Lets build a Pathfinder class tier list


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Ok, I know this is a potentially very contentious topic, so I'm going to start by clarifying what this thread is NOT about.

This isn't about who could beat who in a fight, DPR or build comparisons.
This isn't about whether Pathfinder or any given class is broken or unbalanced.
This is not about judging the overall worth or design merit of classes.

What it IS about is building a tool for players and GMs. They can choose what to do with the information themselves.

The tiers are ordered based on ability to progress through the story:

A high tier character is one who might trivialise encounters, sequence break or be difficult to challenge within the guidelines. A low tier character is more likely to get stuck, or have a hard time with a task that was meant to be simple.
Compensating for that is part of being a good Pathfinder GM, but even the best GM can't prepare for things they don't know are coming (unless they're a spontaneous caster with Paragon Surge).

Here are the tier definitions:

The Tiers:
1.) Gods

These classes can do anything. A single character from one of these classes could potentially answer any problem. They have access to countless tricks and overwhelming power, so they often exceed specialists at their own jobs.
A god doesn't always overcome challenges with the wave of a hand, but they can virtually always contribute and they're capable of exceeding the system's expectations of PC power at many levels.

2.) Demigods

A demigod tier class may well have an answer to everything, but in practice any particular build can only apply its overwhelming power to a limited range of tasks.
These guys can still trivialise CR appropriate encounters and bend campaigns around their abilities, perhaps even more easily than tier 1s, but only within their area of expertise.

3.) Paragons

This tier is defined by always being able to contribute. Paragon classes either allow a character to be good at everything, or allow them to be excellent at something without making them useless when their speciality isn't relevant.
They may still have abilities which surprise GMs or outright solve encounters, but they don't often come up.
Paragons might not be able to contribute meaningfully if the party also has tier 1 characters or tier 2 characters who share their area of expertise.

4.) Heroes

A 4th tier character is decent at everything or pretty damn good at one thing but crap at everything else.
Generalist heroes risk being sidelined by higher tier generalists, while specialists risk feeling like a dead weight when their features aren't relevant.

5.) Warriors

These guys either have a job they can do well, but not as well as classes with significantly broader abilities, or they're good at something that's not useful.
They still have extraordinary capabilities, but not so extraordinary that tier 3 generalists can't beat them at their own game.

6.) Farm Boys

Farm boys aren't good at anything. Either they have no job or it's a basically pointless job that they're kinda ok at. That said, they make excellent footstools.

Where do you think the various classes fall? Your opinion on any base, npc, alternate or prestige class would be valued. Please say why, even it's only a few words.

I think we should list archetypes separately from the base classes, but only if adding the archetype changes the tier. The same goes for other particularly potent or limiting character options.

Once we have a few probable tiers assigned, I'll post a list of what we've got. If this takes off, maybe I'll start a googledoc with the up-to-date list and the thinking behind it all.

This is inspired by the old and well known 3.5 effort, which I think was masterminded by Lord of Procrastination. I've not directly copied it, but my tier definitions are probably about the same. Please don't suggest a tier just because the class was in it back in the day. Times have changed.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's not.


ciretose! I had this miraculous premonition I'd be hearing from you! :D

Seriously though, where's the harm? I'm hoping to learn something and create a resource for inexperienced players.

Liberty's Edge

I feel that where you put any class will HEAVILY depend on the level at which you are playing.

This tier system feels like a HUGE workload for very small benefits, since inexperienced players can always get some advice on these boards.

The risk I see in such a system is that it could become a terrible hindrance to creativity and roleplaying, through pigeonholing of the classes.

Liberty's Edge

What might work could be a census of which classes/archetypes people enjoy playing and which they do not like playing and why.

So that an inexperienced player may get a better understanding of the features of a specific class from the feedback of other people who actually played it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Ciretose, if only on the basis that there are people who think some classes are of higher (or lower) tier than they actually are. The tiers would get argued over till the thread gets locked, and even I tire of flame wars after seeing enough many go down.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Let's discuss why the tier system should exist in the place. Oh, wait, ninja'd by Icy.


The black raven wrote:

What might work could be a census of which classes/archetypes people enjoy playing and which they do not like playing and why.

