Best and worst designed Paizo classes

[digiman619]

Paizo can be hit and miss, so now, as 1E is finishing its run, what do you think is their high and low when it comes to classes? For me:
Best: Warpriest. You can cast, you can melee, you can support; there's plenty of ways to play them and they're all good wherever you put them without being overpowering like some fullcasters can be.
Worst: Kinetisist. It's a convoluted mess with tons of trap option who can't decide if burn is a good thing or a bad thing, as it expects you to have a good deal of it, but punishes you if you have it too.

Honorable mention for worst goes to Monk for how consistently Paizo worked to make them unplayable when it came to magic items. Paying near double for enhancement bonuses and making them pay for their special weapon/armor properties out of said bonus and giving them a smaller maximum than actual weapons/armor was nuts. The fact that it took them almost the entire run of 1E to give monks a way to enhance their fists at a normal price is unforgivable.

[Divine Susuryu]

Best: Brawler - Martial Flexibility is something the core Fighter should have had if you ask me. A nice way to change things up or pick up situational stuff that you won't always use but are killer when you need them.

Worst: Shifter in general, oozemorph specifically. It's nuts just how bad this was. Did nobody playtest it or even just think about the rules for more than a microsecond?

Honourable Mention: Chained Rogue. Possibly the worst core PC class (monk is up there too) and flat out cannot compete if hybrid classes, archetypes, or both are allowed.

[Recherché]

Worst: Shifter. There's just nothing it does better than another class. Except for suck.

Honorable mentions to Monk and Kineticist

Best: Alchemist. Amazing flavor with tons of good but not OP build options. Nicely complex and meaty without being completely overwhelming. And of dear gods I feel like I'm describing a steak dinner here.

[Kurald Galain]

Best: Magus, Warpriest, Mesmerist, and Hunter. Partial casters are where it's at.

Worst: yeah, that's the kinny, hands down. That's the class that gets all the frequent arguments because people so much want to like it, but mechanically it doesn't hold up (and is overcomplex to boot). Shifter is not good, but just gets ignored by most people.

[Seto]

Best: Magus, Warpriest, Mesmerist, and Hunter. Partial casters are where it's at.

I came to second this. 3/4 casting, 3/4 BAB classes feel amazing.

Worst: Undecided.

[ezekielraiden]

I came to second this. 3/4 casting, 3/4 BAB classes feel amazing.

Worst: Undecided.

So, does this make the "Chained" Summoner the Best Worst, or the Worst Best?

[noob]

So, does this make the "Chained" Summoner the Best Worst, or the Worst Best?

chained summoner is like unchained summoner but two times more free and with twice as much options.

[Hackulator]

As others have said, best are probably the various 6th level casting 3/4 BAB classes. They are lots of fun, execute their character fantasy well and are strong without being gamebreaking. Edit - except Summoner because it has multiple totally broken options

Not sure if this counts as a "Paizo" class really, but the worst designed D&D/Pathfinder class is wizard. I know this will make people angry, but wizard is a terribly designed class. It has the theoretical ability to magic bullet ANY situation, making DMing a total pain and making other players feel worthless, combined with the ability to delay a game like no other while you redo a spell list during a rest for the purpose of the aforementioned magic bulleting. Special prize given to summoner wizards who do all those things plus take as much time for their combat turn as the entire rest of the party combined.

[noob]

As others have said, best are probably the various 6th level casting 3/4 BAB classes. They are lots of fun, execute their character fantasy well and are strong without being gamebreaking. Edit - except Summoner because it has multiple totally broken options

Not sure if this counts as a "Paizo" class really, but the worst designed D&D/Pathfinder class is wizard. I know this will make people angry, but wizard is a terribly designed class. It has the theoretical ability to magic bullet ANY situation, making DMing a total pain and making other players feel worthless, combined with the ability to delay a game like no other while you redo a spell list during a rest for the purpose of the aforementioned magic bulleting. Special prize given to summoner wizards who do all those things plus take as much time for their combat turn as the entire rest of the party combined.

Even worse are 5th level casters(independently of the class) who decide "let us grab craft artifical creature and create an infinitely replicating swarm of chtulus orcus and everything else amalgam"

[Hackulator]

Even worse are 5th level casters(independently of the class) who decide "let us grab craft artifical creature and create na infinitely replicating swarm of chtulus orcus and everything else amalgam"

fixed that for you

[noob]

fixed that for you

fifth level is the minimal level to grab craft construct.

[Hackulator]

fifth level is the minimal level to grab craft construct.

Oh I apologize I misunderstood and now that I think about it was also being stupid. I thought you were referencing classes that only cast spells up to 5th level, forgetting that that only exists in 5th Ed D&D.

[Peat]

Partial Casters and Kineticist/Shifter are undoubtedly the right answers but I think that Oracle and Paladin deserve HMs, while I'm not sure Cavalier and Swashbuckler ever really justified their existence.

[Arbane]

while I'm not sure Cavalier and Swashbuckler ever really justified their existence.

You don't think 'Fighter with a gimmick' deserves to be an entire separate class?

[noob]

You don't think 'Fighter with a gimmick' deserves to be an entire separate class?

Yes it does not deserve one entire separate class but up to 12 separate classes.

[Peat]

You don't think 'Fighter with a gimmick' deserves to be an entire separate class?

Nothing against that (or I'd have listed all of them), but I don't think these classes did a wonderfully better job of letting people do their gimmick that was already in the corebook.

[Palanan]

For best class, I'm voting oracle, based entirely on the fun that I've had playing one. Magus is probably one of the best for its functional distillation of a gish that actually works at low levels.

For worst, kineticist certainly sounds about right.

[ezekielraiden]

chained summoner is like unchained summoner but two times more free and with twice as much options.

Yes, I know, I mentioned it because...


As others have said, best are probably the various 6th level casting 3/4 BAB classes. They are lots of fun, execute their character fantasy well and are strong without being gamebreaking. Edit - except Summoner because it has multiple totally broken options

Not sure if this counts as a "Paizo" class really, but the worst designed D&D/Pathfinder class is wizard. I know this will make people angry, but wizard is a terribly designed class. It has the theoretical ability to magic bullet ANY situation, making DMing a total pain and making other players feel worthless, combined with the ability to delay a game like no other while you redo a spell list during a rest for the purpose of the aforementioned magic bulleting. Special prize given to summoner wizards who do all those things plus take as much time for their combat turn as the entire rest of the party combined.

This.

See, the Summoner is a 3/4ths BAB, 3/4ths caster, which most people seem to hold as Paizo's best work. It's also pretty creative and fun, while not skimping on the power or potential. But...it's also a class specializing in "I make turns go slowly" by filling the board with powerful things, and its 6th level spellcasting is on par with many full casters. And, with archetypes, it can become even more powerful, able to still do its stuff while also being a melee powerhouse (Synth) or flooding the board (Master Summoner), yet some are also really bad too.

So...yeah. If you really like it, as I do, it seems the Worst Best, showing off both the potential greatness of the system and the creativity of the designers...and the potential brokenness of the system and the designers' lack of forethought. And if you don't like it, it is the best of the worst: definitely playable and, if not taken overboard, actually fine to play....but so easily broken both to being crazy strong and to being mostly garbage.

[Rynjin]

Worst: Shifter in general, oozemorph specifically. It's nuts just how bad this was. Did nobody playtest it...?

The answer is: no. Paizo got butthurt that open playtests were not just mounds upon mounds of praise during the Advanced Class Guide, Occult Adventures, and Ultimate Intrigue playtests and decided to only test the Shifter internally.

Turns out without hundreds of people to tell you your ideas are bad and should be fixed, you get a class that's bad and can't be fixed because it's already released.

Re: OP:

Worst: Kineticist (math TOO tight; no wiggle room for builds, most elements are trash), Cleric (simultaneously overly powerful because it's a full caster and incredibly boring because it has no class features), Warpriest (entirely uninteresting design niche, consists only of class features cribbed from other classes), Psychic ("look at our cool new class, I call it the Sorcerer Psychic!") Spiritualist ("look at our cool new class I call it the [s]Summoner['/s] Spiritualist!"), Shifter (boy it sure was a great idea to print a dedicated shapeshifting class that has Wild Shape worse and more limited than Druid and a separate "minor shapeshifting" feature that is worse than an at-will RACIAL feature for the Skinwalker race).

Best: Investigator ("most improved" award from the ACG playtest as well), Inquisitor (you can do just about anything, but not everything, which is what I want in a class), Alchemist (ditto Inquisitor), Brawler (just a little more push in how strong martial Flex can be and it could be the gold standard for how to design a completely non-magical class that's flexible enough to compete)

[Arutema]

Best: Operative

Being able to make a skill check every turn to get your extra damage, with no feat taxes, is how the rogue should have worked from the beginning.

Worst: Solarion

All the MAD-ness of the monk, now in sci-fi trappings. Also, the photon/graviton mode system and requirement that you take equal revelations from both sides means at a given time half your revelations are barely worth using.

[Psyren]

Chained Summoner's eidolon was fine - powerful sure, but not game-breaking. It was the spell list that needed fixing.

Cleric is fine - between subdomains, variant channeling and archetypes you have plenty of variation.

[exelsisxax]

Best: magus, inquisitor, alchemist, and hunter. Some of the most popular build dreams from 3.5, made fully functional classes in their own right.

Worst: kinny, shifter, swashbuckler, medium. Garbage warlock, garbage wildshape ranger, garbage cha fighter, and an unplayable mess that makes you retrain half your class features every day.

Dishonorable mentions: prepared fullcasters for being game-warping overpowered nonsense and also difficult to play bookeeping marathons. But paizo didn't invent them. Rogue and monk, for being almost NPC tier. Also not paizo designed.

[Mehangel]

Best? Any Miscasting (6th lvl spells) class, preferably the hybrid ones.

Worst? Easily the kineticist and shifter. While the kineticist can be functional, it is unnecessarily complicated and has damage output comparable to a warrior with a composite longbow. Sure you also have utility powers, but that wasn't really meant to be their shtick, ranged damage was. The shifter just plain sucks, just play a druid with 8 Wisdom and do everything a shifter does and be more effective at it.

[Amiel]

Dishonorable mentions: prepared fullcasters for being game-warping overpowered nonsense and also difficult to play bookeeping marathons. But paizo didn't invent them. Rogue and monk, for being almost NPC tier. Also not paizo designed.
While Paizo certainly didn't invent prepared fullcasters, they made them even more blatantly overpowered than they were previously.
And while Paizo didn't invent rogues or monks either, the fact they were so horribly designed, and then trashed mechanically because people were enjoying playing them, and almost NPC tier is entirely due to Paizo's designers.

[Amiel]

What's so tragic about the kineticist is that a Paizo designer made a mechanically sound and mechanically creative kineticist, that was actually receiving pretty good playtest feedback. This designer's work was overruled and stamped out by the Paizo lead designer, whose contribution we now see in print.


Best designed would be the magus, the slayer, the alchemist.

Worst designed would be the kineticist, the summoner, the shifter, the monk, the rogue, the swashbuckler.

[Psyren]

While Paizo certainly didn't invent prepared fullcasters, they made them even more blatantly overpowered than they were previously.
And while Paizo didn't invent rogues or monks either, the fact they were so horribly designed, and then trashed mechanically because people were enjoying playing them, and almost NPC tier is entirely due to Paizo's designers.

Literally none of this is true.



Worst: kinny, shifter, swashbuckler, medium. Garbage warlock, garbage wildshape ranger, garbage cha fighter, and an unplayable mess that makes you retrain half your class features every day.

Medium is fine actually. Certainly it does a much better job at "5th-man" than, say, a Binder.

[Amiel]

Literally none of this is true.
You realise arcanists and wizards are still included in the game, right? Or are we playing different games :P
And these are incredibly overpowered prepared fullcasters. Especially the arcanist, being the unholy marriage of the sorcerer and wizard.

The rogue and monk were both mechanically lackluster, and then the monk was made worse with SKR's intervention, who actively was hamstringing the monk's efficacy and making its toys worse (unless you were intentionally purging this out of your memory, which I don't blame you). And while the unchained rogue is a lot more well designed mechanically than its chained counterpart, it's still mediocre.

Paizo's designers actively made these classes like how they are, and even made some of them blatantly better and made some of them worse.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, clearly classes like swashy, cavalier, or ninja should have been an archetype instead. To be fair, some of these actually predate archetypes. My impression is that people tend to forget that these classes exist in the first place; they're certainly not common sights at the game table, even in PFS.


See, the Summoner is a 3/4ths BAB, 3/4ths caster, which most people seem to hold as Paizo's best work.
Just because Paizo's best classes are the 3/4ths casters doesn't mean that the reverse is also true. Not all of the 3/4ths casters are also the best classes :smallamused:

For instance, inquisitor is ok but tends to be overshadowed by warpriest, and spiritualist is mainly just complicated for its own sake. Investig is... actually surprisingly good, but people tend not to play it because it's not clear how it fits in a fantasy setting. Summoner is basically a full caster in disguise, because it gets a lot of spells at a discounted level (including its summons).

Alchemist does belong on the list of great 3/4ths casters, yes. Medium is a pretty good party buffer if you stick to a single element (marshal, mostly) but that does mean that its main concept, switching your specialty each day, really doesn't work.

[Chalhubard]

Worst: hands down, the monk.

[Kurald Galain]

Worst: hands down, the monk.

That's a WOTC class, not a Paizo class. Thanks to its archetypes, Paizo's monk is better albeit still not good. Paizo's redesigned unchained monk, however, is a capable class (among other things, it gets full BAB, d10 hit points, and pounce at level 5).

[A.J.Gibson]

Best Designed: It's hard to say, since a lot of the classes that people say are good are really just class feature + talent every other level. I would probably give this to the inquisitor. Investigator is pretty good too, except for studied target being delayed until level 4. I also like how mercies work for Paladins.

Worst Designed: I think there are a couple options here:

First, the magus is a patch for arcane spellcasting. It's basically 'you get arcane spellcasting with all it's drawbacks', and then your class features are ways of overcoming those drawbacks. It's locked into one very-convoluted fighting style, and then it grants armor proficiency as you level which go against the flavor of that style - are you a two weapon warrior or a knight? Counterstrike comes out of nowhere at 16th level and has nothing to do with the rest of the class features, most of the arcana are garbage, and the lack of spell support (where is my touch attack cantrip that does damage?) is appalling.

Second, the alchemist has amazing flavor, which it then manifests as a bunch of different class features with no synergy. Bombs are cool, but rely on swift bombs to keep up with damage. The poison class features should have just been a discovery. Crafting is useless in PF, and to make it worse, the crafting class features are mixed in with other features, so they are hard to archetype out. And arcane magic is hacked into the class.

Both the magus and alchemist suffer from having arcane magic shoved in them. PF made the decision that spellcasting traditions were separate from class rather then a part of it, and then didn't come up with new traditions for these new classes. Alchemist in particular, deserves it's own list of spells with an alchemical component (and maybe rules for combining them), and magus should have several magus-only cantrips.

