Paladin archer or Inquisitor archer?


Advice

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange

I'm interested in making a new ranged character with divine powers and/or spells for PFS. Any advice on which would be (1) more combat effective, (2) tactically more interesting, and (3) better party support?

Dark Archive

Thrar wrote:

I'm interested in making a new ranged character with divine powers and/or spells for PFS. Any advice on which would be (1) more combat effective, (2) tactically more interesting, and (3) better party support?

1) More Combat effective is realative, I think both would be on equal ground depending on situation.

2) I think you will find the Inquisitor a bit more interesting, they have a bit more in options to start with.
3) Once again due to the increase in options I think the Inquisitor better fits the role of support.

The Exchange

Nimon wrote:
Thrar wrote:

I'm interested in making a new ranged character with divine powers and/or spells for PFS. Any advice on which would be (1) more combat effective, (2) tactically more interesting, and (3) better party support?

1) More Combat effective is realative, I think both would be on equal ground depending on situation.

2) I think you will find the Inquisitor a bit more interesting, they have a bit more in options to start with.
3) Once again due to the increase in options I think the Inquisitor better fits the role of support.

Thanks, Nimon.

As far as combat effectiveness, the Paladin has a much better BAB. So, against evil opponents (where the Paladin's smite applies), I wonder how a ranged inquisitor would be able to compete?


Thrar wrote:
Nimon wrote:
Thrar wrote:

I'm interested in making a new ranged character with divine powers and/or spells for PFS. Any advice on which would be (1) more combat effective, (2) tactically more interesting, and (3) better party support?

1) More Combat effective is realative, I think both would be on equal ground depending on situation.

2) I think you will find the Inquisitor a bit more interesting, they have a bit more in options to start with.
3) Once again due to the increase in options I think the Inquisitor better fits the role of support.

Thanks, Nimon.

As far as combat effectiveness, the Paladin has a much better BAB. So, against evil opponents (where the Paladin's smite applies), I wonder how a ranged inquisitor would be able to compete?

Smite is powerful but it only works against one foe. The Inquisitor's judgement, while weaker lasts for the whole combat against all foes and can be changed as the situation requires and does not have alignment restriction on susceptible targets.. The addition of a changeable bane also gives quite a bit of combat versatility. Paladins are great going mano a mano while inquisitor's can be very powerful vs multiple enemy types

Grand Lodge

as well as more interesting skill selection and additional skill points if your game isnt combat focused 100%

Scarab Sages

Don't forget, that while the Pally has full BAB, the Inquisitor gets the judgement of Justice which adds +1 to his To Hit, which means he doesnt lag behind the Pally by all that much. Further, I like a lot of the Inquisitions as opposed to the Domains, but thats just me. Some help make the character a lot less MAD than it would seem to have to be.


Thrar wrote:

I'm interested in making a new ranged character with divine powers and/or spells for PFS. Any advice on which would be (1) more combat effective, (2) tactically more interesting, and (3) better party support?

1) Inquisitor.

Alone his Teamwork Feats which work with all party members are really good.
The one allowing you to act in the suprise round if any of your allies can is very neat. And it even enables you to full attack if you could act in the suprise round and any ally can.

Plus he has the better Spell List (Divine Favour etc pp) combined with his really neat judgements.
His Bane Ability also "almost" mimics a Smite, but is usable against any enemy you may encounter. Not to mention that he can savely dump Cha for higher other attributes putting you ahead in attribute by a large margin (most paladins will spend 10 points of it while you get 4 out of it... giving you 14 to spend on other attributes compared to the paladin) of the MAD Paladin.

Also the ability to get a domain is REALLY good. Animal is surely one of the most powerful for you, getting you a free AC (Big cat with Boon Companion...) or the Liberation Domain (automatic Freedom of Movement) or even the Travel Domain (+10ft speed, mini Dimension Door).

2. A Paladin has tactics? He smites or not... and then he full attacks.

As a Inquisitor you have access to the Teamwork Feats (you can even swap them!) probably have an Animal to fight with and a lot more versatile.

Also you have 6+Int Skillpoints instead of 2+Int. Not even mentioning that most paladins will dump Int to 8 or 7 because they have no other dump attributes, especially when going Archer.

3. Unless you are high level (and your smite adds up to the rest of the party) you won't be much of a support at all with your Paladin.


The 3/4 BAB of the inquisitor can be somewhat of a problem with some of the archery feats.


leo1925 wrote:
The 3/4 BAB of the inquisitor can be somewhat of a problem with some of the archery feats.

The only thing I can come up with is Manyshot... probably Improved Precise Shot... but that one isn't a must in my eyes...


Alienfreak wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
The 3/4 BAB of the inquisitor can be somewhat of a problem with some of the archery feats.
The only thing I can come up with is Manyshot... probably Improved Precise Shot... but that one isn't a must in my eyes...

That's correct.

That means getting manyshot at 9th level earliest and improved precise shot at 15th level earliest, and yes improved precise shot may not be a must but the more tighter spaces you battle in and the more understanding your DM has of the cover rules then the more useful it gets.


leo1925 wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
The 3/4 BAB of the inquisitor can be somewhat of a problem with some of the archery feats.
The only thing I can come up with is Manyshot... probably Improved Precise Shot... but that one isn't a must in my eyes...

That's correct.

That means getting manyshot at 9th level earliest and improved precise shot at 15th level earliest, and yes improved precise shot may not be a must but the more tighter spaces you battle in and the more understanding your DM has of the cover rules then the more useful it gets.

as a archer as non fighter you will hardly have enough feats anyway. so i dont think it hurts to get it at lvl 9...


Alienfreak wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
The 3/4 BAB of the inquisitor can be somewhat of a problem with some of the archery feats.
The only thing I can come up with is Manyshot... probably Improved Precise Shot... but that one isn't a must in my eyes...

That's correct.

That means getting manyshot at 9th level earliest and improved precise shot at 15th level earliest, and yes improved precise shot may not be a must but the more tighter spaces you battle in and the more understanding your DM has of the cover rules then the more useful it gets.
as a archer as non fighter you will hardly have enough feats anyway. so i dont think it hurts to get it at lvl 9...

Might be true, the only archer i have played was a ranger (which means i had bonus feats)


leo1925 wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
The 3/4 BAB of the inquisitor can be somewhat of a problem with some of the archery feats.
The only thing I can come up with is Manyshot... probably Improved Precise Shot... but that one isn't a must in my eyes...

That's correct.

That means getting manyshot at 9th level earliest and improved precise shot at 15th level earliest, and yes improved precise shot may not be a must but the more tighter spaces you battle in and the more understanding your DM has of the cover rules then the more useful it gets.
as a archer as non fighter you will hardly have enough feats anyway. so i dont think it hurts to get it at lvl 9...
Might be true, the only archer i have played was a ranger (which means i had bonus feats)

Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Shot, Precise Shot and Manyshot are a must. Those are 5 feats which means, unless you are human, you get one at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. So the earliest for Manyshot is 9 anyway. If you are Human Weapon Focus is a great choice as well as later on the Feats with which you get Threatened Area around yourself while using a bow.

A good race for an Archer is Elf because you can get Elven Accuracy and the one (dunno which) with which you can attack one in melee and if you hit he gets pushed back 5ft...

