LT: Anyone can take UMDYes, but only a CHA focused character with UMD as a class skill has any reasonable chance of using it.
Not true. The wizard has feats he can waste for lack of a better word. Taking skill focus UMD would not be an issue.
Exactly. It would be like arguing that Fighter A is better than Fighter B because Fighter A has the potential to wield a magical sword. So does Fighter B.A wizard can always keep scrolls of spells that might be needed, but dont want to prep every day.So can a Sorcerer. The diffference being that a Sorcerer can keep scrolls of cleric spells, druid spells, etc.
My point was that the wizard, with scrolls, does not lose versatility or number of spells to the sorcerer, and being able to cast more spells won't help if they are not the right ones. Of course the wizard can choose the wrong spells for the day, but that is what scrolls are for. The wizard's feats also give another advantage, along with the fact that his intelligence gives him more skills. He also get access to spells earlier.
I respect clerical healing more than most. With that said, the Pally can emulate the area effect healing; and other classes can out-of-combat heal well. If you have a witch the cleric isn't really missed either. Rarely can you "keep up" with the monsters channeling.
Fighters and Pallys serve the same general role... you can "not miss" the Pally with a good fighter. But pallys have no save weakness; not being removed from combat is pretty critical for the "Tank", and incidentally why I feel Dwarves make some of the best fighters as Mid-levels.
Sorcs are simply a level behind on effects and not as diverse; scrolls of non-1st spells. get expensive quickly. Also, Sorc specialization don't keep up with Wiz specializations. I do prefer them simply because I like to play high-Cha characters.
But overall, up until 10, I'd probably go:
1) Pallly
2) Druid
3) Witch
4) Wizard
5) Cleric
6) Summoner
7) Fighter
8) Bard
9) Sorcerer
10) Rogue (only because some campaigns NEED trapsense).and the rest are generally "chaff"; they have strictly better varia
Sometimes out of combat healing is not an option, whether. That is why clerics are often needed. If people played with more strategy then the cleric's value would drop but that time is not yet here.
Which brings to mind another question, should we judge based on the way a lot of people do play or the way they should play?
I'd forgotten about the Tiers. Please rank the new classes in your tiers as well please.Ranked in terms of versatility and all-round strength:
1st tier: Ranger, Bard.
2nd Tier: Cleric, monk, wizard, druid.
3rd tier: Paladin, Rogue, Barbarian, sorcerer, fighter.
One point I will make is that the classes with less flexibility very often have better specialisation. The fighter, for example, does one thing, but he does it very well.
1st: Wizard-I will never play one but I can't deny them their place
2nd: Druid, Summoner, Cleric, Witch3rd: Paladin, Fighter
4th: Rogue(the rogue almost has 3 because of the trapfinding, but if it takes a monopoly in an area to get bumped a tier then that really speaks to its weakness), Ranger, Bard(this one might be a 3, not enough experience to say)
5th: Monk(It takes a lot of player skill to make one that matters.)
PS: I don't think rogues are weak. I was just saying I can justify a tier bump because they can do one thing that nobody else can do.
Scenario 1) Assume each character is level 1 and standing at the base of a giant cliff. The magical egg they need is in a nest 300 feet above them. The egg is protected by two flying hyenas (hyenas from the Bestiary, except with 'flight 50, average)'.
300 ft. Okay.
1. Inquisitor
2. Ranger
3. Fighter
3. Barbarian
3. Cavalier
4. Paladin
5. Monk
6. Druid
7. All Others
Ranger and Inquisitor have the same general bonuses on this; the inquisitor can run a judgment to help his attacks and the ranger could have favored enemy (animal). They fire on the hyenas with their bow at a -3 and kill them. The others fire with bows too but probably end up in melee combat. In the end, they all strip off their armor, and take 10 on climb checks going up the wall. (DC 15-- they mostly have Str as their primary or secondary or tertiary stat, so 1 rank in climb gives them an 18-15 on a take 10)
A monk could complete this challenge but has no ranged weapons in which to fire with without taking massive penalties due to range increments. Being flatfooted on the wall vs. a flying monster with trip = certain death.
Assuming the hyenas live in the nest, a druid could complete this task if they rolled a wild empathy. The DC to empathize with the hyenas would be 18 (20 for unfriendly + their -2 cha mod) and she's rolling with (likely) a net +1. Good luck, druid!
Scenario 2) The characters are all level 3. A grieving, pious (LG, worships Abadar) widow bears a shameful secret about her dead husband. It's crucial to the progress of the story that she reveal it. The secret adds a +15 to the Diplomacy DC. She's Indifferent to Unfriendly depending on how civilized and like-minded she thinks the PCs are.
1. Sorceror
2. Bard3. Summoner
4. Wizard
Only they can finish this, and only because of charm person. No other classes can compare. An aasimar bard with 18 charisma rolling a 20 can only get a 32, and the DC minimum is 30 before we add her charisma modifier.
I ranked them in likelihood of having a high charisma modifier in case they have to give her an order and make opposed charisma checks.
Scenario 3) The characters are all level 6. They must retrieve a 700lb statue from a subterranean medusa's lair and deliver it to a local temple for de-petrification. The statue must remain unharmed.
Oh, boy. I don't think anyone can do this reliably. You need a 19 Str to pick up the statue and stagger around with it at 5ft per round, and that's not a good way to keep it unharmed.
A 24 strength could let you move at full, but... no sixth level character could have that. Maximum 22 with a six-minute bull's strength for most characters.
1. Strength-domain strength-focused cleric
2. Barbarian
3. Fighter, Paladin, Monk
4. None else can do this to my knowledge
Scenario 4) The characters are level 9. They come across a vampire (Bestiary, CR 9) and 5 frost wights terrorizing a village built atop a permanently frozen lake. The ice beneath the inn, the trapper's guild and three homes has melted and cracked due to the vampire's fire spells. 12 people are in immediate peril of sinking into the lake. Assume 15% of the days combat spells and 15% of the potion/item resources have already been used/cast.
1. Cleric
2. OracleI'll assume that you must save the people from drowning and you also have to kill the undead. The cleric can do both, with summons and positive energy channeling (or negative energy controlling). No one else has such a decisive advantage in this battle at this level.
The oracle comes close 2nd since they can use cure light wounds, mass as a ghetto channel.
Scenario 5) The characters are level 12. They're having a victory feast in the longhouse of their beloved patron, Thane Fastergabble, when the back wall is suddenly ripped away and the the Thane is snatched in the coils of a crag linnorm! Assume 30% of the days combat spells and 30% of the potion/item resources have already been used/cast.
