Just to be clear the issue with paragon surge is it gives you a feat and that feat can be expanded arcana right? Thus being able to spontaneously cast any spell?
I have to say I'm surprised to see that this thread has upset people. I was concerned the thread might fill up with arguments, but I did not expect people to see the creation of a record of community consensus with supporting arguments as a bad thing in itself. I seriously doubt this is going to become some kind of pathfinder bible or get trotted out as justification all that much.
I want to make it very clear that my goal was never to create gospel, so I'll cut you a deal. If anybody uses it as such, just tell me and I will kill them in their sleep. We good?
Seriously people, sure this could descend into a flame war, but it can also descend into a conversation on the capabilities of various classes.
If you dont like the idea of tiers, dont participate in the thread. Its not that hard, just hit the back button on your browser.Wrath, you've hit the nail on the head there. That's the entire point in this thread. The GM can make it all work, but he has to know what he's dealing with. This thread is a tool to help the GM make the tiers meaningless and for players to minimise the difficulty of his task if they so choose (since it will be harder if the party's tiers are more varied).
You haven't given the answer, you've restated the question.
I agree here, having an idea of what a class is capable of will allow people to be better prepared for it in game. If you dont know that wizards can have a spell to handle most situations, a dm, or even a player might be frustrated or annoyed when it comes up. If you didnt know that monks take ALOT of optimization to be able to do the thing they out to be able to do based on the basics of the class. It new and experienced players both make informed descisions. And sure we probably wont agree on every detail. But if it gets people thinking about it, it means that those people's tables will be better informed. Information isnt a bad thing, its just what you do with it.
Kolokotroni and Sunbeam, thanks for kicking it off. I'm interested to see that your assessments are different but they differ from my own in similar ways.
I can't claim to have much detailed knowledge of the Cleric, but I expected to see him in tier 1. I'm interested that sunbeam ranks the oracle, magus and alchemist at 3 while kolokotroni ranks them at 2. Sunbeam's teir 6 siege wizard is a surprise too. I mean, the guy suck's compared to his baseline class, but he's still a wizard, right? Dropping 5 tiers is pretty impressive.
What's the reasoning behind you guys' placements?
Artanthos, that's actually an interesting perspective.
Resoning:
1. Druids and Summoners top my list. Even more so then wizards. Wizards at least have issues at low levels, and if you get past or exhaust their magic are relatively puny beings. If you get past a druids spells you are facing a badass wildshaped bear who happens to have a t-rex buddy, and they are eating your face. At low levels when spellcasting is relatively weak, they have badass pets that are about as capable at combat as anyone else.Honestly I almost put wizards at tier 2 instead of tier one. It was the wording of 'build' that makes it iffy. Setting aside the paragon surge spell, wizards have to have foresight, or lots of scrolls to have an answer to everything. Summoners especially with the insane flexibility of the eidolon, and spells like transmogriphy, and evolution surge dont need that much forsight. Druids also, wild shape is really really versatile, and the ability to spondaneously summon (for both druid and summoner) makes for a really robust toolset they always have available with no forsight.
2. Cleric is in tier 2 mostly because codzilla doesnt work as well. Alot of the best cleric buffs were powered down in pathfinder, and you dont have divine metamagic nonsense. They are still good, and still versatile, but their spell list isnt as flexible as the sorc/wizard list, and they dont have the pure combat power they did in 3.5.
Oracle I am on the fence about also, it could be tier 3 but I think the stipulation of tier two allowing for a limited range puts them in the same boat as the cleric. And their revalations are a more versatile tool then the cleric's domains.
Sorcs-excluding paragon surge, they can theoretically do anything a wizard can, plus they have some cool bloodline powers. But, they cant do it all with the same character the way a wizard can. Sorcerors are awesome, and i love the bloodlines, but even with getting extra spells particularly in early levels (1-6) they arent going to be overwhelmingly flexible, and thus tier two is where they sit for me.
The reason I have magus, alchemist, and witch in tier two is the line about trivializing encounters. Each of them can potentially do that.
Magi can do truckloads of damage in spikes, my magus in a kingmaker game has showed that if you have 15 minute days, they are special kinds of encounter smashers.
