|
I have seen the debate many times about which class is rated in which tier many times. But in all those rankings it is taking into consideration a 20 level progression, magical item crafting feats, and often without considering the most recent splat books. If we frame the discussion within the boundaries of pathfinder society legal play does it change the tiers?
The wizard can no longer scribe any scroll on his spells known list for little gold and at his/ her caster level, nor can he create the miriad of magic items to supplement his arsenal of spells. Does this bump him down a tier?
In pathfinder play it often seems that the prepared spell list I show up to the Venture captain with is what I will be using throughout the scenerio. With out the chance to fine tune my spells memorized after being assigned the mission, does it penalize the prepared spell caster, making the spontaneous caster more powerful? What about a human or half elf spontaneous caster that takes extra spells known instead of an extra HP?
The fighter seems to be hitting his sweet spot through level 11. With the open purchasing system of magic items such as fly potions, boots of speed, and other wondrous items is he more versatile? Is he even bumped up a tier as being one of the best damage dealers on the table?
What about the monk? Every body hates on the monk, but with some of the styles, archetypes, and new feats available he seems like a versatile melee-er with some out of combat usefulness. Is he still bottom rung when looking only at 11 levels?
Very excited for some feed back. Cheers.
|
|
He is the list of tier criteria that is commonly accepted as originally posted on brilliant gameologist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
Summoner most certainly is Tier 1, as is Wizard.
All summoners? Or an archetype? Even considering that master summoner is not legal for society play?
And the wizard. Is he hurt by not being able to personalize his spell list for the adventure? Or do you find that in your society game that you have the chance to update a prepared spell list?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike the tier system. It assumes a lot of things -- character build decisions, skill (or ineptitude) of players -- but none more than the assumption that the players are working against the GM. I say this because the description of the tier system is hinged on lines like this:
"These guys, if played well, can break a campaign."
It's that played well that really irks me, because what it's really means is "played in an optimal mechanical sense," which, in my mind, is far from what it takes to play a character well. Any player that I would think of as "good" would never play their character in such a way that would destroy a game session for others. But that's just my continuing crusade against the mentality of "us against them" when it comes to the player/GM relationship.
I think that every class shines equally in PFS. The lower level cap means less total options over the course of a character's life, which leads to more variance in builds. The wide spread of age and experience of players in PFS also leads to more variety in what you see played around the table. And because of this high amount of randomness at a table, the tier system falls apart as a way to measure effectiveness. It becomes more about system understanding, experience, and decision making, rather than just what class you picked.
|
|
Walter S- I believe what they are referring to when they "break a campaign" is not adversarial to the GM, but more as in they make the other players feel inadequate by performing the other character's specialties often better then the other class. Ie the Druids and wizards that could melee better than the fighter or barbarian because of polymorph rules. The cleric that could out sneak a sneaky rogue, or get around traps better with there spells.
NN 959- The original tier system was created on BG in 2008 in regards to 3.5. Since then it has had many rebirths to examine both pathfinder and D&d classes and try to rank them in there ability to overcome the gm's challenges. But in all the discussions I have seen it takes into consideration what a character is capable of up to level 20 and in a more open environment then society play. (Ie crafting items, unrestricted archetype access, and so on).
Does society rules negate the dominance of a few classes over the many?
I would like to refer to some of the questions in the original post.
even in high level games with the supposed tier 1 classes represented, it has often been the fighter that has saved our bacon. Specifically in the hall of drunken heros we would all be dead without the fighters ability to blast away with his two handed sword. (The fighter was played by my ten year old son, not an experienced gamer. Though I have had significant in put on his character. The other characters were optimized druid, cleric, wizard, and alchemist.).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tier 1. A extremely powerfully built character with a creative and knowledgable player that compeltely understands the build
Tier 2. A moderately power built character with a creative and knowledgable player that compeltely understands the build
Tier 3. A very powerful build someone stole off the internet that does not fully understand the tactics of the game playing.
Teir 4. A moderate character with a moderate player
Teir 5. Either the character is poorly built or the player has poor grasp on rules and strategy.
Teir 6. A poorly built character played by someone poorly.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Walter S- I believe what they are referring to when they "break a campaign" is not adversarial to the GM, but more as in they make the other players feel inadequate by performing the other character's specialties often better then the other class. Ie the Druids and wizards that could melee better than the fighter or barbarian because of polymorph rules. The cleric that could out sneak a sneaky rogue, or get around traps better with there spells.
