I'm Sick of Power Tier Class Discussions. Here's Why.

[Neal Litherland]

Something I've more or less stayed out of when it comes to Pathfinder (and most RPGs) is the discussion of the power tier; which classes are inherently more powerful than others. Mostly it's because I feel there is no right answer. However, I felt compelled to put my thoughts on the subject down, and you can find them this week at Crit Confirm.

Power Tier Arguments in Pathfinder

[DM_Blake]

As the ultimate uber-tier creature of all time, I C H O M P ! ! ! on your weak-willed, soft-skinned, anti-tier sentiment!

[Anzyr]

I recommend you actually read the tier list. Your arguments don't even come close to addressing it at all.

[Orfamay Quest]

Your argument against tiers would be more compelling if there were any indication you actually understood what tiers mean.

[BigDTBone]

You have entirely missed the point of the tier system. Like utterly and totally.

People who use the tier system use it as a tool to determine the relative narrative power of a class. It just so happens that prepared-full casters come out on top. Most folks who advocate for the use of the teir system WANT to see class power moved toward tier 3.

It is merely an assessment tool, not an optimizers tool.

You have fallen into the standard fallacy of this discussion that so many others have before you. You confuse game analysis with player optimization. The fact that you introduce the article here by saying, "I don't read these arguments so I in no way have a nuanced view of the topic I'm about to spout off about," didn't help either.

Edit: Ninjas.

[Petty Alchemy]

Yup, from the first paragraph it seems you think RPG game tiers are like fighting game tiers.

I'm getting a sense of deja vu here.

[Iammars]

This link explains the tiers better than the one you linked.

[Petty Alchemy]

Here's another that's more general and not strictly tied to RPGs.

[Koshimo]

I completely agree with you

I can't stand playing casters because i always am worried about running out of resources where as a fighter i can stand there and hack all day as long as i have HP

[wraithstrike]

I see we have another person complaining about tiers who does not understand them. Go do some more research and rewrite that article. <--not being mean, just not worthy my time to explain again when these complaints come up.

[Michael Sayre]

BigDTBone wrote:

You have entirely missed the point of the tier system. Like utterly and totally.

People who use the tier system use it as a tool to determine the relative narrative power of a class. It just so happens that prepared-full casters come out on top. Most folks who advocate for the use of the teir system WANT to see class power moved toward tier 3.

It is merely an assessment tool, not an optimizers tool.

You have fallen into the standard fallacy of this discussion that so many others have before you. You confuse game analysis with player optimization. The fact that you introduce the article here by saying, "I don't read these arguments so I in no way have a nuanced view of the topic I'm about to spout off about," didn't help either.

Edit: Ninjas.

This is probably the best worded response that accurately reflects my opinion as well.

There are two issues with Tier discussions:

The first is that most people don't actually understand what tiers are gauging. Tiers are a measure of a class' innate narrative capability, its ability to influence the story. The Wizard is considered Tier 1 because he has virtually limitless options for affecting the story, whereas the Fighter is generally considered Tier 4/5 because his only innate tool for affecting the story is to hit things and take hits. The Wizard can completely change an encounter, the Fighter basically follows the rails.

The second issue is generally found on the side of people who usually reference or support the tier system. Tier is a linear guage of narrative capability that doesn't account for GM influence, playstyle, or niche protection. You can't just say "Class X is a Tier 3, therefore it doesn't matter how much XYZ it has/can do, because it's not Tier 1". That's ignorant. An accurate gauge of a class requires you to look at it more like an XY axis, where Tier is only X and Y is individual performance in relevant categories, and even then you're just discussing the class' potential, not its average performance when system mastery is taken into account. For example, some of the worst characters I've seen in play have been Wizards; that doesn't mean the class' potential is any less, it just means that those players didn't have the system mastery required to draw out its potential. Some of the best characters I've seen have been Fighters, where the players knew how to find and leverage their options and play to the class' best potential. Again, that doesn't mean the class' potential changed, just that the player was able to make the most of it.

