| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in 3.5e there were certain tiers for classes, i wonder if there is a current objective tier list, just for balancing purposes.
the 3.5e list was something like this:
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 with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite (Spell to Power Variant)
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 potentially 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 easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.
Examples: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges), Erudite (No Spell to Power)
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. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.
Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psychic Warrior
Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence 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 contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.
Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Zhentarium Variant)
Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.
Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight, CW Samurai (with Imperious Command available)
Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.
Examples: CW Samurai (without Imperious Command available), Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner
I would add the Witch to Tier 1.
I do like the OPs Tier descriptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Razmarian Sorc, Sorc and Oracle when they have Paragon Surge (oracle especially), probably the Arcanist
2: Regular Sorcerer, Psion (Kineticist might be 3 though), regular Oracle. Standard Summoner, but unsure if Master Summoner is here or makes it to Tier 1.
3: Alchemists, Bards, Skalds! Magus, Warpriests, Inquisitors, Most DSP classes like the Marksman, Aegis, Vitalist, Tactician, Psy-Warrior... Possibly the path of war classes but I've not enough experience with them to say. Synthesist Summoners are probably here, might still be at 2?
4: Barbarians, Rangers, Adepts, paladins are probably at the top of 4, and Dreads and Soulknives. Unsure if Ninja here or in 5, they're fairly versatile and better than the Rogue, but are they good enough?
5: Fighters, The Better Monk Archetypes, Gunslingers, Swashbucklers, Samurai... Cavalier probably still fits here but below samurai.
6: The "common NPC classes", the rest of the monk archetypes, and probably the crossbowman archetype.
Well, Paragon Surge no longer gets Sorcerer and Oracle into Tier 1 as it is now limited to one choice a day, especially Oracle since adding to Spells known no longer adds to spell list (unless its from a class feature, because reasons). I'd be ok with Razmiran Priest being tier 1, but Master Summoner is definitely tier 2. It's very good with its awesome power, but it only has one kind of awesome power, which is pretty much the definition of tier 2. I'd probably move Zen Archer and Ninja up to tier 4 though.
Reason I'm wondering about master summoner though is that a lot of the higher summons can offer spellcasting themselves.
But "all the spells and SLA's of all the summons" is still a fairly limited list to access compared to sorcerer/wizard, witch, or cleric/oracle.
Well, Paragon Surge no longer gets Sorcerer and Oracle into Tier 1 as it is now limited to one choice a day, especially Oracle since adding to Spells known no longer adds to spell list (unless its from a class feature, because reasons). I'd be ok with Razmiran Priest being tier 1, but Master Summoner is definitely tier 2. It's very good with its awesome power, but it only has one kind of awesome power, which is pretty much the definition of tier 2. I'd probably move Zen Archer and Ninja up to tier 4 though.Paragon Surge still easily gets both into Tier 1. It allows both classes to take full advantage of out of combat stuff like planar binding/ally, animating dead, simulacrum, divinations etc while leaving their main spells known free for immediate combat and utility. Sure it might sometimes be a little slower than their prepared cousins but they most definitely get there. When you start adding in Mnemonic Vestments it becomes even easier.
Personally I consider both classes as pushing into Tier 1 from the mid levels onwards (around 10ish) when they take advantage of the human FCB. It is entirely possible to construct a spell list which gives you spontaneous access to enough spells that you have some form of answer for any situation you might run in to. You might not have that absolutely specialist niche spell the wizard would have but you will have something which will do the job to an acceptable standard.
Ya I can agree with that. The hit is big, but not so big that they'd lose downtime power, which is enough for tier 1.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
2: Regular Sorcerer, Psion (Kineticist might be 3 though), regular Oracle. Standard Summoner, but unsure if Master Summoner is here or makes it to Tier 1. ...
Till somewhere in the low teens Master Summoner is extremely powerful in power and utility. High level spells of the Tier 1 classes overpower them, though. At the risk of making this evaluation overly complicated, Tier assessment is very level dependent.
|
Inquisitor, along with the majority of the 6 level spellcasters from the Advanced Class Guide are tier 3
Barbarian is still Tier 4, but the CaGM Beast Totem Superstition build that is very common on the boards is definitely tied with Pally at the top, with the most martial mobility[Horizon Walkers aside], among the best saves, incredible offense, decent AC[Beast Totem helps a lot here], and decent skills.