By your interpretation then: if they are making the other players feel inadequate by doing X better than player Y, they aren't playing their character "well" in the sense that they don't have a regard for other players. There's a big difference between having the highest damage output at the table and consistently "showing it off" to the chagrin of other players. And that is at the core of the class tiers, in my mind. Also, by your further examples, it shows the fluid nature of traditional class roles than anything else. Not all clerics heal, not all rogues sneak, and not all wizards shy from melee combat.
Classes don't define how useful one is in a party, the player does.
Does society rules negate the dominance of a few classes over the many?
I would like to refer to some of the questions in the original post.
I apologize for not answering your question, but I think it is based on a false premise: that certain classes are more powerful than others. I don't think that this is the case.
even in high level games with the supposed tier 1 classes represented, it has often been the fighter that has saved our bacon. Specifically in the hall of drunken heros we would all be dead without the fighters ability to blast away with his two handed sword. (The fighter was played by my ten year old son, not an experienced gamer. Though I have had significant in put on his character. The other characters were optimized druid, cleric, wizard, and alchemist.).
I think that this further enforces that the class tier system is lacking in substance when by your own omission you admit that one of the "worst" classes in the game out performed other, high tier classes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that this further enforces that the class tier system is lacking in substance when by your own omission you admit that one of the "worst" classes in the game out performed other, high tier classes.
Keep in mind that any tier chart... it is what it is. A rough estimate of a rank-order, showing which classes can perform the best in the largest variety of situations, given the options on paper. What the original poster is looking at is to highlight things like "In the PFS environment, the Summoner is at a higher tier than the Rogue." (Pretty sure that one's clear)
It's a valid question, one which really encourages good analytical thinking and examining many aspects of the Pathfinder system.
-Matt
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I think that this further enforces that the class tier system is lacking in substance when by your own omission you admit that one of the "worst" classes in the game out performed other, high tier classes.Keep in mind that any tier chart... it is what it is. A rough estimate of a rank-order, showing which classes can perform the best in the largest variety of situations, given the options on paper. What the original poster is looking at is to highlight things like "In the PFS environment, the Summoner is at a higher tier than the Rogue." (Pretty sure that one's clear)
It's a valid question, one which really encourages good analytical thinking and examining many aspects of the Pathfinder system.
-Matt
Fair enough, Matt.
I just dislike them, and the limits they put on the game. People are still welcome to share their opinions and answer the OPs question. But I think that's taking a small slice of what makes up a good character and making it a lot more important than it is.
I'll hush up for a bit and allow others to share.
|
|
I just dislike them, and the limits they put on the game. People are still welcome to share their opinions and answer the OPs question. But I think that's taking a small slice of what makes up a good character and making it a lot more important than it is.
Don't worry, I'm with you, man. My secret hope is that the community does a good enough job in this sort of discussion to identify truly-overpowered classes and abilities, and that the campaign staff and Pathfinder authors get a better sense of a what a truly-overpowered class or ability looks like. So we'll see less of them at our PFS tables, and see a better-designed Pathfinder Second Edition.
-Matt
|
|
I just dislike them, and the limits they put on the game. People are still welcome to share their opinions and answer the OPs question. But I think that's taking a small slice of what makes up a good character and making it a lot more important than it is.Don't worry, I'm with you, man. My secret hope is that the community does a good enough job in this sort of discussion to identify truly-overpowered classes and abilities, and that the campaign staff and Pathfinder authors get a better sense of a what a truly-overpowered class or ability looks like. So we'll see less of them at our PFS tables.
The last time, I would say, the community really produced a discussion at that level was AM BARBARIAN.
-Matt
The weird thing is that looking for the highest tier in the usual tier system is not a great way to find the most overpowered and disruptive abilities in the game. If we created some weird gunslinger archetype (call it missile-slinger) that literally had a standard action ability that shot missiles at up to 50 foes in a 1000 foot radius targeting flat-footed touch AC (because they're so fast!) for 1000 damage per hit, it would still be considered "Tier 3".
|
|
The weird thing is that looking for the highest tier in the usual tier system is not a great way to find the most overpowered and disruptive abilities in the game. If we created some weird gunslinger archetype (call it missile-slinger) that literally had a standard action ability that shot missiles at up to 50 foes in a 1000 foot radius for 1000 damage per hit, it would still be considered "Tier 3".
