I would concur that well built paladins and barbarians creep into the higher tier.
Mentioned Duskblades as you did reminds me that Magi are essentially that, only made with medium BAB.
Boy, it's been awhile since I've seen the "Tier 1 Class, Tier 2 Class" thing get dragged out!
I know right? It's as if this game were all about numbers and ranks!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My advice is to ignore tiers, and play characters instead. I liken over overvaluation of tiers to Yoda's viewpoint on the dark side... I googled Yoda's relevant quotes so I might demonstrate my point, but there were too many relevant quotes.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The tier system is such a silly and out dated concept.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My advice is to ignore tiers, and play characters instead. I liken over overvaluation of tiers to Yoda's viewpoint on the dark side... I googled Yoda's relevant quotes so I might demonstrate my point, but there were too many relevant quotes.
See, I'm fine with the "let's all play together fine", but tiers to me aren't "don't play this unless you're X tier" it's more a matter of a measure of a class's narrative power. Knowing a Wizard is T1 means you can plan around that since a party of a Barbarian/Cavalier/Rogue/Monk can't solve problems like a party that is made up of a Wizard/Cleric/Summoner/Witch.
The statement being made here is the value of a full BAB in regards to the other powers of the class, which to me is pretty interesting. BAB is in itself almost inverse to narrative power. It makes me wonder the actual value of a full BAB in relation to what class abilities would make it a fair T3.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The tier system is such a silly and out dated concept.
How can "Let's compare the ability of the classes to solve problems and assign a ranking 1-6" be "outdated". I'm genuinely curious are you implying that all classes can a wide variety with equal ease, because that's just plain incorrect. Or are you implying that the ability to solve problems is irrelevant, which is your opinion, but some of us like the ability to solve problems and the list is only discussing that so your opinion on the topic would be irrelevant then since it measures something you don't care about.
|
Indeed, quite outdated Cheapy.
The only reason one class is better then another in a game are because people decide to order them after all. Then to complain that one is on top and the other on the bottom. Obviously somethings are going to be on the bottom if you decide to place them in an order.
It's a relatively meaningless activity but far be it from me to stop others from having their fun. It has been getting a bit out of hand lately though. People play a character after all, not just a class.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, quite outdated Cheapy.
The only reason one class is better then another in a game are because people decide to order them after all. Then to complain that one is on top and the other on the bottom.
It's a relatively meaningless activity but far be it from me to stop others from having their fun. It has been getting a bit out of hand lately though...
Yes, because the Fighter and Wizard both can solve a wide variety of problems with equal ease. Here lets try a few:
Move objects over large distances quickly.
Fight an army.
Negotiate with the Mad Baron of Ulithar.
Assassinate the Duke of Therinton and replace him with an imposter.
Oh wait... the Fighter can't do any of those things as well as a wizard. Huh, its almost like we could measure that and assign some kind of ranking... Oh wait.
The only reason one class is better then another in a game are because people decide to order them after all. Then to complain that one is on top and the other on the bottom.
This is sarcasm, right? Or can Fighters suddenly solve problems that only spells can fix?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, quite outdated Cheapy.
The only reason one class is better then another in a game are because people decide to order them after all. Then to complain that one is on top and the other on the bottom.
It's a relatively meaningless activity but far be it from me to stop others from having their fun. It has been getting a bit out of hand lately though...
This line confuses me. So you're saying they're all the same at solving problems? So a Fighter can solve any problem a Wizard can? I'm almost certain a Wizard has more narrative power.
Also a lot of people don't seem to understand what the tier system was made for. It's not rankings of power (you don't in tier rank), i'ts a tool for GMs to gauge power of their PCs to try to set up adventures effectively. You don't want a plane hopping game for a group of T4 or T5 characters, and a low magic dirt world probably isn't going to satisfy a group of T1 or T2 characters. If I can find it later, I'll look up the quote from Jaron K which states this plainly.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason one class is better then another in a game are because people decide to order them after all. Then to complain that one is on top and the other on the bottom. Obviously somethings are going to be on the bottom if you decide to place them in an order.
