|
So.
Just curious
If one were to rank (based on performance/power) all of the base classes (stock, not using archetypes) 1-20, with 1 being Commoner, and 20 being either Druid or Summoner whichever is 'better performing', how would you rate the other classes?
Classes can have the same number if they are the same overall power/performance.
Curious to see how people rank them.
Arguments or links to why you rank things a certain way are welcome.
Not really a question for the Paizo Publishing General Discussion forum - I'm flagging with the hope that one of the mods will move it to Pathfinder RPG General Discussion.
In answer to your question this has been debated a thousand times before. Generally people have an informal ranking based on flexibility at later levels, where the wizard is king (prepared spellcaster, potentially every arcane spell available given sufficient investment, etc) along with the cleric or druid or something. I forget.
Really the people who drew up the classes aren't dummies and all the classes make useful contributions to an adventuring group. Less important than having a group of all the best class is having a group that covers all the major roles in and out of combat, works well together and is fun to play. Paizo generally assumes a balanced group when writing their Adventure Paths and I agree that this is likely the most fun way to play the game, although it should be noted that you can homebrew up a great campaign where everyone plays all the same class (e.g., wizards or clerics).
Oh, also the NPC only classes (commoner, adept, warrior, expert) are considered to be less powerful than the PC classes, although a well played commoner will beat a poorly played wizard every time.
You need to define "performing" better, or everyone will use their own definition which never goes well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All classes = 20
Don't hate the game. Hate the players
This is a cooperative game. All Pathfinder character classes are balanced with their own strengths and weaknesses.
No single character can complete an adventure path solo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These are such cop out answers. My opinion:
Summoner > 9 Level casters > 6 Level casters (other than Summoner, but including Alchemist) > 4 Level Casters > Full BAB non-casters > Monk and Rogue
If you want to include archetypes, then a Qinggong Zen Archer can go up there with the 4 level casters and Master Summoner beats out regular Summoner, but not much else changes.
Google JaronK Tier system Pathfinder. What you are mostly asking for is described as a tier system as to how powerful AND versatile classes are, these are ranked 1 (highest) to 6 (lowest) .
Generally full spellcasters come out way on top, followed by spellcasters and the tougher warrior types then Bard, Monk and the NPC classes. Biggest debate is where Summoner, Bard and Rogue fit in.
Tier 1- prepared spellcasters
2. Spontaneous full spellcasters.
3. Not full spellcasters- Alchemist, Inquisitor, maybe adept.
4. Warriors, skill monkeys. (some of the better classes may be T3)
5. Cavalier, Monk, maybe expert or aristocrat
6. Other NPC classes.
Inevitably someone will try to fit in classes that don’t exist in Pathfinder, i.e. the Psionic classes, but since there is apparently a good 3rd party book on these, it’s not so bad for compare purposes.
|
|
Monk 20
Wizard 1
/thread
You just said the wizard is as weak as the commoner, and no class is as good as the monk.
I believe you meant
Monk 1
Wizard 20
/thread
Also, even if I agreed with that (monk is as good as commoner, wizard is the best), that doesn't say anything about where any of the other classes fit in.
Summoner > 9 Level casters > 6 Level casters (other than Summoner, but including Alchemist) > 4 Level Casters > Full BAB non-casters > Monk and Rogue
Archetypes
Qinggong Zen Archer = 4 level casters
Master Summoner > Summoner
Thank you! This is the sort of detail I was looking for.
How big is the gap between each step? How much better is a 9 level caster than an alchemist? How much better is a Full-BAB non-caster(barbarian) than a Monk or Rogue?Google JaronK Tier system Pathfinder. What you are mostly asking for is described as a tier system as to how powerful AND versatile classes are, these are ranked 1 (highest) to 6 (lowest) .
Generally full spellcasters come out way on top, followed by spellcasters and the tougher warrior types then Bard, Monk and the NPC classes. Biggest debate is where Summoner, Bard and Rogue fit in.