So if you are human you MAY get Many Shot as early as 7 with the Paladin if you skip Weapon Focus. Which I wouldn't to be honest.


And I forgot to add that with 24 hours of downtime oyu can switch your Big Cat AC to a Roc AC... who is also large and is the perfect mount for archers in the open. Flying mount yes please!

Sovereign Court

Thrar wrote:

I'm interested in making a new ranged character with divine powers and/or spells for PFS. Any advice on which would be (1) more combat effective, (2) tactically more interesting, and (3) better party support?

Honestly I would highly suggest looking at the Paladin archetypes from Ultimate combat. The Divine Hunter is an Archer archetype for the paladin.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---pal adin-archetypes/divine-hunter

1) I think in general the paladin will be more combat effective. (even more so with the Divine Hunter archetype)
2) Tactically more interesting this is quite subjective. They are very similar in many ways. While the judgments are more flexible they are less power outright than a smite. The bane ability is nice but the weapon bond is better I think. Both have access to the new Litany spells which I think are crazy good. The teamwork feats are not great for archery but they can be interesting.
3) better Support? Well both can be good at diplomacy and other social interactions. Inquisitor pulls a head slightly here when out of combat. However, in combat channel energy, lay on hands and good hope all fall in the paladins playground. The mercies can be quite handy and being able to use them at range with the Divine hunter pulls them a head in the combat support area.

I think the Paladin and the Inquisitor are well balanced with each other. The inquisitor gives you a bit more spell casting and general flexibility. While the paladin outputs more damage in most situations and has a strong core role and support during combat.

If your goal is to be the parties primary ranged attacker go paladin.
If your goal is to primarily support the party in any situation and be okay at archery then go inquisitor, but if you really want to focus on support then look at bard.


Doctor Smite wrote:
Thrar wrote:

I'm interested in making a new ranged character with divine powers and/or spells for PFS. Any advice on which would be (1) more combat effective, (2) tactically more interesting, and (3) better party support?

Honestly I would highly suggest looking at the Paladin archetypes from Ultimate combat. The Divine Hunter is an Archer archetype for the paladin.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---pal adin-archetypes/divine-hunter

1) I think in general the paladin will be more combat effective. (even more so with the Divine Hunter archetype)
2) Tactically more interesting this is quite subjective. They are very similar in many ways. While the judgments are more flexible they are less power outright than a smite. The bane ability is nice but the weapon bond is better I think. Both have access to the new Litany spells which I think are crazy good. The teamwork feats are not great for archery but they can be interesting.
3) better Support? Well both can be good at diplomacy and other social interactions. Inquisitor pulls a head slightly here when out of combat. However, in combat channel energy, lay on hands and good hope all fall in the paladins playground. The mercies can be quite handy and being able to use them at range with the Divine hunter pulls them a head in the combat support area.

I think the Paladin and the Inquisitor are well balanced with each other. The inquisitor gives you a bit more spell casting and general flexibility. While the paladin outputs more damage in most situations and has a strong core role and support during combat.

If your goal is to be the parties primary ranged attacker go paladin.
If your goal is to primarily support the party in any situation and be okay at archery then go inquisitor, but if you really want to focus on support then look at bard.

1. Whys that

2. The Paladin has no tactics whatsoever to use. He attacks. And if he can smite a target he even deals some damage. If he can't his damage lacks big time.
The Inqusitor can have a Big Cat buddy... or a Roc as a mount flying above the battlefield and raining down arrows.This alone outlines how diverse you can be. One day you have your meatshield pouncing damage dealer buddy the next day you circle the battlefield from above. Thats some real tactical diversity.
Or he sticks to his really good Spelllist and casts some cool spells instead of outright attacking.

Weapon Bond is actually worse than the Bane ability. Weapon Bond is a standart action to usewhile the Bane ability is a swift action. So the Paladin will have a round in which he can't attack at all while the Inquisitor maybe already deals 80+DMG and you can never make up that. Not to mention that Greater Magic Weapon and Bane are usually better because it can surpass the +5 enhancement bonus.
Including the swift action Judgements (2 at lvl 8? or so) you will get to hit and to damage against any enemy you can possibly find. If the target isn't evil the Paladin is about as useless as a Wizard Archer...
3.Lay on Hands isn't really better than the Cure spells of the Inquisitor. Especially considering that you have to pump up your Cha to be able to really use it. Only the ranged LoH maybe up to it but it costs a lot of points and whithout gimping yourself with all on Cha you won't use it often. Plus you are giving up your Smite Aura for it. So not a good deal in my eyes.


Alienfreak wrote:


1. Whys that

It's a full BAB class. Full BAB equal better attack bonus equal more damage. It also affects damage from deadly aim and Paladin can get feat with BAB prereq earlier.

It has spells like bless weapon, divine favor and with the magical knack the caster level is only Paladin level -1.
It got divine bond.
It got smite evil and let's face it most monsters/foes are evil. And Smite bypass all DR even slashing, etc. And when not smite foes, he can use divine favor and/or divine bond. Also he is a full BAB class so the damage output will be higher just because of that.

Alienfreak wrote:


Weapon Bond is actually worse than the Bane ability. Weapon Bond is a standart action to usewhile the Bane ability is a swift action

If you never plan ahead or scout you are doing something wrong. True you can't always buff before battle, but you can a lot of times if you're smart.

Alienfreak wrote:


2. The Paladin has no tactics whatsoever to use. He attacks. And if he can smite a target he even deals some damage. If he can't his damage lacks big time. [...] If the target isn't evil the Paladin is about as useless as a Wizard Archer...

Cut down on the hyperbole and the aggressiveness. Everybody is trying to help to OP. What's more you are not even correct.

Alienfreak wrote:


3.Lay on Hands isn't really better than the Cure spells of the Inquisitor. Especially considering that you have to pump up your Cha to be able to really use it.

Lay on Hands is really better than the Cure spells. Read the section on mercies.

You don't have to pump up your Cha much, but if you do, it will benefit you and the group. More LOH, Better saves, Better smite bonus to attack, more bonus spells, better charisma skills, etc.

Doctor Smite wrote:
Well both can be good at diplomacy and other social interactions. Inquisitor pulls a head slightly here when out of com.

Charisma is the Paladins main stat and the Inquisitor probably going to use Char as a dump stat. How can the Inquisitor pull a head slightly when it comes to diplomacy and other social interactions?

@ OP. Both classes are great. The Inquisitor is a bit more versatile/flexible, the paladin is more defensively strong and will usually deal more damage. The Paladin is also a better healer and can take on the roles as the party feat. If you play paladin get the Magical knack feat. (gives +2 caster level)
If you play the Divine Hunter you won't need Point Blank Shot until later. I would prpbaly play a core paladin. They are more versatile, but the Divine Hunter is good if you want to be an archer and focus just on that.


I have seen several thread complaining about a paladin archer. I have yet to see one complaining about an Inquisitor archer.

Sczarni

A few things to consider, a Paladin does not get spells until a lot later then an inquisitor, so trying to compare spells to that of an Inquisitor I think you are going to fall short.

I seen someone mention Lay on Hands, Judgment of healing is a lot better for long combats.