S. Rogue
1. Tanks: Fighter, Paladin, Inquisitor, Barbarian2a. Support Casters: Bard, Summoner
2b. Support Casters: Cleric, Oracle, Druid
3. Support Casters: Wizard, Sorceror
4. Damage: Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorceror, Oracle, Monk, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Inquisitor, Barbarian, etc. etc.
What a terrible creature. It's grappling someone without Snatch. The rogue sneak attacks every full attack, making him pretty much the most powerful person at the table right now. He's going to go insane.
At the same time, the tanks are very important. Throwing insults, yelling, drawing attention and doing damage while taking the brunt of the assault, they're invaluable while fighting a single giant opponent.
The support casters are the most important. The bard's bonuses let the party pierce the monster's AC, do more damage, end the fight quicker. Haste is invaluable. Summoned creatures can bait the linnorm into wasting his breath on a line of riding dogs. The eidolon can help weather the brunt of attacks along with the summons while providing marginal benefits. The bard and the summoner are invaluable.
The rest are healing, removing poison or neutralizing it on the tank ( the crag linnorm's poison is horrible) or others, keeping people alive, dispelling magical effects and then debuffing the linnorm. They're also instrumental in freeing Thane Fastergabble-- a resilient sphere saves his life and the party's pocket book.
The damage kills him. That's everyone else's job, but they couldn't stay alive long enough without the tank or the healers or do their job as well as they could without that bard.
But the rogue... it's raining d6s until the linnorm loses Thane Fastergabble, and until then, the rogue is king.
I will not be looking at APG classes as I haven't looked at them well enough.
Tier 1: These classes can do anything, whenever they want, better then anyone else. Expect them to be the target of DM fiats.
Wizard, cleric, druid. They're still the campaign destroyers, although all three are less tier 1-y as they used to be.
Tier 2: These classes can almost do anything, sometimes when they want, and usually better then anyone else. In other words, a Tier 1 that's been lowered a bit.
Sorcerer. They're better at being tier 2! But they're still a level behind, and they still lack flexibility.
Tier 3: These classes can do one thing really well and still be pretty good at other stuff, or can do almost anything moderately well, though not as good as specialists.
Bard, rogue, paladin. People who whinge about bard having been nerfed are fooling themselves; while I dislike the per-rounds system of bard song, everything else has been improved, and they're very strong at being generalists who can then specialize further. Rogues were already chasing after Tier 3 before, and the subsequent buffs and improvements on sneak attack have let them grab hold and drag themselves aboard. Paladin surges into Tier 3 from tier 5, and fit the first definition perfectly - they're awesome at destroying the hell out of evil baddies, and the mix of favored class skill points, lesser MAD, better spellcasting, and vastly better lay on hands allows them to tweak themselves into being good at stuff outside of smashing heads.
Tier 4: These guys can be pretty dang specialized at one thing, but suffer outside of it. Alternately, they can do a lot of things, but only sorta ok-ish. They will very rarely be outshining people, unless it's built to their forte.
Ranger, fighter. Ranger is pretty high on Tier 4, mind you, grasping for Tier 3 as it swings by. They've overall seen a lot of improvements in combat prowess, and their nature-y skills can be rather impressive! Unfortunately, two weapon fighting is still a massive trap, and as the last bit says, the ranger won't likely be outshining anyone. Fighter is champion beatstick. He is the best at hitting things with a stick or filling them with lead, and by lead I mean "arrows." Unfortunately, the fighter suffers from savantism - as great as he is at killing things with damage, he's terrible at just about everything else. When the fighter doesn't have someone to hit with a stick, the fighter doesn't have much to do.
Tier 5: These guys have one thing they do, and they're sorta good at it I guess.
Barbarian, monk. Just not enough was done to improve either class. Barbarian on paper looks alright, but he falls behind fighter fast, and, just like the fighter, doesn't have anything to pick up the slack once fightan ends. The monk has to hyperspecialize to e a decent force; the problem monk has is that the design behind the monk, making it a "defensive" class, is fundamentally weak in D&D, in which the goal nine times out of ten is "kill the baddie." The best defense is a good offense, after all.
Where I could potentially be persuaded to change.
Paladin I can see dropped to T4
Rogue I think can straddle the line between T4 and T3, but at worse I'd put them at this sorta weird 3.5.
Ranger I...I...I just want to love him more and think he's better ;_;
My proposal for the context.
Which class normally has the biggest impact in a game under an equally skilled player.
Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, or any other CHA based character/skill monkey.
WTF, you ask? Simple. Combat is elementary. No player Wizard is gonig to be able to counter a well-thought out encounter, no matter WHAT they prep. Thus is the glory of being the DM. If you run sandbox games, that is. AP's or modules have their own issues.
BUT, what changes the nature of a game more than allies and influence? If the Bard works the party into the confidence of the powerful Knights of the Round Table, they now have a measure of control over how the party interracts with the game world. This may just be RP fluff to most, but done skillfully, the player is suddenly dictating where and when the party travels, whom they will have as allies, and whom they can turn to or trust if things go poorly.
And the best part? It's much MUCH harder for the DM to track seemingly insignificant interractions over a wide variety of NPC's than it is to orchestrate a combat scenario. And, unlike a combat, those effects tend to stick around for the remainder of a campaign.
Making Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Intimidate potentially the most powerful abilities in the game. And so, mathematically, the Bard is likely going to always be the most powerful!
*ROTFL*
Seconded. You don't need to be able to defeat anyone/thing in combat BUT it always helps to know someone who can.
..and have the manners to ask them nicely!
So, personal list:
- Well played Social Bard would be No.1*
- Well played Leader Paladin coming near the top - it's the whole 'Friends who are also Paladins, Clerics and fellow fantical clergy members' bonus. Go Go Lawful Good Jihad!
- the rest
- Rogue being last. No one likes rogues, not even rogues. It's hard making friends when you have a tendancy to stab them in the back. Go hide in the shadows and starve leatherboy, see if we care!
-
*Hitler was a Bard, we have the footage to prove it!
I don't know, maybe we've gotten different list/definitions for the Tiers along the way, ProfessorCirno, but most places I've seen put the Barb in Tier 4 for 3.5. Since it hasn't gone down in power, I'd keep them where they are. I think Barbs and Rangers are basically the poster children for T4: the Barb is good at basically one thing (smacking people with big things), but there are classes that do that better than it in most cases, while the Ranger has a lot that it can do, but it's only decent at all of it, meaning classes designed around doing those things individually will always outshine it when it's time to do those things, but the Ranger has many, many more things it can participate in in a pinch.
