So what're the least-optimal options these days?


Advice

201 to 250 of 366 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

UnArcaneElection/Ventnor: I never said those options were good or optimal. I just disagreed that a single class construct rider couldn't heal the construct levels 1-6: that's wrong/incorrect as I pointed out: nothing more or less was intended.

UnArcaneElection: Rich parents is easily retrained by taking the trait with the additional traits feat.

Ventnor: Yes, you are stuck with 1/2 elf and no FCB. However, you can use 'spell trigger and spell completion items' for the class you pick so it's hardly bad, and you can always retrain it latter if you truly hate it.

So:
#1 you can make construct rider work if you want from level 1.
#2 if you aren't thrilled with the way you have to build it, you can retrain everything except 1/2 elf once you can get a healing spell.


avr wrote:

The Craft Construct feat which a Construct Rider gets at level 4 does let you repair a construct. It's a pain but possible:

UM wrote:
Failing that, a crafter can repair a construct with the Craft Construct feat. When repairing a construct, its master spends 100 gp per Hit Die of the construct, and then makes a skill check as if he were crafting the construct with a DC of 5 less than the DC for crafting that construct. With a success, the construct regains 1d6 hit points per Hit Die of the construct. Completing a repair takes 1 day per 1,000 gp spent on the repair (minimum of 1 day).
Though normally this sounds like you want UMD and a wand.

ouch 100 gold per hit die to repair would be cheeper to dip a level into sorc or wizard and get magical knack for 3 caster levels of infernal healing


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Problem with the medium is largely that it relies on GM permission to actually channel the spirit you want with alarming regularity. If the PCs are traveling cross country on horseback and decide to camp for the night in a clearing hundreds of miles from civilization, you're basically reliant on "there's a sacred grove near here" or "there was a battle fought here" else you can't access the majority of your class features.

Certainly the GM should cooperate, but I'm sure we've all known times where the GM was uncooperative.

Oh for sure. Currently I'm with some great people, so no problems there, but I sympathize with folks who aren't. I've been in that situation.

Give it long enough and a combative GM will find a way to make every class suffer. Eventually you've just got to get out, or the game's not fun at all. Medium and other GM-dependent classes certainly suffer first and most in that sad situation though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LittleMissNaga wrote:
Give it long enough and a combative GM will find a way to make every class suffer. Eventually you've just got to get out, or the game's not fun at all. Medium and other GM-dependent classes certainly suffer first and most in that sad situation though.

This isn't necessarily true. I've seen DM that were fine with 'normal' classes, but bring in a paladin and suddenly alignment is an issue. Or a dirty trick build and never having the chance to use it. Some DM's just see "GM-dependent" classes as a challenge the player has to overcome to gain it's powers while 'normal' classes play normally without issue. They don't see it as combative but part and parcel of taking those classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish they didn't


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
I wish they didn't

It all goes back to the paladin and similar classes back through the history of d&d. The paladin got cool powers but they were 'balanced' with role playing limitations: IMO, it was a bad precedent to start and it's spiraled out of control to what we have today. Once you make roleplaying challenges part of the class ability mix, it becomes standard practice: In that light, it makes sense that things that require DM fiat requires a 'challenge' to use. If you can use them at will, you negate the DM fiat and that's part of the 'balance'.


I think the difference between the Paladin and the Medium is that (alignment questions aside) "you are admirable and unmistakeably a righteous person" is part and parcel to what the Paladin is while the Medium did not *need* to be designed in such a way that a a specific type of area was required to contact a certain spirit. The Medium is just "someone who contacts and channels spirits" the means by which they do this could be anything.

They could have just as easily designed the class so that you needed to access to a certain set of ritual implements, or a certain ritual, so that you could contact any spirit anywhere.

I'd much rather the Medium have to make appropriate offerings to whatever spirit they're trying to contact, than to try to find a training yard or a battleground so they can contact the Champion.


Really it could just be a set of foci that they channel each day to get a particular spirit. It'd basically be a spell-book and significantly less obtuse than go find a place connected to a battle/magic/divinity , go hunting for an hour etc.