Alchemists, have a really robust toolset with their bombs, mutegens and extracts. I think they can have alot more answers then people give them credit for because most people play them as mad bombers or mutegen focused bruisers. But think carefully about the variety of things you can do with bombs, the variety of options available as extracts, and all how much you can get from mutegens. Combat power, utility, good skills, battlefield control. A well prepared alchemist bellow like level 12 can be nearly as flexible as a wizard. And if focused they can be real combat monsters in their wheelhouse.
Witch, hexes are pretty sweet. They alone mean that baring some specific immunities, witches can always contribute, and do it well. We all know how the slumber hex can trivialize encounters with anything that it will work on, and that is just the start of a witch's toolbox. They are a very flexible class, and though they cant do everything a wizard can do, they can do lots of things a wizard cant with their mixed spell list. So hexes + witch spells in my mind are nearly as powerful as wizard's spells, just not as flexible.
3. This is the suite spot. These are the classes that I think are the best designed. They do what they are supposed to do and are good at it, while still having very versatile toolsets, and a robust set of options in the form of archetypes.
4. Fighter is damn good at killing this with weapons. That line of Tier 4 seems tailor made for the fighter. SO thats where it sits. The ninja I think belongs here because with the vanishing trick, it is in fact the best sneaky character. The inclusiong of supernatural abilities form the ki based tricks makes a big difference here, just not enough to put it into tier 3. I think it probably could do with a resource akin to spells as opposed to the more limited ki pool, but that would have totally neutralized the rogue which i know was part of the problem.
5 Rogue, Cavalier and samurai are in fact good at the thing they are supposed to do, just not as good as some other people. And the cavalaier/samurai have hte problem of being tied to the not always usable mounts. The rogue, well we all know about the rogue. Though I am leaning towards just replacing the rogue with the super genius games talented rogue, which would bump it upt to tier 4.
6. Monk - the monk is too scattered a class, it cant really fight all that well, its AC bottoms out fast without an abundance of magic items, and its mobility is counter to the way the game is organized. If it could do more with standard actions then it can, it might have been a good class, but as it is, too much of what it gets takes away from its primary combat mechanism (flurry).
No PC class is tier six. Poorly built tier 4s could be tier 5.
Xenon, thanks for giving us your tiers. I have to admit I don't think the mystic theurge is that good, since it lacks the economy and raw power of a true full caster, requires you to gimp your character for a very long time and runs out before you hit 20. It's a lot to give up considering how versatile the wizard and cleric/domain lists are already.
You're right when you say individual characters have differing tiers, for example the much discussed oracle with paragon surge seems to to be a unanimously agreed tier 1 character so far. Each class still tends to be at a particular tier and it would take quite a lot to raise that. I think building your character ineptly or taking a lot of weak options for flavour reasons will lower you by a tier as often as not.
Solusek, that's not a bad idea. If classes are in radically different tiers at different levels it might be cool to give them separate entries to show that.
Arbane, thanks for playing along. I wonder if you're not a little hasty saying the classic classes are the same though. Melee characters all got more versatile and/or better at their jobs and the cleric and druid lost their best tricks.
Wrath, you may be right about the level guide being more useful, but it's quite a different idea. I'd be interested in it, but I don't see why it precludes a tier list being helpful too.
You're certainly right that no character has what's needed to solve any problem every single time, and that people have different roles. The tier descriptions allow for this and point out that some generalists can exceed specialists at their own jobs. Different classes having different roles is in fact the entire basis of the tier system.
Lincoln Hills, it's true that different adventures require different abilities. That is why specialists are ranked lower than generalists with broader but equally powerful suites of abilities. The definitions of the tiers are based not just on how good a class is at it's job, but also how likely it is to be able to apply its talents in a constructive way.
Tiers don't shift over the course of a day. The tiers as I defined them are strictly a measure of potential. It's not "Druids fight best", it's "Watch out for druids, they have the capacity to do things you have to plan around and might out-scout the scout".
Preparing the wrong spells doesn't lower tier either, again because you have the same potential. The wizard still needs to be watched more carefully than the sorcerer because he might just prepare the perfect spell.
Kolokotroni, yes that's what paragon surge does. At 11th level an Oracle can use it to get improved arcane eldritch heritage too, which gives him a bunch of wizard spells until it runs out.
