Archetypes that do a class better than the class does


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pathfinder's classes offer broad templates to use when fleshing out characters of a certain kind. Most archetypes usually modify the base class in a way that allows you to "zoom in" on a particular kind of character idea that class might cover (e.g., the Crusader cleric archetype, or the Merciful Healer cleric archetype). And a few archetypes modify the base class so that it allows you play a completely different kind of character (e.g., the Dandy ranger archetype).

But recently I've noticed a third kind of archetype: "default" archetypes that modify the base class in order to make it do a better job of doing what the base class was supposed to do. These are the kinds of archetypes which make you think "this should have been what the base class was like", or "this should be the default for anyone playing this class".

I've only noticed a few, but there are hundreds (thousands?) of archetypes. What have you noticed? Are there any archetypes you've come across which strike you as arguably doing a better job of capturing the idea behind a class than the original class does?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here's one that was pointed out (in a different thread by Kalindlara):

Class: Cleric
Archetype that does it better: Divine Paragon

The basic cleric is supposed to be all about worshiping, deriving divine power from, and advancing the interests of your god.

With the basic cleric, the god you worship doesn't have much mechanical bearing on your abilities -- mechanically, there's not much of a difference between a cleric of Desna and a cleric of Asmodeus. Likewise, besides your alignment restrictions, there isn't much by way of role-playing or religious requirements that relate to the particular deity you worship. A cleric of one deity will play much like any other.

The Divine Paragon is a strictly better fit with the idea of being devoted to a particular deity. By giving you access to the unique obedience boons associated with your deity, it gives clerics of different deities unique distinguishing abilities. And by requiring you to perform daily obediences, it makes clerics of different deities have a clearly different feel, with a constant role-playing requirement to remind you of who you worship, and how a worshiper of that god should behave.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Razmiran Priest is a better Sorcerer and the best Mystic Theurge we have, you get to be a Sorcerer but also cast divine spells.

There are also classes that do a different class better with an archetype that emulates it. Like Daring Champion and Virtuous Bravo to the Swashbuckler or Sanctified Slayer to the Slayer or Sacred Huntsmaster to the Hunter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the guide ranger does a better job of ranger than the base class does. Yes, there are wands of instant enemy for more damage, but those are out of theme IMO. Also the terrain bond fits better than hunter's bond.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Pale King wrote:

Razmiran Priest is a better Sorcerer and the best Mystic Theurge we have, you get to be a Sorcerer but also cast divine spells.

There are also classes that do a different class better with an archetype that emulates it. Like Daring Champion and Virtuous Bravo to the Swashbuckler or Sanctified Slayer to the Slayer or Sacred Huntsmaster to the Hunter.

Good finds with the cross-class archetypes! Daring Champion and Virtuoso Bravo do seem to do the Swashbuckler (qua lightly armored non-str-focused fighter) better than the Swashbuckler does. Nice.

Razmiran Priest does seem like the ideal way to do Mystic Theurge. Less confident that it's a better fit for Sorcerer than the Sorcerer class, though... do you think it could do a good job capturing all of the standard Sorcerer tropes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
avr wrote:
I think the guide ranger does a better job of ranger than the base class does. Yes, there are wands of instant enemy for more damage, but those are out of theme IMO. Also the terrain bond fits better than hunter's bond.

Oh! Good find. After looking it over, I think I agree. To spell it out a bit...

The standard ranger is a bit finicky. The Favored Enemy ability, requiring you to focus on a particular kind of creature, seem a bit idiosyncratic -- it's not clear why a ranger (qua "nature/tracker/woodsman warrior") would be focused on some particular kind of enemy. And the Guide archetype replaces the Favored Enemy ability with something you can apply to any target, which makes the class less finicky. (A bit like the Cavalier's Challenge.)

The ranger's Hunter's Bond ability *kinda* fits the ranger theme if you go the animal companion route, though it's a lackluster ability at best. But the Guide archetypes Terrain Bond, which replaces it, is a distinctly better fit with the "nature/tracker/woodsman warrior" theme.

