Class Tiers in light of the APG and UM?

[LilithsThrall]

sunshadow21 wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

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.

That's a very fair point. But, if people have a psychological need for organization, I don't see how they are getting it by accepting chaotic thinking (such as what the class placement in the tier system is based on).

[A Man In Black]

bartgroks wrote:

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.

Well, they weren't able to do much of anything that was useful. Now, properly built, they can wreck faces at a level-appropriate ability. That takes them from arguably tier 5 in PF core (tier 5s do only do a few situationally useful things well) to tier 4 (tier 4s almost always contribute to combat well, or situationally contribute to combat well while doing a handful of situationally useful things well).

I can't see UC bringing them up any higher than that, though. Most tier 3s almost always contribute to combat well while also doing many situationally useful things well. Barbarians and monks are both making heavy resource investments to do their combat schtick well, so I don't think doing many other things on top of that is going to be seen as anything but "powergaming". It's possible that UC could give them some single, exceedingly powerful single schtick, but that's really, really unlikely.

I do hold that you need to have more than swording people to move out of tier 4. Swording people situtationally is a tier 5 class.

LilithsThrall wrote:

Having read the original post that started it all, it's comforting to know that it's just as screwball thinking as everything that refers to it.

You don't say anything other than "It's stupid it's stupid it's stupid", so it's very difficult to address you in a productive manner.

[LilithsThrall]

A Man In Black wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

Having read the original post that started it all, it's comforting to know that it's just as screwball thinking as everything that refers to it.

You don't say anything other than "It's stupid it's stupid it's stupid",

Not true. I mentioned three different problems

1.) I referenced Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
2.) I mentioned the necessity of establishing proper context (ie. what kind of campaign is being run)
3.) I referenced the quasi-Cartesian fallacy of attempting to seperate social from combative context

Finally, I pointed out that the original author placed the classes in the tier system ex dicta

A Man In Black wrote:

so it's very difficult to address you in a productive manner.

The reason you're finding it difficult to come up with a cogent and coherent reply to my post isn't because I gave no reasons.

As I just pointed out above, I gave several reasons for my conclusion.

[bartgroks]

A Man In Black wrote:

bartgroks wrote:

So do you think the goodness dropped on the monk or the barbarian were enough to bump either class up a tier?

I do hold that you need to have more than swording people to move out of tier 4. Swording people situtationally is a tier 5 class.

Qin-gongg monk has several ki powers that provide out of combat utility.

Do you think they are enough to compensate for the abilities they give up for? What monk/barbarian archetypes/options do you think were good enough to justify tier 4 status?

[sunshadow21]

LilithsThrall wrote:

That's a very fair point. But, if people have a psychological need for organization, I don't see how they are getting it by accepting chaotic thinking (such as what the class placement in the tier system is based on).

To the people making the system, it's not necessarily chaotic thinking, because they usually understand the parameters being used. For everyone else, they just see a system that someone else has taken the time to device, and go with it because they don't feel like doing the work themselves, and that includes the work of figuring out how the system was put together in the first place. That isn't accepting chaotic thinking, that's just being plain lazy.

[A Man In Black]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Not true. I mentioned three different problems

1.) I referenced Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
2.) I mentioned the necessity of establishing proper context (ie. what kind of campaign is being run)
3.) I referenced the quasi-Cartesian fallacy of attempting to seperate social from combative context

Finally, I pointed out that the original author placed the classes in the tier system ex dicta

The reason you're finding it difficult to come up with a cogent and coherent reply to my post isn't because I gave no reasons.
As I just pointed out above, I gave several reasons for my conclusion.

Tossing non sequitors into the discussion and obfuscating your language to muddle things doesn't make it any easier to carry on a conversation with you, either.

Arrow's impossibility theorem doesn't have anything to do with anything. We're not discussing organizing people's preferences in any context; in fact, how people feel about the classes is explicitly irrelevant save insofar as those opinions are informed and argued. Tier lists weren't formed by election, they were formed by discussion. There's no shortage of people who like the weaker classes despite their problems, even when they know about the problems, but it's not relevant to this discussion.

The lack of specific context is addressed. The high tier classes are powerful in the most situations. The tier lists are measuring the breadth and depth of character ability, the number of problems can solve and how effectively that character can execute those solutions. No character will encounter all of those problems, of course, but the most powerful will be best able to handle more of them.

Lastly, stated in a less opaque way, some classes need to optimize to take advantage of certain aspects, and some don't. Yeah. Duh. Restating this using the word "Cartesian" doesn't make it a new insight.

And yes. The author placed those classes in those tiers in that essay. Where else could the tiers come from? You seem to be implying that the tier system already existed before he wrote the essay and he somehow crammed the classes, ill-fitting, into the tiers. I'm pretty sure "ex dicta" is not what you actually mean, there, but hey, don't let me get in the way of your random snippets of Latin!

Again. You haven't really offered anything that can be usefully addressed.

