Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

What is your favorite Divine Class?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

As the title asks, What is your favorite Divine class? For me, Only one I played was Cleric so I' have to try more of them, But I like the idea of them.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

You know, I haven't played a lot of them, but I've been having fun playing as a Dark Tapestry Shaman. This class has a decent apell list and I love what it does with your familiar's look and feel.


I like Paladins a lot, but my second favorite is the Oracle. Which I'd play sort of depends on fitting the rest of the party.

I'm playing a Paladin now and would like to give an Ascetic mystery Oracle a try next.


Warpriest. The power to heal, the power to hurt, the burden of swift actions.

Second place goes to a well-played paladin. Nothing quite like the spirit of Steve Rogers in the party.


Although I've yet to play one the Oracle is my favourite class in the game. I love the flavour.

I've played a cleric, and although the campaign (Kingmaker) ended several years ago I'm more emotionally attached to her than any other character I've played in 35 years.

I'm currently playing a paladin and having a lot of fun with her.

That said the cleric and the paladin are my least favourite classes mechanically because they get so few choices compared to other classes.


Oracle
The're awesome


Oracles are great, and Rage Prophets are fun.


Oracle. Hands down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inquisitor (looks at all with suspicion)


My favorite? Druid, hands down. The sheer versatility built into that class, you can build toward nearly any role AND have 9th level casting to back it up. Coming in at distant second is the Shaman, with Oracle trailing a close third. Warpriest and Inquisitor are tied with Fourth, with Hunter close behind. I put Cleric at the end. Paladin & Ranger don't make the list because I consider them martials. There is a divine archetype for the bard but I haven't played one, so ... Yeah. I'd probably still rank them above the Cleric.

Note, this is not ranked by power, just my personal preference.


I like the Inquisitor because it is so well rounded. Good combat ability, 6th lvl spell casting with a decent variety of spells, good skill points, good self-buffing combat class abilities, good non-combat class abilities, etc.

Liberty's Edge

Warpriest. Has all I could ask for from a martial, plus a boatload of spell utility when combat isn't on the menu.


Oracle. It's the only one (I'm aware of) that casts spontaneously and, as such, is the only one I'll play.

Grand Lodge

Oh, Oracle all the way. I have two in Society play, and I will soon be playing through Eyes of the Ten with one of them.
Oracles have a lot of pretty powerful and unique abilities.
My latest Oracle is a Gnome Lunar oracle with a crocodile animal companion. The Spirit Guide is kind of a broken archetype but with it my Gnome can play nearly any role in the party, all while buffing his croc who will eventually be able to get up to 3 bite attacks per round, each with the grab ability and death roll (constrict + auto trip)
Oracles are fun even just as a buffer class.


I would go with Hunter, then Paladin, then Oracle. Cleric druid inquisitor and finally shaman as last place.

I guess I didn't include antipaladin. No foreseeable future to play one.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shaman and Druid.
Versatile and stuff like Hexes or Wildshape are so much fun.

Followed by Cleric and Inquisitor but Oracle and Hunter are close.
Never played a Warpriest but the Sacred Fist is appealing.

Ranger is nice but i prefer healers over fighters.
Paladin is nearly out of play.


Inquisitors have it all. Great Combat options. Great Out-of-Combat options. It's great for newbie beginners, it's greats for veteran optimizers. There's pretty much no situation where an Inquisitor is a detriment to a party.

After that, Paladins for immunities and defenses (I like playing tank, and Paladins easily come closest to fulfilling that role), then Oracle for sheer power + breadth of builds (the most powerful character I've ever theory-crafted, was an Oracle).


Zhayne wrote:
Oracle. It's the only one (I'm aware of) that casts spontaneously and, as such, is the only one I'll play.

For what it's worth, inquisitor is also spontaneous. I like inquisitor well enough, but more in the sense that I like the gud numburs it gives than the flavor.

Kaouse wrote:

Inquisitors have it all. Great Combat options. Great Out-of-Combat options. It's great for newbie beginners, it's greats for veteran optimizers. There's pretty much no situation where an Inquisitor is a detriment to a party.