Nice!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Virtuous Bravo Paladin and the Daring Champion Cavalier are both kind of better Swashbucklers than the Swashbuckler.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

primalist does bloodrager better

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Porridge wrote:
The standard ranger is a bit finicky. The Favored Enemy ability, requiring you to focus on a particular kind of creature, seem a bit idiosyncratic -- it's not clear why a ranger (qua "nature/tracker/woodsman warrior") would be focused on some particular kind of enemy.

Hold over from the first/second edition of D&D.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Pact Wizard from HHH is sooooo OP.... that there is almost no point in playing a wizard and NOT using this archetype

Aside from being kind to your fellow gamers and GM I suppose...


Porridge wrote:
Here's one that was pointed out (in a different thread by Kalindlara):

Hmmmm... sort of its a bit hit and miss... very deity specific as to whether its worth it. In a PFS setting probably not since it doesnt get its 2nd and 3rd boons till 11th and 14th level.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain is pretty much a better warpriest in 99% of circumstances than the original warpriest. Gaining weapon training is that much better than what you lose. Especially if you're allowed to choose Advanced Weapon Training feat.

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor is much better than the core Inquisitor. Judgements are very limited per day, and the slayer studied target and sneak attack are always on, and do a better job of fitting the Van Helsing inspiration for the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say vivisectionist alchemists are better rogues than rogues. And of course there's the quinggong monk.

Imbicatus wrote:
Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor is much better than the core Inquisitor. Judgements are very limited per day, and the slayer studied target and sneak attack are always on, and do a better job of fitting the Van Helsing inspiration for the class.

Eh, I'd say the flexible boons of judgement are better, especially since they offer both offensive and defensive options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Porridge wrote:


Razmiran Priest does seem like the ideal way to do Mystic Theurge. Less confident that it's a better fit for Sorcerer than the Sorcerer class, though... do you think it could do a good job capturing all of the standard Sorcerer tropes?

I suppose it's not flat out better at being a Sorcerer, but you lose very little to give your Sorcerer divine casting, so in that way I think it is Sorcerer+. Plus the idea of Sorcerers emulating divine magic makes a lot of sense to me, they aren't trained, they are born, so having less restrictions on their casting seems to fit lore very well to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

I'd say vivisectionist alchemists are better rogues than rogues. And of course there's the quinggong monk.

Imbicatus wrote:
Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor is much better than the core Inquisitor. Judgements are very limited per day, and the slayer studied target and sneak attack are always on, and do a better job of fitting the Van Helsing inspiration for the class.
Eh, I'd say the flexible boons of judgement are better, especially since they offer both offensive and defensive options.

Having looked over the Inquisitor vs the Sanctified Inquisitor I think the Sanctified Inquisitor is better early on. Once you reach point where you can use a Judgment each battle (about 4 judgment per day) the flexibility (and I think static bonus values) are higher from Judgment than Studied Target.

I also found that most often when I was playing my Archer Inquisitor I was spending a lot of my first round swift action on Bane/Greater Bane not on Judgment. Many combats I relied on Bane rather than Judgment because I didn't need the extra damage that much for most combats, and I had a lot of rounds of Bane thanks to....I can't actually remember what exactly but I had a lot of rounds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Lots of good suggestions here, though it makes it clear to me that my initial question was ambiguous.

--Question 1: what archetypes "do_1" a class better than the class does (by better fitting the idea behind the class than the original class)?

--Question 2: what archetypes "do_2" a class better than the class does (by being strictly stronger than the original class)?

So examples of good answers to the second question people have offered: the Pact Wizard does_2 the wizard better, the Razmiran Priest does_2 the sorcerer better, the Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain does_2 the warpriest better, the Qinggong Monk does the chained monk better, the Primalist does_2 the Bloodrager better.

That said, it was question 1 that I was particularly interested in (though I realize now that wasn't clear). Namely, what archetypes better fit the idea behind the class than the original class does? I.e., what archetypes are such that when you read them you think "this is what the original class should have been like all along?"

Lots of good suggestions regarding question 1 too. And, interestingly, some of these suggestions work as good answers to both questions...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
I'd say vivisectionist alchemists are better rogues than rogues. And of course there's the quinggong monk.

Yeah, nice. The Qinggong Monk clearly does_1 the chained monk better.