For Fighter and Pally, I'd put them in the same Tier, whichever one that is. I like the idea that they're Tier 3 because of how improved they are from before (because they are, hardcore), but I suppose I could settle for the tip top of Tier 4.
The Monk... I'll totally cop to throwing them a bone by putting them grasping Tier 4 by the tips of their fingers. The concept is awesome; the execution... not.
|
Scenario 1) Assume each character is level 1 and standing at the base of a giant cliff. The magical egg they need is in a nest 300 feet above them. The egg is protected by two flying hyenas (hyenas from the Bestiary, except with 'flight 50, average)'.300 ft. Okay.
1. Inquisitor
2. Ranger
3. Fighter
3. Barbarian
3. Cavalier
4. Paladin
5. Monk
6. Druid
7. All OthersRanger and Inquisitor have the same general bonuses on this; the inquisitor can run a judgment to help his attacks and the ranger could have favored enemy (animal). They fire on the hyenas with their bow at a -3 and kill them. The others fire with bows too but probably end up in melee combat. In the end, they all strip off their armor, and take 10 on climb checks going up the wall. (DC 15-- they mostly have Str as their primary or secondary or tertiary stat, so 1 rank in climb gives them an 18-15 on a take 10)
A monk could complete this challenge but has no ranged weapons in which to fire with without taking massive penalties due to range increments. Being flatfooted on the wall vs. a flying monster with trip = certain death.
Assuming the hyenas live in the nest, a druid could complete this task if they rolled a wild empathy. The DC to empathize with the hyenas would be 18 (20 for unfriendly + their -2 cha mod) and she's rolling with (likely) a net +1. Good luck, druid!
Scenario 2) The characters are all level 3. A grieving, pious (LG, worships Abadar) widow bears a shameful secret about her dead husband. It's crucial to the progress of the story that she reveal it. The secret adds a +15 to the Diplomacy DC. She's Indifferent to Unfriendly depending on how civilized and like-minded she thinks the PCs are.1. Sorceror
2. Bard
3. Summoner
4. WizardOnly they can finish this, and only because of charm person. No other classes can compare. An aasimar bard with 18 charisma rolling a 20 can only get a 32, and the DC minimum is 30 before we add her charisma modifier.
I ranked them...
Wow Ice Titan, way to take the ball and run with it. My scenarios where half in jest, but your responses are great!
I hope this proves a point. Labeling any class as the strongest is assuming a functionally unimaginative DM; one who tests your characters with only the most straightforward and asinine challenges. A character's strengths begin on the character sheet but are tempered on the field of a wily intellect. If you find one character type trumps all others, repeatedly, then what you have is a campaign mired in mediocrity. Yeah, this includes high level wizards. It's a harsh condemnation, but I find it's true
I don't know, maybe we've gotten different list/definitions for the Tiers along the way, ProfessorCirno, but most places I've seen put the Barb in Tier 4 for 3.5. Since it hasn't gone down in power, I'd keep them where they are. I think Barbs and Rangers are basically the poster children for T4: the Barb is good at basically one thing (smacking people with big things), but there are classes that do that better than it in most cases, while the Ranger has a lot that it can do, but it's only decent at all of it, meaning classes designed around doing those things individually will always outshine it when it's time to do those things, but the Ranger has many, many more things it can participate in in a pinch.
For Fighter and Pally, I'd put them in the same Tier, whichever one that is. I like the idea that they're Tier 3 because of how improved they are from before (because they are, hardcore), but I suppose I could settle for the tip top of Tier 4.
The Monk... I'll totally cop to throwing them a bone by putting them grasping Tier 4 by the tips of their fingers. The concept is awesome; the execution... not.
Barbarian lost the ability to stay conscious regardless of hit points while raging, which can be a brutal loss. Also in 3.5, barbarian was hyper-dependent on either shock trooper shenanigans or intimidate shenanigans, neither of which are in Pathfinder.
I can see the argument for barbarian in T4, I'll admit, though they're lower then fighter and rangere. I honestly think monk wouldn't go, though. Only with hyper specialization and by planning the hell out of everything does a monk work - randomized items along can sink a monk, quite frankly. Same with fighter - fighter ain't a T3. T4 is for the super specialized, which fighter is - he can beatstick, and little else. Paladin on the other hand has abilities, better charisma, a better skill list, and spells to carry her forward when she isn't beatsticking evil.
The one that gnaws at me the most is ranger. I really want ranger to be good enough to rise up a tier :\
Overall, I don't think most classes "change tiers" in Pathfinder, but I do think the tiers altogether are brought closer together, which is a good thing.
Keep in mind, a mistake people tend to make with these ratings are that they're a flat power in one specific situation, or that they're a level of fun, and they're neither. This is based on their ability to succeed or bypass challenges in general. The bard can't beatstick as well as the fighter, but he can still beatstick pretty well, and has a lot of other cool stuff to keep him high. The wizard isn't T1 because of his acid dart ability, he's T1 because "there's a spell for everything." Likewise, you might hate wizards (I can't stand them, or most vancian casting for that matter, myself) and love fighters, and that's seriously just fine. This is set up more to examine where the weaknesses and strengths of a class is and how to better challenge them - in other words, this isn't a tool for PCs, it's a tool for DMs. The only time the PCs need to be worried is when they hit Soulknife or Truenamer levels.
Oh, boy. I don't think anyone can do this reliably. You need a 19 Str to pick up the statue and stagger around with it at 5ft per round, and that's not a good way to keep it unharmed.
Unless you had a hand cart/dolly. Then I would say you could move at 1/2 speed.
A dwarf could move at full speed because of their racial ability.
I've read the APG classes but haven't played them, so I'll leave them out for now.
Time for my obligatory copout statement: All classes can be the most/the least powerful depending on how they are played. And in the hands of a good optimizer/min-maxer/powergamer (pick your favorite term), all can be built into powerhouses that will threaten to unbalance a game.
Obligatory copout aside, here are my rankings, based on our campaign experience. Our campaign has a pretty even balance between combat and non-combat challenges, so my rankings are based on not just the ability to kick butt, but also to be successful in other ways.
