*crickets*
|
So, those are my 10 criteria. Are there any which you would add or don't think should be there? Note you are not expected to be able to meet every single criteria at every moment, what we are looking for is potential.
Can you provide a character who can match them at a particular level?
Is that 'everything'?
Ooh boy, guess we're having lists now. Feel they ruin all the fun. Can we go back to a world without lists?
OK, lets see what sort of tasks you want the theoretical characters to be able to do to meet Tier 1. Here is my top 10 list of things you need to be able to do:
Now, this top 10 - is it a concrete pass, or is the reference of a top 10 just a weasel word? I just want to be certain this won't feel a pointless exercise later.
1. Deal with any potential combat encounter of your CR+3. That means having a way of dealing with animals, humanoids, swarms, undead, incorporeal, elementals, outsiders, fey, magical beasts, aberrations, constructs, oozes and vermin.
Long list there. May have to come back.
2. Have sufficiently potent defences to allow you to survive in direct combat against any of those types of encounters. These can include raw AC, HP or save numbers or other forms of defence such as miss chance. To be considered strong AC should be around level+20 (equal CR wil need around a 15 to hit), fort and will saves should be around level+4 (gives about an 80% chance of success).
But...I can do a 40% chance to hit for most enemies by just using blur and displacement; let alone mirror image. Why meet the arbitrary AC? Also, to save leg work; anyone know the highest, say, 3 saves at CR13 (since the challenge level was 10)?
3. Have the ability to undertake reconnaissance and scouting either to prepare for combat or simply to provide the group with information more generally. This could be through physical stealth, accounting for how common darkvision is for monsters, or via invisibility, divinations, shapechanging etc.
Greater invisibility and flight are easy options to hide. Comprehend languages, detect magic, alter self, detect thoughts...
Save time; illusion and divination, occasionally transmutation.4. An ability to complete social encounters and create allies, obtain services or turn enemies or rivals into allies. Diplomacy should be at least +20, allowing you to shift a hostile creature to indifferent with a take 10. Spells should have a DC of around level+15 to maximise chance of success.
Invest in diplomacy? Arguably why bother? The wizard (if it wasn't obvious who I'm using) can use dominate it by then. :P
5. Be able to obtain information about the wider campaign world and particular threats. This could be by way of gather information or knowledge checks or through the use of divinations. Knowledge skills should be around level+10 to maximise the chance of identifying rare creatures.
Well, you know, divination.
6. Be able to operate in potentially any environment including land, underwater, flight and other planar locations potentially for an extended period of time.
Flight was covered; aboleth's lung will last a while and is low level, same for good old water breathing. Planar adaptation exists. Burrow is an option, to be thorough. Elemental body do?
7. Have some means of dealing with traps and other environmental hazards including but not limited to storms, hot or cold weather, landslides, mud, lava, chasms, rivers etc.
A few means to get fire immunity. Burrow/flight/water breating + swim cover a few others. Oh yeah, and endure elements, right off the bat.
Though again, bit irked by the potential to add more later. Just feels inherently duplicitous to read. Probably my fault in reading that in.8. Have transportation and travel options, improving by level. Should be able to scale cliffs or cross chasms by level 4, routinely fly by 7, travel large distances quickly by 10 and engage in plaanr travel by 13.
Oh, you wanted stuff by each level? Well a lot of options I looked at above have low level spells.
Anyway: levitate for the options at 4. Fly already cited (overland flight to be sure). Teleport?9. Be able to provide recovery and/or rest options to yourself or the group. That can include such things as HP recovery, status removal or safe resting ability.
Wands. Wands everywhere. As to shelter - web shelter and an illusory wall (pulling in a few books overall here, that perhaps highlights something)?
10. Provide additional resources to the group whether by the provision of additional gear through crafting, providing extra bodies in battle or drafting in allies.
Wizards can do all 3. The third can be done with reduced enemies occurring too.
Edit: Seeing further discussion. I'm glad the thread isn't as hostile as I fear I got here, that said - I did have fun studying the spell list for once.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Capable of doing...
I'm not a huge fan of the idea of "tiers" and the gnashing of teeth that goes along with the idea. To me, we play these games to bring fantasy worlds to life. I'd be as happy running a group of rogues and monks as I would a group of clerics and wizards and druids. It's all about helping that player see through his character's eyes. Anyone who talks down to someone else at the table saying "Oh, you're playing a tier 3 character." gets the Eyebite from me.