It is a straight power boost to the monk. But it does so by allowing the monk to pick from a much larger variety of mystical kung-fu-style powers and abilities, and so allows you to generate a much broader range of characters that fit the "mystical bad-ass martial artist" idea behind the monk than the original chained monk does. Really what the original monk class should have been like. Good one.

The Vivisectionist is an interesting suggestion for an archetype that does_1 the rogue better, though maybe a little less clear to me.

It's definitely an upgrade power-wise over the rogue, and it does seem to be a better fit for a lot of rogue concepts, especially supernatural rogues (given extracts). But Vivisectionist abilities like Mutagen and Brew Potion seem a little off, flavor-wise, for the "generally sneaky, skillful, but mundane operative" idea that the basic rogue seems to be aiming at. In any case, I certainly agree that a Vivisectionist is generally better at doing rogue stuff (spying, infiltrating, assassinating, etc) than the rogue is! Interesting...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor is much better than the core Inquisitor. Judgements are very limited per day, and the slayer studied target and sneak attack are always on, and do a better job of fitting the Van Helsing inspiration for the class.

That's a nice suggestion (and one I see The Pale King made too, and I missed). Yeah, it does seem you can make a pretty good case that the Sanctified Slayer does_1 the inquisitor better.

The Sanctified Slayer loses Judgment, which does kind of fit the Inquisitor idea. But it replaces it with Studied Target, Sneak Attack and (most importantly, flavor-wise) Slayer Talents, which seem to offer a number of ways of fleshing out the "religious monster-hunter/investigator" idea that the standard inquisitor doesn't offer. Hrmm... Nice one!

(None of this is to contest Claxon or Darigaaz's points about the basic Inquisitor being more effective in combat in some ways than the Sanctified Slayer, of course.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A couple other quick thoughts:

@The Pale King: I'm on board with thinking that the Sanctified Hunter is strictly more powerful than the hunter, but I'm less confident it does a better job of fitting the hunter flavor, mainly because the druid spell list seems to be a better fit with the hunter's "in-tune-with-nature warrior with lethal animal companion" theme than the inquisitor spell list.

@Lady-J: The Primalist is definitely more powerful than the basic bloodrager. Less clear to me whether it's truer to the idea behind the bloodrager... Though I'm not sure why I'm inclined to think that the Qinggong Monk is what the chained monk should have been all along, but less inclined to think that the Primalist is what the bloodrager should have been all along. Perhaps the Primalist seems too powerful (especially in comparison with the Barbarian) to be "what the bloodrager should have been"?... Hrmm...

@Claxon: I'm also on board with thinking that the Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain is (power-wise) almost always better than the warpriest. And flavor-wise... it's actually a pretty good fit to the basic warpriest idea, actually. It's not as malleable with the fixed War Blessing, and so a little less customizable. And insofar as one's trying to make the particular deity being worshiped an important part of the class, one that makes a clear mechanical difference, I guess it's not as good a fit. But part of the idea behind the warpriest seems to be "very-martially inclined religious type", and so the War Blessing seems to fit pretty much any character in that vein one might be inclined to make... Interesting...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the concept behind the Master of Many Styles monk and the Maneuver Master monk may be a better _1 Monk than the Core Monk: they are superior martial artists that excel at a particular kind of Wu Xia archetype.

The Qing Gong is also this, but in the opposite direction, being more mystical and less martial. I would suggest that the fact that this opposite-way-split equally doing the basic concept more justice is the result of one of the, well, uh, core problems with both the mechanics and RP of the Core monk: it's focus is scattered and distracted. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, of course, but it does suggest that the class doesn't really synergize with itself in either RP or mechanics elements as well.

On a number _2 note, the slayer class is, in general, probably a better ninja and definitely a better assassin than either of those classes, no matter how badly I want them both to rock the house.