After that, Paladins for immunities and defenses (I like playing tank, and Paladins easily come closest to fulfilling that role), then Oracle for sheer power + breadth of builds (the most powerful character I've ever theory-crafted, was an Oracle).

What do you feel makes inquisitor good for beginners? It has 4-5 resource pools to keep track of, and you need to make careful use of them (except Bane I guess) to really get a lot out of it. That sounds like a recipe for headaches for someone new to the game.

Silver Crusade

They're all pretty awesome. Picking just one is difficult.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Green Smashomancer wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Oracle. It's the only one (I'm aware of) that casts spontaneously and, as such, is the only one I'll play.

For what it's worth, inquisitor is also spontaneous. I like inquisitor well enough, but more in the sense that I like the gud numburs it gives than the flavor.

Kaouse wrote:

Inquisitors have it all. Great Combat options. Great Out-of-Combat options. It's great for newbie beginners, it's greats for veteran optimizers. There's pretty much no situation where an Inquisitor is a detriment to a party.

After that, Paladins for immunities and defenses (I like playing tank, and Paladins easily come closest to fulfilling that role), then Oracle for sheer power + breadth of builds (the most powerful character I've ever theory-crafted, was an Oracle).

What do you feel makes inquisitor good for beginners? It has 4-5 resource pools to keep track of, and you need to make careful use of them (except Bane I guess) to really get a lot out of it. That sounds like a recipe for headaches for someone new to the game.

Inquisitors are a class where you are given everything out of the box:

You want more offenses? Justice/Destruction/Smiting/Piercing Judgement.
Not enough? You also get Bane.

You want more defenses? Protection/Purity/Resistance/Resiliency Judgement.
Not enough? You also get Stalwart.

As for utility, you get the ability to Identify, Track, Intimidate, Sense Motive and even Discern Lies, all from your class features alone. Everything you need to be a functioning member of a party all on the class's original page.

Spells are literally just gravy for you. But despite that, you get spells to increase almost every aspect of your character, from offense (Divine Power, Wrath) to defense (Ward the Faithful, Heal), to tons of utility (Focused Scrutiny, Greater Invisibility, Heroism, etc.).

Compare this to the Shifter, who has limited utility, no easy access to either offensive or defensive buffs, and has to look at a million different places just to get a workable character that won't be outshined by an NPC.

Which one do you think is better for a newbie? I'm of the opinion that newbie classes should have strong options that aren't traps, since they are the ones most likely to fall into said traps. Playing a weak character who can barely contribute isn't a fun first time experience.


Kaouse wrote:
Green Smashomancer wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Oracle. It's the only one (I'm aware of) that casts spontaneously and, as such, is the only one I'll play.

For what it's worth, inquisitor is also spontaneous. I like inquisitor well enough, but more in the sense that I like the gud numburs it gives than the flavor.

Kaouse wrote:

Inquisitors have it all. Great Combat options. Great Out-of-Combat options. It's great for newbie beginners, it's greats for veteran optimizers. There's pretty much no situation where an Inquisitor is a detriment to a party.

After that, Paladins for immunities and defenses (I like playing tank, and Paladins easily come closest to fulfilling that role), then Oracle for sheer power + breadth of builds (the most powerful character I've ever theory-crafted, was an Oracle).

What do you feel makes inquisitor good for beginners? It has 4-5 resource pools to keep track of, and you need to make careful use of them (except Bane I guess) to really get a lot out of it. That sounds like a recipe for headaches for someone new to the game.

Inquisitors are a class where you are given everything out of the box:

You want more offenses? Justice/Destruction/Smiting/Piercing Judgement.
Not enough? You also get Bane.

You want more defenses? Protection/Purity/Resistance/Resiliency Judgement.
Not enough? You also get Stalwart.

As for utility, you get the ability to Identify, Track, Intimidate, Sense Motive and even Discern Lies, all from your class features alone. Everything you need to be a functioning member of a party all on the class's original page.