Thanks so much for sharing your reasoning. That's a good example of the kind of stuff I was hoping for, and lots of it.
I'm not sure about your placement of the alchemist in tier 2. Tier 3 classes can also trivialise encounters now and then. Did you put it there because stink bombs and/or similar tricks? I have never seen a stink bomb alchemist at my table.
The Magus does demolish encounters when he pulls out all the stops, it's true. Unless your campaign has a lot of 15 minute days he can't do that all the time though, even within his limited sphere of expertise. I consider him a borderline case.
I'm not convinced by your placement of the monk in the furniture department. I think he's good at fighting, just not so much or as often as others. He also has plenty of weird noteworthy abilities, they're just not so useful or potent as those of many other classes. I think he's at least a 5.
Yeah that's one reason why I was surprised to see them in peoples demigod tier. Every spell on your list is a lot of breadth.
However, I don't see how the cleric has more raw power than the oracle, which is the big difference between a 2 and a 3.
There seems to be a general consensus in the thread that extra spells known put the sorcerer in the god tier. Opinions? Arguments for or against?
With enough spells known a sorcerer spontaneous is balanced with the wizard advantages. A really well played wizard probably still edges out ahead, but they would still be in the same tier. Sorcerers can be in 1 or 2 depending on the build.
Also codzilla is a term for druids and clerics, not just clerics...
Clerics should still be tier 1 by virtue of being a fullcaster. Evil clerics can have armies of undead, while good clerics can get standard action summoning plus all the other fullcasting goodness.
Oracles should be in the same tier as sorcerers. They pull from a worse spell list, but man look at those class features. Way better than bloodlines and for a good reason.
I don't see martials of any sort going past tier 3. I also don't see many martials falling below tier 4 either. I would place rogues at tier 4 and the classes that do their job better at tier 3. Fighters are tier 3-4 for me depending on the build. I would argue that the generalist fighter that spends his feats to several combat styles (range/melee/(maybe mounted with leadership cohort mount)) to be tier 3 while the hyper focused fighter would be tier 4. Few other PCs can spend the feats needed to be good at both range and melee mundane combat (I'm looking at you rangers...)
A well built monk is tier 4. A low stat or poorly built monk is tier 5.
No one is tier 6 aside from commoners and experts. Warrior is tier 5 for being what tier 5 is.
I would but a normal summoner in tier 2. But I would put master summoner in tier 1 and synthesis in tier 2. Synthesis is nice, but 3.5 polymorph alone can't put you in tier 1. Master summoner is their because his summoning can replicate a lot of spells and he shares the druids ability of kicking butt by level 1. I say full-casters are still better than him.
|
I disagree. They are in the same tier as wizards and druids, but they are not more powerful.1.) Gods
Master Summoner (unquestionable most powerful class in the game)
A single spell shuts down the entire Summoner class, including all archetypes, with nothing they can do to stop it.
I'd call that a pretty big weakness given my fighter carries it in scroll form for usage against wizards (who may potentially have countermeasures in place).
A high level commoner would be just as capable of using the scroll.
With the definitions as written, UMD qualifies everybody for tier 1.
|
|
Which spell are you talking about? Explicitly name it.
Summoned creatures of any type wink out if they enter an antimagic field.
A summoner begins play with the ability to summon to his side a powerful outsider called an eidolon. The eidolon forms a link with the summoner, who, forever after, summons an aspect of the same creature.
Even the eidolon is affected.
There are very few ways to get rid of an antimagic field. The summoner has access to none of them.
I'm guessing he means protection from X or dismissal or banishment or magical circles against X. Circle and prot don't work on an eidolon but do force a master summoner to use elementals.
EDIT: Oh anti-magic field. That screws over most people though, even fighters (no magic gear).
|
|
I'm guessing he means protection from X or dismissal or banishment or magical circles against X. Circle and prot don't work on an eidolon but do force a master summoner to use elementals.
EDIT: Oh anti-magic field. That screws over most people though, even fighters (no magic gear).
A fighter without magic is still a fighter.
A wizard/sorcerer/summoner/witch without magic is a commoner.
It is a tactical trade. A smart fighter is willing to sacrifice a few toys to render an opponent irrelevant
Actually dispel magic doesn't work on an eidolon, so I don't think anti-magic field would work either. It would turn off the magic items though, which hurts.
