| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 Divine Power disagrees, and the uberbuffed wild shaped monster uses natural attacks anyway. Wild Shape + Greater Magic Fang + SAD! You can also pick any animal and take its physical stats on top of having your full casting, so you didn't really need that full BAB, and you closely resembled it. All those buffs and taking an animals stats instead of your own for the adventure could get pretty over the top.Nor did Cleric or Druid from 3.5.
Summoners are not CoDzilla, they do not do full BAB + Full casting. They do however do something similar, but not nearly as bad.
So, that's a spell.
And wildshape doesn't have full BAB either, as you admit.
In the druids case it doesn't matter if he had full bab or not. The only real benefit there was extra attacks and since he was using natural attacks anyway there was no point.
No instead he would wildshape into something whose strength was so high he could be walking around with bad BAB and still out hit and likely out damage the fighters of the time. More than that he would have such ridiculously high mental scores he'd be a giant dire polar bear with a PHD whose wisdom could rival the eldest saints and still have the charisma to nail your girlfriend and make you like it. In bear form.
As to the cleric, yes it's a spell, with persistent metamagic it had a 24 hour duration. GG 3.5 fighter I just took a defining feature of your class from you with a single 4th level spell.
CoDzilla well and truly earned its radioactive fury.
|
JaronK solutions are laughable.Yes, the other classes could do the same things. He said that. The difference is the wizard had all of their options available, but the sorcerer was limited to what was on his list. The sorcerer had to decide based on what he had, did he have floating disk? Shivering touch? Iron wall? The wizard had access to all of those, the sorcerer only did if he had them.
The fact he used broken combinations doesn't change the big point. Your comparing nigh' unlimited power to unlimited potential. Which is were tier 1 and 2 happen to be. Full casting, but the difference in what is available.
I swear I'm repeating myself by now...
back to CoDzilla?
Your guy stacked the deck to get the result he wanted. As the wizard has unlimited resources (any spell he want, level 20+) why the sorcerer don't benefit from the same luxury?
As one of the Seven Sister did routinely in forgotten Realm he can change his spell list with a wish. the cost is high, but as he has unlimited resources it is not a problem.So, 1 spell and hour sorcerer has his spell list tailored for the specific encounter.
The spectral hand still don't work unless your wizard cast it while seeing the dragon. It can be cast at range, but then it move normally and provoke as any other creature. So the dragon get his attack of opportunity against the hand. Even with a AC of 22+int bonus the dragon will hit and destroy it most of the time.
If you cast it near the dragon and then cast shivering touch he has a round to destroy it unless you quicken one of the spells.
My point isn't that wizard are tier 1, but that the guy that did that post had created weighted questions to get the replies he wanted.
He is on the level of Reinhart e Rogoff, removing the data that weren't useful for his thesis and then presenting his opinion as the whole truth.
|
|
In 3.5, the sorcerer couldn't adapt, he would need to use what he had. In Pathfinder, even if he can't solve them through their expanded spell list, however, the sorcerer could go and take those scrolls, and cast them through the vestment. Or he could craft pages of spell knowledge, and learn those spells to solve the problem. He can then sell those pages, and recover the gold (thus investing only time), or just keep them and have extra spells.
Right, all a spontaneous spellcaster in Pathfinder need to add whatever spell he want to his know spell lost in a few days is Craft wondrous items, a good spellcraft skill and money.
As he can get his money back selling the pages of Spell knowledge he wrote it boil down to time and the spellcraft skill.It is a trick that any spontaneous spellcaster can use and it will do nothing for a spellcaster that memorize spells.
Those eat up his wealth based level though. Have you seen the price of a page of spell knowledge? Exponential growth. 81k to learn a 9th level spell. At 5k+ the price of the scroll for every spell you still aren't doing so well. The wizard eats his consumable and gets refunded. The cleric and druid new theirs to begin with.
True, but at the same time all with a spellcraft check with a difficulty of CL+10 at worse the spontaneous spellcaster can get any spell of a level he can cast if it exist in the game world, even the most obscure.
A wizard to to do the same thing has 3 options:
1) Finding another wizard willing to allow him to copy the spell. Low cost but hardly a granted thing, especially for rare spells.
2) Buying a scroll. A bit more costly and again not a granted thing.
3) Do spell research. Have you looked the cost of that in Ultimate Campaign? It is in the same ballpark as the page of spell knowledge.
