What is your favorite divine class?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


What is your favorite Divine class in Pathfinder First Edition? I personaly only played the Cleric but I love the idea of the divine classes and they all seem realy versatile and intresting and I realy want to try more of them. =)


Warpriest is probably my favorite.

Shamans look interesting, but I haven't played one, yet.


There's too many to decide.
9th Caster: Cleric. The base class is merely ok, but it has some really interesting archetypes.
6th Caster: Inquisitor. The class is really too versatile, and it has so many good archetypes that can change the way it plays for big replay value.
4th Caster: Paladin. It's super rare to get to play a paladin, so it always feels fresh.


Inquisitor by far. The class even without archetypes is just so darned versatile it can handle any role it needs to be on a round by round basis.


Paladin, but I like Clerics and Warpriests as well. I haven't really played any others aside from a dip into Oracle on my Bloodrager.

I love Paladins, they're really a martial character but they feel like they have powerful magics to augment themselves. If you want to feel like a powerful holy warrior then Paladon just works. Of the 4th level casters (Bloodrager, Paladin, Ranger) the Paladin is the only one where you feel like investing in their casting stat. Also nothing compares when it comes to survivability.

(It's 2am and I'm rambling, so I'll leave it there.)


Inquisitor or Antipaladin.

Inquisitor for the reasons mentioned above.

Obviously Antipaladin really didn't get fleshed out nearly enough. I'd also say they're strictly weaker than Paladin across the board, but a lot of fun to add class levels of Antipaladin to monsters.


Oracle.


Paladin is pretty much the only divine class I play. They're super fun.

I do like druids, but if I'm going to play a 9th level caster, I'd prefer to just go witch or sorcerer. I think I'll try and make a wildshape focussed druid for my next game.


Paladin-like classes, but not the paladin itself, as I hate the code of conduct; I don't want to fall because I told the queen that dress doesn't make her butt look big. Obviously this is an exaggeration but then the rules aren't at all clear on how much you can stray from the "you are better off bashing someone's face in than lying to them" before the GM can inflict mechanical penalties for RP choices. Also, the whole inability to tolerate other PCs acting dishonorably makes the paladin practically unplayable.

I am not a big fan of cleric-like classes that can fight as well as fighters, so not a big fan of buffing-and-bashing. Anything that's like a cloistered cleric gets my positive attention. The shaman is a class I wanted to like but my brain locks up just looking at it. Divine caster spell lists are just too big, and the shaman gets a lot of unshamanlike spells.


Kimera757 wrote:

Paladin-like classes, but not the paladin itself, as I hate the code of conduct; I don't want to fall because I told the queen that dress doesn't make her butt look big. Obviously this is an exaggeration but then the rules aren't at all clear on how much you can stray from the "you are better off bashing someone's face in than lying to them" before the GM can inflict mechanical penalties for RP choices. Also, the whole inability to tolerate other PCs acting dishonorably makes the paladin practically unplayable.

I'm honestly not sure what the RAW is regarding this, but feel if the group is made up of reasonable people this should not really be an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Judging by the boards, reasonable people are in short supply.


In my opinion, the Oracle is the best spontaneous caster and the best divine caster. Druids are just really unique. I love the Halcyon Druid archetype, because it prioritizes being a caster.

Warpriests are also good.

Paladins are better at being divine casters than Rangers.


Inquisitor. It is the rogue-ish divine caster I wanted to play for years and years. I especially like the archetypes that trade away judgements—they are all straight upgrades as far as I’m concerned.

Oracles are also cool but the selection of quality curses and mysteries is too limited.


born_of_fire wrote:

Inquisitor. It is the rogue-ish divine caster I wanted to play for years and years. I especially like the archetypes that trade away judgements—they are all straight upgrades as far as I’m concerned.

Oracles are also cool but the selection of quality curses and mysteries is too limited.

Funny, I consider Judgement to be the Inquisitor's best class feature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tsukiyo wrote:
I'm honestly not sure what the RAW is regarding this, but feel if the group is made up of reasonable people this should not really be an issue.

