Hi all,
I only recently found out about this myself, but apparently for some time now there's been discussion circulating around the idea of a tier system (not to be confused with the 4E) for 3.5 base classes that weighs their versatility (in qualitative terms) and ranks them accordingly. It's actually pretty fascinating as I tend to personally agree with the distribution of the classes across the tiers.
Here's a link for those who aren't familiar with what I'm referring to: linky linky.
So, here are my questions:
A) Do you think that the current Pathfinder incarnations of the classes posted are still in the same tiers as their 3.5 incarnations?
B) Where would you place the new Pathfinder base/alternate classes (APG, UC, & UM classes) in the tiers?
C) Is this tier system accurate and/or useful to DMs and players?
I'd love to hear your thoughts!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a big discussion on this a while back.
For the most part the big 3 are still in charge.
In many cases player tier trumps class tier. In short the best players will give the GM the most trouble no matter what class they play, and the worse players are easier to handle.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never put much stock in that whole tier thing.
It's certainly interesting, but mostly just in an academic, geeky, theorizing-just-for-the-sake-of-theorizing sort of way ...
Kind of like those 'what number comes up most if I roll a given dice 1,000 times' theories you used to see.
|
I've yet to see all the classes played, and none through to level 20. If you are doing a like for like comparison at level 20 then pure spell casters will come off the best.
I see from reading some of the threads where the idea of tiers comes from, but from my limited experience it seems that different classes seem to shine a different levels. None spell casters will always struggle to compete with a wish spell for example, but have the capacity to survive more effectively than a spell caster a low levels.
I think Pathfinder characters have a greater diversity and power than 3.5 characters. The optimised guides show how powerful each class can be, and where they tend to shine. The core druid "shines" at level 5-10 according to the guide, our druid seems to fit the bill at level 7.
Melee characters tend to "shine" at lower levels, while forefilling a role at higher levels, and potentially managing to kill other optimised high level characters in head-to-head fights if they get initiative...
So:
A. I wouldn't think so
B. Not sure
C. I'd say it's helpful to know what optimised characters are capable of or what to expect as a GM.
Know that at level one a pretty standard human barbarian can routinely hit for a maximum of 24 points of damage without a crit. Your level 6 druid can wildshape into a Dire Tigre and if they have a strength build ruin the BBEG in melee. Once arcane spell casters get level 2 magic they will spend a lot of time invisible. The magus can hit for an extra 5d6 electricity damage via shocking grasp from level 5 a lot with spell recall. Alchemists bombs make easy optimisation.
But yes, at level 20 your pure casters will "shine" as they have access to very powerful magic, and with a clever player they can be very effective from level 1
The tiers are basically the same, though I always found the distinctions between tier 1 and 2 to be mostly bs. Rogue dropped at least 1 tier, bard may have slipped, monk is still firmly at the bottom. Within the high tiers, wizard and cleric are even more "tier 1" than before thanks to sizeable buffs, druid got nerfed a bunch and is now " 'low' tier 1", which is still quite "high" on the food chain.
Most of the new classes are 6-level casters like the bard and are in the tier 3-4 range, cavalier is probably tier 4 or 5, summoner is notably a strong tier 2. Witch is tier 1, of course. Oracle is tier 2 like sorceror, except not quite as good.
EDIT: Witch might be tier 2, actually. They get some extremely powerful things, but their spell list is also very very restricted and limited in scope. Again, I don't agree w/ separating the "gamebreakers" into two separate tiers, should not matter how many nukes you have, just having nukes makes you unbalanced with the rest. So the two get fuzzy to me a lot.
If you are doing a like for like comparison at level 20 then pure spell casters will come off the best.I'd like to introduce you to this guy I know. His name is AM BARBARIAN.
AM BARBARIAN is still vulnerable to Rocket Tag and was significantly reduced in stature due to the RAGELANCEPOUNCE "clarification."
AM BARBARIAN is still vulnerable to Rocket Tag and was significantly reduced in stature due to the RAGELANCEPOUNCE "clarification."If you are doing a like for like comparison at level 20 then pure spell casters will come off the best.I'd like to introduce you to this guy I know. His name is AM BARBARIAN.
Having trouble finding this clarification. Anybody got a link?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?
No, for two reasons.One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.
Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)
—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12
FAQ EntryLance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?
No, for two reasons.One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.
Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)
—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12
Thanks for that.
So . . . do you still get the charge bonus to your attack roll? If so, that seems kinda inconsistent, and if not, that's even worse for anybody with pounce (including monsters).
FAQ EntryLance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?
No, for two reasons.One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.
Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)
—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12
Thanks for that.
So . . . do you still get the charge bonus to your attack roll? If so, that seems kinda inconsistent, and if not, that's even worse for anybody with pounce (including monsters).
I think a way of reconciling the inconsistency is like this: When a puma pounces on you, It is attacking with every natural weapon it has all at once. So it gets +2 to each attack.
When a barbarian "pounces" He is doing something totally different. I guess he is just attacking really fast, since he probably has only one weapon and several iteratives.
Its probably more effort than its worth, but it would make sense to only give the charge bonus (+2 to hit and lance damage) Once per weapon.
Note: You can dual-wield lances on a horse :)
FAQ EntryLance: If I have the pounce ability and I charge with a lance, do my iterative lance attacks get the lance's extra damage multiplier from charging?
No, for two reasons.One, because a lance only deals extra damage when you’re riding a charging mount—not when you are charging.
Two, even if you have an unusual combination of rules that allows you to ignore the above limitation, it doesn’t makes sense that those iterative attacks gain the damage bonus. To make that second attack, you have to pull the lance back and stab forward again, and that stab doesn’t have the benefit of the charge’s momentum. (The Core Rulebook doesn’t state that you only get the damage multiplier on the first attack with a lance because when the Core Rulebook was published, there was no way for a PC to charge and get multiple attacks with a weapon in the same round, so that combination didn’t need to be addressed.)
—Sean K Reynolds, 03/01/12
Thanks for that.
So . . . do you still get the charge bonus to your attack roll? If so, that seems kinda inconsistent, and if not, that's even worse for anybody with pounce (including monsters).
I think a way of reconciling the inconsistency is like this: When a puma pounces on you, It is attacking with every natural weapon it has all at once. So it gets +2 to each attack.
When a barbarian "pounces" He is doing something totally different. I guess he is just attacking really fast, since he probably has only one weapon and several iteratives.
Its probably more effort than its worth, but it would make sense to only give the charge bonus (+2 to hit and lance damage) Once per weapon.
Note: You can dual-wield lances on a horse :)
One quick point: The barbarian may be doing something different. It is extremely easy to get 4 natural attacks by the time you have Pounce, plus the CHA-based Lesser Spirit Totem slam attack. Half-Orc (or Orc) with the race trait, alternate racial, or feat for the bite, 2 claws from the Lesser Beast Totem, and the Gore from Lesser Fiend Totem.
I think a way of reconciling the inconsistency is like this: When a puma pounces on you, It is attacking with every natural weapon it has all at once. So it gets +2 to each attack.When a barbarian "pounces" He is doing something totally different. I guess he is just attacking really fast, since he probably has only one weapon and several iteratives.
Its probably more effort than its worth, but it would make sense to only give the charge bonus (+2 to hit and lance damage) Once per weapon.
Note: You can dual-wield lances on a horse :)
No bonus damage is given on a charge, just a +2 to hit.
No bonus damage is given on a charge, just a +2 to hit.
I think a way of reconciling the inconsistency is like this: When a puma pounces on you, It is attacking with every natural weapon it has all at once. So it gets +2 to each attack.When a barbarian "pounces" He is doing something totally different. I guess he is just attacking really fast, since he probably has only one weapon and several iteratives.
Its probably more effort than its worth, but it would make sense to only give the charge bonus (+2 to hit and lance damage) Once per weapon.
Note: You can dual-wield lances on a horse :)
Lances do x2 damage on a charge while mounted.
Lances do x2 damage on a charge while mounted.No bonus damage is given on a charge, just a +2 to hit.
I think a way of reconciling the inconsistency is like this: When a puma pounces on you, It is attacking with every natural weapon it has all at once. So it gets +2 to each attack.When a barbarian "pounces" He is doing something totally different. I guess he is just attacking really fast, since he probably has only one weapon and several iteratives.
Its probably more effort than its worth, but it would make sense to only give the charge bonus (+2 to hit and lance damage) Once per weapon.
Note: You can dual-wield lances on a horse :)
Right, I thought you meant the +2 to hit from the charge went to damage as well. My fault.
