The main difference between a paladin and a warpriest is the paladin has better defenses and combat ability. The warpriest has better spell casting and gets more feats. I would probably not dump both INT and WIS on a paladin. Doing so is going to make you fairly useless out of combat. Keep the INT at 10 for a few extra skill points. 16 CHA is enough to start with, pick up a headband when you can afford it.
Don’t bother with cleave, as a full BAB class you get extra attacks as you level up.
Fey Foundling is a great feat for a paladin. It is so good that the joke is that all paladins are found abounded in the woods. Getting an extra 2 HP per die of lay on hands is incredible. The only drawback is the feat can only be taken at 1st level.
What is the background of the character? For example, what deity does he worship?
I don't have a problem dumping INT as a Paladin. If you do dump INT though, here are some thoughts: Dump INT to 07, there's no difference in terms of skill points between 07 and 08, so why not get an extra 2 points out of it? Play a Human (+1 SP per level) and take skill points as your FCB. This means that even with 07 INT you're getting 3 SP/level.
Regarding Cleave, its a bad feat. However Cleaving Finish is great, especially if you have a reach weapon. I'd probably take Combat Reflexes over Cleave though, its more likely to give you extra attacks.
Having said that, if you're playing a Shining Knight then you'll want the mounted combat feats: Mounted Combat, Ride By Attaack, Spirited Charge. I also like Wheeling Charge, but if you're going to be charging then Spirited Charge is what makes this better than a full attack.
Speaking of archetypes, you can't stack all those archetypes. Hospitaler and Divine Knight both alter Aura of Justice, so you can't take them both together. It looks like either one works with the WotHL though, so you can decide if you want to be a Hospitaler or Shining Knight with your new aura powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are not interested in spells a paladin is a much better choice than a warpriest. Take the Tempered Champion archetype to trade spells for combat feats and the warpriests increased damage. Shining Knight is all about mounted combat and that often proves difficult to pull off. It is only going to come up in an outdoor encounter and the rest of the party probably does not use mounted combat.
My big objection to dumping mental stats is that most characters use their own abilities instead of roleplaying their characters. A character with those stats should be ignorant and spouting off on things he knows nothing of all the while convinced he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Think of the popular celebrity turned politician. With that high of a CHA, he should be good at convincing other to do things his way. The low INT means his plans and tactics should be crap, his low WIS means he does not realize it and still pushes for them. We see enough of this in the real world lets avoid it in the game.
It's very unclear what low or high stats actually represent for how a character behaves or reacts. Some like to map the intelligence stat to IQ, with IQ being equal to 10 times the intelligence. So, a 7 intelligence would be a 70 IQ. Intellectual disability is considered to be an IQ below 70. So, the character may be noticeably impaired in areas, but can still be very competent in many ways.
It's funny how we don't often consider any score above 14 to be a genius though.
It's funny how we don't often consider any score above 14 to be a genius though.
Experience at the table varies greatly. People often lose sight that humans average 10 and 11 in their ability scores, and generally have a 13 at the highest and an 8 at the lowest with the standard spread. This would represent pretty much every person you've met in real life, barring a few exceptions.
The power creep truly has blinded people to how exceptional the Elite array really is, and that doesn't even begin to touch on how much more the PC's are above that.
The fact of the matter is that a paladin with an 8 INT only gets a single skill point per level. They can bring that up by using the favored class bonus but they are still significantly lacking in out of combat ability. If the character was human they would be getting an extra skill point so would not be as bad. With that few skill points it will limit what the character can do. What I usually see when a player does this is they try and “roleplay” the character having better skills. When the paladin with no ranks in sense motive and an 8 WIS is picking up subtle clues that the cleric with a +8-bonus missed something is wrong.
The write up of this character is like the stereo typical dumb jock. If that is the characters concept than fine, but the character should not be played wise knight who understands people
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Human bonus skill. Favored class bonus skill. Cunning feat. Headband of Vast Intelligence. Skills are available if you want them.
It's not like the paladin has many interesting social class skills anyway. Maybe scatter some ranks in diplomacy, sense motive and knowledge(religion) and you're basic paladin.
It's very unclear what low or high stats actually represent for how a character behaves or reacts.