1. Cleric - everybody needs one, and channel energy turns them into more than a healbot
2. Wizard - flexibility in non-combat situations gives edge over sorcerer
3. Rogue - skills, skills, skills and sneak attack, too
4. Paladin - new and improved in PF
5. Ranger - awesome potential now as archer with skills
6. Sorcerer - combat killer, but lacking in flexibility in other areas
7. Fighter - one trick pony, but it's a damn good trick
8. Bard - very flexible character, but lacking in raw power
9. Monk - excellent fast scouts and auxiliary fighters, but don't overpower
10. Barbarian - Awesome early, but quickly lose arms race to fighters as they progress in levels.
11. Druid - Kings of the woods and fields, not so hot in urban or dungeon settings. Also only class not to get significant powerup in PF, in my opinion. You can even argue they have decreased in power, since Summon Nature's Ally was chopped in power.
Barbarian lost the ability to stay conscious regardless of hit points while raging, which can be a brutal loss. Also in 3.5, barbarian was hyper-dependent on either shock trooper shenanigans or intimidate shenanigans, neither of which are in Pathfinder.
I can see the argument for barbarian in T4, I'll admit, though they're lower then fighter and rangere. I honestly think monk wouldn't go, though. Only with hyper specialization and by planning the hell out of everything does a monk work - randomized items along can sink a monk, quite frankly. Same with fighter - fighter ain't a T3. T4 is for the super specialized, which fighter is - he can beatstick, and little else. Paladin on the other hand has abilities, better charisma, a better skill list, and spells to carry her forward when she isn't beatsticking evil.
I don't see the loss of that ability as a negative for the Barb. It seems like it almost assures their full on death. As it is now, don't they actually die die more often than not when they lose their raging HP if they're in the negatives?
I guess why I'm placing the Fighter in T3 is that the Warblade sits in T3 because it was "the best melee class ever", which the Fighter now does better. Everything I read that put the WB there had to do with its effectiveness in melee combat and nothing else. Fighters can be monsters in melee, flat out out-damaging them, but they also have the ability to deal with stuff at range with little problem (nowhere near effectively, but WBs don't even really have the option at all). Sure, the WB has Diplomacy as a class skill, but they usually don't have the CHA to use it.
But yeah, I'll echo your last paragraph (despite the board not wanting to fully quote it), including the distaste for vancian casting. I do think, though, that without a real careful build and a good player, a Monk needs all together too much time and care to effectively participate in most cases.
Barbarian lost the ability to stay conscious regardless of hit points while raging, which can be a brutal loss. Also in 3.5, barbarian was hyper-dependent on either shock trooper shenanigans or intimidate shenanigans, neither of which are in Pathfinder.
I can see the argument for barbarian in T4, I'll admit, though they're lower then fighter and rangere. I honestly think monk wouldn't go, though. Only with hyper specialization and by planning the hell out of everything does a monk work - randomized items along can sink a monk, quite frankly. Same with fighter - fighter ain't a T3. T4 is for the super specialized, which fighter is - he can beatstick, and little else. Paladin on the other hand has abilities, better charisma, a better skill list, and spells to carry her forward when she isn't beatsticking evil.
I don't see the loss of that ability as a negative for the Barb. It seems like it almost assures their full on death. As it is now, don't they actually die die more often than not when they lose their raging HP if they're in the negatives?
I guess why I'm placing the Fighter in T3 is that the Warblade sits in T3 because it was "the best melee class ever", which the Fighter now does better. Everything I read that put the WB there had to do with its effectiveness in melee combat and nothing else. Fighters can be monsters in melee, flat out out-damaging them, but they also have the ability to deal with stuff at range with little problem (nowhere near effectively, but WBs don't even really have the option at all). Sure, the WB has Diplomacy as a class skill, but they usually don't have the CHA to use it.
But yeah, I'll echo your last paragraph (despite the board not wanting to fully quote it), including the distaste for vancian casting. I do think, though, that without a real careful build and a good player, a Monk needs all together too much time and care to effectively participate in most cases.
Maneuvers gave Warblade a lot of versatility though. They had different maneuvers for different situations. Fighter just has full attack :\
A heavily optimized fighter can do T3 damage, no doubt, but that's all he can do. A warblade had Iron Heart Surge, White Raven Tactics maneuvers, and various stances for various capabilities. Plus, you know, four skill points ;)
Don't get me wrong - fighter is extremely good at full attacking people to death. The downside is, that's more or less all he does. Fighter is certainly the most powerful melee class ever, but then again, so were uberchargers ;).
Ranger I...I...I just want to love him more and think he's better ;_;
Three things to consider about the ranger: skills, spells, and Hunter's Bond (Animal Companion). The ranger is almost as much of a skill monkey as a rogue, can cast spells* (or use various wands without needing Use Magic Device), and can have a second combat character to help in dealing damage (not as good as the druid's, but equal to a cleric with the Animal domain). These, on top of full BAB, two good saves (Fort, Ref), Combat Style feats (which the ranger can get without the normal prerequisites), Favored Enemy (which can be very significant if chosen well; Humanoid (Human) is probably the most effective, with Aberration, Dragon, Humanoid (Giant), Magical Beast, Monstrous Humanoid, Outsider (Evil), and Undead also tending to be commonly encountered in many campaigns), and the rest of the bennies of the class push it into tier 3, IMO.
*- Staples such as entangle, barkskin, cure light wounds, resist energy, and stat boosters. Granted, the late/slow progression and restricted choices mean that rangers aren't (usually) encounter-destroying like primary spellcasters (or even bards), but they still can be used to buff themselves and/or their animal companion (magic fang, greater magic fang, animal growth).