There this minor detail on the martial weapons chart in the CRB. Lance is listed under "two-handed weapons"...
There this minor detail on the martial weapons chart in the CRB. Lance is listed under "two-handed weapons"...
They are one-handed while mounted. See the lance page.
|
|
AM BARBARIAN is still vulnerable to Rocket Tag and was significantly reduced in stature due to the RAGELANCEPOUNCE "clarification."If you are doing a like for like comparison at level 20 then pure spell casters will come off the best.I'd like to introduce you to this guy I know. His name is AM BARBARIAN.
He still absolutely mutilates the whole "At high levels, only full spellcasters are viable" meme.
The cynic in me does wonder how much of the clarification was prompted by the realization that a martial character was actually being as effective as a spellcaster at high levels.
|
|
The cynic in me does wonder how much of the clarification was prompted by the realization that a martial character was actually being as effective as a spellcaster at high levels.
Really? It struck me as a simple use of logic. It's not like they entirely removed the tactic, after all, just made the doubling damage only apply on the first attack (which is the logical way to do it).
There this minor detail on the martial weapons chart in the CRB. Lance is listed under "two-handed weapons"...They are one-handed while mounted. See the lance page.
I am aware of this. However, despite the "magic-ness" of PF, a lance is not listed as a light or one-handed weapon. A lance is more than twice as long as the height of its wielder (15 feet for a Medium wielder).
I can suspend my disbelief a great deal, but not that far. One lance at a time in the hands of a villain has proven more than sufficient!
There this minor detail on the martial weapons chart in the CRB. Lance is listed under "two-handed weapons"...They are one-handed while mounted. See the lance page.I am aware of this. However, despite the "magic-ness" of PF, a lance is not listed as a light or one-handed weapon. A lance is more than twice as long as the height of its wielder (15 feet for a Medium wielder).
I can suspend my disbelief a great deal, but not that far. One lance at a time in the hands of a villain has proven more than sufficient!
Wait... So, you are fine with barbarians swimming in molten lava, fighters dropping 3 miles from the sky and walking away, and a metal that is so hard that it can cut stone like a knife cuts butter. But wielding two lances! That's where you draw the line?
What is acceptable depends on how you fluff things or how you view verisimilitude. As an example the fact that shields even work makes no sense. Using a shield to black an attack from many creatures should leave you with a broken arm and/or shield.
At the same time sheating a weapon as a free action is not something I can see happening because the amount of precision happening is beyond human.
Wait... So, you are fine with barbarians swimming in molten lava, fighters dropping 3 miles from the sky and walking away, and a metal that is so hard that it can cut stone like a knife cuts butter. But wielding two lances! That's where you draw the line?There this minor detail on the martial weapons chart in the CRB. Lance is listed under "two-handed weapons"...They are one-handed while mounted. See the lance page.I am aware of this. However, despite the "magic-ness" of PF, a lance is not listed as a light or one-handed weapon. A lance is more than twice as long as the height of its wielder (15 feet for a Medium wielder).
I can suspend my disbelief a great deal, but not that far. One lance at a time in the hands of a villain has proven more than sufficient!
I think the most important statement I made is "one lance at a time in the hands of a villain has proven more than sufficient!".
RAW, apparently, one can steer/guide a mount without a hand and guide not one but *two* lances with the usual TWF penalties as part of a mounted charge and deliver, via Spirited Charge, enough damage to - with the new versions of 3e Cleave in UC - deal more than sufficient damage to skewer the entire 4-man party in a single attack by the BBEG.
Just because the rules theoertically allow dual-wielding lances as part of a mounted charge does not mean that such a thing is something that one wants to see the bad guys using on one's PCs.
That's where I draw a line: a single lance-wielding villain with Spirited Charge is deadly enough. Dual-wielding lances as part of such an attack ... ah, naaaaaa.
The dual lance was used as an argument to counter the tier advantage.
So does AM BARBARIAN have a counter for Contingency?
So does AM BARBARIAN have a counter for Contingency?
@JGL: Except a paladin can deal with everything you mentioned, they get dispell magic, they get flying mounts, and they get Litany of Sight. The current paladin spell list should raise them up to the same level as all the other guys with full spell lists, because he can do everything they can do, only he does it with a d10 hit die, ridiculous saves, a full BaB, and a large variety of other abilities which make him very frustrating to fight.