Yeah, but its just not feasible. In order to learn every 9th level spell(47) you would spend 3,807,000. 3,564,000 really, because you get 3 total from your sorcerer levels. That's a lot more than your wealth based level, and you have 8 other spell levels to care about. Wizard's get off a little easier, though I'm sure most games wouldn't allow you to run into 47 9th level spells. At least the wizard has a realistic cost to learn all of his spells. 40k right? Half that of a 9th level page of spell power. This is all theorycraft though, I've rarely had a GM who let me purchase more than a 5th level spell.(though to be fair, most games tend to fizzle out around then, and being able to nab all the 1-5th level spells I want is a lot of potential.)A sorcerer can't add every sorcerer/wizard spell to his spells known.With enough pages of spell knowledge they most certainly can. Hence, the (more) to money.
You don't need 47 9th level spells to be Tier 1. A druid has 18, and more than half of them are not needed or rarely casted. And they are Tier 1 regardless.
That's why I insist how many ways you need to have to be Tier 1, and leave aside all this "a wizard could have anything. Even the keys of a yatch". A sorcerer doesn't have a realistic way to have all the 9th level arcane spells (Neither does a wizard. He could in Theoryfinder, but can't in Practicefinder. In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they aren't). The question is how many 9th level spells does a Sorcerer need to be Tier 1, not how many does he need to be a Schrodinger Wizard.
A druid has 18 lvl 9 spells. 6 of them are summoning stuff, which are just flavored versions of Summon Monster or Gate. So that means 12 spells, +summons. A 20th sorcerer already knows 5 (not 3. Five. You forgot to add the Blodline spell and the lvl 19 feat, which goes to a new 9th level spell because, seriously, there's nothing you can grab with a feat that is better than a 9th level spell). That means he needs 7 more to have as many useful 9th level spells as a Druid. A sorcerer could buy 7 lvl 9 scrolls for 26600gp, and craft, say, 4 mnemonic Vestment for 10000gp.
There you go. To have an array of 9th level spells, as diverse as some of the Tier 1 Classes, cost you roughly 36000g. Which is the same than your +6 headband, and less than 4% of your whole 20th lvl WBL guideline.
To add 10 more 9th level spells cost 38000gp more. So, for 10% of your 20th level WBL, you can have 22 lvl 9 spells (4 more than the druid), which you can cast roughly 12 per day (which means like double than the druid). Druids are tier 1. Pathfinder Sorcerers have a higher amount of high level spells at their disposal. So they are tier 1 too.
Clase closed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People mention clerics and their nightsticks. Nightsticks aren't class features, they're magic items that enhance a class feature. :P
But seriously you don't need splat material from 3.5 to see CoDzilla. You never did. They were CoDzilla right out of the box. Core 3.5 = CoDzilla vs Mechawizardron live at the box-office. Watch them stomp over Tokyo and traditional parties everywhere. Splat books made everyone better, but then CoDzilla got better. Shock Trooper martials? Raise you persistent divine metamagic. Pouncing barbarians? Raise you greenbound summoning corrosive dinosaurs.
But in core...that's all you need for CoDzilla. The strongest party I've ever had the pleasure of DMing was a party of 4 clerics. They were steam rolling The Red Hand of Doom (which had a reputation at the time for being pretty hard) and they were trivializing several of the harder encounters.
Summoners do this too. They begin at low levels as durable dudes with the ability to produce meat shields that fight well consistently. Later, they're using world-changing magic. If you play your cards right you can easily replace the party skillmonkey as well.
The summoner. Martial, skillmonkey, god wizard, healer, and eventual doer of everything at once, in a single package that is surprisingly gear independent (the majority of your awesome can be preformed naked, with gear being a plus).
That is why I consider summoners to be akin to CoDzilla. It sure isn't because 9th level druid spells are supremely amazing...
Thread just started Wednesday.
Did you know you can create an undead creature out of a fresh body?
It Are A Fact.
Rerednaw's "Slay Thread" failed.
It Are A Fact.
So from the guys that helped to build the tier system.
-
-
-
-
Pathfinder Tier SystemTier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard, Oracle (with Paragon Surge), Sorcerer (with Paragon Surge);
Tier 2: Psion, Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner, Bard (Magician w/ Paragon Surge);
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;They never actually read the Pathfinder class definitions, did they?