Well gee, you've fixed all the problems of the world forever with this statement.
"There's only a lower class because people decided to order the classes from high to low. It's not because people make more money than you, it's because somebody arbitrarily decided to put you on the bottom, with no mathematics backing it up!"
It's so nonsensical I can hardly make a coherent parody of it.
Your post is bad. Bad Morgen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, in my opinion, the GM is far more relevant than the tier of the class when it comes to classes.
Since you are not playing against a computer but with other people who will adjust to what you do regardless of what you pick.
A much more serious problem is imbalance within the party than with some arbitrary 'tier system'. The latter can be compensated by adjusting encounters, but the former has (in my experience) been a much greater source of strife.
You know what might help prevent imbalance in the party? Maybe if there was some kind of list that could rank each of the base classes determined by their ability to solve problems. And then people read said list. Maybe they would be able to form a more balanced party...
Do you see where this is going?
Honestly, in my opinion, the GM is far more relevant than the tier of the class when it comes to classes.
Since you are not playing against a computer but with other people who will adjust to what you do regardless of what you pick.
A much more serious problem is imbalance within the party than with some arbitrary 'tier system'. The latter can be compensated by adjusting encounters, but the former has (in my experience) been a much greater source of strife.
That's the whole reason the Tier system was made. Nobody is more powerful than the DM, but problems arise when the party is made up of classes with wildly different capabilities.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm stating my opinion on the subject of Full BAB tier classes hand. I consider the arbitrary ranking of particular classes is a meaningless and wasteful excise. It's a system for GM's who exist in a narrow sliver of people who care enough about the game to try to design encounters properly, but who don't take it a centimeter further into building for the other people they are playing with. It has a use somewhere certainly but I was agreeing with Cheapy that that it is out dated.
Anzyr: "Wizard" and "Fighter" can't do any of those things actually. They are exist only series of abilities on several sheets of paper. A character could do those things, based upon the arbitration of their GM and the situation that they and the entirety of the party are in. A combination of a lot of factors. To say one has an easier or harder time doing something based upon only part of those factors doesn't mean anything.
Athaleon: No sarcasm at all. Perhaps some disappointment in the apparent deterioration in quality of discussion on these boards in the past year or so but no sarcasm.
N. Jolly: While a valid argument I am more inclined to believe that a GM put some amount of thought into building encounters is going to look a lot more closely at what the specific characters themselves are inclined to do.
Tier based encounters might be good for say a living campaign or something you're trying to publish but for most GM's planning around a tier concept is going to lead to frustration when specific solutions aren't available even though tier X says it should be. Plus it doesn't address other major factor of party imbalance that is far more common to come up such as a imbalance of wealth distribution or having players with different levels of interest or rules knowledge. I don't believe when looking at all the factors it is a very useful tool in most GM toolboxes.
Rynjin: You even quoted me saying "in a game" and still went somewhere really uncalled for. I would honestly like an apology from you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tier system is such a silly and out dated concept.Hmmmm, I will look at every other game where you have asymmetrical choices
Oh wow, the players will often discuss the game and rank things in power by tiers! Truly marvellous that Pathfinder is the only game where this doesn't work at all. It has moved beyond tiers, and ascended to the highest level of game design.
This. The instant you have just about any sort of character-building mechanics, people are going to look at which options are strong, and which ones aren't.
The only thing the tier system doesn't cover is how much fun someone has with a certain class. Way too many people seem to get the idea that mechanical power and fun must go hand-in-hand, or that playing a low-tier class is somehow badwrongfun.
Really, it's just about knowing what a character can do. The Fighter might be low-tier due to not having many options beyond smacking things with weapons, but if that's what's fun for the player and the GM isn't expecting said player to do things only a high-tier character can manage, there's no issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin: You even quoted me saying "in a game" and still went somewhere really uncalled for. I would honestly like an apology...