EDIT: I'll be the first to argue that summoners of any kind are not OP or better than a wizard. But I do feel that a master summoner is in the same league.
|
|
Actually dispel magic doesn't work on an eidolon, so I don't think anti-magic field would work either. It would turn off the magic items though, which hurts.
Antimagic field is not dispel magic, it functions in a very different manner.
I've provided RAW that states the eidolon is a summoned creature and that summoned creatures do not exist inside an AMF. Do you have RAW that adds AMF to the list of spells eidolons ignore?
Actually dispel magic doesn't work on an eidolon, so I don't think anti-magic field would work either. It would turn off the magic items though, which hurts.Antimagic field is not dispel magic, it functions in a very different manner.
I've provided RAW that states the eidolon is a summoned creature and that summoned creatures do not exist inside an AMF. Do you have RAW that adds AMF to the list of spells eidolons ignore?
Eidolons are not a spell effect either though. That is why you can't dispel them. Personally I don't think a base summoner is better than tier 2 or 3. So I would totally agree that a non master summoner is not in the same league as a wizard or druid. I don't think master summoner is better than a wizard or druid or cleric, but they are close to each other.
|
|
I think to properly place these classes, you need to break the discussion down into archetypes somewhat. For instance, I think a zen archer is a lot better than most other monk archetypes. Invunerable rager is probably better than many other barbarian archetypes, and with spell sunder and a method of flying could be a higher tier than a regular barb.
|
I suggest something that I think is better :
What if there was a class tier list in each great role in the game ?
- Damage
- Skills (maybe different roles : scout, face, knowledge, ...)
- Controller
- Buffer
- Healer
- ...Because the tier list above only sort classes by versatility (which is fine), not roles : and roles are much more important IMHO that versatility by itself, or otherwise we wouldn't have anything other than Wizard, Cleric, Summoner and Druid at our tables.
Definitely +1 this idea. But have something that might increase it's usefulness as well. Instead of ranking all classes at how they perform at a specific function, simply indicate which ones are well suited to the roll and why, as well as which are poorly suited to the role and why. This is actually similar to what Paizo does in its Companion line, indicating which classes, feats, and archetypes fit a particular campaign role playing concept such as Winter Witch or Knight of Ozem.
For example, we could be discussing which classes and combinations make good front liners, like two weapon fighters, sword and board paladins, etc. And then point out which ones make poor front liners, like wizards and ranged fighters. Yes, this is a very simplistic example.
******
And if we are continuing with the tier discussion, I'd like to add the paladin archer to one of the higher tiers, as long as his opponents are evil. I've seen a paladin archer dominate in a couple of high level games now - to the point of making the god wizard and Clericzilla appear like third wheels. Being able to unleash a full attack smite evil without having to move into melee is pretty devastating, as long as the opponent is evil. Without evil opponents, their effectiveness drops a tad. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is how I see PF tier, based on full class potential, rather than just average optimization.
Tier 1 - Too good (even if it often takes a great amount of game mastery to show all they are capable of): Wizard, Druid, Cleric and Witch. Sorcerer and Oracles too, if the GM allows them to exploit Paragon Surge.
Tier 2 - Not as good, but still too much: Sorcerer, Oracle and Master Summoner
Tier 2.5 - Still too good, just slightly less so than the last guys I listed: Every other Summoner archetype. Including vanilla and Synthesist. Most Blaster Sorcerer builds... Depending on how one-dimensional the build is, they might even fall further in the tier scale.
Tier 3 - Very Well balanced: Awesome at their main job, but still able to contribute in many different situations without breaking the game or stepping on anyone's toes: Alchemist*, Barbarian, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus** and Paladin. Anti-Paladins could be here or in the next tier.
Tier 3.5 - Almost there, but could use a small buff, IMO: Rangers, Zen Archer Monk... And Gunslingers, if those firearms rules weren't so obnoxious (targeting touch AC makes no sense whatsoever, and goes against a base assumption of the game).
Tier 4 - Underpowered, but can still shine at their main job: Fighter, Cavalier, Ninja*** and Samurai.
Tier 5 - Underpowered and easily one-upped by other classes with similar roles: Rogue and Monk****. Adept is probably the one NPC class to be above tier 6.