[Aelryinth]

Momar wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

A new system

Frankly this seems just as arbitrary as the other system. There's a lot of redundancy in your criteria. The offense and defense (11 and 12) should just be rolled into combat usefulness and a little bit of encounter number (#1-3, 13). Social functions as just non combat encounters, so number 5 is just part of 4. I'm not even really sure what you're going for with 6, but the best I can come up with is that a class has a chance to screw itself making the wrong choices for the day, in which case this is just an aspect of 3, with the positives covered by 7. I'd also consider adding a counter to 13, something to cover the ability to alpha strike (or nova, if you prefer).

Can't roll them together, because there are huge variations in combat usefulness.

Monks, great defense, fair offense.
Mages, poor both.
Fighters, okay defense, great offense.
But 1-3 are about everything on the table. But when you are talking spellcasters, the whole times/day mechanic sticks its head in. A spellcaster is 'situationally awesome'. Tiering in JaronK's format is all about 'best in situations' while ignoring 'totally suck circumstances' for those classes.

6 is better titled as 'ease of play'. Spellcasters have to keep choosing what to do in any circumstance, trying to leverage their spells. They also have to choose WHAT spells to memorize, if prepared casters. Spontaneous casters still have many options to choose from. As you move down the line towards Melee, play becomes simpler and faster.

The ability to 'alpha strike' would come under 'ability to prepare', #2.
I intentionally followed 'prepared' with 'not prepared' to reflect 'he blew his wad, and here comes the reserves'. In essence, alpha striking is only possible if you can prepare something, know the enemy, and can hit them first absolutely.

If instead you're referring to 'rocket tag' and one shot/round kills, that's a whole other issue. Can the Ubercharger kill it in one round or two, and does the creature make or fail the 50% Save or Die against the mage's DC? Will the charging enemy Frenzied Berserker get off his 325 pt Supreme Cleaving 20' reach and TPK the party? Etc.
==========

I'd like to point out that giving Sneak Attack to another class doesn't make the Rogue weaker any more then giving the wizard spell list to the sorcerer makes the sorcerer weaker, or allowing sorc bloodlines to others makes the Sorc weaker. It makes other builds viable via FEATS, the sorc is exactly as strong as it was before. I.e. it lifts other classes, it takes nothing from the sorc. Uniqueness is uniqueness, it's not something that is suddenly a weakness when you don't have it. After all, most combat feats aren't limited to fighters, but that hardly makes the fighter weaker because a barb can take critical feats, does it?

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

As I said in my other post, Tiering is all about weighting. I listed out what I consider the important aspects (alpha striking is a build function, not a class function). JaronK and his folk hugely weight spells as important, and disregard situations where spells are epic fail. They assume instant access to any and all spells needed...and that's not right, either.

So, there's the criteria you should judge classes on. How you weight them in your campaign is how you'll Tier the classes.

===Aelryinth

[Ravingdork]

Considering how cheap it is to make scrolls, and how cheap it is to add spells to your blessed book, there is no reason for a wizard to not be prepared for absolutely everything. If you are a scroll master wizard, than you don't even have to worry about low DCs or caster level!

It costs a mere 52,405gp to access every core spell in the game (actually a fair bit less as you get many spells for free at level up). It costs nothing to scribe them all into your blessed book (which can itself be created for only 6,250gp). That's pennies in the bucket at each respective level from medium levels on up (since you aren't going to be buying the high level spells you can't cast yet anyways). Knowing all castable spells makes having a bonded item quite wonderful as, once per day, you really are prepared for anything!

Any adventuring wizard who doesn't take full advantage of scribe scroll and being extra prepared isn't living up to his 20+ intelligence score.

This is why wizards are tier 1.

EDIT: Any GM who denies you this is a wizard hating douche and should have just outlawed wizards in the first place...or else is running a desert island campaign with limited resources (and is very likely a wizard hating douche anyways).

[LilithsThrall]

1.) Of course it's a preference. What's being asked is, "given a random lottery from a sample of the widest range of campaign styles/GM styles/adventure scenarios (whatever the hell "widest range of campaign styles/GM styles/adventure scenarios" means is never actually defined, but that's problem 2), which classes would you prefer to bet on as most likely to be effective (whatever the hell 'effective' means)? Given that it's a preference, Arrow's certainly does apply.
2.) and, btw, just how was the answer to the question "what does 'most situations' mean?" derived? That's never made explicit.
3.) If you don't know what the Cartesian fallacy is, don't guess. It just makes you look like an idiot. I'll rephrase the point so that you might better understand. As you know from Clausewitz, it is nonsense to separate the social from the combative. Yet, the author of this tier system explicitly attempts such a split and, thereby, fails.
4.) I think "ecproctophatically" is more accurate here (as in, the classes were placed into their tiers in an ecproctophatically manner. I can use that in place of ex dicta.