I think you have a low threshold for "uncalled for" if applying your same logic to a different scenario and then saying your post is bad reaches that point.
Even restricting my examples to games you come up dead wrong, it's just a silly argument to think that somehow ordering things MAKES them bad or good rather than things being ordered BECAUSE they are bad or good.
Unless you're talking something completely subjective, like taste in food, you can't order something from best to worst without there being something that is a best and something that is a worst.
They fall in the continuum based on their ability, not because somebody went "Herp derp here's a list".
There are many valid arguments that can be made about tiers being bad (or "for queers" or even that they "don exits" for SSB players). Yours is not one of them.
I am going to echo the others that have mentioned tiers being relative to the campaign you are playing in. I had a group made up of a cleric, 2 druids, a wizard, and a bard. A few of the characters died and the players made full BAB classes as replacements because the party felt they were lacking in real damage options.
That said a lot of AP's certainly favour spell casting classes, but a well built barbarian or paladin should easily be tier 2. If you have a GM that is lenient with spell interpretation, or who doesn't track WBL closely the tier system can be thrown out completely as character power becomes more about item use at that point.
|
|
I am going to echo the others that have mentioned tiers being relative to the campaign you are playing in. I had a group made up of a cleric, 2 druids, a wizard, and a bard. A few of the characters died and the players made full BAB classes as replacements because the party felt they were lacking in real damage options.
That said a lot of AP's certainly favour spell casting classes, but a well built barbarian or paladin should easily be tier 2. If you have a GM that is lenient with spell interpretation, or who doesn't track WBL closely the tier system can be thrown out completely as character power becomes more about item use at that point.
Tiers can be relative, yes. But in raw number of answers to problems, they're pretty objective. One of my favorite parts of the Tier List is the "How does X Tier deal with X, Y, and Z situation." If you're running a more straight forward dungeon smash game where you break heads and not hearts, a souped up Barbarian is going to loads better than a Bard or enchantment spec'd Wizard. That doesn't mean the Wizard is always in a lower tier than the Bard.
Remember that Tiers are also assumed equal competence and skill in play/optimizing. My Barbarian may make its way up to a Tier 3 in a straightforward game, but will overall suffer in a social game. In the same respect, Wizards have spells to deal with straightforward games (pick any CC/Buff/Debuff/Summon/Etc) as well as a social game (basically the enchantment school as a whole), which makes Wizards a more versatile and 'higher tier' class.
I think a lot of people seem to take tiers personally, as it makes them feel like they're playing wrong, which is not the point of the tiers. It's a GM tool, and in situations like this, an interesting look at mechanics to discover why we have classes that fall into a lower tier due to things such as BAB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ability to solve a wide variety of problems is still highly campaign dependant. The spells or feats that are available, WBL, item availability, item selection, the creatures that exist within the campaign, and stat generation have a huge impact on a classes ability.
A wizard with access to all published spells and the items to make use of them is certainly tier 1 in what could be described as the assumed default setting. However I think it's been shown that many published adventures tend to be fairly unimaginative in regards to challenges, the crane wing rework gives a good indication as to the simple encounter design you are likely to see.
Using the mentioned assumed default setting though I still would place barbarians in tier 2. The class has the best dispel mechanic in the game and social skills are pretty easy to get to a useable level. The class lacks certain mobility options, and can't remove a few magical impediments, it also has low power HP replenishment options. Still most of these issues can be fixed with items easily, healing is cheap, and the mobility issues are overcome by items later as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ability to solve a wide variety of problems is still highly campaign dependant. The spells or feats that are available, WBL, item availability, item selection, the creatures that exist within the campaign, and stat generation have a huge impact on a classes ability.
A wizard with access to all published spells and the items to make use of them is certainly tier 1 in what could be described as the assumed default setting. However I think it's been shown that many published adventures tend to be fairly unimaginative in regards to challenges, the crane wing rework gives a good indication as to the simple encounter design you are likely to see.