One nice thing with Pathfinder is that the differences between the Tiers has been reduced a bit, moving the outliers closer to to the center (Tier 3). Personally, I break down the Pathfinder RPG Core classes as follows:
Tier 1- Cleric, Wizard
Tier 2- Druid, Sorcerer; the druid is very close to Tier 1, but the significant hits to the Animal Companion and Wildshape, along with the way Clerics (Animal domain) and Wizards (beast shape. elemental body, plant shape) can do many of the same things, as well as the slightly less versatile spell list (relative to the cleric with Domain spells), have (IMO) pushed them out of the top spot they shared with wizards in 3.x; the sorcerer is stronger with the addition of Bloodlines, but still isn't as versatile as a well run cleric or wizard
Tier 3- Bard, Paladin, Ranger; the bard got a slight boost, the ranger got a bit more of one (moving it from Tier 4 to Tier 3), while the paladin (after suffering through 3.x at Tier 5) is finally a significant force again
Tier 4- Fighter, Rogue; the fighter is once more the king of combat and the rogue is still the archetypical skill-monkey and flanker; however, they both lack the ability to do much else without outside support
Tier 5- Barbarian, Monk; the barbarian has basically switched places with the 3.x fighter (i.e., probably worth a 1-2 level "dip," but not worth sticking with) and the monk, while improved to almost Tier 4 with the upgrade to Flurry of Blows, the bonus on combat maneuvers, and the addition of Ki, is still the disappointing red-headed stepchild that lacks full BAB, 6 + Int mod Skill Ranks per level, or spellcasting (every other class has at least of these characteristics)
As far as the Advanced Player's Guide Playtest classes, I'd probably rank them as follows:
Tier 1- Summoner, Witch; the summoner only gets 6th level spells, but the eidolon, spell-like abilities, and other class features (like 3/4 BAB and spellcasting in light armor) can more than compensate; the witch is effectively a variant wizard
Tier 2- Oracle; basically a divine sorcerer, the oracle has most of the same pros and cons vs. the cleric that the sorcerer has vs. the wizard
Tier 3- Alchemist, Cavalier, Inquisitor: the alchemist and inquisitor compare pretty closely to the bard, while the cavalier is roughly equivalent to the paladin
Dragonborn 3 wrote:
"1) Bard
I'm done for now."
+1
I agree I believe the bard may be one of the most versatile character classes ever created. They can cast a mix/match of arcane and some divine spells as arcane without light armor penalty- they have UMD and the CHA to power it and while they buff and support a party they can easily solo with the mid level attack progression and access to self buff and healing!
Final tally I want a party of Bards... but then again maybe not,... that many high CHA personalities could be trouble lol :-)
Classes were ranked by average damage output first, then defense, then mobility, versatility and skills. It's for levels 7 and lower, playing mostly modules and Adventure Paths.
1) Fighter (High damage output. Good defenses. Suffers in low magic settings.)
2) Paladin (Same as fighter. Insane damage output on select fights. Great defenses.)
3) Barbarian (Same as fighter. Highly mobile.)
4) Cleric (Healing makes them important. No healing surges in PF!)
5) Druid (Same as Cleric but less healing available.)
6) Monk (Decent damage, good defenses. Highly mobile.)
7) Rogue (Good damage, weak defenses. Traps aren't a big part of my sessions and they can usually be soaked or dealt with other ways. Highly mobile.)
8) Ranger (Decent damage but replacable.)
9) Sorcerer (Limited in DPS role, weak defenses, more useful for special tactics and support/buffs. Watches other damage dealers most of the time.)
10) Wizard (Same as Sorc)
11) Bard (Same as Sorc)
Everyone has melee classes ranked really low, but in my experience the Paladin, Fighter, and Barbarian classes just rape everything while everyone else just watches. That's been my experience anyway. Cleric is just there to provide Wand of Cure Light Wounds after the fight is over. Bard has to be the most useless, especially in monster orientated combat settings (which dominate my sessions), close to a god in urban settings.
At Gencon using Pathfinder Society scenarios, parties with 2 fighters/paladins/barbs bulldozed through everything (no challenge). Conversely, parties with 1-2 bards, wizards or sorcs typically had TPKs.
Having said that, all classes are useful in the right context. It really depends on your campaign.
The thing I want to know is "What makes X class better than the others?" with an example. Ranks without reasons and context mean nothing.
Does it really matter how powerful a class is? As long as you are enjoying playing a character then it is always a win.
I have always had a soft spot (when DMing) for the people that play purposely non-optimized characters. (and one of the guys I play with almost always does this).
I've read the APG classes but haven't played them, so I'll leave them out for now.
Time for my obligatory copout statement: All classes can be the most/the least powerful depending on how they are played. And in the hands of a good optimizer/min-maxer/powergamer (pick your favorite term), all can be built into powerhouses that will threaten to unbalance a game.
Obligatory copout aside, here are my rankings, based on our campaign experience. Our campaign has a pretty even balance between combat and non-combat challenges, so my rankings are based on not just the ability to kick butt, but also to be successful in other ways.
1. Cleric - everybody needs one, and channel energy turns them into more than a healbot
2. Wizard - flexibility in non-combat situations gives edge over sorcerer
3. Rogue - skills, skills, skills and sneak attack, too
4. Paladin - new and improved in PF
5. Ranger - awesome potential now as archer with skills
6. Sorcerer - combat killer, but lacking in flexibility in other areas
7. Fighter - one trick pony, but it's a damn good trick
8. Bard - very flexible character, but lacking in raw power
9. Monk - excellent fast scouts and auxiliary fighters, but don't overpower
10. Barbarian - Awesome early, but quickly lose arms race to fighters as they progress in levels.
11. Druid - Kings of the woods and fields, not so hot in urban or dungeon settings. Also only class not to get significant powerup in PF, in my opinion. You can even argue they have decreased in power, since Summon Nature's Ally was chopped in power.
1-not true about the cleric being needed. A party can survive without a cleric, but the party has to play smart. You dont have a druid last do you, really? The animal companion is probably more useful than a monk.
Classes were ranked by average damage output first, then defense, then mobility, versatility and skills. It's for levels 7 and lower, playing mostly modules and Adventure Paths.
1) Fighter (High damage output. Good defenses. Suffers in low magic settings.)
2) Paladin (Same as fighter. Insane damage output on select fights. Great defenses.)
3) Barbarian (Same as fighter. Highly mobile.)
4) Cleric (Healing makes them important. No healing surges in PF!)
5) Druid (Same as Cleric but less healing available.)
6) Monk (Decent damage, good defenses. Highly mobile.)
7) Rogue (Good damage, weak defenses. Traps aren't a big part of my sessions and they can usually be soaked or dealt with other ways. Highly mobile.)
8) Ranger (Decent damage but replacable.)
9) Sorcerer (Limited in DPS role, weak defenses, more useful for special tactics and support/buffs. Watches other damage dealers most of the time.)
10) Wizard (Same as Sorc)
11) Bard (Same as Sorc)Everyone has melee classes ranked really low, but in my experience the Paladin, Fighter, and Barbarian classes just rape everything while everyone else just watches. That's been my experience anyway. Cleric is just there to provide Wand of Cure Light Wounds after the fight is over. Bard has to be the most useless, especially in monster orientated combat settings (which dominate my sessions), close to a god in urban settings.
At Gencon using Pathfinder Society scenarios, parties with 2 fighters/paladins/barbs bulldozed through everything (no challenge). Conversely, parties with 1-2 bards, wizards or sorcs typically had TPKs.