Tier 1- prepared spellcasters
2. Spontaneous full spellcasters.
3. Not full spellcasters- Alchemist, Inquisitor, maybe adept.
4. Warriors, skill monkeys. (some of the better classes may be T3)
5. Cavalier, Monk, maybe expert or aristocrat
6. Other NPC classes.
Excellent. I'll look this up.
I knew that 9 level casters (druid particularly) and summoners were somewhere at the top, and that Monks and Rogues near the bottom, but I had no idea where the other things fit in.
Looking it up, I can't find a decent version of the list for Pathfinder, just 3.5. If someone can link me a version of JaronK's Tier system that's geared at pathfinder, let me know. In the meantime, I'll be looking for it on google.
Hey Darkholme, just thought i would mention you can't ask an opinion based question and then tell people they are wrong.
As far as i'm concerned there is two tiers.
PC Classes > NPC Classes. Everything else is an opinion.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Tier 1- prepared spellcasters
2. Spontaneous full spellcasters.
You have this backwards. Prepared spellcaster can theoretically cast any spell, if they have the resources. Of course, they can only memorize just so many spells at one time and require a substantial amount of time to fill empty daily slots (it's not happening in combat).
Paragon Surge allows a spontaneous caster to cast any arcane spell they are aware exists, spontaneously. There is nothing theoretical involved. Once they hit 6th level, the sorcerer has full access to every published arcane spell they are of sufficient level to cast, at a moments notice.
Spontaneous divine casters can, with eldritch heritage, access the vast majority of arcane spells in the same manner.
Thank you! This is the sort of detail I was looking for.
How big is the gap between each step? How much better is a 9 level caster than an alchemist? How much better is a Full-BAB non-caster(barbarian) than a Monk or Rogue?
The gap is variable between steps. The Master Summoner, Summoner, and 9 level spellcasters are all so powerful, the difference between them is negligible. There's practically no power difference between them and the 6 level casters until the early teens, and then the gap widens to its widest point at 20.
Between 6 level casters and non-casters, there's no gap at level 1, but it slowly grows as they level. Low level spells are not especially more useful than skills and good stats, but the higher level the spell, the more significant having it becomes.
The gap between Ranger/Paladin and the other full BAB classes is pretty small, but there. The gap between non-casters with full BAB and Rogue is not that wide, but it's there at all and all of the 6 level caster classes have enough Rogue in them to obsolete the class in general.
Monk (as anything but a Zen Archer, a Sensei support build, a dip for another class, or an insane set of rolled stats) is a joke.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest switching to a tier system rather than a ranking system. It avoids having to argue over as many silly details, like "What's stronger, an Aristocrat or a Warrior?" Also, tier systems are something the community has been using for a long time.
Here's the one from minoritarian's link:
Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard, Oracle (with Paragon Surge), Sorcerer (with Paragon Surge)
Tier 2: Psion, Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner
Tier 3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Psychic Warrior, Wilder
Tier 4: Barbarian, Fighter, Gunslinger, Ninja, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Soulknife
Tier 5: Cavalier, Expert, Monk, Samurai
Tier 6: Aristocrat, Commoner, Warrior
I'd probably do it more like this, assuming high level play (over 10th) and standard (fairly good) builds:
Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard
Tier 2: Oracle, Sorcerer
Tier 3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Summoner, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
Tier 4: Barbarian, Gunslinger, Ninja, Rogue, Cavalier, Monk, Samurai
Tier 5: Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior
At lower levels, the fighting classes are better and the spellcasting classes are weaker.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Paragon Surge allows a spontaneous caster to cast any arcane spell they are aware exists, spontaneously. There is nothing theoretical involved. Once they hit 6th level, the sorcerer has full access to every published arcane spell they are of sufficient level to cast, at a moments notice.
Link? Cite?
Eldritch Heritage
You are descended from a long line of sorcerers, and some portion of their power flows in your veins.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Skill Focus with the class skill of bloodline selected for this feat (see below), character level 3rd.
