Oh god, this is going to get ugly fast.
My impressions are that Summoner and Witch are tier 1. The hexes that witches get can be extremely useful. And the eidolon + battlefield control spells is very potent.
As far as I could gather, the idea of tiers was never about raw power. It was about versatility in application of their power and the ability to meet diverse challenges.
A wizard can readily adapt and alter to face any challenge (barring bizarro wizard-hating scenarios).
Clerics and druids are similarly capable and can have a go at martial combat as well.
Sorcerers and oracles, depending on build, are focused on solving a limited number of problems and can't adapt to solve unusual problems their spell lists aren't appropriate for.
Most martial classes just hit stuff until they die.
I am not saying I support the tier system or rely on it in any way. This is just to clear up what I think has been a misunderstanding of its original intent.
But then, saying this won't stop people from getting the wrong idea and running away with it.
|
I was searching and couldn't find any class tier discussions that incorporate the APG classes and the Magus... so, why not kick this fascinating subject off again!
I'll go ahead and use Treantmonk's Tier classification from this thread just for the sake of providing some framework:
Tier 1: Wizards. Still the top of the chain. They can't fufill every role as well as 3.5 due to changes in Polymorph, but I think they are still powerful enough to place them at the top of the pyramid.
Tier 2: Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers. Druids have been demoted due to changes in wildshape, while Core Clerics were never tier 1 - it took Divine Metamagic for that tier placement. All remain very powerful classes though.
Tier 3: Paladins, Bards, Rangers. Paladins have to be pushing tier 2, while Rangers didn't get boosted quite as much, but still did well in Pathfinder. Bards are a mixed bag, but certainly deserving of a tier 3 position (in spite of rumors to the contrary)
Tier 4: Rogues, Barbarians, Fighters, Monks (The Monk is arguably Tier 5 - I haven't evaluated it closely enough)
Tier 5 and 6: Nobody.
So where do the rest of the classes fit in?
Alchemist
Antipaladin
Cavalier
Inquisitor
Magus
Oracle
Summoner
Witchand in terms of playtests:
Gunslinger
Ninja
SamuraiThe main reason I want to hear what others think is that I've got a slew of fresh-to-PF players and want to get them up to speed on relative power levels of the classes and how they impact their learning experience of the system. So rather than have them blindly stumble through the the system mastery, just give them a more informed choice in what they end up choosing.
Magus is definately at least tier two. Spell combat does beautiful things w/ action economy, and by using quick draw and a spiked gauntlet, you can still two hand attack enemies. Big damage, good armor, spell caster, and the sheer beauty of casting a wand every round off hand? This is especially glorious for PFS play, where you can easily pick up a wand every adventure.
Magus is definately at least tier two. Spell combat does beautiful things w/ action economy, and by using quick draw and a spiked gauntlet, you can still two...I was searching and couldn't find any class tier discussions that incorporate the APG classes and the Magus... so, why not kick this fascinating subject off again!
I'll go ahead and use Treantmonk's Tier classification from this thread just for the sake of providing some framework:
Tier 1: Wizards. Still the top of the chain. They can't fufill every role as well as 3.5 due to changes in Polymorph, but I think they are still powerful enough to place them at the top of the pyramid.
Tier 2: Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers. Druids have been demoted due to changes in wildshape, while Core Clerics were never tier 1 - it took Divine Metamagic for that tier placement. All remain very powerful classes though.
Tier 3: Paladins, Bards, Rangers. Paladins have to be pushing tier 2, while Rangers didn't get boosted quite as much, but still did well in Pathfinder. Bards are a mixed bag, but certainly deserving of a tier 3 position (in spite of rumors to the contrary)
Tier 4: Rogues, Barbarians, Fighters, Monks (The Monk is arguably Tier 5 - I haven't evaluated it closely enough)
Tier 5 and 6: Nobody.
So where do the rest of the classes fit in?
Alchemist
Antipaladin
Cavalier
Inquisitor
Magus
Oracle
Summoner
Witchand in terms of playtests:
Gunslinger
Ninja
SamuraiThe main reason I want to hear what others think is that I've got a slew of fresh-to-PF players and want to get them up to speed on relative power levels of the classes and how they impact their learning experience of the system. So rather than have them blindly stumble through the the system mastery, just give them a more informed choice in what they end up choosing.