Ascalaphus wrote:
It makes it much harder for enemies to "geek the mage first",

I always wonder how they knew who the mage was. It is true, that some wear a big pointy red hat with "WIZZARD" on it in sequins, but they are the minority. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
It makes it much harder for enemies to "geek the mage first",
I always wonder how they knew who the mage was. It is true, that some wear a big pointy red hat with "WIZZARD" on it in sequins, but they are the minority. ;-)

I mean, "shoot your arrows at the person wearing the least arrow-stopping armor" seems to be self-evident, even in a world where wizards don't exist.

This is why Psychics should always roll with full plate once they can afford it ;)


Gulthor wrote:

Ragechemist just falls into a coma for an hour in exchange for +2 Str.

Well, assume you have a 18 int as a Alchemist, which is law, that means the combat would have to go on for 8+ rounds of you taking damage and failing a save every round.

I admit, Master Chymist does this better and I wouldnt chose this option, but unplayable?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Firewarrior44 wrote:
Really it could just be a set of foci that they channel each day to get a particular spirit. It'd basically be a spell-book and significantly less obtuse than go find a place connected to a battle/magic/divinity , go hunting for an hour etc.

You have just described the relic channeler archetype, FYI.


DrDeth wrote:
Gulthor wrote:

Ragechemist just falls into a coma for an hour in exchange for +2 Str.

Well, assume you have a 18 int as a Alchemist, which is law, that means the combat would have to go on for 8+ rounds of you taking damage and failing a save every round.

I admit, Master Chymist does this better and I wouldnt chose this option, but unplayable?

Well, four rounds past level 6. Not to mention the penalties stick around considerably longer than most buffs in a dungeon crawl so consecutive combats for ragechemists REALLY suck.

I'm really not sure why they decided "y'know, this stacking penalty to intelligence and will saves for +2 additional strength is nice and all but we should make it TWICE AS BAD a couple levels in."


PossibleCabbage wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
It makes it much harder for enemies to "geek the mage first",
I always wonder how they knew who the mage was. It is true, that some wear a big pointy red hat with "WIZZARD" on it in sequins, but they are the minority. ;-)

I mean, "shoot your arrows at the person wearing the least arrow-stopping armor" seems to be self-evident, even in a world where wizards don't exist.

Oops, that guy was a monk. Batted my arrow right out of the air.

And if you're an illusionist, looking like youre wearing armor is childs play.

Not to mention SILKEN CEREMONIAL has no arcane spell failure.

Oh and simply wearing a chain-knitted sweater of silver colored thread make it look like chainmail.


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Gulthor wrote:

Ragechemist just falls into a coma for an hour in exchange for +2 Str.

Well, assume you have a 18 int as a Alchemist, which is law, that means the combat would have to go on for 8+ rounds of you taking damage and failing a save every round.

I admit, Master Chymist does this better and I wouldnt chose this option, but unplayable?

Well, four rounds past level 6. Not to mention the penalties stick around considerably longer than most buffs in a dungeon crawl so consecutive combats for ragechemists REALLY suck.

I'm really not sure why they decided "y'know, this stacking penalty to intelligence and will saves for +2 additional strength is nice and all but we should make it TWICE AS BAD a couple levels in."

Exactly. I also don't agree with the idea that most Mr. Hyde builds are going to bother rolling with an 18 INT. In fact, I'm playing my third alchemist and only my first (my bomber) had an 18 - the other two had base 14's after racials.

If anything, your comment kind of just points out, "Why not just arrange your ability scores differently so that your Str is 2 points higher and your Int 2 lower from your point buy?" If you've got a base 14 Int, and you go +Str on your mutagen (knocking your Int down to 12), then at higher level, you're out in just 3 rounds (worst-case).

With poor Will saves always being an Alchemist's Achilles' Heel, it's just designed very strangely.

Also, as the thread title was changed to "Least Optimal", it *definitely* fits in there.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Dasrak wrote:

Familiar Adept Wizard

One of those archetypes that is incomprehensibly punitive for meager benefits. The archetype literally has one benefit: once per day your familiar can use your 1st level school power. This is the kind of ability you forget you have, but it's even worse than that since you're saddled with witch familiar rules so using your familiar in combat is a big no-no. And to be clear, witch familiar rules are very flavorful but mechanically are purely a downgrade from wizard spellbook rules due to the higher cost to learn spells, inability to keep backup familiars, and much worse replacement rules. If that were all the downsides maybe...