Benefit: Select one sorcerer bloodline. You must have Skill focus in the class skill that bloodline grants to a sorcerer at 1st level (for example, Heal for the celestial bloodline). This bloodline cannot be a bloodline you already have. You gain the first-level bloodline power for the selected bloodline. For purposes of using that power, treat your sorcerer level as equal to your character level – 2, even if you have levels in sorcerer. You do not gain any of the other bloodline abilities.
Why do people rank Summoner so high? I was under the impression that they're extremely powerful at low levels, but too fragile at high levels.
Why do people rank Summoner so high? I was under the impression that they're extremely powerful at low levels, but too fragile at high levels.
i think it has to do with the 2 big known archetypes. the synthesist and the master summoner.
the synthesist can theoretically outfight most martial characters when fused by making a boatload of natural attacks, combining item slots, having a durability that surpasses the paladin, as long as somebody doesn't target the symbiotic eidolon suit.
the master summoner, takes a more skill oriented pet, and can flood the battlefield with summoned monsters that aren't as easily interruptible, more spammable, cast more quickly, have a longer duration, and come from a wider list.
the core summoner, is like a druid, but with 9 levels of arcane spells from a powerful tailored list crammed into a 6 level package, has a bigger pet, and arcane spells are percieved to be better than divine when it comes to both direct damage, and to battlefield control.
|
|
Hey Darkholme, just thought i would mention you can't ask an opinion based question and then tell people they are wrong.
I'm pretty sure that's not what happened.
Gorbacz seemed to misunderstand the initially proposed rating scale. So I asked him to clarify. Turns out he did not misunderstand.
I commented that the people who were giving no detail and the people who were not answering the question at all, or were saying all classes are of the same powerlevel were not helping with figuring out the tiers (for the rest of us who believe not all the classes are equally good).
It's kindof like when you see a thread about "Monk Fixes" and instead of helping the poster who clearly sees something he'd like to see addressed, you just get like 30 messages saying "Monk is great, one of the best classes, stop complaining". Not very helpful.
As far as i'm concerned there is two tiers.
PC Classes > NPC Classes. Everything else is an opinion.
I would say that is also an opinion. For instance, I would have a hard time deciding between Monk and Warrior (assuming no funky Archetypes) - which says to me that Monk is likely on par with the NPC classes.
Blueluck's & Minoritarian's Posts about two hours ago were fantastic; and gave all the sorts of information I was looking for.
Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard, Oracle (with Paragon Surge), Sorcerer (with Paragon Surge)
Tier 2: Psion, Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner
Tier 3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Psychic Warrior, Wilder
Tier 4: Barbarian, Fighter, Gunslinger, Ninja, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Soulknife
Tier 5: Cavalier, Expert, Monk, Samurai
Tier 6: Aristocrat, Commoner, Warrior
Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard
Tier 2: Oracle, Sorcerer
Tier 3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Summoner, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
Tier 4: Barbarian, Gunslinger, Ninja, Rogue, Cavalier, Monk, Samurai
Tier 5: Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior
@Blueluck - Why would you arrange them that way instead of as per the guide Minoritarian posted?
How does the Paragon Surge thing work? From what I can tell, you can only pick spells that are on your class list, not any arcane spell. (though it's still pretty neat).
Why do people rank Summoner so high? I was under the impression that they're extremely powerful at low levels, but too fragile at high levels.i think it has to do with the 2 big known archetypes. the synthesist and the master summoner.
the synthesist can theoretically outfight most martial characters when fused by making a boatload of natural attacks, combining item slots, having a durability that surpasses the paladin, as long as somebody doesn't target the symbiotic eidolon suit.
the master summoner, takes a more skill oriented pet, and can flood the battlefield with summoned monsters that aren't as easily interruptible, more spammable, cast more quickly, have a longer duration, and come from a wider list.
the core summoner, is like a druid, but with 9 levels of arcane spells from a powerful tailored list crammed into a 6 level package, has a bigger pet, and arcane spells are percieved to be better than divine when it comes to both direct damage, and to battlefield control.