[A Man In Black]

LilithsThrall wrote:

3.) If you don't know what the Cartesian fallacy is, don't guess. It just makes you look like an idiot. I'll rephrase the point so that you might better understand. As you know from Clausewitz, it is nonsense to separate the social from the combative. Yet, the author of this tier system explicitly attempts such a split and, thereby, fails.

Wait. Are you seriously trying to argue that Meditations on First Philosophy has anything to do with this discussion? You are wasting everyone's time with pseudophilosophical b#++~!$% and non sequitur trolling. I'm sorry I replied to you at all.

Ravingdork wrote:

Any GM who denies you this is a wizard hating douche and should have just outlawed wizards in the first place...or else is running a desert island campaign with limited resources (and is very likely a wizard hating douche anyways).

Weeeeeeeeeeell.

JaronK's essay comes from the CharOp board/BG culture, where magic item access is assumed as a basic class feature. Uneven magic item access does affect what class would fit into what tier. Wizards would probably be tier 2 without reasonably regular access to scrolls or new spells beyond what they get from leveling up, but it's also worth mentioning that pretty much every martial class is tier 5 or 6 against level-appropriate opposition without access to proper magical equipment.

[Dire Mongoose]

ciretose wrote:

May not be helpful, but these are often true.

For it to be true it'd have to be the case in all people's games. Since that's not the case, it's just stupidly dismissive.

It's the geek messageboard equivalent of, "Oh, you're from Florida? I know a lot of old people retire there. Old people aren't relevant to this discussion, so I'm going to dismiss what you have to say. Things work just fine for me because I'm not old."

[A Man In Black]

ciretose wrote:

Seriously, the 15 minute adventure day is pandemic in some people's games, and apparently everyone gets 10 rounds to buff before combat.

Let me assert that X is true without any kind of coherent case for why X is true or why it matters. In addition, this insight on the subject is unique and revolutionary, and could not possibly have been accounted for in the many previous discussions of the topic.

So. You're talking about two concepts, prep time and endurance.

Prep time first. The ability of spellcasters to buff themselves up beforehand and its importance is vastly overrated. The classes that benefit the most from buffs are the classes with the biggest base numbers: martial classes. A wizard's role in combat is generally to cripple half the combatants with spells like Glitterdust or Sleet Storm, and they can do that from a standing stop. It's a fighter or a barbarian who benefits from having Haste, Enlarge Person, etc. layered on him.

As for endurance, martial classes don't have any greater endurance than spellcasters, particularly in Pathfinder. For one, half of them have limited use core abilities, particularly in the case of the paladin, monk, cavalier, etc. For another, even if they're not reliant on limited-use abilities, they are all reliant on their party-members' limited resources (or failing that, their own limited pool of HP). A 15-minute adventuring day is unlikely, but even an all-fighter party is only going to have a fairly short working day, because after that they're all going to have to take a few weeks off for their wounds to heal.

I'm still disappointed that we're rehashing this instead of discussing how we have a prep spell class that can reprep spells after 1 minute, or a spontaneous casting class that's so good at a few things that it sort of transcends what the old tiers mean, or how Paizo seems to have designed three solid tier 3 classes in the same book while also putting all of the martial classes (save the poor cavalier) more or less on par. There's actually a lot of interesting things to discuss here, and it's kind of a shame that it's the same old people rehashing the same old arguments from 2008.

[Diego Rossi]

A Man In Black wrote:

Carbon D. Metric wrote:

idea of placing classes in tiers of power is flawed at its core anyway. It just encourages munchkin play to win style players, something that is only harmful to the game.

Here is JaronK's original essay, it'd probably be helpful. Pretending that the classes are balanced doesn't make them balanced, and is also harmful to the game.

Being angry at people who study how classes are imbalanced rather than people who designed imbalanced classes is kind of missing the point, no?

The problem of the tiering system is that it fall flat on its first goal:

"1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group"

and the it go downhill.

The "power of the PC" has very little to do with the class and a lot to do with the player.

[A Man In Black]

Diego Rossi wrote:

The "power of the PC" has very little to do with the class and a lot to do with the player.

I can trivially prove this wrong. "Power" in this context is the ability to solve many different challenges effectively.

A very, very well-played, diversified fighter can only solve challenges which involve killing things with his one (or possibly two) combat style(s), challenges which involve intimidating things, and challenges which involve applying possibly one or two other skills.

An even moderately well-played cleric can solve a much, much larger variety of challenges effectively.

On the first page, honestly, JaronK wrote:

Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level. As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues).

[Diego Rossi]

A Man In Black wrote:

Weeeeeeeeeeell.

JaronK's essay comes from the CharOp board/BG culture, where magic item access is assumed as a basic class feature. Uneven magic item access does affect what class would fit into what tier. Wizards would probably be tier 2 without reasonably regular access to scrolls or new spells beyond what they get from leveling up, but it's also worth mentioning that pretty much every martial class is tier 5 or 6 against level-appropriate opposition without access to proper magical equipment.

