War of Immortals Class Archetype Breakdown

You're right that the VIndicator's ability to just flat-out shut down casties needs to be mitigated somehow but otoh they probably need a bit of general-use love. Something that gives them just a bit of a boost that can apply in most fights, without the class becoming essentially the anti-spellcaster-class.

Zombies aint got time to bleed.
Neither do ghosts or skellies.

You talk about only flavor for Seneschal but manifest will, especially with that level 6 feat is a fantastic cantrip. Arguably the best witch hex Cantrip

One comment I will comment on: "If it is fair for the players to have, it is fair for the GM to"
I generally don't like that way of thinking.
Especially since Adversaries in PF2e aren't made using the Player rules at all.
The Adversaries has a ton of tools that the players don't have access to, why shouldn't the players have 'tools' the adversaries doesn't have access to?

I Love that we are finally getting a lot of True Class Archetype, the way I loved them in PF1e <3

i reeaally like avenger if, for nothing else, it can let you sneak attack with any weapon if you can find a deity with that weapon. sure for campaigns set in golarian, that might be difficult, but in any homebrew setting (which, for my group, is every setting we play) you can work with the GM if you want to use a specific weapon as a rogue!

as for vindicator, personally i’d implement a homebrew errata that it only disrupts on a crit. it’s still really good, it just won’t disrupt every spell you try to cast as a GM

Does the bloodrager have to be raging to cast spells? And does he still become drain if he can?

I´m not a big fan of spears and polearms, i always prefered to use sword and shield myself, when they take everything off for basically 2 damage, its not worth it, too bad because i was looking foward to this...

Keep in mind these are Mythic archetypes and they are intended to be OP and game breaking. They are not intended to be used in everyday campaigns.

Regarding Vindicator and Disrupt Opposed Magic, there's basically been creatures in the game already that do that. Lesser Deaths are the iconic.

I really don't like what Paizo did to bloodrager, this isn't even the original class. Its a crappy vampire Instinct wearing its name. If Paizo called the Instinct something OTHER than bloodrager, I'd be fine with it as is.


1e Bloodrager was a class I really liked because you were an angry caster and you could have gotten your powers from different sources. It was fun and flavourful. But no. Paizo thought it was a good idea to give us this vampire Instinct, and certain bootlickers I refuse to name justified it as saying making it less like sorc+barbarian. While said individuals just dismissed my opinions because I was upset with the changes to a class that was one of my favourites in 1e.

Also. Due to its design. It makes Dhampiers and Vampires obsolete if you want a vampire character, and why the focus on blood?



Also. Warrior of legend is honestly the worst archetype of the bunch, the fact you have to play with mythic rules to make it even viable is terrible game design. Because not everyone wants to play with said rules, and the fact you are weak to a common damage type and doomed 2 is awful.


Overall. I really feel like war of immortals is a terrible product by Paizo. From lackluster mythic rules where Owlcat games did a much better job, Exemplars being a rare option is horrible and you already know my opinion on that. And most of the new archetypes ether don't bring anything new to the table. Or in the case of bloodrager and Warrior of legend. Terribly designed. (And butchering a beloved class in the formers case)


The mythic stuff is where Paizo disappointed me. You're better off playing Wrath Of The Righteous if you are ok with crunchy crpgs. Especially since the mythic paths in wotr are actually cool. Especially since you can be a litch, a devil, or even say. Screw you Arielu and go legend.

About bloodrager, I have giant problem with the fact that he, while no longer having any connection with 1e version of bloodrager, still is a Charisma- based spellcaster. Bloodrager of old was a sorcerer barbarian, but this one literally casts spells using their vitality, why not make them constitution- based caster? With them being cha- based, you have to choose between con that you need cause of drained staking and temp hp through blood drain, and cha for attacking spells that will always be weaker that your normal attack, both because of lover attack/dc and drained, and you HAVE to choose attack spells, and you can't self- buff by entering rage, unlike the bloodrager of old. I don’t like it. He is full of exploits and, simultaneously, very weak.

I think, with regards to the Avenger and Vindicator, that people are overlooking something about the "substitute Religion in cities" part: it just says 'has a church dedicated to your deity', it doesn't say how big the church has to be. Heck, it doesn't even say the church has to be public.
Also, with regards to the Bloodrager, while I don't have a problem with the Bloodrager harvesting from allies or animals, I would argue, even if it's not in the rules, that you can't use self harm to recover from drain (I mean, your drained because of blood lose, after all. Feasting on your own blood won't fix that.).

Never miss a Psi Prime video!