BUT...I've softened to the idea as there is value in open discussion as to the combat capabilities of the classes. It helps the game system evolve (sometimes). This idea of "is capable of doing" is very...misleading, unless we're talking about a 30x30 room with a monster in it.
Feats and numbers...feats and numbers...have fun talking feats and numbers, but don't forget it's a roleplaying game.
BUT...I've softened to the idea as there is value in open discussion as to the combat capabilities of the classes. It helps the game system evolve (sometimes). This idea of "is capable of doing" is very...misleading, unless we're talking about a 30x30 room with a monster in it.I think it is a useful concept at the point of game and character creation. It allows the GM to estimate more readily what sort of situations the group is likely to be able to handle and allows the players to decide just have much variation in PC capability they are willing to tolerate.
Also they are very useful for sparking 100 page long messageboard arguments with all of the usual suspects.
Haha. True and true.
|
I have never used a tier list or concept when running my games. Players pick their classes and we go.
I find that at any level of play versatility and raw power can break things. Skilled characters without a lot of inherent versatility but plenty of power make a habit of acquiring magic items that allow them to teleport, go invisible, become ethereal and more. Sometimes in the same item (our fighter has an item that gives two of these effects and then some).
The characters that exist at the heights of power are not the characters we see on the optimization posts, with incredibly specific gear to allow them to do a single thing far better than they will ever have a need to. They're characters who are powerful enough to deal with what they are built to handle and who tend to have a long list of options aside to cover many potential hazards, threats and conditions. Because a character does not exist in a vacuume when you talk about power and flexibility you have to consider what is *really* the case. A wizard has one action a round, and some specifically prepared quickened spells. Probably a couple of minions but anyone can have minions so those don't count.
A fighter has 4+ attacks per round and a bunch of gear to ensure he can get to his target, survive a casters onslaught and deal with an overbearing doombeast.
Now that said, a wizard is still more flexible. But the way tiers are presented or perceived it usually seems to place characters on a capability list that doesn't consider that a simple fighter of sufficient wealth and level can, in fact, handle most any situation thrown at him depending on what he happens to be equipped with at the time. Does he have umd? What potions and scrolls are in his handy haversak? I have seen single martials (Rangers in particular) who were plane shifting and such.
The only realistic limitations on a given character is when they can do these things, the mechanisms required for them to do these things and the realistic breaking point which in a fighters case is likely going to be around the mark of 'I create my own permanent pocket dimension, pray for a miracle etc'. But even then a fighter of suffienct level who wants it has access to wishes from their gear alone....
Tier 1 characters really just have an easier time of these things and can do more of them. Generally speaking spells = more versatility which can be power or an aid to it. Most primary casters have all of their power in the form of that versatility (clerics and druids are an exception). This forces those casters to rely on higher end spells and more polarized effects to compete with what a non- primary caster can do. And contrary to popular belief, at high levels, you don't have a horde of potent spells that you can fling about for every encounter without relying (and heavily I might add) on others unless you're a Sorceror or oracle. There are only so many times you can drop 6+ level spells that are even applicable to the situation and once you factor in saves, spell resistance and anything else that allows some of those spells not to work, you can easily run into enough encounters that you're relying on lower level magic (which is much more likely to be resisted). You still need that fighter or paladin or monk or whatever and they are using their resources, just like you. They just don't have as wide of or as alterable a variety as the tier 1's.
So maybe we should call the tier list the versatility list? Or some name that doesn't denote a placement if superiority of one class over another (though there may be some that simply are, mechanically speaking)..
Pathfinder Flex list for classes.
I always have to laugh at these power tier thing and people who so this is way more powerful this other class.
A thoughtful and well played first level commoner armed with a club is better to bring along then a twenty level wizard armed to the teeth but played by a Dim wit. And if you cannot contribute to a party playing x class chances are the problem is YOU , not the class.
*crickets*
Is that everything? You were asked to be specific. Is this it? I can make a bunch of level 10 characters who can provide crickets.
