Full disclosure: I've been dating a girl for 4 years who was a CS major when we met.
The premise is still stupid.
We're talking about going to programming classes to meet women, or women going to programming classes to meet men. This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I am stupider for having read it. I'd rather listen to more of the bickering about the tiers.It may or may not be dumb for someone who is looking for potential marriage candidates with desirable qualites to go to where potential marriage candidates with those desirable qualities are going to be. (to debate that question is like debating whether or not it's smart to go fishing where the fish are). But, I'm telling you that I saw people doing it and it was well known on campus that they were doing it.
I'll be completely honest: I don't buy it.
It's just not that lucrative of a field for the most part.
|
Something I think would be interesting is the opposite. Instead of assuming that the character had a close to accurate idea of what the specific adventure was about, what if the character's idea was wrong? How long would it take the character to become fully effective given the party is ambushed by a tough spell-casting critter who is nothing like the character expected?
Fighters, I think, would require the least time to adjust while wizards would require the most. But are the tiers exactly the opposite?
Assuming it is not automatically a combat situation? those with the most versatile skill options and some generic spell or power use:
rogue and bard
You might be able to pull that off, but I doubt it'd be easy. It, also, is not anything like what I was talking about.You are supposed to be evil lincoln, not ethical lincoln. Now help me think of a way to trick a girl(s) into taking a class she can't pass so she will have to come to me for help.That and the entire premise is fundamentally stupid for all imaginary involved parties.As someone with a computer science degree I don't recommend this course of action. I honestly don't think my comp-sci-major-only classes were even 2% female.So if I want a trophy wife take a programming class. :)
edit:trophy girlfriend.
You know as much as I don't want to believe that taking a class to meet the guy you would not have dated in H.S. is ever an economic plan to success, I have met enough people to not be surprised that someone has probably done it.
You know as much as I don't want to believe that taking a class to meet the guy you would not have dated in H.S. is ever an economic plan to success, I have met enough people to not be surprised that someone has probably done it.
If that's how they make their life choices and decisions about romance, I'm sure it's worked out well for them.
|
Tier 1: Witch
Tier 2: Alchemist, Summoner {pushing tier 1}, Hex Crafter{Magus}
Tier 3: Magus, Inquisitor, Oracle, Zen Archer{Monk},
Tier 4: Cavalier
Tier 5 and 6: Anti-Paladin.
I threw in a couple of archetypes I think I bump the class out of its original tier.
I am rating oracle a tier lower than most others because I think spontaneous casting is a poor choice for a divine caster. Losing the automatic knowledge of all spells whenever you gain a new spell level is a huge hit for a divine caster's adaptability. Even more so after all the new spells in APG and UM.
I'm not going to defend what they were doing. I can only tell you that that's what was going on. As a gay guy, I had somewhat of a 3rd party perspective on male-female relations in freshman comp sci classes.
My main point is that it demonstrates a flexibility of abilities that high Cha characters have that (and, consequently, classes that have Cha as a prime req have) that isn't being captured in this tier system.
I hear you loud and clear LT, but let's be wary not to venture to far into "the utility of cha" topic. I don't think a good suite of skills actually bumps people up a tier, at least not the same as a good spell list does. In some cases (paladin, bard) it is a part of what put them where they are in my reckoning.
I don't think a good suite of skills actually bumps people up a tier, at least not the same as a good spell list does.I think that's a version of the "fighters can't have good stuff" arguement.
That may well be. Mostly, it's me eyeballing the effect that different classes have on the game as I GM it. Acrobatics helps you move, but not like teleport.
OTOH, teleport doesn't let you move like acrobatics either.
Indeed it does not. But if Skills in general are on the scale against Spells in general, and the measure is which one is more likely to change the entire game's dynamic, I've seen spells win just about every time.
No wizard-supremicist I. Just my experience from GMing. Druids, etc, can be just as troublesome. There are ways of dealing with this kind of thing, and that's precisely what tiers are useful for... knowing what to predict from party makeup so that you can give your players the best possible game.
|
|
Are we arguing the tiers, or are we assigning classes to them as we (individually) think appropriate?
Here's a tip: stop responding and post your own list, sorted by tier with definition. These topics get so ugly...