Define reasonably.

Oh wait, it is campaign related, DM related and situational.

It always return to the basic point, trying to give a pseudo objective system of measurement without any real objective reference.

[A Man In Black]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Define reasonably.

Oh wait, it is campaign related, DM related and situational.

It always return to the basic point, trying to give a pseudo objective system of measurement without any real objective reference.

This is flamebait, why do I reply.

Access to magic items in major cities was defined in the DMG, and is further defined in PF core. If you were playing in a game where magic item access was heavily restricted, certain classes would fare really poorly, and that essay doesn't account for that. No, it really can't account for every non-standard game, that's not possible. The list starts off by trying to account for standard games, since that's a pretty large undertaking on its own.

Yes, classes are weaker when they don't have access to magic items. How does that invalidate the premise of this essay? How does it prevent any discussion that uses this essay as a starting point?

It's not some great insight that the advantages of higher tier classes are situational. Of course they're situational. The ability to handle more situations is by definition a situational advantage. Of course it's not an objective (pr pseudo-objective) system of measurement; it's a subjective evaluation, based on the experience of a respected theorycrafter who'd been consulting with many other respected theorycrafters.

These are obvious and essential facts about the essay. Pointing them out loftily and dismissively says more about the speaker than the subject.

[wraithstrike]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

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.

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.

For LT:

I thought you were a female, not that it matters, just that I thought you corrected someone for using "he" directed at you. Maybe it was ViVi though.

[wraithstrike]

ciretose wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

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”

I think the casters stay in tier 1 every time, full casters that is. This also assumes a decent to good player is running them. Of course how good one has to be in order to considered "good" is another question altogether.

[ciretose]

A Man In Black wrote:

Tossing non sequitors into the discussion and obfuscating your language to muddle things doesn't make it any easier to carry on a conversation with you, either.

He's right. And the brilliance of the statement comes in the examples he provides to demonstrate.

[ciretose]

A Man In Black wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Seriously, the 15 minute adventure day is pandemic in some people's games, and apparently everyone gets 10 rounds to buff before combat.

Let me assert that X is true without any kind of coherent case for why X is true or why it matters. In addition, this insight on the subject is unique and revolutionary, and could not possibly have been accounted for in the many previous discussions of the topic.

So. You're talking about two concepts, prep time and endurance.

Prep time first. The ability of spellcasters to buff themselves up beforehand and its importance is vastly overrated. The classes that benefit the most from buffs are the classes with the biggest base numbers: martial classes. A wizard's role in combat is generally to cripple half the combatants with spells like Glitterdust or Sleet Storm, and they can do that from a standing stop. It's a fighter or a barbarian who benefits from having Haste, Enlarge Person, etc. layered on him.

As for endurance, martial classes don't have any greater endurance than spellcasters, particularly in Pathfinder. For one, half of them have limited use core abilities, particularly in the case of the paladin, monk, cavalier, etc. For another, even if they're not reliant on limited-use abilities, they are all reliant on their party-members' limited resources (or failing that, their own limited pool of HP). A 15-minute adventuring day is unlikely, but even an all-fighter party is only going to have a fairly short working day, because after that they're all going to have to take a few weeks off for their wounds to heal.

I'm still disappointed that we're rehashing this instead of discussing how we have a prep spell class that can reprep spells after 1 minute, or a spontaneous casting class that's so good at a few things that it sort of transcends what the old tiers mean, or how Paizo seems to have designed three solid tier 3 classes in the same book while also putting all of the martial classes (save the poor cavalier) more or less on par. There's actually a lot of interesting things to discuss here, and it's kind of a shame that it's the same old people rehashing the same old arguments from 2008.

1. We agree the 15 minute adventure day is problematic.

2. Having time to buff assumes you know when your encounters are going to begin. I had a very good DM teach me a wonderful trick I use regularly. Sometimes you have the players roll initiative, and it turns out not to be combat. My favorite was when we all snuck up on a puppy. Players learn that casting using/buffs are a choice, not a privilege.

3. A caster who is dead can't cripple anything. An unbuffed caster is a sitting duck, and the primary target for intelligent enemies in the same way the artillery is a smarter target than the infantry. So which spells do you memorize/cast. Action economy forces you to decide this each round, and your spell list is weakened by duplication, since each battle a prepared caster has to ask "use this now, or save it for later?". Not a flaw, but a balancing feature.

3. Hit points are something that can be recovered in the same day. Spells aren't. And we should also point out the reason you are healing the martial class is because the martial class is taking the damage so the casters don't have to. Because they can take it and survive, while the caster can't.

4. 15 minutes vs 1 minute is nice, but still not a short enough time to be able to acquire a spell in combat, when you need it. Not to mention:

"To prepare any spell, a wizard must have enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration. The wizard's surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from distractions. Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character might experience while studying. Wizards also must have access to their spellbooks to study from and sufficient light to read them. There is one major exception: a wizard can prepare a read magic spell even without a spellbook."