Agreed. A level 20 Master Summoner can summon around 32-64 Augmented Elder Elemtnals a day and top it off with a couple of Gated Pit Fiends or Balors to run the show. With spells like Fly, Invisibility, Dimension Door, Teleport, etc. they are no more vulnerable than any other spell-caster.
Level 9 spell casters are weak early on but get significantly more powerful as they top out. Martials are powerful but become less effective and more dependent on magic items as they level up. Summoners, Master Summoners and Synthesists (which I love unless they are abused in which case I hate) are potent from day one and never fall back to the pack - particularly in PvE scenarios.
If any character could solo an AP, it would be a Master Summoner in my opinion.
Why do people rank Summoner so high? I was under the impression that they're extremely powerful at low levels, but too fragile at high levels.i think it has to do with the 2 big known archetypes. the synthesist and the master summoner.
the synthesist can theoretically outfight most martial characters when fused by making a boatload of natural attacks, combining item slots, having a durability that surpasses the paladin, as long as somebody doesn't target the symbiotic eidolon suit.
the master summoner, takes a more skill oriented pet, and can flood the battlefield with summoned monsters that aren't as easily interruptible, more spammable, cast more quickly, have a longer duration, and come from a wider list.
the core summoner, is like a druid, but with 9 levels of arcane spells from a powerful tailored list crammed into a 6 level package, has a bigger pet, and arcane spells are percieved to be better than divine when it comes to both direct damage, and to battlefield control.
Agreed. A level 20 Master Summoner can summon around 32-64 Augmented Elder Elemtnals a day and top it off with a couple of Gated Pit Fiends or Balors to run the show. With spells like Fly, Invisibility, Dimension Door, Teleport, etc. they are no more vulnerable than any other spell-caster.
Level 9 spell casters are weak early on but get significantly more powerful as they top out. Martials are powerful but become less effective and more dependent on magic items as they level up. Summoners, Master Summoners and Synthesists (which I love unless they are abused in which case I hate) are potent from day one and never fall back to the pack - particularly in PvE scenarios.
If any character could solo an AP, it would be a Master Summoner in my opinion.
alchemist is also a powerful class. but they can't quite solo an AP. i would consider them a powerful martial class that doesn't decline as quickly.
Why do people rank Summoner so high? I was under the impression that they're extremely powerful at low levels, but too fragile at high levels.i think it has to do with the 2 big known archetypes. the synthesist and the master summoner.
the synthesist can theoretically outfight most martial characters when fused by making a boatload of natural attacks, combining item slots, having a durability that surpasses the paladin, as long as somebody doesn't target the symbiotic eidolon suit.
the master summoner, takes a more skill oriented pet, and can flood the battlefield with summoned monsters that aren't as easily interruptible, more spammable, cast more quickly, have a longer duration, and come from a wider list.
the core summoner, is like a druid, but with 9 levels of arcane spells from a powerful tailored list crammed into a 6 level package, has a bigger pet, and arcane spells are percieved to be better than divine when it comes to both direct damage, and to battlefield control.
Agreed. A level 20 Master Summoner can summon around 32-64 Augmented Elder Elemtnals a day and top it off with a couple of Gated Pit Fiends or Balors to run the show. With spells like Fly, Invisibility, Dimension Door, Teleport, etc. they are no more vulnerable than any other spell-caster.
Level 9 spell casters are weak early on but get significantly more powerful as they top out. Martials are powerful but become less effective and more dependent on magic items as they level up. Summoners, Master Summoners and Synthesists (which I love unless they are abused in which case I hate) are potent from day one and never fall back to the pack - particularly in PvE scenarios.
If any character could solo an AP, it would be a Master Summoner in my opinion.
I was going with the OP assumption, "base classes (stock, not using archetypes)". Assessing the Synthesist and Master Summoner, I totally take your points.
|
|
Treantmonk's Tiers
Tier 1: Wizards. Still the top of the chain. They can't fufill every role as well as 3.5 due to changes in Polymorph, but I think they are still powerful enough to place them at the top of the pyramid.Tier 2: Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers. Druids have been demoted due to changes in wildshape, while Core Clerics were never tier 1 - it took Divine Metamagic for that tier placement. All remain very powerful classes though.