Translation: no one is going to waste their time putting together a build just to convince you without a better set of criteria. I could put together a wizard that could easily handle every expected situation/encounter that a CL+3 character could expect to deal with. If you are going to turn around and say, "but it doesn't have 9th level spells at 10th level so you fail, neener neener," then I'm really not interested. If you would care to provide a list of things you think could reasonably be expected of a level 13 party, then I will build a level 10 wizard that can do all of them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always have to laugh at these power tier thing and people who so this is way more powerful this other class.
A thoughtful and well played first level commoner armed with a club is better to bring along then a twenty level wizard armed to the teeth but played by a Dim wit. And if you cannot contribute to a party playing x class chances are the problem is YOU , not the class.
You do not understand what the tier concept means.
|
I always have to laugh at these power tier thing and people who so this is way more powerful this other class.
A thoughtful and well played first level commoner armed with a club is better to bring along then a twenty level wizard armed to the teeth but played by a Dim wit. And if you cannot contribute to a party playing x class chances are the problem is YOU , not the class.
1. The tiers are meant to compare apples to apples. A moderately skilled (in the gaming sense) player who plays a Wizard will be far more powerful than one who plays a rogue. An extremely skilled player with a fighter can make it sufficient - an extremely skilled player with a wizard can break your campaign.
2. That's profoundly ridiculous. It's simply not built into the game that anyone could challenge that sort of power disparity - no matter the IQs of the respective players, provided the wizard is at least capable of reading and understanding what his different spells do.
2. That's profoundly ridiculous. It's simply not built into the game that anyone could challenge that sort of power disparity - no matter the IQs of the respective players, provided the wizard is at least capable of reading and understanding what his different spells do.
This is true. Really all you have to do to be an OP Wizard is to spend about 30 minutes looking at the spell section and using some critical thinking.
|
Yay another tiers thread. I thought we put that dead horse in the ground a long time ago. I never agreed with the "established" tiers from 3.5 anyways. They definitely had a few classes in the wrong place.
As far as pathfinder goes. Well there is a power disparity between classes but I would honestly say that it has to do with system mastery, player ability, critical thinking, and team work of the party. If I was hard pressed to pit classes into tiers I would say that there are only three tiers. Maybe four if you want to be not picky.
A wizard is a powerful class. Probably one of the most powerful classes but with archetypes it is harder to throw things on the tier system because some archetypes obviously increase the power of a class. The real issue is that the "measure" is for the most part subjective. Os rogue the worst class? Probably but they can still function. Other classes can fill their role more powerfully in combat and with more versatility but that doesn't make the rogue a gimp. Some people determine power by DPR while others use versatility and capability, and some use a combination of both. The wizard is strong and the rogue is weak. Most things fall in there somewhere in the middle.
The argument that putting things on a tier helps GMs figure the capability of the players is a fallacy. Knowing what each class can do is what is actually important.
I'm still thinking tiers should be more level confined. A lot of people probably don't even play much 10+. Most groups I've seen are more from 1-5.
Yay another tiers thread. I thought we put that dead horse in the ground a long time ago. I never agreed with the "established" tiers from 3.5 anyways. They definitely had a few classes in the wrong place.
As far as pathfinder goes. Well there is a power disparity between classes but I would honestly say that it has to do with system mastery, player ability, critical thinking, and team work of the party. If I was hard pressed to pit classes into tiers I would say that there are only three tiers. Maybe four if you want to be not picky.
A wizard is a powerful class. Probably one of the most powerful classes but with archetypes it is harder to throw things on the tier system because some archetypes obviously increase the power of a class. The real issue is that the "measure" is for the most part subjective. Os rogue the worst class? Probably but they can still function. Other classes can fill their role more powerfully in combat and with more versatility but that doesn't make the rogue a gimp. Some people determine power by DPR while others use versatility and capability, and some use a combination of both. The wizard is strong and the rogue is weak. Most things fall in there somewhere in the middle.
The argument that putting things on a tier helps GMs figure the capability of the players is a fallacy. Knowing what each class can do is what is actually important.
Player and GM competence is assumed. The tiers assume that every class is being played by an expert Roleplayer and theorycrafter and judged by a great GM.
The point of the tiers to warn players about possibilities like the fighter feeling overshadowed or the wizard breaking every encounter. I have played tier 5 and tier 1 classes before. I have seen the overshadowing effects of having a wizard in the party.