I've never had a problem playing a Paladin in the groups I've played with, but I've heard some horror stories. I also check what everyone else is playing before going for Paladin - if they're playing Neutral to Evil I feel like bringing a Paladin to the group is just asking for problems.

But yes, if you have reasonable people in your group it's usually fine.

Sovereign Court

Summing up all the levels of my PFS characters... I would say Shaman, then Paladin, Inquisitor, Oracle, then Druid. Don't have a Cleric and I think I dipped Warpriest on my Occultist for a few levels but retrained out. And in the evil campaign I played in, I went for Spiritualist instead of Antipaladin.


Melkiador wrote:
Judging by the boards, reasonable people are in short supply.

It is known.

Good players cannot ever be allowed access to explosives or the Sleight of Hand skill (sadly) due to bad experiences. Those experiences aren't built into the rules. (Sleight of Hand isn't broken. An idiot who insists on robbing authority figures is an RP issue. Solved by hanging the idiot PC.)

And then there's paladins. Kender fall into the same category (another set of stupid rules), but kender aren't core so it doesn't actually come up (much).


It's got to be an oracle. You can do so many more things with it than any other divine class.

Unreasonable paladins can be a problem for good-aligned groups as well as for neutral or evil.


Druid, by far, but I prefer the weird 3pp archetypes. Hunter can be a real hoot with the right archetypes, too.

Oracle doesn't fall under the reasons that Clerics, Inquisitors and Paladins are anathema... but I just can't get over the Curse.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:

Inquisitor. It is the rogue-ish divine caster I wanted to play for years and years. I especially like the archetypes that trade away judgements—they are all straight upgrades as far as I’m concerned.

Oracles are also cool but the selection of quality curses and mysteries is too limited.

Funny, I consider Judgement to be the Inquisitor's best class feature.

I feel that trading away judgements simplifies the class mechanics by swapping in more universally applicable abilities equal in power to or better than judgements at the lower levels. It is my understanding that judgements are more attractive at the higher levels, where what you’ve traded them away for is not as powerful as the ability to combine judgements and the judgements themselves are individually more rewarding due to scaling, but I’ve never played an inquisitor past level 13.


I've only played Cleric, Inquisitor, Paladin and Warpriest, but of all of them I really liked Warpriest the best. While I know the Paladin probably has more DPR potential long-term I really enjoy the versatility of 6 levels of spells that you can Swift action on yourself, weapon and armor choices, a mix of combat and special effects... you get a little of everything with this class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
I really liked Warpriest the best. While I know the Paladin probably has more DPR potential long-term ...

While I love the Paladin, I don't think this is necessarily true. The Paladin is a boss killer, and it's absolutely amazing at that (Smite Evil might be the best damage buff there is), but I'd say in the average adventuring day the Warpriest is going to deal more damage than the Paladin.

Where Paladins are REALLY hard to beat is in the toughness department. The Warpriest is no slouch there either, but Lay on Hands and Divine Grace are just so game-breakingly good.


Druids are definitely my favourite for 9ths, more class features and a more fun class list than the cleric while still being prepared casters with their entire list available, lots of nice archetypes too. Shaman looks interesting but I've never played one.

For 6ths I'm not sure, I like the inquisitor, it's nice to have decent skill points and they have some excellent buff and bash potential with bane and judgement. But the warpriest does what the magus does to arcane for divine, making a gish that doesn't have to waste a few rounds standing in the corner buffing before they can get stuck in. Probably some of the best class design in the game there.

Paladins are way better than rangers, the ranger has a weird lack of identity and lots of classes competing with it (hunter, druid, slayer etc.) whereas noone outdoes the paladin when it comes to obliterating that big evil boss, when not smiting you have that wonderful charisma to saves and lay on hands for excellent mercies and self healing along with a surprisingly nice list of spells. If they could have just made your divine bond swift action it'd be perfect.


