The classes of the Pathfinder RPG - which tier do they belong to?

[WormysQueue]

You may know JaronK's tier system in which he tries to categorize the D&D classes according to their strength with regard to inter-party balance.

Now as this system goes for the 3.5 variants and I've just started thinking about customizing the system to better match my taste, I'm wondering how the changes made by the Pathfinder RPG may change the categorization of the base classes and where the new playtest classes would fit into the system.

I'm not as much into game balance as I probably should be, so I'd appreciate any input on this matter.

regards,
Wormy

[Rake]

WormysQueue wrote:

You may know JaronK's tier system in which he tries to categorize the D&D classes according to their strength with regard to inter-party balance.

Now as this system goes for the 3.5 variants and I've just started thinking about customizing the system to better match my taste, I'm wondering how the changes made by the Pathfinder RPG may change the categorization of the base classes and where the new playtest classes would fit into the system.

I'm not as much into game balance as I probably should be, so I'd appreciate any input on this matter.

regards,
Wormy

CW Samurai at Tier 5? On par with commoners and aristocrat?

*chuckles*

Let me tell you a little story about the CW Samurai. You see, at about tenth level, they gain an ability called 'Mass Staredown'. With a little feat called 'Imperious Command' from the Drow of the Underdark book, a samurai can cause any number of opponents to cower for a round, then render them shaken for a round after that. With the Intimidate bonuses the class gets, not even Colossal creatures have much of a shot against this tactic.

If you're not immune to fear - you're dead.

[Treantmonk]

IMO:

Tier 1: Wizards. Still the top of the chain. They can't fufill every role as well as 3.5 due to changes in Polymorph, but I think they are still powerful enough to place them at the top of the pyramid.

Tier 2: Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers. Druids have been demoted due to changes in wildshape, while Core Clerics were never tier 1 - it took Divine Metamagic for that tier placement. All remain very powerful classes though.

Tier 3: Paladins, Bards, Rangers. Paladins have to be pushing tier 2, while Rangers didn't get boosted quite as much, but still did well in Pathfinder. Bards are a mixed bag, but certainly deserving of a tier 3 position (in spite of rumors to the contrary)

Tier 4: Rogues, Barbarians, Fighters, Monks (The Monk is arguably Tier 5 - I haven't evaluated it closely enough)

Tier 5 and 6: Nobody.

[The_Great_Gazoo]

Treantmonk wrote:

IMO:

Tier 1: Wizards. Still the top of the chain. They can't fufill every role as well as 3.5 due to changes in Polymorph, but I think they are still powerful enough to place them at the top of the pyramid.

Tier 2: Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers. Druids have been demoted due to changes in wildshape, while Core Clerics were never tier 1 - it took Divine Metamagic for that tier placement. All remain very powerful classes though.

Tier 3: Paladins, Bards, Rangers. Paladins have to be pushing tier 2, while Rangers didn't get boosted quite as much, but still did well in Pathfinder. Bards are a mixed bag, but certainly deserving of a tier 3 position (in spite of rumors to the contrary)

Tier 4: Rogues, Barbarians, Fighters, Monks (The Monk is arguably Tier 5 - I haven't evaluated it closely enough)

Tier 5 and 6: Nobody.

That seems about right. I'm tempted to argue for the Cleric and Druid still being in Tier 1, even without DM, but the "loss" of undead turning plus heavy armor profiency make it tough to do so.

[Moro]

I would make the argument that if you are taking only core Pathfinder books into account, there are no Tier 1 classes.

Tier 2: Wizards, Druids, Clerics, and Sorcerers

Tier 3: Paladins, Bards, Rangers, Rogues, and Fighters

Tier 4: Barbarians and Monks

[DigMarx]

Not being too familiar with the original ranking system (scanned it briefly) I'd like to know what place unique class abilities play in the ranking system, for example the rogue's ability to find traps of DC > 20. I can understand rating PrCs, but does JaronK assert that as a tier 1 class the wizard is potentially deserving of a limit or ban in a "balanced" campaign? Finally, how does the class learning curve fit into the tier system?

Zo

[paul halcott]

I gotta admit, I dont get into the who is better then who debate on power rankings. But this does raise one question to me. If wizards are the top of the food chain, why would anyone want to play anything else. If they can fill almost every role needed, then why do you need the other roles at all?
Ever seen the old 2nd edition box set/module Dragon Mountian? The spellcasters were neutralized in there pretty quick. Bands of kobolds doing constant harrasment attacks. Didnt do much damage, but it did do a great job of limiting the rest the party got. No rest= no spells. Now, I am sure there are spells that would prevent that or even feats now in one of the 3.5 books, but it just showed that no man is an island.

[paul halcott]

DigMarx wrote:

Not being too familiar with the original ranking system (scanned it briefly) I'd like to know what place unique class abilities play in the ranking system, for example the rogue's ability to find traps of DC > 20. I can understand rating PrCs, but does JaronK assert that as a tier 1 class the wizard is potentially deserving of a limit or ban in a "balanced" campaign? Finally, how does the class learning curve fit into the tier system?

Zo

Many of the "unique" class abilities are mimicked by spells. If you can cast detect traps, do you need a thief doing it? Do you need a fighters sword to kill the bad guy when you can roast him with a spell? My only issue is eventually, spells run out. When the caster has just used his last detect traps spell, and its just past lunch, what then? call it a day? rouges dont run out of find traps. Fighters swords dont run out of swings. This is where the whole power rank thing losses me. It seems they treat everything like a sprint and never think of marathons

[The_Great_Gazoo]

DigMarx wrote:

Not being too familiar with the original ranking system (scanned it briefly) I'd like to know what place unique class abilities play in the ranking system, for example the rogue's ability to find traps of DC > 20. I can understand rating PrCs, but does JaronK assert that as a tier 1 class the wizard is potentially deserving of a limit or ban in a "balanced" campaign? Finally, how does the class learning curve fit into the tier system?

Zo

If you search the Min/Max It! section of the BG boards, there are threads with reasons as to why various class are in their respective tiers. As for balance, the system asserts that optimal balance will be acheived by keeping allowed classes in the same tier (for the most part.....talented players will be able to do more than normal with a Fighter, and a Wizard might not be quite Tier 1 in the hands of a medicore or poor player).