My fighter feels weaker compared to the rest of the party who are all at least tier 3. I still have fun by being one of the better roleplayers in my group.
I know how tier 1 can make other classes feel so I make sure I don't run the most optimized builds. I don't purposefully make terrible build but I try not to minmax.
As for the earlier PrC question. PrCs get their own tiers which have different rules. The rules are based on how the PrC affects the base class.
For example, 3.5 Assassin building on the Rogue was on the top of the PrC tier list because it's a huge buff to the Rogue. 3.5 Assassin building off the Bard was considered average at best.
Planar Shepard, the most powerful PrC in 3.5, was not on the highest tier for PrCs because it improved the Druid but not by as much.
If you notice how I only only mention 3.5, that's because I haven't seen a list for Pathfinder. I suspect that's because most PrCs in Pathfinder suck. They simply don't improve the base class enough to make the PrC worth it.
Rogues are not tier 6 by a long shot. Tier 6 is where Truenamers belong. Rogues are at least tier 5 and I still argue for tier 4 under the "capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining" part. They aren't as good at skills as other classes certainly but they are still good at them. They can't fight very well but can hold their own if built correctly.
Before anyone says "but bards/inquisitors/wizards/etc. are better at this or that," remember wizards are "Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing." Bards and Inquisitors beat rogues at skills when they focus on them especially in the rogue doesn't.
mswbear is correct in mentioning archetypes because they can really move a class up or down a tier especially the monk who relies on them more than any other class. The summoner also has the Master Summoner and Synthesist Summoner archetypes to deal with.
Ranking the vanilla class is easy but a lot of work will have to be done before archetypes can be properly ranked.
Also the ACG classes can't really be put in yet because they aren't finalized. I know Hunter is gonna get a huge buff so you can't judge it based on its current form, for example.
*crickets*Is that everything? You were asked to be specific. Is this it? I can make a bunch of level 10 characters who can provide crickets.
Translation: no one is going to waste their time putting together a build just to convince you without a better set of criteria. I could put together a wizard that could easily handle every expected situation/encounter that a CL+3 character could expect to deal with. If you are going to turn around and say, "but it doesn't have 9th level spells at 10th level so you fail, neener neener," then I'm really not interested. If you would care to provide a list of things you think could reasonably be expected of a level 13 party, then I will build a level 10 wizard that can do all of them.
I wasn’t asked that question, Andreww was. He answered.
I haven't weighed in, but my opinion is this: Tiers largely don't apply until you reach the levels in this system where WotC just plain decided it was broken enough that they abandoned the system and moved to DnD 4.0.
And - the vast majority of characters never see those levels so creating these tier gives new players a false sense their classes value.
I think that few could correctly create a T1 character and fewer could actually play one.
Defacto: Tiers are irrelevant, and for more reasons than I stated.
P.S. I'd still like one of you to complete my challenge. Praise and glory awaits you.
*crickets*Is that everything? You were asked to be specific. Is this it? I can make a bunch of level 10 characters who can provide crickets.
Translation: no one is going to waste their time putting together a build just to convince you without a better set of criteria. I could put together a wizard that could easily handle every expected situation/encounter that a CL+3 character could expect to deal with. If you are going to turn around and say, "but it doesn't have 9th level spells at 10th level so you fail, neener neener," then I'm really not interested. If you would care to provide a list of things you think could reasonably be expected of a level 13 party, then I will build a level 10 wizard that can do all of them.
I wasn’t asked that question, Andreww was. He answered.
I haven't weighed in, but my opinion is this: Tiers largely don't apply until you reach the levels in this system where WotC just plain decided it was broken enough that they abandoned the system and moved to DnD 4.0.
And - the vast majority of characters never see those levels so creating these tier gives new players a false sense their classes value.
I think that few could correctly create a T1 character and fewer could actually play one.Defacto: Tiers are irrelevant, and for more reasons than I stated.
P.S. I'd still like one of you to complete my challenge. A lot of praise glory awaits you.
I am prepared to accept your challenge given a complete set of criteria in advance. And I will do it AT ANY LEVEL. You give me the list of things you think a party of X-level should be able to do, and I will give you a tier 1 build that can do them all.