Is it really? We know that unadjusted ability scores range from 3 to 18, and that a score of 10 constitutes an average amount of "raw talent and prowess." More specifically, Intelligence "determines how well your character learns and reasons," while Wisdom "describes a character’s ... common sense, awareness, and intuition," and Charisma "measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
With that in mind, a PC with an Intelligence of 8 would be less capable of picking up new skills and thinking logically than most people. A Wisdom of 8 would make him more gullible and less self-aware than most people. A Charisma of 18 would make him one of the most captivating, charming, and attractive people out there. The trick is in capturing why said PC is that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With that in mind, a PC with an Intelligence of 8 would be less capable of picking up new skills and thinking logically than most people. A Wisdom of 8 would make him more gullible and less self-aware than most people.Yet, they are only 5% less likely to succeed at a similar task as someone with the average 10 in the stat.
A Charisma of 18 would make him one of the most captivating, charming, and attractive people out there.
Yet, he would only be 20% more likely to succeed at a given task than someone with the average 10.
And yet, those particular people would be able to succeed in situations that the average person would be incapable of succeeding, since there is no automatic successes with skill checks. And similarly, they would be incapable of failing in situations where an average person could.
It is important to keep that in mind as well.
With that in mind, a PC with an Intelligence of 8 would be less capable of picking up new skills and thinking logically than most people. A Wisdom of 8 would make him more gullible and less self-aware than most people.Yet, they are only 5% less likely to succeed at a similar task as someone with the average 10 in the stat.A Charisma of 18 would make him one of the most captivating, charming, and attractive people out there.Yet, he would only be 20% more likely to succeed at a given task than someone with the average 10.
It's of course your prerogative to numerically define the extent to which your character is less logical, more gullible, and more charming than the average. Some players will take your above approach; others might take a broader, roleplaying approach to it. It's all good, regardless. My point is simply that it's not unclear what the ability scores represent. We know what they stand for, and what the numbers next to them mean.
Compare it to strength, which is more measurable. A character with strength 7 can lift 70 lbs above their head. This is also the weight an average untrained person of 148 lbs can lift over their head.
It's not like 7 strength is amazingly weak. So, 7 in mental stats isn't such a big difference either.
Right, but my point is that all those examples are still made within an understood framework*. Whether one thinks that a Strength of 7 is amazingly weak or merely below average, the fact remains that we know a Strength of 10 is average... and that a character with a Strength of 7 is weaker than the average person. Maybe that character is small-bodied, suffering from a condition, or is simply out of shape. In either case, it's not unclear that a character with a Strength of 7 is weaker than normal, or that a character with an Intelligence of 7 is less smart than normal.
* Which, it should be said, does not always (or even often, really) conform with real-world norms. To use one of your examples, an average person in the Pathfinder game can lift 43 percent more weight overhead than a person with a Strength score of 7.
70 pounds is the maximum load for a medium character with a 7 STR. When they are carrying this much, they are slow and have a hard time doing anything. Their movement is reduced to 2/3 and they are taking an additional -6 on most physical activities. The 7 STR character is not going to be able to keep this up for long. That 7 STR character will probably have trouble carrying a watermelon. Those weigh about 20-25 pounds which is usually going to put the character at a medium load.
As interesting as this is, there is never going to be a consensus. People argue about this at least as much as alignment.
Also this is totally not relevant to the thread. If the OP's keen then by all means continue, but personally I have no problem with someone playing a Paladin who dumps WIS and INT. If nothing else it lets the Rogue go do sneaky stuff and lie about it without forcing the Paladin to decide between the party and their oath .
I also think that while we have flavour for these stats, there is a vast difference between a Rogue with 07 INT and a Paladin with 07 INT . Likewise you can have a character with 07 CHA but 6 skill points in Diplomacy, vs a character with 18 CHA but no skill points in Diplomacy. These theoretically mean different things, but mechanically have the same effect. Would you penalise a player for playing these two characters the same way as one another?
The game has mechanics and using them is fine. If your table have set rules then follow those, but there's not really a problem with building and playing your PC the way you see fit.
Yeah, dumping wisdom on a paladin is almost a buff, if your table isn’t house ruling around the paladin alignment limitations. If you want the best of both worlds then be a chosen one. Then your familiar can do your thinking for you.