I don't think Dasrak read the School Familiar abilities. Familiars get a cantrip, a lesser and a greater ability. Normally, it takes two feats and level 10 to get the greater abilities. The Familiar adept gets early access to those abilities and has the feat cost built in.

Not all the 1st level wizard abilities are great, but there are few that are pretty nice for a familiar a few times a day.

Using a familiar as a spellbook can be riskier, but it's pretty thematic.


(Assembled quotes from 2 messages into 1.)

PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
I wish they didn't
It all goes back to the paladin and similar classes back through the history of d&d. The paladin got cool powers but they were 'balanced' with role playing limitations: IMO, it was a bad precedent to start and it's spiraled out of control to what we have today. Once you make roleplaying challenges part of the class ability mix, it becomes standard practice: In that light, it makes sense that things that require DM fiat requires a 'challenge' to use. If you can use them at will, you negate the DM fiat and that's part of the 'balance'.
I think the difference between the Paladin and the Medium is that (alignment questions aside) "you are admirable and unmistakeably a righteous person" is part and parcel to what the Paladin is while the Medium did not *need* to be designed in such a way that a a specific type of area was required to contact a certain spirit. {. . .}

Thread for you.

On second thought, let's not go to that thread -- it's a silly place.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

(Assembled quotes from 2 messages into 1.)

PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
I wish they didn't
It all goes back to the paladin and similar classes back through the history of d&d. The paladin got cool powers but they were 'balanced' with role playing limitations: IMO, it was a bad precedent to start and it's spiraled out of control to what we have today. Once you make roleplaying challenges part of the class ability mix, it becomes standard practice: In that light, it makes sense that things that require DM fiat requires a 'challenge' to use. If you can use them at will, you negate the DM fiat and that's part of the 'balance'.
I think the difference between the Paladin and the Medium is that (alignment questions aside) "you are admirable and unmistakeably a righteous person" is part and parcel to what the Paladin is while the Medium did not *need* to be designed in such a way that a a specific type of area was required to contact a certain spirit. {. . .}

Thread for you.

On second thought, let's not go to that thread -- it's a silly place.

My point was that balancing a classes power/abilities with a roleplaying disadvantage is a bad way to to it. I see no difference between the paladin and the medium: they both trade power for roleplaying disadvantage. I'm not going to quibble which one has the more thematic roleplaying disadvantage, as I couldn't care less: I dislike all of them and wish they'd get rid of them and balance the class without them.

As a side note, I'd like to see alignment removed from the game. For instance, a paladin works fine as a holy warrior with a code from the god that powers them. AS/IS, LG and CE get holy warriors while the gods in the middle get nothing. End side note.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Grey Paladin imo. Gives up too much just so one can play a non-Lawful Good Paladin. I was not expecting the same abilites what we get is just not worth taking.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
I don't think Dasrak read the School Familiar abilities. Familiars get a cantrip, a lesser and a greater ability. Normally, it takes two feats and level 10 to get the greater abilities. The Familiar adept gets early access to those abilities and has the feat cost built in.

I don't see your point. You don't have to take the Familiar Adept archetype to gain access to the School Familiar - those can be selected by any Wizard without shackling themselves to this atrocious archetype.

Greater school power is 2 levels early, that's true, but lesser school power is 3 levels late. The delay isn't actually the end of the world, but the fact that this penalty exists at all makes absolutely no sense.


I'm still gonna say Sorcerer4/Oracle4/MysticTheurge is way more trouble than it's worth.


graystone wrote:


As a side note, I'd like to see alignment removed from the game. For instance, a paladin works fine as a holy warrior with a code from the god that powers them. AS/IS, LG and CE get holy warriors while the gods in the middle get nothing. End side note.

They get warpriests


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
graystone wrote:


As a side note, I'd like to see alignment removed from the game. For instance, a paladin works fine as a holy warrior with a code from the god that powers them. AS/IS, LG and CE get holy warriors while the gods in the middle get nothing. End side note.
They get warpriests

So? All alignments get them so that's a pretty moot point. it's as informative as saying "they get fighters" or "they get clerics" or "they get multiclass fighter/clerics".