Tier 6 - Why are you playing this?: Commoner, Warrior, Expert and Aristocrat.
* I don't know the Alchemist class all that well, so I'm not sure of what an optimized one can do, but I think tier 3 is about right, I have never seen an Alchemist build that can do what Sorcerers, Summoners and Oracles can do.
** Magus is a fairly balanced class, IMO, but it does have a few cheesy builds. It might be somewhat more powerful than other Tier 3 classes, but still not enough to go into Tier 2 territory.
*** Some Ninja Ki tricks just barely push the class up to tier 4.
**** With style feats and the recent errata, Monks might be able to go up one category.
Observations:
- Archetypes might move a class up or down a bit, but probably no more than 2 tiers.
- Some classes are easier to break/optimize than others, which may skew how powerful a class seems to be.
e.g.: It's much easier to make a really powerful Summoner than a really powerful Wizard, but as I said, this tier is assuming a player can use the class to its full potential, and a Wizard using its full potential is far more powerful than a Master Summoner doing the same, IMHO.
- How effective a class is also depends on the level. At low levels (1~4) Fighters are really good, but as levels go up, they tend to lag behind while full casters tend to speed up and excel more and more.
Oddly enough, if every class was inside the range of tier 2 to 3.5, I'd be satisfied with game balance. A few adjustments would still be desirable, (most likely spell balance) but overall, it'd be a really well balanced game system, even if not perfect.
It might have been done to death, but new toys have been given to most classes as new books have come out.
You know, power creep wasn't a problem exclusive to 3.5e D&D. It's been heading towards Pathfinder at a steady rate as well.
Sunbeam, you seem to be saying that clerics are tier 2 because they are more versatile than tier 3 classes. That's not how I'v defined tier 2. Tier 2 is where immense power comes in. You have to have overwhelming abilities to qualify or you're just a strong tier 3.
Markthus, thanks for the tier list.
Artanthos and Markthus, the summoner's tier probably wouldn't be affected by vulnerability to a particular spell. The tiers are about what a class might do if it's not stopped.
Charlie Bell, you are making this thread worse. So far it's been fairly arduous, entirely because of people coming in and arguing against it because they think it will end in argument. Can you really not see the irony there? So far every on topic post has been civil.
Redcelt32, you are correct. Where archetypes make a difference to a class's tier, we need to list them separately.
sowhereaminow, your idea sounds fine but it's a completely different topic useful for different reasons. Why not start a thread?
You make an interesting point about the archer paladin, but I dunno if I agree with that. Anybody else have some information about that?
Lemmy, thanks for the tiers and for the observations. I have to say I do not support the names you've given the tiers though. This thread is absolutely not about which classes are too good or too weak. If that's you're opinion, fine, everybody's got one, but I'd hate people to think I was telling them where the sweet spot is.
DreamGoddessLindsey, if there's a 90% consensus, why is the thread full of people telling me there is no consensus, and why do all of the tier lists I've been given differ from yours in significant ways?
EDIT: Also tier 4 classes can be very good. Tier 5 doesn't say the class cannot be decent either, just that other classes are better at the same thing.
DOUBLE EDIT: I am going to put up a tier list soon based on the ones people have contributed. I'm thinking I'll put most classes in 2 different tiers, since that seems to be the usual range.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TIER 1
Wizard, Druid, Spontaneous full casters with extra spells
Maybe Cleric, Witch, Master Summoner
juuuuuuust maybe nobody, or anybody with maxed UMD.
TIER 2
Summoner, Sorcerer, Oracle.
Maybe Magus, Cleric, Witch, Alchemist
TIER 3
Bard, Inquisitor
Maybe Alchemist, Magus, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Witch, Cavalier
TIER 4
Ninja, Fighter
Maybe Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, Samurai
TIER 5
Maybe Monk, Rogue, Adept, Cavalier, Samurai, Warrior
TIER 6
Commoner, Aristocrat
Maybe Adept, Warrior, Monk, Rogue
There we go. I think that's a start, though I would like to hear arguments for and against some of these. This doesn't really reflect all my views, I'm just trying to record what we've all been saying so far.
Thanks for your list anon fem. Interested to see the witch and cavalier in tier 3. Care to share your reasoning?
Chuck Norris. Bruce Lee. Hitler.