If the question is “What class is most likely to be ready for anything?”
Tier 1
Inquisitor
Bard
Druid
Summoner
Oracle
Magus
Tier 2
Sorcerer
Monk
Rogue
Ranger
Cleric
Cavalier
3
Wizard
Witch
Fighter
Barbarian
If the question is “What class can be made to be ready for a given situation?”
Tier 1
Wizard
Witch
Cleric
Druid
Tier 2
Sorcerer
Oracle
Magus
Inquisitor
Bard
Ranger
Tier 3
Monk
Rogue
Cavalier
Barbarian
Fighter
Cavalier
If the question is “What class is best able to deal with an ambush/surprise attack?”
Tier 1
Monk
Fighter
Barbarian
Monk
Tier 2
Rogue
Cavalier
Druid
Bard
Ranger
Inquisitor
Oracle
Magus
Tier 3
Summoner
Wizard
Witch
Sorcerer
But I think a better question is “How does my build fit with my party”
Yes I do think how the party functions as a whole is a more important question as well.
The sheer courage of putting the monk on the top of any list regarding a positive element (as in, not a "most suckish" list) deserves a cookie. Or to be tied to a rock and thrown into the ocean. Both work adequately.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sheer courage of putting the monk on the top of any list regarding a positive element (as in, not a "most suckish" list) deserves a cookie. Or to be tied to a rock and thrown into the ocean. Both work adequately.
He's right, though. On the basis of saves and "run like hell" capabilities alone.
The sheer courage of putting the monk on the top of any list regarding a positive element (as in, not a "most suckish" list) deserves a cookie. Or to be tied to a rock and thrown into the ocean. Both work adequately.He's right, though. On the basis of saves and "run like hell" capabilities alone.
High Wiz and perception as a class skill also help with that. Oh, and to be fair, playing a monk for Savage Tide right now, my "run like hell" capabilities lately have been used to run into battle, not away from it. In that way, it's also good for a surprise attack, just also if my party isn't the one being ambushed.
Low tier or not, I'm actually having quite a bit of fun as a monk right now.
/derail
I, at least, am considering access as part of the criteria, and everyone has equal access to CHA,So, go ahead and create a Cleric and match my Sorcerer's Cha. And then we'll compare the two characters. You'll find that, in order to match my character's Cha, you have to settle for a lower Wis than you'd otherwise have. In other words, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Though, a Cleric may be workable albeit weaker with a lower Wis, some other full caster classes are better with maximizing their prime attribute.
Same would be true of a sorcerer who chose to focus on wisdom. The criteria most people seem to be using is "how many aces can the character have available to them?" not "what aces do they have available to them?" Thus, CHA flexibility, as far as the rules are concerned, is about equal to WIS flexibility, and its skill set, or flexibility with any of the other attributes. The fact is that skills have as much impact on the game as the DM lets them, and since the charisma based skills are the most common to abuse, they are often the first to be cracked down upon. Also, the role that magic plays is much more defined, making it harder to completely cancel out, and not nearly as available to anyone who wants to make a suboptimal build to pick it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The classic Tier listing is heavily weighted towards maximized potential, not real play factors. It tends to disregard or gloss over glaring weaknesses as niche events that don't affect the class, despite the fact that if they occur they are catastrophic.
A Tiering system really needs to consider these questions:
1)How good is the Class in general combat encounters?
2)How good is the Class in encounters he can prepare for well ahead of time?
3)How good is the Class in encounters he is NOT prepared for?
4)How good is the Class in non-combat function?
5)How good is the Class in social functions?
6)How Choice Dependent is the class every day?
7)How easy is it to recover in making a mistake in this classes build?
8)How MAD is the Class?
9)How equipment reliant is the class?
10)How magic reliant is the class (spellcasting/buffs)?
11)How are the base defenses of the class?
12)How is the base offense of the class?
13)How dependent is the class on limited # of encounters?
14)How reliant is the class on other characters?
The standard tiering system highly overweights 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 14. It heavily underweights 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13. It should be noted that all of the melee class will score highly on the latter portion and poorly on the former.
Examples:
Wizard
1) 5. Might be great, might suck. Depends on spells.