None of that changes the fact that ONLY LG and CE gets holy warriors to champion that ALIGNMENT [the actual god is a secondary choice to alignment]. In contrast a warpriests is a part time warriors [3/4 BAB] that champion a particular deity: it's not a bad class but it's NOT a paladin replacement.


There is a thread for that argument already^^


graystone wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
graystone wrote:
As a side note, I'd like to see alignment removed from the game. For instance, a paladin works fine as a holy warrior with a code from the god that powers them. AS/IS, LG and CE get holy warriors while the gods in the middle get nothing. End side note.
They get warpriests

So? All alignments get them so that's a pretty moot point. it's as informative as saying "they get fighters" or "they get clerics" or "they get multiclass fighter/clerics".

None of that changes the fact that ONLY LG and CE gets holy warriors to champion that ALIGNMENT [the actual god is a secondary choice to alignment]. In contrast a warpriests is a part time warriors [3/4 BAB] that champion a particular deity: it's not a bad class but it's NOT a paladin replacement.

Anecdotally, one of my favorite paladins was my LN paladin/warlock of the Raven Queen in 4E: a tiefling named Pact.

There *is* something about being a "paladin" of a deity that seems to exceed "simply" being a cleric or warpriest. An intensity. Inquisitors seem to have it too, though in a different way.

In practice, this change does end up working fine. Having a paladin framework that simply asks you to choose an alignment that you're going to champion and then an alignment aspect that you oppose (Good/Evil/Chaos/Law) is a perfectly reasonable and mechanically simple houserule to put into place.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
There is a thread for that argument already^^

Which is why I made it a side note to my main point. In pathfinder, I'm not invested enough in the paladin as/is to worry about that other thread: I generally don't get to play with house-rules and alignment is an issue often enough for me to avoid the class entirely.

In a way, paladin can be the least optimal option possible if/when the DM is determined to have you fall with catch 22's. [see how I got it back to the thread question ;)]


graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
There is a thread for that argument already^^

Which is why I made it a side note to my main point. In pathfinder, I'm not invested enough in the paladin as/is to worry about that other thread: I generally don't get to play with house-rules and alignment is an issue often enough for me to avoid the class entirely.

In a way, paladin can be the least optimal option possible if/when the DM is determined to have you fall with catch 22's. [see how I got it back to the thread question ;)]

Lol yeah and it wasn't directed just at you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Geisha Bard archetype is another and probably will never be topped as the one of the worst imo. The Tea Ceremony a class feature that takes ten minutes to make and requires four Bardic performance for each creature to be affected. So a group of four characters including the Bard wold have to spend sixteen performance rounds. Also depleting or if not severly limiting any other performances the Geisha can do until she get a a full rest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only way I've seen the Geisha be viable was in that "laziest party ever" thread, with the interpretation that since Tea Ceremony doesn't specify that the allies need to drink the tea, or witness the ceremony, and that there is no range that you can buff your allies from literally anywhere in the multiverse.

Of course, no one would actually want to play that character, but it's a fun thought experiment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The Geisha trades off very little, just weapon proficiency and bardic knowledge. The other benefits aren't terrible, so if you don't care about weapon proficiency you can just live with the fact that Tea Ceremony is overpriced for what it does.


Dasrak wrote:
The Geisha trades off very little, just weapon proficiency and bardic knowledge. The other benefits aren't terrible, so if you don't care about weapon proficiency you can just live with the fact that Tea Ceremony is overpriced for what it does.

Bardic Knowledge is one of the most fun parts of the bard, though. I like knowing a little about everything!

Dark Archive

As Archives of Nethys has been updated again, I can finally share the mediocrity that is the Katroome! As I stated earlier on this thread (quite a while back), this Improved Familiar is a bundle of role-play possibilities, but he kinda sucks... You need a lot of stat-boosting gear/spells and maybe even the Human's Eye for Talent to make something of it, and in that case you could go for its SLA's or the Web ability (make note that raising Con does not increase its health, just Web's DC and Fort saves).


graystone wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
graystone wrote:


As a side note, I'd like to see alignment removed from the game. For instance, a paladin works fine as a holy warrior with a code from the god that powers them. AS/IS, LG and CE get holy warriors while the gods in the middle get nothing. End side note.
They get warpriests

So? All alignments get them so that's a pretty moot point. it's as informative as saying "they get fighters" or "they get clerics" or "they get multiclass fighter/clerics".