[DigMarx]

Has anyone broken the tier system down into level groups, like 1st-5th, 6th-10th and so on? I'd be interested to see where each class peaks in relation to the others. It seems that evaluations and builds are often based on 20th level characters. This clashes with the fact that many (dare I say most) campaigns don't get that far.

Zo

[A Man In Black]

DigMarx wrote:

Has anyone broken the tier system down into level groups, like 1st-5th, 6th-10th and so on? I'd be interested to see where each class peaks in relation to the others. It seems that evaluations and builds are often based on 20th level characters. This clashes with the fact that many (dare I say most) campaigns don't get that far.

The original tier lists considered classes over 20 levels, not at level 20. Adepts are rated low, despite getting Gate at high levels, for example.

[WormysQueue]

paul halcott wrote:

I gotta admit, I dont get into the who is better then who debate on power rankings. But this does raise one question to me. If wizards are the top of the food chain, why would anyone want to play anything else. If they can fill almost every role needed, then why do you need the other roles at all?

I guess it's because for most players, raw power is not the only decision factor.

And thanks for all the answers, you've already given me some things to think about

[A Man In Black]

Rake wrote:

Let me tell you a little story about the CW Samurai. You see, at about tenth level, they gain an ability called 'Mass Staredown'. With a little feat called 'Imperious Command' from the Drow of the Underdark book, a samurai can cause any number of opponents to cower for a round, then render them shaken for a round after that. With the Intimidate bonuses the class gets, not even Colossal creatures have much of a shot against this tactic.

If you're not immune to fear - you're dead.

The tier list predates the very last wave of WotC books, so it doesn't include a couple of the late tricks such as MIC stuff and Drow of the Underdark and whatnot.

Intimancer samurai are not exactly an unknown trick. It's fear-based, so 4323534235234 things are immune to it. Mass Staredown is a standard action (or at least a move action with the Fearful armor from DOTU), so you have zero or next to zero offense while you're doing it. And, finally, you really have to cheese up your intimidate mod to make it work, which means you're trading off resources that let you do things other than look scary. It's a one-trick pony, so it doesn't exactly make the samurai any more fun to play.

JaronK is familiar with the Imperious samurai build. It makes a cool villain but a very boring PC.

Quote:

I gotta admit, I dont get into the who is better then who debate on power rankings. But this does raise one question to me. If wizards are the top of the food chain, why would anyone want to play anything else. If they can fill almost every role needed, then why do you need the other roles at all?

Because they don't want to play a wizard. This is a roleplaying game, not a tactical wargame, so the goal is not to completely dominate the opposition but instead be entertained while contributing meaningfully to the group. Overpowered classes are actually a hassle to play if you don't want to overshadow the group.

D&D just isn't a game you play to win.

Now, as for the OP:

Quote:

Now as this system goes for the 3.5 variants and I've just started thinking about customizing the system to better match my taste, I'm wondering how the changes made by the Pathfinder RPG may change the categorization of the base classes and where the new playtest classes would fit into the system.

This is all in my experience, but I do want to preface things with a note that I tend to play heavily optimized.

Barbarians haven't moved, but without non-core shinies they are low tier 4. They're too tied to doing damage with melee weapons, the second worst thing to do in combat in the game, and PF nerfed a lot of their core damage-boosting tricks without giving them anything but some weak defensive bennies back.

I really can't peg bards, from a lack of experience with them in PF. Tier 3 sounds right but they really did lean on non-core stuff.

Clerics I'm finding landed on their feet, still in tier 1. They don't overshadow the way they used to, but they can still ably do any job and do it well, to the point where a cleric can accidentally overshadow someone in their own specialty.

Druids are solid tier 3s. They have a lot of things they can do but they are generally not strong things. But, every so often, something lands in their specialty and they get a "Yeah, I can totally handle that" moment.

Fighters and paladins both are tier 4s. They do a thing decently, and pretty much nothing else. Fighters, like barbarians, are riding the line of 4 and 5 like barbarians, while paladins get to do level-appropriate damage at high levels on a limited basis then either Spirited Charge or stay out of the way.

Monks still can't do much at all.

Rangers didn't move. They barely changed. Their pet is now mediocre at all levels instead of initially mediocre then useless, I suppose.

Rogues are rogues. They got flavorful abilities, but sneak attack nerfs mean that they have no hope of moving out of tier 4.

Sorcerers traded some of the awesome one-spell-does-several-things choices for a handful of free shinies. It's overall a nerf but they still play practically the same way that they ever did.

Wizards got buffed. They traded some situational spell nerfs for more HP, free get-out-of-jail cards, and a free jack-of-all-spells ability. I'm reminded of 3.5 druids.

Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rogues, especially if you cut them off from WotC non-core material, are conditional tier 4 and 5, I'd say. They keep up early, but as monster offense goes WAY up and their offense and defense don't, somewhere around level 10 they stop being able to do much of anything. If your only strategy is to run in and hit it, what do you do against something with reach that can two-round you?

[Chris_Johnston]

I'm not a big fan of tier ratings, mostly because they're irrelevent in the context of the game. There are only two tiers that actually matter: classes that can contribute, and classes that can't. In 3.5, spellcasters were in the first, nonspellcasters were in the second. While Pathfinder has helped shore up the difference a little, by and large the classes have remained pretty much the same relative to each other.

[WormysQueue]

A Man In Black wrote:

Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rogues, especially if you cut them off from WotC non-core material, are conditional tier 4 and 5, I'd say. They keep up early, but as monster offense goes WAY up and their offense and defense don't, somewhere around level 10 they stop being able to do much of anything. If your only strategy is to run in and hit it, what do you do against something with reach that can two-round you?

First, thank you for your helpful answer.

Second, I actually don't mind those classes being in tier 4 and 5, as this is the power level I tend to like best in my games. In fact, I'm trying to figure out which spellcaster classes to allow in future games and which not and which classes can be nerfed to be useful as a pc class without destroying inter party balance at high levels.

And it may well be that part of my future games' strategy is to cut the level progression at around level 10. But I have yet to clearly define what it is I want to get out of my games, so at the moment, I'm doing kind of a brainstorm. The only thing I know for sure is that I'm not willing to learn a new game system though this would probably be the easier way.

[A Man In Black]

WormysQueue wrote:

And it may well be that part of my future games' strategy is to cut the level progression at around level 10. But I have yet to clearly define what it is I want to get out of my games, so at the moment, I'm doing kind of a brainstorm. The only thing I know for sure is that I'm not willing to learn a new game system though this would probably be the easier way.