Cavaliers and samurai can be built to do anything fighters can be built to do and have the skill points and class skills to do face duty on the side. They're a strict superset for versatility and so by definition cannot be lower tier.
seriously samurai are tier 5!?!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WOTC samurai are indeed Tier5.
The cavalier is probably lower tier then the fighter because of the 'mount dependence' bias of the class, and because they can't specialize in a weapon like a fighter can to make up for it. 'Challenge' isn't as broadly useful in their eyes, although I'd debate that.
They also lack the pure anti-magic ability of the barbarian, the great tanking ability of the paladin, and the versatility of the ranger.
The scale also is horribly biased against melee, and does a very poor job of measuring melee against one another.
Fighter and cavalier are, overall, likely identical. They are both probably better then a rogue, but it all depends on the need for a skill monkey.
But paladin, barb and ranger are definitely on a higher level then any of those three.
==Aelryinth
WOTC samurai are indeed Tier5.
The cavalier is probably lower tier then the fighter because of the 'mount dependence' bias of the class, and because they can't specialize in a weapon like a fighter can to make up for it. 'Challenge' isn't as broadly useful in their eyes, although I'd debate that.
They also lack the pure anti-magic ability of the barbarian, the great tanking ability of the paladin, and the versatility of the ranger.
The scale also is horribly biased against melee, and does a very poor job of measuring melee against one another.
Fighter and cavalier are, overall, likely identical. They are both probably better then a rogue, but it all depends on the need for a skill monkey.
But paladin, barb and ranger are definitely on a higher level then any of those three.
==Aelryinth
Lots to agree with here. CAvalier's can accomplish a lot and have much more going for them. People tend to focus far too much on the mounted aspect of it not realizing that it's only a small part of the class.
Lots to agree with here. CAvalier's can accomplish a lot and have much more going for them. People tend to focus far too much on the mounted aspect of it not realizing that it's only a small part of the class.
I never found them inherently versatile myself, though tactician can go a ways to help that. Maybe they though that the bonus feats the fighter gets were more valuable to a variety of situations than the cavalier's class features, some of which are set in stone(order/mounted combat). I could see an argument for stating mounted combat is overspecialized and therefore tier 4, but I haven't really been in a campaign where its shined, nor one where it would be capable of doing so more than half of the time.
Lots to agree with here. CAvalier's can accomplish a lot and have much more going for them. People tend to focus far too much on the mounted aspect of it not realizing that it's only a small part of the class.I never found them inherently versatile myself, though tactician can go a ways to help that. Maybe they though that the bonus feats the fighter gets were more valuable to a variety of situations than the cavalier's class features, some of which are set in stone(order/mounted combat). I could see an argument for stating mounted combat is overspecialized and therefore tier 4, but I haven't really been in a campaign where its shined, nor one where it would be capable of doing so more than half of the time.
And see this is what I was talking about. They are not "set" on mounted combat. They have abilities that "enhance" mounted combat.
They have things going for them that no other classes do.
1. They have all the social skills. No other Full BAB class can make that claim.
2. They are the only ful BAB with a druid level type companion. They also get it at 1st level basically ensuring that they have a good flanking partner.
3. Challenge can do more than provide bonuses to damage. IT can also provide bonuses to attack, armor class, or even buff your group against a particular foe.
4, Even if you make the argument that they spend most of their feats on mounted combat they get bonus feats that basically cover the three that most people want anyway (mounted combat, ride by attack, spirited charge). MOre than that they can eschew mounted combat ompletely even taking archetypes that trade out most of the actual mounted combat stuff and use these feats for more combat related stuff.
5. Tactician can be really good the only sad part are it's enarly crippling limitations. Past 9th however Tacticians is incredibly good.
6. The orders give you capabilities you don't find in many other classes. Order of the Dragon for example gives you the ability to trade out your standard action to give actions for free to everyone in your group.
That being said I still think Rangers, Paladins, and BArbarisn are higher tier so putting Cavalier in T4 certainly works along with his samurai cousin. You don't ahve to be mounted cavalier and shine it works just fine as a nonmounted cavalier and at its most optimal when you treat being mounted as a part time job.
They're not bad by any stretch of the imagination. The troublwe is people don't think far enough outside of the stable to see everythign they're capable of.
Oh? They aren't set in stone? You mean the core class gives alternative choices and a lot of variance, of which is modular and moved around? That they get their choice of mount from a wide selection?