Which isn't always easy to find in a dungeon.

I want to be clear. I am not bashing the Wizard. I am simply pointing out the myriad of weaknesses the wizard has that counterbalance the myriad of ways he can, at times, be dominant.

The wizard is the all win/all fail class.

[Malaclypse]

A Man In Black wrote:

I'm still disappointed that we're rehashing this instead of discussing how we have a prep spell class that can reprep spells after 1 minute, or a spontaneous casting class that's so good at a few things that it sort of transcends what the old tiers mean, or how Paizo seems to have designed three solid tier 3 classes in the same book while also putting all of the martial classes (save the poor cavalier) more or less on par....

Hmm. So I guess the monk can now be useful, what are the other two former tier 3 classes?

ciretose wrote:

The wizard is the all win/all fail class.

No, the wizard is pretty much all win, and all win only.

[ShadowcatX]

If you don't want to discuss the balance or lack there of between the classes and only want to complain about other people doing so why are you in a thread obviously designed for doing so?

Anyways my ranking opinions:

(Note: IMO its very hard to get above tier 3 without some form of magic. With level 6+ magic it is very hard to fall below tier 3.)

Summoner - Tier 2. Able to overcome with good spells and with combat. Can use summons for additional spells.

Magus - Tier 3. Good at dealing damage, not so good at most anything else.

Alchemist - Tier 2(.5?) - Decent selection of skills, magic, and combat ability, but not as much raw power as the pure casters (and let's face it, raw power does matter). (I really wish there was a tier between 2 and 3 because while I believe the alchemist is much more flexible than tier 3, I don't think they deserve tier 2.)

Witch - Solid Tier 2. Full caster. Gaining more hexes (non-mind affecting ones especially) could easily bump witch up to tier 1.

Oracle - Tier 2.

Inquisitor - I have no idea. I don't "get" the inquisitor, it doesn't appeal to me at all (despite a general liking of skills, mid BAB, and mid spells) and I haven't ever so much as built one much less had any experience with it.

Cavalier - Tier 3 / 5. Depends on the game and DM, a cavalier without the ability to use his mount is going to have a hard time contributing as much as say a fighter / barbarian / etc.

-----

Edit: On the topic of the Wizard, sure a wizard has to pick the right spells for the day and are in terrible trouble if they didn't. Unless they teleport away, or summon a monster to use a spell like ability for them, or use rope trick to hide, or fly away, or have scrolls that they scribed, or . . . well you get the idea.

That said, its pretty hard to put a wizard of decent level in a situation where none of his spells are the right thing to do. If s/he memorizes a mix of buffs, battle field control, debuffs, and a bit of damage can you tell me exactly what scenario they aren't prepared for?

[A Man In Black]

ciretose wrote:

stuff about the thricedamned wizard, again

So. Are you suggesting that the APG or UM introduced these weaknesses of the wizard? Or removed them? This isn't the "Everyone bring out their personal stories about how the GM has a hard-on for wrecking every arcane spellcaster in their home games" thread.

ShadowcatX wrote:

Witch - Solid Tier 2. Full caster. Gaining more hexes (non-mind affecting ones especially) could easily bump witch up to tier 1.

How would you say that a witch is less versatile or powerful than a wizard?

Malacalypse wrote:

Hmm. So I guess the monk can now be useful, what are the other two former tier 3 classes?

None of them were former tier 3s. The new tier 3s are the inquisitor (which is a design trainwreck but effective), the alchemist (which plays like a dream once you figure it out), and the magus. All of the martials are now at tier 4: a properly-built fighter, barbarian, and monk are all more or less always-working combatants who have little else but minor situational abilities going for them, while the ranger, rogue, and paladin are have larger, situational toolboxes but more-limited or more-situational combat abilities.

[glenstryder]

I really don't understand this "Tier" thing and the fighter rank

Fights are never one versus one or one versus different ennemies.
It's always a group versus ennemies and in that regard I really think that the pathfinder fighter is a killing machine.

The damage output and the attack bonus of this class is so amazing that I do think it's one of the most efficient class. And thanks to feats like the trip chain it can also have some controls on the battlefield.

And dealing damage and being able to hit is always good, whatever the situation

[Kthulhu]

Ravingdork wrote:

It costs a mere 52,405gp to access every core spell in the game (actually a fair bit less as you get many spells for free at level up). It costs nothing to scribe them all into your blessed book (which can itself be created for only 6,250gp).

1. Have you recalculated that with the spells added in APG and UM?

2. I'm sorry, but any GM who actually lets a wizard go into the (grimace) Magic Mart and buy a copy of every spell in existence is ridiculous. It's akin to giving the wizard's player a copy of the AP, telling him to study up, and then being distressed that he somehow manages to have the perfect spells memorized for every encounter.