Also terrible: Kinetisist, Barbarian and Bard (and everything else with 'rounds per day'), Ranger (favored crap), and Arcanist loses points for being a class rather then a patch feat for spontaneous casters. Swashbuckler has a really cool design, but then loses out for being underpowered, needing swift actions for everything, and being generally not worth taking after 5th level. Anything that gets two skill points per level that is not a wizard should also be slapped around.

[grarrrg]

Worst: hands down, the monk.

Isn't Un-Rogue a straight upgrade to norm-Rogue?
Whereas norm-Monk has a couple corner cases where it's better than Un-Monk.

So that would make norm-Rogue hands down the worst class, as it's so bad even the company gave up on it.

[zimmerwald1915]

Both the magus and alchemist suffer from having arcane magic shoved in them. PF made the decision that spellcasting traditions were separate from class rather then a part of it, and then didn't come up with new traditions for these new classes. Alchemist in particular, deserves it's own list of spells with an alchemical component (and maybe rules for combining them), and magus should have several magus-only cantrips.
Alchemy is emphatically not arcane magic. There is some overlap between the extract list and the various arcane lists, but alchemy-using classes don't have caster levels (they use their class level as a sort of pseudo-caster level), don't cast spells, and can't use spell-completion items without Use Magic Device.

And there are lists of material components that have special effects for extracts, though I've never met someone who used them because component tracking is fiddly and boring. Which is why it was relegated to fluff in 3E in the first place.

[Biolink22]

Worst: Fighter, it's boring, has no decent fluff, and has only one solution to every problem (hit man) because it only gets 2+int skill points. Don't get me wrong it's good at hitting man, but that's all it does. Honestly if I was going to play Fighter, I'd instead play Warblade from 3.5 (because my dm allows Tome of Battle in PF) because it's just a straight upgrade.

(dis)honorable mentions: Monk (outside of Zen Archer just why?) and Kineticist (baffling)

Best: Inquisitor, I'm particularly fond of the Sin Eater archetype for the roleplaying aspects this can add to your game. Divine casting, good at hitting man, 6+int skill points, and decent plot hook archetypes to choose from. Yes please.

[noob]

Best Designed: It's hard to say, since a lot of the classes that people say are good are really just class feature + talent every other level. I would probably give this to the inquisitor. Investigator is pretty good too, except for studied target being delayed until level 4. I also like how mercies work for Paladins.

Worst Designed: I think there are a couple options here:

First, the magus is a patch for arcane spellcasting. It's basically 'you get arcane spellcasting with all it's drawbacks', and then your class features are ways of overcoming those drawbacks. It's locked into one very-convoluted fighting style, and then it grants armor proficiency as you level which go against the flavor of that style - are you a two weapon warrior or a knight? Counterstrike comes out of nowhere at 16th level and has nothing to do with the rest of the class features, most of the arcana are garbage, and the lack of spell support (where is my touch attack cantrip that does damage?) is appalling.

Second, the alchemist has amazing flavor, which it then manifests as a bunch of different class features with no synergy. Bombs are cool, but rely on swift bombs to keep up with damage. The poison class features should have just been a discovery. Crafting is useless in PF, and to make it worse, the crafting class features are mixed in with other features, so they are hard to archetype out. And arcane magic is hacked into the class.

Both the magus and alchemist suffer from having arcane magic shoved in them. PF made the decision that spellcasting traditions were separate from class rather then a part of it, and then didn't come up with new traditions for these new classes. Alchemist in particular, deserves it's own list of spells with an alchemical component (and maybe rules for combining them), and magus should have several magus-only cantrips.

Also terrible: Kinetisist, Barbarian and Bard (and everything else with 'rounds per day'), Ranger (favored crap), and Arcanist loses points for being a class rather then a patch feat for spontaneous casters. Swashbuckler has a really cool design, but then loses out for being underpowered, needing swift actions for everything, and being generally not worth taking after 5th level. Anything that gets two skill points per level that is not a wizard should also be slapped around.

Why did they not keep the 3.5 way of working of bardic music?
It is not as if people complained about bards doing bardic music for most of the adventuring day.

[Nihilarian]

Worst is probably the Kineticist, but I want to give a special shoutout to the Medium because its fundamental design runs so counter to making an effective character.

Best... I'll echo the love for the partial casters but Mesmerist in particular stands out as fun and flavorful.

[Psyren]

And there are lists of material components that have special effects for extracts, though I've never met someone who used them because component tracking is fiddly and boring. Which is why it was relegated to fluff in 3E in the first place.

Agreed, and that's why they made that an optional system in PF. You don't have to track components for Alchemy any more than you do for spellcasting, if you don't want to.


You realise arcanists and wizards are still included in the game, right? Or are we playing different games :P
And these are incredibly overpowered prepared fullcasters. Especially the arcanist, being the unholy marriage of the sorcerer and wizard.

Are we playing different games? Or are you just willfully ignoring all the degeneracy 3.5 full casters are capable of, like Ice Assassin, Arcane Thesis, Mindrape, Incantatrix etc. PF casters don't even come close.



The rogue and monk were both mechanically lackluster, and then the monk was made worse with SKR's intervention, who actively was hamstringing the monk's efficacy and making its toys worse (unless you were intentionally purging this out of your memory, which I don't blame you).

See above, yours is the memory I call into question.

PF base monk and rogue were on the weak side (though even then they were T4, and benefited from a lot of the systemic changes like SA working on constructs and corporeal undead), but they got a lot of buffs since then. But you can simply ignore all that and use their much-improved unchained versions as a baseline too.

[Kurald Galain]

Worst: Fighter, it's boring, has no decent fluff, and has only one solution to every problem (hit man) because it only gets 2+int skill points. Don't get me wrong it's good at hitting man, but that's all it does.
Yes, but unlike the 3E fighter, at least PF fighter has archetypes. Among other things, they can get you a familiar, mutagen, and/or more skill points.

People tend to assume that the most common criticisms of 3E's fighter, rogue, and monk still apply equally to PF, but it turns out that they really don't. Paizo fixed almost all of these, but hardcore forum users seem to think that they should fix 9th-level spells instead. Even though fighter/rogue are the most popular classes in the game, and almost nobody ever uses 9th-level spells :smallamused:

[noob]

Agreed, and that's why they made that an optional system in PF. You don't have to track components for Alchemy any more than you do for spellcasting, if you don't want to.



Are we playing different games? Or are you just willfully ignoring all the degeneracy 3.5 full casters are capable of, like Ice Assassin, Arcane Thesis, Mindrape, Incantatrix etc. PF casters don't even come close.



See above, yours is the memory I call into question.

PF base monk and rogue were on the weak side (though even then they were T4, and benefited from a lot of the systemic changes like SA working on constructs and corporeal undead), but they got a lot of buffs since then. But you can simply ignore all that and use their much-improved unchained versions as a baseline too.
You get more or less the equivalent of ice assassin at level 5 in pathfinder.
And meta-magic abuse was the most tame caster abuse in 3.5.
Mindrape does not grants anything over ice assassin abuse in the grand scheme of things.

[Rynjin]

You get more or less the equivalent of ice assassin at level 5 in pathfinder.

...No, you do not.

[noob]

...No, you do not.

craft construct to create trompe l'oeuils of whatever you want.

[Rynjin]

craft construct to create trompe l'oeuils of whatever you want.

A trompe l'oeil is an Ice Assassin the same way Minor Image is the same spell as Mirage Arcana. You don't get any of the same abilities besides Proficiencies.

It also takes forever and a half to build one.

[noob]

A trompe l'oeil is an Ice Assassin the same way Minor Image is the same spell as Mirage Arcana. You don't get any of the same abilities besides Proficiencies.

It also takes forever and a half to build one.

no you get all the powers of the creature on the trompe l'oeuil.


Attacks: A trompe l’oeil retains all weapon proficiencies and natural weapons. If it’s depicted wielding any manufactured weapons, the weapons are masterwork and gain an enhancement bonus (or equivalent weapon special abilities) when wielded by it. The bonus is based on its HD, as noted in the following table. A trompe l’oeil’s weapons melt into puddles of non-magical paint when the creature is destroyed.
Retaining something does not means you lose the rest and it is the entire attacks section so you normally do not lose any attacks
Unless you consider not mentioning a power means you lose it in which case a ton of templates are dysfunctional.
do you consider Boreal Creature for example lose all their old special qualities because they do not mention they keep those.
most templates does not says you keep your stuff: you are not supposed to lose something unless the template says you do.


Price varies (1000 gp per HD plus cost of painting)

Since you can apply templates to make any creature tiny the price will be hd*1000 + 500 and so it will take hd+1 days of crafting.
In fact you can get all the castings you want by making a trompe l'oeuil of a creature with an infinity of levels in each casting class that have been turned into a brain cylinder(1hd and lose 3 size categories) which also did take the power to transfer itself into another body then create a second body that is then taken by the first trompe l'oeil(take 2 days).
(the brain in a jar use mind swap with silent spell and still spell then use major mind swap since it now have a body that can make gestures and talk)

[The Random NPC]

A trompe l'oeil is an Ice Assassin the same way Minor Image is the same spell as Mirage Arcana. You don't get any of the same abilities besides Proficiencies.

It also takes forever and a half to build one.

Templates modify the base creature. Unless the template says you lose abilities, I believe you keep the base creature's abilities.

[Rynjin]

Templates modify the base creature. Unless the template says you lose abilities, I believe you keep the base creature's abilities.

I guess in the niche circumstance where you can kidnap a high level character and keep them captive and alive for a day per HD, that's relevant. Otherwise you're not adding the template to an existing creature. Actually, on third reading, it's not an acquired template in any case so you can't modify an existing creature with it as a player.

[noob]

I guess in the niche circumstance where you can kidnap a high level character and keep them captive and alive for a day per HD, that's relevant. Otherwise you're not adding the template to an existing creature. Actually, on third reading, it's not an acquired template in any case so you can't modify an existing creature with it as a player.

Except you are not modifying a creature you are creating a new creature that is based on any corporeal creature with an int score and this new creature have the trompe l'oeuil template.

[Psyren]

craft construct to create trompe l'oeuils of whatever you want.

It's not even close. In addition to the time requirements mentioned, Ice Assassin's most valuable (and in my view contentious) feature is that you have total control of the product. But for TLO, nothing in the template nor in Craft Construct gives you any kind of control over them. Thus they, like all monsters and NPCs in the world, default to the GM's control.


And meta-magic abuse was the most tame caster abuse in 3.5.
Mindrape does not grants anything over ice assassin abuse in the grand scheme of things.

None of these are actually counters, they are still forms of abuse that don't exist in PF.

And I can add more if you want like Dweomerkeeper, Supernatural Transformation, Planar Shepherd, DMM, Wish and Word etc. (I mean really, Wish alone...)

[noob]

It's not even close. In addition to the time requirements mentioned, Ice Assassin's most valuable (and in my view contentious) feature is that you have total control of the product. But for TLO, nothing in the template nor in Craft Construct gives you any kind of control over them. Thus they, like all monsters and NPCs in the world, default to the GM's control.



None of these are actually counters, they are still forms of abuse that don't exist in PF.

And I can add more if you want like Dweomerkeeper, Supernatural Transformation, Planar Shepherd, DMM, Wish and Word etc. (I mean really, Wish alone...)

add in the template stack one template that gives you control over the creature.
Supernatural wishes are still uncapped in pathfinder.(so you can go and make infinitely costly magical items)

[Cosi]

With respect to casters, the difference between 3.5 and PF is that in 3.5 you can do much more degenerate things, but in PF the actual classes are better. Since you mostly did not actually get to do things like Chain Binding or The Wish and The Word in actual games, the net effect of this is that the observed power of casters in PF is modestly higher than it is in 3e. Particularly if you accept the claims of "backwards compatibility" that have at various points been made. Because then you get to have PF class features and cast 3.5 spells.

[Psyren]

add in the template stack one template that gives you control over the creature.

"Template stack?" I'm not seeing anything about that in the entry, or in Craft Construct.


Supernatural wishes are still uncapped in pathfinder.(so you can go and make infinitely costly magical items)

Magic items are not on the list for PF Wish at all, and you haven't addressed anything else on the list.

[Endarire]

My favorite Paizo class is Inquisitor, especially Sacred Huntsmaster. My least favorite is Kineticist due to its complicated nature.

[The Random NPC]

I guess in the niche circumstance where you can kidnap a high level character and keep them captive and alive for a day per HD, that's relevant. Otherwise you're not adding the template to an existing creature. Actually, on third reading, it's not an acquired template in any case so you can't modify an existing creature with it as a player.

You don't modify an existing creature, you take a base creature (out of game) and create a construct of that creature (modify it).


"Template stack?" I'm not seeing anything about that in the entry, or in Craft Construct.

Template stacking is where you apply multiple templates to a creature to increase it's power. Trompe L'oeil can be applied to any corporeal creature, Nigh-Invulnerable can be applied to any living creature, and Devilbound creature can be applied to any creature with 5 or more HD, with an Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma score of 3 or more. The Tarrasque is a living corporeal creature with 30 HD, 3 INT, 15 WIS, and 14 CHA. Thus you can create a Trompe L'oeil of a Nigh-Invulnerable Devilbound Tarrasque that has a contract of obey all my orders.

[Aldrakan]

Template stacking is where you apply multiple templates to a creature to increase it's power. Trompe L'oeil can be applied to any corporeal creature, Nigh-Invulnerable can be applied to any living creature, and Devilbound creature can be applied to any creature with 5 or more HD, with an Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma score of 3 or more. The Tarrasque is a living corporeal creature with 30 HD, 3 INT, 15 WIS, and 14 CHA. Thus you can create a Trompe L'oeil of a Nigh-Invulnerable Devilbound Tarrasque that has a contract of obey all my orders.

I suspect Psyren is aware of the concept of applying multiple templates to increase a creature's power. What's tripping me and likely him up is where on earth you get the idea that you an just say "oh and make it a devilbound one sworn to obey me". When it says a template "can be applied" that doesn't mean you can just decide to apply it yourself any time you like, it means mechanically it is possible for such a creature to exist in the game.

To apply the devilbound template in any way you would first need to be a devil, from Hell, of a sort capable of making such a bargain, and then you would need to convince the trompe l'oiel to willingly sign a contract to obey all of your orders forever.

A trompe l'oeil is a portrait from life, you can't just make one of whatever thing you invent; is that what you think it does?

[Psyren]

Template stacking is where you apply multiple templates to a creature to increase it's power. Trompe L'oeil can be applied to any corporeal creature, Nigh-Invulnerable can be applied to any living creature, and Devilbound creature can be applied to any creature with 5 or more HD, with an Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma score of 3 or more. The Tarrasque is a living corporeal creature with 30 HD, 3 INT, 15 WIS, and 14 CHA. Thus you can create a Trompe L'oeil of a Nigh-Invulnerable Devilbound Tarrasque that has a contract of obey all my orders.