2) 9. The poster boy of prepared awesomeness. He just has to have access to the right spells.
3) 1. The poster boy of 'Oh, S#+~.'
4) 5. Might have the right utility spell, might not. Note Knowledge skills are basically used in combat!
5) 3. If he doesn't have a charm spell, almost useless. Rescued by potential languages.
6) 2. Biggest choices are what spells to get per day, but can be a doozy. Many options to juggle.
7) 8, easy recovery. Get different spells for your book.
8) 10. Int. SAD, the poster boy of SAD.
9) 8. If he spends the spells, needs almost no gear.
10) 1. Extremely magic reliant. Take away magic, useless.
11) 1. The poster boy of sucky defense. One bad save his prime stat doesn't boost, no armor, worst hit points. Needs magic to survive.
12) 1. The poster boy of sucky offense. Needs magic to do anything.
13) 1. Once he runs out of spells, he's hosed.
14) 10. Not reliant on other characters at all.
Total = 65.
Sorceror
1) 5. Might be great, might suck. Depends on spells.
2) 8. Usually this means picking up some scrolls, maybe a wand.
3) 5. Just another encounter.
4) 5. Might have the right utility spell.
5) 8. Not a bard, but Cha+ social skills+ spells = close.
6) 5. Very little thinking needed to play a sorc day to day, but all those spells give options hard to track.
7) 3. Designing a sorc is difficult, and takes several levels to recover if you err.
8) 8, Cha, SAD, but Cha isn't as potent overall as the extra skills from Int.
9) 7. Can't usually afford all the buff spells of a Wiz, but close.
10) 1. All magic reliant.
11) 1. The other poster boy of sucky defense.
12) 1. The other poster boy of sucky offense.
13) 3. Since he can spam a needed spell, he'll last longer, but once it's gone, hosed.
14) 10. Not reliant on others at all.
Total = 70
Fighter
1) 8. There are very few fights where a fighter is actually not quite useful.
2) 5. Preparation does little improving for a fighter. Basically means a potion or two.
3) 8. Just another encounter.
4) 3. Doesn't really have the skills to contibute OOC.
5) 3. Intimidates.
6) 10. Very little thinking required to play day to day.
7) 5. Designing a Fighter isn't always simple, but feats can be trained out in a level or two.
8) 3. Str+Dex+Con all important for his role, possibly Int + Wis for feats. And key feats require high stats.
9) 3. Tends to be pretty gear reliant.
10) 8. works fine with no buffs or casting at all.
11) 7. Good AC, crappy saves, good hit points.
12) 10. The poster boy of great BAB and weaponry.
13) 9. With a Cure Light Wounds wand, can go all day and all night. With a Ring of Regen, never stops.
14) 4. Tends to be caster reliant for healing, condition removal.
Total = 86.
i.e by accruing other standards, the Tiering system gets flipped on its head.
I submit the classic Tiering system is biased towards Prepared Casters on the basis of:
1) full access to any and all spells required
2) the ability to prepare the correct spells ahead of time
3) The lack of use of anti-magic and anti-casting defenses by the GM.
4) The 15 minute work day.
Once you start using restricted/costly spell access, lack of time to prepare, anti-magic, counterspells, and similar things, and multiple encounters to wear down a party, casters start looking less and less awesome, and more situationally nice.
Clerics work out great in all modes.
1) 8 Always something for a cleric to do.
2)10. Full access to spell list = great preparation.
3) 5. They can still fight.
4) 3. Doesn't have much skills to contribute with.
5) 5. Tends to have decent Cha, spells, and Diplomacy.
6) 2. Due to spell choices, can be a pain to play and keep track of options+ choose different spells daily.
7) 8. Hard to make a bad cleric. It's all in the spells, baby.
8) 5. Wis most important, Cha and Str much less so.
9) 9. Only the Druid is less reliant on magic gear.
10) 3. tends to be pretty reliant on buffs to be effective in combat.
11) 9. Good AC, great saves, doves with Prime Stat, good HP.
12) 5. decent weapon and BAB.
13) 3. A cleric with no buffs/spells is a very substandard fighter.
14) 10. Tends to need nobody, even has healing sewn up.
==93. Clerics R00L.