[sunshadow21]

A Man In Black wrote:

None of them were former tier 3s. The new tier 3s are the inquisitor (which is a design trainwreck but effective), the alchemist (which plays like a dream once you figure it out), and the magus. All of the martials are now at tier 4: a properly-built fighter, barbarian, and monk are all more or less always-working combatants who have little else but minor situational abilities going for them, while the ranger, rogue, and paladin are have larger, situational toolboxes but more-limited or more-situational combat abilities.

I would put ranger and paladin at tier 3 personally, becuase while they don't have much access to magic, they do have access to enough that they can use most of the more useful wands and scrolls, especially the paladin. That, combined with the fact that in an average campaign, their situational stuff will come up enough to make it worth while, and the ability to get a mount/animal companion makes me put their base value at 3, though like all of the other martial classes, the actual value for a given character in a given campaign could be anything from 3 to 5. The remaining martial classes I base at 4. Cavalier(at least from what I've seen), fighter, and barbarian are usually good for consistent, reliable damage with the occasional extra trick they can throw in to keep things from getting completely boring, and the rogue and the monk have enough tricks to keep them useful as long those tricks are understood and properly utilized. But all of them can vary from 3 to 5 in actual play.

[Swivl]

ciretose wrote:

3. A caster who is dead can't cripple anything. An unbuffed caster is a sitting duck, and the primary target for intelligent enemies in the same way the artillery is a smarter target than the infantry. So which spells do you memorize/cast. Action economy forces you to decide this each round, and your spell list is weakened by duplication, since each battle a prepared caster has to ask "use this now, or save it for later?". Not a flaw, but a balancing feature.

3. Hit points are something that can be recovered in the same day. Spells aren't. And we should also point out the reason you are healing the martial class is because the martial class is taking the damage so the casters don't have to. Because they can take it and survive, while the caster can't.

So, casters are primary targets, but martial characters take all the damage? Sounds like the fighter did what he was meant to do, stay between the squishie and the baddie.

It can't be that warriors are doing their job and aren't at the same time, though. And like mentioned before, every class has exhaustible resources, even if in the case of the fighter it's just hit points and ability points. The 15 minute workday isn't always determined by the caster anymore, unless that caster is the healer.

@Kthulu I told my GM once that a character's ambition was to fill a 1,000 page Blessed Book with 1,000 spells (3.5 Geometer had 1 spell per page), and he was down with it. But, and here's the thing, I had to adventure to get every single spell. No Magic Mart action. And, even though the game didn't last, I was well on my way to doing just that. Some games are better suited for it than others, no doubt, but scrolls and enemy spell-books are common enough to have ambitions like that. It was a challenge that I was crazy enough to try. I couldn't imagine actually trying to prep spells with such an insanely high list of options, but that's another matter altogether.

[Malaclypse]

A Man In Black wrote:

None of them were former tier 3s. The new tier 3s are the inquisitor (which is a design trainwreck but effective), the alchemist (which plays like a dream once you figure it out), and the magus. All of the martials are now at tier 4: a properly-built fighter, barbarian, and monk are all more or less always-working combatants who have little else but minor situational abilities going for them, while the ranger, rogue, and paladin are have larger, situational toolboxes but more-limited or more-situational combat abilities.

Yeah, monks were always the runts of the litter, indeed.

But so... nothing ever changes. Full casters are full of win, partial casters get some too, and martial characters...well.

But that even rogues are now the new monks is kind of ... sad.

[ciretose]

A Man In Black wrote:

ciretose wrote:

stuff about the thricedamned wizard, again

So. Are you suggesting that the APG or UM introduced these weaknesses of the wizard? Or removed them? This isn't the "Everyone bring out their personal stories about how the GM has a hard-on for wrecking every arcane spellcaster in their home games" thread.

I am suggesting that in order to put the Wizard in a special tier to themselves because of the strength of the Wizard class you also have to ignore the weaknesses of the wizard class.

None of which you have denied or addressed.

[ciretose]

Swivl wrote:

So, casters are primary targets, but martial characters take all the damage? Sounds like the fighter did what he was meant to do, stay between the squishie and the baddie.

It can't be that warriors are doing their job and aren't at the same time, though. And like mentioned before, every class has exhaustible resources, even if in the case of the fighter it's just hit points and ability points. The 15 minute workday isn't always determined by the caster anymore, unless that caster is the healer.

It is warriors doing their job, a job marginalized by the tier system. Which is a large part of my argument. If the fighter isn't there, doing what they do, the Wizard is taking the hit.

And before anyone says "Summon a..." it is a full round action leaving you exposed to damage that could kill the spell.

Hit points, and to a lesser extent ability points, can be recovered in the middle of an adventuring day. Spells can't.

Wizards at the beginning of the day need to make decisions in each encounter as to what they may or may not need later in a way other classes do not.

This isn't saying they aren't awesome. This is saying that handwaving all of their limitations in real world play means not having an honest discussion of the class when comparing to other classes.