Using the mentioned assumed default setting though I still would place barbarians in tier 2. The class has the best dispel mechanic in the game and social skills are pretty easy to get to a useable level. The class lacks certain mobility options, and can't remove a few magical impediments, it also has low power HP replenishment options. Still most of these issues can be fixed with items easily, healing is cheap, and the mobility issues are overcome by items later as well.
See, the thing is Tiers aren't based on WBL. Anyone can buy the answers to their problem, and someone who can get UMD as a skill (not hard, a trait at most) can cast anything from a scroll. That's not how you judge a tier, especially under the assumption of "enough money to do whatever." While your Barb is picking up Wings of Flight, my Wizard is free to pick up stuff to buff his Int because he can already fly. You're fixing gaps on your abilities, I'm adding new ones if I want or strengthening the ones I already have. Also stats are generally kinder to higher tier characters, as most of them are quite SAD.
Tier 2 is a pretty lofty place, and I don't think you are aware of what the current T2 crop is expected to do. T2 can plane shift, teleport, turn people to stone, see miles away and talk to whatever god they want. In a purely combat fashion, Barb may be T2, but out of combat, he lacks the options that a true T2 class enjoys.
If you had to pair the Barb and the Sorc for the listed challenges from the Tier List
-Sneak into a Dragon's Lair and kill it
-Infiltrate a Thieves Guild and get an audience with their leader
-Defend the town against the oncoming orc army
The Sorc has WAY more options to deal with those situations than the Barbarian. That's what makes him a higher tier. While we can discuss 'teamwork', the system accounts for only one person, making it even for everyone in what they can contribute to a given situation.
Mind you I LOVE the Barbarian, and I consider it my fave T4 class, but I know even an Invulnerable Rager with Spell Sunder, Eater of Magic, and Greater Beast Totem can't stand up to a well prepared spellcaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason one class is better then another in a game are because people decide to order them after all. Then to complain that one is on top and the other on the bottom. Obviously somethings are going to be on the bottom if you decide to place them in an order.
I cant even discern what you're trying to say here.
A character has a class no? Said class determines 90% of what you can even do in the game no? Then it makes sense to figure out what class lets you do the most no? Or if you're smart, what class fits your concept best whilst also giving you a variety of options.
A tier system is built upon versatility, power, and such.
These comparisons are made because people would like the classes to be closer in relative ability. Some classes don't function very well in variable circumstances. This hampers their "tier."
Then the whole tier system period is just a nice tool for GMs.
If I have a party full of Clerics, I can amp up the challenge. If its Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, these guys are going to need a bit of hand holding against anything notable for it's CR.
|
Mind you I LOVE the Barbarian, and I consider it my fave T4 class, but I know even an Invulnerable Rager with Spell Sunder, Eater of Magic, and Greater Beast Totem can't stand up to a well prepared spellcaster.
AFAIK (e.g. since the last time I looked at it), no one in the AM BARBARIAN thread was capable of making a caster that could beat the barbarian.
|
|
Mind you I LOVE the Barbarian, and I consider it my fave T4 class, but I know even an Invulnerable Rager with Spell Sunder, Eater of Magic, and Greater Beast Totem can't stand up to a well prepared spellcaster.AFAIK (e.g. since the last time I looked at it), no one in the AM BARBARIAN thread was capable of making a caster that could beat the barbarian.
Last I checked, there was no actual AMBARBARIAN build. The circumstances for the showdown were pretty contrived (Barb starts out of visible range, uses companion for charge to instakill, Wizard doesn't have a contingency set, etc)
A Wizard can scry or just play 20 questions with the gods to find out if a giant land mass named AMBARBARIAN or anything else is going to wreck them up in the next X amount of time and prepare. That's why I stated "well prepared." I'm also sure they didn't include a 20th level Diviner (although that's scraping the bottom of the barrel for plausible situations), since that smooth hombre would be acting in the surprise round with a pretty nice Init bonus.