Unfortunately, the vanilla rogue is either the top of Tier 6 or the bottom of tier 5, since the only thing it can say it does better then any other class is supposedly Skills, which the Bard, Inquisitor, Archaeologist, Investigator, potentially Slayer, Alchemist, and several others can easily outpace.
I'll also second that Witches[and really any 9 level prepared spellcaster] hits Tier 1, and that Zen Archer and Ninja are solid Tier 4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, ... Sorc and Oracle when they have Paragon Surge (oracle especially),
2: Regular Sorcerer, , regular Oracle. Standard Summoner, but unsure if Master Summoner is here or makes it to Tier 1.
3: Alchemists, Bards, ... Magus, ... Inquisitors, ...
4: Barbarians, Rangers, Adepts, paladins are probably at the top of 4, ... Unsure if Ninja here or in 5, they're fairly versatile and better than the Rogue, but are they good enough?
5: Fighters, The Better Monk Archetypes, Gunslingers,... Samurai... Cavalier probably still fits here but below samurai.
6: The "common NPC classes", the rest of the monk archetypes,....
Human Sorcs and oracles are likely Tier 1, due to the many extra spells they know. Paragon surge just adds icing. Witch is T1, but a weak T1.
Master Summoner is 2+. It fits in 2nd tier by definition, but it's very powerful.
Paladin should make T3, since it can do a lot of things fairly well, and Smite VERY well. "Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate,". Alchemists, Bards, Inquisitors & Paladins are extremely well balanced. Indeed a party of those 4 classes would be awesome. All can heal a little, all can Buff, 3 can tank, 3 have good skills, and you even have ranged blasting.
Qinggong monks are T4."capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining." I think its even possible that they could edge into T3 with the right campaign.
Gunslingers are clearly T4."Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise." Even a well built Fighter with archetypes can slide in here. Same with a Zen Archer.
I think most of the good Monk builds make tier 4 and are pretty solid within it. Very specific builds may jump into the bottom of tier 3, specifically Oracle 1/Sensei X. If the Guided enhancement is available then I'd definitely put them in there.
|
|
Paladins are still only tier 4, their limited spell casting puts them in tier 4, and is not comparable to the battlecasters.
Tiers didn't change basically at all from 3.5, I would say the distance between tier 1 and tier 5 actually increased due to system changes and tier 1 buffs
Another thing with paladins is that there are some moral situations that the pally isn't well equipped to deal with. See about 1/2 the Paladin threads out there.
Question:Do prestige classes fit into tiers? I can imagine the Champion of Irori PrC fitting into Tier 4, Eldritch Knight in Tiers 1, 2, or 3[depending on entry class, entry level, and other specifics], and [Early Entry] Mystic Theurges in 1, but any others?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Throw in their face status and UMD, and I think they should be. Probably on the lower end of 3, but still there.
"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.
Right- forgot their very useful Face abilities.
|
Feels like I've responded to this thread already...
Paladin with a bow is pretty high tier, when fighting evil. Even the god wizard has to duck and cover if he has E at the end of his alignment. Only hampered morally by GMs determined to make a paladin fall for looking at a goblin youngster crossly.
And Gunslingers are probably higher tier than most give them credit for. Besides double barrel gun shenanigans, they have a decent skill list which gives some versatility. And if they multiclass with things like paladin or inquisitor, they get even more dangerous.
Paladins are still only tier 4, their limited spell casting puts them in tier 4, and is not comparable to the battlecasters.
Tiers didn't change basically at all from 3.5, I would say the distance between tier 1 and tier 5 actually increased due to system changes and tier 1 buffs
Another thing with paladins is that there are some moral situations that the pally isn't well equipped to deal with. See about 1/2 the Paladin threads out there.
Question:Do prestige classes fit into tiers? I can imagine the Champion of Irori PrC fitting into Tier 4, Eldritch Knight in Tiers 1, 2, or 3[depending on entry class, entry level, and other specifics], and [Early Entry] Mystic Theurges in 1, but any others?