Spells are literally just gravy for you. But despite that, you get spells to increase almost every aspect of your character, from offense (Divine Power, Wrath) to defense (Ward the Faithful, Heal), to tons of utility (Focused Scrutiny, Greater Invisibility, Heroism, etc.).

Compare this to the Shifter, who has limited utility, no easy access to either offensive or defensive buffs, and has to look at a million...

First off, I know why you brought up the shifter since its the new coolest thing to hate, but the Ranger and Slayer are both classes that make popular recommendations for new players in my experience. The only reason to pick the Shifter is because it's a popular punching bag to make an argument look weak.

All of what you listed is indeed good (except judgements). It's also all different sources of numbers to keep track of from multiple pools, and option overload is a very real thing. Not to mention the book keeping needed for a newbie to comb through and remember "Right! I have X, Y, and Z going. Now I just need to add those numbers to my starting numbers, and track how many uses of each I have left now. Wait, whats the difference between resiliency and resistance judgements? Isn't resistance a spell? Etc...

The Inquisitor is good. But I've never seen more moving parts make the game move more smoothly for a new player.

But no-one will ever convince me judgements are good. Until we get Advanced Judgement Training.


Judgements are a hell of a lot stronger AND more versatile than Base Weapon Training. Literally the only problem I have with them is their limited use. An "Extra Judgement" feat would be far more apt than "Advanced Judgement Training."

Ranger and Slayer are both really good classes for beginners to. Why? Because they don't have many trap options and they give you pretty much everything you need to be halfway decent at most aspects of Pathfinder, right out of the box.

Inquisitor does as well. Hence it being a good class for beginners. I didn't say it was the best beginner class, but it's certainly a lot better than the Shifter. The reason why I chose the Shifter as an example was because it the most recent class released (thus fresh in the memory of many), whose terribleness was actually *excused* as being a "training wheel" class. Of course this doesn't really make sense unless you want newbies to suck and fall behind without the heavy optimization needed to make the Shifter halfway decent.

I could also have suggested Core Rulebook Fighter, whose terribleness also gets excused as being a "training wheel" class for newbies. But like the Shifter, they also require heavy optimization to be able to contribute to a party effectively at mid-to-high levels.

Here's an example of what I mean: A newbie is young and naive, and wants to take a training wheel class like the CRB Fighter. He likes the idea of ripping into his foes and doing a lot of damage, so he focuses on melee DPS.

One day, he runs into a flying creature. Unprepared for this, what does he do? As a Fighter, if he isn't optimized for ranged combat, then he likely has a poor DEX with a poor attack bonus and thus poor damage with a bow he likely didn't bother to enchant. His entire job is DPS, so being ineffective at it here basically means that he feels completely useless for the duration of the encounter.

Inquisitors are different though. Even if he's totally unprepared, Justice + Destruction Judgements still work properly, whether melee or ranged. Bane still works properly. All of his spells still work properly.

The same can be said about defenses. The Fighter gets armor and calls it a day. But the moment a ghost comes and tries to touch him, the Fighter may as well be naked. If an enemy wizard lobs a Fireball, the Fighter is least likely to make it. Heaven forfend they attack his Will save!

The Inquisitor, on the other hand? Still has access to Protection, increasing his AC even against incorporeals and other touch attacks. Still has Purity + Stalwart for great saving throws against magical foes. Even has Resistance to cut down on the damage.

Do you understand my point now? A good newbie class should be capable of responding to the breadth of situations encountered in Pathfinder, even if said player is unaware of what situations may arise. The Inquisitor can do that out of the box, even if you neglect certain aspects of their kit (i.e. spellcasting).

A CRB Fighter or a Shifter cannot; they need to play in a more optimized and reserved way, choosing only the right options and avoiding traps. But to avoid traps, you need to know that they are there in the first place, meaning that these classes often touted as pro-newbie, are in fact bad for newbies.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

All about that Oracle.


Inquisitors also have alignment bull**** and power loss mechanics, so screw that.