None of that changes the fact that ONLY LG and CE gets holy warriors to champion that ALIGNMENT [the actual god is a secondary choice to alignment]. In contrast a warpriests is a part time warriors [3/4 BAB] that champion a particular deity: it's not a bad class but it's NOT a paladin replacement.

Every alignment doesn't need a paladin when warpriest exists. Paladin is supposed to represent a specific level of discipline and devotion. I'm just imagining the CG oracle 1/paladinX of desna who uses Cha for Saves, attack, damage, save DC's and AC/cmd Stuff has definitely been balanced around alignment restrictions in pathfinder.

And given that pathfinder has put out paladin codes for all the gods who could have an antipaladin/paladin I submit that it doesnt seem secondary to the alignment in the eyes of Paizo.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
I wish they didn't

Yep it's a shame if they do so. As a GM, you're an enabler, a collaborator, so if a player wants to play character X, he should

a) do his best so that the player can have fun with this character

or

b) if the char really doesn't fit the game, tell the player beforehand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
graystone wrote:


As a side note, I'd like to see alignment removed from the game. For instance, a paladin works fine as a holy warrior with a code from the god that powers them. AS/IS, LG and CE get holy warriors while the gods in the middle get nothing. End side note.
They get warpriests

So? All alignments get them so that's a pretty moot point. it's as informative as saying "they get fighters" or "they get clerics" or "they get multiclass fighter/clerics".

None of that changes the fact that ONLY LG and CE gets holy warriors to champion that ALIGNMENT [the actual god is a secondary choice to alignment]. In contrast a warpriests is a part time warriors [3/4 BAB] that champion a particular deity: it's not a bad class but it's NOT a paladin replacement.

Every alignment doesn't need a paladin when warpriest exists. Paladin is supposed to represent a specific level of discipline and devotion. I'm just imagining the CG oracle 1/paladinX of desna who uses Cha for Saves, attack, damage, save DC's and AC/cmd Stuff has definitely been balanced around alignment restrictions in pathfinder.

And given that pathfinder has put out paladin codes for all the gods who could have an antipaladin/paladin I submit that it doesnt seem secondary to the alignment in the eyes of Paizo.

Here! Have a sucky cleric! That's what you wanted, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
And given that pathfinder has put out paladin codes for all the gods who could have an antipaladin/paladin I submit that it doesnt seem secondary to the alignment in the eyes of Paizo.

Honestly, CE strikes me as probably the weirdest alignment to have a Paladin-equivalent. From all descriptions of it that I've read, it doesn't really gel with "living according to a strict code".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Here! Have a sucky cleric! That's what you wanted, right?

Or is it a sucky fighter? Really it's saying some good gods aren't 'good' enough to have champions of good that follow them or they aren't evil enough to have champions of evil follow them...

And if it "represent a specific level of discipline and devotion", how to antipaladins manage it? They HAVE to show the same "discipline and devotion" to follow their alignment and codes.

Then wander over and look at Cavalier/Samurai who somehow manage to have "discipline and devotion" to their oath and amazingly enough, can manage that with the ability to take any alignment. It's almost like Paizo IS saying it's "secondary to the alignment in the eyes of Paizo". After all, CE is perfectly capable of "discipline and devotion" as shown by 3 of their own classes...


graystone wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Here! Have a sucky cleric! That's what you wanted, right?

Or is it a sucky fighter? Really it's saying some good gods aren't 'good' enough to have champions of good that follow them or they aren't evil enough to have champions of evil follow them...

And if it "represent a specific level of discipline and devotion", how to antipaladins manage it? They HAVE to show the same "discipline and devotion" to follow their alignment and codes.

Then wander over and look at Cavalier/Samurai who somehow manage to have "discipline and devotion" to their oath and amazingly enough, can manage that with the ability to take any alignment. It's almost like Paizo IS saying it's "secondary to the alignment in the eyes of Paizo". After all, CE is perfectly capable of "discipline and devotion" as shown by 3 of their own classes...