I must disagree Paladins aren't equipped to certain situations. Really, if your GM doesn't have an intransigence streak and the player is creative, I am skeptical a Paladin cannot deal with most situations.
That said "a non-stubborn GM" and "a creative player" are pretty much what makes most of the tiers (or works to occasionally break the mold).Re PrCs: It's a novel point, but I fail to see how any might invoke a seismic shift in how we may judge a given character. Theurge can be 1 by building off tier 1, or can be 3 if you work off tier 3 lists. A Champion doesn't have especially more or less narrative or option power compared to the composite Monk and Paladin. As you said: "[depending on entry class, entry level, and other specifics]".
Paladin with a bow is pretty high tier, when fighting evil. Even the god wizard has to duck and cover if he has E at the end of his alignment. Only hampered morally by GMs determined to make a paladin fall for looking at a goblin youngster crossly.
To be honest, I'd concur with an above point that the Paladin in PF generally makes T3 than just 4 (can still competently affect combat, even against something not evil), and I don't think an archer changes it from that.
I think most of the good Monk builds make tier 4 and are pretty solid within it.
I'd posit both Monks and Fighters managed to make the T4 jump with some system mastery in Pathfinder. Rogues however, kind of lost that vital strength as a skill monkey.
And lastly, while I'm just passing small thoughts:
I do like the OPs Tier descriptions.
They're actually fairly old descriptors for them all, quite robust at that. Bit heuristic, but RPGs would be boring if the most robust system was purely quantitative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, I have to agree with pretty much all of DrDeth's tier categorizations. And if me and DrDeth agree on something you know its probably something that's more concrete then objective. Also you need a warrant for that DrDeth.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh! Put me down as someone who never like the so-called Tier theory of classes. In my opinion, it is unhelpful and way too arbitrary to be of any value. In fact, in my experience, it's only real value is as a way to start online arguments or never ending debates that accomplish nothing.
Everyone is of course free to discuss whatever they want but I have to say I respectfully really wish this tier thing would go away once and for all ...
HA Adepts are ranked higher than Fighters, Monks, Gunslingers.....really??
I love it when the NPC classes get love...but ...really?
|
|
HA Adepts are ranked higher than Fighters, Monks, Gunslingers.....really??
I love it when the NPC classes get love...but ...really?
Tiers aren't about effectiveness per se, they're about options. A Fighter has one option: Kill things. A Gunslinger a few more via actually having skills, but both still less than the Adepts 5 level spellcasting. An Adept can have Tongues, Heal, Raise Dead, and Polymorph. None of those make the class good on their own, but they give it more options than Classes who have no class abilities not relating to killing things.
|
I'm pretty much with DrDeth on this one but I'd put Witches at a high Tier 2. (I know, academic difference, but still) The spell list just isn't as versatile as a Wizards, despite the fact they are prepared casters.
If Cavaliers are Tier 5, then Rogues are low Tier 5 bordering on Tier 6. (Also I feel like Commoner should be removed from the list entirely since was designed precisely to be bad at everything. It's the Tier 7 or Tier 0 - functionally designed with an inverse goal.)
I am actually a fan of tiers, though I do think there needs to be a division - one that ranks potential power and one that indicates the ease of play. Something like a 1-6 Ranking and then an assignment between Beginner - Novice - Moderate - Advanced - Mastery.
So Fighters might only be a High Tier 5, but even a Beginner can make them do that easily. Rogues are fairly straightforward but easy to break (not in an 'overpowered' way) so they would be a Novice class. A Wizard has so much bookkeeping involved it's at least a Moderate class. Summoners require an Advanced knowledge of the game and the Master Summoner is a Mastery-only class.
Reason I'm wondering about master summoner though is that a lot of the higher summons can offer spellcasting themselves.But "all the spells and SLA's of all the summons" is still a fairly limited list to access compared to sorcerer/wizard, witch, or cleric/oracle.
This is something I've noted (being more awake) in this thread that I think a bit contestable. After all, how much is the summoner unable to respond to with a spell or summon that a wizard can?