This boils down to something oft repeated in optimizing suggestions: doing something half-way in the d20 system is usually strictly inferior to doing it all the way: this applies to BAB, as much as spellcasting (though 6/9 casters often seem more popular because they don't allow you to rewrite reality on a whim). There are plenty of exceptions, of course; for example, skills: when there are mutiple ways around a problem, a character that could solve all those ways is irrelevant: all you need is one. This is what makes casting so much more powerful than, say, a skill-focused rogue; add to that, things like Int boosting skills, means that even when skills are needed, they can be mostly supplied by intelligent casters. All this leads to:

_2: a sorcerer or wizard (and probably other classes) are better rogues than rogues. They get similar skill outputs (or can) and can bypass many skills altogether.

That said, Indont think that's the kind of thing you're looking for, sooooo...

_2: barbarians make better monks than monks: their greater rage, tendency toward light armor (or none for invulnerable rager) and ease in acquiring unarmed fighting styles (often ala natural attacks but also with things like brutal pugilist) along with their ability to snags various defensive or magical abilities make them better martial masters than the martial masters: file off/alter the fluff/names (including archetype names and abilities), and you may have a hard time telling which is supposed to be the actual mystical martial artist.
I make no claim that brutal pugilist, invulnerable rager, or any other particular archetype stack - I'm honestly not sure, at present; instead, I merely note that they function as a method of imitating elements of the monk in different ways.

All that said, I'd be curious about others' answers to _1, as well. I'm more well versed in _2, myself, but I've been falling behind of late due to real life getting in the way of gaming, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt or five.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, if you take the elemental ascetic kineticist, they make a much better mystic martial artist than the monk. They have a elemental theme, can make mystical unarmed strikes infused with elemental energy, and have access to all utility powers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

I'd say vivisectionist alchemists are better rogues than rogues. And of course there's the quinggong monk.

Imbicatus wrote:
Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor is much better than the core Inquisitor. Judgements are very limited per day, and the slayer studied target and sneak attack are always on, and do a better job of fitting the Van Helsing inspiration for the class.
Eh, I'd say the flexible boons of judgement are better, especially since they offer both offensive and defensive options.
Having looked over the Inquisitor vs the Sanctified Inquisitor I think the Sanctified Inquisitor is better early on. Once you reach point where you can use a Judgment each battle (about 4 judgment per day) the flexibility (and I think static bonus values) are higher from Judgment than Studied Target.

But sanctified still remains relevant after that point since its ability applies out of combat. Studied target is a great, generic 'be better' ability. You can spam it out of combat to give you bonuses to various skills. Not as great without the stalker ability, but still a nice little list.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think an argument can be made that the slayer "does_1" the fighter better than the fighter; in the vein of "customizable magicless slayer of monsters and men who masters their chosen combat style".

Crunch-wise, the option to pick up extra feats and ignore their prereqs like the ranger without the extra naturey stuff added on just feels like more of a fit to me. The extra skill points and talents certainly help, too.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The empiricist is almost a strictly better investigator.

Any Swashbuckler is basically a duelist without prerequisites and a better parry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've got a gut feeling the new Chronomancer wizard archetype will be joining the list...

Everytime I see an archetype outperform its base class, a bit of my D20 soul dies!!

It should NEVER happen with any class... its just poor design work by a dev end of story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't you have to apply studied target to each individual where as judgements run on everything in the combat?

I'm not really a fan of studied target until level 7 when it's a swift anyway, and at level ten I think I'd rather have 4 judgementsall going with second judgement. Slayer talents can be good for a ranger combat style if you're trying to do something awkward I guess, but you get em super late :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

Don't you have to apply studied target to each individual where as judgements run on everything in the combat?

I'm not really a fan of studied target until level 7 when it's a swift anyway, and at level ten I think I'd rather have 4 judgementsall going with second judgement. Slayer talents can be good for a ranger combat style if you're trying to do something awkward I guess, but you get em super late :/

How are you getting 4 judgments up at once?

And studied target isn't that bad for inquisitors, they only have 1 attack until 8, and studied target is already a swift then. Also being able to add it as an immediate when you pull off sneak attack means it's possible to trigger on an AoO if you have reach.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I meant four judgements a day you'll notice I didn't say all going at once.

Getting sneak attack on an AOO sounds kinda awkward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
I meant four judgements a day you'll notice I didn't say all going at once.

fair, but your line of "have 4 judgements all going with second judgement" can be read as, having 4 judgments all going because of second judgment. So I was confused. Thanks for clearing that up.