Enjoy.
Hitler was a Monk? ;p
Eidolons are not a spell effect either though. That is why you can't dispel them. Personally I don't think a base summoner is better than tier 2 or 3. So I would totally agree that a non master summoner is not in the same league as a wizard or druid. I don't think master summoner is better than a wizard or druid or cleric, but they are close to each other.Actually dispel magic doesn't work on an eidolon, so I don't think anti-magic field would work either. It would turn off the magic items though, which hurts.Antimagic field is not dispel magic, it functions in a very different manner.
I've provided RAW that states the eidolon is a summoned creature and that summoned creatures do not exist inside an AMF. Do you have RAW that adds AMF to the list of spells eidolons ignore?
Doesn't matter. Magic doesn't automatically mean spells. Even Supernatural abilities are shut down in a antimagic field. For example, Paladins lose divine grace inside an antimagic field and thus lose their improved saves.
I guarantee that an eidolon winks out in an antimagic field.
However, if the enemy is the one using Antimagic Field, any supernatural or spell-based buffs he / she / it had also disappear.
Lemmy, thanks for the tiers and for the observations. I have to say I do not support the names you've given the tiers though. This thread is absolutely not about which classes are too good or too weak. If that's you're opinion, fine, everybody's got one, but I'd hate people to think I was telling them where the sweet spot is.
I see.
I didn't mean to derail the tier list or anything. MY "tier names" were more of an explanation why I put each class in its tier than a definition for said tier.
However the very concept of a class tier list is about comparing their relative power to each other. And by "power", I mean both raw numbers and versatility. You could call my tiers Gods, Demigods, Paragons, etc if you want, I'd still not change any class from their listed tier*.
TBH, my tier list was mostly a copy/paste from one of my posts in a different thread, I just added a few more things (I originally forgot about Alchemists -.-'). It was more about game balance than class power, though.
* In retrospective, I think I'd demote Gunslingers to tier 4. They are really only good at shooting stuff.
Barbarians would be tier 4, but their Rage powers give them bunch of utility and versatility in and out of combat, so they're balanced enough to be tier 3 IMHO.
Also, archetypes usually don't make much of a difference in a class power. there are a few that are way more powerful than the base class (Zen Archer Monk and Master Summoner, for example), but most of the time, it's not that much of a difference. e.g.: Invulnerable Rager may be considerably stronger than vanilla Barbarians, but it's not so much of a difference for it to change tier, IMO.
Sunbeam, being versatile is powerful, but it's not what I meant by power. I meant it more like tier 2 has a hammer big enough to crush anything, while tier 2 has a whole shedload of such tools for every occasion.
Look at it this way: tiers 3 and below all have 2 kinds of character in them, generalist all-rounders, and specialists who are better in one area and worse the rest of the time.
That system breaks down when you ascend higher, because the amount of power a higher tier class can potentially use is supposed to be "more than enough". Generalists are therefore superior once you get above tier 3, so they get their own tier above the most powerful specialists.
As for the zen archer, sure he's very good at archery, but the question is how good is he at everything else? that's what makes the difference between tier 4 and tier 3.
Grey, I agree.
Lemmy, that makes sense. I wouldn't worry too much, I just wanted to make it clear I'm personally not calling any tier good or bad. You're dead right about the archtypes. I'd only bother listing the exceptional ones which significantly change the base class.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charlie Bell, you are making this thread worse. So far it's been fairly arduous, entirely because of people coming in and arguing against it because they think it will end in argument. Can you really not see the irony there? So far every on topic post has been civil.
You missed something.
This has been done before, more than one. It never went well. In the end the players have more of an influence than a class. A "not so good" player will have issues even with a better class at times. That is all I have on the topic this time around. :)
Kolokotroni, yes that's what paragon surge does. At 11th level an Oracle can use it to get improved arcane eldritch heritage too, which gives him a bunch of wizard spells until it runs out.
Thanks so much for sharing your reasoning. That's a good example of the kind of stuff I was hoping for, and lots of it.
I'm not sure about your placement of the alchemist in tier 2. Tier 3 classes can also trivialise encounters now and then. Did you put it there because stink bombs and/or similar tricks? I have never seen a stink bomb alchemist at my table.