So that an inexperienced player may get a better understanding of the features of a specific class from the feedback of other people who actually played it.

That's not the problem I'm hoping to solve. I'm more concerned with things like players feeling useless, GMs being unpleasantly surprised and calibrating overall expectations.

"Why do you like playing X" is a question about what job a class does. This is an attempt to judge how much they can likely contribute to the party's campaign effort.

I agree that level makes a lot of difference, but that doesn't meant we can't make approximate overall evaluations or make a note that class X goes up a tier after level Y.

Did you have any specific cases in mind?

Icyshadow, the fact that people have differing ideas is the whole point. Anyway, you're being kinda pessimistic. Yeah this is a contentious topic, but it hasn't happened yet.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mortuum wrote:

ciretose! I had this miraculous premonition I'd be hearing from you! :D

Seriously though, where's the harm? I'm hoping to learn something and create a resource for inexperienced players.

Here are the possible outcomes.

1. We all agree. (Unlikely)
2. We all disagree, but some people cite this thread like gospel when arguing in other threads rather that, you know, actually making an argument with evidence. (Very likely)

If you think a class is overpowered, create a test to demonstrate it.

If you think a class is underpowered, create a test to demonstrate it.

Threads like this are completely unproductive ways for people to have preconceptions validated by other people who share the same preconceptions without ever having to risk testing showing that they could be...*gasp*....wrong.

The reason it is no longer common knowledge that heavier things fall faster than light things is that someone bothered to test it rather than just going with common knowledge.

It isn't a coincidence that the people who often say things are "obvious" are the same ones who refuse to test these things.


Mortuum wrote:
Icyshadow, the fact that people have differing ideas is the whole point. Anyway, you're being kinda pessimistic. Yeah this is a contentious topic, but it hasn't happened yet.

I was just saying that it will most likely happen here.

And like I said, I do enjoy watching the trainwrecks occasionally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lets just go ahead and place Schrodingers god wizard at the top of the list. He can, after all, do anything and everything at any given time all day long. ;-)

*throws gas*

*lights match*

*drops match and runs*


Like I said in the first post which you may or may not have read, this is not about which classes are under or over powered. It's about what the classes are capable of. I also asked for people to provide reasons.

If somebody (you maybe?) wants to put a test here that demonstrates something, great. I want to see evidence here. This would also make a great place to challenge some preconceptions.

I'm not looking for absolute agreement and I'll say right here that if we actually produce anything in this thread, it sure as hell won't be gospel. But it'll help.

Even if it is as completely without factual merit as you predict, at least we'll have a good reference for what people think.

I find it extremely irritating that you are starting this thread with such an argumentative, negative tone before it's even got off the ground.


Schrodinger's god wizard would indeed belong there. The question is, does a half elf sorcerer with paragon surge qualify as Schrodingers god wizard? After all, he can pretty much do that.

Dark Archive

I agree on the, lets not start this discussion bandwagon here.

We might as well all try to convince each other that our own personal beliefs on the Alignment System are superior to each others.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I say the GM goes at the top.

Everything else is as powerful as he/she allows them to be so all other tiers are meaningless.

There, solved your problem.
No thanks needed.


The GM is not a class, Wrath.

Liberty's Edge

Mortuum, I think I get your goal with this thread. But I feel that unless you post an example of what you want to get, posts on this thread will only be idle talk.

Liberty's Edge

Mortuum wrote:

Like I said in the first post which you may or may not have read, this is not about which classes are under or over powered. It's about what the classes are capable of. I also asked for people to provide reasons.

If somebody (you maybe?) wants to put a test here that demonstrates something, great. I want to see evidence here. This would also make a great place to challenge some preconceptions.

I'm not looking for absolute agreement and I'll say right here that if we actually produce anything in this thread, it sure as hell won't be gospel. But it'll help.

Even if it is as completely without factual merit as you predict, at least we'll have a good reference for what people think.

I find it extremely irritating that you are starting this thread with such an argumentative, negative tone before it's even got off the ground.

Same test I always recommend. Take the classes through an AP with a neutral GM.