Inquisitor can use a heavy repeating cross-bow. At low levels, using the rules on pg 195 of the Core which states you can fire a cross-bow from the prone with no penalty, this can be a life saver against multipul archers.

Teamwork feats are pretty amazing for an Inquisitor, you can really play off your teamates strengths, or just augment your own.


Zark wrote:


It's a full BAB class. Full BAB equal better attack bonus equal more damage. It also affects damage from deadly aim and Paladin can get feat with BAB prereq earlier.
It has spells like bless weapon, divine favor and with the magical knack the caster level is only Paladin level -1.
It got divine bond.
It got smite evil and let's face it most monsters/foes are evil. And Smite bypass all DR even slashing, etc. And when not smite foes, he can use divine favor and/or divine bond. Also he is a full BAB class so the damage output will be higher just because of that.

1. As I said earlier (just in case you missed it) there is no way you can get the Feats really earlier than the Inquisitor because there are so many of them to take and you only get a feat every second level.

Deadly aim is really buggy for a Paladin sometimes because it will drain his damage output often more than increase it unless he can smite. His to hit will just be too low to really profit from it.
2. My mobster manual has about as many non evil creatures in it as it has evil creatures.
3. Divine Bond? Uhm... kay... so which part of it is better than what the inquisitor gets? The creature thing is worse than the Animal Domain Power. The Weapon Bond is also worse than the Bane ability, though it maybe can come out ahead some times when facing evil enemies with time to prepare beforeheand.
4. Keep in mind that Traits are marked as "additional content" in an "additional content" book. And not all of us like those because they are highly unbalanced and mostly bad made.

The Inquisitor can take Magical Lineage instead of that trait you take and quicken Divine Favour in level 10, too.
Unless you have that 15 minute adventure day with a lot of time to prepare for each encounter, while also knowing what you will face (thus adding the right holy or anxiomatic to your weapon) I think the Inquisitor will pull ahead here because he simply needs no time to prepare for a combat since everything is a swift action for him.
If he has time to prepare he will have a lot more good buffing spells for himself and might still be en par with the Paladin who just doesn't have so many things to slap on himself.
An Inquisitor with: Expeditious Retreat, Divine Power, Aid, Delay Poison, Weapon of Awe, Effortless Armor, See Invisibility, Shield of Faith, Heroism, Deathward and Greater Invisibility running will still be hard to catch up to as a Paladin. That will be hard even with your Smite running... so the Inquisitor can also shine in the "we only have the encounter per day and know whats coming" sector. Not to mention that the right Animal Companion (while you don't even have a mount because you will want your bonded weapon) for the right circumstances will turn the encounter.

Quote:


f you never plan ahead or scout you are doing something wrong. True you can't always buff before battle, but you can a lot of times if you're smart.

You assume that you can plan ahead and scout while the enemy can't?

And if you really get some time to buff yourself a round or so the Inquisitor can still cast one more buff on himself than you.

Quote:


Cut down on the hyperbole and the aggressiveness. Everybody is trying to help to OP. What's more you are not even correct.

Enlighten me about the great tactic capabilities of a paladin...

Quote:


Lay on Hands is really better than the Cure spells. Read the section on mercies.
You don't have to pump up your Cha much, but if you do, it will benefit you and the group. More LOH, Better saves, Better smite bonus to attack, more bonus spells, better charisma skills, etc.

Of course the Paladin needs to have a high Cha to be effective. Thats the point of me after all. You heavily invest in the worst attribute in the game while neglecting others for (except for the save bonus which is great) circumstantial bonuses which may or may not apply. As a Inquisitor you invest in things that always apply making you great all the time.

And social skills as a paladin? Meh. You have 2+int skillpoints plus you have no attribute except Int you can possibly dump. Not to mention that some inquisitor domains are great for a social character and he gets a free bonus on sense motive checks etc pp.

And I dislike the mercies somewhat. You can remove one condition if you happen to have to the right mercy at a time and you won't end up with too many of them unless you are highlevel. If it would be multiple conditions at a time it maybe great...
.
.
.
.
Oh and we haven't talked about that still existing ridiculous Codex of a Paladin yet. A Inquisitor fits all campaigns while a Paladin hardly does at all. Unless you all wanna be the uber goodoers (without having that code) and don't play adventures in which you aren't.


Alienfreak wrote:


1. As I said earlier (just in case you missed it) there is no way you can get the Feats really earlier than the Inquisitor because there are so many of them to take and you only get a feat every second level.
Deadly aim is really buggy for a Paladin sometimes because it will drain his damage output often more than increase it unless he can smite. His to hit will just be too low to really profit from it.
2. My mobster manual has about as many non evil creatures in it as it has evil creatures.

1. You still get them earlier due to BAB requirements. Whether or not they make a bid difference is another story though. As for deadly aim you may be right, but a paladin is only designed to do decent damage until the big fights. Then he normally outdamages most other hp damage dealers.

2. That may be true, but most GM's use evil monsters almost exclusively, especially at higher levels when paladins have more smites to burn.

Quote:
An Inquisitor with: Expeditious Retreat, Divine Power, Aid, Delay Poison, Weapon of Awe, Effortless Armor, See Invisibility, Shield of Faith, Heroism, Deathward and Greater Invisibility

What is the likelyhood of having all of those buffs up at the same time?

Most paladins that are played dont even bother with self-buffs. They just go directly to smite.

PS:I think the inquisitor is more well rounded, but it can also be more stat hungry, and if all you care about is DPR then the paladin is hard to compete with.


wraithstrike wrote:


1. You still get them earlier due to BAB requirements. Whether or not they make a bid difference is another story though. As for deadly aim you may be right, but a paladin is only designed to do decent damage until the big fights. Then he normally outdamages most other hp damage dealers.
2. That may be true, but most GM's use evil monsters almost exclusively, especially at higher levels when paladins have more smites to burn.

1. 1/3/5/7/9 is the Feat progression for a Paladin. Can you tell me how he gets the feats earlier with it? He simply can't take it earlier because he has no free feat. The more BAB is worthless for that.

Deadly Aim is, like you say, only for the BBEG (in the case he is evil that is). But I still dislike the idea of playing things that are a stone dragging down the group until there is an evil thing. Then I activate my super ability and smash him. One trick Ponies are kinda lame...
2. Thats purely a thing thats up to the GM. And the "most" is really exaggerated here. I played with about 5 serious DMs the recent years (not counting in my earlier 2nd edition or whatever experience) and 3 out of those 5 didn't make those stereotypic (and kinda lame) you are the shiny hero and gotta save the innocent princess out of the fangs of the uber evil demon BBEG. A neutral or even good aligned competitor is about as dangerous to any group as is an evil competitor. Because his goals contradict the ones of the party and the guys the party work for.
Even celestials wage war on each others on occasions.

Its like only having monsters with no SR and no Resistances so the blaster wizard shines in High level.
Or no Monsters with high AC and no DR so the Fighter can PA them like mad.
Plus no Monsters with immunity to sneak attacks so the Rogue shines.