The class revolves around charging on a horse, and once you pick an order your stuck with whatever the order gives you. That's what I was saying is set in stone. Its class features aren't about picking from many choices, they are very focused. Even the mount lacks choice.
Wasn't this thread about summoners being Pathfinder's CoDzilla?
And see this is what I was talking about. They are not "set" on mounted combat. They have abilities that "enhance" mounted combat.
They have things going for them that no other classes do.
Do any of those things actually move them out of tier 5, though? To make the lofty heights of tier 4, you need have A useful niche you fill better than anyone. Barbarians, for example, are typically the best melee damage dealers of the vanilla characters as long as their rage lasts.
1. They have all the social skills. No other Full BAB class can make that claim.
True, but that still only makes them the tallest pygmy in the tribe.
2. They are the only ful BAB with a druid level type companion. They also get it at 1st level basically ensuring that they have a good flanking partner.
So, they're as good as a druid without spells? Not sounding tier 4 to me yet.
3. Challenge can do more than provide bonuses to damage. IT can also provide bonuses to attack, armor class, or even buff your group against a particular foe.
Hello, Sir Lancelot, I have the Bardic Academy on line 1.
4, Even if you make the argument that they spend most of their feats on mounted combat they get bonus feats that basically cover the three that most people want anyway (mounted combat, ride by attack, spirited charge). MOre than that they can eschew mounted combat ompletely even taking archetypes that trade out most of the actual mounted combat stuff and use these feats for more combat related stuff.
Mounted combat. Got it. Cavaliers are better at mounted combat than... fighters? (I'm honestly not sure; haven't looked into that). If this is a useful niche, then cavaliers make tier 4. If this is too specialized, we're still in tier 5.
Et cetera, et cetera.
Basically, you can be really good at basketweaving and flower arranging and still not be out of tier 5.
The class revolves around charging on a horse, and once you pick an order your stuck with whatever the order gives you. That's what I was saying is set in stone. Its class features aren't about picking from many choices, they are very focused. Even the mount lacks choice.
If that's your definition than paladin should be T5. But we both know that's not true is it?:)
And yet rogues are somehow at tier 4.
Check the thread from which the table was cut/pasted. That's what everyone reading the thread instantly locked onto, too. I'll just label that particular decision as "controversial."
And yet rogues are somehow at tier 4.
If you click on the link to the discussion, some other people had issues with it. I don't know why they're tier 4 in that list myself.
If that's your definition than paladin should be T5. But we both know that's not true is it?:)The class revolves around charging on a horse, and once you pick an order your stuck with whatever the order gives you. That's what I was saying is set in stone. Its class features aren't about picking from many choices, they are very focused. Even the mount lacks choice.
Why do you say that? The paladin isn't all about charging on a horse. He's got several supernatural abilities, smite evil, a spell list, is a full BAB class, and he can be built to do many different things. Compare that to the spirited charge/mount gig the cavalier gets. There is a huge difference.
Do any of those things actually move them out of tier 5, though? To make the lofty heights of tier 4, you need have A useful niche you fill better than anyone. Barbarians, for example, are typically the best melee damage dealers of the vanilla characters as long as their rage lasts.
True, but that still only makes them the tallest pygmy in the tribe.And that matters how? That's still ebtter tahn its peers. And when you're only comparing against your peers it works jsut fine.
So, they're as good as a druid without spells? Not sounding tier 4 to me yet.That's a terrible comparison. You'd be better off comparing a ranger which is the closest equivalent. IS it better than a ranger? No. IS it worse? Sometimes.
Hello, Sir Lancelot, I have the Bardic Academy on line 1.Again, bad comparison. Particularly since Bard stuff usually stacks with Cavalier stuff. And is passive, and usually does different thigns altogether.
Mounted combat. Got it. Cavaliers are better at mounted combat than... fighters? (I'm honestly not sure; haven't looked into that). If this is a useful niche, then cavaliers make tier 4. If this is too specialized, we're still in tier 5.Useful based on circumstance, like say, being a paladin, or barbarian, or ranger.
We're also not covering another simple niche that puts it in T4; it plays better with others than either the fighter or barbarian and arguably better than the ranger.
Why do you say that? The paladin isn't all about charging on a horse. He's got several supernatural abilities, smite evil, a spell list, is a full BAB class, and he can be built to do many different things. Compare that to the spirited charge/mount gig the cavalier gets. There is a huge difference.