No, no you can't. Spiked Gauntlet is a weapon you have to be wielding. Where does quick draw come in on this? Getting your hand back on the weapon in time? You can't do that cause it's casting a spell.
Magus is definately at least tier two. Spell combat does beautiful things w/ action economy, and by using quick draw and a spiked gauntlet, you can still two...
Bah, Magus is mostly damage with minor in utility/battlefield control: Still Tier 3 easy.
Although, Hexcrafter Magus could be tier 2 as it can do Hexes and spells enhancing variety.
Oracle/Witch = Tier 1
Summoner = Tier between 3 and 2 but I lean them 2 as they are spellcasters and have a eidolon.
Alchemist/Inquisitor = Tier 3 easily.
Cavalier/Gunslinger/Samurai = tier 4
Ninja = Tier 3
I will not rank them in tier; what I will remind is that the tiers are a level of campaign power, not combat power. As was previously stated, it's how you can handle any number of diverse challenges, and those challenges are not limited to monsters.
The best fighter who could kill everything in a single turn would still be tier 3 at best, because regardless of how good he is at killing things, there are so many other things he is not good at.
The example I recall is "there is a fierce dragon in a trapped cave on a snowy cliff far away with many forests, dungeons, and a lake in between; how do you handle this?"
The tier 1 class can, with ease, conquer the entire thing on their own. The tier 3 requires other party members. The tier 6 cannot contribute.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh god, this is going to get ugly fast.
My impressions are that Summoner and Witch are tier 1. The hexes that witches get can be extremely useful. And the eidolon + battlefield control spells is very potent.
This again...
CAN be ready for anything and ARE ready for anything will always be based on build and circumstance...oh nevermind...
(backs out slowly shaking his head)
|
If I was going to rate them on this tier. though I don't really agree with the concept of tiers anyways, but if I was. Then I would rate them this way.
Tier 1: Wizards.
Tier 2: Druids, Clerics, Alchemist, Sorcerers, Oracle, Summoner, Witch
Tier 3: Paladins, Bards, Rangers, Antipaladin, Cavalier, Inquisitor
Tier 4: Rogues, Barbarians, Fighters, Monks
Tier 5 and 6: Nobody.
I haven't really messed with the Magus, Ninja, Gunslinger or Samurai enough yet to have a opinion on them.
CAN be ready for anything and ARE ready for anything will always be based on build and circumstance...oh nevermind...
Sure, but:
While player tactical skill, build quality, and campaign specifics count for something, it's still pretty much a constant that the ranger can handle a wider variety of situations than the fighter.
(Even though, thank Saint Bulmahn, the fighter now at least is usually the dominant character of the two in straight combat.)
I think the assumption is that the full casters can use divinations to plan ahead. If you've scried ahead it's easier to have the right spells. If there were no divinations all the tier 1 classes would probably be knocked down to tier 2 with their spontaneous casting brethren.
Well, not really. Sometimes you just legitimately have some of idea of what to expect when you prepare spells for the day.
You're trapped in a palace in the Elemental Plane of Fire? Maybe your druid should slot a Quench or two.
|
|
CAN be ready for anything and ARE ready for anything will always be based on build and circumstance...oh nevermind...
Sure, but:
While player tactical skill, build quality, and campaign specifics count for something, it's still pretty much a constant that the ranger can handle a wider variety of situations than the fighter.
(Even though, thank Saint Bulmahn, the fighter now at least is usually the dominant character of the two in straight combat.)
What bothers me about the Wizard top tier argument is it is based on the assumption that the Wizard has the right spell memorized at the right time, the right number of times...etc...
As I've always said, the wizard is potentially the most powerful player at the table...while simultaneously being potentially the weakest player at the table, depending on what they memorized vs what they need.
|
|
Most of the time your needs will be rather less obvious when the day begins. You may know you're going to be fighting a red dragon, but how do you know what spells it knows? Well, assuming your GM doesn't just use the example spell list from the bestiary of course.I think the assumption is that the full casters can use divinations to plan ahead. If you've scried ahead it's easier to have the right spells. If there were no divinations all the tier 1 classes would probably be knocked down to tier 2 with their spontaneous casting brethren.Well, not really. Sometimes you just legitimately have some of idea of what to expect when you prepare spells for the day.