They're champions of LAW and good, and have been since the games inception barring a handful of 3rd party or niche supplements. And everything is sucky compared to cleric, so that point is a non starter.


Ryan Freire wrote:
They're champions of LAW and good, and have been since the games inception barring a handful of 3rd party or niche supplements.

I've never thought of Dragon magazine or official main line d&d products [3e/4e/5e] as 3rd party or niche: seem awfully mainstream IMO. See dragon 310, unearthed arcana[3.5e], 4e players handbook and 5e players handbook.

Ryan Freire wrote:
And everything is sucky compared to cleric, so that point is a non starter.

I have NO idea what this is in reference to. If it's Ventnor, you missed his point: he's calling the CLERIC sucky compared to the paladin when making a holy warrior so clearly you're reading something wrong. :P


No he's calling the warpriest sucky in reference to the cleric. Cleric is one of the, if not the strongest class in the game, most things are 'sucky' in comparison. Clearly you're reading something wrong.

And warpriest isn't sucky, its a solid class with a few issues that still manages to be better than a lot of classes out there.

As for Dragon..yeah, niche supplement, 4e/5e No relation to the d20 system pathfinder is based off of, and a fraction of the history behind it. 3.0/3.5 supplements that open up non LG paladins? Niche splatbooks.

As for antipaladins and discipline? A code that says "give in to your impulses and take what you want" isn't disciplined duder.


I think the Paladin tangent is bizarre here.

The Paladin is defined as someone who is so devoted to their code, they gain special powers from it. No code, no Paladin. So there's going to be some RP aspect to it regardless (as there will be with any other class that derives power from following a code.) Even the 5e Paladin beloved by people who who hate the LG requirement has some sort of code they have to follow.

The medium is defined as someone who contacts, talks to, and channels spirits. You cannot have a medium that does not interact with spirits, but you do not have to have a medium that has to go somewhere in particular to talk to spirits. Seems like the spirits should have an easier time getting around, being incorporeal and all, than the medium does.


Ryan Freire wrote:

No he's calling the warpriest sucky in reference to the cleric. Cleric is one of the, if not the strongest class in the game, most things are 'sucky' in comparison. Clearly you're reading something wrong.

And warpriest isn't sucky, its a solid class with a few issues that still manages to be better than a lot of classes out there.

As for Dragon..yeah, niche supplement, 4e/5e No relation to the d20 system pathfinder is based off of, and a fraction of the history behind it. 3.0/3.5 supplements that open up non LG paladins? Niche splatbooks.

As for antipaladins and discipline? A code that says "give in to your impulses and take what you want" isn't disciplined duder.

I'm more referring to the fact that a cleric with worse casting is not really a substitute for a full-on holy warrior.


Ventnor wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

No he's calling the warpriest sucky in reference to the cleric. Cleric is one of the, if not the strongest class in the game, most things are 'sucky' in comparison. Clearly you're reading something wrong.

And warpriest isn't sucky, its a solid class with a few issues that still manages to be better than a lot of classes out there.

As for Dragon..yeah, niche supplement, 4e/5e No relation to the d20 system pathfinder is based off of, and a fraction of the history behind it. 3.0/3.5 supplements that open up non LG paladins? Niche splatbooks.

As for antipaladins and discipline? A code that says "give in to your impulses and take what you want" isn't disciplined duder.

I'm more referring to the fact that a cleric with worse casting is not really a substitute for a full-on holy warrior.

Warpriests get a level based damage boost to their weapons of choice, a bunch of bonus feats, pseudo full BAB for feat selection, count as fighter levels for bonus feats, have an archetype that can let you take advanced weapon training options, and have two different divine bond comparable class abilities in their weapon/armor enhancement. They have the two best saves as strong saves and can wear all the armors and use all the weapons. I'm really having a hard time seeing them as not full on holy warriors. They lack 50% of the benefit of full BAB, and mainstat to saves. Thats about it, in exchange you get domain based blessings related to the god you serve


Ryan Freire wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

No he's calling the warpriest sucky in reference to the cleric. Cleric is one of the, if not the strongest class in the game, most things are 'sucky' in comparison. Clearly you're reading something wrong.

And warpriest isn't sucky, its a solid class with a few issues that still manages to be better than a lot of classes out there.