BEcause when you break it down all his stuff revolves around either beating up evil or healing things. Sure he can do just fine fighting non evil.
But you know what?
I can build a cavalier that does just fine mounted or unmounted just as well as anyone can build a paladin that does just as fine fighting evil or not evil.
Anyway I'm going to stop defending cavaliers now (seriously worse than rogues? seriously?) since it's pulling things even further off track than ever. I doubt I can convince anyone who hasn't honestly done anything with the class beyond look at it.
The scale also is horribly biased against melee, and does a very poor job of measuring melee against one another.
The tier system really isn't intended to measure how effective various classes are at melee. Thing is, no matter how good a given class is at it, "Hit things with a weapon" is still only a single role/solution, and the main thing the tier system measures is how many effective options a character has.
BEcause when you break it down all his stuff revolves around either beating up evil or healing things. Sure he can do just fine fighting non evil.
Why do you say that? The paladin isn't all about charging on a horse. He's got several supernatural abilities, smite evil, a spell list, is a full BAB class, and he can be built to do many different things. Compare that to the spirited charge/mount gig the cavalier gets. There is a huge difference.
Okay, but beating up bad guys and healing is a lot wider than mounted combat. They get the choice of weapon style, spells, and their class doesn't attempt to funnel them into a certain style.
Its like saying that spell casters only use spells. How much more useful is a paladin than a cavalier, really? How many situations can the paladin deal with that the cavalier can't, and vice versa. The paladin and ranger can deal with many more than the cavalier.
Again though, best to start another topic if you want to argue tiers. This thread was about Summoners being CoDzilla.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BEcause when you break it down all his stuff revolves around either beating up evil or healing things.
Why do you say that? The paladin isn't all about charging on a horse. He's got several supernatural abilities, smite evil, a spell list, is a full BAB class, and he can be built to do many different things. Compare that to the spirited charge/mount gig the cavalier gets. There is a huge difference.
Um,.... "beating up evil" covers about 80% of the combats that occur in most campaigns.
That's a little like saying "Sure, your fighter is good at beating up creatures. But the gemcutter prestige class is great at beating up objects that are Fine-sized or smaller."
Again though, best to start another topic if you want to argue tiers. This thread was about Summoners being CoDzilla.
Fair enough. On that note, it's probably worthwhile to point out that CoDzilla and tier 1 are not synonyms; wizard is definitely a tier 1 class but not CoDzilla because wizards can't do front-line combat duties. I think what makes CoDzilla is not simply that it can solve any problem, but that it can solve any problem using any method of another class.
E.g., there is a bad guy over there I want to kill.
CoDzilla can blast it out of existence
CoDzilla can save-or-suck it into irrelevance
CoDzilla can talk it into being a good guy forever
CoDzilla can surround it with hordes of sharp teeth and fangs until it falls down
CoDzilla can simply walk over there and stick a sharp bit of metal in it
And CoDzilla can keep doing that all day, because CoDzilla never runs out of consumables because the basic spells last for months.
I don't think that the summoner qualifies. He can't blast, his save DCs aren't high enough to make save-or-suck a realistic option, and he can't summon effectively while his eidolon is out, so he's either got to hide behind CoDzilla like a schoolgirl while summoning, or forego one of his major strengths to use his Power Ranger suit.
I don't get it. What at all makes "knows all spells on their spell list" relevant? Are you a better caster than others just because you know all the spells? Are paladins better casters than sorcerers?
Are tiers based on actual ability or the arbitrary "know all spells"? In terms of ability, knowing all spells from a bad spell list is worse than knowing the 50 best spells from a good spell list.
No character knows all spells. Since the spell lists vary and are differently strong it's more important to look at "what can an optimized character of this class know/cast?" than "how large percentage of the class' spell list can it learn?"
Heck, I bet a non-core sorcerer can actually have access to MORE spells of a given level than a core druid can. A level 20 sorcerer can certainly know over 11 8th level spells even without considering equipment. 3+1(bloodline)+4(human)+4(two feats). Not saying that's the best thing to put one's feat towards, but honestly, even with 8 spells I'd much rather have spontaneous casting of 8 sor/wiz core spells of my choice than even spontaneous casting of the 11 8th level druid core spells, and the druid isn't spontaneous.