Ultimately, the Tier system can be a useful tool for designers, GMs, and even players, assuming it's properly understood and able to be used in context.

[Dave Justus]

It would seem to me that if you are tired of power tier class discussions, you would have greater success in achieving your goals by not starting one.

Also, as implied above, you have successfully defeated the straw men you set up. Congratulations.

[Chess Pwn]

Wow, Just read your article and I'm amazed! Amazed at how wrong you got everything. First you didn't address that summoning can handle the job of meatwall for spellcasters. Second the only impression I got was that the Wizard is awesome and can do everything often better than classes you'd think were supposed to be good at something, and that their "Weakness" was only have lots of spells a day instead of infinite. Maybe if you had actually supported your view that a fighter is just as equal to a wizard it'd have been better. Like "As a player how often have you run into obstacles that you just can’t overcome as a fighter?" and explained somehow that it's equal to the number of times the wizard was stuck. Or explained the fighter's Achilles’ Heel. Like with all your talk of wizards you left out talk of non-magic and how it's equal in abilities with the magic.

Here's a quick sketch of what tiers mean

At lv1 what can a fighter do that a wizard/other spellcaster can't?
at lv5 what can a fighter do that a wizard/other spellcaster can't?
At lv15 what can a fighter do that a wizard/other spellcaster can't?
at lv20 what can a fighter do that a wizard/other spellcaster can't?
at lv20 what can a fighter do that a lv1 fighter can't?

All the fighter has is fight stuff and a few skills, often without the stats to back up those skills. Even at lv20 the fighter really doesn't do anymore more than it did at lv1.

The wizard/spellcaster can do much more, often they have more and are better at skills. Then they have magic to almost anything they want. And that power only grows as they level. Need to travel to the next continent? A fighter has to travel somehow and take days/weeks/months to do it. A wizard can potentially be there in 6 seconds.

Quote:

If you want to see something truly brag-worthy, ask about the insane feats a wizard can accomplish when it works. When the ogre fails it's save and is dominated by the wizard, or transported to the plane of fire, or turned to stone each in just one turn. Or the wizard scry's on the hostages and treasure and teleports to get both while avoiding the ogre. But for a more traditional story, the wizard's summoned creatures draws the ogre’s attention, the wizard buffs himself, and the wizard's summoned creatures flanks with the now-buffed wizard the results are going to be swift, messy, and a story worthy of telling back at the tavern after you rescue the hostages and sack the beast’s treasure horde.

[Orfamay Quest]

Ssalarn wrote:

The first is that most people don't actually understand what tiers are gauging. Tiers are a measure of a class' innate narrative capability, its ability to influence the story. The Wizard is considered Tier 1 because he has virtually limitless options for affecting the story, whereas the Fighter is generally considered Tier 4/5 because his only innate tool for affecting the story is to hit things and take hits. The Wizard can completely change an encounter, the Fighter basically follows the rails.

This.

A cleric is tier 1 not because he can kill things with his mind; from a narrative standpoint, killing things with your mind is no different than killing them with a sword. Someone's now dead, move on with it.

A cleric is tier 1 because he can easily disrupt an entire adventure. You want to run a mystery? "I use speak with dead to figure out who the guilty party is." You want to run a travel adventure? "I get a planar ally to teleport me to Mt. Doom." Heck, a lost-in-the-desert survival adventure is much easier (pointlessly so) with create food and water and find the path.

A fighter is tier 4 because he generally has to follow the adventure as scripted; he isn't granted encounter-skipping powers.

[Neal Litherland]

Seems I finally found something that unites everyone in common cause.

I'm not disagreeing with anything folks have said here. However, I wanted to remark on something I find interesting. The entire discussion here, on this forum, seems to be about how power tiers are expressly for narrative power. Meanwhile over on the FB forum there is a gnashing of teeth that narrative power would be associated with power tiers, because, to paraphrase and make polite, narrative power is something that's harder to quantify.

