderstand me then.

I like mounts, I like some of the concepts of Cavalier. I like it as a dip. I hate it as a full class because when I hold up the base Cavalier's progression chart next to the majority of classes the levels are barren. At least with Swashbuckler or Gunslinger I am getting Deeds. Not so with Cavalier. Those few things I do have suffer from being weaker or more situational than their counterparts.

Cavalier is great for multiclassing, but past low levels your abilities are surprisingly weak. That's my problem with it. Hunt Master with a feat or two for advancement? Yes please.


The Mortonator wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Oh, and course, there are like...another 3-4 other archetypes that trade away mounted combat stuff.

You misunderstand me then.

I like mounts, I like some of the concepts of Cavalier. I like it as a dip. I hate it as a full class because when I hold up the base Cavalier's progression chart next to the majority of classes the levels are barren. At least with Swashbuckler or Gunslinger I am getting Deeds. Not so with Cavalier. Those few things I do have suffer from being weaker or more situational than their counterparts.

Cavalier is great for multiclassing, but past low levels your abilities are surprisingly weak. That's my problem with it. Hunt Master with a feat or two for advancement? Yes please.

Ok...not great for mounted, but that doesn't mean it a terrible class, since this system relies heavily on archetypes to get a playable style.

...says the guy that likes monks for the archetypes, and thinks unchained is 'meh' since it can't use any of them.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The One True Build, x47 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.