As for Dragon..yeah, niche supplement, 4e/5e No relation to the d20 system pathfinder is based off of, and a fraction of the history behind it. 3.0/3.5 supplements that open up non LG paladins? Niche splatbooks.

As for antipaladins and discipline? A code that says "give in to your impulses and take what you want" isn't disciplined duder.

I'm more referring to the fact that a cleric with worse casting is not really a substitute for a full-on holy warrior.
Warpriests get a level based damage boost to their weapons of choice, a bunch of bonus feats, pseudo full BAB for feat selection, count as fighter levels for bonus feats, have an archetype that can let you take advanced weapon training options, and have two different divine bond comparable class abilities in their weapon/armor enhancement. They have the two best saves as strong saves and can wear all the armors and use all the weapons. I'm really having a hard time seeing them as not full on holy warriors. They lack 50% of the benefit of full BAB, and mainstat to saves. Thats about it, in exchange you get domain based blessings related to the god you serve

Most of those features have to be activated by the Warpriest, instead of just being a part of its natural power like the Paladin's auras. They're also lesser combatants than Paladins due to being more fragile and not as good with weapons. I also cannot bring myself to build a warpriest, because I just end up comparing them to clerics and they come up lacking. Most of the blessings tend to be crappier than equivalent cleric domain powers, and feats are just worse than having more spells. If you're going to be a divine warrior, at least have the warrior class chassis.

Oh, hey, I guess that means I consider the Warpriest class to be a least-optimal option these days. What do you know, thread's back on track.


Ventnor wrote:
Oh, hey, I guess that means I consider the Warpriest class to be a least-optimal option these days. What do you know, thread's back on track.

Give it two or three posts. It'll be back to some other tangent (or the same one) before too long.

Silver Crusade

Warpriests are nowhere near being sub-optimal. The problem is that you're only comparing them to clerics.

Of course, they don't compare to clerics in magical ability. As you said, they're only 6 level casters, the blessings aren't as good as domains, and their channeling competes with swift action casting for uses of fervor.

On the other hand, warpriests are just as far ahead of clerics when it comes to martial ability as they are behind them in divine magic. They have better weapon and armor proficiencies, bonus combat feats, and sacred weapon. Most importantly, the ability to cast their self-buffing spells as a swift action gets them into the fight immediately, instead of needing to spend time buffing before attacking like a cleric or oracle.

Clerics may be one of the most powerful classes in the game, as are all full casters, but warpriests are among the most powerful martials in the game. All that magic, bonus feats, and swift action buffing easily makes up for being 3/4 BAB.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
The medium is defined as someone who contacts, talks to, and channels spirits. You cannot have a medium that does not interact with spirits

Well, unless you're a reanimated medium, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, RAW, you actually just fall into a coma every other day, can never actually channel a spirit, and half the archetype features don't work correctly (though I also linked in that same post an excellent "houserule" of how it was certainly meant to be worded.)

A correctly-written/rewritten reanimated medium is actually quite nice, though it still has the location requirement, which is really bizarre since you're only channeling yourself.


People often overestimate how many feats a warpriest gets the full BAB/fighter level effect with, but they're still decent in a pure combat sense. Not vastly interesting out of combat, but still.

Some of the combat maneuvers are decidedly suboptimal to invest in. Reposition, drag and steal mainly; it's possible to make bull rush viable, especially for worshippers of Rovagug.

The base spiritualist & archetypes which keep the phantom are IMO less than optimal. Phantoms are vulnerable and often ineffective.


LittleMissNaga wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Oh, hey, I guess that means I consider the Warpriest class to be a least-optimal option these days. What do you know, thread's back on track.
Give it two or three posts. It'll be back to some other tangent (or the same one) before too long.

Called it!


Fromper wrote:

Warpriests are nowhere near being sub-optimal. The problem is that you're only comparing them to clerics.

Of course, they don't compare to clerics in magical ability. As you said, they're only 6 level casters, the blessings aren't as good as domains, and their channeling competes with swift action casting for uses of fervor.

Except Charm's sanctuary blessing is better since unlike normal spell version except if the ally (or self) attacks an opponent, the effect ends with respect to only that opponent.

201 to 250 of 366 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / So what're the least-optimal options these days? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.