I'll play two, someone else can play two. It will take time, but it will provide actual data in the environment the game was designed for.


Define what is a neutral GM, please.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Define what is a neutral GM, please.

Someone we both agree to let GM. Ashiel and I agreed to Toz at one point. I'm going one with Rynjin that Wrath is running. In one discussion we used Lemmy, although I think Lemmy felt uncomfortable with the role.

I'm not particularly concerned with who the GM is, as if the rulings are suspect, that becomes part of the discussion.

What I'm interested in is less theorycraft and more actual experimentation.


Mortuum wrote:
Schrodinger's god wizard would indeed belong there. The question is, does a half elf sorcerer with paragon surge qualify as Schrodingers god wizard? After all, he can pretty much do that.

He is although both he and the God Wizard are minor deities in service to the Half Elven Oracle with Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) and Paragon Surge who has spotaneous access to the entire Cleric and Wizard list.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find the tier descriptions interesting enough, so I'll give my rankings based on that

1. Druid, Summoner, Wizard
2. Cleric, Sorceror, Oracle, Magus, Alchemist, Witch
3. Inquisitor, Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger
4. Fighter, Ninja
5. Rogue, Cavalier, Samurai
6. Monk


At least nobody has tried to bring GNS into the discussion yet.


1.) Gods

Master Summoner (unquestionable most powerful class in the game)

Wizard

Sorcerer (If your race allows you to take a bonus spell known per level. The wizards ability to potentially cast any spell is incredibly blunted as an advantage by this. Plus limited wish and wish allow Sorcerers to cover very infrequent holes in the spell list at higher levels, as well as things like Polymorph Any Object when it comes.)

Druid

2.) Demigods

Cleric

Sorcerers (ones that don't get the bonus spells)

Summoners (any except Broodmaster and First World Summoner)

Witch

3.) Paragons

Oracle

Barbarian (Certain rage powers you just have to take though. No matter what archetype you use, about 3/4's of the rage powers are predetermined if you want to be in this tier.)

Alchemist

First World Summoner

Inquisitor

Magus

Paladin

Ranger

Bard

4.) Heroes

Ninja

Cavalier

Fighter

Broodmaster Summoner

Gunslinger

5.) Warriors

Monk

6.) Farm Boys

Rogue
Siege Wizard (hard to go wrong with a wizard, but this one does)

-Not all archetypes are covered, too many to do. But the same ones get used over and over if you look at the builds. A lot of summoners on there, but the archetypes play very different.

No multiclassing or prestige classes covered. For example the best blaster in the game is a level 1 Sorcerer with the Orc/Some blasty bloodline, and the rest wizard. It gives up practically nothing and allows you to get all the benefits of the Sorcerer bloodlines and pretty much avoid the tradeoff.

Also the one level dip into Oracle for barbs isn't covered, early rage cycling is kind of a staple in most barb builds.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Let's discuss why the tier system should exist in the place. Oh, wait, ninja'd by Icy.

I have to agree. Please don't do this. It was of very dubious worth during the 3.5 days and ended up being nothing but a source of argument.

Please let's drop this before we go down the same road.

Liberty's Edge

I feel that the countdown has begun

Scarab Sages

Mortuum wrote:

1.) Gods

These classes can do anything. A single character from one of these classes could potentially answer any problem. They have access to countless tricks and overwhelming power, so they often exceed specialists at their own jobs.
A god doesn't always overcome challenges with the wave of a hand, but they can virtually always contribute and they're capable of exceeding the system's expectations of PC power at many levels.

Any class using UMD falls in this category.

+
All classes have access to UMD as a class skill via Dangerously Curious.
=
All classes are GODS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?

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.

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.

As an example of what I think:

I would put the wizard and paragon surge spontaneous casters at tier 1. They're very, very far from infallible but a god tier class doesn't have to perfect, it only has to give characters the potential to solve any solvable problem they're likely to face.

I would put the commoner at tier 6. It is a shining example of a class with no merit whatsoever in an adventure. No abilities, no stats, no nothing.

I am so controversial :O

Silver Crusade

No class can meet the definition of god that was presented. If a class does, it's due to your GM not knowing the rules, running a monty haul style power game (which can be fun), or simply favoring a specific player.