Eh, I still think Inquisitors and Paladins are among the best classes for Newbies to play, even with the alignment issue. At least from a mechanical standpoint. Rangers have to worship nature or w/e and apparently they too are considered newb-friendly, so I don't really think that there's much difference there.


Ranger I think is the easiest starter class for a new person. Give em decent perception, a bit of switch hit, a themed favoured enemy. The new player is then neither lost in complexity or lost in mediocrity or just lost with nothing to contribute

Silver Crusade

Paladin, full stop.

Oracles seem really cool, but I haven't played one in a game that lasted terribly long (all PbP campaigns, all dead fast) with the exception of a gestalt game, but that wasn't pure oracle.

I don't play too many divine casters beyond that. Clerics are ok, druids are ok. Although one of my favorite characters I played was a cleric of Calistria, but that was more the RP than the class that made her awesome.


Simple, Inquisitor.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oracle, Inquisitor, Druid.


Actually i think Oracles are the only Divine class that DOESN'T have some type of power loss restriction that dictates how their character must be played.

But of the classes with restrictions, I think Cleric/Inquisitor have it easiest since it's not too difficult to find a deity whose interests match your own.

Paladins HAVE to be a particular alignment, Druids HAVE to not be a particular alignment but have other nature-themed restrictions, Rangers have many of those same restrictions as Druids, etc.

The Exchange

Shamans and Rangers doesn't have any restrictions trough alignment ore else too.
I think you mean the Hunter.


Shaman, hands down.

I can't wait until we get some new Spirit options, but even now they're insanely fun and versatile.


Druid, with oracle a close second. I'm terrible at pretending to be religious.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was raised Catholic, so I had a lot of practice.

Sovereign Court

Druid and Warpriest.


The Cleric remains my primary option whenever I'm joining/playing a new campaign. They're pretty boring, but I like the support aspect of it. And depending on your choice of deity, rarely any Cleric will look alike.

Second option is the Shaman. Also ridiculously customisable, with an interesting spell list and class abilities.


Paladins are my favorite of all the divine classes, I love that they represent RP as a mechanical aspect to the game as opposed to the more general murderhoboquest that people want/expect from the game. I hate chaotic neutral with such a passion.

Rangers are my go-to class though if I have no idea what to play or if I'm joining a group for the first time.


Oracle with a dip into Rage Prophet, as I like to be able to both cast and melee.

I've played paladins, rangers, and clerics, but nothing owns quite like the oracle.


Oracle. Plenty of power, lots of fun abilities, a lot of completely different themes for the class, good access to healing (all cure spells and spontaneous heal/breath of life to spam) and the only class that gets a flavor drawback baked into the mechanics which doesn't bother me. Shaman is right behind it, because while it has most of these benefits (admittedly different good healing), it also has less support and is harder to work with both mechanically and thematically for me.

Also Inquisitor and Druids are right behind those two, both because I like what the classes can do, and I like the flavor, but I often am bad at combining the flavor with my RPing.


Paladin - Accept no substitute.

Grand Lodge

Druids. Wild shaping and animal companions are just too fun to pass up. That being said, I'm hard-pressed to find a divine class I dislike. Maybe the warpriest, but I'm just lukewarm on that class. No actual dislike. Shamans and Inquisitors are a close tie for second.


My group tends to dislike clerics. This is because we think every party needs one - at low to mid levels healing spells can't compete with channeling.

At the start of every campaign someone always asks, "Whose turn is it to play the cleric?" And someone volunteers, though often they'd hoped to play something else.

However the volunteer often gives it his all, putting more effort into playing the cleric than he would have put into his preferred class. Consequently some of the most memorable characters our group has produced have been clerics. Indeed my all-time favourite character is the cleric I played in Kingmaker, even though I don't really like the class.


Druids and Paladins are my top two classes period. Ironically, I don't like any other divine classes very much(though Divine Paragon might change that for me). Both of these classes I find to be almost criminally underrated by most people I know. Versatility is my favorite thing in a class and the Druid is the paragon of versatility. Paladin is just cool and mechanically effective.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I like them all. Oracle wants to be my favorite, but I would probably go with Cleric if I could only pick one.