Pathfinder works really well if you do that, actually. Peg the gods at about level 17, cut down the high end of the outsiders and dragons, and you've got a game where an army of giants is seriously a threat to even the gods and the super-powers come out right about the same time as the adventurers near "epic" levels.

[wraithstrike]

WormysQueue wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rogues, especially if you cut them off from WotC non-core material, are conditional tier 4 and 5, I'd say. They keep up early, but as monster offense goes WAY up and their offense and defense don't, somewhere around level 10 they stop being able to do much of anything. If your only strategy is to run in and hit it, what do you do against something with reach that can two-round you?

First, thank you for your helpful answer.

Second, I actually don't mind those classes being in tier 4 and 5, as this is the power level I tend to like best in my games. In fact, I'm trying to figure out which spellcaster classes to allow in future games and which not and which classes can be nerfed to be useful as a pc class without destroying inter party balance at high levels.

And it may well be that part of my future games' strategy is to cut the level progression at around level 10. But I have yet to clearly define what it is I want to get out of my games, so at the moment, I'm doing kind of a brainstorm. The only thing I know for sure is that I'm not willing to learn a new game system though this would probably be the easier way.

I don't think there is a need to rebalance classes. I don't think they were ever meant to be balanced against each other power wise. As long as they do their jobs, they should be ok. Now if you make a class called the bodyguard, as an example, and he cant protect anyone then you have a problem.

[A Man In Black]

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think there is a need to rebalance classes. I don't think they were ever meant to be balanced against each other power wise. As long as they do their jobs, they should be ok. Now if you make a class called the bodyguard, as an example, and he cant protect anyone then you have a problem.

You're opening a can of worms here, considering the fighter has serious issues fighting lots of high-level things.

Balancing the classes with each other is less of an issue than balancing classes against level-appropriate opposition, but lots of the tier 5s and some of the tier 4s can't even use their specialty against a fair chunk of level-appropriate opposition.

[grasshopper_ea]

A Man In Black wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think there is a need to rebalance classes. I don't think they were ever meant to be balanced against each other power wise. As long as they do their jobs, they should be ok. Now if you make a class called the bodyguard, as an example, and he cant protect anyone then you have a problem.

You're opening a can of worms here, considering the fighter has serious issues fighting lots of high-level things.

Balancing the classes with each other is less of an issue than balancing classes against level-appropriate opposition, but lots of the tier 5s and some of the tier 4s can't even use their specialty against a fair chunk of level-appropriate opposition.

I'm going to agree with you that without magical support the fighter is going to have a lot of trouble with what some high CR critters can dish out. This is off-topic, but since you've rated most classes low on the power scale I am curious what you would put together as a 5 man party, assuming a typical AP with mostly evil enemies and probably a good number of them will be the same time, drow, gnolls, etc. I'm not saying I disagree with your rating of the classes I'm just curious what kind of party you would put together with the rating you have given them.

[DigMarx]

A Man In Black wrote:

DigMarx wrote:

Has anyone broken the tier system down into level groups, like 1st-5th, 6th-10th and so on?...

The original tier lists considered classes over 20 levels, not at level 20. Adepts are rated low, despite getting Gate at high levels, for example.

So, no then?

[A Man In Black]

grasshopper_ea wrote:

I'm going to agree with you that without magical support the fighter is going to have a lot of trouble with what some high CR critters can dish out. This is off-topic, but since you've rated most classes low on the power scale I am curious what you would put together as a 5 man party, assuming a typical AP with mostly evil enemies and probably a good number of them will be the same time, drow, gnolls, etc. I'm not saying I disagree with your rating of the classes I'm just curious what kind of party you would put together with the rating you have given them.

Using PF core or using whatever? The problem with trying to make a party that is balanced with each other is that it requires allowing lots of non-core stuff to cover basic things that are casually class-specific in core. For example, without non-core material there's no way to revive people or remove negative levels or ability drain if you cut out clerics, and if you cut out wizards you lose lots of setting-altering stuff that a good high-level adventure will assume you can do.

Clerics and wizards are so intrinsic to D&D that you can't write an adventure assuming they don't use their setting-breaking abilities (so, no murder mysteries after level 5 unless the murderers have the time/ability to disfigure the corpse, and no long-distance, difficult travel adventures after about level 9-10), but if you assume that those abilities are available then the party is going to have difficulty handling many expected challenges. (For example, an adventure that requires flight or underwater breathing or going to another plane.) The typical solution is to make less game-breaking classes that do the same thing, but those aren't PF core.

If your goal is not balanced-with-each-other but instead ideal, it'd probably be something like five of clerics, sorcerers, wizards, and druids, but that's boring and makes me look like an extremist. The problem is that while clerics and wizards are hard to leave behind without non-core alternatives, hitting people is replaceable and that's all at least three PF core classes can do. All of the fighter or barbarian or monk specific abilities are highly situational and few adventures require them because builds vary so much. There's no adventure that has a specific challenge only a 3.5-style chain fighter can solve, but nobody but a cleric can cast Speak With Dead. Even if you did somehow make a challenge only a 3.5 chain fighter can solve, how is a barbarian, paladin, or non-chain-tripper fighter (let alone the many non-core melee classes) going to handle it?

[wraithstrike]

A Man In Black wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think there is a need to rebalance classes. I don't think they were ever meant to be balanced against each other power wise. As long as they do their jobs, they should be ok. Now if you make a class called the bodyguard, as an example, and he cant protect anyone then you have a problem.

You're opening a can of worms here, considering the fighter has serious issues fighting lots of high-level things.

Balancing the classes with each other is less of an issue than balancing classes against level-appropriate opposition, but lots of the tier 5s and some of the tier 4s can't even use their specialty against a fair chunk of level-appropriate opposition.

I was not saying none of the classes need to be fixed, but to try to make them even is not the solution which is what it seems the OP is about to try to do by bringing casters down.

Everyone knows about the monk and the fighter, or most of us do anyway. There are already threads on both of these that are taking place now so no need to discuss them here.

[WormysQueue]

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think there is a need to rebalance classes. I don't think they were ever meant to be balanced against each other power wise. As long as they do their jobs, they should be ok.

Actually I agree. But as The Man in Black pointed out, clerics and wizards are intrinsic to D&D so if I take the easy way out and make those classes off-limits for my players that poses a lot of problems at higher levels. One the other hand, classes like sorcerer and druid are probably "weak" enough to make for appropriate replacement classes in my games.