Although I actually really would like to see if there was a legitimate AMBARBARIAN build.
The wizard purchases spell outside the 2 he gets per level. If the wizard cannot add further than those 2 spells per level he basically drops a tier. Gear is an assumed part of the game sure naked martial classes suck but that's not how the game is generally played.
Plane shift and teleporting are the only real issue the barbarian cannot deal with effectively without gear, and the necessity of such abilities is highly campaign dependant. Turning a creature to stone doesn't solve anything killing or incapacitation can't. Even without items a barbarian can gain access to commune and flight. If seeing miles away refers to scrying, skill checks can gather as much, less, or more. The barbarian can dispel indefinitely, and this covers things the spells can't. The barbarian can access scent, and other senses, it can beat exceptionally high strength checks, murder things like crazy, and boasts some of the best saves around.
N.Jolly as much as you feel gear shouldn't be taken in to consideration on a classes ability to operate at a given tier, it makes no sense. You might as well take away a wizards spell book and call them useless at that point. WBL in a standard game and the fact that purchased items work off of lowest casting stat are enough reason to keep full spell casters at the highest 2 tiers, and most lower.
Some people seem to get defensive if you point out that items take the place of certain class abilities at later levels. Same goes for climb and swim being replaced by spells. The fact is gameplay changes as you level, once mind blank becomes available you can't use see invisibility or true sight to detect invisibility reliably anymore, you need other options.
And this is why tiers are so subjective, people cannot be unbiased about it. You can't accept that items are a necessary part of tier position fine, I will always include them in my own assessments.
N.Jolly you should have followed the AM BARBARIAN threads more closely they showed a lot of what a non casting class was capable of. Scrying didn't work effectively because the barbarian was outside the spell range by the time the spell was cast (constant high speed movement). Though one build was posted that did bring the barbarian down. It involved a 20th diviner/ oracle of time I believe with a number of simulacrum of itself and a wish binding spell that offered no save. However if the AM BARBARIAN build had made use of a contingency source severance it wouldn't have worked. Mind you the build was originally intended to just be a showcase of the classes abilities. The fact that some posters felt the need to try and "beat" it is a good show case of how ingrained the martial caster disparity idea is (not that it doesn't exist it,s just blown out of proportion). Things kind of got bogged down the exercise became a show of builds designed to one up the character.
And a build was posted of AM but it's kinda outdated now.
|
|
The wizard purchases spell outside the 2 he gets per level. If the wizard cannot add further than those 2 spells per level he basically drops a tier. Gear is an assumed part of the game sure naked martial classes suck but that's not how the game is generally played.
I don't know where you get this. A wizard's tier is based on the fact that they can have any spell of which they take. And that they can (given money allowance by WBL) add spells to their list, which is among the things that helps them stay in T1. Even if it wasn't, they can tailor their powers to the situation given a day's time. A Barbarian can't do that, no matter what. Flexibility is the issue here.
Plane shift and teleporting are the only real issue the barbarian cannot deal with effectively without gear, and the necessity of such abilities is highly campaign dependant. Turning a creature to stone doesn't solve anything killing or incapacitation can't. Even without items a barbarian can gain access to commune and flight. If seeing miles away refers to scrying, skill checks can gather as much, less, or more. The barbarian can dispel indefinitely, and this covers things the spells can't. The barbarian can access scent, and other senses, it can beat exceptionally high strength checks, murder things like crazy, and boasts some of the best saves around.
I'd say social skills are too (assuming no traits, but that's debatable.) And the thing is, turning someone to stone gives you the option of taking them with you without having them able to fight back. Killing them doesn't. A Wizard prepares stone to flesh, they have a fresh captive who's ready to go. Although you seem to keep going into battle numbers, which while important, aren't versatility on the level of the Wizard. A Wizard can be invisible if they want, or charm a guard, or turn into a guard, or see the future, or etc...