Druid. I could play a different druid every game and be happy. Paladins are also fun--there's a huge breadth of potential characters within that supposedly impossible code of coduct.

Never got the love for warpriest. It still feels like a solution in search of a problem. Plus the name is probably tied with bloodrager for worst class name--just hearing someone say it makes my lower right eyelid twitch.


Paladins and Druids are two of my three favourite classes (along with Wizard which does not fit in this thread). I might have a different attitude if I had regularly run into GMs like those in the horror stories, but I haven't.

Actually that's not quite true, I did have one GM (one whole table actually) at a PFS con that had some really weird ideas about Paladins. I won't name the adventure, since what I am about to say constittes spoilers (albeit vague ones). The gist is that we had some kill some bad guys within a certain time limit, or the proverbial would hit the fan and a bunch of innocent people would die.

The table (including the GM) decided I needed to be protected from having to kill them. No way that I should have been, but it was made clear that if I killed I'd get end up as an ex-Paladin. So I had to go along with taking them alive, handing them over to the watch, and letting the watch push them down the stairs.

No way Iomedae would have had a problem with killing those guys. Ironically, she would have had a problem with not taking adequate care of them once they had been taken alive, so my character should have fallen for that. But like I said, I had to go along with the table. (I am not a Paladin in real life!)

At least I got a story out of it.

_
glass.

Liberty's Edge

I'm afraid I go with Cleric. Followed by Paladin.

I am enjoying my Inquisitor, but that's mostly an RP thing about the Lizardman character.

NPC: "So you are an Inquisitor of Desna?"
Orto the Lizardman: "Yeth."
NPC frowns: "But isn't Desna of the Chaotic Good persuasion?"
Orto: "Thatth right."
NPC: "I'm not sure I understand. If Desna doesn't have any defined dogma or rituals... what is there to Inquire about? How would Heresy even come about?"
Orto: "I thaid I am an Inquithitor of Dethna; I never thaid I wath very good at it."


Favourite - Cleric. All the spells and potential for very differnet styles of cleric (caster, archer, front liner)

Second favourite - Inquisitor. Because it's a rogue but with divine spells.

Least favourite - Oracle. You'd have thought that the curses and patrons would give them the potential for a lot of flavour, but somehow every one I have seen played (in PFS admittedly) has come across as a 'build' rather than a character e.g 'I am deaf oracle, I cast Silence'.


Hunter.

Having absolutely the best pet and with shared training having the ability to port teamwork feats over to the other party members is super fun.


Inquisitor, but tied closely with Warpriest (specifically the Arsenal Chaplain).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inquisitor would be number 1. No matter the situation the inquisitor can usually adapt to deal with it. Unlike most other classes they have a good mix of both offensive and defensive options. Skill wise they are one of the best in the game. Not only do they get a decent number of skill points they also get scaling bonuses to multiple skills. If they take improved monster lore they can identify monsters better than a bard. With being WIS focused they can probably track better than a ranger. Stern Gaze makes it incredibly difficult to lie to them and easy for them to manipulate people. Their spell list is one of the most versatile in the game. And all of their ability synergize well with each other. That is their most powerful and useful feature.


Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor is rad.

Channeler of the Unknown Cleric is rad too.


Honestly, Inquisitor is borderline overpowered. They have way too many class features for any single class. The only thing that makes them feel not overpowered is that most of those class features operate on different areas of play. The problem with the class is when archetypes start trading out those disparate class features for class features that all affect the same area of play. Then you end up with monstrosities like the Monster Tactician.


Melkiador wrote:
Honestly, Inquisitor is borderline overpowered. They have way too many class features for any single class. The only thing that makes them feel not overpowered is that most of those class features operate on different areas of play. The problem with the class is when archetypes start trading out those disparate class features for class features that all affect the same area of play. Then you end up with monstrosities like the Monster Tactician.

I don't think Inquisitor is borderline. In fact, it's probably one of the most balanced classes for all campaigns. Monster Tactician pushes the bar a bit, but summoned monsters have a lot of ways they get shut down.