I was evidently a bit too subtle there. I know that templates can be stacked, the issue at hand is who gets to do the stacking. You the player can't invent a creature (or facsimile thereof) that doesn't exist in the world, so your scheme is contingent on your GM creating a Nigh-Invulnerable Devilbound Tarrasque for you to then create a construct of. Ice Assassin doesn't have this problem because servitude is (arguably) built into the spell, so you don't have to worry about finding templates that confer such functionality and asking your GM to combine them for you.

Ninja'd

[Aldrakan]

Anyway, I like the inquisitor a lot but can't name a definite favorite.

Worst is the kineticist. Clunky, confusing, underwhelming, and you can see the scrapes where it was shoved roughly out of its psychic kids origin into the elemental planes paradigm.

I'm going to defend the shifter a little, I don't actually think the design is all that bad, it's just operating at too low a power level. With some relatively small adjustments the shifter could be quite elegant (to start with you should obviously be able to use chimeric aspect to grab abilities from multiple major forms at once, like some kind of...chimera), whereas the kineticist needs to go back to the conceptual stage.

[Kurald Galain]

Based on this thread I clearly need to take a new look at the inquisitor.

It strikes me that the for the shifter, basically the issue is that other classes do the same thing but better; whereas with the kinny, the issue is that it's overcomplicated AND can't decide whether burn is a good thing or a bad AND arbitarily doesn't allow you to combine talents X and Y on the same build AND other classes do the same thing but better. So yeah, I suppose it's ok to defend the shifter a little.

[Amiel]

Are we playing different games? Or are you just willfully ignoring all the degeneracy 3.5 full casters are capable of, like Ice Assassin, Arcane Thesis, Mindrape, Incantatrix etc. PF casters don't even come close.

I find it interesting that adding to the discussion of whether a prepared fullcaster was made more powerful in PF than in its original core engine, you only mention spells and feats whose brokenness lies in a deliberately consenting or absent DM, and a prestige class that can also be entered into while being a spontaneous caster. Yet you also deliberately ignore the fact the base mechanics of the prepared fullcasters are much made better in PF than in 3.5 resulting in a net power gain, as Cosi has eloquently said above. Have you had a chance to look at the shenanigans made capable by the arcanist?

This is also an example of what can be theoretically brought to the table to be played in its questionable form and what is actually played.


See above, yours is the memory I call into question.

PF base monk and rogue were on the weak side (though even then they were T4, and benefited from a lot of the systemic changes like SA working on constructs and corporeal undead), but they got a lot of buffs since then. But you can simply ignore all that and use their much-improved unchained versions as a baseline too.
You seemed to have willfully ignored the fact that SKR actively made the monk, its mechanics and its toys worse.
I've also acknowledged that the unchained rogue is better designed than its chained counterpart but also suffers from being mechanically weak compared to its 3.5 brethren, especially considering SA is still difficult to gain and other classes entering into its UMD territory.

[Kurald Galain]

the unchained rogue is better designed than its chained counterpart but also suffers from being mechanically weak compared to its 3.5 brethren, especially considering SA is still difficult to gain and other classes entering into its UMD territory.

"Difficult to gain"? :smallbiggrin:

You flank or you stealth, it's not rocket science.

So yes, the theoretical problem is that 3E has a magic item that allows you to automatically sneak attack always, but this is theoretical since only die-hard forum users would know that, and this item is not actually available in most campaigns. The practical problem is that in 3E, many commonly-encountered creatures are immune to sneak attack (e.g. undead, constructs, plants, incorporeals); and in PF they're not. That means that in practice, the PF rogue is stronger than the 3E rogue. Paizo concerns itself with solving practical problems, not theoretical ones.

[Amiel]

"Difficult to gain"? :smallbiggrin:

You flank or you stealth, it's not rocket science.

Which is nonetheless still imprecise, but the rogue classes do dangle that sweet damage addition in the form of sneak attack to incentivize that option.


So yes, the theoretical problem is that 3E has a magic item that allows you to automatically sneak attack always, but this is theoretical since only die-hard forum users would know that, and this item is not actually available in most campaigns. The practical problem is that in 3E, many commonly-encountered creatures are immune to sneak attack (e.g. undead, constructs, plants, incorporeals); and in PF they're not. That means that in practice, the PF rogue is stronger than the 3E rogue. Paizo concerns itself with solving practical problems, not theoretical ones.

3.5 has also solved this problem with feats, magic items and other combinations specifically designed to lessen the impact of sneak attack immune enemies, ie there's an alternate class feature in Dungeonscape called Penetrating Strike, among others. 3.5 and Wizards also concerns itself with solving practical problems, not theoretical ones.

[Kurald Galain]

3.5 has also solved this problem with feats, magic items and other combinations specifically designed to lessen the impact of sneak attack immune enemies, ie there's an alternate class feature in Dungeonscape called Penetrating Strike, among others.

Right. So in 3E you can go splatbook diving to "lessen the impact" of an issue (i.e. that many common enemies are immune to SA), whereas in PF this issue doesn't exist in the first place...

...and somehow from this you conclude that the class is stronger in 3E? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense :smallbiggrin:

[Amiel]

Right. So in 3E you can go splatbook diving to "lessen the impact" of an issue (i.e. that many common enemies are immune to SA), whereas in PF this issue doesn't exist in the first place...

...and somehow from this you conclude that the class is stronger in 3E? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense :smallbiggrin:

I mean sure if the only indication of it being stronger than its 3xe counterpart is in the narrowly defined sneak attack upgrade, then sure it's fine :)

But I'm talking about the class as a whole, and as I've mentioned above other classes have entered into its territory, and are doing what it once did better.

[Vyanie]

Best: Magus, Warpriest, Mesmerist, and Hunter. Partial casters are where it's at.

Worst: yeah, that's the kinny, hands down. That's the class that gets all the frequent arguments because people so much want to like it, but mechanically it doesn't hold up (and is overcomplex to boot). Shifter is not good, but just gets ignored by most people.

While i love the thematics of the hunter they sadly took the worst options from both the parent classes and pooped out the hunter. Saves? ranger, Bab druid, casting, somewhat a mix, feats, give them a lower bonus feat progression than ranger make the variety of options insanely small. pet is same as a druid (thing should have better saves especially will saves for being a split class like it is if its put out of commision then hunter is not even half a class)

I will agree warpriest and magus were amazing. Brawlers would be amazing if they stacked with monk/umonk for unarmed progression and if they had umonks flurry, keeping the -2/-2 was a very bad idea imo especially since they deign to nerf anything that brawlers could use to be complete trash. (looking at you brawling enchantment)

[grarrrg]

While i love the thematics of the hunter they sadly took the worst options from both the parent classes and pooped out the hunter. ...pet is same as a druid (thing should have better saves especially will saves for being a split class like it is if its put out of commision then hunter is not even half a class)

Yes.
The basic animal companion is the same as the Druid gets. This is a GOOD THING because you don't need a separate look-up table for "hunter companions".

Also, you neglected Animal Focus, and the auto-share Teamwork feats, and the Imp. Empathic Link, and the Bonus Tricks, and...
But other then all that stuff, yes, exactly the same as the Druid gets.

[Jack_Simth]

with archetypes, it can become even more powerful, able to still do its stuff while also being a melee powerhouse (Synth)Synthesist Summoner is actually weaker than a regular summoner (due mostly to action economy, but also due to reduced feats and skills - can't have your eidolon do crafting for you). It permits one to focus a bit better, but that's about it. As far as I can tell, the only real reason it was banned in society play being that it underscored how outclassed 'standard' melee folks can get: There's little work or knowledge needed to get a Synthesist to outshine a standard melee class at melee, and still go all day (Wizard or Cleric takes some work to do the same) while still being the PC doing everything.

[noob]

Yes.
The basic animal companion is the same as the Druid gets. This is a GOOD THING because you don't need a separate look-up table for "hunter companions".

Also, you neglected Animal Focus, and the auto-share Teamwork feats, and the Imp. Empathic Link, and the Bonus Tricks, and...
But other then all that stuff, yes, exactly the same as the Druid gets.

The thing is that the druid pet is quite as strong(if not stronger) as an unoptimized fighter of half its level when unbuffed and so the druid casually overshadows fighters of extremely low optimization even if the druid forgets it have spells because then it can shoot poorly darts while its animal mauls things to death and that the fighter is busy seathing and unseathing its sword repeatively.
If you have a character that is supposed to fight like a fighter and which have an animal as good as a fighter it makes the fighter feel bad so the hunter could not get a too much upgraded pet.

[grarrrg]

Synthesist Summoner is actually weaker than a regular summoner (due mostly to action economy, but also due to reduced feats and skills - can't have your eidolon do crafting for you). It permits one to focus a bit better, but that's about it

Agreed on generally weaker.
But there are a fair number of things (mostly 'gimmick' builds, but not all) that are only really possible with a Synthesist.
One that comes to mind is trying to get your Eidolon to use Firearms. Ranged combat already requires a large Feat investment, and adding Guns makes it that much worse, if not impossible on an Eidolon. But being able to take some levels of Gunslinger (and/or Fighter) to nab a lot of quick feats/abilities makes a Gundolon an actual thing.


As far as I can tell, the only real reason it was banned in society play being that it underscored how outclassed 'standard' melee folks can get

One other big issue is that it's a MASSIVE walking rules-headache. It might work fine most of the time, but it can very easily stray into rules-gray areas, and 'smooth, consistent' play is one of the goals of Society.


The thing is that the druid pet is quite as strong(if not stronger) as an unoptimized fighter of half its level when unbuffed and so ....

You missed my point.
I was replying to 'it's the same Companion a Druid gets, Hunter Companion should be buffed in comparison!'. And I replied "it HAS buffs when compared".

Dude was comparing Druid to Hunter, not Druid to Fighter.

[Kurald Galain]

While it's true that the druid is a stronger class than the hunter, in my view the druid is too powerful whereas the hunter is better designed.

[Hunter Noventa]

Best: I'll just go and say the Magus. It's the most fun I've ever had playing a first-party class.

Worst: Lots of people have covered these, and for the most part, I'll just say I agree. The likes of Shifter and Kineticist are very disappointing.

Most Disappointing: The Vigilante. Hear me out. It's a great class with an amazing concept and tons of options. The problem is the RP aspects of it. How do you handle the dual identities when it comes to your party members? The players will obviously know, but do their characters? How do you make it work smoothly without everyone also being a vigilante and being some kind of crime-fighting team? Even then it raises awkward questions about your characters and there's no good answer, I find. Great class, great options, highly problematic RP implications.

[Peat]

Gotta say, I'm a bit surprised to see defence of the Rogue and Monk. They might be better than 3.5 classes, but the strong impression I got is that they were a decent bit further behind Fighters and the like now, with some very annoying issues. Paizo releasing an Unchained Rogue that was straight better (and I think the Monk is too if not considering archetypes) is kinda their admission of that. Maybe I've missed something.

[Kurald Galain]

Gotta say, I'm a bit surprised to see defence of the Rogue and Monk. They might be better than 3.5 classes
Well, the rogue and monk (1) aren't Paizo classes, and (2) have actually been improved by Paizo; although they still aren't top-notch, they're clearly better than in 3E/3.5.

So since the thread is about "Best and worst designed Paizo classes", rogue and monk don't fit that label. That is why.

[Eldonauran]

A number of assumptions go into my choice, namely access to all 1st party Paizo material and that players/GM work together to put up a hedge against players intentionally stretching the game to its limits (ie, keeping it to a realm of power where CR actually means something). I also do not consider a somewhat complicated mechanical design to be 'bad' nor do I consider a class I would not be interested in playing 'bad'. Aside from that, remember these are based on personal preferences.

Best: 2-way tie between Skald and Summoner (Unchained)
Why?: As I player, I hold high options of classes that have a certain level of versatility. How high you can push the numbers in one or two areas of specialization don't influence my choice of 'best' design. My label of 'best' falls within how much can the character chassis do, and do adequately, rather than who can hit the hardest.

Worst: Shifter
Why?: Its a druid without spells and slightly better BAB. Quite frankly, Ranger 4 + Druid 16 + Shapeshifting Hunter (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/shapeshifting-hunter/) does the job better, except for the first few levels and perhaps a selective level here and there.

[noob]

Agreed on generally weaker.
But there are a fair number of things (mostly 'gimmick' builds, but not all) that are only really possible with a Synthesist.
One that comes to mind is trying to get your Eidolon to use Firearms. Ranged combat already requires a large Feat investment, and adding Guns makes it that much worse, if not impossible on an Eidolon. But being able to take some levels of Gunslinger (and/or Fighter) to nab a lot of quick feats/abilities makes a Gundolon an actual thing.



One other big issue is that it's a MASSIVE walking rules-headache. It might work fine most of the time, but it can very easily stray into rules-gray areas, and 'smooth, consistent' play is one of the goals of Society.



You missed my point.
I was replying to 'it's the same Companion a Druid gets, Hunter Companion should be buffed in comparison!'. And I replied "it HAS buffs when compared".

Dude was comparing Druid to Hunter, not Druid to Fighter.

You did not read my entire post.
the reason why the hunter does not have a super awesome pet is that the devs are comparing hunter to fighter while they do not compare druid to fighter fairly because they are bad at comparing spells with weapon attacks(and so are comparing druid without casting nor any feats and straight tens for stats to a fighter with no feats and with straight tens for stats).

[ElFi]

Best Class: Magus. I've never played this class personally, but I spent a whole campaign GMing with one in the party, and both me and the player controlling it had a blast. It's not the most versatile mid-caster, sure, but it's a perfectly-executed gish that improves on the standards WotC set with the Duskblade in just about every meaningful way. It encourages tactical play, positioning, and resource counting in a way you normally only see with full casters, and I like encouraging my players to think through their turns instead of just mindlessly swinging. Many of its archetypes are also cool and alter how the class functions in actually meaningful ways.

Honorable Mentions:

Alchemist: I love this class, but it's so unfocused. Its mechanics pull you in so many way simultaneously, but you're really only going to be great if you specialize. It has a lot of options on the table, but they don't necessarily work well in synergy. Paizo also really took a long while to get around to capitalizing on the "mad science can do anything!" aesthetic I personally think the class should've been going for from the beginning. It's messy, but it's fun.
Oracle: Probably the single most versatile class chassis for building a character the game can muster. You can be a heavily-armored warrior, or a squsihy backline caster, or anything in between. The quality of Revelations isn't exactly consistent (far from it, honestly), but the good ones are spread out evenly enough that you're not likely to notice. My biggest complaint is that this class is saddled with being a spontaneous Cleric, and the Cleric spell list does not play nice with spontaneous casting.
Shaman: Wandering Spirit is how "play a different role every day" should always be done, forget the Medium and their Influence garbage. It's got strong flavor and is one of the few Hybrid classes that successfully takes elements from its parent classes while also carving out its own identity among the existing roster. The individually poor quality of most spirit hexes is my biggest complaint here.