This is true. Often the most overpowered abilities are very specific. Fortunately, specific abilities are what make up the classes in the Tier list, and those very specific abilities which are truly overpowered, they tend to come up while in the process of creating the list.
That being said, I probably won't get to arrange the classes into Tiers myself. I'm too busy helping out with showing how to take a Tier 4-5ish class into Tier 3!
-Matt
|
|
Tier 1: Druid, Wizard, Witches. Wizards, even without scrolls are still wizards. If you don't like drendle drengs wake up calls, leave your spell slots open as a SOP. A well built druids pet can be a tier 3 on its own, creeping up close to tier 2 if you take the time to buff it. While wildshape is normally good, the sheer versatility it gives you in the myriad of things you run into in society makes it amazing. Witches can put big bads to sleep all day long in pfs (since so many of them are human) and still have a bag full of utility spells.
Tier 2: Zen archers, archer fighters, archer rangers, gunslingers. They put out a LOT of damage, more than most of the tier 1s, but thats more or less all they can do. Sorcerers: Not quite as versatile as wizards. Year of the diplomat may push them up to 1 if this keeps going. Alchemists, though they can vary widely on build most can nova the big bad into a crater at least twice a session and have a lot of versatility. clerics (lots of versatility, slight loss in power from 1)
Tier 3: Two handed fighters. Small cavaliers. Grapplemonks!
Tier 4: Bards (though a party full of casters can easily push you down to 5 or 6). Strength based monks.
Tier 5 Dex or wisdom based monks (agile enchantments may push you up to 4). Two weapon fighters.
Tier 6 Rogue. Other classes can usually do its job better, even with the vivisectionist being banned. Traps are usually inconsequential in PFS, stealth is almost impossible, parties with the coordination of a herd of cats make it hard to set up flanks. The DM doesn't really have the control to make the adventure well suited to them. Medium cavaliers: the horse doesn't fit in the dungeon, sorry.
I dislike the tier system. It assumes a lot of things -- character build decisions, skill (or ineptitude) of players -- but none more than the assumption that the players are working against the GM.
No. That's not the assumption or how it works. You don't have to build a game destroying wizard on purpose to make it tier one. The thing it hinges on most is that everyones on the same level of ability and optimization. The wizard still beats the fighter and still has a much higher potential to do awesome things within the rules given. If anything you actually need to avoid the powerful reality shaping and skill replacing ones to avoid the situations that make spell casters amazing, and some of those are hard to miss(like flying or summoning)
I think that every class shines equally in PFS.
Not really. The fighter is still outshined by the summoner. The fighter still only has DPR potential while the casters and gishes get nice things. The fighter is still a drooling moron who can hit things with a stick standing next to a guy who can fly all day, see anything, protect himself from evil, control space and time, and summon a guy who can hit things with a stick. That's not to say that he's literally a drooling moron or can't do cool things, but that he's still pretty limited as far as his class goes and another guy is bending reality.
Anyways, I don't think the tiers change too much if at all. At worst martial caster disparity isn't as visible at lower levels, but you still have access to a lot of the things that give you great potential. However... Scenarios tend to be pretty railroaded in my experience, so you don't have a lot of advantages like divining the next day, charming an npc you met while in the sandbox adventure, or performing crazy shenanigans and dealing with problems without ever meeting them. Table and GM may create a bit of variance with this though.
|
|
Dont really agree on your Tier 6, I run mostly Rogues (with 1-3 full BAB levels for proficiencies) and I can say I never have a problem with getting flanks (although doing 2d6+23 without flanks and 7d6+23 with a flank per attack probably helps)
So you're looking at 5d6 of sneak attack, so thats level 11, 12?
Also Since Animal Archive came out there is no dungeon too small for a Medium Cavalier on a Large mount using the Narrow Frame feat the animal can still fight at full effectiveness (no penalty to AC or Attacks) in a 5ft wide corridor.
The problem is that they can't charge.