Having said that, all classes are useful in the right context. It really depends on your campaign.
The thing I want to know is "What makes X class better than the others?" with an example. Ranks without reasons and context mean nothing.
I already provided the context.
I don't know for the witch. I feel she's more in par with druid than wizard.
She lacks some very useful arcane utility spells : protection from evil, invisibility, polymorph... She has instead all sort of divine utility/healing spells: restoration, remove disease (those spells that are useless and essential: any group will need them, but do they increase your raw power ?), or the great freedom of movement (probably the only spell that wizards really want to take from the cleric list). the sure thing is that a witch is a far greater arcane/divine spellcaster than the mystic theurge, but is her spell list in par with the wizard spell list ? I don't think so...
She also doesn't have the specialist bonus slot; instead, she has the hex ; hex are cool, because they are powerful (or, more accurately : some are weak, but there is enough powerful hexes to not see the weak hexes) and, basically, at-will. But are hexes as powerful as extra slot + specialist power ?
Then, I think she's "only" tier 2, as the druid; or tier 1 for those who consider that the druid is still tier 1. Anyway, it's not a shame to be tier 2: the witch is a great class (I'm playing one, and she's doing very well for now); but she's not really "a variant wizard".
I think you might be wrong classifying the witch in tier 2. I have the feeling that she is top of tier 1 (ahead of the wizard). Not only is she an arcane spellcaster that can HEAL herself, the list of arcane spells are close to the best with a mix of awesome battlefield control spells and conjuration spells. While there may be a few useful arcane spells she's missing out on, the ones she does have are the very best a wizard can get.
I have not played a witch like yourself but was in discussion in another thread questioning the usefulness of the witches hexes. One experienced player who had played a witch up to about 15th level thought that the witches hexes were overpowering (more potent than her spells) to the point where if you chose the right combination of hexes some might consider it borderline broken.
I don't know for the witch. I feel she's more in par with druid than wizard.
She lacks some very useful arcane utility spells : protection from evil, invisibility, polymorph... She has instead all sort of divine utility/healing spells: restoration, remove disease (those spells that are useless and essential: any group will need them, but do they increase your raw power ?), or the great freedom of movement (probably the only spell that wizards really want to take from the cleric list). the sure thing is that a witch is a far greater arcane/divine spellcaster than the mystic theurge, but is her spell list in par with the wizard spell list ? I don't think so...
She also doesn't have the specialist bonus slot; instead, she has the hex ; hex are cool, because they are powerful (or, more accurately : some are weak, but there is enough powerful hexes to not see the weak hexes) and, basically, at-will. But are hexes as powerful as extra slot + specialist power ?
Then, I think she's "only" tier 2, as the druid; or tier 1 for those who consider that the druid is still tier 1. Anyway, it's not a shame to be tier 2: the witch is a great class (I'm playing one, and she's doing very well for now); but she's not really "a variant wizard".
I think you might be wrong classifying the witch in tier 2. I have the feeling that she is top of tier 1 (ahead of the wizard). Not only is she an arcane spellcaster that can HEAL herself, the list of arcane spells are close to the best with a mix of awesome battlefield control spells and conjuration spells. While there may be a few useful arcane spells she's missing out on, the ones she does have are the very best a wizard can get.
I have not played a witch like yourself but was in discussion in another thread questioning the usefulness of the witches hexes. One experienced player who had played a witch up to about 15th level thought that the witches hexes were overpowering (more potent than her spells) to the point where if you chose the...
Healing does not matter if it can't out do the enemies damage, which it wont. The witch can cast arcane spells and heal, but it does do enough to put it on par with a wizard. The hexes can be nice, but the effectiveness of Save or sucks varies from game to game. The other issue is the walking spellbook(witch familiar). I don't like it at all. While I don't normally bother familiars, for the enjoyment of the game, it is a big weakness. If the APG does not fix it I will just have to come up with a houserule.
PS: It is very strategic to go after the familiar, and I can't fault any DM who does so after his NPC's find out the player is a witch.
Does it really matter how powerful a class is? As long as you are enjoying playing a character then it is always a win.
I have always had a soft spot (when DMing) for the people that play purposely non-optimized characters. (and one of the guys I play with almost always does this).
Yes, I think it really does matter how powerful a class is. If a class is designed too powerful or weak then there is potential for imbalance in a game session leading to dissatisfaction by the GM and the players.
In any event, I enjoy trying to optimise a character as a mental exercise when creating it as I'm sure others do as well. I'm not talking about being a munchkin when optimising but creating an interesting character that has multiple options when facing any given situation.
The thing to remember is that trying to optimise a character and knowing which classes are more or less powerful does not have to destroy the 'role playing' experience. It is important to understand that character background fluff plus roleplaying does not in any way have to be mutually exclusive from optimising your character and playing it smartly.
1: Alchemist, Barbarian, Bard, Cavalier, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Inquisitor, Monk, Oracle, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Summoner, Witch, Wizard
Classes were ranked by average damage output first, then defense, then mobility, versatility and skills. It's for levels 7 and lower, playing mostly modules and Adventure Paths.
Everyone has melee classes ranked really low, but in my experience the Paladin, Fighter, and Barbarian classes just rape everything while everyone else just watches. That's been my experience anyway. Cleric is just there to provide Wand of Cure Light Wounds after the fight is over. Bard has to be the most useless, especially in monster orientated combat settings (which dominate my sessions), close to a god in urban settings.
At Gencon using Pathfinder Society scenarios, parties with 2 fighters/paladins/barbs bulldozed through everything (no challenge). Conversely, parties with 1-2 bards, wizards or sorcs typically had TPKs.
Having said that, all classes are useful in the right context. It really depends on your campaign.
At lower levels, the full BAB classes are at their highest "power level" relative to the other classes. Spells are few and fairly weak, skill totals are moderate, etc. This starts to change around 5th-7th level, as spells become common and significant, skill totals reach significant levels, and DPR begins losing ground to enemy hp totals. By the time you reach 10th-12th level, spellcasters have started to outshine everyone else.
There's nothing wrong with playing at lower levels, but the Tier system is based on the overall potential effectiveness of a class over the course of all 20 levels. It's just a fact of the system mechanics that spellcasters can dominate play over the majority of the levels.