Worst Class: Shifter. I honestly come down on this class much harder than I do with the Kineticist, most days. The Kineticist is far from good, but built well it actually has its own unique niche and can do some interesting things other classes can't, at least not without difficulty. I would've liked it a lot more if the game designers actually went all-in on the "master of the elements" fluff instead of leaving us with this awkward donkey-child straddling a ranged at-will blaster and a utility-focused elemental warlock.

The Shifter, on the other hand... hoo boy. My main gripe with the Shifter is that it fundamentally fails at what it's described as being and doing, in both fluff and mechanics. It's supposed to be a master of shapeshifting... but the Druid is and will always be better at you at shapeshifting 9 times out of 10, and can access a much more versatile library of forms on top of that. Just about the only thing you exceed at compared to a Druid is being a combat shapeshifter, and even that's debatable because the Druid has Natural Spell, an animal companion, and that aforementioned diversity of forms to more than make up for the HD/BAB disadvantage. It's really telling that Paizo had to issue several massive errata just to get the class into a functional place in its ostensible role. Adaptive Shifter is much better, we all know this, but that's just what the class should've looked like in the first place, plus even more. Band-aids don't cover bullet wounds.

[Ssalarn]

I find that the classes whose design I personally find to be best executed are the inquisitor, mesmerist, and vigilante.

The classes whose design I personally enjoy the least are the gunslinger and magus. My lack of enthusiasm for them has nothing to do with their damage output, but is more a matter of how their structure affects the game space as a whole and how their abilities are structured within the class progression (such as the gunslinger having little to offer past 5th level and dedicating so much of its design space to exclusive misfire mitigation, or the Magus offering armor upgrades at levels where you're probably so far into your build that you're unlikely to ever actually use those class features).

[Rynjin]

The Magus does have some severe design/theme mismatching, like the armor (sure, let me wear heavy armor on the character whose entire suite of class features pushes you irrevocably in the direction of "Dex based fighter"...) but it's at least on nearly irrelevant fringe elements, and archetypes exist to correct them.

The worst designed classes in the game like the Shifter have the same issue but in their core function. Theme: shapeshifting focused character. Design: Worse at shapeshifting than several classes who are not focused on the aspect that their theme tries to evoke as its sole purpose for existing.

I also still don't get the love for the Warpriest in this thread. It is by far the most redundant class in the game. It is overshadowed by (at least) three different classes at everything it does. The Paladin is a better warrior-priest. The Cleric is a better priest, and not all that much worse at being a warrior. The Inquisitor is better at both being a warrior AND being a spellcaster, while stacking actual skill ranks on top of it all.

The Warpriest brings almost nothing to the table in terms of utility; it offers nothing unique in terms of mechanics; it performs adequately but no more as a fighter. It is the class in the game that has the least reason to exist. At least Psychic and Spiritualist utilize unique spellcasting mechanics that almost justify their existence, but the Warpriest offers nothing. I have never looked at Warpriest and thought that I would like to play it. Any character concept I can think of for Warpriest is just as well served and better by Cleric, Paladin, or Inquisitor. Or hell, Oracle for that matter. Or even Battle Shaman from the same damn book, designed by the same guy.Neither in theming or design does it evoke anything interesting or eyecatching. It is a nullspace testament to Jason Buhlman's utter lack of imagination in both creative senses (lack of unique or coherent theme) and design sense (in offering something fun and new to play).

Why do people keep mentioning it as one of the best designed classes in this thread?

[Hackulator]

I feel like everyone is dumping on shifter because druid outshines it so much but that is because druid is badly designed in terms of having way too much power and not the reverse.

There are a lot of people in this thread that don't seem to understand that high level of power is not a good benchmark for design quality.

[Eldonauran]

I also still don't get the love for the Warpriest in this thread. It is by far the most redundant class in the game. It is overshadowed by (at least) three different classes at everything it does. The Paladin is a better warrior-priest. The Cleric is a better priest, and not all that much worse at being a warrior. The Inquisitor is better at both being a warrior AND being a spellcaster, while stacking actual skill ranks on top of it all.

***snip***

Why do people keep mentioning it as one of the best designed classes in this thread?
I can only hazard a guess as to this, or offer my opinion, which is about the same thing really. The Warpriest simply scratches an itch that very few people realize is there. While the Inquisitor does fill the niche of 3/4 BAB, 6th level divine caster niche, the Warpriest is a prepared caster while the Inquisitor is a spontaneous caster. That alone is going to make it a bit more versatile. The other big draw that I see it offers a number of 'built in' features: weapon damage, weapon enhancement, armor enhancement, healing, (quick) self-buffing, bonus feats, and blessings. It is the "I want to be a Paladin but I want the option to not be lawful good" option.

I like the Warpriest. If I didn't like spontaneous casting so much, I would actually play it over the Inquisitor. I have played it before and it was a blast. It felt fluid and easy to manage.


There are a lot of people in this thread that don't seem to understand that high level of power is not a good benchmark for design quality. Or, perhaps, they are very much aware of that and they just don't like the shifter. My first instinct is not to assume that ignorance is the sole reason behind someone's opinion. Personally, I think the shifter would have been received with more fan fare if it had either been given 4th level casting (similar to the bloodrager) or allowed to dip into specific monster abilities that even the druid did not have access to, such as limited supernatural or spell-like abilities.

[noob]

I am still searching for the equivalent of prepared bards.

[Eldonauran]

I am still searching for the equivalent of prepared bards.
Perhaps Puppetmaster (https://aonprd.com/ArchetypeDisplay.aspx?FixedName=Magus%20Puppetmast er) Magus (variant multiclass Bard and you get almost all you want here) is what you are looking for? Otherwise, an Eldritch Scoundrel (https://aonprd.com/ArchetypeDisplay.aspx?FixedName=Rogue%20Eldritch%2 0Scoundrel) Rogue is more to your liking? An Evangelist (https://aonprd.com/ArchetypeDisplay.aspx?FixedName=Cleric%20Evangelis t) Cleric also fits that role nicely, though .. divine spells.

[Hackulator]

Or, perhaps, they are very much aware of that and they just don't like the shifter. My first instinct is not to assume that ignorance is the sole reason behind someone's opinion. Personally, I think the shifter would have been received with more fan fare if it had either been given 4th level casting (similar to the bloodrager) or allowed to dip into specific monster abilities that even the druid did not have access to, such as limited supernatural or spell-like abilities.

I gotta be honest, this suggests to me you haven't spent much time on earth. However, it sounds like things may be much nicer on your planet, so good for you! :smallbiggrin:

[Eldonauran]

I gotta be honest, this suggests to me you haven't spent much time on earth. However, it sounds like things may be much nicer on your planet, so good for you! :smallbiggrin:
Oh, I am well aware of what the prevailing attitude is among the humans on this planet. It is the reason why things are as bad as they are. People speak only to hear themselves talk. People hear each other but never actually listen. We have so many ways to communicate but people just are not interested in understanding each other. As much as I am disappointed everyday, I will not join them in that quagmire of narcissism. I am aware that every person has their own unique perspective on how this great puzzle we call life has revealed itself, and each carries a grain of truth within that perspective. I choose to hear, to listen, to understand rather than revel in my own echo.

But, yes. Things are great in my own little part of the world. How about yours? :smallsmile:

[Rynjin]

I can only hazard a guess as to this, or offer my opinion, which is about the same thing really. The Warpriest simply scratches an itch that very few people realize is there. While the Inquisitor does fill the niche of 3/4 BAB, 6th level divine caster niche, the Warpriest is a prepared caster while the Inquisitor is a spontaneous caster. That alone is going to make it a bit more versatile.

The Living Grimoire Inquisitor is Prepared.

TBF it came out a year later.


The other big draw that I see it offers a number of 'built in' features: weapon damage, weapon enhancement, armor enhancement, healing, (quick) self-buffing, bonus feats, and blessings. It is the "I want to be a Paladin but I want the option to not be lawful good" option.

So play a Battle or Metal Oracle or Battle Shaman; they give all of these things too, and 9 levels of casting. The latter is Prepared, the former is Spontaneous.

At least it didn't get to print with its former Cha AND Wis dependency, that's about the best I can give the Warpriest.

[Eldonauran]

So play a Battle or Metal Oracle or Battle Shaman; they give all of these things too, and 9 levels of casting. The latter is Prepared, the former is Spontaneous.

At least it didn't get to print with its former Cha AND Wis dependency, that's about the best I can give the Warpriest.
I really have nothing much to add from my previous post that you quoted from. A Warpriest is a chassis ready made for the things I listed, without all the extra baggage that a Curse, Mystery, Familiar, or Spirits will entail mechanically, or via roleplay. 9th level spells are great, but sometimes, a person doesn't want them. As I said, it scratches an itch that some people don't realize is there. Perhaps, one that some people can't understand is there.

[Elricaltovilla]

Why do people keep mentioning it as one of the best designed classes in this thread?

Because in a vacuum (that is, without the existence of the other classes you compare it to) it is well designed. The warpriest accomplishes the goal of being a combat focused, mid BAB, 6th level divine caster with some very functional class abilities and even some interesting tricks to pull off.

I've played it and found the class pretty enjoyable. I prefer playing Inquisitor more only because I like the skill focus the Inquisitor has more than I like the warpriest's combat spellcasting style.

[Psyren]

I feel like everyone is dumping on shifter because druid outshines it so much but that is because druid is badly designed in terms of having way too much power and not the reverse.

There are a lot of people in this thread that don't seem to understand that high level of power is not a good benchmark for design quality.

Eh, Metamorph Alchemist does just about everything I wanted out of a "shifter" class without being anywhere near as powerful as druid.



I also still don't get the love for the Warpriest in this thread. It is by far the most redundant class in the game. It is overshadowed by (at least) three different classes at everything it does. The Paladin is a better warrior-priest. The Cleric is a better priest, and not all that much worse at being a warrior. The Inquisitor is better at both being a warrior AND being a spellcaster, while stacking actual skill ranks on top of it all.

The Warpriest can autoquicken all its buffs for free; that alone gives it an edge over Inquisitor and Paladin. Its channel is also Wis-based, making it SAD. And lastly, some of the Blessings are crazy good, e.g. getting SM9/SNA9 as a SLA 13/day, or swift-action greater invisibility, or move-action teleportation for the whole party.

Is it stronger than cleric, obviously not, but the game has enough T1 classes anyway.


Right. So in 3E you can go splatbook diving to "lessen the impact" of an issue (i.e. that many common enemies are immune to SA), whereas in PF this issue doesn't exist in the first place...

...and somehow from this you conclude that the class is stronger in 3E? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense :smallbiggrin:

There's a level of cognitive dissonance on the part of the haters that I find exhausting to unpack.

[Rynjin]

Perhaps a fundamental difference of opinion then; I personally don't think design CAN be judged in a vacuum. No product can be. If the product does not stack up well to its competition, it's not a well designed product in the market space it's trying to push into. This can be offset by a lowered price or some such to justify the lower quality and/or poor design, but in this case the cost of all options is the same.

[Psyren]

Perhaps a fundamental difference of opinion then; I personally don't think design CAN be judged in a vacuum. No product can be. If the product does not stack up well to its competition, it's not a well designed product in the market space it's trying to push into. This can be offset by a lowered price or some such to justify the lower quality and/or poor design, but in this case the cost of all options is the same.

You mean 3.5 splats are all legally available for free online? Where?

And not to put too fine a point on it, but whether a product stacks up to the competition in a market is dependent on the market, not on one person's opinion. And the market spoke pretty clearly where PF was concerned.

[Rynjin]

That was a reply to Elricaltovilla RE: The Warpriest. Figures as soon as I start writing a post to a thread no one has posted in for an hour someone beats me to a post by a minute. =p

[Elricaltovilla]

Perhaps a fundamental difference of opinion then; I personally don't think design CAN be judged in a vacuum. No product can be. If the product does not stack up well to its competition, it's not a well designed product in the market space it's trying to push into. This can be offset by a lowered price or some such to justify the lower quality and/or poor design, but in this case the cost of all options is the same.

Vacuum may have been a poor choice of words on my part. What I mean is that the warpriest can easily fit into the designated party role it's expected to play, and is different enough from other classes that it has unique toys to play with that justify its existence beyond "I want to play a divine martial, but I don't really feel like playing another cleric or paladin."

The fact that the Inquisitor already exists is kind of a sad sticking point for justifying the warpriest's existence from a basic mechanics point, but it is actually good at its job and is pretty fun if you give it a chance.

[Jack_Simth]

Agreed on generally weaker.
But there are a fair number of things (mostly 'gimmick' builds, but not all) that are only really possible with a Synthesist.
One that comes to mind is trying to get your Eidolon to use Firearms. Ranged combat already requires a large Feat investment, and adding Guns makes it that much worse, if not impossible on an Eidolon. But being able to take some levels of Gunslinger (and/or Fighter) to nab a lot of quick feats/abilities makes a Gundolon an actual thing.
Yes. And in investing in a gundolon, you're weakening basic tasks that an eidolon would normally do (less BAB [remember: While fused, you use the Eidolon's BAB, not your own, and it's BAB is based strictly on your Summoner class level], fewer evolutions, less AC, reduced Str/Dex, etcetera). You're focusing. That is one of the things the synthesist does reasonably well.


One other big issue is that it's a MASSIVE walking rules-headache. It might work fine most of the time, but it can very easily stray into rules-gray areas, and 'smooth, consistent' play is one of the goals of Society.
That makes sense.

[Kurald Galain]

The Magus does have some severe design/theme mismatching, like the armor (sure, let me wear heavy armor on the character whose entire suite of class features pushes you irrevocably in the direction of "Dex based fighter"...)
The pointis that the class does NOT irrevocably push you in any one direction. You can play it dex-based just as easily as str-based, or even int-based. Here, have a guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423754-Myrrh-Frankincense-and-Steel-Kurald-Galain-s-Guide-to-the-Magus). :smallwink:


I also still don't get the love for the Warpriest in this thread. It is by far the most redundant class in the game.
The main reason is the Fervor ability. Casting as a swift action rocks. I do agree its flavor is largely the same as an inquisitor or combat-specced cleric.


I feel like everyone is dumping on shifter because druid outshines it so much but that is because druid is badly designed in terms of having way too much power and not the reverse.
The Hunter, which is a well-designed class overall, also outshines the shifter.

[grarrrg]

(less BAB [remember: While fused, you use the Eidolon's BAB, not your own, and it's BAB is based strictly on your Summoner class level]
No. Eidolon Bab replaces _Summoner_ Bab. Not _All_ Bab. (https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9obc)


fewer evolutions, less AC, reduced Str/Dex, etcetera)

As for the rest, you don't need all that many non-Summoner levels to function.
Gunslinger Mysterious Stranger 1/Synthesist 19 can be STUPID effective.
And you only trade 1 point of DEX, 1 Evolution point, and a couple Nat Armor, for all the Gun-stuff you need to get started, and CHA-to-damage. And since you're a Synthesist your _starting_ CHA can easily be 20.