I also have some concern with Warrior being one of the rankings. This immediatly implies that martial classes belong in lower tiers. It does show some bias. Not to say that some martial classes don't belong at that level, I just don't think the assumption should built into the system.


It was not meant to imply that at all! You're right though, that is a problematic implication. I did not give that names as much thought as I should have. "Warrior" seemed like the natural mid-point between a hero and a farm boy.
Personally, I would consider anybody who makes it their business to fight people a warrior, whether they use spells, weapons or sporting equipment.
I would put the great majority of full BAB classes higher than that, possibly all of them, but I have limited experience with the cavalier, so I'll reserve judgement.

I like that we now have somebody putting all classes in god and another putting none of them in it. Why can't anybody be a god? Not challenging your assertion, just curious.

For the record, I don't see the gap between the tiers as very big. We all know the weakest base classes can play well with the strongest, because we've all seen it happen. I mean, the definition of tier 4 is either fine all-round or really good at its job and bad at the stuff it's not meant to be good at. That's pretty much acceptable by definition.


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.


You know, I don't think the tiers really work. Sure, Wizards are powerful and versatile, but it's really easy to turn them into a useless, sniveling weasel. There are way too many factors that change how well a class functions.

Not to mention that they are designed around the idea of an adventuring party, so ranking them on their own merit doesn't really work. Wizards still need their fighters, otherwise things can go terribly wrong.


Avh wrote:

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.

I think this is a much more constructive idea than the usual tier list.

Liberty's Edge

Albatoonoe wrote:

You know, I don't think the tiers really work. Sure, Wizards are powerful and versatile, but it's really easy to turn them into a useless, sniveling weasel. There are way too many factors that change how well a class functions.

Not to mention that they are designed around the idea of an adventuring party, so ranking them on their own merit doesn't really work. Wizards still need their fighters, otherwise things can go terribly wrong.

Exactly why I dislike the whole tier thing so much - it honestly bums me out to see it rear its head on these forums again, to be honest. It's just such a inherently flawed, pointless exercise that, at least in my opinion, serves no worthwhile purpose (other than to cause a thread to quickly devolve into bickering and arguing).

The game is designed around a party of adventurers made up of different classes, each with pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses. Trying to pigeon-hole and shoehorn each class into some arbitrary tier system serves no real purpose that I can see.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
Mortuum wrote:
I did not expect people to see the creation of a record of community consensus with supporting arguments...

That's your problem right there.

There might be some vague consensus out there that some classes are more powerful than others (or, if you don't like saying "more powerful", then "more likely to be able to move quickly through encounters"). But, look at any thread about this (the perennial fighter threads, monk threads, APG threads, etc.), and you find strongly conflicting opinions.

There is no community consensus.

The best you can hope to do is create the appearance of community consensus... at which point this becomes a thread that others will cite and that will cause problems for GMs trying to run games. Also, if somebody wants to play characters that the dubious thread has listed as either very high tier or low tier, this will encourage discontent and grouchiness on the part of the GM and other players. ("Unfair" or "you're not contributing!", regardless of the reality.) If somebody has a series of bad die rolls, the other players will blame the first player for playing a "low tier" character.

As such, the true best outcome for everybody is if the enterprise fails and clearly fails. If it appears to succeed, you'll have created the appearance of community consensus that will be used as a bad source to support arguments that people might otherwise have been chill about.


sunbeam wrote:

1.) Gods

Master Summoner (unquestionable most powerful class in the game)

I disagree. They are in the same tier as wizards and druids, but they are not more powerful.


Ok, you people are all making good sense, but I still don't think I agree with you.

AvH skills and healing aren't meaningful roles, IMO, and the strength of some classes is they are good at multiple different ones. You can also very easily skip roles entirely. How good classes are at particular different kinds of job is important, but it's a different issue.

Abatoonoe, the first tier doesn't say "cannot be stopped". They're all fallible. It's about potential. If left unchecked, an Aristocrat 8 is not going to accomplish much, but the most you can say for a Wizard 8 is he can be prevented from accomplishing whatever lofty goal he sets his mind on. That's the difference between high tier and low tier.