If you tailor a campaign so one character gets all the candy and the wizard always deals like 10 damage per round because he can't breach the SR and the elemental resistance, the rogue deals no damage because he can't sneak and the fighter can't hit solid plus gets stuck in the weird DR of the mobster but the Paladin laughs in their faces and smashes every enemy that is dangerous without problems, is this good campaign design? I would assume the contrary. Its rather bad campaign design to gimp all the party members but one.

Quote:


What is the likelyhood of having all of those buffs up at the same time?

Most paladins that are played dont even bother with self-buffs. They just go directly to smite.

I know how unlikely that is in a real campaign. That is why I pointed out that the standard action activation of the Bonded Weapon is a real letdown.

But he insisted that via "smart scouting" you could prepare for combats well enough so that is no downside.

And most of the buffs I listed have 1min/lvl durations so if we can easily know what we are gonna encounter and I can buff myself, why not buff all the goodies? And the Inquisitor can buff himself like a madman. Thats what I wanted to show. So if we can outsmart the enemies so the Paladin doesn't lose damage with his Bonded Weapon I can make up for it with my good spellcasting.

Quote:


PS:I think the inquisitor is more well rounded, but it can also be more stat hungry, and if all you care about is DPR then the paladin is hard to compete with.

I think the Paladin is more stat hungry. You will need Str to deal at least a small amount of damage if he is not evil (unless you like to die to a CR 9 creature once you hit lvl 13, lol), Dex for to Hit, Con for HPs, Wis for Spellcasting and Cha for all your abilities. And arguably if you want some skills, because people insist he is so good at social things, you will need Int, too. So there are 2 stats you need to max out hard (Cha and Dex) plus two you should have high (Con and Wis) and in Int and Str you should have some points.

A Inquisitor needs Dex mostly for to hit, then str for damage and Con for HPs plus about 14 Wis for a "solid" spellcasting. Cha is a save dump candidate and Int can be ropped to 8 easily and you will still have 5 skillpoints or 6 if you put your fav class on it or even 7 when you are human, too.

Inquisitors can even be effective with a 15 point buy. Paladins hardly...

But those are my 2 cents. If you have a


Alienfreak wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


1. You still get them earlier due to BAB requirements. Whether or not they make a bid difference is another story though. As for deadly aim you may be right, but a paladin is only designed to do decent damage until the big fights. Then he normally outdamages most other hp damage dealers.
2. That may be true, but most GM's use evil monsters almost exclusively, especially at higher levels when paladins have more smites to burn.

1. 1/3/5/7/9 is the Feat progression for a Paladin. Can you tell me how he gets the feats earlier with it? He simply can't take it earlier because he has no free feat. The more BAB is worthless for that.

Deadly Aim is, like you say, only for the BBEG (in the case he is evil that is). But I still dislike the idea of playing things that are a stone dragging down the group until there is an evil thing. Then I activate my super ability and smash him. One trick Ponies are kinda lame...
2. Thats purely a thing thats up to the GM. And the "most" is really exaggerated here. I played with about 5 serious DMs the recent years (not counting in my earlier 2nd edition or whatever experience) and 3 out of those 5 didn't make those stereotypic (and kinda lame) you are the shiny hero and gotta save the innocent princess out of the fangs of the uber evil demon BBEG. A neutral or even good aligned competitor is about as dangerous to any group as is an evil competitor. Because his goals contradict the ones of the party and the guys the party work for.
Even celestials wage war on each others on occasions.

Its like only having monsters with no SR and no Resistances so the blaster wizard shines in High level.
Or no Monsters with high AC and no DR so the Fighter can PA them like mad.
Plus no Monsters with immunity to sneak attacks so the Rogue shines.

If you tailor a campaign so one character gets all the candy and the wizard always deals like 10 damage per round because he can't breach the SR and the elemental resistance, the rogue deals no damage because he...

Paladins do not use wisdom as their casting stat anymore. That was changed right from the start.


Alienfreak wrote:


1. 1/3/5/7/9 is the Feat progression for a Paladin. Can you tell me how he gets the feats earlier with it? He simply can't take it earlier because he has no free feat. The more BAB is worthless for that.
Deadly Aim is, like you say, only for the BBEG (in the case he is evil that is). But I still dislike the idea of playing things that are a stone dragging down the group until there is an evil thing. Then I activate my super ability and smash him. One trick Ponies are kinda lame...
2. Thats purely a thing thats up to the GM. And the "most" is really exaggerated here. I played with about 5 serious DMs the recent years (not counting in my earlier 2nd edition or whatever experience) and 3 out of those 5 didn't make those stereotypic (and kinda lame) you are the shiny hero and gotta save the innocent princess out of the fangs of the uber evil demon BBEG. A neutral or even good aligned competitor is about as dangerous to any group as is an evil competitor. Because his goals contradict the ones of the party and the guys the party work for.
Even celestials wage war on each others on occasions.

2. I know it is out of order, but most GM's are stereotypic. Neutral and good people don't normally end up fighting good people. I have seen maybe one out of 100 adventures where celestials fought each other. That makes it a corner case.

1. Being decent in combat is not a dragging anyone down. At higher levels(before 11th) the mercies are useful. You need a player who is smart enough to make the right choices, but that applies to any class. The channel and lay on hands also helps.
Paladin 1. PBS 3. precise shot. 5 rapid shot. 7 manyshot. 9 deadly aim. 11. IPS ---If the pally goes human he can get all everything except IPS at level 7, and take something else at level 9. The Inquisitor does not have that option so he gets it earlier.

Inquisito 1.PBS 3. Precise shot 5 RS 7. deadly aim 9 manyshot 11 (does not qualify for IPS)

Quote:
And most of the buffs I listed have 1min/lvl durations so if we can easily know what we are gonna encounter and I can buff myself, why not buff all the goodies? And the Inquisitor can buff himself like a madman. Thats what I wanted to show. So if we can outsmart the enemies so the Paladin doesn't lose damage with his Bonded Weapon I can make up for it with my good spellcasting.

If one of you can buff then both of you can buff.

Quote:

I think the Paladin is more stat hungry. You will need Str to deal at least a small amount of damage if he is not evil (unless you like to die to a CR 9 creature once you hit lvl 13, lol), Dex for to Hit, Con for HPs, Wis for Spellcasting and Cha for all your abilities. And arguably if you want some skills, because people insist he is so good at social things, you will need Int, too. So there are 2 stats you need to max out hard (Cha and Dex) plus two you should have high (Con and Wis) and in Int and Str you should have some points.

A Inquisitor needs Dex mostly for to hit, then str for damage and Con for HPs plus about 14 Wis for a "solid" spellcasting. Cha is a save dump candidate and Int can be ropped to 8 easily and you will still have 5 skillpoints or 6 if you put your fav class on it or even 7 when you are human, too.

Inquisitors can even be effective with a 15 point buy. Paladins hardly...

But those are my 2 cents. If you have a

Why does a paladin need wisdom? His Cha adds to his saves.

The inquisitor if he wants to be social needs cha.

Taking a paladin and trying to be a skills man is not a good idea. Paladins are not made to do everything. They are made to kill evil things.
Since skills are not needed for the pally it is the dump stat, and wis can be also since paladin's spells run off of charisma now. Neither one is really better off with regards to stats, and they both have to choose what they really want to emphasize if the point buy is low.

The choice really boils down to what you want to do as a player.