What I'm actually trying to do, I guess, is to expend my sweet spot(which would be the low level range up to level 10-12) over D&D's standard 20 level-range. And now I'm thinking about which changes may (or may not) be necessary to reach that goal wothout having to rebuild the system from scratch.

[Treantmonk]

WormysQueue wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think there is a need to rebalance classes. I don't think they were ever meant to be balanced against each other power wise. As long as they do their jobs, they should be ok.

Actually I agree. But as The Man in Black pointed out, clerics and wizards are intrinsic to D&D so if I take the easy way out and make those classes off-limits for my players that poses a lot of problems at higher levels. One the other hand, classes like sorcerer and druid are probably "weak" enough to make for appropriate replacement classes in my games.

What I'm actually trying to do, I guess, is to expend my sweet spot(which would be the low level range up to level 10-12) over D&D's standard 20 level-range. And now I'm thinking about which changes may (or may not) be necessary to reach that goal wothout having to rebuild the system from scratch.

There was a project for exactly that at the BG boards. This used 3.5 not Pathfinder, but they did some nice work.

If you want a quick fix, then mine some 3.5 material:

Sorcerers: Allowed
Wizards: Gone
Clerics: Gone
Druids: Gone

Add in Spirit Shaman and Favoured Soul

Note that these classes are still game breaking at high level - and still become necessary in high level parties - but it blunts the edge a bit.

[wraithstrike]

WormysQueue wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think there is a need to rebalance classes. I don't think they were ever meant to be balanced against each other power wise. As long as they do their jobs, they should be ok.

Actually I agree. But as The Man in Black pointed out, clerics and wizards are intrinsic to D&D so if I take the easy way out and make those classes off-limits for my players that poses a lot of problems at higher levels. One the other hand, classes like sorcerer and druid are probably "weak" enough to make for appropriate replacement classes in my games.

What I'm actually trying to do, I guess, is to expend my sweet spot(which would be the low level range up to level 10-12) over D&D's standard 20 level-range. And now I'm thinking about which changes may (or may not) be necessary to reach that goal wothout having to rebuild the system from scratch.

If your players are "overdoing" it, they will they will still find a way to overdo it. If you just want to see if it can be done, that is a different story.

[Thalin]

I play a lot of pathfinder society, which is nice in the sense (especially as a GM) I get to see a lot of party builds. Here are my thoughts:

Tier 1: mage/sorceror, but not quite by the margin they used to be. Their new spells and extra hp don't make up for beefing some of their best tricks; and it is nearly impossible to reliably cast on the defensive nowadays.

Tier 2: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin. Clerics are nowhere close tithe utility class (better fighter) that they were, but Channel-heal is awesome, and nobody is better as support (sorry bard). Fighters deal a little less damage because channel-power attack is gone, but their improved AC and natural weapon bonuses, coupled with the depower of clerics/Druids, plus great fighter only high level feats make them amazing tanks. Pallys may almost be tier 1; mixing almost the level of healing of clerics with AC of fighters and solid new abilities. Certainly my vote for most-improved class.

Tier 3: Bard, Druid. Bard got some great support buff, and are the beat new skill monkeys, but is not flashy or as damaging as any above here. Druids are still fine, but a shadow of their former glory. They can no longer sac all physical stats and still be combat gods, and their companion is just bad.

Tier 4: rogue - no real improvements, I don't care for them before or after.

Tier 5: barbarian and ranger. How did the barbarian actually get worse? The rage is non-exciting beyond the lowest of levels, and now extra rage is required to keep it going for a decent rate. And rangers are simply the same mediocre light armor fighter they have always been. After the improved fighters and pallys, these have no excuse for staying down here.

Tier 6: monk. Why?

I think people theorize-power mages too much. In practice as a GM I lock them into combat regularly, and with defensive casting sucking (unlike 3.5, where after 7ish it was automatic), they no longer shine. Parties without tanks suffer much more these days, and clerics and Druids are no substitute now.

[wraithstrike]

Thalin wrote:

I play a lot of pathfinder society, which is nice in the sense (especially as a GM) I get to see a lot of party builds. Here are my thoughts:

Tier 1: mage/sorceror, but not quite by the margin they used to be. Their new spells and extra hp don't make up for beefing some of their best tricks; and it is nearly impossible to reliably cast on the defensive nowadays.

Tier 2: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin. Clerics are nowhere close tithe utility class (better fighter) that they were, but Channel-heal is awesome, and nobody is better as support (sorry bard). Fighters deal a little less damage because channel-power attack is gone, but their improved AC and natural weapon bonuses, coupled with the depower of clerics/Druids, plus great fighter only high level feats make them amazing tanks. Pallys may almost be tier 1; mixing almost the level of healing of clerics with AC of fighters and solid new abilities. Certainly my vote for most-improved class.

Tier 3: Bard, Druid. Bard got some great support buff, and are the beat new skill monkeys, but is not flashy or as damaging as any above here. Druids are still fine, but a shadow of their former glory. They can no longer sac all physical stats and still be combat gods, and their companion is just bad.

Tier 4: rogue - no real improvements, I don't care for them before or after.

Tier 5: barbarian and ranger. How did the barbarian actually get worse? The rage is non-exciting beyond the lowest of levels, and now extra rage is required to keep it going for a decent rate. And rangers are simply the same mediocre light armor fighter they have always been. After the improved fighters and pallys, these have no excuse for staying down here.

Tier 6: monk. Why?

I think people theorize-power mages too much. In practice as a GM I lock them into combat regularly, and with defensive casting sucking (unlike 3.5, where after 7ish it was automatic), they no longer shine. Parties without tanks suffer much more these days, and clerics and Druids are no substitute...

Druids are awesome. Definitely better than a fighter. I am playing one now. I have heard PFS has restrictions, and I have no idea what they are so I can't comment on that. Right now I have not stepped outside of core yet, and I am pretty effective. If not for the channeling I would put them ahead of a cleric.

[Thalin]

Druid may or may not be up with Fighter. They are one of the least popular pf classes (rangers may be the only less popular ones). As i've seen them, their compaions get taken out incidentally, and they act as bardish support characters. I know some have affinity for specific classes, but I can only compare what i've seen in play. And PFS has no special changes for them. And the shadow between the top 3 tiers are far less than they once were; they've done a great balance act. I hope future suppliments support tiers 4-6 in the future

[Viletta Vadim]

Rake wrote:

CW Samurai at Tier 5? On par with commoners and aristocrat?