Marc, so far the only arguing that has taken place has been attacking/defending the concept of the thread. At this rate the whole thing is going to devolve into bickering and arguing about how bad it's likely to become in the future before your predictions have a chance to come true. And that bums me out.

rknop, I'm not trying to create an impression of absolute consensus.
I like the idea of listing classes people can't agree on at multiple different tiers.
I doubt we will see many large discrepancies; the famously controversial monk seems like a poor fit for tiers 1-3, so he's tier 4 if he's good, tier 5 if he's not very good and tier 6 if he's completely unplayable and without purpose. The wizard is a class people argue about a lot too, but it's difficult to see him being lower than tier 2, whether you buy into the whole omniscience/omnipotence view of it or not.

EDIT: Yeah I'm gonna have to disagree about the "unquestionably", but I'll withhold judgement on whether they are "most powerful". Also please note that by many reasonable definitions the "most powerful" class could be in tier 2.

Liberty's Edge

Mortuum wrote:

Ok, you people are all making good sense, but I still don't think I agree with you.

Marc, so far the only arguing that has taken place has been attacking/defending the concept of the thread. At this rate the whole thing is going to devolve into bickering and arguing about how bad it's likely to become in the future before your predictions have a chance to come true. And that bums me out.

Mortuum, let me ask you a question. Let's say you somehow come to some sort of agreement and put all the classes into your tier structure. Once you've done this ... what is the point? Meaning, if you you finally get your list, what do you DO with it? What is the purpose?

I'm not trying to argue, I sincerely want to know what the point of this is (assuming it's even possible to get any kind of meaningful consensus in the first place)

The Exchange

I can't create an empirical power-tier ranking for Pathfinder today: I'm too busy bringing peace to the Middle East today. Friday I'm inventing a cure for cancer that also acts as a weight-loss method; Saturday I'm fixing the US electoral system; and I'll be busy all day Sunday inventing a zero-calorie dessert that cures stupidity, intellectual laziness and the urge to read Us! magazine.

I'll create the tier thing on Monday at the soonest.

(Sorry, Mortuum, I know you have good intentions, but... I just don't think it's gonna happen.)


Tiers were very much a thing in 3.5. I played in a campaign that went to 21 and by the end of it everyone in our party had re-rolled to full casters. Anything 3 or below just couldn't compete with our tier 0 wizard who could persist time-stop... The campaign ended shorty after that.

Thankfully though pathfinder in far more balanced. I don't see many classes below the tier 4. Only poorly built monks, rogues, and fighters can fall below tier 4 even then just having power attack and wielding a weapon in your first weapon training group bumps fighters to tier 4. Rogue without "WBL is God" DMs do just fine and are easily tier 4. Everyone harps on the monk, but outside of core he is the only one that has to build well to stay in tier 4. No one besides NPC classes are tier 6.


Learn in the process of making it, leave it available for people who wouldn't otherwise know what to expect (This is where including major conflicting schools of thought would be important) and create a rough picture of where the community stands on each class' ability to do its job.

As for the possibility of meaningful consensus, I expect it will come easily in some cases (hello, Bard) and divide into a manageable number of opposing positions in difficult cases (hi, Rogue).
At the very least, I'd find it interesting to see what we ended up with.


Lincoln Hills wrote:

I can't create an empirical power-tier ranking for Pathfinder today: I'm too busy bringing peace to the Middle East today. Friday I'm inventing a cure for cancer that also acts as a weight-loss method; Saturday I'm fixing the US electoral system; and I'll be busy all day Sunday inventing a zero-calorie dessert that cures stupidity, intellectual laziness and the urge to read Us! magazine.

I'll create the tier thing on Monday at the soonest.

i'm going to need you to go ahead and reschedule the stupidity cure up to tomorrow. mmmkkkk


Lincoln Hills wrote:
I can't create an empirical power-tier ranking for Pathfinder today: I'm too busy bringing peace to the Middle East today. Friday I'm inventing a cure for cancer that also acts as a weight-loss method; Saturday I'm fixing the US electoral system; and I'll be busy all day Sunday inventing a zero-calorie dessert that cures stupidity, intellectual laziness and the urge to read Us! magazine.