You're trapped in a palace in the Elemental Plane of Fire? Maybe your druid should slot a Quench or two.
Also, scry is a single target who gets a will save for minutes per day. It is also something that actually can be detected.
You can know you are fighting a Red Dragon, but not know what you will encounter on the way to the Red Dragon.
And Red Dragons aren't stupid.
Pretty arbitrary but
Alchemist: Tier 2, pushing Tier 1 being able to prepare extracts in 1 minute + scribe spells puts them between spontaneous and a scrying wizard. arguably the best on the fly caster. also its limited spell list keeps it out of tier 1.
Antipaladin: Tier 3 its a reverse paly same tier. (arguable tier 6 due to alignment restriction that you can really only play one in an evil campaign, without some serious RP explantions and aura hiding in a good group)
Cavalier: Tier 5 limitations without decent benefits, archtypes may change this
Inquisitor: Tier 3 with the rest of the melee/casters
Magus: Tier 2 mostly for action economy (without this its Tier 3), 18-20 crit spells, bonus full BAB attack with spellstrike, and shiftable INT to attack/def bonus. and some controllers/utility spells on their list..
Oracle: Tier 2 full caster, good mystery variety, can do a variety of roles including tank, healer, damage and controller. limited spells known keeps it out of Tier 1
Summoner: Tier 3: as much as Eideldon is a can of OMFGBBQSAUCE its use is limited and not easy to change on the fly. Although being a summoning specialist opens up a huge array of utility uses for other summons plus extended duration. But if you compare this to a full arcane caster who can summon the same things and also cast many other spells you understand why its not higher. you could argue Tier 2 based on damage but don't forget damage isn't everything.
Witch: Tier 2 full caster, great curses that don't run out. hybrid spell list is great but misses out on many of the overpowered wiz spells. is strong a strong Tier 2, there is a case for Tier 1 with the Su curses that beat spell immunity.
Gunslinger: Tier 4, depends how you rule on the some of the gun rules, pretty much locked in the ranged realm limiting its situational adatability
Ninja: Tier 4, although better than a rogue, its still a 3/4BAB melee, the Ki abilities while nice are limited being based off CHA. I personally would play one because I think its the best non-casting Charisma Fighter going at the moment.
Samurai: Tier 4, its a fighter with some flavor
Oh god, this is going to get ugly fast.
My impressions are that Summoner and Witch are tier 1. The hexes that witches get can be extremely useful. And the eidolon + battlefield control spells is very potent.
This again...
CAN be ready for anything and ARE ready for anything will always be based on build and circumstance...oh nevermind...
(backs out slowly shaking his head)
I was under a mistaken definition of what tier meant.
|
|
Also, scry is a single target who gets a will save for minutes per day. It is also something that actually can be detected.I mean scry in a general sense for noncombat divinations and divinationoidal effects. Maybe you teleport nearby, unload some prying eyes and extended summons (or dupe some very low wisdom adventurers) and see how it reacts before teleporting out. Maybe you use Legend Lore. Maybe you even use invisibility, silence, and maybe nondetection to sneak up on a minion and charm it. Everyone gossips about the boss, right?
Only if you DM is a pushover.
Read the requirements of Prying eyes, specifically less than one mile, very fragile, must return to give info, also known as leading the enemy right to you.
Look at the time requirements for Legend Lore.
Enemies adapt to your tactics as well.
Feel free to use invisibility and silence, and hopefully you don't trigger an alarm spell or run into something that can see you.
I like to use the APs for examples, and in the APs you will see there are always factors that make what you described only moderately useful. The best of which is simply having a time constraint you are working under.
Incidentally, wizards don't have to prepare everything as spells. They have (technically) limited spell slots (Sorta, wizards have a lot of spell slots), but they do have something else:
Scrolls.
|
|
Incidentally, wizards don't have to prepare everything as spells. They have (technically) limited spell slots (Sorta, wizards have a lot of spell slots), but they do have something else:
Scrolls.
Which
A) Aren't free
B) Have to be retrieved
C) Are at the caster level where they were made
D) Require the ability to see and read the scroll, so don't be invisible in darkness, etc...
Wizards do have a lot of spell slots. And those filled are filled with a spell, regardless of if that spell is useful or not, and those not filled take 15 minutes to fill.