The character with low CHA and ranks in diplomacy would tend to have poor initial reactions but could shift that once he had a chance to talk to them. The character with a high CHA with no ranks in diplomacy would tend to have better initial reactions but not able to really improve it more than the character with the low CHA with the same bonus. The first character would also be better at other CHA based tasks like telling lies or disguising themselves. Using skills takes effort whereas stats are always in effect. So, yea the two characters would be treated differently.
As I said my main concern in dumping INT on a paladin is they end up with so few skill points it makes it difficult to build a character that does more than hit things. Even at 3 skill points per level they are hard pushed to get everything they should. If the paladin is choosing a mount as his divine bond, it is even worse. If you have a mount, you are going to want a decent ride and handle animal. With 2 skill points per level that is not going to leave you much for anything else. Paladins should have at least some ranks in knowledge religion. A holy warrior who does not even know what the teachings of his deity is kind of a problem. Most should also probably have diplomacy and probably heal. If you are the face of the party sense motive can come in handy.
These theoretically mean different things, but mechanically have the same effect.
It's not theoretical, though. They do mean different things.
Would you penalise a player for playing these two characters the same way as one another?
I'm not sure that anyone is being penalized. It's a roleplaying game. Short of house-ruling away ability score penalties, the mechanics are what they are. Is it a punishment to tell a player whose character with a Charisma 7 who has invested time and effort in compensating for this via Diplomacy that he would come across differently than someone with natural Charisma but no formal training in rhetoric or discourse?
Is it a punishment to say that a loathsome yet sly and manipulative chamberlain would act differently than a charismatic, but blunt warlord?
... there's not really a problem with building and playing your PC the way you see fit.
Of course not. Ultimately, it comes down to each table and the Most Important Rule.
I don’t think paladins really need handle animal. Their horses have 6 intelligence, so are sentient. Really the only reason to make them that smart in the first place is to free the paladin from needing handle animal.
due to their intelligence, trained griffons can be treated as knowing every trick listed in the Handle Animal skill description, possibly even responding to new, simple requests made in Common.
And the griffon only has 5 intelligence.
I really think a paladin with just diplomacy will be fine out of combat. He can be the friendly face while some teammate can handle sense motive. You can put a few ranks in knowledge religion but you hardly need to be an expert in it. The paladin was not designed as a skill monkey.
A paladin does not gain divine bond until 5th level. Before that he needs to use a normal horse. A character that is focusing on mounted combat since first level including spending multiple feats should be able to actually control a horse in combat at every level. Handle animal is a trained only skill so if the paladin does not put at least one point into it they don’t even get a roll. To get a horse to attack requires a DC 10 animal handle roll. Paladins do have a good CHA and handle animal is a class skill so they are not going to need many points but they will need to put in a few points. Figure a mounted combat focused paladin will need at least 1 point in ride and 1 point in handle animal at 1st level. In the case of an 8 INT paladin that is all their skill points assuming they put their favored class bonus into INT.
Ride is a DEX based skill that is affected by your ACP. Paladins usually do not have a good DEX which means they need to pump this skill. Paladins are also spell casters and can use scrolls. To use a scroll you have to decipher it first. Spell craft is also trained only and an INT based skill. The paladin can take 20 of the spell craft roll to decipher the scroll so they only really need a point in spell craft. Without spell craft they have to memorize read magic to decipher each scroll. Perception is the most valuable skill in the game and it is not a class skill for paladins. Putting some skill points into perception is a really good idea for a paladin.
The mounted combat focused paladin is going to max out his ride skill. If he uses his favored class bonus for skills that gives the 8 INT paladin a single point per level of all other skills. He is going to need to spend at least one on handle animal, maybe more. At 4th level he will probably want to spend at least a point on spell craft. At 2nd level he puts at least a point into Diplomacy and probably more as he levels up. With an 8 WIS his perception roll is -1 so he will want to boost that. His 3rd level skill point will be perception. At 5th level the paladin has to decide if he wants to put a point into knowledge religion or boost his diplomacy or perception.
The party has a bard a medium and a druid. Both the bard and medium are CHA based characters with Diplomacy as a class skill and way more skill points than the paladin. Chances are the paladin is probably not going to have the highest diplomacy in the group unless he puts a point every level. Even then he might not be the highest. If this is so what role does the paladin have out of combat?