However, if you change the weighting, by counting magi-friendly things double and melee friendly things at half, these numbers change hugely...and that's what standard Tiering does.
The cleric will still rock in all of them, tho. :o
==Aelryinth
Ah, tier discussions. Another guaranteed disagreement machine.
heh.
==Aelryinth
I find its very situation. What level, what campaign world, how much magic is lying around, what kinds of challenges you face. It also depends on the kind of player.
At high level any full caster is a powerhouse because they have access to powerhouse spells that can transcend reality, one shot kill, and affect large numbers of enemies. But they take proactive planning type players to make them work. If you don't use your spells well or are aware of your vulnerabilities a caster is often a victim.
Honestly, most dungeons are designed for fighters and the other brutes of the party and as a result they do pretty well. Then again, I often find those who play them most are not the more cunning players.
So the newer classes...
Witch = 1
A wizard that can cast heal and has powerful at will spells? Sign me up!
Oracle = 2
Great caster, but that limited selection is... limiting. Man they can specialize well and make great self healing warrior types.
Summoner = 2 (knocking on 1 with the right player)
In a fight, I could go tier 1, but they lack some of the full caster super spells. I find folks undercut the advantage of two sets of actions every turn. Train your eidolon in UMD and Disable Device etc... there are few limit on what you can pull off.
Cavalier = 3 (not sure on these lower tiers)
A great fighter with strong social skills. And don't knock the teamwork feats. Give this guy leadership and a clever player and he's great in combat, a party face, and can bring friends for special needs. And you can work up the animal companion in interesting ways.
Inquisitor = 3
Jack of all trades and pretty solid at it. I don't think there is any way in which they are bad, but its a hard class to "break" and the casting is really limited.
Alchemist = 2
They munchkin well. And don't forget their skills. UMD can be a game changer and they can be built for trapping.
Magus = 3
At low level they are killers, but overall, I'm not impressed with the spell list and they are glass jaws that have to get close to do their thing. Great for peak DPS combos... but kind of a one trick pony despite the gish concept.
|
|
APG and UM actually did change class balance in some interesting ways. Monks and barbarians got an entire combat schtick dropped on them, for example, and the space between the top tiers and the bottom tiers got populated with some new classes.
So do you think the goodness dropped on the monk or the barbarian were enough to bump either class up a tier?
I would like to start talking about it anyway. I think Ultimate combat will be out in like 30 minutes with lots more goodies for both those classes.
Edit: Sorry I see where you answered that earlier today now. Was desperate for on-topic conversation as the actual topic the thread was started on interests me greatly.
|
|
Here are my own placements based on "power (direct damage, control, tricks, skills and wild cards) of each class.
Tier 1:
Wizard: Not bad raw damage but excels in control and wild cards. A wizard can do almost anything.
Ninja: If the play test has even remotely the same power as the finished Ninja this class will be getting banned while i DM. They took the rogues uniqueness away with this class and then decided to make a class that does what a rogue SHOULD do and then increased its power even more while trying to add "flavor".
Tier 2:
Cleric: Still the solid reliable tanky healer they used to be with added undead killing and healing with channel energy.
Druid: Summons in pathfinder are very powerful, combine that with wildshape and other divine spells and it fits in tier 2.
Sorcerer: Same spells as a wizard but now that their unique bloodlines can be emulated by other means they lose alot of power.
Summoner: Its summoning abilities are nice but its eidolon can do some crazy stuff.
Witch: One of my personal favorites. It had nice spells, a mix of healing, 1 hit KO , control and buffing. Its hexes not only add flavor but a great deal of power, often going well with its spells.
Magus: With the small experience i have of this class i would put it in Tier 2 for its versatility. It seems to join the mix of being a caster with the ability to do damage and not die in 1 hit in melee combat.
Tier 3:
Paladins: They are fairly insane in pathfinder but they rely heavily on their target being either undead or evil. Meet those requirements and they are tier 2 at least. The uncertainty keeps it at tier 3.
Bards: From the crap that was 3.5 to the glory of pathfinder bards are one of the classes that have risen to fill its roll nicely. A well built bard screams win in a party of adventurers. Their unlimited skills, song buffs and spells make them invaluable to other team members if not a direct threat themselves.