Kay. We'll cut all that funding for cancer and the middle east thing and spend it all on copies of Us! instead. No offence, but with an attitude like that I wouldn't want to see you as President, even if you DID fix the electoral system.


Chuck Norris. Bruce Lee. Hitler.

Enjoy.

The Exchange

the tier is not determined by the class, but rather by the build of the class. a well-made Expert could out-perform a poorly-made caster in many ways, now that a mere Expert can create magical equipment at level 7+.

for overall effect, the mystic theurge is at the top of the pile. being able to cast 9th level arcane and 7th level divine (or vice versa) is a rather impressive lead, moreso in casting two spells at once- and this just with the core rulebook. you may also find the most broken of third-party products here on occasion. this is where you find those who dare to become a Lich, or worse.

in second place, we get the pure casters- druid, cleric, wizard, sorcerer. these are merely demigods of magic, each lacking some key advantage. the key point however is access to 9th level magic.

in 3rd place, we have the other casters- paladin(weaker than a cleric), ranger(less than a druid/fighter), bard(not quite a wizard/rogue). good at a number of things, but lacking the real power of high-level magic. most of the prestige classes can fall here.

your heroes are much of the rest- barbarian, monk, fighter, rogue, and those who fail at multi-classing. but even non-casters can be deadly, and fun to play. but at equal level and equal gold value of equipment sees them at a disadvantage to high-level magics.

the 'warrior' group is aptly named, for here lay the NPC classes and the most gimped of PC builds. it is also the home of the 1st level adventurer, regardless of build.

and at the bottom is the peasant, worst class of all and the most numerous.


The black raven wrote:

I feel that where you put any class will HEAVILY depend on the level at which you are playing.

I like the idea of having the tier list made up to show where the classes powers are relative to each other at various levels. This could be a lot of help for both game masters and players who want to have their characters all be able to equally contribute during the expected level ranges of their campaign.

Players could pick classes all within the same range of usefulness, and GM's could customize the adventures to limit overpowered classes or help bring up the underpowered ones. Experienced game masters might know that a level 19 wizard is a force to be reckoned with and the level 19 monk is way weaker in what they can do by comparison, but novice GM's might not.

A tier list for level 1, 6, 12, and 20 would be interesting to see.


I think most of the classes stay pretty much the same as in the 3.5 tier list, except maybe Paladins (who got enough nice stuff to move up a tier).

(Check out that link - JaronK does a good job of explaining HOW the tier classifications are supposed to work. It's not ALL about power.)

As for the new PF clases, my estimations:

Alchemist: Tier 3? About the same as the Bard, I'm estimating.
Cavalier: 4, maybe? I've never seen one in play.
Gunslinger: 4. They shoot stuff real good.
Inquisitor: 3
Magus: 3
Oracle: 2 (they're divine sorcerers, so they rate about the same as normal sorcerers)
Summoner: 2
Witch: 1


Note that Paragon Surge jumps a Sorcerer and Oracle up to tier 1 (Being behind a spell level matter less when you have *all* the spells). Furthermore, an Oracle with Paragon Surge and access to Improved Eldritch Heritage: Arcane, probably deserves a tier slot all to itself, because it the ability to know 1 spell list is powerful, and being able to instantly access all of 1 spell list is also strong, then being able to instantly access every Wizard/Sorcerer and Cleric/Oracle spell is an order of magnitude above.

The Exchange

I've always felt that a series of. articles detailing how gameplay changes at certain levels would be far more useful to gm's and players than any tier system of classes.

If you lay out the challenges a player is likely to face at later levels,it allows people to build characters to best tackle them. Yes, some classes can be built more easily to tackle issues, but seriously, every class has options to tackle many of the major issues. More importantly, groups of characters have multiple ways of dealing with issues. The things that make certain classes seem bad tends to be poor builds at high levels.

No one class needs to be able to deal with all of these, indeed in actual play testing, no one class can deal with it. But if we lay out the problems of different levels, then players and gm's alike can plan for those and build towards mitigating them as a team.

Cheers

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Lets build a Pathfinder class tier list All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.