Scavion wrote:
I don't think Inquisitor is borderline. In fact, it's probably one of the most balanced classes for all campaigns. Monster Tactician pushes the bar a bit, but summoned monsters have a lot of ways they get shut down.

If it’s the most “balanced” then that implies that about half of its contemporaries are more powerful than it. So, what classes would that be?

I suspect you mean not that it’s balanced, but that it lets you do everything you want to do in one package. Which is just a sign of it being borderline overpowered.

And most of the counters to summoning can be worked around. And most will hurt the other characters as much as the summoned monsters. But the inquisitor is still an inquisitor. Even without team worked monsters, it still has other good options in a niche fight.


Hunter's my favorite class in the game, its a balanced pet class that has a really fun spell list.

Second is a tie between Shaman (for the versatility) and Oracle (for the simplicity).

Liberty's Edge

I don't find the Inquisitor as "overpowered". The class's scaling and synergy only really gets out of hand with archery and a few other effects--compare Cunning Initiative to Diviner Wizards or Battle/Time Oracles. But, I look at that class's package and it feels like the favourite child that just got given all the gifts. Nothing it gets is weak, and every class feature is universally useful. I get to Stalwart and start wondering why the other classes don't get packages this good.

The answer to that is probably because other classes get bonus feats or talents, but Inquisitor's archetypes are so strong the talents really aren't needed.

On topic, hard for me to pick a favourite. I adore Paladins (and Insinuators) but the lack of feats or skill points physically hurts me. The Tortured Crusader is my jam though.

Warpriests are super fun and the Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain is remarkably powerful. At that point you're playing a Fighter that trades HP and AC for 6th level spellcasting and quickened spells!

Oracles have some of my favourite class features in the game but I don't like spontaneous 9th level casters and limited spells known off the cleric list is an exercise in masochism. I just can't do it!

I think I'd have to cheat and say the Reliquarian Occultist is my favourite Divine Caster. After that, Warpriest and Paladin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Balanced does not mean the class is at the middle of the power scale. When there is a great disparity between the classes the one in the middle may not be balanced. If you have 10 classes and 6 of them are overpowered than the one ranked 5 is still overpowered. Balance in this case means that the class can handle level appropriate challenges well. All the 9th level casters are more powerful than an inquisitor.

The number of class features is also a poor indicator of power. If the number of class features is the measure of power than rogues are more powerful than clerics. The core rogue has 17 class features 10 rogue talents + 7 other features. If you count aura and orsisons as class features a cleric has 6. By that measure the rogue would be considered a lot more powerful than a cleric.


Melkiador wrote:
Scavion wrote:
I don't think Inquisitor is borderline. In fact, it's probably one of the most balanced classes for all campaigns. Monster Tactician pushes the bar a bit, but summoned monsters have a lot of ways they get shut down.
If it’s the most “balanced” then that implies that about half of its contemporaries are more powerful than it. So, what classes would that be?

All of the 9th level casters. Most obviously the divine ones with 3/4ths BAB. Spontaneous casters to a lesser degree although still significantly more. This is primarily due to having both mechanical strength and having features that amplify their narrative ability.

Inquisitors and their pretty limited spell list(though it's not too shabby! Find the Path and Legend Lore are pretty sweet spells) are pretty good at a single thing they choose and typically passable in other fields. Important to note, all inquisitors are good in combat and that's required to be a balanced class(Everyone has to pull their own weight).

Melkiador wrote:


I suspect you mean not that it’s balanced, but that it lets you do everything you want to do in one package. Which is just a sign of it being borderline overpowered.

I mean baseline Inquisitors are good at combat and good at a couple skills. They get 6 skill points per level which is pretty good for diversifying their skillset and making them useful outside of the combat. Their features are primarily based around sussing out alignment and tracking people which vary in usefulness from campaign to campaign(Narratively). They can spend their domain to be a great party face.