[Rynjin]

The pointis that the class does NOT irrevocably push you in any one direction. You can play it dex-based just as easily as str-based, or even int-based. Here, have a guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423754-Myrrh-Frankincense-and-Steel-Kurald-Galain-s-Guide-to-the-Magus). :smallwink:

It's possible, but runs counter to everything the class provides/forces you into at early levels. You need to use a single one handed or light weapon. You're only proficient in light armor. You have a poor Reflex save. You have 3/4 BaB.

All of these things combine into making the obvious solutions to reducing your weaknesses (Ref save, 3/4 BaB, poor AC) is conglomerating your attack and defense onto a single stat. As Str is not an option for AC or saves, Dex is the answer. Likewise being unable to TWF, use 2H weapons (without losing Spell Combat), or wield a shield (without a recent Feat) pushes you further into Dex as your primary stat since an obvious option to become almost entirely SAD sits right in front of you.

There's a reason every Magus and their grandmothers use/d Dervish Dance, and it's not because of the forumite hivemind making that the one true build. Everything about the class funnels you down that avenue quite elegantly and obviously. Doing anything else runs counter to the class' design and will subconsciously "feel wrong" to a lot of people even if they can't consciously put into words why that is.

There are archetypes that change this, but Paizo really should not have been surprised when PFS became inundated with Dervish Dancing, Shocking Grasping Magi if they'd paid the slightest attention to what their class design really meant for the player on the other end.

[Eldonauran]

It's possible, but runs counter to everything the class provides/forces you into at early levels. You need to use a single one handed or light weapon. You're only proficient in light armor. You have a poor Reflex save. You have 3/4 BaB.

All of these things combine into making the obvious solutions to reducing your weaknesses (Ref save, 3/4 BaB, poor AC) is conglomerating your attack and defense onto a single stat. As Str is not an option for AC or saves, Dex is the answer. Likewise being unable to TWF, use 2H weapons (without losing Spell Combat), or wield a shield (without a recent Feat) pushes you further into Dex as your primary stat since an obvious option to become almost entirely SAD sits right in front of you.

There's a reason every Magus and their grandmothers use/d Dervish Dance, and it's not because of the forumite hivemind making that the one true build. Everything about the class funnels you down that avenue quite elegantly and obviously. Doing anything else runs counter to the class' design and will subconsciously "feel wrong" to a lot of people even if they can't consciously put into words why that is.

There are archetypes that change this, but Paizo really should not have been surprised when PFS became inundated with Dervish Dancing, Shocking Grasping Magi if they'd paid the slightest attention to what their class design really meant for the player on the other end.
Hmmm... I can see your point on that, however it is not indicative of my experience. The very first Magus I created was a strength based Staff/Hexcrafter Magus who was considering taking levels in Paladin at some point. I never felt that my power level was lacking when I chose to take Power Attack and Furious Focus. But then, I was playing in a game where CR actually meant something and we weren't punching above our weight class at every opportunity. Taking non-combat feats were perfectly acceptable because most of the class abilities we had made us dangerous enough. I ended up making my own staves and using them in combat like quarterstaffs.

[Rynjin]

Hmmm... I can see your point on that, however it is not indicative of my experience. The very first Magus I created was a strength based Staff/Hexcrafter Magus who was considering taking levels in Paladin at some point. I never felt that my power level was lacking when I chose to take Power Attack and Furious Focus. But then, I was playing in a game where CR actually meant something and we weren't punching above our weight class at every opportunity. Taking non-combat feats were perfectly acceptable because most of the class abilities we had made us dangerous enough. I ended up making my own staves and using them in combat like quarterstaffs.

Yeah, but the Staff Magus is one of the aforementioned "archetypes that changes that". =p

My point actually wasn't about power level regardless though, it's more about direction. Str based combat is, in general, more powerful than Dex based combat. It does more damage and requires far less Feat investment, even before you take into account that most of your damage comes form spells, not weapons in any case. But everything about the Magus points you toward the latter. It's like two roads, side by side, but one is covered in weeds and looks uninviting. the second might be a very nice stroll once you push past the bushes, and even a shorter way home, but the way it LOOKS gives you a bad feeling.

[Kurald Galain]

It's possible, but runs counter to everything the class provides/forces you into at early levels. You need to use a single one handed or light weapon. You're only proficient in light armor. You have a poor Reflex save. You have 3/4 BaB.
The obvious solution is to use your spells.


There's a reason every Magus and their grandmothers use/d Dervish Dance
But they don't. The str build is very common, mainly because it saves two feats but it also deals more damage, particularly at low levels.

The class is made to be versatile. That's not an issue.

[Rynjin]

See above, already responded to your points.

TL;DR: The power level isn't the issue, it's where the design naturally leads you. Nobody likes "wasting" class features or "missing out" on perceived value.

[Jack_Simth]

No. Eidolon Bab replaces _Summoner_ Bab. Not _All_ Bab. (https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9obc)
Ah, nifty; I was unaware of that FAQ entry. Makes Synthesist a much better dip for squishy folks. Do they have one removing the limit to the number of attacks? That does apply to manufactured weapons, too...

[grarrrg]

Ah, nifty; I was unaware of that FAQ entry. Makes Synthesist a much better dip for squishy folks. Do they have one removing the limit to the number of attacks? That does apply to manufactured weapons, too...

Original Summoner/Eidolon only had a limit on Natural attacks.
Unchained's limit applies to everything, but is written overly strict to the point it is borderline dysfunctional.

[Kurald Galain]

TL;DR: The power level isn't the issue, it's where the design naturally leads you. Nobody likes "wasting" class features or "missing out" on perceived value.

It's where the design naturally leads you. Not everybody thinks the way you do. For instance, lots of people don't like "wasting" two feats or "missing out" on the 1.5 str modifier to damage.

Of the points you mention,
You have 3/4 BaB => The Magus's enchant ability compensates for that.
Poor reflex save => Most classes in the game have one or two poor saves; that doesn't push anyone to anything in particular.
You need to use a single one handed or light weapon => That encourages people to take Power Attack, meaning they need a str-build instead of a dex one. Or, you know, crit fish with Shocking Grasp, which works with str just as well as dex.
You're only proficient in light armor. => And this is the only place where it becomes a tradeoff: str build has more damage, less AC, and saves two feats; whereas dex build has less damage, more AC, and uses up two feats.

The oldest Magus guide I could find on the web already suggests that there are two build options, i.e. str-primary and dex-primary. And the most commonly played Magus (i.e. the pregen) is the str-build. It is simply not the case that everybody always wants the dex build; both builds are popular and more-or-less equally useful.

[Eldariel]

I feel like everyone is dumping on shifter because druid outshines it so much but that is because druid is badly designed in terms of having way too much power and not the reverse.

Any statement regarding who has "too much" or "too little" power is completely arbitrary. The game lacks any reliable benchmarks; the classes people seem to love dump on anything remotely CR appropriate and the even more powerful classes do so even more easily while also having the ability to shape the narrative. There's no way to say what's "too much" or "too little" power; one is right for one person, the other for another. Me, I'd much rather play (DM and participate, both) closer to tier 1 than tier 3 simply because of the freedom it opens up for shaping the game together - but I'm not saying that's right for everyone else. Just that I enjoy Wizard-levels of power more than Magus-levels.

[Vyanie]

Yes.
The basic animal companion is the same as the Druid gets. This is a GOOD THING because you don't need a separate look-up table for "hunter companions".

Also, you neglected Animal Focus, and the auto-share Teamwork feats, and the Imp. Empathic Link, and the Bonus Tricks, and...
But other then all that stuff, yes, exactly the same as the Druid gets.

animal focus, the +2 to a stat (also found as a feat) that doesnt stack with buffs or items, bonus tricks that... bleh for a class focused on having a pet should get a lot more especially for it being a companion how many DM's treat it as they would a stupid untrained animal off the street or flat out remove it from play so easily or better yet THEY control half your character and not you. They also have to be one of the worst instances of a MAD class to do what they are designed in addition to any of the feats that look as they were specifically designed for them are both a retarded feat and stat tax examples are pack flanking and the entire beastmaster style line. My point is they are a straight up weaker version of a druid with very, very little added back in to help them out. They suck at range because of 3/4 bab so forced into melee, need Str to hit or do any damage, dex because they are only a med armor user, Con because they are gonna be squishy (and in melee), Int because of stupid feat taxes, Wis because of spells (and feat taxes) Cha because of both feat taxes AND handle animal checks.

[Amiel]

Well, the rogue and monk (1) aren't Paizo classes, and (2) have actually been improved by Paizo; although they still aren't top-notch, they're clearly better than in 3E/3.5.

So since the thread is about "Best and worst designed Paizo classes", rogue and monk don't fit that label. That is why.

Within the context of Pathfinder, Paizo absolutely designed those classes, unless you were meaning to say Paizo copied the mechanics wholesale :smallbiggrin:
Which is why the Pathfinder-Paizo designed paladin is a lot better designed than its previous counterpart.

I think you meant to say they're not Paizo created. Though in the strictest sense, I agree they're not "Paizo created classes".

On the whole though, the rogue is not better than what it was, because it lost a lot of its original identity through the other classes collectively being better than what it once was capable of. The monk suffered through having its mechanics and toys utterly nerfed for a time, but people curiously want to willfully forget and conveniently ignore this.

[Amiel]

There's a level of cognitive dissonance on the part of the haters that I find exhausting to unpack.

It takes a brave man to argue that only through cheesing the mechanics and a lack of DM oversight leads to a more powerful caster in the original incarnation when you can just play a caster that is more overpowered than its original brethren completely out of the box and as is in Pathfinder :smallbiggrin:

[Serafina]

animal focus, the +2 to a stat (also found as a feat) that doesnt stack with buffs or items, bonus tricks that... bleh for a class focused on having a pet should get a lot more especially for it being a companion how many DM's treat it as they would a stupid untrained animal off the street or flat out remove it from play so easily or better yet THEY control half your character and not you. They also have to be one of the worst instances of a MAD class to do what they are designed in addition to any of the feats that look as they were specifically designed for them are both a retarded feat and stat tax examples are pack flanking and the entire beastmaster style line. My point is they are a straight up weaker version of a druid with very, very little added back in to help them out. They suck at range because of 3/4 bab so forced into melee, need Str to hit or do any damage, dex because they are only a med armor user, Con because they are gonna be squishy (and in melee), Int because of stupid feat taxes, Wis because of spells (and feat taxes) Cha because of both feat taxes AND handle animal checks.Animal Focuses are actually quite useful. Keep in mind that they're always-active on your animal companion, with no duration limits, and it can be changed at-will to fit your current situation, giving high flexibility.

Sure, the enhancement bonuses don't stack (being enhancement bonuses). But they do scale - and you can always apply it to an ability score that isn't currently being enhanced by an item. And really, in a lot of situations you won't be an optimal stat-boosting item for your companion anyway, so having a focus available for that is good. The spells aren't that relevant, since they only have a minute/level duration.

But that's not all animal focuses can do. Even just the standard ones also offer darkvision(/blindsense), a large perception bonus, a large acrobatics/swim bonus, a large climb bonus, a large stealth bonus, an enhancement bonus to speed, Evasion, bonuses to AoOs, or the Scent-ability.
And sure a lot of those are situational - but remember, you can freely swap the focus on your companion, and on yourself it's great to have access to those when you really need it (facing a dragon or fireball-slinging sorcerer? You'll be glad to nab Evasion).


As for the bonus tricks - those outright translate into class features of another class! Specifically, (Ranger) Skirmisher Tricks (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo-ranger-archetypes/skirmisher), which makes them useful even when you don't have to care about animal-handling at all. One of these uses gives the Animal Companion a swift-action attack (with daily limited uses, but still), another can give +10 to Perception, another can give free Trip combat maneuvers, so these are hardly useless.


As for being MAD....well.
Charisma isn't necessary since handling an Animal to get it to perform a Trick it knows is just a DC 10 check (12 if it's wounded), and you can probably obviate that entirely by putting it's first ability score advance into Intelligence.
Ranged 3/4 BAB classes can work just fine. Ranged Bards, Inquisitors and Hunters are all a thing. So you can do fine with high Dexterity. Nevermind that Weapon Finesse can be a thing too.
But you can also do fine with lower Dexterity because really, having 1 or 2 points less of AC won't cripple you.
Wisdom doesn't need to be high - you're not a primary caster, you won't cast at people, your Save-DCs aren't that important.
And as for Intelligence - yes feat taxes are annoying but you can build around them these days.

At any rate the Hunter isn't worse-affected by this than, say, the Inquisitor or the Bard. And sure, they're weaker than a Druid - in the long run, since 7th+ level spells will eventually just be too strong. But their animal companion is better, they and their animal companion get extra teamwork feats, and yes:
They're a really well designed class for a Nature-y Animal Companion focussed character. Way better than Druid (which doesn't do anything for or with it's companion, other than having it) or Ranger (same, and which has worse class features IMO).

[Psyren]

It takes a brave man to argue that only through cheesing the mechanics and a lack of DM oversight leads to a more powerful caster in the original incarnation when you can just play a caster that is more overpowered than its original brethren completely out of the box and as is in Pathfinder :smallbiggrin:

"DM oversight" is irrelevant as you folks constantly trumpet. It's about how the systems are designed absent DM intervention, is it not?

In addition, I think you'll find that definitions of "cheese" vary widely. Pun-Pun and Ice Assassin of a deity might be too far for some, while others are perfectly fine using stuff like Candle of Invocation loops, Vecna-Blooded, Dark Chaos Shuffle, bloodlines and Mindrape in actual play. None of these are possible in PF.

[NightbringerGGZ]

I feel like everyone is dumping on shifter because druid outshines it so much but that is because druid is badly designed in terms of having way too much power and not the reverse.

I agree that the shifter gets dumped on a bit too much. I'd have to disagree with your argument about the power of the various classes. Pathfinder attempts to provide options for a wide variety of play styles, even among players at the same table/game and there is plenty of room for very powerful classes and more mundane classes.

I compare the Shifter against other classes that lack magic (or psuedo magic) and when compared to Fighter, Rogue, Monk and so on it's actually not that bad of a class design. You do good to great melee damage, have some scouting / infilitrating options for utility and a simple, solid chasis for a character concept that can be hard to pull off. It's also a pretty good class for newer players or those with limited system mastery as the base options give you pretty much everything you need for a fun and effective character.

A lot of the criticism of the class that I've seen boils down to "This isn't the class I wanted", and that's perfectly fair and valid. I feel the same way about a number of other classes in Pathfinder, particularly among these various hybrid classes. It is also fair to criticize the terrible editing process that resulted in rapid errata when the class was released. I'm just not sure that earns the Shifter a spot on the "worst designed" list as the actual mechanics of the class aren't that bad.

I will say that the class if far too limited though, due to being the published at the end of PF1E's life cycle. It's fairly similar to the state the Cavalier was in when that class was first introduced, but over the years the number of available Orders and archetypes grew to the point where the Cavalier has quite a few interesting build concepts available to it. The Shifter isn't going to get a chance to see that kind of improvement overtime unfortunately. This you with very few ways to play the class, which I see as the biggest problem with it.