I don't get it. What at all makes "knows all spells on their spell list" relevant? Are you a better caster than others just because you know all the spells? Are paladins better casters than sorcerers?
Are tiers based on actual ability or the arbitrary "know all spells"? In terms of ability, knowing all spells from a bad spell list is worse than knowing the 50 best spells from a good spell list.
No character knows all spells. Since the spell lists vary and are differently strong it's more important to look at "what can an optimized character of this class know/cast?" than "how large percentage of the class' spell list can it learn?"
Heck, I bet a non-core sorcerer can actually have access to MORE spells of a given level than a core druid can. A level 20 sorcerer can certainly know over 11 8th level spells even without considering equipment. 3+1(bloodline)+4(human)+4(two feats). Not saying that's the best thing to put one's feat towards, but honestly, even with 8 spells I'd much rather have spontaneous casting of 8 sor/wiz core spells of my choice than even spontaneous casting of the 11 8th level druid core spells, and the druid isn't spontaneous.
Um, here's the thing. Clerics, Druids, and es paladins know all their spells. Period. New splatbook came out? Know those too. CAn we cast all those spells at once? Weellll no.But I'm around 15 minutes away from turning an open slot into any of the literally hundreds of spells on my list.
Sorcerer and oracle? They know some of the spells. It might be all the best sells but it won't be the same as all the spells.
Wizards? Can get clsoe to knowing all the spells but require more effort.
THe prepared divine casters? The "C" and "D" of CoDzilla? Know them all form level 1 to level infinity. Period.
I don't get it. What at all makes "knows all spells on their spell list" relevant? Are you a better caster than others just because you know all the spells? Are paladins better casters than sorcerers?
Are tiers based on actual ability or the arbitrary "know all spells"?
Tiers are about having options. more spells known = more options.
Yes, but what does that in itself has to do with tier? I thought tier was a measurement of how many solutions you had to a problem, not how large percentage of your spell list you can know.
I mean, I see why knowing all spells on the spell list is a major benefit _if comparing the same spell lists_, but why should it be the main measurement, which it seems to be here?
Is it automatically better to know 100% of a 10 spell list than knowing 50% of your choice on a spell list with 15 spells?
Tiers are about having options. more spells known = more options.
But all options are not equal. If one character knows Bless Water and Abundant Ammunition and another character knows Unseen Servant, the second character probably has more options to bring to the table than the first. It only knows half as many spells, but the spell it knows is more than doubly as versatile.
Of course paladins aren't better casters than sorcerers. But all else being equal, knowing all spells is much better than knowing only a fraction of the same spells.
Agreed, but clerics, druids and sorcerers don't know the same spells at all.
If the comparision was cleric vs oracle it could be meaningful but cleric and sorcerer are so different I don't really see it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get it. What at all makes "knows all spells on their spell list" relevant? Are you a better caster than others just because you know all the spells? Are paladins better casters than sorcerers?
It means that given 24 hours to prepare, you can have any encounter-appropriate spell (on your list) in existence. With suitable preparation, this mean you can be optimized for whatever you will face today instead of being generally well-prepared.
Of course paladins aren't better casters than sorcerers. But all else being equal, knowing all spells is much better than knowing only a fraction of the same spells.
For clerics in particular, this is something of a necessity. Spells like 'death ward' are either useless or critical. That's a major advantage over oracles, because spontaneous casters tend not to learn situationally useful spells.
Druids similarly have access to tons of situational spells -- anything with "plant" in the title, for example -- that can be encounter-ending. They'll have different spell loads for different planned encounters. That's a luxury that sorcerers don't have.
But all options are not equal. If one character knows Bless Water and Abundant Ammunition and another character knows Unseen Servant, the second character probably has more options to bring to the table than the first. It only knows half as many spells, but the spell it knows is more than doubly as versatile.
But the third character that knows Bless Water, Abundant Ammunition and Unseen Servant has more options to bring to the table than either of the other two.
But the third character that knows Bless Water, Abundant Ammunition and Unseen Servant has more options to bring to the table than either of the other two.
But all options are not equal. If one character knows Bless Water and Abundant Ammunition and another character knows Unseen Servant, the second character probably has more options to bring to the table than the first. It only knows half as many spells, but the spell it knows is more than doubly as versatile.
If cleric had access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list as well that would actually be a valid counterpoint. They don't, though.