Again, not disagreeing with anything that's been said. I just find it interesting that the exact same article can have drastically different responses depending on which community I drop it in.

[Orfamay Quest]

Neal Litherland wrote:

The entire discussion here, on this forum, seems to be about how power tiers are expressly for narrative power. Meanwhile over on the FB forum there is a gnashing of teeth that narrative power would be associated with power tiers, because, to paraphrase and make polite, narrative power is something that's harder to quantify.

Shrug. So the FB forum doesn't understand tiers any more than you do.

[BigDTBone]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Neal Litherland wrote:

The entire discussion here, on this forum, seems to be about how power tiers are expressly for narrative power. Meanwhile over on the FB forum there is a gnashing of teeth that narrative power would be associated with power tiers, because, to paraphrase and make polite, narrative power is something that's harder to quantify.

Shrug. So the FB forum doesn't understand tiers any more than you do.

Pretty much this.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Folks, I believe the reason he (or should I say, he and all of us for whom he speaks) doesn't bother to delve into the details of this structure is for the same reason he, as he says, usually walks past the issue: He walks away early on because he sees a foundational flaw in the whole proposition that puts the kibosh on all the details that come afterward. What we do see, however, is a strangulation of the game by this needlessly imposed order that leads to fewer things being possible rather than more - where once a person can come up with some novel idea and expect it to be appreciated and tried, it becomes everyone shouting the idea down with the foregone conclusion that it won't work because "the so-and-so system PROVES that X is superior to Y, therefore your idea is broken/unfair/lame/doesn't make sense/double-plus unfun." These games should be all about increasing people's mental agility, but these structures do just the opposite, shoving people into tunnel vision like worms burying into cheese and forgetting what it looks like on the surface, so, to continue the metaphor, you've got all these cheese-worms shouting at each other that their tunnel is the only real one, when those of us who haven't committed to burrowing see that everyone's just stuck in their own pits - but of course, the one thing the burrowers can agree on is that that guy's clueless.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is called insane when he speaks of colors.

[Chess Pwn]

Neal Litherland wrote:

Seems I finally found something that unites everyone in common cause.

I'm not disagreeing with anything folks have said here. However, I wanted to remark on something I find interesting. The entire discussion here, on this forum, seems to be about how power tiers are expressly for narrative power. Meanwhile over on the FB forum there is a gnashing of teeth that narrative power would be associated with power tiers, because, to paraphrase and make polite, narrative power is something that's harder to quantify.

Again, not disagreeing with anything that's been said. I just find it interesting that the exact same article can have drastically different responses depending on which community I drop it in.

Even still power tiers are tied pretty strongly with narrative tiers.

You have a fight.
What's the fighter's options with dealing with it?
Hit it or shoot it until it stops moving, taking many turns

What's the Wizard's options?
Put it to sleep, knock it out, make it my friend, make it my mind slave, Summon things to fight for me, teleport for reinforcements and come back on better terms, Shoot fireballs from 500ft in the sky, use the zombie you made of the last thing you killed to fight it, Turn it to stone, transport it to a different dimension, etc... Many of these option have the power to win with one spell in [b]one turn[b/]. And the wizard can win in one turn as soon as lv1. And without magic the fighter is limited to his HP, so a lone wizard can do many more fights in a day than a fighter because the fighter takes longer, which means he takes more damage per fight. While the wizard wins with a spell or two and can do that as long as he has spells, which will often last longer than the fighter's HP would last.

[Petty Alchemy]

IHIYC, I love you, but doesn't it seem weird to talk about skipping the details of a conversation and saying others have tunnel vision?

[Orfamay Quest]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Folks, I believe the reason he (or should I say, he and all of us for whom he speaks) doesn't bother to delve into the details of this structure is for the same reason he, as he says, usually walks past the issue: He walks away early on because he sees a foundational flaw in the whole proposition that puts the kibosh on all the details that come afterward.