Tier 3: Paladins, Bards, Rangers. Paladins have to be pushing tier 2, while Rangers didn't get boosted quite as much, but still did well in Pathfinder. Bards are a mixed bag, but certainly deserving of a tier 3 position (in spite of rumors to the contrary)
Tier 4: Rogues, Barbarians, Fighters, Monks (The Monk is arguably Tier 5 - I haven't evaluated it closely enough)
Tier 5 and 6: Nobody.
It's a bit dated, but this is how Treantmonk ranked them a while back, and he was my go to guy for guides for a while.
@Blueluck - Why would you arrange them that way instead of as per the guide Minoritarian posted?Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard
Tier 2: Oracle, Sorcerer
Tier 3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Summoner, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
Tier 4: Barbarian, Gunslinger, Ninja, Rogue, Cavalier, Monk, Samurai
Tier 5: Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior
1) I took out the non-Paizo psionic classes.
2) I think 6 tiers is being a bit too specific. Differences between build, party make-up, campaign setting, etc. are so significant that I think trying to rank too specifically overestimates the importance of class.
3) The NPC classes are clearly intended to be weaker than the PC classes, and I think that intent was realized.
4) I don't think the spell Paragon Surge makes a spontaneous spellcaster as powerful as a more flexible caster. Perhaps there is some other ability called "Paragon Surge" that I don't know about?
5) I don't think that the 6 level spellcasters are generally more powerful than the dedicated fighting characters.
4) I don't think the spell Paragon Surge makes a spontaneous spellcaster as powerful as a more flexible caster. Perhaps there is some other ability called "Paragon Surge" that I don't know about?You get a Bonus Feat when you cast the spell. You get to pick any bonus feat, and RAW get to make any choices about that feat when you pick it. Therefore, you cast Paragon Surge, select Expanded Arcana and choose the spell (or two spells) you need at that moment. Then you forget the feat (and spells) when the Paragon Surge expires, and can make new selections the next time you cast it. Thus, using Paragon Surge a spontaneous caster has access to their entire class list whenever they want for the price of two spells - unparallelled versatility at a cost of some raw power.
Thanks for the explanation, I missed the feat in that list of benefits. Now I see why it would make a big difference, and why it's worth listing both "with" and "without" - I assume some groups allow that trick to work and others don't.
|
|
After reading a bunch of articles (and thinking back on campaigns), I think I would put them in tiers like this (feel free to provide any counter-arguments to improve it).
This is my thinking about non-archetyped classes at this point.
Tier 1: Wizard, Half-Elven Oracle, Half-Elven Sorcerer, Druid(2?)
Tier 2: Cleric, Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner(1?), Witch(1?)
Tier 3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Paladin, Ranger
Tier 4: Fighter, Barbarian, Cavalier (5?)
Tier 5: Rogue
Tier 6: Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Monk, Warrior
I've never played with Psionics, so I can't comment on where those classes fit.
I could maybe see switching druid to 2, and summoner/witch to 1.
Other people seem to rate the Cavalier low, but I'm not quite sure why. It seems to be in the same ballpark as the Fighter and Barbarian. My only experience with one was a Houndmaster, which I would have ranked at a high 3 (Teamwork Feats + Two Wolf Companions (dogs) + Leadership (Advanced Worg Fighter)).
I hope to hear additional comments from others with their opinions on how they would rank the classes and why, and if anyone has any constructive criticism or input for the tiers I just put up, I'm interested in hearing them.
Other people seem to rate the Cavalier low, but I'm not quite sure why. It seems to be in the same ballpark as the Fighter and Barbarian. My only experience with one was a Houndmaster, which I would have ranked at a high 3 (Teamwork Feats + Two Wolf Companions (dogs) + Leadership (Advanced Worg Fighter)).
Generally, I don't think we're counting non-paizo material, so nobody was probably considering the Houndmaster.