Also, Reliquarian Occultist is pretty nifty.


Paladin. But that leads to problems possibly, so Shaman.

My two times playing Shaman were conflicted but I see what it can do. Pretty flexible and can pull a variety of powers that change daily if you want.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Divine paragon has really changed cleric for me - I find the class unforgivably boring and generic otherwise.

I don't really like base inquisitor that much, with all its moving parts, but I respect it. And there are plenty of archetypes to let me trade out those pieces.

I'm a little uncomfortable with oracle's extremely single-ability-dependent design from a design perspective, but I like it all right. Curses are cool and flavorful, and while the mysteries are a mixed bag, they're generally interesting.

I love paladins, but their power level makes me slightly troubled at times. My preferred paladins to play are those that trade smite for buffs or defense (loyal oath, martyr).

I'm ambivalent about druid, honestly. They're certainly good, I'm just not terribly motivated to play one.

Hunter and ranger are good - I don't often feel the urge to play them, but I like what they're doing and I'm glad to have them around.

Warpriest has its uses. I use them more as NPCs than as PCs, since they share the cleric's indistinguishability problem.

I'm sure there's a few I missed. But that's my basic overview. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adept.

I am the defacto GM of my group. I also run a homebrew that's lousy with fey... but also has a lot of dragons and kobolds.

A Kobold Adept 5 is a CR 2 threat. I love being able to load up tons of levels of this NPC class on a kobold and having it still come out to a manageable foe.

I also love how versatile this one NPC class is. You've got a couple Arcane, a couple Divine spells, so with some specific selections you can make it appear to be either type of caster. You've got a familiar that, with all the new options you can actually USE in the encounter now.

The only downside for me is defense. Kobolds have decent low-level options like a Natural Armor bonus, Small size and a bonus to Dex, but Adept has no armor skills and D6 HP. If I want to bolster my villain's defenses and really get that "Cleric" or "Warpriest" vibe, I'll take a level dip into Warrior.

A kobold Adept 5/Warrior 2 mounted on its Mauler familiar, firing off 5d4 Burning Hands spells re-flavored to appear as if it is breathing cones of fire is a cool CR 4 end boss for a group of level 1-3 PCs!

Liberty's Edge

Cleric is my favorite. I've had more cleric PCs than PCs of any other class, and I have such a predilection that when I'm making NPCs I have to consciously stop myself from going, "Now THIS is how it would work on a cleric." They can't cover every possible role, but they sure do have wild flavor options within their niches. They're also good for newbies who aren't sure how to build a character yet: as long as they don't dump Strength, Wisdom, AND Charisma, they're going to have something useful to do on the battlefield.

The class certainly has its flaws, though . . . the lack of skills is frustrating, and the power of some high-level spells can outshine even the GM's boss monster. A melee-focused cleric can feel forced off the front line and into spellcasting around level 10, when their high-level spells become so much more potent than their melee.


...The Evangelist prestige class, even if that answer seems like cheating. I can play whatever other class I want and still be a divinely blessed servant.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Adept.

A Kobold Adept 5 is a CR 2 threat. I love being able to load up tons of levels of this NPC class on a kobold and having it still come out to a manageable foe.

A kobold Adept 5/Warrior 2 mounted on its Mauler familiar...is a cool CR 4 end boss for a group of level 1-3 PCs!

Adding NPCs: Creatures whose Hit Dice are solely a factor of their class levels and not a feature of their race, such as all of the PC races detailed in Races, are factored into combats a little differently than normal monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. If this reduction would reduce a creature's CR to below 1, its CR drops one step on the following progression for each step below 1 this reduction would make: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8.

Adept 5 = CR 3; Adept5/Warrior 2 = CR 5.

Cleric is my favorite. CR = Level-1 (worth it for: heroic ability score array, higher equipment budget, max hitpoints for first level AND 2 domains, armor, d8 hit dice, channel energy)

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / What is your favorite Divine Class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.