Well, him seeing what isn't there is not my problem.

Some people prefer high-powered games, some people prefer low-powered ones. Similarly, some people prefer games with lots of narrative autonomy for the characters, and some people prefer games with rails. (And those two divisions are not the same groups of people, either.)

If you want lots of narrative autonomy, pick a low-numbered tier. Most people seem to want that, because it's fun to be the hero and it's fun to be able to do things. Most people don't like sitting around feeling useless, which is why "Waiting for Godot: The RPG" didn't sell very well.

[Chess Pwn]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Folks, I believe the reason he (or should I say, he and all of us for whom he speaks) doesn't bother to delve into the details of this structure is for the same reason he, as he says, usually walks past the issue: He walks away early on because he sees a foundational flaw in the whole proposition that puts the kibosh on all the details that come afterward. What we do see, however, is a strangulation of the game by this needlessly imposed order that leads to fewer things being possible rather than more - where once a person can come up with some novel idea and expect it to be appreciated and tried, it becomes everyone shouting the idea down with the foregone conclusion that it won't work because "the so-and-so system PROVES that X is superior to Y, therefore your idea is broken/unfair/lame/doesn't make sense/double-plus unfun." These games should be all about increasing people's mental agility, but these structures do just the opposite, shoving people into tunnel vision like worms burying into cheese and forgetting what it looks like on the surface, so, to continue the metaphor, you've got all these cheese-worms shouting at each other that their tunnel is the only real one, when those of us who haven't committed to burrowing see that everyone's just stuck in their own pits - but of course, the one thing the burrowers can agree on is that that guy's clueless.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is called insane when he speaks of colors.

If it's so clear to you what's going on can you give a solid example of what you wished happened and how "tiers" ruin that?

Or point out what exactly the "foundational flaw in the whole proposition" is?
I fail to see what you're proposing or what view you're trying to put forth.

[BigDTBone]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Folks, I believe the reason he (or should I say, he and all of us for whom he speaks) doesn't bother to delve into the details of this structure is for the same reason he, as he says, usually walks past the issue: He walks away early on because he sees a foundational flaw in the whole proposition that puts the kibosh on all the details that come afterward. What we do see, however, is a strangulation of the game by this needlessly imposed order that leads to fewer things being possible rather than more - where once a person can come up with some novel idea and expect it to be appreciated and tried, it becomes everyone shouting the idea down with the foregone conclusion that it won't work because "the so-and-so system PROVES that X is superior to Y, therefore your idea is broken/unfair/lame/doesn't make sense/double-plus unfun." These games should be all about increasing people's mental agility, but these structures do just the opposite, shoving people into tunnel vision like worms burying into cheese and forgetting what it looks like on the surface, so, to continue the metaphor, you've got all these cheese-worms shouting at each other that their tunnel is the only real one, when those of us who haven't committed to burrowing see that everyone's just stuck in their own pits - but of course, the one thing the burrowers can agree on is that that guy's clueless.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is called insane when he speaks of colors.

All you have done is indicate that you have fallen into the fallacy of this topic as well. You openly admit at the top of your post that you made up your mind about tiers before fully understanding the topic. You then defeat your straw-man.

Nothing you discuss has anything to do with tiers. It's the same as listening to people say, "Obama's a Muslim!" or "We should invade Iraq! Dont you remember how you felt on 9-11?"

[Mighty Glacier]

Tier system is a tool. Tools aren't bad if they are used correctly.

[BigDTBone]

Mighty Glacier wrote:

Tier system is a tool. Tools aren't bad if they are used correctly.

What do you mean that a leatherman is more versatile than a hammer? This one time I needed to drive a nail and I had followed all the char-op boards so all I had was a leatherman. Completely worthless. Leatherman tools suck, and char-op is always wrong because they dis on hammers so hard.