The main reason I rank Cavalier lower than Fighter/Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian is that the Cavalier is extremely mount dependent.
|
|
Yeah, I figured the houndmaster wouldn't count, but I haven't really played or seen anyone else play a stock Cavalier. Most of the GMs I've played with (and myself) allow pretty much anything that's in the later rounds of RPG superstar, or made by people who got to the later rounds of RPG superstar; as it's all been accepted or rejected by Paizo (unless something looks really OP).
Hmm.
So it's because he could have a hard time in small hallways?
He COULD dismount, there's nothing stopping him from having the horse trample people, or you could play one that's a small creature if you're in a dungeon crawl.
IME the Teamwork feats and the non-mount based Cavalier abilities make him a decent melee combatant, as well as a good support character, like a bard or a cleric/wizard focused on party buffs.
Out of Curiosity, would you rate the Cavalier higher in a non-dungeon crawl game (Largely wilderness and cities)? - Many Paizo APs and many people's campaigns are mostly outdoors.
|
From experience, a Archer Paladin can make a 9 level prepared spellcaster look useless...as long as his target is evil. There's a reason Smite Evil should be renamed Kill [x] Bad Guys Per Day, with [x] being he number of Smite Evil uses the paladin has. :-)
A well played Bard can break a game with a heavy social or mystery solving aspect. Seen it happen. Actually, done it a few times. :-)
In the end, every class has at least one speciality that they do well in. Which is good - it is a team game after all. Cover each other's weak points and unite to fight evil. Or something like that.
4) I don't think the spell Paragon Surge makes a spontaneous spellcaster as powerful as a more flexible caster. Perhaps there is some other ability called "Paragon Surge" that I don't know about?You get a Bonus Feat when you cast the spell. You get to pick any bonus feat, and RAW get to make any choices about that feat when you pick it. Therefore, you cast Paragon Surge, select Expanded Arcana and choose the spell (or two spells) you need at that moment. Then you forget the feat (and spells) when the Paragon Surge expires, and can make new selections the next time you cast it. Thus, using Paragon Surge a spontaneous caster has access to their entire class list whenever they want for the price of two spells - unparallelled versatility at a cost of some raw power.
Yeah, that's not RAI. This much I am sure about.
And, it's very doubtful that any DM will allow it to give you a higher level spell than the one you burned casting Paragon Surge.
But do note, it's burning two spells over two rounds just to get one the second round a spell you don't know. While I suppose there are times when the party REALLY needs Make Whole (or some other spell no other sorc would ever carry), this is hardly a game breaker.
Why do people rank Summoner so high? I was under the impression that they're extremely powerful at low levels, but too fragile at high levels.i think it has to do with the 2 big known archetypes. the synthesist and the master summoner.
.
Yes, but you see, the tier ratings do NOT include Multiclassing or PrC's. Still a summoner is likely a solid 2, altho some claim it a 3. Mind you, since it's not really a 'full spell caster" putting it in Tier 2 does show how powerful it is.
But it's not a Tier 1.
Why do people rank Summoner so high? I was under the impression that they're extremely powerful at low levels, but too fragile at high levels.i think it has to do with the 2 big known archetypes. the synthesist and the master summoner.
.
Yes, but you see, the tier ratings do NOT include Multiclassing or PrC's. Still a summoner is likely a solid 2, altho some claim it a 3. Mind you, since it's not really a 'full spell caster" putting it in Tier 2 does show how powerful it is.
But it's not a Tier 1.
it's a tier 2. a high tier 2. the master summoner archetype pushes closer to tier 1, and the synthesist is a medium tier 2.
#1-->Any class I am playing at the table.... <runz>
. . .In the end, every class has at least one speciality that they do well in. Which is good - it is a team game after all. Cover each other's weak points and unite to fight evil. Or something like that.
Yes, and we all know this.
However, a more capable character will save the day more often. If there's enough difference in power between characters in a party, there could be a character pulling 99% of the load, or only 1%, and that doesn't tend to make players (or GMs) have fun.