PS:Personally I like Inquisitors better, but the paladin is no slouch.


wraithstrike wrote:


2. I know it is out of order, but most GM's are stereotypic. Neutral and good people don't normally end up fighting good people. I have seen maybe one out of 100 adventures where celestials fought each other. That makes it a corner case.
1. Being decent in combat is not a dragging anyone down. At higher levels(before 11th) the mercies are useful. You need a player who is smart enough to make the right choices, but that applies to any class. The channel and lay on hands also helps.
Paladin 1. PBS 3. precise shot. 5 rapid shot. 7 manyshot. 9 deadly aim. 11. IPS ---If the pally goes human he can get all everything except IPS at level 7, and take something else at level 9. The Inquisitor does not have that option so he gets it earlier.

Inquisito 1.PBS 3. Precise shot 5 RS 7. deadly aim 9 manyshot 11 (does not qualify for IPS)

1. I know that problem. But its still rather bad DMing. You can view this as taking the smite ability, which is rather strict to what enemies it can be used agianst and virtually buffing it to work against all alignments (because you only have evil enemies). This is a ridiculous strong buff for a class and all other classes should be buffed accordingly. Clerics should get Hvy Armour Proficency and Martial Weapon proficency accordingly. Wizards more spells and probably more feats. And so on.

Otherwise you screw up the balance of the game.
2. But the Inquisitor has more buffs (he has more slots) and better buffs (both from a better spellist and having a higher level of spells available plus his better CL which makes his buffs better)
3. So he swaps Deadly Shot for Many Shot. Not much of a difference in my eyes. And Deadly Shot is good for the Inquisitor early on because he does not have it take so much from his attacks and he can achieve a better to hit against any target he seems worthy of having downed fast.
IPS is a problem though. But nothing that can't be fixed by taking Elven Precision or so instead.
4. Dealing about 20 damage per round (if at all) against non evil enemies per round is slowing the group down. The wizard with his sling is about as valuable for the party, but I have yet to see one using one instead of casting his spells ;)
Just imagine a bounded protector of a site which is Neutral or even Good because its an ancestral tomb of somebody and he engages the group because they need what is inside the tomb. Just having someone cast align weapon (evil) on his weapon and attacking with it will break the Paladin's Codex. So he will deal about... 0 damage per round and can't do anything useful. I call this major drag down.

Quote:


Why does a paladin need wisdom? His Cha adds to his saves.
The inquisitor if he wants to be social needs cha.
Taking a paladin and trying to be a skills man is not a good idea. Paladins are not made to do everything. They are made to kill evil things.
Since skills are not needed for the pally it is the dump stat, and wis can be also since paladin's spells run off of charisma now. Neither one is really better off with regards to stats, and they both have to choose what they really want to emphasize if the point buy is low.

1. An Inquisitor can also buff his saves via judgement. So he will still pull ahead with his saves if the paladin gimps his Wis.

2. Sure if oyu want to be the face you will need Cha. But thats optional and not essential as Cha with the Paladin. Cha is already the worst attribute ingame and if we also don't take social skills we even get rid of its only advantage, making it super worthless as an attribute.

Liberty's Edge

Alienfreak wrote:
4. Keep in mind that Traits are marked as "additional content" in an "additional content" book. And not all of us like those because they are highly unbalanced and mostly bad made.

Funny that you would use "they're from the APG" as a reason not to use traits, in a discussion where you're favoring the inquisitor over the paladin. Hypocritical much?


ShadowcatX wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
4. Keep in mind that Traits are marked as "additional content" in an "additional content" book. And not all of us like those because they are highly unbalanced and mostly bad made.
Funny that you would use "they're from the APG" as a reason not to use traits, in a discussion where you're favoring the inquisitor over the paladin. Hypocritical much?

I can only advice you to use all your reading skills and read the part of "additional" rules again. APG is a splatbook outside of core but it gets used often but inside of this book the section of the New Rules reads that its purely optional.

Its like saying Unearthed Arcana is on one level of the Monster Manual II when it comes to the rules.

EDIT: Oh you have only DR as Armor, only Woundpoints and Vigor etc. pp.
Its all in the books!


I just have a few points to make here

1) The best divine casting archer is the Ranger (IMO), the paladin is nice and all, but rangers end up getting a lot of archery focused spells to go along with the best archery focused feat selection/progression in the game.

2) Improved precise shot is only important once your DM learns the rules for cover. After that you will learn that everyone has partial cover almost all of the time for nearly any reason at all. Of course if a -4 to hit is no big deal then by all means, plan to not have it. For me it's a guaranteed level 6 feat on my Ranger.

3) I've seen some really interesting statements about how awesome an inquisitor is in this thread, and that poster went out of his way to declare the paladins ineptitude at the same system. The truth is they'll both perform fine, play whichever you want. They both suffer from the same feat starvation, trying to mitigate either problem with a level or two in fighter will force spellcasting to suffer. On the up side both those classes have additional mechanics in play that will come off as absolutely awesome (I promise!)


Lastoth wrote:

I just have a few points to make here

1) The best divine casting archer is the Ranger (IMO), the paladin is nice and all, but rangers end up getting a lot of archery focused spells to go along with the best archery focused feat selection/progression in the game.

2) Improved precise shot is only important once your DM learns the rules for cover. After that you will learn that everyone has partial cover almost all of the time for nearly any reason at all. Of course if a -4 to hit is no big deal then by all means, plan to not have it. For me it's a guaranteed level 6 feat on my Ranger.

3) I've seen some really interesting statements about how awesome an inquisitor is in this thread, and that poster went out of his way to declare the paladins ineptitude at the same system. The truth is they'll both perform fine, play whichever you want. They both suffer from the same feat starvation, trying to mitigate either problem with a level or two in fighter will force spellcasting to suffer. On the up side both those classes have additional mechanics in play that will come off as absolutely awesome (I promise!)

1. Feat wise for sure. And you can have an AC (wolf) which can protect you and later on you can ride on it. Boon Companion is a must. I only think its still really bad that you can't swap out the favored enemies. I mean how can you know at lvl 1 what enemies you gonna encounter :/

2. Depends on the scenario. But its true. Often allies/enemies are blocking though. That much is true. But especially with a Roc mount you will often have the chance to attack without them having cover.


Yes, but the Thing is stronger on average, since the Hulk is only stronger on those occasions when he gets mad.

Liberty's Edge

Alienfreak wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
4. Keep in mind that Traits are marked as "additional content" in an "additional content" book. And not all of us like those because they are highly unbalanced and mostly bad made.
Funny that you would use "they're from the APG" as a reason not to use traits, in a discussion where you're favoring the inquisitor over the paladin. Hypocritical much?

I can only advice you to use all your reading skills and read the part of "additional" rules again. APG is a splatbook outside of core but it gets used often but inside of this book the section of the New Rules reads that its purely optional.

Its like saying Unearthed Arcana is on one level of the Monster Manual II when it comes to the rules.

EDIT: Oh you have only DR as Armor, only Woundpoints and Vigor etc. pp.
Its all in the books!

I wasn't commenting on you calling out that they're additional content, I was commenting on you saying they're from "an additional content book. And (sic) not all of us like those because they're highly unbalanced and mostly bad made" when they're from the same "additional content" book as the inquisitor.

