Does one exist that covers more recent material?
More recent as in...?
Post UC/UM/UE. There are a lot of other resources on them now with Chronicle of the Righteous, Champtions of Purity, Faiths of Purity, etc. and now Inner Sea Gods.
The guides at
only include the CRB/APG/UC/UM in their advice in the one guide. An updated guide would have more feedback from Paizo about RP to take away their bad wrap as well as the recent "attitudes on paladins" proves are still alive and well.
That clear enough?
I'm fairly certain that this guide contains what you're looking for.
It doesn't include anything for whole archetypes, and I'm looking to build an empyreal knight. Which, that's a UC archetype so it makes me scratch my head as to what's really in there. Also, it's well laid out to read but it's not all that great for reference material, but, granted, that's a nitpick.
Thanks for the try, though.
Oh, you're looking for a guide to an Archetype. Perhaps you might wish to request one on the Guide Request thread.
There's a guide request thread? And, no, I'm not just looking for archetype advice. I'd love to see a general updated paladin guide because there really is a lot more material (fluff and crunch) out since UC.
Well, the guide I linked you to includes material up through Mythic Adventures, but that's as "up to date" as it gets right now. So, that's a few years more recent.
It's not. Not only are entire books not in that guide but even the books it claims to include are clearly not complete.
I'm curious to know what you feel is missing from books in the optimization guide I linked you to.
|
The problem might be, it's (as most) a guide to optimisation and some archetypes are simply terrible and will do nothing but trade away good abilities for things that are effectively worthless (or in a few cases actively harmful) and thus these are hardly ever if at all going to show up in such guides unless it's in a "for the love of Aroden avoid THIS!".
The problem might be, it's (as most) a guide to optimisation and some archetypes are simply terrible and will do nothing but trade away good abilities for things that are effectively worthless (or in a few cases actively harmful) and thus these are hardly ever if at all going to show up in such guides unless it's in a "for the love of Aroden avoid THIS!".
I'm guessing that you may be correct, Suthainn.
I'm curious to know what you feel is missing from books in the optimization guide I linked you to.
For example, at level 15 for empyreal knight you get truespeech which removes a large potential hindrance from the litany spells. That would upgrade many of them by a step, imo.
I'm curious to know what you feel is missing from books in the optimization guide I linked you to.For example, at level 15 for empyreal knight you get truespeech which removes a large potential hindrance from the litany spells. That would upgrade many of them by a step, imo.
Do you feel that this is worth the trade-off in things that you lose, just to get an ability that does what a second level bard/inquisitor spell (that can be made permanent) can do for you well before 15th level? A 9th level wizard can grant you this power.
Honestly, the Empyreal Knight archetype trades out some of the paladin's best abilities for a lot of mediocre (or poor) ones and doesn't come close to being on par with the standard paladin until you get the capstone ability. Since it doesn't rate as an optimal choice, it's no surprise that you didn't find it in an optimisation guide.
|
|
To be fair, Empyreal Knight is mostly pretty weak and I can see why an optimisation guide would avoid it. Lose Divine Grace to... speak Celestial. Lose Mercys to gain a weak and very slowly improving set of resistances and a few other small bonuses. Lose Lay on Hands to gain a limited summon monster ability usable very few times per day... etc.
Is it thematic and interesting? Sure, if you want to play an angelic knight it's perfect and you should go with it! Is it mostly far weaker than most other paladin archetypes (and even vanilla paladins), definitely and that's why guides on how to make a highly effective character will usually avoid it (and other archetypes like it).
Perhaps this is a niche that you might like to take up the challenge and fill Buri, focusing on how to make mechanically weaker choices workable and fulfilling for players who choose them, focusing on their strengths and mitigating their weaknesses, you might find a lot of people would be interested.
This got way off track. I was simply looking for an updated, generic paladin guide. Is there one? No. Thanks.
Buri,
There is an updated, generic paladin guide that includes materials up through Mythic Adventures. It may not be what you're looking for, but it exists and was linked for you.
No, it doesn't. I cited several sources prior to MA it doesn't even touch.
Correction, Buri. You referred to one specific example of something not optimal that was not included in the optimisation guide, not several sources. That example was the empyreal knight's truespeech ability that is gained at level 15 from Ultimate Combat. That's as close as you came to citing sources.
You referenced (there's a difference between referring to something and citing it; I'll get to that later) that it's missing material from Chronicle of the Righteous (which doesn't have any feats or magic items that are that spectacular for paladins), Champions of Purity and Faiths of Purity (they both have the same issue with regard to feats and magic items). Inner Sea Gods just came out, so that's an unreasonable expectation for inclusion into a guide that says it was last updated in January of 2014.
Just to help you to understand the difference... A citation occurs when you use a specific source in your work and then follow up with the proper bibliographic information. A reference is the bibliographic information that guides readers to your source.
Regardless, it includes materials from Mythic Adventures, Mythic Origins and Mythic Realms, so it goes up through that point.
Did I miss any other references that are from sources after Ultimate Combat?
I do think this is the only someone's condescension has made me abandon my own thread. Good job.
In fairness he probably thought you did not understand it because you used it incorrectly - which is pretty reasonable. Its generally best to assume the best possible tone from online responses and I do not read the post as condescending.