N.Jolly as much as you feel gear shouldn't be taken in to consideration on a classes ability to operate at a given tier, it makes no sense. You might as well take away a wizards spell book and call them useless at that point. WBL in a standard game and the fact that purchased items work off of lowest casting stat are enough reason to keep full spell casters at the highest 2 tiers, and most lower.
I'm not ignoring WBL, but EVERYONE gets WBL, so it doesn't change the base assumption of the class. All things equal, a Barbarian buys flight, and a Wizard doesn't. A Barbarian buys a climb speed, a Wizard turns into something that climbs. And if the Wizard only ever needs to breathe water one day in his life, he prepares the spell, and then never does it again. If the Barb buys something to help him breathe underwater, which the Wizard could do just as easily, they're stuck with it. Just because you can buy something doesn't mean it doesn't affect the class, and the Wizard has more freedom in what they can buy because of the innate flexibility of their class.
Some people seem to get defensive if you point out that items take the place of certain class abilities at later levels. Same goes for climb and swim being replaced by spells. The fact is gameplay changes as you level, once mind blank becomes available you can't use see invisibility or true sight to detect invisibility reliably anymore, you need other options.
I'm not here, eventually everyone should have something to help them fly. It's just for a Wizard, it's a 5th level spell slot for Overland Flight and enough money to scribe it in their book, not a magic item that's taking up a slot the Wizard could fill with something else. Again, innate flexibility. That's what the Wizard brings, fresh daily.
And this is why tiers are so subjective, people cannot be unbiased about it. You can't accept that items are a necessary part of tier position fine, I will always include them in my own assessments.
Every game is different, that's true. But the Wizard generally has tools to always participate no matter the game. That's what makes them a higher tier. I could see a Barb pushing T3 maybe, but the ability to custom tailor your abilities each and every day differently is what puts T1 classes where they are. In the same vein, your Barbarian looks very shoddy in a social game in which you have to infiltrate an enemy organization and sneak out with their documents. Strength Surge isn't doing a lot, and it's a non magical fort. A Wizard can add tools which help it accomplish this point.
Game variance is important to consider in tiers, but having high saves and high attack roles isn't versatility. Being able to say "I can stop time, summon angels, and destroy stars" is. Again, T4 doesn't mean it's weaker, which is something I feel like I'm not getting across here. It means its less versatile, in the same way that a Fighter is WAY less versatile than a Barbarian.
See your reasoning behind the wizards tier shows your bias. If a sorcerer is tier 2 and a wizard is tier 1 it's because the sorcerer has a limited number of spells known. If the wizard cannot purchase more spells he has a limited number of spells he will ever know.
Incapacitation can be achieved with non lethal damage or grapple and rope. You missed part of my argument I will assume and aren't actively ignoring what doesn't suit your purposes.
As for flight no item needed again I will assume you misread.
You keep bringing up sneaking into places, unless the area is a brightly lit straight corridor of some considerable length guarded by a creature with poor perception and no means to sense invisible creatures then yes being invisible is great. But in most cases stealth or disguise can accomplish the same thing. As for social skill, ranks quickly outpace ability modifiers and class skills are highly customizable with traits so if the barbarian needs to be a face he can easily, the wizard may have charm person but did the tier 2 sorcerer pick it up?
The wizard is indeed a higher tier than the barbarian that's why I put the class at 2. But if you don't count paragon surge a sorcerer is tier 2 and they cannot customize on the fly so I will stick with my placement.
See your reasoning behind the wizards tier shows your bias. If a sorcerer is tier 2 and a wizard is tier 1 it's because the sorcerer has a limited number of spells known. If the wizard cannot purchase more spells he has a limited number of spells he will ever know.
Incapacitation can be achieved with non lethal damage or grapple and rope. You missed part of my argument I will assume and aren't actively ignoring what doesn't suit your purposes.