A wizard is the best class in the game when you know what is coming, I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that.

What I am pointing out is that if they don't, or worse they guess wrong about what is coming, they become one of the weakest and most vulnerable for that specific encounter.

Which I actually think is great game design.

[LazarX]

Malaclypse wrote:

Hmm. So I guess the monk can now be useful, what are the other two former tier 3 classes?.

Having moderated a monk in a few PFS scenarios at Dexcon this weekend, a well played Monk is dominant over anyone he's in melee with. He's mobile enough to close with just about anyone, has a good chance of surviving anything the wizard throws his way and once he's got the wizard in grapple or triplock, it's pretty much over.

[A Man In Black]

ciretose wrote:

I am suggesting that in order to put the Wizard in a special tier to themselves because of the strength of the Wizard class you also have to ignore the weaknesses of the wizard class.

None of which you have denied or addressed.

I think I haven't denied or addressed it because I don't actually disagree.

Treantmonk's tier evaluations just plain suck. Nobody's suggesting that wizards are in a field of their own but Treantmonk, and he's an outspoken wizard booster. JaronK put wizards on par with clerics, druids, and a number of non-core classes. I put them on par with clerics, druids, witches, and summoners (although I'm sort of iffy about that last). In my evaluation, wizards aren't in any special class of their own. I've always held that their most effective combat role is to cast a single powerful spell or two to cripple or divide the opposition, then retire to casting low-level spells or retiring from combat entirely to allow allies to clean up.

So, can we stop arguing about whether wizards are the uberclass now? Because while they are a very powerful class they still aren't the uberclass, and even so it wasn't the OP's intended topic of discussion, and on top of that it's not a terribly interesting topic of discussion.

[bartgroks]

A Man In Black wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

Witch - Solid Tier 2. Full caster. Gaining more hexes (non-mind affecting ones especially) could easily bump witch up to tier 1.

How would you say that a witch is less versatile or powerful than a wizard?

I ranked witch in Tier 1 myself but i would say they are still slightly less powerful than wizard because so much of their best stuff is mind-affecting/will targeting. That and as you mention their toolbox does not have the depth of the wizard tool box. I think the divine spells added to their list compensate enough to keep them in tier 1 but I dont think they are versatile or powerful as a Wizard.

[Dire Mongoose]

LazarX wrote:

Having moderated a monk in a few PFS scenarios at Dexcon this weekend, a well played Monk is dominant over anyone he's in melee with.

It's not that the monk can't ever have his time to shine.

It's that there are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" around it, and unlike some of the threads wherein someone says: "If the GM does these 12 things specifically to try to reign in the cleric, the cleric isn't very good", the things that make the monk not very good just sort of naturally happen.

Yeah, the monk can grapple people down pretty well. As long as they're not a full BAB class (or it fails a lot), don't have freedom of movement, don't have good natural attacks (because in that case they don't really care), aren't very large (or it fails a lot), aren't fighting-ish characters with a one-handed weapon (or they just beat on the monk), don't have much in the way of AC buffs (or it fails a lot), aren't incorporeal, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's a lot of ifs that add up to a lot of famine in their feast or famine in most campaigns. Generally, the more urban the campaign is and/or the more the monk gets to fight humanoid opponents, the better they do.

Incidentally, why would a wizard care if a monk was tripping them?

[Dire Mongoose]

ciretose wrote:

And before anyone says "Summon a..." it is a full round action leaving you exposed to damage that could kill the spell.

Post-APG this is only sometimes true. (Which isn't a design decision I would have made, but that's another story.)

I'm running a game currently with two characters that regularly summon; each of them can do it in a standard action.

[Swivl]

ciretose wrote:

Swivl wrote:

So, casters are primary targets, but martial characters take all the damage? Sounds like the fighter did what he was meant to do, stay between the squishie and the baddie.

It can't be that warriors are doing their job and aren't at the same time, though. And like mentioned before, every class has exhaustible resources, even if in the case of the fighter it's just hit points and ability points. The 15 minute workday isn't always determined by the caster anymore, unless that caster is the healer.

It is warriors doing their job, a job marginalized by the tier system. Which is a large part of my argument. If the fighter isn't there, doing what they do, the Wizard is taking the hit.

And before anyone says "Summon a..." it is a full round action leaving you exposed to damage that could kill the spell.

Hit points, and to a lesser extent ability points, can be recovered in the middle of an adventuring day. Spells can't.

Wizards at the beginning of the day need to make decisions in each encounter as to what they may or may not need later in a way other classes do not.

This isn't saying they aren't awesome. This is saying that handwaving all of their limitations in real world play means not having an honest discussion of the class when comparing to other classes.

A wizard is the best class in the game when you know what is coming, I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that.

What I am pointing out is that if they don't, or worse they guess wrong about what is coming, they become one of the weakest and most vulnerable for that specific encounter.

Which I actually think is great game design.