So, maybe if you want to seriously focus on riding, then a couple ranks need to go in handle animal. It's not like it requires serious investment. Also, it's not like a mounted build is optimal or even practical in the vast majority of campaigns, where there is rarely enough room to maneuver a mount.
As to your other point, it's completely possible your party will already have characters better suited to all face activities... and that's great. It means you don't have to seriously invest in that either. Just drop a few points in diplomacy, so you don't embarrass yourself. The paladin doesn't excel in any skills. And that's ok. Some classes just aren't meant for that kind of thing.
Currently in a progression campaign and want to be a war priest but hybrid classes are not allowed. For my actions and party needs I was given paladin. Still researching but looking at ways to make a lower tier war priest without losing too much. Any ideas welcome.
Going for a two-handed build is probably for the best to save on feats. Fey Foundling, as mentioned, is very good for a pally. Cleave is okayish, maybe not the best for someone feat-starved.
If you're going with Aasimar I'd take the Immortal Spark ART for the ability to cast Lesser Age Resistance. Assuming a 20 PB you'd have the following stat spread at level 4 as long as your 24H SLA is up.
The lower Con is offset by the boosted Lay on Hands.
STR -> 18
DEX -> 12
CON -> 12
INT -> 14
WIS -> 10
CHA -> 18
(ABI accounted for)
Feats:
1 Fey Foundling
3 Power Attack
5 Passing Grace
7 Additional Traits: Magical Knack, Fate's Favored
9 Change of Heart
I'd refrain from trading away your spellcasting. The other party members may be spellcasters but they aren't paladins. And they can't (usually) cast Divine Favor on you. Shining Knight is a solid archetype for any pally wanting to dabble in mounted combat. You don't really need the mounted feats so I'd just pass on that.
Remember to buy Meditation Crystals and Pearls of Power to make your limited uses of 1st levels spells and LoH last that much longer.
Currently in a progression campaign and want to be a war priest but hybrid classes are not allowed. For my actions and party needs I was given paladin. Still researching but looking at ways to make a lower tier war priest without losing too much. Any ideas welcome.
Race
Angelkin Aasimar
STR -> 18
DEX -> 12
CON -> 14
INT -> 8
WIS -> 8
CHA -> 18FEATS
1. Power attack
3. Cleave
Really, that stat array is absolutely fine. Everyone here is going to have different feelings about what the "best" stat array was.
Fey Foundling is really tempting for first level, because of how much it buffs your self healing with lay on hands.
If you want to have more to do outside of combat, then take the chosen one archetype with a familiar that can talk, like the raven. Roleplaying the tutor animal can be really fun. The downside is losing your weapon divine bond, which contributes to your damage
What is it about the Warpriest that we are trying to emulate with a Paladin?
What is it about the Warpriest that we are trying to emulate with a Paladin?
A good question. Paladin may not even be the best option. Maybe you just want a level of fighter and the rest cleric?
It's really just so strange to not have the hybrid classes. No hybrid class is stronger than a similar core or base class. Warpriest isn't stronger than an inquisitor or magus.
Actually, Inquisitor may also be a good substitute warpriest, depending on what you are trying to do.
Yeah, I was thinking Inquisitor, also...
It's really just so strange to not have the hybrid classes. No hybrid class is stronger than a similar core or base class. Warpriest isn't stronger than an inquisitor or magus.
Yeah, this is one of the most puzzling things a GM can do. No hybrid class is the best among its peers (no hybrid is the best full caster, best 6/9 caster, best 4/9 caster, or best pure martial), so there's no power creep. Most of the hybrid class' mechanics are drawn from other classes, or are a variation therefor, and thus there's very little for the GM to learn. And, perhaps most importantly, letting people play the class that best matches their idea usually leads to them going more for flavor than for mechanics, which makes the game much easier to GM.
In Pathfinder the power creep comes mostly from feats and spells. There is an extremely small amount of power creep from some archetypes, but not that much. I cannot think of any class added in the later books that is more powerful than those in the core rulebook. Some do a better at certain things than those in the core rule book but are not really any more powerful. The warpriest is much better at combat than the cleric, but still not up to a full martial. The warpriest’s spells are much weaker than a cleric, but a lot stronger than a paladin. The only classes that became more powerful are in Pathfinder unchained, and those were deliberate upgrades on weak classes.