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Getting sneak attack on an AOO sounds kinda awkward.

It's not that bad if you want it, with the teamworks feats you can have and easier time obtaining flanks.

you're right that it's not likely, but it is possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see how it could be confusing what I said. I'm writing on a iPad and so I'm trying to be succinct xD sometimes my abbreviations seem confusing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just remembered another one (pointed out in different threads by Arachnofiend and Deadmanwalking):

Class: Swashbuckler
Archetype that does it better: Noble Fencer

The basic swashbuckler is supposed to be a mix of an unarmored fighter and a charisma-based face-type of character who can laugh in the face of terror.

The basic swashbuckler does an OK job at this, but besides the skill point boost, there isn't much (besides incentivizing charisma) that the class does to really emphasize the "face" angle. And with bad will saves, the swashbuckler is usually going to be the first one running when the party runs into fear effects. (They have Charmed Life, but that's a pretty mediocre ability.)

The Noble Fencer is better. Social Panache gives them a big boost to some key face skills, and Incredible Aspirations makes this even better. Top that off by replacing Charmed Life with a scaling boost to mind-affecting effects, and an ability that makes them immune to intimidation, and we get something which is a strictly better fit with the idea of a swashbuckler.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Master Summoner is, perhaps unsurprisingly, better at summoning than a regular Summoner.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Eldritch Scoundrel, a rogue archetype, on the basis that they are Lesser Wizards. And as lesser wizards, they are capable of rogue things while also just being able to do whatever they want, because they are also 6/9th of a wizard. This is in addition to actually being a rogue. And, particularly, can also be ninjas via getting access to ninja tricks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:

I think the concept behind the Master of Many Styles monk and the Maneuver Master monk may be a better _1 Monk than the Core Monk: they are superior martial artists that excel at a particular kind of Wu Xia archetype.

The Qing Gong is also this, but in the opposite direction, being more mystical and less martial. I would suggest that the fact that this opposite-way-split equally doing the basic concept more justice is the result of one of the, well, uh, core problems with both the mechanics and RP of the Core monk: it's focus is scattered and distracted. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, of course, but it does suggest that the class doesn't really synergize with itself in either RP or mechanics elements as well.

Nice. Given the idea of the Monk as the supreme martial artist who is throwing around various kinds of martial arts styles, constantly tripping, grappling, etc., the Master of Many Styles and the Maneuver Master do seem to better_1 fit the idea of the monk thank the monk does.

(And a nice point about the two conflicting ideas that the monk seems to be trying to fit. That does seem to explain some of the awkwardness of the class, with one batch of class features devoted to making them seem mystical (Purity of Body! Diamond Body!), and another batch of class features devoted to making them badass martial artists; two batches of abilities which don't necessarily synergize that well.)

Tacticslion wrote:
Lots of good stuff about classes/archetypes that are better_2 than another class

I think I agree with all of this -- the slayer as a better_2 ninja or assassin, the wizard as a better_2 rogue, and the barbarian as a better_2 (chained) monk.

Do you think the barbarian (with appropriate archetypes) is still better_2 than the unchained monk?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Ectar, on the Empiricist as a better_1 Investigator: Yeah, that's pretty much a slam dunk right there. You give up the ability to avoid accidentally poisoning yourself, some resistance to poison, and the ability to make alchemical items quickly, none of which really fits the Sherlock Holmes-style theme. And you give up a bonus to identifying poisons, which does fit theme. But what you get in its place -- getting to use your intelligence modifier for various key charisma-based spells, and bonuses to see through illusions representing you keen deductive ability to see the flaws in the illusions -- is a much better fit.

Moreover, this is a clear case where you look at the archetype and think "this really should have been the default class". Nice one!

And, of course, the swashbuckler (or a vigilante, or even a fighter, given the Advanced Weapon Training and Armor Training options) all seem to be better_1 (and better_2) than the poor duelist. Those early prestige classes really haven't aged very well...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Imbicatus, on the Elemental Ascetic Kineticist as a better_1 monk: ...that's an interesting point. I hadn't really thought about that, but for a certain mystical martial artist trope that sounds right, especially if you're thinking of a kind of Street Fighter-style martial master (with flaming fists and the like) who can do things like. Nice.