As for flight no item needed again I will assume you misread.
You keep bringing up sneaking into places, unless the area is a brightly lit straight corridor of some considerable length guarded by a creature with poor perception and no means to sense invisible creatures then yes being invisible is great. But in most cases stealth or disguise can accomplish the same thing. As for social skill, ranks quickly outpace ability modifiers and class skills are highly customizable with traits so if the barbarian needs to be a face he can easily, the wizard may have charm person but did the tier 2 sorcerer pick it up?
The wizard is indeed a higher tier than the barbarian that's why I put the class at 2. But if you don't count paragon surge a sorcerer is tier 2 and they cannot customize on the fly so I will stick with my placement.
You are misinterpreting or misunderstanding the argument. The Wizard *can* add spells to his spellbook. The fact that he can alone, by itself is what moves him up a tier.
You also underestimate form changing, wall ignoring, information gathering and mind control on the sneaking into places.
|
|
See your reasoning behind the wizards tier shows your bias. If a sorcerer is tier 2 and a wizard is tier 1 it's because the sorcerer has a limited number of spells known. If the wizard cannot purchase more spells he has a limited number of spells he will ever know.
Incapacitation can be achieved with non lethal damage or grapple and rope. You missed part of my argument I will assume and aren't actively ignoring what doesn't suit your purposes.
As for flight no item needed again I will assume you misread.
You keep bringing up sneaking into places, unless the area is a brightly lit straight corridor of some considerable length guarded by a creature with poor perception and no means to sense invisible creatures then yes being invisible is great. But in most cases stealth or disguise can accomplish the same thing. As for social skill, ranks quickly outpace ability modifiers and class skills are highly customizable with traits so if the barbarian needs to be a face he can easily, the wizard may have charm person but did the tier 2 sorcerer pick it up?
The wizard is indeed a higher tier than the barbarian that's why I put the class at 2. But if you don't count paragon surge a sorcerer is tier 2 and they cannot customize on the fly so I will stick with my placement.
Okay, perhaps I've been going about this the wrong way. How about you tell me which class is which tier in your opinion, with a slight explanation as to why so I can see your method behind thinking. Remember, this is assuming a 5 (6) tier system, so everything should have something in it, even if it's just T5 being Rogue/Monk.
As for the actual point of the thread, I think the designers underestimated spells quite a great deal, thinking that the Full BAB crew would ALWAYS have a solution to the problem of fighting, so that made them better than a Wizard who might have had Comprehend Languages instead of Magic Missile. A Full BAB class for the most part ALWAYS has something to do in combat, so it doesn't need the 'boring' earth shattering toys that a mage gets because it's always on, combat wise at least. So the fact that the mage has more 'situational' toys makes it less powerful. Except that those toys are insanely good.
|
I really don't think things were playtested enough.
Ever. Not at any step of the way by WoTC, Hasbro, Paizo. You name it, they don't playtest it.
I'll give a couple of examples.
In 3.5 I got the Serpent Kingdoms book pretty close to when it came out. Reading it, I got to the Sarrukh entry. Uh oh. I really didn't have anything in mind, and I don't immediately start to wonder what I could do with this. But I knew trouble, the kind that should never have been printed when I saw it.
You could point to many, many examples with Pathfinder. A recent example is the Mythic book they just released. I've thumbed through it, and there is no way all that was playtested. That is a bigger jump, a much bigger one, than Pathfinder was from 3.5. I guess the fact that it isn't really used by a lot of groups is what keeps it from totally blowing things up.
What I don't get is the fact that the problems with this system have been in plain sight since 3.0, say 2000 or 2001. And here we are over a decade later, and somehow 10 points of Bab, 3 hp's per level, and 11 feats and a few weapon and armor proficiencies are supposed to make up for 9 levels of spells. Everybody knows that's not the case.
So what's up with the whole thing? The whole thing is a kludged system. And every splatbook makes it worse.