[Rynjin]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Folks, I believe the reason he (or should I say, he and all of us for whom he speaks) doesn't bother to delve into the details of this structure is for the same reason he, as he says, usually walks past the issue: He walks away early on because he sees a foundational flaw in the whole proposition that puts the kibosh on all the details that come afterward. What we do see, however, is a strangulation of the game by this needlessly imposed order that leads to fewer things being possible rather than more - where once a person can come up with some novel idea and expect it to be appreciated and tried, it becomes everyone shouting the idea down with the foregone conclusion that it won't work because "the so-and-so system PROVES that X is superior to Y, therefore your idea is broken/unfair/lame/doesn't make sense/double-plus unfun." These games should be all about increasing people's mental agility, but these structures do just the opposite, shoving people into tunnel vision like worms burying into cheese and forgetting what it looks like on the surface, so, to continue the metaphor, you've got all these cheese-worms shouting at each other that their tunnel is the only real one, when those of us who haven't committed to burrowing see that everyone's just stuck in their own pits - but of course, the one thing the burrowers can agree on is that that guy's clueless.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is called insane when he speaks of colors.

I should know by now to write you off as a really bad t-, sorry, "agitator", but I have some time to kill.

1.) How do you see a "foundational flaw" in something you have clearly barely even GLANCED AT, much less understand on a fundamental level. This is like me reading part of my middle school Physics textbook and, armed with that knowledge, going to tell the general physicist community that everything they're doing is fundamentally flawed, and they should change it now.

Not to draw parallels between this scenario and your post, but that would make me look pretty f~*$ing stupid, don't you think?

2.) And here is where you clearly show that, yes, the details matter. Because literally none of what you said applies to the tier system in question. It in no way restricts ideas. It categorizes things that exist. That is all it does.

Wizard can do a whole lotta stuff, so it goes in tier 1. Fighter can do a small amount of stuff, so it goes in Tier 4. Alchemist can do a lotta stuff, but less than some other classes, so it goes in tier 3.

This in no way limits future design any more than taking various knives and categorizing them by how many tools they have limits future design of said knives.

This Swiss Army knife has 20 tools in it, so it goes in tier 1. This one is just a steak knife, so it goes in tier 4. This one has 10 tools, so it goes in tier 3.

Here's the thing: It is not at all a measure of how WELL DESIGNED a class is.

The Wizard may be Tier 1, but that does not make it the best designed class. The knife may have 20 tools, but damn are they cumbersome to unfold. Likewise Slayer may be tier 4-ish, but that doesn't make it poorly designed. Maybe it is just a chef's knife or something, but it's really freakin' sharp and made of stainless steel, so it fulfills its job admirably.

It doesn't restrict design because it doesn't pass judgement on whether the design is good or bad, or even how well it fulfills its given role, but what it can potentially do.

This can be seen clearly by looking at the fact that many of the classes most people agree are the best designed (Inquisitor, Alchemist, Barbarian, Paladin, etc.) fall into tiers 3 and 4.

Low tier is not necessarily bad, high tier is not necessarily good, and vice versa.

There is no tunnel vision involved except by people like you who have some irrational hatred of classifying things. Anybody who has ever worked in any business EVER knows the value of categorizing things. It has nothing to do with "reducing mental agility" or whatever utter bullshit you want to try and insult it with, it just makes things easier to find.

"I want a PC or BBEG who is very flexible, and can do whatever I need him to do that day instead of being super specialized or locked into some option". You want a tier 1 class. You may not use the words "tier 1" but regardless, you are subconsciously sorting out any class that doesn't fill that goal.

"I want a PC or BBEG who is REALLY good at just one thing." you want a tier 4 class.

That is literally all this is.

Make as many snide (and frankly ironic) comments on people's intelligence and "blindness" as you want, it won't change the fact that you're scoffing at the RPG equivalent of a Sears page that lets you sort knives by how many tools they have.