Had you said "they're optional content, and optional content is generally looked down upon as poorly made" then I would have understood, but you referred to the book so I can't really help ya.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
4. Keep in mind that Traits are marked as "additional content" in an "additional content" book. And not all of us like those because they are highly unbalanced and mostly bad made.
Funny that you would use "they're from the APG" as a reason not to use traits, in a discussion where you're favoring the inquisitor over the paladin. Hypocritical much?

I can only advice you to use all your reading skills and read the part of "additional" rules again. APG is a splatbook outside of core but it gets used often but inside of this book the section of the New Rules reads that its purely optional.

Its like saying Unearthed Arcana is on one level of the Monster Manual II when it comes to the rules.

EDIT: Oh you have only DR as Armor, only Woundpoints and Vigor etc. pp.
Its all in the books!

I wasn't commenting on you calling out that they're additional content, I was commenting on you saying they're from "an additional content book. And (sic) not all of us like those because they're highly unbalanced and mostly bad made" when they're from the same "additional content" book as the inquisitor.

Had you said "they're optional content, and optional content is generally looked down upon as poorly made" then I would have understood, but you referred to the book so I can't really help ya.

I am invoking your reading comprehension skills again. I said its "additional content" from an "additional content" book. Thats pretty clear actually. Additional Content is usually a splatbook which is usually rather balanced and ok. Additional Content from Additional Content Books is usually variant rules which didn't make it into the game as "variant rules" for a reason.

Just look over the Traits and tell me you see a glimpse of balancing or a sense of why anyone should use them.
3.5 also had traits and they were just as bad at those. Well probably not even as bad. Looking at some traits that are as good as a feat and some even better than a feat.

Traits are rather a tool of real ROLLPLAYING in case you need something you can't get via a feat, look up some traits from the trillion of splatbooks Paizo has released and you will find something ;)


Regarding the discussion about Paladin's Smite evil and its usefulness...especially since we have a Paladin archer in our group.

I'm doing a typical homebrew...and its certainly not represenative of everything out there...but it's a sample. I would say that my guys fight 60% evil/35% Neutral/5% Good. Furthermore, I don't let my players rest between every battle. There are times where they go through 3 battles or more w/o rest sometimes. So, the fact that a Paladin only gets limited smites also comes into play. He has to choose when to use those carefully even when around evil peeps.

I would say he uses it on 30-40% of the mobs he attacks over all. Against those, of course, he shines... decimates, even. Against others, he's OK, but nothing to get super excited about. If he's out of smites, or the enemies are neutral, he doesn't have too many different things he can do. He just plucks away with archery (and the related feats) and hope he wears them out first.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JCServant wrote:

Regarding the discussion about Paladin's Smite evil and its usefulness...especially since we have a Paladin archer in our group.

I'm doing a typical homebrew...and its certainly not represenative of everything out there...but it's a sample. I would say that my guys fight 60% evil/35% Neutral/5% Good. Furthermore, I don't let my players rest between every battle. There are times where they go through 3 battles or more w/o rest sometimes. So, the fact that a Paladin only gets limited smites also comes into play. He has to choose when to use those carefully even when around evil peeps.

I would say he uses it on 30-40% of the mobs he attacks over all. Against those, of course, he shines... decimates, even. Against others, he's OK, but nothing to get super excited about. If he's out of smites, or the enemies are neutral, he doesn't have too many different things he can do. He just plucks away with archery (and the related feats) and hope he wears them out first.

Inquisitor is likely going to win the ranged fight, unfortunately, due to having all the same damage boosting spells, but not having to prepare them, as well as GNB on the top end. Litany of Righteousness (especially if you Extend it) is a solid boost for both (though it makes the Paladin suddenly very ridiculous). Paladins need to use Unsanctioned Knowledge to rival the Inquisitor on the spell field, mostly to grab...well...Inquisitor spells (Named Bullet, HO!). That means you need 13 Int. More on that in a sec.

Judgments are a better crowd ability, while Smite is better against BBEGs, emphasis on the first B. Ultimately, at low levels, this likely means that the Inquisitor gets more for less investment.

Stats: Paladin gets a little more MAD than the Inquisitor, needing CHA, DEX, STR, and a modicum of otherwise-dumpable INT (up to a swing of 7 points on Humans). You can drop a bit of WIS (never fun) or CON (also never fun), but otherwise you leave yourself with a pretty mediocre stat spread. If you do rolls with either crazy luck or rigged rolling rules (I'm looking at you, 4d6 drop low reroll 1s and 2s), you can get out of the mediocrity. Inquisitors, however, can focus WIS, DEX, STR, dump CHA, leave INT at 10, and put the remainder in CON. Still slightly MAD, but not nearly as bad.

Other abilities: Domain vs. everything the Paladin gets. You can pick up Travel, Animal, or whatever else you want.

BAB/Saves/HD: The only category where the Paladin definitely wins out. Unfortunately, it's a little too late to make up the difference. The only thing that happens here is that the Inquisitor has less feat access due to BAB. You rarely care about the difference of d10 vs d8 HD and, since you're able to put points in all of your stats that affect saves, you'll be relatively ok vs. the Paladin here as an Inquisitor.

Skills: Obviously a win on the Inquisitor. If you're concerned about tanking your CHA and its impact on social skills, pick up the Infiltrator archetype and/or Conversion Inquisition. BAM. WIS based socials. Paladins get hurt HARD here, looking at a likely lifetime max of 4/level (if Human), while the Inquisitor gets a more reasonable 6-7/level (assume 10 INT and dependent on race). Also, more class skills on the Inquisitor, which is solid.

On the other hand, though, there is something to be said for Smite + Named Bullet + Litany of Righteousness, if you can pull it off, or Greater Named Bullet, if you have a cooperative party member.

Dark Archive

Well I'll be trying out a human paladin archer so I'll let you know (there's a thread already on the advice forum) for pfs. Oath of vengeance helps out with some more smite uses. I figured a paladin archer is just a bit different so approached it from that angle.


Alienfreak wrote:

Cha is already the worst attribute ingame

APG is a splatbook
Bla bla bla Paladin's Codex
Not many evil in a campaign. bla bla bla unless GM's are stereotypic, bla bla.
Paladin is more stat hungry. You will need Str to deal at least a small amount of damage if he is not evil (unless you like to die to a CR 9 creature once you hit lvl 13, lol), Dex for to Hit, Con for HPs, Wis for Spellcasting and Cha for all your abilities
Inquisitor can buff before battle, paladins can't

Ignoremode on


Thrar wrote:

I'm interested in making a new ranged character with divine powers and/or spells for PFS. Any advice on which would be (1) more combat effective, (2) tactically more interesting, and (3) better party support?

Hello.

I need some more info and then I will gove you some more info.

Do you use traits? If yes, do you start with one or two?
What books are OK with your GM? Will you use UM and UC?
Do you play an Pathfinder Adventure Path or what kind if campaign will you play?
Will use use 15 PB, 20 PB or 25 PB or will you roll the dice?
Do you use dump stats?


Inquisitor of Erastil. I've done good things with that build.