@Dasrak, on the Master Summoner as a better_1 summoner: The summoner is a class I have a kind of hard time getting a grip on. Is the focus of the class supposed to be "magical type who summons hordes of monsters" or "magical type with a super-powerful otherwordly ally"? And given that these two abilities can't be use simultaneously, the class feels a little awkward to me... In any case, insofar as the idea behind the summoner is supposed to be a magical caster-type who is constantly summoning hordes of monster, I agree that this is definitely a better_1 fit.

@Darigaaz, on the Slayer as a better_1 fighter: Yeah, the slayer does seem to do an awfully good jof of fitting the "customizable magicless slayer of monsters and men who masters their chosen combat style" trope. 18 months ago I would have definitely agree that it's clearly better_1, full stop. Now, given the dramatic fighter boosts that came along with the Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training feats, I'm a little less confident about this... But those ways of improving the fighter do seem to require an awful lot of system mastery, and kick in awfully late... So I think I might still agree that the slayer is a better_1 fighter than the fighter.

@Garbage-Tier Waifu, on the Eldrich Scoundrel as a better_1 rogue: I definitely agree that the Eldrich Scoundrel is a better_2 rogue. And given the magical support they can bring to bear, they're in a position to be better at pretty much all of the rogue stuff (spying, infiltrating, assassinating, finding and disarming traps, etc). They do have fewer skill points/lvl, but the high int they need for the spellcasting will probably offset that easily.

I'm not sure it's a better_1 rogue, though, because I'm not sure it fits the "generally sneaky, skillful, but mundane operative" idea that the basic rogue seems to be aiming at. But it is better in pretty much every other sense of "better"!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Porridge wrote:
@Dasrak, on the Master Summoner as a better_1 summoner: The summoner is a class I have a kind of hard time getting a grip on. Is the focus of the class supposed to be "magical type who summons hordes of monsters" or "magical type with a super-powerful otherwordly ally"? And given that these two abilities can't be use simultaneously, the class feels a little awkward to me... In any case, insofar as the idea behind the summoner is supposed to be a magical caster-type who is constantly summoning hordes of monster, I agree that this is definitely a better_1 fit.

The vanilla summoner is very bad at having large numbers of summoned creatures. His true strength isn't in bursting, but rather sustain. He has a large number of uses of the highest level Summon Monster spell, the duration is much longer than normal, he can activate it as a standard action, and he only begins to tap into it once his eidolon is downed. He may not be able to bring all that to bear at once, but that's a lot of resources. And that's true for both chained and unchained.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Teisatsu Vigilante archetype is basically the Stalker Vigilante, but with the ability to get Ki Powers instead of Rogue talents. So, I think it qualifies.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:

I've got a gut feeling the new Chronomancer wizard archetype will be joining the list...

Everytime I see an archetype outperform its base class, a bit of my D20 soul dies!!

It should NEVER happen with any class... its just poor design work by a dev end of story.

I'd debate that, I'd say it depends on the quality of the base class, as having to chain one's self to poor design due to previously made poor design isn't great like the swashbuckler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Where's the Chronomancer from? It's not showing up in my searches.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^+1 for being curious about that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Δaedalus wrote:
Where's the Chronomancer from? It's not showing up in my searches.

Its from the legacy of the first world book. Releases may 31st, but pdfs are already out.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd contest the notion that Razmiran Priest does Sorcerer better than Sorcerer does.

First of all, the main thing that the Razmiran Priest gains is the ability to branch out somewhat into divine spells. While that can be a very good ability, I don't see how that counts as "Sorcerer better than Sorcerer". It's gaining non-Sorcerer-like abilities that makes it strong, which is different. I have a lot more text coming, but this is the primary objection.

