Best and worst designed Paizo classes

[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

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 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 Magus (variant multiclass Bard and you get almost all you want here) is what you are looking for? Otherwise, an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue is more to your liking? An Evangelist 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!

[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!

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?

[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

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.