[Neal Litherland]

Just wanted to let folks know that, in light of comments left, edits have been made. Hopefully the editor's note at the beginning of the piece now provides the proper information everyone has wanted included, and clarifies the point the article was shooting for.

To those who were helpful and polite, thank you. To those who were abrasive but helpful, I suppose I'll say thanks to you as well.

[Covent]

Neal Litherland wrote:

Just wanted to let folks know that, in light of comments left, edits have been made. Hopefully the editor's note at the beginning of the piece now provides the proper information everyone has wanted included, and clarifies the point the article was shooting for.

To those who were helpful and polite, thank you. To those who were abrasive but helpful, I suppose I'll say thanks to you as well.

Mr. Litherland,

Please understand that even with the new disclaimer I and I believe many others find your statements representative of someone that is either uninformed, willfully ignorant, or playing a Pathfinder game so house ruled that it might as well be a different game.

One of the problems seems to be you have some serious biases about what makes a caster as a weak, needs to cast every round individual.

Please remember that clerics, battle oracles, druids and even bards are all basically (martial +).

A party of Druid, cleric, bard, arcanist would fair much better usually than a party that includes any non-barbarian martial even at level one.

The only reason a barbarian is even considered is that rage powers such as elemental blooded and spell sunder make him a pseudo caster.

The "team game" you refer to is more easily played and survived as a caster too.

That means in both narrative and raw numbers power casters will usually outperform.

In short your article shows a fundamental error.

I do not mean to be cruel or disparaging but I feel the best help I can offer to someone like you who is obviously capable enough to get published is an honest critique with my whole opinion.

I have to admit that this article and also the "I was talking about other power tiers" edit, will cause me to check for your name before buying a product and if I see it think twice. It is my opinion that thinking like this is what brought us things where the product is fluffed well but due to lack of system understanding or willful ignorance the crunch is weak or incoherent.

Yet again please understand I am trying to help not attack you and my best wishes.

[Seerow]

Neal Litherland wrote:

Just wanted to let folks know that, in light of comments left, edits have been made. Hopefully the editor's note at the beginning of the piece now provides the proper information everyone has wanted included, and clarifies the point the article was shooting for.

To those who were helpful and polite, thank you. To those who were abrasive but helpful, I suppose I'll say thanks to you as well.

Your editors note basically just makes your entire article worthless.

"I hate discussion of power tiers, and I'm going to tell you why tiers are useless by arguing against a definition that nobody else who talks about tiers actually uses"

Like someone else said, you did a great job of knocking down the straw man you set up. Unfortunately for you, nobody cares.

[Blackwaltzomega]

Tiers are a tool. They can be used well or badly, but something I'm a little surprised by is how many people seem to consider them a tool for players rather than GMs.

For the most part, it is not an enormous concern to the players how many options to change how the game is played each member of the party has as long as everyone feels like they're contributing. It is a gigantic concern to the GM that is going to need to figure out how to keep everyone in a party that might have wildly varying abilities to react to his or her actions feeling engaged, useful, and challenged.

Tiers, for example, have strongly informed the kind of plots I can write when I GM. In parties that are mostly things like a rogue, a fighter, a ranger, and a paladin, you can rely on the fact that distance concerns are solved with traveling on the over world and all the risk and opportunity that brings to put important NPCs and side quests in the path, and random encounters and bad weather to keep things spiced up. Infiltrating the BBEG's castle is a tense stealth-based mission that requires some good skill rolls and outside-the-box thinking, or a brazen as hell effort to kick down the door and carve through those guards. A murder mystery's going to take some extensive sleuthing and some well-applied skills to find the killer.