@dragonchess player : at low level, a sleep spell allows you to easily win an overwhelming encounter in the same way that high level spells allow you to break high level encounter
Which is why I specified "fairly weak." The limitation of 4 HD total on a sleep spell, the fact that elves, half-elves, and other creatures are immune, and having it blocked by protection from chaos/evil/good/law (it's a compulsion effect) keep it from being overwhelming, IMO. Also, the "few" spell slots available at low level and the Will save (it's not much use against a 4th level cleric and a 5th level cleric, a CR 4 encounter, has 5 HD) tend to keep it in a "use on brutes/minions" category; an archer fighter with Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim or a melee type with Power Attack, Cleave, and a two-handed weapon or Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and a reach weapon can do almost as well or possibly better (depending on the opponents) many more times a day.
This is what I meant by "relative 'power level.'" At low levels, the combat types can perform at equal or almost equal effectiveness without a limit on how often they can perform. It's only when you get into middle levels (5th-9th) that the spellcasters gain the spells and spell slots to start outperforming the combat types regularly. By 10th-12th level, the spellcasters are dominating play in most situations.
People talk an awful lot about how a sleep spell can defeat a low-level party. For what it's worth, that's true. But sleep is also useful to a mid to high level party.
Assume you need to sneak past a guard dog at night. The guard dog is, itself, easy to defeat in battle, but if it starks barking, it'll bring guards to the area and you are trying to avoid attention. If you cast color spray, the dark will light up in cascading tie-die colors which will also bring the guards to the area. So, you cast sleep.
Or just toss the dog a sausage that's been dipped in Taggit Oil ;p
You need a little dog in heat, or poison meat.
Why the Romans used geese. They do nothing but scream and attack.
Geese are f$#!ing evil.
You need a little dog in heat, or poison meat.
Why the Romans used geese. They do nothing but scream and attack.
Geese are f@!&ing evil.
Geese are loot, though. You vital strike the goose and that night have something better than trail rations around the campfire. ^_-
On the Sorcerer vs Wizard debate. I think the sorcerer's UMD ability doesn't give him close to any versatility the wizard achieves. Assuming standard wealth (or even broke-ass wealth), a wizard will have a massive spellbook by level 10 (for argument's sake).
At this level most wizards will have a very high INT, which means they can cast a lot of spells. Very close to the amount that a sorcerer can, as posted above by Stéphane Le Roux. This means they have most of their daily spells in combat spells, but also some versatility included, to improve this they have a bonded item optionally that allows them to cast any of their spells once per day on the fly.
A sorcerer cannot choose utility spells for his known spells, unless it's super useful. I can't really think of one now. So anyway, he needs to use scrolls, and this is where the wizard trumps him. You can't pay 1125gp (5th level spell) every time you want to teleport or cast whatever utility spell you want. It just becomes too expensive for a sorcerer to try and keep up with a wizard.
Well, for my groups it usually a dynamic scale based on the encounters but, usually it boils down like thus...
High Level Game:
1. Wizard, Rogue, Cleric
2. Fighters, Barbarian, Ranger, Sorcerer
Mid Level Game:
1. Cleric, Fighter, Ranger
2. Barbarian, Wizard, Rogue
I must say though, both groups tend to run in Gun Teams. Heck, in the high level game I give them a situational bonus if they are within 10' of each other of +1 Int, +1 AC, +1 To Hit because they have worked together for 17+ levels in some cases!
I think that any class caught alone is in beeg trouble in most games as you just can't handle everything that comes at you.
Now, which TWO classes do you think work the best together?
Cleric / Fighter in my book.
Discuss!
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~
11. Druid - Kings of the woods and fields, not so hot in urban or dungeon settings. Also only class not to get significant powerup in PF, in my opinion. You can even argue they have decreased in power, since Summon Nature's Ally was chopped in power. 1-not true about the cleric being needed. A party can survive without a cleric, but the party has to play smart. You dont have a druid last do you, really? The animal companion is probably more useful than a monk.
I agree with you that the cleric may not be absolutely essential, if you have enough money to buy lots of potions and heal wands, or just don't have much challenging combat, or always get unliited rest between encounters, but assuming you will have several challenging encounters per day, and potions and wands of CLW aren't widely and inexpensively available, yeah, I think you need one.
Regarding animal companions, my experience is that they die quickly and often, due to relatively low AC and saves. In some campaigns I've been involved in, the druid refused to keep summoning new animal companions, because it was like giving them a death sentence.
My major point though is that, in outdoors, natural settings, druids rock and would move way up the list, top 5 at least, and probably top 3. However, in dungeon or urban settings, not so much. This lack of versatility puts them at the bottom for me.
|
My major point though is that, in outdoors, natural settings, druids rock and would move way up the list, top 5 at least, and probably top 3. However, in dungeon or urban settings, not so much. This lack of versatility puts them at the bottom for me.
From 6th level and up a druid can really rock an urban or dungeon setting. As a (Small) Earth Elemental.
Then there are the summoning spells, the spells that have to deal with earth and stone, and the Nature Bond. Then there are the spells that deal damage over a course of round(via melee), like produce flame and flame blade. Just not seeing a lack of versatility here.
My major point though is that, in outdoors, natural settings, druids rock and would move way up the list, top 5 at least, and probably top 3. However, in dungeon or urban settings, not so much. This lack of versatility puts them at the bottom for me.From 6th level and up a druid can really rock an urban or dungeon setting. As a (Small) Earth Elemental.
Then there are the summoning spells, the spells that have to deal with earth and stone, and the Nature Bond. Then there are the spells that deal damage over a course of round(via melee), like produce flame and flame blade. Just not seeing a lack of versatility here.
Obviously lots of things they still can do, and I would never say a druid is useless in the city or the dungeon. My only point is that many of their abilities and spells are specifically designed for the wilderness, and outside that environment they aren't as powerful. That's why I dropped them to the bottom of my list, because the full range of their powers is more setting dependent than other classes.
Well, for my groups it usually a dynamic scale based on the encounters but, usually it boils down like thus...
High Level Game:
1. Wizard, Rogue, Cleric
2. Fighters, Barbarian, Ranger, SorcererMid Level Game:
1. Cleric, Fighter, Ranger
2. Barbarian, Wizard, RogueI must say though, both groups tend to run in Gun Teams. Heck, in the high level game I give them a situational bonus if they are within 10' of each other of +1 Int, +1 AC, +1 To Hit because they have worked together for 17+ levels in some cases!
I think that any class caught alone is in beeg trouble in most games as you just can't handle everything that comes at you.
Now, which TWO classes do you think work the best together?
Cleric / Fighter in my book.Discuss!
Have Fun out there!!