I'm happy with andreww's list.
I choose level 5. I'd be more than happy to see one for level 10, but if you can do this at level 5...well - kudo's to you.
|
Paladins are still only tier 4, their limited spell casting puts them in tier 4, and is not comparable to the battlecasters.
"Capable of doing one thing quite well, ..." Can Pally Smite Evil quite well? Darn tootin.
"while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate," can still tank, can still heal, still buff and can still remove conditions via Mercy. Are those things useful? Yep.
Thus, ipso facto, Paladins are T3.
That's always been my opinion as well. They're effective damage dealers who can spike crazy high with Smite Evil while tanking, healing hp damage, healing status effects, serving as party face, and providing potent buffs, all simultaneously and with a fair degree of effectiveness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Capable of doing...I'm not a huge fan of the idea of "tiers" and the gnashing of teeth that goes along with the idea. To me, we play these games to bring fantasy worlds to life. ...
BUT...I've softened to the idea as there is value in open discussion as to the combat capabilities of the classes. It helps the game system evolve (sometimes). This idea of "is capable of doing" is very...misleading, unless we're talking about a 30x30 room with a monster in it.Feats and numbers...feats and numbers...have fun talking feats and numbers, but don't forget it's a roleplaying game.
Tiers are a tool, just like theorycrafting. It's a useful TOOL, but one should not mistake it for the game itself or IRL gaming. It's quite possible to have a party where the Fighter is the most useful and dangerous member of the party and the wizard be useless. But it does show theoretical potential.
For example, if I had a table with three really experienced players all doing T1, and a newer guy wanted to play a T5, then I'd have have a talk with him and the other players, make sure he doesn't get marginalized.
I am prepared to accept your challenge given a complete set of criteria in advance. And I will do it AT ANY LEVEL. You give me the list of things you think a party of X-level should be able to do, and I will give you a tier 1 build that can do them all.I think the most difficult criteria is the CR level+3 encounters solo. I don't think any class can do that consistently before high levels. I can confidently state no class can do it at 1. I don't think anyone can do it at 5 either, and maybe not 10.
(I don't doubt that there are tier 1 classes at high level, but I don't think they exist at low level. Pathfinder is quite well balanced for low-mid level play, with a few exceptions on the weak side.)
Well, the CR = level+3 was specifically noted for the level 10 tier one build. I am happy to accept that challenge as well. If havoc wants to give be a list of encounters/challenges/obstacles that a APL 13 party would reasonably be expected to deal with, I will build a level 10 tier 1 character that could solo all of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Capable of doing...I'm not a huge fan of the idea of "tiers" and the gnashing of teeth that goes along with the idea. To me, we play these games to bring fantasy worlds to life. ...
BUT...I've softened to the idea as there is value in open discussion as to the combat capabilities of the classes. It helps the game system evolve (sometimes). This idea of "is capable of doing" is very...misleading, unless we're talking about a 30x30 room with a monster in it.Feats and numbers...feats and numbers...have fun talking feats and numbers, but don't forget it's a roleplaying game.
Tiers are a tool, just like theorycrafting. It's a useful TOOL, but one should not mistake it for the game itself or IRL gaming. It's quite possible to have a party where the Fighter is the most useful and dangerous member of the party and the wizard be useless. But it does show theoretical potential.
For example, if I had a table with three really experienced players all doing T1, and a newer guy wanted to play a T5, then I'd have have a talk with him and the other players, make sure he doesn't get marginalized.
That is all tier theory is intended to do; give a DM a sense of party disparity. I would estimate that 90%+ people who are players AND use tier theory are trying to bring their builds up or play their builds down to 3rd tier. It is pretty universally accepted that 3rd tier is the sweet spot for an individual party member.
Edit: I should say that it is universally accepted among those who (1)believe tiers are a real thing, and (2) believe it is a useful tool.