[Divine Susuryu]

I compare the Shifter against other classes that lack magic (or psuedo magic) and when compared to Fighter, Rogue, Monk and so on it's actually not that bad of a class design...

Yes, if you compare it to some of the weakest classes, it's fine. The trouble is that myself and many many others find such a low balance point to be unfun.

[Kurald Galain]

A lot of the criticism of the class that I've seen boils down to "This isn't the class I wanted"

No, most of the criticism boils down to "this class doesn't do anything new, AND older classes do it better". Not even the druid, specifically; the hunter and alchemist and even bloodrager also already did the same thing, only better.

[Serafina]

The problem with Shifter really isn't a lack of sheer power - such as it not having spells, or an animal companion - but rather how the whole point of the class, the shapeshifting, was handled.
Because that was the whole point of the class. And a lot of people were looking forward to having a lower-powered class built around Wildshaping.

It's perfectly possible to design a class that's weaker, but actually seems more fun.
They clearly had the idea of making Wildshaping simpler when they designed the Shifter - you can only turn into specific animals (via your Aspects), instead of into literary any animal ever printed. That's not a bad idea - it significantly weakens Wildshape, but makes it more accessible to players. But then they only gave you a pitiful amount of Aspects and made them completely non-modifiable.

There's a lot they could have done with that idea, if they had just given players a bit more freedom.
Giving the Shifter Class Talents (like Rage Powers for the Barbarian, or Magus Arcana, or Rogue Talents) that modify Animal Aspects could have been really good.
Being able to switch between all minor Animal Aspects like a Hunter, and having no duration limit like a Hunter without an animal companion, could have given the class a lot of needed flexibility on top of that.
Picking your Major Animal Aspects after each rest could have played really well into the appeal of flexibility that comes with playing a shapeshifter, without offering too much choice at any given moment. Today you can be a Bull, tomorow, a Panther, next week a Dolphin. Having more than once choice available could come with class levels, or talents, or both.
Most important of all, in all of that should be something that actually makes you different from a Druid in Wildshape. Say, something like eventually being able to Pounce in every form - since the Aspect-system controls how many natural attacks you get that wouldn't be broken, but it'd allow a player who really wants to play a specific animal to play that animal without having to worry about optimization too much.

Stuff like that actually makes good design - consider what would pull players to play this class, and then give them interesting things to play with. That clearly wasn't done enough with the Shifter - it only had interesting things taken away, with all the things being added being pretty boring and static.

[Divine Susuryu]

On the topic of Shifter, is Oozemorph the only instance where becoming an ex-class is better?

Take 1 level of it. Teach someone druidic to lose your (Su) abilities, which is solely Fluidic Body. Now you lose the biggest disadvantage of the class, the fact that you can only stay in humanoid form for a couple hours a day max, but still retain Compression, Morphic Weaponry and Ooze Empathy.

The visuals of using Compression without being fluid are left up to you to imagine.

EDIT: There is no current errata that I am aware of for this, but this FAQ (https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1hj#v5748eaic9wb6) provides a bit of (obvious) clarification that no, becoming an ex-Shifter is not an upgrade. So RAI no (duh) but currently RAW yes.

[zergling.exe]

On the topic of Shifter, is Oozemorph the only instance where becoming an ex-class is better?

Take 1 level of it. Teach someone druidic to lose your (Su) abilities, which is solely Fluidic Body. Now you lose the biggest disadvantage of the class, the fact that you can only stay in humanoid form for a couple hours a day max, but still retain Compression, Morphic Weaponry and Ooze Empathy.

The visuals of using Compression without being fluid are left up to you to imagine.

EDIT: There is no current errata that I am aware of for this, but this FAQ (https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1hj#v5748eaic9wb6) provides a bit of (obvious) clarification that no, becoming an ex-Shifter is not an upgrade. So RAI no (duh) but currently RAW yes.

FAQ is RAW in Pathfinder.

[Divine Susuryu]

FAQ is RAW in Pathfinder.

Disagree, but that's okay. It's ambiguous - it's official, but it's not yet errata. The reason I exclude the FAQ is because it's statements of intent and hence Rules As Intended. If something from the FAQ gets incorporated into official errata, then and only then does it become Rules As Written. I can see why people would disagree though.

[OgresAreCute]

Disagree, but that's okay. It's ambiguous - it's official, but it's not yet errata. The reason I exclude the FAQ is because it's statements of intent and hence Rules As Intended. If something from the FAQ gets incorporated into official errata, then and only then does it become Rules As Written. I can see why people would disagree though.

For what it's worth, that post does say it will become errata at some point in the future.

[grarrrg]

Disagree, but that's okay. It's ambiguous - it's official, but it's not yet errata. The reason I exclude the FAQ is because it's statements of intent and hence Rules As Intended. If something from the FAQ gets incorporated into official errata, then and only then does it become Rules As Written. I can see why people would disagree though.

They've stated that FAQ=rules.
FAQ are (generally) not meant, nor needed to be made into, errata. They fill a different rules niche.
Many FAQ's if incorporated as actual errata would just mostly waste book-space. Whether by being wordier than the ability they are explaining, causing a lot of "well duh" from more knowledgeable players, or outright confusing less knowledgeable players.
Having a 100% rules legal source NOT in book can be quite useful.

[T.G. Oskar]

Before I cooperate with some things that are in-topic, I feel it's important to address a few things.


Right. So in 3E you can go splatbook diving to "lessen the impact" of an issue (i.e. that many common enemies are immune to SA), whereas in PF this issue doesn't exist in the first place...

...and somehow from this you conclude that the class is stronger in 3E? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense :smallbiggrin:

I feel this reflects a bit of a double standard. Bear with me on this, but the same can be said of a Fighter.

Now, the Fighter got some stuff - basically Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization for free for a bunch of weapons at once, improvement for ACF when wearing armor, and an actual capstone and class features. (And Bravery, which is pretty nice.) They also got a boost in terms of skill choices with the change in the skill system. However, compared to 3e, most of the build strategies essentially changed overnight, and IMO, they weakened.

Going Core only, you could do some serious damage with Power Attack, a good greatsword, and heck, going full WF chain on the greatsword. The change to Power Attack, where you can't graduate your attack penalty and have to accept the given penalty (and you can't increase your damage fast enough) meant one of the few things where Fighters were exceptionally good (one-shotting people) is gone. The concept of Combat Maneuvers and how they split some of the feats is also an issue, particularly since CMD increases faster than CMB, so it's basically mostly keeping up. Of course, even in 3e, these strategies could be foiled real quick (monsters' Strength, coupled with size, grew faster than your bonuses), but it was a bit more restrained (since they're either a Strength check or...Grapple), so you don't have to invest that much.

The overhaul to the Fighter doesn't feel like it addresses some of the issues of the class itself (what does it do outside of combat? Even in combat, what does it do outside of Full Attack? How much do I have to invest to be good in one thing and decent in others, without having to focus completely on one thing? And most importantly, how can it collaborate in such a way without being replaced by other classes' class features?), but that's a matter of perception. The boosts to damage aren't really enough, since what they're adding is numbers, rather than options.

And here's where my issue appears: the Fighter has options. The Fighter has Advanced Weapon Training, it has Archetypes, it has a bunch of nice feats that complement your stuff...but then, you're basically "splatbook diving", much like the Wizard or Cleric does "splatbook diving" for those absurdly broken tricks. However...Wizards in PF also have some of these absurdly broken tricks, but they're lessened during the discussion. In essence - if 3e does it, it's bad; if PF does it, at least it's not bad as 3e, so it's not bad at all.

But, that's still a problem. Allowing Sneak Attack to apply to more creatures wasn't enough to solve whatever issues caused Paizo to create the Unchained Rogue. Those issues had to be solved outside of Core (again, diving into a splat, though in this case it's either replacing the class itself, or diving for feats to solve those issues). It also changed a few rules that were available in 3e that worked strangely well (for example: splash weapons considered legal for SA; that said, YMMV), which were helpful towards Rogues previously. So, in solving a few problems, it created others. However, it feels at times that those new problems and what they cause have no merit compared to the problems they solved, which at times, weren't an issue altogether.

A tangent issue is claiming things about "haters". Just like there's toxic haters, there's..."dislikers", I'd say, and people in between. There's also haters for 5e, in all the spectrum, and there's people that have an overlap between hating 5e and loving PF. Having these haters serve as an excuse to dismiss opinions of people isn't helpful. There's a reason why people dislike, and even hate, PF; many reasons, even. Some can be simply out of favoritism (I have to admit, PF does some things right. There's some spells, feats and even whole class rewrites that are wonderfully made), others out of system mastery (it's hard to gain system mastery out of two massive systems full of options just like 3e and PF; it'd be similar like having someone who hates 4e and loves PF start, essentially, "preaching" to someone about how a system is better than the other when you lack the system mastery of the system you're attacking), and others giving valuable points that are then dismissed. Those last people may feel offended by being lumped in that group, as I'd assume most fans of PF would feel offended to be lumped by the so-called "defenders of the faith" that refuse to acknowledge the flaws but are eager to attack the flaws of other systems, or even worse. PF isn't a perfect or balanced system, but it's worth because it continues a beloved system, and developed aspects and systems that make it feel distinct, enough to exist as its own game and not as a mere continuation. Best way to put it is...compare Baldur's Gate and Pathfinder: Kingmaker; uses the same engine, but it's an entirely different game altogether.

That said: I can't say which would be the worst class, but I have a real soft spot for the Inquisitor, because it encompasses what I can say I like about Pathfinder. The class itself covers an interesting niche, gives it a ton of options and useful class features, and still allows for a wonderful amount of build options.


I also still don't get the love for the Warpriest in this thread. It is by far the most redundant class in the game. It is overshadowed by (at least) three different classes at everything it does. The Paladin is a better warrior-priest. The Cleric is a better priest, and not all that much worse at being a warrior. The Inquisitor is better at both being a warrior AND being a spellcaster, while stacking actual skill ranks on top of it all.

The Warpriest brings almost nothing to the table in terms of utility; it offers nothing unique in terms of mechanics; it performs adequately but no more as a fighter. It is the class in the game that has the least reason to exist. At least Psychic and Spiritualist utilize unique spellcasting mechanics that almost justify their existence, but the Warpriest offers nothing. I have never looked at Warpriest and thought that I would like to play it. Any character concept I can think of for Warpriest is just as well served and better by Cleric, Paladin, or Inquisitor. Or hell, Oracle for that matter. Or even Battle Shaman from the same damn book, designed by the same guy.Neither in theming or design does it evoke anything interesting or eyecatching. It is a nullspace testament to Jason Buhlman's utter lack of imagination in both creative senses (lack of unique or coherent theme) and design sense (in offering something fun and new to play).

Why do people keep mentioning it as one of the best designed classes in this thread?

Consider the niches.

Clerics are meant to be full spellcasters, but are very decent at combat. Paladins are the opposite in the spectrum; meant to be warriors. Warpriests are meant to be in the middle, and Inquisitors are meant to be something entirely different (the reason why they have a focus on skills after all). Paladins aren't, and are definitely not meant to be, "warrior-priests" (in fact, Clerics are supposed to do that, but they've turned more into missionary prophets that can fight). Because of that, they figured the Warpriest would cover that niche of being 50% Cleric, 50% Fighter.

Other posters have mentioned this best, but it also feels much like the response to "arcane gish" that the Magus represents - has class features that boost combat, and class features that allow them to cast spells while fighting, so they're equally as good in combat as well as in spellcasting. Their spellcasting ability is diverse, though nowhere near as strong as that of the Cleric, and it doesn't have key spells that work for the things Inquisitors are best known for. Their focus is essentially being a divine gish - something that would overlap with the Paladin, and to an extent with the Inquisitor, if it weren't because a) the Paladin's spellcasting ability doesn't seem to fit what a gish in PF is meant to be, if you place Magus as the definitive gish class (in stark contrast with 3.5, where Hexblade and Duskblade represent those, therefore the Paladin has a better claim at) and b) the Inquisitor is more of a "divine bard" in terms of chassis. It's only because there's muddy waters in between Paladin, Inquisitor and Warpriest (mostly because Inquisitors are pretty good at physical combat) that it feels like the Warpriest is redundant.

In short: see the Warpriest as a "Divine Magus" and you'll see where it's unique.

[noob]

I still want a prepared arcane bard: all those mentioned things does not feels like bards.

[NightbringerGGZ]

Yes, if you compare it to some of the weakest classes, it's fine. The trouble is that myself and many many others find such a low balance point to be unfun.

Sure, and that's a valid point of view to have. One of my friends was recently disappointed when he looked at the class while trying to figure out a Polymorph focused build as an example. Based on the people I've spoken with, I'd even say it's a fairly common opinion. I entirely understand why people don't like the class, I just don't think it's the worst one in the game. FYI, I basically had a similar reaction to the Swashbuckler that you have to the Shifter. I still think that class has solid mechanics, while being far more boring than what I would have created as a class.




The problem with Shifter really isn't a lack of sheer power - such as it not having spells, or an animal companion - but rather how the whole point of the class, the shapeshifting, was handled.
Because that was the whole point of the class. And a lot of people were looking forward to having a lower-powered class built around Wildshaping.

I agree with you that there was a miss here, especially when it comes to delivering a product that was actually desired by PF players. The lack of versatility both when you create a build and as you play is the biggest area where the Shifter could be better. Your suggested approaches are also in line with Paizo's standard design methods too. Personally I think the class design just wasn't given as much thought and effort as some of the other classes, mostly based on how awful the archetypes wound up being and the sheer number of mistakes that made it to print.

[Psyren]

I like Warpriest simply because they can fill the role of a church's more martial arm without all of the paladin's baggage. Inquisitors are also geared for fighting but their focus seems to be rooting out heresy within the church itself than advancing the church's goals in a more straightforward way.


They've stated that FAQ=rules.
FAQ are (generally) not meant, nor needed to be made into, errata. They fill a different rules niche.
Many FAQ's if incorporated as actual errata would just mostly waste book-space. Whether by being wordier than the ability they are explaining, causing a lot of "well duh" from more knowledgeable players, or outright confusing less knowledgeable players.
Having a 100% rules legal source NOT in book can be quite useful.

In addition to this great explanation, PF does not have the codified "primary source rule" 3.5 does that makes FAQ useless and spats like Rules Compendium so contentious. Ergo FAQ gets equal weight with every other rule from the game creators.

[Kris Moonhand]

While I agree that Kineticist is badly designed (the way it is presented in the book is pretty awful), I disagree that it is a bad class. Its damage is on the low end (only barely beating out Rogue), but it makes up for it with plenty of good utility abilities. Cuz, you know, PF is more than just stabbing people.

Just being able to do stuff like move tons of earth or control objects or anything else at will is a great boon in most campaigns.