I haven't done a survey of all the books available, but I'm pretty sure Paizo has as much Pathfinder stuff in print as WoTC/Hasbro had 3.5 stuff now.
I'm more inclined to think favorably of a critique of something as overpowered if it come from someone who has actually played it.
|
|
Since wizards are supposed to be tier 1, no-one-else-can-compete, then every AP with a wizard BBEG ends in a TPK, right? Oh, wait...never mind, that usually doesn't happen. I guess all this "tier" thing is is people trying to justify why they don't like particular classes. Lame.Let's try an experiment. Next time your group fights a wizard BBEG, let the dm farm out playing the villain.
Just post here, someone will pick up the challenge if you give them an hour or two.
You might just find life got a whole heck of a lot harder.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since wizards are supposed to be tier 1, no-one-else-can-compete, then every AP with a wizard BBEG ends in a TPK, right? Oh, wait...never mind, that usually doesn't happen. I guess all this "tier" thing is is people trying to justify why they don't like particular classes. Lame.
Have you been readying the thread? Or the rationale for tiers? Or anything?
A: BBEGs in books rarely prepare in the same level that PCs do. There's also generally a 3-5 to 1 advantage against a BBEG.
B: Tiers aren't about raw power. Say it with me. It's about options. Or why don't you tell me how a Fighter transforms into another creature. Or turns invisible. Or flies. And all of these by its own power.
C: It's a GM's tool, and more a study of base abilities in relation to value of BAB and such.
If you had a Wizard being played in full potential against a group of T5 players, they'd have A LOT of problems handling them. Inversely, a Fighter against a team of T1s is basically free experience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since wizards are supposed to be tier 1, no-one-else-can-compete, then every AP with a wizard BBEG ends in a TPK, right? Oh, wait...never mind, that usually doesn't happen. I guess all this "tier" thing is is people trying to justify why they don't like particular classes. Lame.
Tier 1 =/= Unbeatable.
Tier 1 =/= Able to kill 4 PCs easily, some of which may be other Tier 1 classes.
Tier does not even necessarily equal "Good at combat".
The Tier system for PF is based on versatility. I.E. "How many separate scenarios and types of problems can this class overcome?" with a sliding scale of how efficiently and effectively the class can deal with said problems.
Full casters potentially have a solution for every problem, especially prepared casters. Hence the Tier 1 or 2 designation. Realistically, a given caster will be able to overcome, if not every problem, a significant portion of them with spells.
Meanwhile, look at the Barbarian. The Barbarian is an undeniably powerful class. He ANNIHILATES combat.
But the Barbarian's options are basically limited to "Smash s#$~, and also some skills".
Now, a well built Orc or Half-Orc with Trap Wrecker and Spell Sunder can make smashing s@*! a pretty versatile option (since they can smash: People, traps, magic traps, and enemy buffs) which can situationally move them up a tier, but it's comparing one possible build vs most reasonably optimized members of another class.
So as a martial class, Barbarian can fall somewhere in Tier 3 possibly, or high tier 4. Basically, they're really good at one thing, but don't have much versatility. It does not make them a BAD CLASS.
Then you have s+++ tier. Fighter is s%@# tier.
Why? Fighter does one thing: Combat, and even then only in the sense that they can damage and or use combat maneuvers on an opponent.
Fighter has no skills. So the scenario/challenge of 'Solving a problem with skills" is not a challenge Fighter can overcome.
He has bad saves. So the scenario/challenge of "Surviving an enemy spellcaster that targets Will saves" is not a challenge the Fighter can reliably overcome.
And so on, down the line. The Fighter's problem solving ability/options begin and end with "Kill/incapacitate the enemy".
And so he's shoved to bottom tier because of that.
This isn't a fighting game tier list.
Hey! Even in fighting games, damage output is not the end all be all.
Even in fighting games, (REAL) OPTIONS ARE THE MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE YOU CAN HAVE.