That is down to a minute with the new UM feat, but still far to long to have it available in combat, when you would likely actually need it.
A wizard with the right spells = Win
A wizard with the wrong spells = Fail
What bothers me about the Wizard top tier argument is it is based on the assumption that the Wizard has the right spell memorized at the right time, the right number of times...etc...
While an individual wizard might be caught out on a particular day, a four-wizard party with coordination of what they're prepping is going to be about as flexible as a classic four-character party, and after they know what they're facing on day one, can then pick a loadout to downright chainsaw through things.
On the other hand, a four-fighter party isn't going to be able to handle any number of situations, either before or after knowing what they're up against.
|
|
What bothers me about the Wizard top tier argument is it is based on the assumption that the Wizard has the right spell memorized at the right time, the right number of times...etc...While an individual wizard might be caught out on a particular day, a four-wizard party with coordination of what they're prepping is going to be about as flexible as a classic four-character party, and after they know what they're facing on day one, can then pick a loadout to downright chainsaw through things.
On the other hand, a four-fighter party isn't going to be able to handle any number of situations, either before or after knowing what they're up against.
However I would argue if your party is able to have that much prep and planning, your DM has failed.
And I would further argue that 4 surprised wizards are in a lot of trouble trying to cast if they get surrounded.
The readied action, bane of casters everywhere.
The point being that most of this tier stuff assumes a fail DM who has predictable conflicts on a 15 minute fighting day with no clock ticking and stupid enemies who don't change tactics/set traps.
In other words, a fail adventure.
If you want to argue who is the most powerful under ideal circumstances, depending on level it will generally be Wizards. But that is like saying "If I could have one superpower, what would it be..."
Wishful thinking that is pointless in real world application and therefore without useful application.
Now if that is all this was, great. But people keep pulling this stuff as gospel in other threads, in the same way people keep pulling the DPR Olympics as gospel, despite the fact that neither actually applies to Game as actually played.
Unless, of course, your DM stinks.
|
|
What bothers me about the Wizard top tier argument is it is based on the assumption that the Wizard has the right spell memorized at the right time, the right number of times...etc...As I've always said, the wizard is potentially the most powerful player at the table...while simultaneously being potentially the weakest player at the table, depending on what they memorized vs what they need.
And the assumption that he has the needed spells in his spell book.
"Wizard can know any spell on their list" and "Wizard [i]have access /i] to all spell on their spell list" are two very different assumptions.
What the wizard has in his spell books is not the same thing as the full list of spells under wizard in the PRD.
If you want to argue who is the most powerful under ideal circumstances
Yeah, see, here's your problem. That's the exact opposite of the concept here. The whole point is to rank classes on their ability to handle a variety of circumstances. A fighter is tier 4 because all he can do is lower the hp of the opposition, which is of limited use in trying to uncover a spy, unlock a safe, find a lost item, or anything else that can't be solved by "lower its hp until it's dead".
Sure, the fighter is great in games that are 100% pure combat with no other ways to solve problems, especially if you're attacked by surprise, but that doesn't apply to the game as actually played . . . except by people who don't realize Munchkin is supposed to be a parody.
[...] what I will remind is that the tiers are a level of campaign power, not combat power. As was previously stated, it's how you can handle any number of diverse challenges, and those challenges are not limited to monsters.
The best fighter who could kill everything in a single turn would still be tier 3 at best, because regardless of how good he is at killing things, there are so many other things he is not good at.
The example I recall is "there is a fierce dragon in a trapped cave on a snowy cliff far away with many forests, dungeons, and a lake in between; how do you handle this?"
The tier 1 class can, with ease, conquer the entire thing on their own. The tier 3 requires other party members. The tier 6 cannot contribute.
Agreed.
Alchemist are tier 2, great flexibility with formulaes and preparation of the extracts, good power and battlefield control with bombs, although at limited times per day, alchemists also have access to invisibility and fly, arcane eye, many buffs and the ability via Infusion to give them to NPCs or summoned creatures. It lacks mindcontrolling powers and dispelling methods, also it has no cantrips/orisons (very useful and also at-will) and can't take many of the item creation feats.
Antipaladins are tier 3, pushing to tier 4, they lack the ability of the paladin for the cures, also it does not have an animal companion that improves by leveling (arguable because you instead get a constant summon fiendish monster).