[Tthorn3]

So, best and worst in PF eh? Well, as much as I like the Occultist, I'm pretty sure it's still a mess.I'm gonna go with Brawler though, it does combat maneuvers better than almost every class minus the tetori monk and that weird barbarian...
Worst though? It has not been mentioned yet. Have you guys not seen the Vampire Hunter class? d8 Hit Die, full bab, 4 level casting... Seriously look it up on the PFSRD, it's a disaster!

[The Random NPC]

So, best and worst in PF eh? Well, as much as I like the Occultist, I'm pretty sure it's still a mess.I'm gonna go with Brawler though, it does combat maneuvers better than almost every class minus the tetori monk and that weird barbarian...
Worst though? It has not been mentioned yet. Have you guys not seen the Vampire Hunter class? d8 Hit Die, full bab, 4 level casting... Seriously look it up on the PFSRD, it's a disaster!

I'm actually playing one right now, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to do.

[Rynjin]

It's meant to hunt vampires and literally be Vampire Hunter D.

Because it was written specifically as a promotional piece for a Vampire Hunter D comic book.

[Kurald Galain]

While I agree that Kineticist is badly designed (the way it is presented in the book is pretty awful), I disagree that it is a bad class. Its damage is on the low end (only barely beating out Rogue)
Oh there is absolutely no way it's going to outdamage a rogue. Here's some math (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23550495&postcount=114), kinny is tied with the fighter (which is lower than the rogue) AS LONG AS nobody in the party casts group buffs ever, AND the GM avoids monsters with DR/SR. If the party does buff, or the GM uses standard monsters, then the fighter's damage leaps ahead to about twice as much as the kinny.

Because the bad design is that kinny's damage is unaffected by most party buffs, and the class has no reliable way of dealing with DR/SR.


but it makes up for it with plenty of good utility abilities.
Yes, TK Haul is fun under a permissive GM. But other than that, everything else you get with heavy restrictions, and four or five levels later than any partial caster would.

Because the bad design here is that five out of seven, and arguably six out of seven, of the kinny's elements are traps.

[grarrrg]

It's meant to hunt vampires and literally be Vampire Hunter D.

Because it was written specifically as a promotional piece for a Vampire Hunter D comic book.

Honestly, it's just a 'fancy' Ranger-archetype. No real reason it needs to be it's own class.

[Amiel]

"DM oversight" is irrelevant as you folks constantly trumpet. It's about how the systems are designed absent DM intervention, is it not?
Thank you for clarifying your position, it's extremely telling. I mean whiteroom theorycrafting is well and good, and excellent indeed if you have fun with this, but as you know and disingenuously claim otherwise, it's just that, only theoretical and as you well know and disingenuously claim otherwise is based on intentionally exploiting the rules in ways it wasn't intended. And in an actual game, this whiteroom theorycrafting is the only thing that's irrelevant, otherwise you don't even have a game.
It's about how the systems are designed without factoring in deliberately twisting and exploiting the rules, is it not? Almost as if the systems are designed with DM oversight, is it not?


In addition, I think you'll find that definitions of "cheese" vary widely. Pun-Pun and Ice Assassin of a deity might be too far for some, while others are perfectly fine using stuff like Candle of Invocation loops, Vecna-Blooded, Dark Chaos Shuffle, bloodlines and Mindrape in actual play. None of these are possible in PF.
There's the vaunted backward-comparability. So someone is being disingenuous.
And now couple that onto the arcanist.

And there's a cognitive dissonance in pigeonholing the people who dislike some aspects of the system but don't otherwise hate it to just be haters.

[Amiel]

Before I cooperate with some things that are in-topic, I feel it's important to address a few things.

[SPOILER=Off-Topic Thoughts][snip]


These are excellent points, thank you for writing and sharing this.

[Psyren]

There's the vaunted backward-comparability. So someone is being disingenuous.

"Compatibility" means that something can potentially be allowed, with GM approval (and possibly a few tweaks). It's not assumed to be part of the system unless the GM denies it. Big difference there.



It's about how the systems are designed without factoring in deliberately twisting and exploiting the rules, is it not? Almost as if the systems are designed with DM oversight, is it not?

But if "DM oversight" is your assumed line, then absolutely nothing can be broken, because the DM can simply exercise that oversight and say no. So you should have no balance issues with either system, correct?

[Amiel]

"Compatibility" means that something can potentially be allowed, with GM approval (and possibly a few tweaks). It's not assumed to be part of the system unless the GM denies it. Big difference there.
So you agree DM oversight or approval is not irrelevant. Your stance on this is extremely murky because you keep changing your position. But good to know.
Backward-compatibility was advertised as a big aspect of the game, and more often than not can be factored in to the large number of splatbooks allowed for creativity and the planning and growth of a character. But all of this is subject to DM oversight of course.
And most tellingly, cheesing the system and mechanics and deliberately forcing exploitation of the mechanics is not assumed to be part of the system unless the DM allows it.


But if "DM oversight" is your assumed line, then absolutely nothing can be broken, because the DM can simply exercise that oversight and say no. So you should have no balance issues with either system, correct?
That's your assumption and bizarre justification that absolutely nothing can be broken, but the mechanics can be and are sufficiently reined in, and this is indeed the case, in actual games where it doesn't cause issue. That's the difference.

[Psyren]

So you agree DM oversight or approval is not irrelevant. Your stance on this is extremely murky because you keep changing your position. But good to know.

I haven't changed anything actually:

1) Base system does not include 3.5.
2) Your table can do so (compatible), but you have to get everything that you want to port in individually approved by the GM.

This is different than 3.5, where if it is first-party, it is part of the game unless disapproved by the GM.

It's simple really.

[T.G. Oskar]

Backward-compatibility was advertised as a big aspect of the game, and more often than not can be factored in to the large number of splatbooks allowed for creativity and the planning and growth of a character. But all of this is subject to DM oversight of course.

I'll have to call objective sources on that argument.

It's easier to say that Pathfinder was designed with the SRD components in mind, which leads to potential backwards compatibility, but then changed enough of the game to make it distinct. Something that's well known is that Pathfinder modules (such as Rise of the Runelords), which were originally designed for 3.5, could be ported into PF itself, therefore making them "backwards compatible", but the system...not so much. It's easier to see if you notice what Dreamscarred Press has done with Psionics, Veilweaving and Maneuvers; all three are mechanics from 3.5 that had to be reworked pretty much from scratch (Psionics not so much because it's on the SRD, but Veilweaving had to change even its name to distance itself from Incarnum, and Maneuvers...well, they had to make up new disciplines entirely, though you can see the inspiration from some of them).

However, you can certainly use bits and pieces of 3.5. It's just the same situation as Mutants & Masterminds; you could certainly port a few things, but the way the system works, you need to understand what works and what doesn't. Same thing with OSR-related backports. Or, better yet - d20 Modern, considering it builds up on a previous edition. If there's no conflict, you could use it; however, once a conflict is made, you need to work up with the DM to see if it applies. Classes would be out of the question, because you'd need to adapt them; feats and spells are much easier.

Still: as PF grew, it distanced much from 3.5, to the point that it could be considered an entirely new system - just that it uses a previous system as a base. IMO, it'd be like changing your Windows or Mac OS; it's not necessarily an "upgrade", but it's a change that might make some options redundant or obsolete. (Do recall Windows ME and Windows Vista).


And most tellingly, cheesing the system and mechanics and deliberately forcing exploitation of the mechanics is not assumed to be part of the system unless the DM allows it.

This much is true, however. Things like Pun-Pun are part of Theoretical Optimization, which require an interpretation of the rules that can only make sense through strict RAW and favorable interpretation where RAW doesn't apply. Practical Optimization can still be game-breaking and completely legal, however. "Cheesing the system" and "deliberately forcing exploitation of the mechanics" lays in that gray area where TO and PO meet.

However, there's Rule 0. Rule 0 depends greatly on the Gentleman's Agreement; as long as everyone is having fun, it's fine. If everyone in the group, including the DM, is fine with something like Ice Assassins of gods, then there's no issue. Taking that as a technical issue (that is, something wrong with the system) is an entirely viable debate...not on this thread, though.

Personally, I see PF as a "side-grade"; it has very nice stuff (Inquisitor, feats like Dazing Assault, a good upgrade to the Paladin, nice spells, skill grouping, more feat slots) and bad stuff (whether semantical such as calling the Paladin's Rage-like effect a "Smite", the nerf to PA, Improved Trip and whatnot, the fact that the Step Up feat chain is really limited and reflects most of what Paizo developers do with feats, and following that, the feeling that you need to specialize too deeply to make a working character), but in the end, it's just as successful as 3.5 was on its time, it has a raving fanbase (just like 3.5), and people have fun with it. Discussing issues with each game from a technical/mechanical standpoint will be just as much a neverending discussion as whether 4e was a good game (IMO, it would have been a bit better if it didn't have the D&D baggage), or whether 3e and the SRD were good compared to AD&D (ever heard of grognards?), or whether 5e is a good game on its own (IMO, it is, though I wouldn't miss a chance to play 3.5 or d20 Modern). It's a discussion that flares passions, and ends up with stuff like logical fallacies being pointed out to undermine discussions and other bad stuff. (A shame, because the more you read, are enticed to work with, and eventually gain a bit more system mastery, you learn to appreciate some of the aspects of the game, even though you can still end up displeased by the gestalt of it.)

On that topic: while the Barbarian, Rogue and the Monk weren't designed per se by Paizo (they were backported and modified), what would be your stance on UnBarb, UnMonk and UnRogue? Still "not designed by Paizo", or in that rare gray area where they technically do?

[Kurald Galain]

On that topic: while the Barbarian, Rogue and the Monk weren't designed per se by Paizo (they were backported and modified), what would be your stance on UnBarb, UnMonk and UnRogue? Still "not designed by Paizo", or in that rare gray area where they technically do?

Yes, those are designed by Paizo. No, they're not the best or worst, so they still don't really belong in this thread. Although I'm sure somebody will call the UnRogue the worst for having more options, more build paths, and more reliable sneak attack than the 3E rogue :smallbiggrin:

[noob]

Yes, those are designed by Paizo. No, they're not the best or worst, so they still don't really belong in this thread. Although I'm sure somebody will call the UnRogue the worst for having more options, more build paths, and more reliable sneak attack than the 3E rogue :smallbiggrin:

and suffering more from feat taxes before doing stuff(pathfinder reduced the ivory tower phenomenon by making the best feats be less good and increasing feat taxes for making them doubly less good).

[Kurald Galain]

and suffering more from feat taxes before doing stuff(pathfinder reduced the ivory tower phenomenon by making the best feats be less good and increasing feat taxes for making them doubly less good).

I'm sure that was true ten years ago, but you have missed everything printed in the meantime.

[noob]

I'm sure that was true ten years ago, but you have missed everything printed in the meantime.

I know they made really good metamagic feats(although not as abusive as 3.5 persist and the metamagics that allows to persist without using higher spell slots)

[Particle_Man]

Because the bad design is that kinny's damage is unaffected by most party buffs, and the class has no reliable way of dealing with DR/SR.

I thought Geokineticist had a way to bypass materials-DR, at least (silver, cold iron, adamantine, etc.). And presumably DR/magic. But alignment-DR is still problematic.

[Rynjin]

I thought Geokineticist had a way to bypass materials-DR, at least (silver, cold iron, adamantine, etc.). And presumably DR/magic. But alignment-DR is still problematic.

Yes, one element can do that. Just like one element can deal with SR and elemental resistances.

That's the issue with kineticist in a nutshell: the "one true element" dilemma. Picking anything but Geomancer (for physical blasts), Aeromancer (for support/utility), or Pyromancer (for elemental damage/actually having usable AoE) and Psychokinetic for your second element if you're not mono-elementing is a mistake, generally speaking.

[Amiel]

I haven't changed anything actually:

1) Base system does not include 3.5.
2) Your table can do so (compatible), but you have to get everything that you want to port in individually approved by the GM.

This is different than 3.5, where if it is first-party, it is part of the game unless disapproved by the GM.

It's simple really.

So you're arguing that in one instance DM oversight is irrelevant and everything goes - the rules be damned if they're exploited and twisted, while in the same breath, DM oversight must be sought to include mechanics that are essentially similar to a degree to be included in the same game, that's a complete double-standard and completely nonsensical.

And Paizo themselves write 3.5, OGL compatible on the back of their Pathfinder products.

Again, the twisting of rules and exploiting of rules is not part of the game. Approval and disapproval by the DM falls under the umbrella of DM oversight, unless you are operating under and have a completely nonsensical understanding of what that means. So you are still agreeing that DM oversight is not irrelevant and have indeed changed your stance.

[Amiel]

I'll have to call objective sources on that argument.

It's easier to say that Pathfinder was designed with the SRD components in mind, which leads to potential backwards compatibility, but then changed enough of the game to make it distinct. Something that's well known is that Pathfinder modules (such as Rise of the Runelords), which were originally designed for 3.5, could be ported into PF itself, therefore making them "backwards compatible", but the system...not so much. It's easier to see if you notice what Dreamscarred Press has done with Psionics, Veilweaving and Maneuvers; all three are mechanics from 3.5 that had to be reworked pretty much from scratch (Psionics not so much because it's on the SRD, but Veilweaving had to change even its name to distance itself from Incarnum, and Maneuvers...well, they had to make up new disciplines entirely, though you can see the inspiration from some of them).

However, you can certainly use bits and pieces of 3.5. It's just the same situation as Mutants & Masterminds; you could certainly port a few things, but the way the system works, you need to understand what works and what doesn't. Same thing with OSR-related backports. Or, better yet - d20 Modern, considering it builds up on a previous edition. If there's no conflict, you could use it; however, once a conflict is made, you need to work up with the DM to see if it applies. Classes would be out of the question, because you'd need to adapt them; feats and spells are much easier.

Still: as PF grew, it distanced much from 3.5, to the point that it could be considered an entirely new system - just that it uses a previous system as a base. IMO, it'd be like changing your Windows or Mac OS; it's not necessarily an "upgrade", but it's a change that might make some options redundant or obsolete. (Do recall Windows ME and Windows Vista).

No worries, on the back cover of their supplements, Paizo have noted the product is "3.5, OGL compatible".
Yes, essentially Pathfinder - due to a lot of little changes within the core engine - became rather it's own beast in a way, see one prominent example being the Concentration skill. But I'd argue while the systems aren't essentially identical, because the compatibility needs little modifications, the systems are compatible.
But this is where my point of DM oversight comes in, all of what essentially comes into play is dependent on DM oversight, so in the case of actually being backwards compatible with its older sibling, DM oversight happens and that includes working with the DM to make the transition of rules a seamless fit.

[Amiel]

Yes, those are designed by Paizo. No, they're not the best or worst, so they still don't really belong in this thread. Although I'm sure somebody will call the UnRogue the worst for having more options, more build paths, and more reliable sneak attack than the 3E rogue :smallbiggrin:

At least they gave the unchained rogue more combat options, which is more of what they gave their version of the base rogue. But far be it for you to put words in people's mouths, right? :smallbiggrin:


I'm sure that was true ten years ago, but you have missed everything printed in the meantime.