Compounding the problem of effectiveness is what I refer to as "spotlight". Whoever is speaking and/or has the GM looking at them is in the spotlight - that is, they're actively playing the game at that moment. While spotlight time is largely a factor of player style and personality (An assertive player will get more spotlight time than a passive player.) and GM tendency (A good GM will spread out spotlight time appropriately.) character effectiveness also plays a significant role in attracting the spotlight.
So, we discuss the power level of various classes, archetypes, feats, weapons, spells, builds, etc. because the best opportunity to balance the effectiveness of the characters is when they're created.
So it's because he could have a hard time in small hallways?
Anywhere you have to climb or swim to, hallways, bedrooms, kitchens, the local pub, the King's court, anywhere a horse isn't welcome. . .
. . . you could play one that's a small creature if you're in a dungeon crawl.
Yes, and the small cavalier is my favorite way to build one, just for that reason. However, once you start making a small melee character, you'll have to give up 4 points on STR, which is a really bad start on a melee build. (-2 for the racial penalty of both Halfling and Gnome, and -2 you would have generally added from Human, Half-orc, or Half-elf.)
IME the Teamwork feats and the non-mount based Cavalier abilities make him a decent melee combatant, as well as a good support character, like a bard or a cleric/wizard focused on party buffs.
"Good support character" is a way to say "Bad lead character". Don't get me wrong - I love playing characters that aid their companions with buffs, debuffs, cures, etc. In fact, I wish more character types had access to party-helping tools. (e.g. really good ways for melee characters to use shields to benefit adjacent allies, or melee induced debuffs that lower saving throws.) But if a fair number of a characters combat actions aren't spent adversely effecting the enemy, you're probably not contributing very much.
Out of Curiosity, would you rate the Cavalier higher in a non-dungeon crawl game (Largely wilderness and cities)? - Many Paizo APs and many people's campaigns are mostly outdoors.
Yes, I would rate Cavalier as equal to the other melee classes if I knew the campaign would allow use of the mount 90% of the time. But even in Kingmaker, the most outdoor campaign I've ever played, you're not going to hit anything like 90%. I'm playing a level 11 Paladin with a bonded mount in Kingmaker right now. I'd say mount access is around 50/50, and that includes the fact that I can summon my mount into places where it wouldn't have been able to access otherwise.
|
|
So it's because he could have a hard time in small hallways?Anywhere you have to climb or swim to, hallways, bedrooms, kitchens, the local pub, the King's court, anywhere a horse isn't welcome...
I like to store my mount in a bag of holding when I need to do those things. Just long enough to climb, or swim, or what have you. And if combat happens I can let him jump out.
Yes, and the small cavalier is my favorite way to build one, just for that reason. However, once you start making a small melee character, you'll have to give up 4 points on STR, which is a really bad start on a melee build. (-2 for the racial penalty of both Halfling and Gnome, and -2 you would have generally added from Human, Half-orc, or Half-elf.)
You could use Ranged Weapons... lol.
"Good support character" is a way to say "Bad lead character". Don't get me wrong - I love playing characters that aid their companions with buffs, debuffs, cures, etc. In fact, I wish more character types had access to party-helping tools. (e.g. really good ways for melee characters to use shields to benefit adjacent allies, or melee induced debuffs that lower saving throws.) But if a fair number of a characters combat actions aren't spent adversely effecting the enemy, you're probably not contributing very much.
I would argue that giving the rest of the party +your level to hit and damage (I think that's what it is, off the top of my head) to all their attacks is likely a pretty good contribution, especially if you do it once and it lasts a while after that.
I would rate Cavalier as equal to the other melee classes if I knew the campaign would allow use of the mount 90% of the time. But even in Kingmaker, the most outdoor campaign I've ever played, you're not going to hit anything like 90%. I'm playing a level 11 Paladin with a bonded mount in Kingmaker right now. I'd say mount access is around 50/50...
Hmm. I want to play a Drow Cavalier with one of those Drow Cave mounts (Giant Spiders or Giant Lizards, both of which can stick to walls).