Well to play Devil's Advocate I'll say that the MOLTHUNI ARSENAL CHAPLIAN Warpriest basically makes the Fighter class obsolete, so there absolutely IS power creep. However that's a problem with archetypes , not a problem with Hybrid classes. You could very easily allow the Warpriest and simply ban 1 archetype and solve the problem. You could say the same for the Primalist Bloodrager.
Aside from those: Some Hybrid classes are strong and could have a tendency to overshadow one or both of their parent classes in their specific niche , but aren't going to make them obsolete in the same way as the MAC-Warpriest or Primalist. And of course some Hybrid classes are really not going to overshadow their parent classes, they're simply adding flavour or an alternate playstyle to the game .
Personally, I don't have a problem with Hybrid classes, but its worth seeing what's actually there. If there's a Rogue in the party you may want to nix an Investigator PC to avoid overshadowing a preexisting character. It may even be a case of restricting access to classes that the GM is unfamiliar with, so as not to overwhelm them or inadvertently allow power-creep . Hell, it could simply be that this is a way for the GM to encourage more creativity in class selection within the group.
Whatever the reason, those are the restrictions that have been given and those are the parameters we have to work with.
Well to play Devil's Advocate I'll say that the MOLTHUNI ARSENAL CHAPLIAN Warpriest basically makes the Fighter class obsolete, so there absolutely IS power creep.
Archery and throwing builds can still hold their ground, and everything else is already long-since overshadowed by other classes like Barbarian.
Of course, banning Warpriest just to prevent MAC (and Bloodrager just to prevent Primalist) is like the definition of overkill.
If there's a Rogue in the party you may want to nix an Investigator PC to avoid overshadowing a preexisting character.
If you worry about a Rogue being overshadowed, you also need to ban Bard, Ranger, Alchemist, Ninja, and Vigilante. Probably Inquisitor and occultist, too, plus the other hybrid classes Skald, Slayer, and probably even Hunter.
Or you just rip out the weed at the roots and ban the Rogue class. Problem solved, and nothing is lost except the ability for moody emo teens to show how cool and edgy they are by writing "Rogue" in the class section of their character sheet.
I cannot think of any class added in the later books that is more powerful than those in the core rulebook.
Not overall, but the Summoner is stronger than any other 6/9 caster. But apart from that, Wizard is still the strongest full caster, Paladin still the stronger 4/9 caster, and Barbarian is still the strongers pure martial.
It does not matter why the DM banned hybrid classes... people ban dumb $#!+ all the time, so who cares... the parameters have been set. You either play or you don't... it's your choice. Either way, cry me a river, build a bridge, and get TF over it. Like, holy freaking h3ll, man.
Sorry for the rant, but the topic has nothing to do with hybrid classes... at all. In fact, they are actually banned from the campaign, and might as well be banned from the conversation... as they [hybrid classes] are irrelevant, and any discussion about them is nothing but a distraction from actually helping the OP. So, honestly, who gives a $#!+ as to why they are banned?
If you want to play in this campaign, pick a non-hybrid class, and try make the character you wanted... right?
That's why we are here, right?
My vote/advice is to look at the Inquisitor class.
The rogue has long been acknowledges as a weak class that can be overshadowed in its specialty by a long list of classes and archetypes. The fact that it is able to be overshadowed should not be factored into any discussion on power creep. But I will say that the archetype Phantom Thief is hard to overshadow if you are using the unchained rouge. They don’t have sneak attack, so their combat ability is a little low, but out of combat they are incredibly useful. This archetype makes skill unlocks actually decent. Getting the 15th level unlock at 10th level and the 20th at 14th level makes them worthwhile. Being able to adjust the attitude of your enemy in a single round allows you to talk your way out of things instead of fighting. Being able to read the surface thoughts of opponents at will after spending a single round allows you to find out things like crazy. Suggestion at will is incredible but does require you to be 14th level. If you could add sneak attack back in this archetype would be everything the rogue is supposed to be.
I am not sure the summoner is really stronger than an inquisitor. The summoner has 3 class abilities eidolon, spells and summon monster. The inquisitor has about 13 class abilities, so the individual abilities are weaker. The big thing on the inquisitor is their abilities synergize better than any other class. A fully buffed inquisitor is an absolute beast in combat.
The monster tactician inquisitor does the summoner’s niche better than the base summoner.