OK, for the combat challenge here is a selection of creatures you should be able to deal with broken down by key levels:
Level 1: Small Earth Elemental, Bat Swarm, Assassin Vine, Gray Ooze
Level 4: Harpy, Troll, Babau, Chuul
Level 7: Shadow Demon, Mohrg, Frost Giant, Young Red Dragon
Level 10: Fire Giant, Elder Air Elemental, Lich, Glabrezu
Level 13: Adult Bronze Dragon, Trumpet Archon, Phoenix, Horned Devil
Level 16: Planetar, Marilith, Kraken, Ancient Red Dragon
Level 19: A mated pair of Ice Linnorms, an Ancient Blue Dragon backed by 5 storm giants riding Rocs, a Balor and its Ancient Green Dragon ally, a Master of Magic Pit Fiend backed by 4 Horned Devil bodyguards which has used their accumulated wealth to equip themselves.
The Fiend has see invisibility, greater invisibility, animate dead, haste, charm monster and freedom of movement at will and fickle winds, limited wish and mind blank available 3/day.
That's a good start, but we need more. Traps, locks, social encounters, barriers.
Also stuff that doesn't matter as soloist, but should be accomplished by tier 1. Buffing, healing, status removal, debuffing, camp finding, tracking, carrying heavy stuff...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tiers are a tool, just like theorycrafting. It's a useful TOOL, but one should not mistake it for the game itself or IRL gaming. It's quite possible to have a party where the Fighter is the most useful and dangerous member of the party and the wizard be useless. But it does show theoretical potential.For example, if I had a table with three really experienced players all doing T1, and a newer guy wanted to play a T5, then I'd have have a talk with him and the other players, make sure he doesn't get marginalized.
Yeah, this really is a thing. I was running a campaign consisting of a crafting wizard who liked to be prepared for any situation, a witch who served as buffer and healer with some control hexes, an extremely well-made bard, a PrC'd construct-subtype character with swaths of immunities, and a barbarian built without any of the commonly suggested rage powers like Beast Totem, Superstition, etc.
It was really hard to keep coming up with encounters that challenged the group without sidelining the barbarian. Illusions, enchantments, swarms, all kinds of terrain and control effects, he just didn't have any way to react or deal with them and it got to the point where I was throwing in the occasional minotaur and ogre regardless of whether they made sense just so he felt like he had something to contribute. Realistically, the other party members probably could have handled those challenges more efficiently than the barbarian, but there was a quiet agreement amongst the group that if a problem could be resolved by beating its face in, everyone let the barbarian take it and reserved their resources as much as possible.
Knowing what your group's adaptibility and comparative strengths and weaknesses are can be a very important tool for a GM. It also helps to know when one of your players with a higher degree of system mastery is eyeballing those Tier 1 classes, as you may need to review your scenario and see where the breaking points are (Which encounters can they teleport/burrow/fly around? Is it going to disrupt the evening's plans if he does/doesn't magically kill/dominate/petrify/trick one of the baddies into doing something unexpected?). It might also be a tip to me that I need to review his spell list and have a quick convo about what he thinks certain spells are capable of to make sure we all understand them the same way.
As a fairly permissive GM, knowing the general Tier placement of classes can be important for catching things that I may want to think a little harder about before letting them in my game. When I hear "DPS's psionics are generally Tier 3 classes, and the psion is probably mid to upper Tier 2" I feel pretty good about allowing those materials into my game freely, with the understanding that I may need to take the psion's build and power choices into account the same way I would a sorcerer's spell list when putting my encounters together. When I see a lot of debating over what Tier a class is (especially if there's a lot of swing, like 2-3 Tiers separation), I know that I probably need to do a little research and find out what these elements are that are causing such a big discrepancy.
Basically, as has been noted several times, Tiers are about options, and it can be a very helpful tool to know what options a given class could potentially be bringing to the table, whether I'm looking at it from a player perspective or a GM perspective.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tiers exist whether one believes in them or not. The disparity among classes doesn't go away by not wanting to look at in detail nor by wishfully and whimsically transferring that objective power gap in classes to player prowess.
Tiers exist whether one believes in them or not. The disparity among classes doesn't go away by not wanting to look at in detail nor by wishfully and whimsically transferring that objective power gap in classes to player prowess.
+2 (sadly I can only give +1). But ya, I really couldn't agree more.
|
|
This old chestnut. Anyway:
Tier 1:
Wizard, Cleric, Witch, Druid, Arcanist, Shaman, Human or 1/2 race Sorcerer or Oracle (doesn't even need Paragon Surge, they get a huge amount of spells. Plus the Pages of Spell Knowledge).