*chuckles*

Let me tell you a little story about the CW Samurai. You see, at about tenth level, they gain an ability called 'Mass Staredown'. With a little feat called 'Imperious Command' from the Drow of the Underdark book, a samurai can cause any number of opponents to cower for a round, then render them shaken for a round after that. With the Intimidate bonuses the class gets, not even Colossal creatures have much of a shot against this tactic.

If you're not immune to fear - you're dead.

1) It's acknowledged that very nearly any class can move up in tier through sufficient optimization. I have a Commoner elephant-trainer that can more than hold her own in normal encounters up through level twelve or so by cranking up Handle Animal and buying discount overpowered minions such as warbred dire elephants.

2) Samurai is acknowledged as being extremely high in tier 6, superior to Warriors and Aristocrats in every way. It's still bottom of the barrel.

To quote JaronK's own little FAQ, "A CW Samurai is going to have a lot of trouble in a party full of Tier 3s and up, so maybe try being a Necropolitan CW Samurai 10/Zhentarium Fighter 10 with Imperious Command, Eviscerator, Improved Critical, and a pair of Lifedrinker Kukris."

Samurai are supposed to be warrior-types. They aren't. They're very bad at combat. All they get is a side-trick in the form of fear. If you choose to utterly twink out that side-trick, it can become very powerful single trick. However, it's all you've got, and it's extremely limited in scope.

Treantmonk wrote:

Tier 5 and 6: Nobody.

Mind that Tier 6 is mainly the NPC class tier, and the NPC classes would, by and large, still be there. Warrior, Commoner, Aristocrat. With spell changes, Adept is probably tier 5 now. I'd say Monk is probably still tier 5.

DigMarx wrote:

Not being too familiar with the original ranking system (scanned it briefly) I'd like to know what place unique class abilities play in the ranking system, for example the rogue's ability to find traps of DC > 20. I can understand rating PrCs, but does JaronK assert that as a tier 1 class the wizard is potentially deserving of a limit or ban in a "balanced" campaign? Finally, how does the class learning curve fit into the tier system?

The learning curve plays no part in the rating; rather, the system assumes one adept in the system, and likely playing the expanded game with most sources available.

The tier system is ultimately based on breadth and magnitude of power. Bards, for example, have a very broad range of powers of moderate to low magnitude. Barbarians, on the other hand, are really only good at one thing, and they're pretty good at it.

Trapfinding is just another element of power. However, at the same time, it's replaceable. Most traps can be bypassed by having a dog run down the hall ahead of you, triggering everything. Or the classic scry-and-fry, teleporting in past all the traps you don't even need to detect to avoid.

paul halcott wrote:

I gotta admit, I dont get into the who is better then who debate on power rankings. But this does raise one question to me. If wizards are the top of the food chain, why would anyone want to play anything else. If they can fill almost every role needed, then why do you need the other roles at all?

It's not about who's 'best.' It's about who wields the most raw power. Difference. Not everyone wants to go for raw power, or cares, or is knowledgeable to even recognize what power really is within the context of the game.

Knowing the distribution of power within a game is vital in knowing how to work with it. Knowing that Wizards are already the most powerful class in the game can stay the DM's hand before thowing out an unmitigated, "Spell prep is annoying, so let's just let Wizards cast whatever spells spontaneously. Sorcerers still get more spell slots, after all." While, conversely, knowing that and why melee tends to be bottom of the barrel can encourage rulings such as, "Melee has some harsh mobility restrictions that tend to hold them back. Let's let melee get that full attack after a move action."

[A Man In Black]

Thalin wrote:

Tier 2: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin. Clerics are nowhere close tithe utility class (better fighter) that they were, but Channel-heal is awesome, and nobody is better as support (sorry bard). Fighters deal a little less damage because channel-power attack is gone, but their improved AC and natural weapon bonuses, coupled with the depower of clerics/Druids, plus great fighter only high level feats make them amazing tanks. Pallys may almost be tier 1; mixing almost the level of healing of clerics with AC of fighters and solid new abilities. Certainly my vote for most-improved class.

I don't think you quite understand what this tier system means. What's the second thing fighters can do besides fight people in melee or with a bow?

[Mylon]

Why do people hate on the rogue so much?

To the rogue's credit, they get UMD as a class skill and plenty of skill points that they never have to go without. The ability to, once in position, dish out sneak attack damage with multiple hits really outshines every class's damage ability except perhaps the paladin when the paladin gets his moment to shine. This requires a bit of party cooperation to get that rogue in place. Their damage dealing certainly doesn't warrant a tier 1 placement, but they're not at the bottom.

"Find Traps" only grants +1/2 to caster level bonus to find traps. It's not a huge boost, so it doesn't allow a caster to replace a rogue.

[wraithstrike]

Mylon wrote:

Why do people hate on the rogue so much?

To the rogue's credit, they get UMD as a class skill and plenty of skill points that they never have to go without. The ability to, once in position, dish out sneak attack damage with multiple hits really outshines every class's damage ability except perhaps the paladin when the paladin gets his moment to shine. This requires a bit of party cooperation to get that rogue in place. Their damage dealing certainly doesn't warrant a tier 1 placement, but they're not at the bottom.

"Find Traps" only grants +1/2 to caster level bonus to find traps. It's not a huge boost, so it doesn't allow a caster to replace a rogue.

Who hates the rogue? I see the fighter and the monk getting picked on.

:)

[Viletta Vadim]

Mylon wrote:

Why do people hate on the rogue so much?

Placing the Rogue in a lower tier does not mean you're insulting it nor that you hate it. I have an irrational love of the Healer class, but it's definitely tier 5, and low-end at that.

Mylon wrote:

"Find Traps" only grants +1/2 to caster level bonus to find traps. It's not a huge boost, so it doesn't allow a caster to replace a rogue.

"Find Traps" isn't a very good spell, no. However, past early levels, Detect Magic is more powerful than trapfinding, and automatically detects every trap that's actually a threat without any Perception check required. And once you're using Overland Flight all day, mechanical traps very nearly cease to trigger at all. Not a universal moratorium on traps, no, but it's very powerful.

[Lyingbastard]

I don't see how the concept of tiers helps with roleplaying at all.