I'm not sure anyone thinks a party of wizards would dominate the gaming table (as interesting as I personally find the idea), so we agree here. I wouldn't count out the resilience of the right defenses, though (ALWAYS prepare Mount). I played a wizard that lost several parties (the lone survivor) and never outright died himself in more than one gaming group, and nobody blamed him for their death.

Argh, that's the problem. So many things have a context, and wizards are the contextual class. That's why I think this is even an argument at all.

[Dire Mongoose]

ciretose wrote:

2. Having time to buff assumes you know when your encounters are going to begin.

I don't think anyone's suggesting you always have time to buff, and hopefully no one's suggesting you never have time to buff, either. Sometimes you can make pretty reasonable guesses of when combat is likely.

You're about to enter the dungeon or dungeon equivalent location? Probably it's safe to bring out those 10 minute / level buffs. Probably if you feel like casting a 1 minute / level buff it'll see combat.

Buying buff time during a fight (when it's important enough / relevant) is one of the functions of some characters, be it the entangling druid or tripping pole fighter or what have you.

[Evil Lincoln]

All analysis preformed thus far is flawed for the lack of Tier Fishy.

[Gorbacz]

Or Tier Smurf.

[LazarX]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Incidentally, why would a wizard care if a monk was tripping them?

Same reason anyone else would. It became that much more easier for someone to thwack you. Not to mention the automatic AOO you'd get for trying to stand up. His greater concern from the monk would be the pin or the stunning fist. The monk in question, would go for the stun first on caster characters, the trip on melees.

[ShadowcatX]

A Man In Black wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

Witch - Solid Tier 2. Full caster. Gaining more hexes (non-mind affecting ones especially) could easily bump witch up to tier 1.

How would you say that a witch is less versatile or powerful than a wizard?

Their spell list is less flexible, they have fewer illusions (image line of spells), blasts, and buffs (haste, polymorh,). They're also limited by an inability to specialize thus missing out on a spell / spell level / day and the really cool abilities from the specialization schools (ie. divination, conjuration). Finally, they don't get the raw power of the best 9th level spells (wish, time stop, gate, disjunction).

Now they do get a few things over a wizard, healing, a SoD at level 1 that can be used a virtually unlimited number of times (slumber hex) and solid but single target debuffs. Patron choice can help with their spell selection but no patron takes care of all those issues.

I'm not saying witch is a bad class, I believe it is one of the strongest and most flexible classes in the game possibly on par with cleric. I just don't believe it has the variety of options that a wizard does.

[LilithsThrall]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

ciretose wrote:

2. Having time to buff assumes you know when your encounters are going to begin.

I don't think anyone's suggesting you always have time to buff, and hopefully no one's suggesting you never have time to buff, either. Sometimes you can make pretty reasonable guesses of when combat is likely.

You're about to enter the dungeon or dungeon equivalent location? Probably it's safe to bring out those 10 minute / level buffs. Probably if you feel like casting a 1 minute / level buff it'll see combat.

An intelligent critter running a dungeon will hit the party after they enter the dungeon with a couple of dispel magics for exactly this reason.

[LilithsThrall]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Yeah, the monk can grapple people down pretty well. As long as they're not a full BAB class (or it fails a lot), don't have freedom of movement, don't have good natural attacks (because in that case they don't really care), aren't very large (or it fails a lot), aren't fighting-ish characters with a one-handed weapon (or they just beat on the monk), don't have much in the way of AC buffs (or it fails a lot), aren't incorporeal, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's a good thing that monks can do other things beside grapple.

[Dire Mongoose]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Yeah, the monk can grapple people down pretty well. As long as they're not a full BAB class (or it fails a lot), don't have freedom of movement, don't have good natural attacks (because in that case they don't really care), aren't very large (or it fails a lot), aren't fighting-ish characters with a one-handed weapon (or they just beat on the monk), don't have much in the way of AC buffs (or it fails a lot), aren't incorporeal, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's a good thing that monks can do other things beside grapple.

True. But half of what I listed kills trip, too, and other things kill trip that aren't on that list.

At least, I think the crux of the pro-monk argument is based on maneuvers.

I'd love if the monk were a much better class than I think they are. I just don't think that's the case.

[Dire Mongoose]

LilithsThrall wrote:

An intelligent critter running a dungeon will hit the party after they enter the dungeon with a couple of dispel magics for exactly this reason.

Sure.

Granted, normal Dispel Magic isn't very good in Pathfinder. I don't think it's very frequently a smart use of a round, even if situationally it could be.

[LazarX]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

An intelligent critter running a dungeon will hit the party after they enter the dungeon with a couple of dispel magics for exactly this reason.

Sure.

Granted, normal Dispel Magic isn't very good in Pathfinder. I don't think it's very frequently a smart use of a round, even if situationally it could be.

I once used DM on a flying buffed mage. It really ruined his day after all the module prep time he had used in order to ambush us.