Yes, but what does that in itself has to do with tier? I thought tier was a measurement of how many solutions you had to a problem, not how large percentage of your spell list you can know.
You answered your own question. Druid/clerics/wizards have the ability to have far more solutions than a sorcerer. A sorcerer only knows what is on his list. A cleric/druid/wizard have the potential to know every spell. That's why in the examples given in the tier system, the sorcerer could do a lot of things, but was limited to his list, but the wizard had all of those options and more.
But all options are not equal. If one character knows Bless Water and Abundant Ammunition and another character knows Unseen Servant, the second character probably has more to bring to the table than the first.
The sorcerer who only knows bless water and abundant ammuniation is in hot water. The wizard who does can go and learn new spells and never prepare those two spells again if he felt like it. Same with the cleric and druid.
An argument about whether divine/druid/arcane spell list are equal is probably best left to another discussion.
If cleric had access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list as well that would actually be a valid counterpoint. They don't, though.But the third character that knows Bless Water, Abundant Ammunition and Unseen Servant has more options to bring to the table than either of the other two.
But all options are not equal. If one character knows Bless Water and Abundant Ammunition and another character knows Unseen Servant, the second character probably has more options to bring to the table than the first. It only knows half as many spells, but the spell it knows is more than doubly as versatile.
He does, though. It's called "Miracle." It typically doesn't even cost money. So if a cleric needs a wizard spell, he has it. If he doesn't need it, he has the spell slot free for something he does need.
Yes, but what does that in itself has to do with tier? I thought tier was a measurement of how many solutions you had to a problem, not how large percentage of your spell list you can know.You answered your own question. Druid/clerics/wizards have the ability to have far more solutions than a sorcerer. A sorcerer only knows what is on his list. A cleric/druid/wizard have the potential to know every spell. That's why in the examples given in the tier system, the sorcerer could do a lot of things, but was limited to his list, but the wizard had all of those options and more.
You didn't answer the question at all. And no, cleric/druid/wizard does not have the potential to know all spells. A cleric or druid does not have an option to know for example Imprisonment. Also, there is a diminishing return on having solution. Is it better to have 50 solutions to a problem now, or 51 solutions within 24 hours? Is it even relevant to have that 51st solution?
Also, what is the benefit of knowing _all_ spells and having spend 24 hours preparing them and knowing _any_ spell within 24 hours (as a decently leveled sorcerer can do via vestment and scrolls)?
The requirement for getting into a tier seem to be extremely fuzzy and applied arbitrarily.
He does, though. It's called "Miracle." It typically doesn't even cost money. So if a cleric needs a wizard spell, he has it. If he doesn't need it, he has the spell slot free for something he does need.
There are many spells that a cleric can never know though, wall of supression and imprisonment etc for example. So, a bad example but you get my point.
And many many spells will the cleric not have access to until very very high levels. Likewise with the sorcerer of course, but the point is that the spell lists are very different so one can't simply compare how large percentage (which is a weird way to measure _regardless_, actual number of spells you have access to would make more sense but whatever)
Also, if we're going down the "well we can cast miracle for things" then sure, but the sorcerer can cast gate to summon a solar to cast miracle for her, or cast wish herself.
You didn't answer the question at all. And no, cleric/druid/wizard does not have the potential to know all spells. A cleric or druid does not have an option to know for example Simulacrum.
Sho-nuff does. Sor/Wiz 7, so has access to it via Miracle.
Also, there is a diminishing return on having solution. Is it better to have 50 solutions to a problem now, or 51 solutions within 24 hours?
Typically at this level of play, "within 24 hours" is an irrelevant restriction as you have all the warning you need via divination magic.
Is it even relevant to have that 51st solution?
Certainly, if that 51st solution is better. If it's not, then you're no worse off having it.
Also, what is the benefit of knowing _all_ spells and having spend 24 hours preparing them and knowing _any_ spell within 24 hours (as a decently leveled sorcerer can do via vestment and scrolls)?
I believe the tier list referenced above predates the publication of the vestment. I agree that the vestment moves the sorcerer into tier 1. The list acknowledges that the Paragon Surge spell, which accomplishes much the same thing, moves the sorcerer and oracle. But there's still a big difference between being able to learn a single new spell in 24 hours versus completely changing your set of known spells in 24 hours.