[Thalin]

A Man In Black wrote:

Thalin wrote:

Tier 2: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin. Clerics are nowhere close tithe utility class (better fighter) that they were, but Channel-heal is awesome, and nobody is better as support (sorry bard). Fighters deal a little less damage because channel-power attack is gone, but their improved AC and natural weapon bonuses, coupled with the depower of clerics/Druids, plus great fighter only high level feats make them amazing tanks. Pallys may almost be tier 1; mixing almost the level of healing of clerics with AC of fighters and solid new abilities. Certainly my vote for most-improved class.

I don't think you quite understand what this tier system means. What's the second thing fighters can do besides fight people in melee or with a bow?

Fight people and shoot a bow? That's two things right there :). But the answer is they aren't replaceable anymore, and parties without one suck. That's why they are a higher-tier character now. In 3.5 I'd argue no party should be composed of anything but 3 Divine and 2 Arcane casters (Divines = 2 Druids and a Cleric, preferably; 1 Ray-Sorceror and 1 Saves-mage). Now if I were to build an optimal party it would be 2 mage/sorcerers (probably two mages, evoker are better raymasters nowadays), a pally, a fight, and a cleric. Note that I don't think a party is too much worse-off with a Druid or Bard, only that they are not as optimized as the party I gave (Clerics have no healing substitute, and you miss them; Pallys are the flexible guy who comes close while still having good BAB; and a Shield-basher fighter has an insane AC and good damage output; at higher levels he is the best weapon against opposing casters).

So that's how I rate them; based on need. Fighters flexibility comes mostly from build, though realistically their tricks really come down to whether they defend or deal damage better. That's why I rate the Fighter on the Tier 2 level. He can lock up a combat better than anyone, and parties without them are remiss. Boring as hell? Yes, but effective.

As to the 4-6, they really need some serious work. They're not even fun, watching Monks is just plain sad, despite their popularity. Rogues aren't bad, but sneak is too easy to negate, and traps can be detected by everyone now (magic traps by a cantrip, regular traps anyone with Perception can see). Barbarians/rangers don't keep up with any of the others for defense or damage output; kinda sad really.

[mdt]

Viletta Vadim wrote:

Mylon wrote:

Why do people hate on the rogue so much?

Placing the Rogue in a lower tier does not mean you're insulting it nor that you hate it. I have an irrational love of the Healer class, but it's definitely tier 5, and low-end at that.

Mylon wrote:

"Find Traps" only grants +1/2 to caster level bonus to find traps. It's not a huge boost, so it doesn't allow a caster to replace a rogue.

"Find Traps" isn't a very good spell, no. However, past early levels, Detect Magic is more powerful than trapfinding, and automatically detects every trap that's actually a threat without any Perception check required. And once you're using Overland Flight all day, mechanical traps very nearly cease to trigger at all. Not a universal moratorium on traps, no, but it's very powerful.

Honestly, if your DM is allowing a detect magic spell to auto detect traps, he's being very very easy on you.

There are dozens and dozens of ways to prevent this from working. For example, casting the trap on the other side of the door you have to open, or inside a chest, not outside. You can't use detect magic on anything you don't have line of effect to, and any solid object cuts off line of effect. Another really really good way is spun sugar. Seriously. Put a two inch lower block in the floor, cast the trap on it, put a spun sugar 'cover' over the spell so it blends in. You can use brittle sand sculptures as well (if you're worried about vermin eating the spun sugar). Line of effect is blocked, until someone steps on the crust and breaks through, so their foot hits the real floor, and the trap goes off.

Another one, a personal favorite, is to use a little magic to stick 5 lb bricks to a ceiling that's been balanced. Then set a nasty magical trap under them, in plain sight. Even if you see the spell on the bricks (which is very hard, the spell his holding the brick to the ceiling, so you have no line of effect to it, just possibly a little escaping around the edges). Most people dispel magic on the big trap, and that also dispels the smaller 5 lb brick sticky spells. The bricks fall down, the ceiling goes out of balance and drops on the whole corridor.

Frankly, I prefer never trusting detect magic, a really well skilled rogue doesn't fall for any of that junk.

[A Man In Black]

Mylon wrote:

Why do people hate on the rogue so much?

To the rogue's credit, they get UMD as a class skill and plenty of skill points that they never have to go without. The ability to, once in position, dish out sneak attack damage with multiple hits really outshines every class's damage ability except perhaps the paladin when the paladin gets his moment to shine. This requires a bit of party cooperation to get that rogue in place. Their damage dealing certainly doesn't warrant a tier 1 placement, but they're not at the bottom.

Rogues are a solid tier 4. They have a lot of trouble applying that damage without getting smeared by any enemy with decent melee abilities, and they're short on things to do in combat at all once sneak attack is negated.

In 3.5, they have a lot of trouble applying their SA damage to certain foes, because of immunities. In PF, they get that back, but then they lose the ability to apply sneak attack damage at range (due to the Blink nerf) or to high AC opponents (due to the acid flask nerf). So it's more or less a wash.

Lyingbastard wrote:

I don't see how the concept of tiers helps with roleplaying at all.

It's useful in understanding how to split the spotlight, and how some classes can sometimes steal the spotlight from others.

Thalin wrote:

Fight people and shoot a bow? That's two things right there :). But the answer is they aren't replaceable anymore, and parties without one suck.

You claimed that fighters are irreplaceable. What does the fighter do that the cleric and paladin and barbarian and even ranger cannot? All of those classes are just fine at hitting people, and some of them do other things besides.

[wraithstrike]

Thalin wrote:

I don't think you quite understand what this tier system means. What's the second thing fighters can do besides fight people in melee or with a bow?

Fight people and shoot a bow? That's two things right there :). But the answer is they aren't replaceable anymore, and parties without one suck. That's why they are a higher-tier character now. In 3.5 I'd argue no party should be composed of anything but 3 Divine and 2 Arcane casters (Divines = 2 Druids and a Cleric, preferably; 1 Ray-Sorceror and 1 Saves-mage). Now if I were to build an optimal party it would be 2 mage/sorcerers (probably two mages, evoker are better raymasters nowadays), a pally, a fight, and a cleric. Note that I don't think a party is too much worse-off with a Druid or Bard, only that they are not as optimized as the party I gave (Clerics have no healing substitute, and you miss them; Pallys are the flexible guy who comes close while still having good BAB; and a Shield-basher fighter has an insane AC and good damage output; at higher levels he is the best weapon against opposing casters).