Cavaliers are tier 4, essentially they are paladins without their endure and mettle, giving up divine grace, channel energy, lay of hands etc... Also the cavalier loses much of his potency without his stallion, a big problem in campaigns with close quarters and/or dungeons or so other similar not-biganimalsuitable-places.
Inquisitors are tier 3, they are like druids and clerics but have not their spellcasting power, although an impressive intimidate and intuition can always help you to seize the day.
Magus are tier 2, because the way I'm seeing them is a Wizard with less magical potential and more combat prowess, much more like clerics or druids. They also can be sort of skillmonkeys, have a familiar and needs little of magical equipment. With the UM archetype you also have access to witch hexes, adding great versatility.
Oracles are tier 2, the first time I read the oracle I thought it was a great class, but in a campaign you end up with the same problems the sorcerer has. Misteries like heavens, time, lore, nature are great but others are terrible (flame or the like), so you need to pay more attention when you build one than when you are playing a cleric.
Summoners are tier 1, they have two limits: few spells knowns (so less spell slots per day in comparison to a fullcaster9thlevelspells) and they gain spells later in levels, but in exchange they have a SLA summon monster ability that scales with your level as if you were a wizard of your level, it lasts minutes and is usable as a Standard Action a number of times per day dependable on your main attribute. You have to consider them as extra spell slots. But hey you also gain the eidolon... Great versatility here, you can also change the eidolon's abilities by leveling, with transmogrify spell or playing as an Evolutionist. Summoners also get a respectable list of spells, full of buffs, mindcontrolling spells, utility spells, battlefield control spells, some divination spells, add in the SLA abilities of your summoned creatures and you have a fullcasting comparable spell list. The summoner also, having a great charisma, benefit more from the Leadership feat and UMD. The summoner is The One Army Man, so by definition he deserves tier 1.
Witches are tier 1, they are wizards with some druidic and clerical spells in their spell list. They also get an animal companion, which is also her 'spellbook'... They also get hexes... Uh, they get patron spells! So, what else do you want?
|
|
If you want to argue who is the most powerful under ideal circumstancesYeah, see, here's your problem. That's the exact opposite of the concept here. The whole point is to rank classes on their ability to handle a variety of circumstances. A fighter is tier 4 because all he can do is lower the hp of the opposition, which is of limited use in trying to uncover a spy, unlock a safe, find a lost item, or anything else that can't be solved by "lower its hp until it's dead".
Sure, the fighter is great in games that are 100% pure combat with no other ways to solve problems, especially if you're attacked by surprise, but that doesn't apply to the game as actually played . . . except by people who don't realize Munchkin is supposed to be a parody.
Hello Mr. Strawman, how are you this morning?
I am sorry I can't play with you, I actually want to address what was said.
Sorry.
Wizard can know the perfect spell at the perfect time. Or his slots could be full of the wrong spell for the situation at hand. Or with only one of the right spell memorized when they need it many times.
In game, if you DM is halfway decent, both things occur with regularity.
seems to be some summoner love
thing is a wizard can act as a summoner, but a summoner can't act as a wizard, so I argue the summoner cannot be tier 1 as a result.
you've gotta have more than overwhelming force to be considered for tier 1 imho
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard can readily adapt and alter to face any challenge (barring bizarro wizard-hating scenarios).
That is, of course, assuming that the wizard's spell selection for the day fits the actual events of the day. If it doesn't, he ranges from occasionally useful to utter dead weight.
|
|
A wizard can readily adapt and alter to face any challenge (barring bizarro wizard-hating scenarios).
Unfortunately, many of the people who think that wizard is SOO amazing in any situation define "bizarro wizard-hating scenario" as "the GM didn't let me read his campaign notes for this session a few days in advance so I could figure out what spells to memorize".
A wizard can readily adapt and alter to face any challenge (barring bizarro wizard-hating scenarios).That is, of course, assuming that the wizard's spell selection for the day fits the actual events of the day. If it doesn't, he ranges from occasionally useful to utter dead weight.
its not that hard to pick spells that cover 90% of situations for the day, and a few select wands and or a decent staff prevent the wiz from ever being dead weight.
plus as you hit mid to high levels the sheer number of spells you can memeorise allows you to cover even more possibilities.
usually the dead weight feel is due to a players bad choices and not the class itself. if you play a wizard long enough you get a feel for picking the "right" spells even without foresight.