Benefit: You do not take penalties on your attack rolls or to your AC for squeezing through a narrow space that is at least half as wide as your normal space, though each move into or through a narrow space still counts as if it were 2 squares.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles).
|
|
That's the thing about Wizards, Quendishir; They are fragile, and if the player doesn't know how to play them powerfully, they won't get far. Wizards that know the class in and out and play them powerfully, will almost always win (depending on your definition of winning).
Wizards, being sad, have more than enough points to put their con through the roof. They're not really that squishy anymore.
Yes that was a pure level 11 rogue (he was half elf so he got MWP greatsword that way), although damage is still significant at low levels (level 1 2d6+6, 1d6 sneak, level 3 2d6+9, 2d6 sneak, level 7, 2d6+13, 4d6 sneak). By level 11 you are using Arcane strike (triggering off Major magic (shield) talent to use your Rogue level for caster level), for +3 damage, power attack for +9 Damage, ST22 for +9 Damage Enhancement Bonus for +2 damage totaling +23 on damage rolls (more if you pay for a better than +2 weapon), and your AC does not suffer as you can standard action shield 2/day for +4 AC for hard fights.
I always thought what really killed rogues in combat was that lack of to hit. Martial with the lowest to hi and potential to raise it built into the class. What kills them outside in PF is the lack of good talents and class features, and skills are both replicable and have soft caps built into them in some cases.
|
The animal archive still did a lot to help bigger cavaliers. Extra Magic Item slot feat to get a belt, slap a mongoose belt on it, now all your mounts have compression to fit basically anywhere you need it to. IT does feel item tax-ey though. Still, my samurai has never felt unusefull, even in places where I couldn't fit the mount for whatever reason. Part of why I don't believe in tier lists so much.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tier 1: Druid, Wizard, Witches. Wizards, even without scrolls are still wizards. If you don't like drendle drengs wake up calls, leave your spell slots open as a SOP. A well built druids pet can be a tier 3 on its own, creeping up close to tier 2 if you take the time to buff it. While wildshape is normally good, the sheer versatility it gives you in the myriad of things you run into in society makes it amazing. Witches can put big bads to sleep all day long in pfs (since so many of them are human) and still have a bag full of utility spells.
Tier 2: Zen archers, archer fighters, archer rangers, gunslingers. They put out a LOT of damage, more than most of the tier 1s, but thats more or less all they can do. Sorcerers: Not quite as versatile as wizards. Year of the diplomat may push them up to 1 if this keeps going. Alchemists, though they can vary widely on build most can nova the big bad into a crater at least twice a session and have a lot of versatility. clerics (lots of versatility, slight loss in power from 1)
Tier 3: Two handed fighters. Small cavaliers. Grapplemonks!
Tier 4: Bards (though a party full of casters can easily push you down to 5 or 6). Strength based monks.
Tier 5 Dex or wisdom based monks (agile enchantments may push you up to 4). Two weapon fighters.
Tier 6 Rogue. Other classes can usually do its job better, even with the vivisectionist being banned. Traps are usually inconsequential in PFS, stealth is almost impossible, parties with the coordination of a herd of cats make it hard to set up flanks. The DM doesn't really have the control to make the adventure well suited to them. Medium cavaliers: the horse doesn't fit in the dungeon, sorry.
This is pretty close to where I'm at, some classes are missing. I'm going to try to do this in order within tier. I also wholly disagree with bard, that class (even without weird words) is exceptionally powerful.
Tier 1 - Summoner, Druid, Wizard, Witch, Cleric.
Tier 1.5 Sorcerer, Oracle.
Tier 2 - Gunslinger, Zen Archer, Ranger, Archer Fighter
Tier 3 - Magus, Bard, Paladin (2HF), Barbarian (2HF), Fighter(2HF), inquisitor, Alchemist
Tier 4 - Monk, Ninja, Samurai.
Tier 5 - Cavalier, Rogue.
Explanations - from levels 1-11. If we're talking 1-20, I move Summoner to tier 2, and a few of these things change around a bit.
Tier 1: Classes that can truly alter the game, These are things that can legitimately do everything in the scenario by themselves, or just make everything fall apart at higher levels. Ultimately if you know what you're doing and choose to play these classes as such, the game as a whole really cannot handle you.