So that's how I rate them; based on need. Fighters flexibility comes mostly from build, though realistically their tricks really come down to whether they defend or deal damage better. That's why I rate the Fighter on the Tier 2 level. He can lock up a combat better than anyone, and parties without them are remiss. Boring as hell? Yes, but effective.

As to the 4-6, they really need some serious work. They're not even fun, watching Monks is just plain sad, despite their popularity. Rogues aren't bad, but sneak is too easy to negate, and traps can be detected by everyone now (magic traps by a cantrip, regular traps anyone with Perception can see). Barbarians/rangers don't keep up with any of the others for defense or damage output; kinda sad really.

Between the druid, his summons, his animal companion, and spells I am sure he locks enemies down a lot better than a fighter does. You don't need a cleric, but they are nice to have. Now the need or non-need of a cleric depends on the skill of the players also. A druid can play in the cleric's spot if the group is skilled enough, and he can play in the fighter slot well enough even in a less skilled group. The fighter has not improved enough between 3.5, and PF to be a must have. He is still very nice to have at lower levels, and more replaceable as the party levels up.

[Tarinor]

Chris_Johnston wrote:

I'm not a big fan of tier ratings, mostly because they're irrelevent in the context of the game. There are only two tiers that actually matter: classes that can contribute, and classes that can't. In 3.5, spellcasters were in the first, nonspellcasters were in the second. While Pathfinder has helped shore up the difference a little, by and large the classes have remained pretty much the same relative to each other.

Agreed. – Has always been the biggest problem in this regard, by WOTC own confession too (when chatting about the changes to 4E). Even PF seems to struggle with this. Out of the 6 new classes in the future Advanced PHB, 5 of them appear to be spellcasters…

[Viletta Vadim]

MDT: I suggest taking another look at Detect Magic. It's more valid to say Perception won't see the trap on the other side of the door than Detect Magic. After all, seeing a trap literally requires line of sight.

Tarinor wrote:

Agreed. – Has always been the biggest problem in this regard, by WOTC own confession too (when chatting about the changes to 4E). Even PF seems to struggle with this. Out of the 6 new classes in the future Advanced PHB, 5 of them appear to be spellcasters…

And out of the 11 classes in the regular PHB, seven are spellcasters, and two are magic-users in some capacity or another. Can't gripe they're fudging the ratio.

[mdt]

Viletta Vadim wrote:

MDT: I suggest taking another look at Detect Magic. It's more valid to say Perception won't see the trap on the other side of the door than Detect Magic. After all, seeing a trap literally requires line of sight.

If you notice, a thin sheet of lead stops the spell cold. That's the cheapest, and easiest, way to block the spell. You can put it on the back of a door, cast the spell on the other side of the lead. Same with the concealed trap under the fake floor.

Honestly I've never liked detect magic, it violates the stated rules of line of effect for spells. However, it's also trivially and cheaply easy to bypass (as it should be for a cantrip). A cantrip should never be able to negate a spell of a higher level. Personally, I've always ruled that invisibility stops detect magic cold as well. A cantrip should not be able to duplicate a spell of a higher level (see invisibility, true sight, etc). So detect magic, to me, is fooled by most illusions, invisibility, etc. So puting invisibility or an illusion on a trap would pretty much render detect magic useless. Anything else has a 0 level spell duplicating and rendering useless higher level spells, which should not happen.

[Kolokotroni]

mdt wrote:

Viletta Vadim wrote:

MDT: I suggest taking another look at Detect Magic. It's more valid to say Perception won't see the trap on the other side of the door than Detect Magic. After all, seeing a trap literally requires line of sight.

If you notice, a thin sheet of lead stops the spell cold. That's the cheapest, and easiest, way to block the spell. You can put it on the back of a door, cast the spell on the other side of the lead. Same with the concealed trap under the fake floor.

Honestly I've never liked detect magic, it violates the stated rules of line of effect for spells. However, it's also trivially and cheaply easy to bypass (as it should be for a cantrip). A cantrip should never be able to negate a spell of a higher level. Personally, I've always ruled that invisibility stops detect magic cold as well. A cantrip should not be able to duplicate a spell of a higher level (see invisibility, true sight, etc). So detect magic, to me, is fooled by most illusions, invisibility, etc. So puting invisibility or an illusion on a trap would pretty much render detect magic useless. Anything else has a 0 level spell duplicating and rendering useless higher level spells, which should not happen.

I dont let it duplicate higher level spells, for me it gives the general vicinity and not the exact location of the aura. But I was just looking at detect magic and detect evil in the SRD, it didnt say anything about lead or walls blocking it like in 3.5. Dont have my book in front of me, is that present somewhere else in the rules now?

[mdt]

Kolokotroni wrote:

I dont let it duplicate higher level spells, for me it gives the general vicinity and not the exact location of the aura. But I was just looking at detect magic and detect evil in the SRD, it didnt say anything about lead or walls blocking it like in 3.5. Dont have my book in front of me, is that present somewhere else in the rules now?

Letting detect magic sense the general vicinity of someone who is invisible functionally negates invisibility. A cantrip would then be blocking a higher level spell from functioning.

Another trick is to leave Magic Aura spells all over the place, which absolutely fools detect magic (every 5 feet is a magic aura, is this the real one, or is it just another fake). Sure, you can check each one, but it will take a couple of minutes per check.

As to the lead...

PRD wrote:

Outsiders and elementals are not magical in themselves, but if they are summoned, the conjuration spell registers. Each round, you can turn to detect magic in a new area. The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.

And here's the link. It's down toward the bottom, last paragraph (although there is a sentence after it).

[anthony Valente]

mdt wrote:

Viletta Vadim wrote:

MDT: I suggest taking another look at Detect Magic. It's more valid to say Perception won't see the trap on the other side of the door than Detect Magic. After all, seeing a trap literally requires line of sight.

If you notice, a thin sheet of lead stops the spell cold. That's the cheapest, and easiest, way to block the spell. You can put it on the back of a door, cast the spell on the other side of the lead. Same with the concealed trap under the fake floor.