Yes because of the control that can be applied to bombs, depending on their build, they can be extremely skillfull (good skill list, fair number of skills and int based), a melee monster (mutegen or mutation focused discoveries/archetypes), control the battlefield (various kinds of bombs), do a ton of ranged damage (mad bomber) and regardless of which of those they choose, they have a solid list of utility spells from their extracts. That seems to me to neatly fit your definition of Tier 2 to me.
The Magus does demolish encounters when he pulls out all the stops, it's true. Unless your campaign has a lot of 15 minute days he can't do that all the time though, even within his limited sphere of expertise. I consider him a borderline case.
Well i am sure my impression is coloured by the fact that most of my experience with the magus is in a kingmaker game (lots of 15 minute days). But I personally would put the utility and flexibility of the magus spell list just bellow that of the cleric/oracle, and given they can do a heck of alot more damage then most anyone else when they are blowing resources that put them in tier 2 and not 3. But I agree that its a border case.
I'm not convinced by your placement of the monk in the furniture department. I think he's good at fighting, just not so much or as often as others. He also has plenty of weird noteworthy abilities, they're just not so useful or potent as those of many other classes. I think he's at least a 5.
A monk that isnt heavily optimized isnt good at fighting by mid levels. Particularly in games that dont customize equipment (and rely on random treasure tables) because weapons he can use or amulets of mighty fists are far less likely to show up. The character class that seemingly should be the least gear reliant is among the most gear reliant. Their focus is all over the place and I think that is the monks downfall. They arent good at any one thing because their various class abilities contradict eachother, where as every other class' abilities work together, or at least dont get in eachothers way.
You missed something.
A pfffffffffffffff yes. Yes I did. Sorry :D
Wraith, yeah I'm sure we all know it's been done before and that the player makes all the difference. I still say for the reasons I have already given that that doesn't make the thread useless.
Mort other than adding in the new classes it does not do much. I will watch though, if for no other reason than to see other people's opinions.
I love the way you're calling the thread pointless while watching it for a reason.
Kolokotroni, I agree. Your reasoning is all sound. Not convinced the monk is quite as bad as all that, but if he is he belongs in tier 6 and it all comes down to the definition of "good at fighting". Hmmm. I wonder if I should have bothered with a 6th tier.
I love the way you're calling the thread pointless while watching it for a reason.
I knew you were going to say that. I am saying it is pointless to an extent. That does not mean it won't be entertaining.
PS:I also said it might have a use since the new classes were not in the old discussion.. :)
I love the way you're calling the thread pointless while watching it for a reason.
Kolokotroni, I agree. Your reasoning is all sound. Not convinced the monk is quite as bad as all that, but if he is he belongs in tier 6 and it all comes down to the definition of "good at fighting". Hmmm. I wonder if I should have bothered with a 6th tier.
If you dont think the monk goes there, then probably not a need for a 6th tier. If monks dont go there I dont know who does (based on the tier descriptions). Ofcourse certain archetypes or builds change this (zen archer probably move the monk to tier 4, and so do some of the really obnoxious 'style' builds)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've objected to the idea of the tier system from the very beginning, and I find the way it rules everything at GITP to be a sad state of affairs that I hope is never ported to these boards. It's made all the worse by the fact that the majority of the people who advocate for the system and quote 'tier 1 wizard' and similar garbage like it's the gospel have marginal system mastery at best.
Wizard is tier 1 because it has the ability to solve any problem?
How about a False Priest human sorcerer with a bag of scrolls, a spellbook, and a mnemonic vestment? Makes the cheesy little paragon surge trick (which any GM with a lick of sense would throw into the garbage can) look like child's play. Lets not forget that at 16th level the sorcerer also gets access to his capstone - a full 4 levels early.
Oracle is 'tier 3' huh? Tell that to the Human Ancient Lorekeeper, Black-Blood, Lore Mystery oracle who tools around with his pick of the arcane and divine spell list, mithral heavy armor, charisma to bad save and AC. At high level's using form of the dragon with divine power / divine favor is always comical. Lets not forget that as needed the oracle can also have access to his pick of the cleric / oracle spell list with a mnemonic vestment. Not that he'll need it.
As has always been, and will always be, the case, the power of a given class depends entirely upon the GM in question and the player in question. Trying to rank them is a fool's errand.