Then we go to the relative merits of the archtype.
* Losing Fly on your class list can be a pretty big hit if your GM pays any attention to Fly skill rules.
* False Focus can be very powerful, but only if you are casting the sort of spells that make use of the cost bypass & think money on that scale is a problem. Still, it's better than Eschew Materials overall.
* The value of Lay Healer depends entirely on which bloodline spells you are otherwise giving up. The ceiling on the ability is pretty low, however, since Aid and Remove Disease aren't first rank picks even if you are trying to be the party cleric. A LOT of bloodlines have better second level spells than Aid. Quite a few have better first level bloodline spells than Remove Disease.
* It's hard to know how to evaluate Razmiran Channel. Just which spells are you casting out of wands and such? How much spell energy are you willing to fritter away to get a limited amount of divine spell access - particularly so since by my reading you are still casting the divine spell off the wand (or whatever), meaning your spell DC and caster level are restricted. Casting Heal off a scroll from 7th level slots is obviously sick, but most of the options won't be nearly as good as a Disintegrate. It sounds somewhere between good and iffy to me. The value of level 9 bloodline powers varies dramatically as well, so it's hard to tell whether this is even better.

Mostly, we're giving up a lot to get access to a spell list that has important options but is overall weaker than your native arcane spell list. And relying on inefficient items to do so.

Is the Razmiran Priest stronger than a normal Sorcerer? Over time, probably. (I suspect that it is weaker per engagement.) That's vastly different from saying that it is a better Sorcerer than the Sorcerer though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that Razmiran Priest is considered OP because it can even use scrolls with an expensive material component. You can essentially get every cleric, druid, paladin/antipaladin, hunter, inquisitor, ranger, and shaman spell of level 8 and below on your spell list with what amounts to an expensive component for even the most expensive of spell components. Want to resurrect everyone you meet? Okay, do you have the scroll and an 8th level spell slot? Done!

EDIT: With a bit more trickery, you can also snag the Occultist's spell list.
Adepts, too. Forgot them.
They both have some decent spells on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

For a generic "beater" fighter, the Unbreakable fighter is a superior choice. You give up some bonuses with weapon attacks to gain numerous advantages to saving throws, particularly those troublesome Will ones. In fact, the downsides don't even really kick in until high levels, so the Unbreakable fighter is almost certainly a better two level dip for an Eldritch Knight or a multiclassed barbarian.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
For a generic "beater" fighter, the Unbreakable fighter is a superior choice. You give up some bonuses with weapon attacks to gain numerous advantages to saving throws, particularly those troublesome Will ones. In fact, the downsides don't even really kick in until high levels, so the Unbreakable fighter is almost certainly a better two level dip for an Eldritch Knight or a multiclassed barbarian.

almost no archetype beats vanilla fighter at being a fighter since advanced training is out

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can argue that the various "specialized" Fighter archetypes like Two-Handed Fighter, Phalanx Soldier, and such do a better job of reflecting the character concepts that most people have when making Fighters - it's much more common for someone to be thinking "I want to be the ultimate greatsword user" or "I want to be the ultimate pikeman" than "I want to be really good at wielding a wide variety of weapons", in which case you don't need the Weapon Training in five different weapon groups offered by the base class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cenorin wrote:
You can argue that the various "specialized" Fighter archetypes like Two-Handed Fighter, Phalanx Soldier, and such do a better job of reflecting the character concepts that most people have when making Fighters - it's much more common for someone to be thinking "I want to be the ultimate greatsword user" or "I want to be the ultimate pikeman" than "I want to be really good at wielding a wide variety of weapons", in which case you don't need the Weapon Training in five different weapon groups offered by the base class.

I'd dispute that - PF pushes you into specialising in a weapon via feats and the cost of enchanting multiple weapons, but characters which people seek to emulate are generally able to fight well with fists or swords or whatever other weapons are in-genre. The limitations of the game create those character 'concepts' you mention rather than any outside ideas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cenorin wrote:
You can argue that the various "specialized" Fighter archetypes like Two-Handed Fighter, Phalanx Soldier, and such do a better job of reflecting the character concepts that most people have when making Fighters - it's much more common for someone to be thinking "I want to be the ultimate greatsword user" or "I want to be the ultimate pikeman" than "I want to be really good at wielding a wide variety of weapons", in which case you don't need the Weapon Training in five different weapon groups offered by the base class.

many many of the advanced training options are really good and not worth losing

1 to 50 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Archetypes that do a class better than the class does All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.