Also tier 1.5; It's kind of a cop-out but I don't feel that Oracle and Sorcerer are objectively WORSE than Clerics/Wizards, but on Odd levels other than 1, they simply are. I made tier 1.5 because I didn't want to make a whole extra tier just for classes that were on tier 1 power level, but got there a bit later.
Summoner: You get two characters, and you get to do incredibly powerful things starting at level 1, even without the Eidolon you're still performing one of the most powerful actions in the game (summoning) as a standard.
Druid: Animal companions are less powerful than Eidolons, and the spells don't really outstripe the summoner until level 9, even then Summoners cast MANY of the powerful wizard spells.
Wizard: All the reasons in the world, Arcane spells are powerful, we all know it, however the action economy for the first few levels, puts them a bit behind Summoner and Druid, but Past level 11 they are the most powerful class.
Witch: Very strong, but the spell list isn't quite Wizard level. Hexes are very powerful, but wizards just gain a few options that witches really don't have access to, VERY close in power though.
Cleric: Divine spells are a little weaker than Arcane spells, shrug All the tier 1 classes shatter the game if played to do so.
Tier 1.5: See wizard and Cleric, but get your higher level slots one level later, if they weren't worse during literally half the game, they'd be tier 1.
Tier 2: The best at what they do, but they don't do a ton of other things, in pathfinder ranged attacks kill enemies more efficiently than all other attacks, tier 2, in my opinion, is reserved for the classes best suited to killing things.
Gunslinger: Dex to damage, targeting touch AC, and still takes advantage of all the powerful ranged feats in pathfinder, nifty.
Zen Archer: Not sure if this is more powerful than gunslinger or not, damage output is significantly lower, but defensively Zen archer is frightening to behold, you're level with a VERY hard to damage character that can put out a lot of damage.
Archer Fighter/Archer Ranger: Damage vs utility. Fighters do more damage and have a better bonus, archers have an animal companion, spell casting and more skills/points.
Tier 3: jack of all trades, master of none. Generally tier 3 is about classes that do multiple things (Melee who get in the way, hybrid casters who put in solid work both in damage and utility.
Magus: Scimitar dance, high AC, high damage, excellent nova potential, this is one of the good ones, but it's damage is still excellent considering the utility of the spell list. Nearly tier 2, but just doesn't have the damage output of the 2nd tier.
Bard: Arguably tier 2, the damage that good hope and inspire add to your party is hard to quantify, also year of Diplomacy means this class arguabely deserves higher placement; However with the randomness of parties in PFS I put them tier 3, because they simply aren't that self sufficient.
Two-handed fighters: Again you have 3 classes that are well balanced, but do it in different ways.
Fighters have more feats, tending towards crit specialists, with staggering critical ect.
Paladin's have a lot of self healing, and very good saves, making them hard to kill front-liners.
Barbarians have rage, and rage powers which give them a lot of versatility, but I'm mainly thinking about pounce, and how powerful that really is.
Inquisitors can get very solid damage with bane, and judgement either for healing, AC, or attack bonus, solid versatility puts them in the tier, oh yeah and lots of great cleric spells.
Alchemists can either do a lot of damage with bombs (similar to archers, but with a limited number of shots per day), or Mutagen up and be pretty strong meleer's, overall a versatile class, but still limited in it's uses, they simply don't do the things that pure casters can do, and are often outclassed by their counterparts in either role.
|
|
Yes that was a pure level 11 rogue (he was half elf so he got MWP greatsword that way), although damage is still significant at low levels (level 1 2d6+6, 1d6 sneak, level 3 2d6+9, 2d6 sneak, level 7, 2d6+13, 4d6 sneak). By level 11 you are using Arcane strike (triggering off Major magic (shield) talent to use your Rogue level for caster level), for +3 damage, power attack for +9 Damage, ST22 for +9 Damage Enhancement Bonus for +2 damage totaling +23 on damage rolls (more if you pay for a better than +2 weapon), and your AC does not suffer as you can standard action shield 2/day for +4 AC for hard fights.
That is really, really low damage, especially when you're taking a penalty to hit.
have not seen many encounters above level 5 that a Human Cavalier on his horse could not Charge and a mounted halfling could
Its almost impossible to charge a large creature without one of its corners clipping a party member, difficult terrain, or a corner. (flying horseshoes and dragonstyle help, but it takes a while)