Melkiador wrote:


And most of the counters to summoning can be worked around. And most will hurt the other characters as much as the summoned monsters. But the inquisitor is still an inquisitor. Even without team worked monsters, it still has other good options in a niche fight.

Damage Reduction is pretty problematic as are cr appropriate area of effect spells. Summons can get pretty ineffectual without heavy investment and party wide buffers amplifying them(which the Inquisitor can't provide personally).

Investing in the summons also really slows down your own combat ability which can be rough for a 3/4ths bab character.

None of which is really a bad thing because a class should have some faults and not be amazing at everything. The Inquisitor stands proudly among the Alchemist, Magus, Warpriest, Paladin, Ranger and Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue.


Warpriest, but that's probably just because I love getting feats so much.


Scavion wrote:
All of the 9th level casters. Most obviously the divine ones with 3/4ths BAB. Spontaneous casters to a lesser degree although still significantly more. This is primarily due to having both mechanical strength and having features that amplify their narrative ability.

I said they were stronger than their "contemporaries", meaning other 6th level classes. Obviously, full casters are more power powerful than non-full casters. That's a whole different issue.

Damage reduction isn't particularly difficult for a summoning character. As early as level 3 you have small earth elementals, who hit for 1d6+7 damage with augment summoning, which is about as good at overcoming damage reduction as any martial will be at that level. And as you gain levels, you gain even more ways of ignoring/overcoming damage reduction. Sure, you have to invest in summoning, but you have to invest in anything in this game to be really good at it. The inquisitor can still be really competent at a huge host of other things, while focusing on one though.

The sad truth is that the inquisitor has better skills and damage than the alchemist, magus, warpriest and even the summoner when using monster tactician, while also having ever more abilities to be better at other things too. Part of the reason kineticists look bad is because the first thing people want to compare them to is an archer inquisitor, which is an overly powered goal.


My favorite is a warpriet followed by a paladin in the right campaign.


Melkiador wrote:


Damage reduction isn't particularly difficult for a summoning character. As early as level 3 you have small earth elementals, who hit for 1d6+7 damage with augment summoning, which is about as good at overcoming damage reduction as any martial will be at that level. And as you gain levels, you gain even more ways of ignoring/overcoming damage reduction. Sure, you have to invest in summoning, but you have to invest in anything in this game to be really good at it. The inquisitor can still be really competent at a huge host of other things, while focusing on one though.

Early levels? Yes summoning is absolutely strong. I'm not denying that. Buut they have a pretty hard time bypassing DR/Magic, Cold Iron, Silver or Adamantine. If the target is evil, you can have Celestial creatures smite but aside from that it looks like you are SOL. Their attack bonuses/damage also can have a hard time scaling alongside AC later down the road since the Inquisitor has no buff spells or effects for them.

Melkiador wrote:


The sad truth is that the inquisitor has better skills and damage than the alchemist, magus, warpriest and even the summoner when using monster tactician, while also having ever more abilities to be better at other things too. Part of the reason kineticists look bad is because the first thing people want to compare them to is an archer inquisitor, which is an overly powered goal.

The Alchemist has a much more utilitarian extract list that enable more paths to conflict resolution. Also has a way more diverse skill set since Intelligence is a primary stat and has the same base skill point value. Your average Alchemist has about 7 more skill points than an Inquisitor per level. In combat, Bombs let the Alchemist fight encounters completely differently by bypassing most forms of defense. So I definitely think you are mistaken there. Also in class Flight and Haste. Alchemical Allocation...Preparing open slots in a minute. Condition removal.

Magus has comparable skill quantity(Because Int based), a prepared spell list and some of the highest burst potential of the mid-tiers. Not to mention synergizes crazy well with Dex builds.

Warpriest kinda sucks. I agree with you there. 6th level Cleric casting is alright and being a prepared caster lets them adapt to a lot of adventure types though.

Vanilla Summoner is a 9th level caster in disguise so I do think you're completely crazy in that regard.

Also Kineticists look bad because it has Burn which takes a perfectly interesting class and just ruins it. :(

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What is your favorite divine class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.