Plus some spells are so versatile they're always useful.
e.g. wall of force = split a fight, instant bridge, block a door, ramp up or down, create a choke point etc etc
Wizard can know the perfect spell at the perfect time. Or his slots could be full of the wrong spell for the situation at hand. Or with only one of the right spell memorized when they need it many times.
In game, if you DM is halfway decent, both things occur with regularity.
Well, no: that implies the mindset where the DM is out to beat the players and/or willing to change things on the fly for no reason other than to screw them.
Maybe the intrepid PCs invading the castle of the giants that have been raiding the local villages, and maybe they'll ultimately discover that drow are pulling the strings -- but they're still going to find a bunch of giants in the castle, and spells picked with the idea that that was going to be a lot of the day are still good. (You wouldn't go all-in on giant-fighting, to be clear -- you're always trying to cover contingencies that may or may not arise.)
It's a fair point that the "high tier" classes have a more volitile power level than the lower tier classes, assuming the character is built decently. You can take a player new to the game, have them make a barbarian, suggest stat placement, feat choices, and starting equipment and they'll be able to contribute right away in combat. You do the same thing with a cleric and if you're lucky you'll get a healbot (which isn't a particularly superior way to play cleric.)
seems to be some summoner love
thing is a wizard can act as a summoner, but a summoner can't act as a wizard, so I argue the summoner cannot be tier 1 as a result.
you've gotta have more than overwhelming force to be considered for tier 1 imho
I go back and forth on this.
In a sense, yeah, the summoner's list of spells is always going to be a lot more limited than the wizard's. But then, that's also true of the 3.5 druid which was considered a clear tier 1 class.
The summoner does get a lot of the really open-ended / versatile wizard spells, so that's a point in their favor.
The thing that does make me inclined to round the summoner in favor of tier 1 is not the eidolon but the summon monster ability. The quick casting time gives it a lot more combat punch than the wizard casting summon spells, but I think the real winner is the massively longer duration. Summoning for the wizard is, mostly, a combat action. (And, yeah, planar binding, but then all the caveats around planar binding, etc.) The long duration of summoner summons lets them do things with those summons that the wizard can't in a way that, in the right hands, can add a lot of adaptability and versatility.
Look at the random dungeon of your choice and try to imagine how well it would stack up to a shadow demon scouting out each room or how well its inhabitants could stand up to fighting or escaping that shadow demon if you were to, say, spike the door shut from the outside. A wizard just doesn't have the duration on a summon to get that same kind of mileage without burning too many slots on it; a summoner does that and then can do it ten more times that day. And that's just one of many different creatures he could pick and find a unique use for.
So I think the summoner is actually a much more versatile class than it first appears, it just has to get that versatility out of milking its summons rather than its eidolon or even its spells.
Really? Then why is the Sorcerer rated one tier worse than the Wizard?its not that hard to pick spells that cover 90% of situations for the day, and a few select wands and or a decent staff prevent the wiz from ever being dead weight.
Because picking for 90% of the situations in a day is not the same as picking for 90% of the situations in your whole career.
Keep in mind the concept of tiering is that higher classes are more versatile and more able to solve different kinds of problems. The sorcerer is good at this; it's just that the guy who can swap half his spells for a normally marginal spell like Gust of Wind when he really, really wants to is a little more versatile.
|
|
It's because sometimes there is one spell, even if the wizard did not prepare it can change the whole outcome of an encounter. Maybe they find a BBEG and the wizard didn't prepare the right spells. But the wizard teleports the party away and comes back shortly afterwards (assuming he left a few slots open which is what most veteran wizard players do). Hard to say a sorcerer can do the same.
Even something as stupid as opening treasure chests a wizard can just rest and prepare knock, whereas I doubt a sorcerer will ever get such a spell.
1. Sorcerers can also use scrolls.
2. If you run away from the BBEG to prepare for what you just found, only a truly moronic BBEG doesn't change things to make you even MORE hosed when you return.3. How many teleports do you typically memorize? If you teleport home to study your spellbook every time you run into a situation that you aren't prepared for, then you're cutting into your list of memorized spells, making you less likely to be prepared for something else. So you have to memorize even more teleports. Pretty soon half your spells prepared list is devoted to running away with your tail between your legs.