Tier 2:
Summoner (all, but Synthesist drops away), quirky Sorcerers and Oracles, well made Bards, Skald if that Spell Kenning thing works as I think,
Tier 3: biggest and generally most fun band -
Bard, Skald, Inquisitor, Investigator, Hunter, Magus, Alchemist, Warpriest. Most of the 6th level casters, basically. Also, the very best martial classes. Ranger because of skill, spells fighting good and a pet. Bloodrager. Paladins can be the best fighters and diplomacists and healers.
Tier 4:
Barbarian, but at the very top. It's the no spells and low Int which makes them less flexible. Slayer, but he has more skills. Both of them have raw power though. Ninja. Gunslinger. Some Fighters and Cavaliers. Brawlers and Swashbucklers hopefully. Adept.
Tier 5:
it gets iffy here, but Fighter, Rogue, Monk, badly done Cavaliers, Samurai.
Tier 6:
Aristos, Expert, Warrior, the filthy Commoner.
----
It usually doesn't matter in a game though. It's about party balance above all else. If we have a 4 man party and the other guys have gone for Cleric, Sorcerer and Bard, I will be picking Ranger, Barbarian, Brawler or Fighter 9 times out of 10.
+2 (sadly I can only give +1). But ya, I really couldn't agree more.Tiers exist whether one believes in them or not. The disparity among classes doesn't go away by not wanting to look at in detail nor by wishfully and whimsically transferring that objective power gap in classes to player prowess.
Here, I'll give him a second.
Some Fighters and Cavaliers.
Would you care to specify?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some Fighters and Cavaliers.Would you care to specify?
A half-orc Fighter with the Dirty Fighter archetype and Dirty Fighting Mastery (or whatever that feat from Bastards of Golarion is called) can be an absolutely amazing battlefield control specialist and turn normally subpar abilities like Whirlwind Attack into effective combat tools. Lore Warden comes pretty close to stepping into Tier 4 as well. There might be one or two others I'm less familiar with. Tactician comes up a lot, though I don't really agree as I think that it isn't actually as good as it's made out to be.
The Cavalier is a class that can be amped up quite a bit with enough system mastery and careful selection of the right Teamwork feats, especially ones like Coordinated Charge or Target of Opportunity which can provide a massive boost in action economy, or Shake it Off, which can be a big boost in saves. The class just has a lot of room for system mastery and campaign setting to drastically affect its performance levels.
Also worth noting that many monk archetypes push the monk into Tier 4 territory, with a select few like the Zen Archer, Sensei, and Qinggong (when combo'd with certain other archetypes), potentially breaking into Tier 3.
I'm guessing when you say Dirty Fighter you're talking about the Cad, right? Sweeping Prank seems pretty good, but the CMB boost is weaker than the Lore Warden's. I don't really understand where you're getting synergy with Whirlwind Attack, either.
|
|
I'm guessing when you say Dirty Fighter you're talking about the Cad, right? Sweeping Prank seems pretty good, but the CMB boost is weaker than the Lore Warden's. I don't really understand where you're getting synergy with Whirlwind Attack, either.
The Dirty Fighter gets the ability to perform a Dirty Trick in place of an attack, and to inflict multiple conditions with a single application. Combined with Dirty Trick Master and Whirlwind Attack, he can potentially daze, pin, frighten, or nauseate whole swaths of opponents in a single full attack, potentially for multiple rounds.
Huh, that IS good. It isn't listed under Fighter archetypes on the PFSRD for some reason, you can only get to it from the Orc race page.
No can do Ghost Rider, Whirlwind Attack is a full-attack.
That's true. That's true. Haven't read this in awhile.
http://www.tenebraemush.net/index.php/Understanding_CMB_and_CMD
|
|
Dirty Fighter can do it as an attack action. Whirlwind Attack may not allow it as they are attacks, not attack actions.
I really wish Pathfinder had tighter language.
The wording is:
Speedy Tricks (Ex): At 9th level, a dirty fighter has perfected how to quickly perform dirty tricks. He can make a dirty trick combat maneuver as an attack instead of a standard action. This ability replaces weapon training 2.
I'm just about positive that means it can be done in place of any attack, whether that be the attacks taken as part of a Whirlwind Attack, or an attack of opportunity, or your standard iteratives.