~ W ~
I speak from almost zero experience, but I'm presently playing a sorcerer, and I'm very excited by the opportunities presented by sorcerer / rogue. Since I can only know so many spells, if I collect a few things that create constant opportunities for my friend to do sneak attack damage, well... I don't know if it works out to the most effect numerically, but it sure is fun to watch.
Or just toss the dog a sausage that's been dipped in Taggit Oil ;pPeople talk an awful lot about how a sleep spell can defeat a low-level party. For what it's worth, that's true. But sleep is also useful to a mid to high level party.
Assume you need to sneak past a guard dog at night. The guard dog is, itself, easy to defeat in battle, but if it starks barking, it'll bring guards to the area and you are trying to avoid attention. If you cast color spray, the dark will light up in cascading tie-die colors which will also bring the guards to the area. So, you cast sleep.I believe a well-trained guard dog will only eat food from it's master.
A similar scenario is when you need to break into a building such as the royal hall of records without killing the low-level scribe.
Stealth + cosh for nonlethal sneak attack :D
11. Druid - Kings of the woods and fields, not so hot in urban or dungeon settings. Also only class not to get significant powerup in PF, in my opinion. You can even argue they have decreased in power, since Summon Nature's Ally was chopped in power.1-not true about the cleric being needed. A party can survive without a cleric, but the party has to play smart. You dont have a druid last do you, really? The animal companion is probably more useful than a monk.
I agree with you that the cleric may not be absolutely essential, if you have enough money to buy lots of potions and heal wands, or just don't have much challenging combat, or always get unliited rest between encounters, but assuming you will have several challenging encounters per day, and potions and wands of CLW aren't widely and inexpensively available, yeah, I think you need one.
Regarding animal companions, my experience is that they die quickly and often, due to relatively low AC and saves. In some campaigns I've been involved in, the druid refused to keep summoning new animal companions, because it was like giving them a death sentence.
My major point though is that, in outdoors, natural settings, druids rock and would move way up the list, top 5 at least, and probably top 3. However, in dungeon or urban settings, not so much. This lack of versatility puts them at the bottom for me.
The animal companion should not die quickly. The big cats can give some party members a run for their money, and the less useful ones should be getting targeted if they are not doing much. They tend to have good will saves, and later get evasion. I dont see how they are dying a lot.
My only point is that many of their abilities and spells are specifically designed for the wilderness, and outside that environment they aren't as powerful. That's why I dropped them to the bottom of my list, because the full range of their powers is more setting dependent than other classes.
There are not many spells that require plants, other than entangle. You might want to elaborate on this one.
My only point is that many of their abilities and spells are specifically designed for the wilderness, and outside that environment they aren't as powerful. That's why I dropped them to the bottom of my list, because the full range of their powers is more setting dependent than other classes.There are not many spells that require plants, other than entangle. You might want to elaborate on this one.
Sorry,don't have access to my rulebooks right now, so can't go through point by point and find all the spells and powers that work better in the wilderness than the city or the dungeon, but I am pretty sure that it is more than just a couple.
I can say that whenever one of my players is playing a druid character, they always hate going into the city or on a dungeon delve, as they feel limited. That may just be their lack of imagination as a player, but I doubt it.
As to the animal companions, I agree with you that they can be survivable if played conservatively, as they should be. However, too many players just throw them into melee with the tanks, and they get chopped up pretty quickly, in my experience. YMMV.
My only point is that many of their abilities and spells are specifically designed for the wilderness, and outside that environment they aren't as powerful. That's why I dropped them to the bottom of my list, because the full range of their powers is more setting dependent than other classes.There are not many spells that require plants, other than entangle. You might want to elaborate on this one.Sorry,don't have access to my rulebooks right now, so can't go through point by point and find all the spells and powers that work better in the wilderness than the city or the dungeon, but I am pretty sure that it is more than just a couple.
I can say that whenever one of my players is playing a druid character, they always hate going into the city or on a dungeon delve, as they feel limited. That may just be their lack of imagination as a player, but I doubt it.
As to the animal companions, I agree with you that they can be survivable if played conservatively, as they should be. However, too many players just throw them into melee with the tanks, and they get chopped up pretty quickly, in my experience. YMMV.
I am playing a druid in Council of Thieves, an urban setting, that is how I know. I am currently the MVP, even when we had a paladin in the group. We now have a cleric, the druid is still more useful. The only time I was #2 in overall effectiveness was when the sorcerer was in the group.
Edit: If the companion is dying due to bad tactics that is a fault of the player not the class. To fault the class for that is like saying a sorcerer or wizard is a bad class because a player blows all his/her spells when the battle is well in hand, leaving them useless for the difficult encounters.
My only point is that many of their abilities and spells are specifically designed for the wilderness, and outside that environment they aren't as powerful. That's why I dropped them to the bottom of my list, because the full range of their powers is more setting dependent than other classes.There are not many spells that require plants, other than entangle. You might want to elaborate on this one.Sorry,don't have access to my rulebooks right now, so can't go through point by point and find all the spells and powers that work better in the wilderness than the city or the dungeon, but I am pretty sure that it is more than just a couple.
I can say that whenever one of my players is playing a druid character, they always hate going into the city or on a dungeon delve, as they feel limited. That may just be their lack of imagination as a player, but I doubt it.
As to the animal companions, I agree with you that they can be survivable if played conservatively, as they should be. However, too many players just throw them into melee with the tanks, and they get chopped up pretty quickly, in my experience. YMMV.
I am playing a druid in Council of Thieves, an urban setting, that is how I know. I am currently the MVP, even when we had a paladin in the group. We now have a cleric, the druid is still more useful. The only time I was #2 in overall effectiveness was when the sorcerer was in the group.
Edit: If the companion is dying due to bad tactics that is a fault of the player not the class. To fault the class for that is like saying a sorcerer or wizard is a bad class because a player blows all his/her spells when the battle is well in hand, leaving them useless for the difficult encounters.
Glad you're rocking out as an urban druid. It can be done. Just a bit more of a challenge than in a rural setting. You've met that challenge and are to be congratulated for it. I agree with you completely that in the hands of a very good player a druid can succeed anywhere. I would and have (if you look at my caveats before my original post) extended that same argument to all the character classes. My totally subjective (by definition) rankings are based on the assumption of a wide variety of players, from experienced superstars to average joes to out and out newbies. In my opinion the relatively small power differences between the different classes manifest most plainly in the hands of average or inexperienced players, who don't have the time/inclination/experience to really make the most of their character. Those people get to play the game, too.