Faced a fire drake alone at 8th level. Used Judgement (fire resistance) and kept renewing the Dragon Bane on my weapon, healed myself whenever it flew around for another pass. Beautiful cinematic-style battle. Won, too.


Serisan wrote:


Inquisitor is likely going to win the ranged fight, unfortunately, due to having all the same damage boosting spells, but not having to prepare them, as well as GNB on the top end.

Well, the key would be having the ability to cast some of those prep spells. Any buffing type of character who has a few rounds to buff up before a fight will give a melee class a run for his money, no doubt. However, in a quick fight with little warning, the paladin can front load damage faster against an evil enemy than an inquisitor.

Most classes in PF just shine in some situations, and aren't so great in others. Then you need that big evil guy taken down fast, few things can beat the paladin who can quickly give his party smite against that big bad and take it down very fast (Has anyone calculated the average or potential damage that a Aura of Justice ultimately does to a big bad with the average party? It's sick!) However, in longer / drawn out fights vs. many bad guys, the Inquisitor has some clear advantages...especially if he has a little prep time to cast a few buffs. I personally would favor the inquisitor simply because the class is more my playstyle. But, if a player picks a ranged paladin, they will have plenty of opportunities to shine in any group.

PS...why does everyone want to do ranged paladins? It seems to be popular lately. Seems almost like a waste of some of the class feature when a class that can wear the heaviest armors (and therefore take a bit of heat off the squishier members) is in the back pulling arrow. I dunno... just seems off to me.


I would like to try Inquisitor with the 3 lvl PRC Chevalier. That gives you all of the Inquisitor's Bane and Judgement abilities with one smite a day. You can even activate bane on round one as a swift action and Smite on round two and stack some really scary damage bonuses.

Sovereign Court

The Divine Hunter gets precise shot at 1st level as a bonus feat in place of heavy armor which is not a loss on an archer.

Which means a human Paladin at first level can have point blank, rapid and precise shot; deadly aim at 3rd, Open 5th, Manyshot 7th, open 9th and Improved precise at 11th. The divine Hunter Paladin because of the bonus feat will get the feats sooner than an inquisitor.

The open feats could be weapon focus at 5th and snap shot at 9th or extra lay on hands or extra channel or any number of intersting feats.

The number of stats needed by a paladin is the same or less than an inquisitor.

A paladin Archer need Dex, Str, Cha
An inquisitor Archer needs Dex, Str, Wis (because they are potential skill monkeys then cha and int help out and make them tougher to dump.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sunshine Rat! wrote:
Yes, but the Thing is stronger on average, since the Hulk is only stronger on those occasions when he gets mad.

It varies by writer and incarnation of the Hulk. The Joe Fix-it/Grey Hulk was on par, the Green and Red Hulks I think are of a higher base line. Banner-The-Hulk was behind the curve because he overthought his fights, but the Intelligent Hulk would give Grimm a run for his money.


Serisan wrote:
JCServant wrote:


Inquisitor is likely going to win the ranged fight, unfortunately, due to having all the same damage boosting spells, but not having to prepare them, as well as GNB on the top end. Litany of Righteousness (especially if you Extend it) is a solid boost for both (though it makes the Paladin suddenly very ridiculous). Paladins need to use Unsanctioned Knowledge to rival the Inquisitor on the spell field, mostly to grab...well...Inquisitor spells (Named Bullet, HO!). That means you need 13 Int. More on that in a sec.

Judgments are a better crowd ability, while Smite is better against BBEGs, emphasis on the first B. Ultimately, at low levels, this likely means that the Inquisitor gets more for less investment.

10th level

Spoiler:

Inquisitor:
16(18) 20(22) 12 9 13(15) 7
Feats: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Shot, Manyshot

To Hit (plain)
+7 BAB +6 Dex +2 Magical = +15
To Hit (with judgement)
+7 BAB +6 Dex +2 Magical +3 Sacred = +18
To Hit (with judgement and bane weapon)
+7 BAB +6 Dex +4 Magical +3 Sacred = +20
To Hit (with judgement and bane weapon and divine favour)
+7 BAB +6 Dex +4 Magical +3 Sacred +3 luck= +23

Dmg (plain)
1d8 +4 Str +2 Magical = 10.5
Dmg (with judgement)
1d8 +4 Str +2 Magical +4 sacred= 14.5
Dmg (with judgement and bane)
1d8 +4 Str +4 Magical +4 sacred +2d6 Bane= 23.5
Dmg (with judgement and bane and divine favour)
1d8 +4 Str +4 Magical +4 sacred +2d6 Bane +3 luck= 26.5

1st round: swift double judgement = +18 (14.5) with rs, deadly shot = +14 (18.5)
2nd round: swift bane weapon = +20 (23.5) with rs, deadly shot = +16 (27.5)
3rd round: swift divine favour = +23 (26.5) with rs, deadly shot = +19 (30.5)

Paladin:
14(16) 20(22) 13 7 7 16(18)
Feats: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Shot, Manyshot

To Hit (plain)
+10 BAB +6 Dex +2 Magical = +18
To Hit (with smite)
+10 BAB +6 Dex +2 Magical +4 Smite = +22
To Hit (with bonded weapon)
+10 BAB +6 Dex +4 Magical = +20
To Hit (with smite and bonded weapon)
+10 BAB +6 Dex +4 Magical +4 Smite = +24

Dmg (plain)
1d8 +3 Str +2 Magical= 9.5
Dmg (with smite)
1d8 +3 Str +2 Magical +10 Smite= 19.5
Dmg (with bonded weapon)
1d8 +3 Str +4 Magical = 11.5
Dmg (with smite and bonded weapon)
1d8 +3 Str +4 Magical +10 Smite= 21.5

1st round: bonded weapon and smite
2nd round: = +24 (21.5) with rs, deadly shot = +19 (27.5)
3rd round: = +24 (21.5) with rs, deadly shot = +19 (27.5)

without smite and bonded weapon:

1st round: = +18 (9.5) with rs and deadly shot = +13 (15.5)
2nd round: = +18 (9.5) with rs and deadly shot = +13 (15.5)
3rd round: = +18 (9.5) with rs and deadly shot = +13 (15.5)

with only bonded weapon:

1st round: = bonded weapon
2nd round: = +20 (11.5) with rs, deadly shot = +15 (17.5)
3rd round: = +20 (11.5) with rs, deadly shot = +15 (17.5)

The Inquisitor can deal as much damage (it is more damage actually) to an BBEG as the Paladin but he can do this against any BBEG (no matter what he is) and his buffs are against all enemies (bane has to be changed sometimes) while the smite is against one particular enemy.


Doctor Smite wrote:


A paladin Archer need Dex, Str, Cha
An inquisitor Archer needs Dex, Str, Wis (because they are potential skill monkeys then cha and int help out and make them tougher to dump.)

12 or 13 Wis is easily enough. The only important ability that is tied to it is spellcasting and that works out well with such a score (get an item later on).

So its still
Str, Dex, Con, Cha

versus

Str, Dex, Con

Dark Archive

PS...why does everyone want to do ranged paladins? It seems to be popular lately. Seems almost like a waste of some of the class feature when a class that can wear the heaviest armors (and therefore take a bit of heat off the squishier members) is in the back pulling arrow. I dunno... just seems off to me.