In my opinion, it[the tier system] is unhelpful and way too arbitrary to be of any value.
To be far, Mr. Radle, how can a system of classifying artificial concepts (classes) within a constructed system (Pathfinder rules) by competence at designed situations ever be anything but arbitrary? :P
That said, I must agree that it is like most classification systems, or many real-world algorithms; woefully unhelpful when applied by those who don't understand it.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, it[the tier system] is unhelpful and way too arbitrary to be of any value.To be far, Mr. Radle, how can a system of classifying artificial concepts (classes) within a constructed system (Pathfinder rules) by competence at designed situations ever be anything but arbitrary? :P
That said, I must agree that it is like most classification systems, or many real-world algorithms; woefully unhelpful when applied by those who don't understand it.
I think it's more like "when applied in any situation in which they aren't really necessary." Tier systems are typically useless for the average person, whether they understand it or not. In most home games, a tier system is useless because the GM is the one who determines how the game is played, and generally it's played in a way such that a Rogue and a Wizard can be of comparable worth. The tiers come into play when the players are pretty much completely optimized; an optimized Wizard versus an optimized Rogue, in which the GM is making no efforts to raise up the Rogue or lower the Wizard. These situations are comparatively rare.
It's like how one shouldn't worry about tier lists in a fighting game unless they play in very high levels of play; what's going to make the difference is just who's plain better at the game, except in corner cases of very overpowered characters or very underpowered characters. Another example would be Radiant Dawn's tier list for all the playable units; extraordinarily thorough and taking into account almost every aspect of the character, but not hugely relevant because the game can be completed with mid to low tier units even on the highest difficulty. Tier lists generally only become relevant in extraordinary situations, which means they are generally irrelevant to actual play.
That being said, it can be pretty fun for general debate and discussion. The other fact is that its existence can't really be disputed (tiers don exits people aside), so of course some people are going to talk about them. Nothing wrong with that. Since when has relevance stopped people from doing something, eh?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I found the idea of class tiers to really help my thinking about the game.
As a player it is a nice guide to how far to push it during character creation. For example I hold back when playing tier one classes and go all out with tier five classes. It helps to know that my preferred party of Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard is all the same tier. It also makes me feel good realizing my other favorite fulcrum point of Paladin, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus is all tier three (possibly some disagreement.)
As a GM I simply veto having a party like Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. I hate having to nerf the casters to make the martials feel slightly less worthless, and I hate rewarding anti-social play, which unfairly or not is associated with the Rogue/Thief role. I would rather have characters around the same power level so I can spend more time playing the NPCs and monsters and less time weighing the spotlight time of the various characters. If I want a game to feel gritty and dangerous I will go run Runequest. I like Pathfinder because of how epic it feels and how badass the characters are, without losing sight of the constraints of reality entirely. If I want to run a game with JLA power disparities I would run Mutants & Masterminds, because that game divorces optics from mechanics.
I’d like to see any one of you create a level 10 Tier 1 character (IN STAT BLOCK FORM INCLUDING FEATS AND TRAITS) to show me a character that:
Capable of doing absolutely everything....
Good luck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that tiers should cover separate level ranges. 1-10 may be different than 11-20.
I think it's more like "when applied in any situation in which they aren't really necessary."
One would assume understanding gives us an ability to garner when this is. That said, your points are valid that in general play, one can assume a GM will remodel for any discrepancy, making this perhaps invalid anyway.
On the contrary though, it is that very power to remodel play that makes a good assessment of class capabilities vis-a-vis each other so very useful. Not for players, however - for whom I feel the understanding is needing to see its not for them. A GM can use the system to model their expectations. If someone shows up wanting to use psionics stuff and I've never encountered it, it's handy to see (from a respectable source anyway) a comparison that tells me a class has about the versatility of another I am familiar with.That said, such an argument would require these to be far more comprehensive.
...Then I notice Mr. Connolly providing a strong argument for use of the tiers as a player - again, with expectation management in mind.
I’d like to see any one of you create a level 10 Tier 1 character (IN STAT BLOCK FORM INCLUDING FEATS AND TRAITS) to show me a character that:
Capable of doing absolutely everything....Good luck.