They just broke down the feat paths further by needing more of them to do essentially a similar thing previously.

[T.G. Oskar]

Yes, those are designed by Paizo. No, they're not the best or worst, so they still don't really belong in this thread. Although I'm sure somebody will call the UnRogue the worst for having more options, more build paths, and more reliable sneak attack than the 3E rogue :smallbiggrin:

And that person would be enshrined to its opinion. But that's a good point - they count, though personally you don't believe they do.

That said: changes to UnBarb are pretty odd. I don't like that Bards have their Bardic Performance uses limited by rounds; they could have had more uses at first, but afterwards, you had more than enough uses. Barbarians, on the other hand, work somewhat decently on that regard - you trigger your Rage when you need it, you drop it out as you need it. Rage itself, as it was, is probably one of the better-designed options: it boosts many things at once, such as melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, Fortitude saves, HP and whatnot. UnBarb changes it to a direct change to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls and temp HP; while CMB means it also affects things like Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple and Trip (the other combat benefit of boosting Strength) and temporary hit points means you don't die because of going unconscious, it also means you don't get a Fortitude boost, nor you get a boost to breaking bonds, breaking barriers and increasing weight limit (other benefits of Strength, and partly the reason why Strength was considered OP in early 3e). It's also clunky, rather than the elegance of just boosting ability scores. And...that's basically it. It's somewhat nerfing Rage to solve a situation that's actually a valid issue. (Well, it also works a few Rage Powers, IIRC.) Errata would have done it better.

One poster actually used the limited rounds/day argument to claim Barbarian was one of the worst designed classes, and since the UnBarb follows suit, it's a valid argument, contrasting the Bard if the metrics of "has to be designed by Paizo" count. (Of course, it undermines how Rage Powers actually give class features to the Barbarian, which is an equally valid, and perhaps a much more solid argument.) It also depends on whether Rage + Rage Powers can be better than what Bards get, or what Magi get (6th level spells + Arcana pool + class features that blend spellcasting and swordplay) and use it as comparison. IMO, Barbs are already pretty solid, and their Rage Powers give them are solid enough to make them more interesting to use, so I wouldn't place it on "worst designed class" (even the UnBarb) even as a joke. Not necessarily enough to make me play it, but still enough to admit they're good at plain sight.

[Kurald Galain]

That's the issue with kineticist in a nutshell: the "one true element" dilemma. Picking anything but Geomancer (for physical blasts), Aeromancer (for support/utility), or Pyromancer (for elemental damage/actually having usable AoE) and Psychokinetic for your second element if you're not mono-elementing is a mistake, generally speaking.
Yes. Also, once you account for resistance and immunity (which are much more common for fire than for other elements), it turns out that pyromancer actually deals less average damage than other elements, not more. So that's one of the "trap" elements.


UnBarb changes it to a direct change to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls and temp HP
Bonuses to melee attack rolls also apply to CMB.
That said, it strikes me that of the four U-classes, the UnBarb was the least necessary. Apparently its designer felt that attack/damage bonuses would be less clunky than modifying ability scores, I don't think many players agree with that.


One poster actually used the limited rounds/day argument to claim Barbarian was one of the worst designed classes, and since the UnBarb follows suit, it's a valid argument,
As I recall, that argument was that one poster's favorite 3E trick doesn't work in PF, and he hadn't bothered to check for PF tricks that don't work in 3E, and therefore PF is bad. While that's a valid opinion, it is not actually an argument about design.

[RifleAvenger]

Rounds/day rather than a limited number of uses/day also enables tactics that revolve around Rage-Cycling to be used more consistently. Which often are a core component of optimized Barbarian tactics. UnBarb is the one unchained version of a class I don't really pay attention to, as I never considered "die when rage ends" an issue and a lot of the rest of the class gets worse with the rage changes (ex. in addition to the extra Str and Con benefits mentioned, directly boosting Attack and Damage gives fewer avenues of stacking buffs. What else in the game gives a morale bonus to Str and Con?).
-----------------------
I don't have much new to add to the thread. Design-wise, I really like Alchemist (though I wish that sharing infusions was a core feature instead of an ability tax), Investigator (I wish they got some of their abilities JUST a bit sooner though), and I can see why people like Magus even if it's not my thing.

I enjoyed how Druid got toned down from the utter insanity it was in 3.5, while still being a powerful class (even if it had to crutch evermore on full spellcasting, which as others have pointed out 3.X isn't really equipped to handle).

Not particularly well designed, but the Arcanist is my favorite class in Pathfinder (even moreso at my home table, where we don't delay casting progression for any of the fullcasters).

[Rynjin]

Yes. Also, once you account for resistance and immunity (which are much more common for fire than for other elements), it turns out that pyromancer actually deals less average damage than other elements, not more. So that's one of the "trap" elements.

Yeah, but at least you get Fireball 8 levels too late.

[grarrrg]

Rounds/day rather than a limited number of uses/day also enables tactics that revolve around Rage-Cycling to be used more consistently. Which often are a core component of optimized Barbarian tactics...

I was under the impression that a big reason behind U-Barb was that the designers thought Rage-Cycling was "badwrongdumb" and needed to be done away with, as that's not how the class "should" be played. And while you technically still can Rage-Cycle as U-Barb, they removed everything that would make it useful.
(the "+CON > take damage > oops now your dead" was the other reason for U-Barb, although they could have at least tacked on a +FORT)

[RifleAvenger]

I was under the impression that a big reason behind U-Barb was that the designers thought Rage-Cycling was "badwrongdumb" and needed to be done away with, as that's not how the class "should" be played (the "+CON > take damage > oops now your dead" was the other reason).Maybe? Pathfinders designers could get really petty about certain player actions/tactics. Anyways, for those who don't give a fig about organized play, them making U-Barb a separate class rather than an errata means that regular Barbarian is still legal at home tables. Suits me just fine, better than some of the errata they applied to using magic items to make rogues even worse than they started out.

[Arkain]

To be fair, +AB/+damage of the UnBarbarian can have its own merits. It applies equally to two-handed, one-handed and dual wielding, instead of favoring two-handed weapons and being somewhat equal for dual wielding. Barbarians focussing on dexterity and either traditional TWF or employing shields (TWF or not) may also become more common, without as much punishment, which may diversify builds. Add some of the various stance rage powers to the mix and Barbarian, while still predominantly melee focused, seems much less like Strength: The Class. The bonuses are also untyped for whatever that's worth.
Of course they could've thrown in another bone by having danger sense also apply to initiative or something, but then a martial might have gotten nice things instead of no-brainer instant trade material for every other archetype. And that would be bad. Somehow.

All that said, it also struck me as somewhat unnecessary.

[upho]

Gonna have to be boring and agree with most other posters: Paizo's 6th level caster classes are at least the most interesting to play and typically work very well with the rest of the game. I'd also add the bloodrager, if for nothing else than allowing for more versatility, combat styles and power levels than any other 1PP martial. And because I love the "weird stuff from magic heritage awakened in rage" flavor. Not that the design of these classes is anywhere near flawless, but they do feel unique and they're great fun to play IMO.

And yeah, kinny and shifter are both examples of awfully poor design.


I know they made really good metamagic feats(although not as abusive as 3.5 persist and the metamagics that allows to persist without using higher spell slots)I think you need to check out the martial options released during the last five years or so (and how they work with older options). Non-CRB stuff like Combat Stamina, Dirty Fighting, Dirty Trick Master, Kitsune Vengeance, savage dirty trick, Ascetic Style, Soulless Gaze, Cornugon Smash/Enforcer, Horn of the Criosphinx, Pummeling Charge, spell sunder, come and get me, bloodrager, unchained rogue and monk, advanced armor/weapon training, tons of related items etc arguably makes up most of the reason why PF martials are now generally in a much better place than their 3.5 colleagues. Many of these options also enable several different types of martial character concepts and related effective combat styles/roles which just aren't viable or even possible in 3.5 (although a few of the related options/combos can unfortunately also make martial builds outright broken in most games).

Also, I think people often miss some very crucial details when it comes to the PF metamagic feats that are most commonly mentioned as "really good". For example, Dazing Spell has no effect unless the target(s) fails a save (even if the spell doesn't allow a save) and costs a whopping +3 level increase, a much greater limitation in PF than in 3.5. Likewise, Toppling Spell is limited to a relatively small number of [force] spells, and most importantly requires the caster succeeds on "a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus". For a large majority of casters, that last bit makes it pretty much useless against anything other than the least dangerous mooks at best, and it soon becomes pretty weak even for a caster who invests heavily into boosting their trip CMB. (As early as 10th level, a PF full caster will struggle to get their Toppling Spell trip CMB even half as high as say the trip CMB of an equally trip optimized PF fighter or barbarian of the same level.)

Perhaps even more importantly, the arguably strongest PF metamagic feats mostly benefit dedicated blasters, and those remain weaker than their colleagues despite having potentially stronger metamagic feats and a greater number of other good boost options. So yeah, the metamagic shenanigans possible in PF are pretty darn weak in comparison to those possible in 3.5.

[Psyren]

So you're arguing that in one instance DM oversight is irrelevant and everything goes - the rules be damned if they're exploited and twisted, while in the same breath, DM oversight must be sought to include mechanics that are essentially similar to a degree to be included in the same game, that's a complete double-standard and completely nonsensical.

One is first party to its own game, the other is part of a different, yet compatible game. If you still don't see the difference between the two, not sure what else to say to you besides thanks for the conversation.


I was under the impression that a big reason behind U-Barb was that the designers thought Rage-Cycling was "badwrongdumb" and needed to be done away with, as that's not how the class "should" be played. And while you technically still can Rage-Cycle as U-Barb, they removed everything that would make it useful.
(the "+CON > take damage > oops now your dead" was the other reason for U-Barb, although they could have at least tacked on a +FORT)

Nah, they have no problem with rage-cycling (hell, they created one of the best enablers for that move, Cord of Stubborn Resolve (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/c-d/cord-of-stubborn-resolve/), which still works with the uBarb.) They just felt that 1/rage abilities encouraged you to do it constantly to get anything meaningful done, so they changed a lot of those to be "while raging." You might still have reason to drop in and out of rage more than once during a single fight, and so the rage-cycling techniques would be relevant there.

[upho]

That said, it strikes me that of the four U-classes, the UnBarb was the least necessary. Apparently its designer felt that attack/damage bonuses would be less clunky than modifying ability scores, I don't think many players agree with that.Yeah, and I seem to recall one designer praising the UnBarb as stronger than the barb for some weird reason. The truth is that it maybe has a slightly higher optimization floor, but a considerably lower ceiling. It also suffers from not having nearly as many and as varied options as the barb.


As I recall, that argument was that one poster's favorite 3E trick doesn't work in PF, and he hadn't bothered to check for PF tricks that don't work in 3E, and therefore PF is bad. While that's a valid opinion, it is not actually an argument about design.This. It strikes me that similarly oddly biased views - or views based on info which was made invalid years ago - seem to be common among 3.5 players who post on GitP. For example, there have been quite a few such posters - including in this thread - claiming PF's greater number of feat taxes make combat maneuver less useful in PF than in 3.5. And while I houserule away many of those feat taxes myself and believe there's certainly a legitimate complaint that these feat taxes are poor design in both games, it doesn't make the claim any more true since the fact remains that PF's combat maneuvers can easily be vastly more effective for PF martials than 3.5 combat maneuvers can be for 3.5 martials during a majority of levels.

It appears these posters are unaware of this fact, seemingly because they don't know about the related options published after 2014 or so, much less about what these options actually allow PF martials to do.


Rounds/day rather than a limited number of uses/day also enables tactics that revolve around Rage-Cycling to be used more consistently. Which often are a core component of optimized Barbarian tactics. UnBarb is the one unchained version of a class I don't really pay attention to, as I never considered "die when rage ends" an issue and a lot of the rest of the class gets worse with the rage changesThis exactly. I think the only three advantages the unbarb has over the barb are a) not being tied to Str as an attack stat per default, b) granting THP instead of increasing max hp, and c) its rage granting untyped bonuses stacking with everything.

Unfortunately, those minor advantages aren't even remotely close to as great as all those the barb has over the unbarb, most notably a) far superior action economy (no move actions to change rage stances), b) far more numerous and more effective mechanical combat combos (no limit on rage power stacking), c) some of the most tactically interesting and strongest martial abilities in the game (many of them cycled "once per rage" powers such as savage dirty trick and spell sunder), and d) a much greater number of great compatible options (in the form of class features as well as feats, items, race options etc).


(ex. in addition to the extra Str and Con benefits mentioned, directly boosting Attack and Damage gives fewer avenues of stacking buffs. What else in the game gives a morale bonus to Str and Con?).As Arkain mentioned, the unbarb's rage bonuses are thankfully untyped, not morale bonuses.


I was under the impression that a big reason behind U-Barb was that the designers thought Rage-Cycling was "badwrongdumb" and needed to be done away with, as that's not how the class "should" be played. And while you technically still can Rage-Cycle as U-Barb, they removed everything that would make it useful.IIRC, the primary reason wasn't actually the devs not liking rage-cycling as the possibility had been intentional from the very beginning (hence also the tireless rage feature), but rather some vocal PFS players and GMs not liking it. (This does seem to have been a recurring theme behind many of Paizo's less stellar decisions, including for example the Crane Wing/Riposte nerfs...)


(the "+CON > take damage > oops now your dead" was the other reason for U-Barb, although they could have at least tacked on a +FORT)Definitely. The unbarb actually has some solid replacement ideas, but some of the crap were implemented along with them ruins what could've been a superior version of the class, instead making it pretty darn lackluster in comparison to its predecessor. Not to mention its cousin the bloodrager...


All that said, it also struck me as somewhat unnecessary.It appears the PDT came to agree with this, considering that the barb has been getting a lot more new options than the unbarb also in releases after Unchained.

[Amiel]

One is first party to its own game, the other is part of a different, yet compatible game. If you still don't see the difference between the two, not sure what else to say to you besides thanks for the conversation.

If you don't see that DM oversight is relevant to all games, and continue to argue this disingenuously, then I'm not sure what else to say to you besides thanks for the conversation.

[Psyren]

@Amiel: Thanks for the conversation.



Unfortunately, those minor advantages aren't even remotely close to as great as all those the barb has over the unbarb, most notably a) far superior action economy (no move actions to change rage stances), b) far more numerous and more effective mechanical combat combos (no limit on rage power stacking), c) some of the most tactically interesting and strongest martial abilities in the game (many of them cycled "once per rage" powers such as savage dirty trick and spell sunder), and d) a much greater number of great compatible options (in the form of class features as well as feats, items, race options etc).
...
It appears the PDT came to agree with this, considering that the barb has been getting a lot more new options than the unbarb also in releases after Unchained.

Agreed, the Unchained Barb was the rework I felt least impressed with by far. And even the recalculating HP from Con thing wasn't that difficult, especially for the folks who had been doing it since 3.5.