I figured I'd just like to do something a bit different. The more I see it though the less thrilled I am with a paladin archer. My final build on my pfs paladin archer seems pretty darn optimized and still I feel leaves quite a bit to be desired.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
reallybigtuna wrote:


PS...why does everyone want to do ranged paladins? It seems to be popular lately. Seems almost like a waste of some of the class feature when a class that can wear the heaviest armors (and therefore take a bit of heat off the squishier members) is in the back pulling arrow. I dunno... just seems off to me.

I figured I'd just like to do something a bit different. The more I see it though the less thrilled I am with a paladin archer. My final build on my pfs paladin archer seems pretty darn optimized and still I feel leaves quite a bit to be desired.

The Paladin Archer is not going to out-archer an archery-style Ranger, and he certainly won't outshoot an archery fighter. You play the Archery Paladin because you want the other parts of the package as well.


LOL. You have way more time than I do, my friend. I don't even think I could crunch your results if I tried... but I did notice You're missing something important, though... smite w/o taking the time for bonded weapon... it's the fastest way to unload quick damage. I've seen the little halfling dude do 50 damage or more in the first round that way (don't forget bonus damage vs. evil outsiders and the such on the first lick).

And why stop at level 10? It's at level 11 that pally gets the pwnsme Aura of Justice allowing him as a swift action to give those bonuses to every ally in 10 feet against the big bad. Suddenly everyone who uses weapons has +CHA bonus (of paladin) to Hit, and +11 Damage on every hit (with an additional bonus of 11 more points on the first hit for each character if it's an evil outsider, dragon, etc.) . The only thing better than a crusader/smiter against evil is one that can also turn others into smiters as well! Again, its situational, but in situatiosn where paladins are intended to shine, they are really bright and pretty. :P

Alienfreak wrote:
Serisan wrote:
JCServant wrote:


Inquisitor is likely going to win the ranged fight, unfortunately, due to having all the same damage boosting spells, but not having to prepare them, as well as GNB on the top end. Litany of Righteousness (especially if you Extend it) is a solid boost for both (though it makes the Paladin suddenly very ridiculous). Paladins need to use Unsanctioned Knowledge to rival the Inquisitor on the spell field, mostly to grab...well...Inquisitor spells (Named Bullet, HO!). That means you need 13 Int. More on that in a sec.

Judgments are a better crowd ability, while Smite is better against BBEGs, emphasis on the first B. Ultimately, at low levels, this likely means that the Inquisitor gets more for less investment.

10th level

** spoiler omitted **

...


JCServant wrote:

LOL. You have way more time than I do, my friend. I don't even think I could crunch your results if I tried... but I did notice You're missing something important, though... smite w/o taking the time for bonded weapon... it's the fastest way to unload quick damage. I've seen the little halfling dude do 50 damage or more in the first round that way (don't forget bonus damage vs. evil outsiders and the such on the first lick).

And why stop at level 10? It's at level 11 that pally gets the pwnsme Aura of Justice allowing him as a swift action to give those bonuses to every ally in 10 feet against the big bad. Suddenly everyone who uses weapons has +CHA bonus (of paladin) to Hit, and +11 Damage on every hit (with an additional bonus of 11 more points on the first hit for each character if it's an evil outsider, dragon, etc.) . The only thing better than a crusader/smiter against evil is one that can also turn others into smiters as well! Again, its situational, but in situatiosn where paladins are intended to shine, they are really bright and pretty. :P

Alienfreak wrote:
Serisan wrote:
JCServant wrote:


Inquisitor is likely going to win the ranged fight, unfortunately, due to having all the same damage boosting spells, but not having to prepare them, as well as GNB on the top end. Litany of Righteousness (especially if you Extend it) is a solid boost for both (though it makes the Paladin suddenly very ridiculous). Paladins need to use Unsanctioned Knowledge to rival the Inquisitor on the spell field, mostly to grab...well...Inquisitor spells (Named Bullet, HO!). That means you need 13 Int. More on that in a sec.

Judgments are a better crowd ability, while Smite is better against BBEGs, emphasis on the first B. Ultimately, at low levels, this likely means that the Inquisitor gets more for less investment.

10th level

** spoiler omitted **

...

1.

To Hit (with smite)
+10 BAB +6 Dex +2 Magical +4 Smite = +22
Dmg (with smite)
1d8 +3 Str +2 Magical +10 Smite= 19.5

You mean these lines?
2. Oh wait! As you say it I'll just skip everything I will do today for you and make it for every single level out there! No problem!
I took lvl 10 because its right in the middle.

LazarX wrote:

The Paladin Archer is not going to out-archer an archery-style Ranger, and he certainly won't outshoot an archery fighter. You play the Archery Paladin because you want the other parts of the package as well.

I don't know how how you get this idea :)


Alienfreak wrote:

2. Oh wait! As you say it I'll just skip everything I will do today for you and make it for every single level out there! No problem!

I took lvl 10 because its right in the middle.

LOL...Sarcasm ftl. I wasn't trying to knock you. I'm actually a pretty laid back person. Like I said, you have a lot more time than I do. I didn't even have time to do a few of those calculations in detail, nor do I have time to double check them to make sure everything is correct.

All I'm saying is that, crunching numbers is cool, but it's a snapshot...not the bigger picture. There are simply too many variables. It certainly doesn't disprove that when it comes to kicking big, bad butt that the Paladin isn't the best at what he does. However, if you are going to go the numbers route, I think you should consider doing the first attack at double bonus (or maybe a seperate scenario for those enemies that qualify), and one with level 11 where he gets to share his smite...because that last one, especially, is really is a big part of the damage output equation. In groups that have at least two other weapon based attackers, you're probably looking at another 22-44 pts of damage per round against big bad.


JCServant wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:

2. Oh wait! As you say it I'll just skip everything I will do today for you and make it for every single level out there! No problem!

I took lvl 10 because its right in the middle.

LOL...Sarcasm ftl. I wasn't trying to knock you. I'm actually a pretty laid back person. Like I said, you have a lot more time than I do. I didn't even have time to do a few of those calculations in detail, nor do I have time to double check them to make sure everything is correct.

All I'm saying is that, crunching numbers is cool, but it's a snapshot...not the bigger picture. There are simply too many variables. It certainly doesn't disprove that when it comes to kicking big, bad butt that the Paladin isn't the best at what he does. However, if you are going to go the numbers route, I think you should consider doing the first attack at double bonus (or maybe a seperate scenario for those enemies that qualify), and one with level 11 where he gets to share his smite...because that last one, especially, is really is a big part of the damage output equation. In groups that have at least two other weapon based attackers, you're probably looking at another 22-44 pts of damage per round against big bad.

It was just to show off that even against evil BBEGs the Inquisitor is en par with the Paladin if done right.

But the advantage is that you can do this against any dangerous enemy and not only evil ones. And this one still stands.

The Smite granting of the Paladin is really strong and as long as you have many other party members that use weapons the party will rock hard - against evil BBEGs that is ;).

Which is still one of my main points. Why play a Paladin that shines one in a while if you can be a versatile character right for any situation while not even being outclassed when the other one shines for once in a while...

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Paladin archer or Inquisitor archer? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.