You have to realize a number of these assumptions go out the window when classes of a higher tier enter the game, and can not only play it well but at the highest level change the rules. Mysterious enemies aren't so mysterious when a fallen minion can spill his guts from beyond the grave, and a murderer had best hope he rendered his victim incapable of blabbing about him when he killed them if he wants there to be a mystery to catch him. Evil movers and shakers would do well to live somewhere it's hard to scry on or teleport to if they want to plan in peace. An enemy that lives a million miles away from the heroes still isn't that safe if they can teleport, and big magic users can use divination or directly ask outer beings and gods for information while the rogue has to hope he passed his perception/knowledge check at every single clue and thought to write it down at the time.

It's not about raw power. It's about changing the way the game plays.

Also, not to be rude, but:

Quote:

Let’s flip it around now. As a player how often have you run into obstacles that you just can’t overcome as a spellcaster? How often have you walked into a combat only to find a construct like a golem or enemies like undead or plants that your most powerful spells won’t have an effect on? How many times have you played a draconic sorcerer, only to constantly fight enemies who either took 10 points off your fire damage, or who were immune to it entirely? What do you do when your enemy is hiding from you, but has no magic items or spells on his person that you could detect in order to locate him? Or, for those who have reached the highest levels of adventure, how often do you run into anti-magic zones or enemies with high enough spell resistance that at least one in four of your spells fails to penetrate?

You seem to be operating on the assumption all full-casters are blasters. Many aren't. That Golem's going to feel mighty stupid when its magic immunity doesn't prevent a magic-user from just dropping it in a pit and summoning monsters to harry it. A lot of casters don't care that their enemies have energy resistances and the like, they toss out something that cripples their ability to fight back and let their summoned monsters or martial teammates take care of it; they have still solved the encounter, but blasting's typically a secondary thing for mages unless you're really building for it.

A non-monstrous enemy that has no magic items or spells on him has another name at higher levels. It's "not a threat." And most monstrous enemies aren't hiders. Typically if your enemy has no magic arms or armor or items and you do, he's going to gargle his own teeth in the first round of combat because masterwork swords stopped being scary quite some time ago and his saves, AC, and so on are going to be pitiful compared to the party's.

Spell Resistance would be a better idea if Paizo didn't moronically keep on printing excellent save-or-sucks that completely ignore it's there, leading back to the problem of dropping a magic-immune golem into a pit or soaking it in acid. It mostly serves to gank blaster-casters, who are already one of the only full-casters that are playing the game the same way the rest of the party are. Anti-magic zones work all right, but it is an irritation that while it's baked into some classes, mostly melee fighters, that there are things you've got no chance against (even at high levels, swarms are an implausibly potent threat against melee fighters, flying completely ignores melee combat, etc.) while with magic-using classes putting them up against things they can't react to often requires something that feels very much like a heavy-handed GM saying "No, you don't have a spell for this one, OK?!" when it's used.

[Metal Sonic]

Anyone have the """"""official"""""" tier list of the Pathfinder?

[Seranov]

So people have already given pretty much every criticism I intended to give, so I'll just reiterate the main point:

The discussion of tiers is beneficial to the game as a whole, for a large number of reasons. If you don't like them, that's fine, but nobody is going to stop doing something you don't like just because you don't understand it.

Metal Sonic wrote:

Anyone have the """"""official"""""" tier list of the Pathfinder?

It changes so often that I doubt it's really worth worrying about an "official" one.

Pretty much it goes (obviously with some exceptions):

T1 - prepared full caster
T2 - spontaneous full caster
T3 - PoW initiator or partial (prepared or spontaneous) caster
T4 - strong, focused martial
T5 - unfocused martial
T6 - Vow of Poverty Monk

[wraithstrike]

Metal Sonic wrote:

Anyone have the """"""official"""""" tier list of the Pathfinder?

I feel like there is hidden snark so to avoid any potential moving goalpost→→→ what exactly are you trying to say?

[Snowblind]

Metal Sonic wrote:

Anyone have the """"""official"""""" tier list of the Pathfinder?

I have seen this one come up a few times.

Seranov basically has it right though.

[Liz Courts]

Locking thread. If you're interested in having this discussion again, please try again with a bit more civility.