There are many spells that a cleric can never know though, wall of supression and imprisonment etc for example. So, a bad example but you get my point.
Nope. I don't get it at all. He can get Wall of Suppression simply by spending money.
And many many spells will the cleric not have access to until very very high levels.
So? At high levels, I get access to 100% of my spell list and 100% of yours. At high levels, you get access to 15% of your own spell list and the 8% of my spell list that is also on yours.
I don't think there's any rational way to dispute that my spell access is better. Anything you need, I have. Anything I need, I have. Anything you need,... you might have. Or you might be able to jury-rig something.
You have access to an amazing Swiss Army Knife, the most flexible tool in the world. I have access to a full machine shop,... oh, and there's a Swiss Army Knife in the drawer of that desk over there, by the way.
The requirement for getting into a tier seem to be extremely fuzzy and applied arbitrarily.
Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite
Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.
Examples: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges)
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.
Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior
Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.
Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Dungeoncrasher Variant)
Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the rest of the party is weak in that situation and the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.
Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight
Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.
Examples: CW Samurai, Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner
In a nutshell, prepared casters are Tier 1, spontaneous tier 2. Though Erudite and Artificer are a bit weird. Your free to disagree.
Again, CoDzilla? He's in the title. Where did he go...
"Tier1: Capable of doing absolutely everying"
A cleric cannot cast Imprisonment without spending money. Thus clerics are not tier 1.
So? At high levels, I get access to 100% of my spell list and 100% of yours. At high levels, you get access to 15% of your own spell list and the 8% of my spell list that is also on yours.
Why are you talking in percentages? Would that mean the wizard gets worse and worse as more books are released, since they have fewer spells? Paladins also get 100% of their own spell list yet they are (comparatively) terrible casters.
Wouldn't it be more sensible to talk in actual numbers?
Is there a number of spells you need to be able to cast to be tier 1?
Are there specific requirements of those spells, like spell levels needed?
Specific functions?
The tier system seems so awfully vague you can call any class any tier if you want to.
"Tier1: Capable of doing absolutely everying"
A cleric cannot cast Imprisonment without spending money. Thus clerics are not tier 1.
I think your being obtuse and a bit too literal here. You just took a snip you wanted and tried to say something to make yourself look right. Your not really interested in a discussion are you? A tier one class also can't literally make the real life table flip. Obviously tier one doesn't exist?
The tier system seems so awfully vague you can call any class any tier if you want to.
That's your interpretation. You can't use specific numbers. You can't literally put every class side by side, numbered, and tell you how effective they are in every situation ever and which one is better than the other. I can give you a rough estimate of potential with the tiers. Take it or leave it, your free to leave it. Or start a new thread about it.
"Tier1: Capable of doing absolutely everying"
A cleric cannot cast Imprisonment without spending money. Thus clerics are not tier 1.
You're misinterpreting what that means. More importantly it's an incomplete definition.
Let's look at it again.
Tier 1
Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
And then look at T2
Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.
You see the differences between T2 and T1 are actually much smaller than you think. The difference isn't "can you do everything" because both tiers can. The difference is. How many ways can you do everything?
In the case of the 3.5 druid he could, without any real thought:
KIll an encounter by spamming summons at it.
Cast an uber powerful spell at it.
Sick his companion at it.
Wild shape into something ridiciculous and rip its head off.
Change into somethign small and insignificant and stealth past it.
Or any combination thereof plus lots lots more. And in some of those solutions I didn't cast a single spell.
At T2 you already already doing everything. It's at T1 where you do everything plus more.
The requirement for getting into a tier seem to be extremely fuzzy and applied arbitrarily.** spoiler omitted **
...
in a nutshell, prepared casters are Tier 1, spontaneous tier 2Bolded part is mine. Again, this is 3.5 mindset. In 3.5, prepared casters were tier 1, because ALL prepared casters were tier 1. In Pathfinder it's not really so: magus prepare spells, and they aren't tier 1. In Pathfinder, 20th Sorcerers can have access to MORE 9th level spells than a Druid, by spending less than 4% of their WBL. Because of Mnemonic Vestment(s) and Scroll(s).
"Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party."
Nothing in the description says "prepare spells". The requisites are being able of doing everything, better than classes that specialize, solving encounters with a single mechanical, world changing powers, and able to break campaigns. That can be done by spontaneous casters in Pathfinder. It wasn't possible in 3.5, but it is in pathfinder.