Question I feel merited; whom holds burden of proof on this one? Not directing as Havoq, but anyone more familiar with debating etiquette. Only:
If the burden of proof is on someone to provide the build, then disproving it requires positing something they can't do, which is then burden on the person who said no such build exists to find something the build can't do.Getting stuck in a loop here on who is meant to start the argument. :P
Or I point out the tiers more reference the peak competence of these characters, which is never level 10 for any "tier 1". Ergo, one c=has to cite the principle they shift by level if we used weasel words like "can deal with any appropriate situation for their level."
I found the idea of class tiers to really help my thinking about the game.
As a player it is a nice guide to how far to push it during character creation. For example I hold back when playing tier one classes and go all out with tier five classes. It helps to know that my preferred party of Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard is all the same tier. It also makes me feel good realizing my other favorite fulcrum point of Paladin, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus is all tier three (possibly some disagreement.)As a GM I simply veto having a party like Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. I hate having to nerf the casters to make the martials feel slightly less worthless, and I hate rewarding anti-social play, which unfairly or not is associated with the Rogue/Thief role. I would rather have characters around the same power level so I can spend more time playing the NPCs and monsters and less time weighing the spotlight time of the various characters. If I want a game to feel gritty and dangerous I will go run Runequest. I like Pathfinder because of how epic it feels and how badass the characters are, without losing sight of the constraints of reality entirely. If I want to run a game with JLA power disparities I would run Mutants & Masterminds, because that game divorces optics from mechanics.
I think the problem is both server side and client side. The Fighter and Rogue need mad levels of optimization to work at higher levels, but encounters are also pit against them. They are made so melee attacking the boss is suicide while casting a spell against them is just hard. So the GM also has to rebalance those encounters a bit...
Sure, the Fighter should have quite a few qualms about punching Yog'Soggoth in the face, but maybe some grappling tentacles could show up in the back that he'd have to get off the caster, perhaps the Rogue could use her skills to place a planar discombabulator in the ritualists' den.
Another quick and dirty fix I do is making wands last 3 uses, staves last 5 uses.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must disagree Paladins aren't equipped to certain situations. Really, if your GM doesn't have an intransigence streak and the player is creative, I am skeptical a Paladin cannot deal with most situations.Paladins are still only tier 4, their limited spell casting puts them in tier 4, and is not comparable to the battlecasters.
Tiers didn't change basically at all from 3.5, I would say the distance between tier 1 and tier 5 actually increased due to system changes and tier 1 buffs
Another thing with paladins is that there are some moral situations that the pally isn't well equipped to deal with. See about 1/2 the Paladin threads out there.
Question:Do prestige classes fit into tiers? I can imagine the Champion of Irori PrC fitting into Tier 4, Eldritch Knight in Tiers 1, 2, or 3[depending on entry class, entry level, and other specifics], and [Early Entry] Mystic Theurges in 1, but any others?
If you are with the same GM each time[not the case in PFS], and you and your GM are on the same page as to what a Paladin should be, then yes, you are right, there aren't any situations that a Paladin can't deal with. But if you and your GM aren't on the same page, or you switch each time, it can get difficult. For instance:I've seen players and GMs think that its OK to kill unarmed people if they don't surrender when you say so, and then others say that you can't accept a flanking bonus or provide sneak attack for a rogue because that is giving yourself an unfair advantage against your opponent and is dishonorable. That said, in most homegames, you are right, and they do belong in T3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the tiers as described (I like the descriptions) do change depending what level you consider. Before about level 10 I don't think anything is tier 1 or 2. I think the high level play of primary spellcasters biases a lot of people's opinions about how good they are at low-mid levels.
And what percentage of people even play at level 10+? PFS doesn't even let you go much above 10.
Define 'everything'.TOZ wins the thread, ya'll can just go home now.
But...I wanted to define everything; it was going to consume all time until I get bored!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Define 'everything'.I’d like to see any one of you create a level 10 Tier 1 character (IN STAT BLOCK FORM INCLUDING FEATS AND TRAITS) to show me a character that:
Capable of doing absolutely everything....Good luck.
42