Just looking at the martials, I'd have to rate them:
1) Paladin
2) Ranger
3) Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue
4) Monk, Cavalier, Gunslinger
Rage powers, Rogue talents and combat feats are all great, but in my opinion don't rate as highly as an animal companion, Smite or the ability to cast spells. Lay on Hands, Divine Grace and Paladin immunities put Paladins over the top.
I have a Human Invulnerable Rager/Urban Barbarian with ridiculously high DR and Superstition bonuses that I would bump up into the #2 category but in this case I'm getting into specific archetypes and that wasn't what the OP wanted.
I rank the Inquisitor as 20. I played on of those and that class is so versatile that it does everything. If I was to solo a character this is the class I'd take.
It's a bit dated, but this is how Treantmonk ranked them a while back, and he was my go to guy for guides for a while.
Treantmonk's Tiers
Tier 1: Wizards. Still the top of the chain. They can't fufill every role as well as 3.5 due to changes in Polymorph, but I think they are still powerful enough to place them at the top of the pyramid.Tier 2: Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers. Druids have been demoted due to changes in wildshape, while Core Clerics were never tier 1 - it took Divine Metamagic for that tier placement. All remain very powerful classes though.
Tier 3: Paladins, Bards, Rangers. Paladins have to be pushing tier 2, while Rangers didn't get boosted quite as much, but still did well in Pathfinder. Bards are a mixed bag, but certainly deserving of a tier 3 position (in spite of rumors to the contrary)
Tier 4: Rogues, Barbarians, Fighters, Monks (The Monk is arguably Tier 5 - I haven't evaluated it closely enough)
Tier 5 and 6: Nobody.
I'd say if the Paladin is Tier 4. Sure the Paladin is tough and has lots of abilities but they have a ton of weaknesses too that when exploited make the Paladin weaker than the fighter. A fallen paladin is just a fighter with out bonus feats for example. If situations don't favor the Paladin then the paladin really isn't any better than the fighter. A ranger at least can make enemies their favored enemy with a spell. You can't make people evil for smite and even if you could it wouldn't work because you designated smite X times a day. For the ranger they just have to be a favored enemy and it all applies.
Just looking at the martials, I'd have to rate them:
1) Paladin
2) Ranger
3) Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue
4) Monk, Cavalier, Gunslinger
I don't really get how people are rating Rogues above Cavaliers. Rogues are totally obsolete. There is nothing a Rogue can do that another class can't do better. And even the collection of abilities is not worth it because other classes can have similar collections. I agree that Paladins and Rangers are better than the others (and yes , but I think Barbarians, Fighters, and Cavaliers are virtually equal. If I had to order them, well, that'd be my order (Barbarian > Fighter > Cavalier), but the Rogue and Monk are definitely below them.
I know people complain about the Cavalier's mount ability, but, while I'd love to trade out the Mount for something else, I think even with the Mount just gone completely and nothing replacing it, the Cavalier is still quite viable thanks to their full BAB, Order, Tactician stuff, and the Banner. No, they're not quite as good as the Fighter and Barbarian, but they are certainly more useful than the Rogue (and Monk, but that's obvious).
The entire system is based on maximized versitility over a 15 minute workday, so of course wizards score highest on a system that's more or less measuring how much of a wizard you are.
A high level wizard can last way longer than 15 minutes, but the problem is, short durations are all that you can judge on.
If a wizard can only last X time doing casting stuff, any time spent adventuring beyond X is going to involve wizards with nothing meaningful to do or contribute.
That leaves us with two choices:
1) Make wizard players feel bad, get bored, possibly quit because they literally get to do nothing for long stretches of every game as a feature. Also note that high level characters with no magic will get murdered anyway, especially with dead weight characters (like a spell-less wizard raising the APL without contributing anything).
2) Stop and rest for the wizards to get their power back whenever they run out.
If we follow #1, caster players are miserable half the time and all high level parties are miserable and murdered.
If we follow #2, no class's endurance past round X matters, and so classes are ranked by their ability to function within the time frame of X.
This is why casting is always better than not casting, as unfortunate as that fact is.