Honestly I've never liked detect magic, it violates the stated rules of line of effect for spells. However, it's also trivially and cheaply easy to bypass (as it should be for a cantrip). A cantrip should never be able to negate a spell of a higher level. Personally, I've always ruled that invisibility stops detect magic cold as well. A cantrip should not be able to duplicate a spell of a higher level (see invisibility, true sight, etc). So detect magic, to me, is fooled by most illusions, invisibility, etc. So puting invisibility or an illusion on a trap would pretty much render detect magic useless. Anything else has a 0 level spell duplicating and rendering useless higher level spells, which should not happen.

Also, many magical traps can be rendered virtually undetectable from Detect Magic by the spell, Magic Aura.

[mdt]

anthony Valente wrote:

Also, many magical traps can be rendered virtually undetectable from Detect Magic by the spell, Magic Aura.

Yep, the most frustrating use is to use it to render 50% of the traps invisible to detect magic. Then use it to make 10x the number of actual magical traps in the area. So if you have 10 magic traps, half of them are invisible, and you have another 90 fake magic aura traps scattered around.

After the first 5-6 'fake' traps, and then hitting an invisible trap, the players usually don't bother with detect magic, and even if they do, they don't believe it.

[Kolokotroni]

mdt wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

I dont let it duplicate higher level spells, for me it gives the general vicinity and not the exact location of the aura. But I was just looking at detect magic and detect evil in the SRD, it didnt say anything about lead or walls blocking it like in 3.5. Dont have my book in front of me, is that present somewhere else in the rules now?

Letting detect magic sense the general vicinity of someone who is invisible functionally negates invisibility. A cantrip would then be blocking a higher level spell from functioning.

Another trick is to leave Magic Aura spells all over the place, which absolutely fools detect magic (every 5 feet is a magic aura, is this the real one, or is it just another fake). Sure, you can check each one, but it will take a couple of minutes per check.

As to the lead...

PRD wrote:

Outsiders and elementals are not magical in themselves, but if they are summoned, the conjuration spell registers. Each round, you can turn to detect magic in a new area. The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.

And here's the link. It's down toward the bottom, last paragraph (although there is a sentence after it).

Thanks for the link, i dont know how i missed that. Too early still i guess.

But i dont think giving someone the area negates the invisibility spell. They can be targeted directly, you are still flatfooted too them and take the penalty to AC. And they can move, and you'd have to focus for another round to know their general area. See invisibility you just see them.

[mdt]

Kolokotroni wrote:

Thanks for the link, i dont know how i missed that. Too early still i guess.

But i dont think giving someone the area negates the invisibility spell. They can be targeted directly, you are still flatfooted too them and take the penalty to AC. And they can move, and you'd have to focus for another round to know their general area. See invisibility you just see them.

Wizard : "Oh, I see an aura over there." Points to 5 foot square, or 10x10 square. "I put a fireball on the center of the aura." [BOOM]

Rogue : "Ah, I toss bottle of acid into the center of the area he pointed at, splash damage hits everything in 10 feet." [SHATTER]

Cleric : Runs close to where fireball went off. "Ah, I channel negative energy to harm, but exclude my friends." [ZOTT]

Or, another way, which is even worse.

Wizard : "Oh, I see an aura over there." Points to the location. "I cast glitter dust." [Invisible guy becomes visible]

Fighter : "I charge him." [WHAM]

Rogue : "I run over to the other side as the fighter and flank." [STABBEY STAB STAB!]

Cleric : "I move up and smite him with my mace in my gods name!" [CLONK]

I've experimented with allowing detect magic to figure out the general area of the invisible person, and it just kills the spell. Utterly. As seen above. Instead of having to cast see invisibility and then glitterdust, the wizard can get the same effect for free with a cantrip.

[Kolokotroni]

mdt wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

Thanks for the link, i dont know how i missed that. Too early still i guess.

But i dont think giving someone the area negates the invisibility spell. They can be targeted directly, you are still flatfooted too them and take the penalty to AC. And they can move, and you'd have to focus for another round to know their general area. See invisibility you just see them.

Wizard : "Oh, I see an aura over there." Points to 5 foot square, or 10x10 square. "I put a fireball on the center of the aura." [BOOM]

Rogue : "Ah, I toss bottle of acid into the center of the area he pointed at, splash damage hits everything in 10 feet." [SHATTER]

Cleric : Runs close to where fireball went off. "Ah, I channel negative energy to harm, but exclude my friends." [ZOTT]

Or, another way, which is even worse.

Wizard : "Oh, I see an aura over there." Points to the location. "I cast glitter dust." [Invisible guy becomes visible]

Fighter : "I charge him." [WHAM]

Rogue : "I run over to the other side as the fighter and flank." [STABBEY STAB STAB!]

Cleric : "I move up and smite him with my mace in my gods name!" [CLONK]

I've experimented with allowing detect magic to figure out the general area of the invisible person, and it just kills the spell. Utterly. As seen above. Instead of having to cast see invisibility and then glitterdust, the wizard can get the same effect for free with a cantrip.

True but with a descent perception score a similar result can be achieved. Unless the creature is making a concious effort to hide, he is likely to be found out by a party with someone with a good perception check.

Also when I give the location its more, down the hall, at the other end of that room, past that wooded clearing, not a specific square or set of squares.

[wraithstrike]

mdt wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

Thanks for the link, i dont know how i missed that. Too early still i guess.

But i dont think giving someone the area negates the invisibility spell. They can be targeted directly, you are still flatfooted too them and take the penalty to AC. And they can move, and you'd have to focus for another round to know their general area. See invisibility you just see them.

Wizard : "Oh, I see an aura over there." Points to 5 foot square, or 10x10 square. "I put a fireball on the center of the aura." [BOOM]

Rogue : "Ah, I toss bottle of acid into the center of the area he pointed at, splash damage hits everything in 10 feet." [SHATTER]

Cleric : Runs close to where fireball went off. "Ah, I channel negative energy to harm, but exclude my friends." [ZOTT]

Or, another way, which is even worse.

Wizard : "Oh, I see an aura over there." Points to the location. "I cast glitter dust." [Invisible guy becomes visible]

Fighter : "I charge him." [WHAM]

Rogue : "I run over to the other side as the fighter and flank." [STABBEY STAB STAB!]

Cleric : "I move up and smite him with my mace in my gods name!" [CLONK]

I've experimented with allowing detect magic to figure out the general area of the invisible person, and it just kills the spell. Utterly. As seen above. Instead of having to cast see invisibility and then glitterdust, the wizard can get the same effect for free with a cantrip.

I think the nondetection spell would take care of that.