Rangers: Not to bad when their built right. The limited spells they have push them into tier 3 above those who just didn't make it. Still can output nice damage and in specialized situations can cause carnage.
Barbarian: Barbs can be said to have little to add other than direct damage but if built right they can output at least on par with the best damage dealers in the game. Tricky to build them right though which pushes them to Tier 3.
Fighters: Like the bard fighters don't have much flavor but their little tricks like sundering and trip and so on, especially while using a bow makes up for its deficiencies. The damage it can output per round is also amazing.
Cavalier: Although some people say this class is crap given the right conditions (being on a horse able to charge) it can be just as good as a pally.
Gunslinger: Looks like it can add both flavor and an extra source of touch attack damage for those pesky high armor monsters. Some nice tricks up its sleeves to but i personally haven't seen anything to powerful from them..YET.
Tier 4:
None
Tier 5:
Rogues: Useful and underpowered in 3.5 but pathfinder although seeming to buff them abit by allowing sneak attacks on most monsters limited them by expanding the bards skills and abilities making the rogue second place to them. Given some arch-types can now disarm magical traps and many classes/arch-types/prestige classes not to mention the Ninja that is coming out soon has both sneak attack abilities but other abilities that make them unique and powerful the rogue is underwhelming to the extreme. As it currently stands every other class (besides the monk) is a better choice.
Monks: Underwhelming to say the least. All of their abilities are for personal use. They don't help a party almost at all and although there are some tricks that can make them ok in combat they have little else to contribute and like the rogue nothing unique or special that would make you want to pick them over any other class. Flavor is nice but so is not sucking.
Unplaced: (Due to lack of experience)
Alchemist
Antipaladin
Inquisitor
Oracle
Samurai
Thus, CHA flexibility, as far as the rules are concerned, is about equal to WIS flexibility,CHA flexibility refers to the ability to expand your resources by getting other people to throw in their abilities with yours. Wth is "WIS flexibility"??
As for GMs who nerf CHA, is that really fair to consider in the tier system? If it is, then we should factor in GMs who nerf prepared casting (by going out of their way to hide what the final BBEG is, even beyond the BBEG's skills to do so).
The difficulty is you're getting past the quantitative aspects of CHA, which is a very hard attribute to assign quantitative aspects to. I agree with what you're trying to say, but the argument doesn't fit well in a discussion that at its core requires a certain set of objective parameters in order to get any kind of results at all. CHA, at least the use you are describing, is not particularly able to be set into such parameters, as there are simply too many variables to have to account for. Even with semi codified rules for Diplomacy and the other social skills, there is still a lot of room for individual interpretation.
The kind of thing you are described lands solidly in the "you will need to adjust this measurement to meet individual circumstances." It's why when you make such a system, it is critical to explain the logic behind it. It's like how I rated most of the non caster classes; they could be anywhere from tier 3 to tier 5 based on the people involved in a given campaign. CHA flexibility as you are describing it is much the same thing; it's simply too variable to fully codify, thus tends to be a different conversation, even if aspects of that conversation will pop up every now and again.
There are all kinds of problems with discussing "imbalance" in the manner that it is being done here. They range from Arrow's Impossibility Theorem to establishing proper context to properly seperating mechanical from non-mechanical influences. The original author of this tier system attempted to solve these problems by just setting the classes in the tier system ex dicta. Ever since then, the problems I mentioned above, along with all the other problems in such a problem, have simply been swept under the rug as people parrot what they read.
I hate that public education has taught the young that being intelligent is all about mindlessly parroting what they've been told.
I tend to agree with the problems in public education, and understanding how the tiers are setup is a critical part of the system, but the tiers are not completely bad, and even if they were, we as humans like things to be nice and organized. It's human nature to prefer a potentially poorly constructed, but orderly, system without looking at how that system was put together over the chaos of reality, so you can't pin all the blame on public education, even if that institution does tend to emphasize it more than necessary.
|
|
Tier 3:
Cavalier: Although some people say this class is crap given the right conditions (being on a horse able to charge) it can be just as good as a pally.
I might have been to harsh in my assessment of this class when i put them in tier 4. I really like the idea of a small cavalier with a wolf mount but have never seen one played.