I noticed this looking at the various threads here. Whit the possible exception of the arcanist, all these playtest classes all seem underpowered. I wonder if this is so, and if it might even be intended?
When I design things myself, I often err on the side of caution early on. While in collaborations, the collaborators usually up the power of others' work to bring it up to a perceived baseline. Maybe that is what is happening here?
Keep in mind that the hardcover core rulebook line (Core, APG, UM, UC, ARG, etc.) is supposed to be the baseline for power. If you compare the new classes to builds containing feats, archetypes, or traits from sources beyond these, then the ACG classes will (rather obviously) fall short.
I'm not arguing that they're NOT underpowered, just pointing out that what you compare them to could easily cause them to seem unimpressive.
I'm bound to agree with you... in certain circumstances. For it's part, I feel like certain aspects of each class are very underwhelming, but then others seem to be just off the charts. Take Shaman for example. the Battle and Lore spirits are absolutely tremendous in terms of game-power, yet almost all the others pale in comparison. Bloodrager: the Abyssal bloodline makes their rage almost twice as potent, gives them weapons, a fly speed, and tons of others, while many of the other bloodlines, including Infernal, totally fall short in terms of benefits. Heck, even celestial is maybe half as good as Abyssal, and only if you're only fighting all evil creatures.
It depends on what you're comparing it to.
The Arcanist and Shaman have 9th level spells, so they are tier 1. The Hunter and Warpriest have 6th levels, so they are tier 2, etc. The Investigator is clearly a replacement rogue and is better than a rogue, but it's obviously not top tier, etc.
However, when you compare them to classes in the same situation, yes, they're all weak except the Arcanist.
The Hunter offers nothing that a Druid can't get except teamwork feats (and they lose too much to pay for that gain). The Warpriest is a Cleric with more feats, which are, clearly not worth losing spells. The Brawler is worse at fighting unarmed than a Fighter.
The Skald is a great example of this phenomenon, actually, as they are an awful class, but they still have 6th level spells, so they're still better than, say, a Fighter, Monk, or Rogue.
No, you know what, it's not just the Arcanist. The Investigator is better than the Rogue and about equal to the Alchemist. The Shaman is pretty equal to the Cleric I think, so they're not exactly underpowered either. But the other 7, yeah, are on the weaker side of the classes you should compare them to.
It depends on what you're comparing it to.
The Arcanist and Shaman have 9th level spells, so they are tier 1. The Hunter and Warpriest have 6th levels, so they are tier 2, etc. The Investigator is clearly a replacement rogue and is better than a rogue, but it's obviously not top tier, etc.
I wanna clear something up real quick - this is not necessarily how tiers work. 9th level casting often, but does not always, indicate that a class is Tier 1; Dread Necromancer, Warmage, and Beguiler had 9s in 3.5 but they were T3/T4, respectively.
The tier breakdowns are as follows:
T1 - Like T2, but can change their options once/day or more often. Wizard is the quintessential example.
T2 - Can 'break the game' or otherwise restructure the campaign world to their will, but only in a few defined ways. Sorcerer is the quintessential example.
T3 - Has a definite speciality at which it excels, but can reach outside of and contribute or is able to contribute at any situation without dominating the encounter. Warblade does the former (combat is the spec, but has non-combat uses), Factotum the latter. In Pathfinder, Magus and Inquisitor are solid T3s. T3 is generally considered the goal point.
T4 - Has one specialty that it can't reach outside, or sort-of-kind-of contributes to everything. Warmage does the former, Rogue the latter.
T5 - Has one specialty, but it sucks even at that. See Fighter.
T6 - Commoners and core book monks.
I wanna clear something up real quick - this is not necessarily how tiers work.
And I want to clear up real quick that Pathfinder tiers and 3.5 tiers are not the same.
For one, Paragon Surge makes spontaneous casters equal to prepared casters in options, so that divide is irrelevant now.
Also, I was talking about tiers in a very general sense, using my own stance, which is loosely:
9th level casters and Master Summoners > Summoners > Other 6th level casters > 4th level casters > Barbarians > Full BAB classes without spells > Monks/Rogues
NPC classes don't matter in it at all.
So, if you compare Hunters to the game in general, they are one of the weakest 6th level casters, but they're still 6th level casters, so they're better than rogues and fighters and whatnot. But if you compare them to Druids, they gain practically nothing in exchange for losing Wild Shape and 3 levels of spells, so they are terrible overall.
Seeing that 'tier' is actually a concept we have a rather stringent definition of, perhaps it's a bad idea to use it while talking about your own definition?
Hunters seem tier 3, even though they're bland. Slayers are probably tier 4 along with the fighters.
Out of interest, mpl, where would you put the NPC-class caster, the Adept?
They technically have 5th level spellcasting, and that does include some stuff that's on level 5-6 for Clerics.
Presumably, the sheer lack of spell options would mean the low end, but hard to know if you'd still consider them on par with Monks/Rogues or below that.
I haven't read enough about pathfinder adepts to comment on that.
Wiser people than me have called the 3.5 version of it low tier four. Its spell list actually wasn't bad, all things considered.
Out of interest, mpl, where would you put the NPC-class caster, the Adept?
They technically have 5th level spellcasting, and that does include some stuff that's on level 5-6 for Clerics.
Presumably, the sheer lack of spell options would mean the low end, but hard to know if you'd still consider them on par with Monks/Rogues or below that.
Everything with spells is higher up than the rogue, at least at higher Levels.
The Adept is 100% the same as it was in 3.5, but the rest of the system (especially the low end) has risen around it. Its d6 HD are now standard for 1/2 BAB classes, and even the least versatile and effective classes have more options in 3.5. The adept does have at least one major "hit" at each spell level - I would seriously consider taking the Adept's spell list over the Inquisitor's if given the option, for example - but there's a point where you can limit a class enough that spellcaster = autogod stops being true. At low levels, the number of situations that the Adept has good responses to isn't really that high. At high levels it is, but you still only get so many Polymorphs every day.
Sure. But if I were going for True Ultimate Powah! I'd still rather be that than the fighter. Hence, it ranks tier 4, along with the fighter, who's up from tier 5 in 3.5.
It gets sleep at level one, for instace. That's pretty deadly.
Along with web, invisibility, animate dead, bestow curse, minor creation, polymorph, true seeing and baleful polymorph.
That's True Ultimate Powah! right there, in a way that the fighter can't access.