|
I think we can safely hand level 1 to Druids and Summoners and select Oracles.I'd suggest doing a multiple level challenge, instead of just having it all take place around a single level. IE, run a build at 5th, 10th, and level. While it would be more difficult/time consuming, it would limit characters custom built for a specific level, or ones that require many levels to set up/become effective.When I set build concepts up, I general look at numbers at 1, 5, 10, 15. First level is too early to make a meaningful assessment of anything other than a barbaian, so skip that level.
Summoners, and most other classes, don't do anywhere near as well as barbarians the first few levels. By 5th level, things start to even out as other class have their features come online and characters to do more than just DPR.
... I find that exceedingly hard to believe considering those classes have literally double the Barbarians action economy. Not to mention the ability to target a wider variety of defenses. Not to mention Pounce (poor poor level 1 Barbarian).
No, I did. It turns out that having a caster + martial companion class feature = 2 full sets of actions per turn. While Martial + nothing = 1 full set of actions per turn.
Math looks pretty good for the Druid/Summoner/Oracle.
Please correct my math if you see an error though.
|
Just coming back to this thread. Are we now not comparing Bob's Wizard Build to Joe's Sorcerer Build? I thought that was precisely the point. To be able to compare specific character builds to evaluate their effectiveness, and have a bunch of pre-calulated metrics which they can be compared against, like "If your threat removal focused character can remove a CR appropriate threat on his own in 2 rounds, you're keeping up with the power curve". So you can see what areas you're ahead/behind the curve, and by how much.
Oh well.
I will, I guess, sit back and watch the random dungeon simulation and see if anything interesting comes from it.
Well lets see the Eidolon can Pounce and thus turn a Charge into a Full attack for multiple attacks and the Barbarian can't. That doesn't look good for the Barbarian even before taking the Summoner into account (which admittedly at this level is just a Crossbow shot probably), which adds still another attack over the Barbarian. Really... that doesn't look good for the Barbarian.
Just coming back to this thread. Are we now not comparing Bob's Wizard Build to Joe's Sorcerer Build? I thought that was precisely the point. To be able to compare specific character builds to evaluate their effectiveness, and have a bunch of pre-calulated metrics which they can be compared against, like "If your threat removal focused character can remove a CR appropriate threat on his own in 2 rounds, you're keeping up with the power curve". So you can see what areas you're ahead/behind the curve, and by how much.
Oh well.
I will, I guess, sit back and watch the random dungeon simulation and see if anything interesting comes from it.
I'm not really sure what that method would show about the classes though. I'm genuinely curious, since no one seems to have an answer for me. At best all it shows is that *Bob or Joe* is on the power curve.
As much as I think the game is playable and can be well balanced, in a vacuum without GM intervention: Spells > Not-Spells
If you really want a non-DPR metric, then you could weight classes next to each other by the amount and variety of spell-like effects they can produce. Certain Not-Spell things like DPR, AC, and Saves could be used to break ties or in great disparity even muddle the order a bit.
So with that in mind:
Wizard = Druid = Cleric = Arcanist = Witch = Shaman = Summoner >
Oracle = Sorcerer >
Magus = The Barbar Build = Inquisitor = Investigator = Alchemist = Warpriest = Bard = Skald >
Mutagen Martial Master Fighter = Slayer = Paladin = Ranger = Other Barbar builds = Optimized Monks = Gunslinger(?) = Bloodragers >
Monks = Fighters = Caveliers = Ninja = Swashbucklers >
Rogues
*Certain borked builds omitted
EDIT: If I had to tier it then: T1, T1.5, T2, T3, T4, T5
|
|
But; showing where Bob and Joe are on the power curve was the point from the beginning.
I've got no real interest in a broad generalization about how classes work in general. The tier system/niche system covers that well enough that I can guess, even if I don't have hard numbers to work with.
I'm interested in being able to say: "Okay. Bob built a Wizard. How does this compare in performance to our wizard(s) built specifically to match the game's power curve (the CR benchmark wizard)? How does it compare in performance to Joe's Wizard? How about if we look a bit further, and compare Bob's Wizard to Steve's Sorcerer, or Bill's Arcanist, or Mike's Master Summoner?"
That's useful in lots of ways; particularly if the measuring process is automated (you would have to be able to automate it for it to be useful, IMO). Have all of your party punch in their numbers into a computer program or spreadsheet, and be able to see any likely character power disparities, be able to see how much your party is above or below the power curve for all of the monsters (and therefore how much to adjust your encounters by, if you would want to), and be able to easily compare your party against any given set of encounters, and see their approximate odds of survival, how much of their daily/limited resources they'll have to expend to handle the encounters, and how long it will take for them to do so.
You could look at your party and say "I know they're highly optimized; so just how hard would they find this 3.5 module that's 2 levels above them?"
If you wanted to see how specific classes compared, I guess you could compare the most tricked out wizard you can build to the benchmark wizard, and you could have someone build some average competence wizards of the common types that crop up (evoker, conjurer, god-wizard) to see how they compare to the benchmark wizard. You could then keep those numbers, and run similar tests for other classes. Comparing those numbers, you could measure the raw power each class is capable of when well optimized, as well as the average power level of the class.
But again, that's much less helpful (IMO) than being able to compare various specific characters.
I wouldn't mind being able to punch in some numbers and see "would the party do better if our 6th player ran another fighter, or another bard", etc; and just how much better?
How would you choose a benchmark though? That's really the issue here. Is the benchmark Bob? Or is it Joe? And why is that benchmark meaningful? I mean I can see comparing different players classes, but that seems like a lot of work for little value to me.
But; showing where Bob and Joe are on the power curve was the point from the beginning.
I've got no real interest in a broad generalization about how classes work in general. The tier system/niche system covers that well enough that I can guess, even if I don't have hard numbers to work with.
"If you really want a non-DPR metric, then you could weight classes next to each other by the amount and variety of spell-like effects they can produce. Certain Not-Spell things like DPR, AC, and Saves could be used to break ties or in great disparity even muddle the order a bit."
You can count the amount and variety of spell-like effects someone can produce. You can count DRP, AC and Saves.
What's left after that is applying weights to those values (factoring synergistic qualities) and you have an exact value determining strength.
Fuzzy logic following this calculation makes tiers. You can make weights, but chances are you'll tweak the weights to meet your own intuitions. Regardless that's how you compare "designs" in industry, so it should be good enough here.
|
|
How would you choose a benchmark though? That's really the issue here. Is the benchmark Bob? Or is it Joe? And why is that benchmark meaningful? I mean I can see comparing different players classes, but that seems like a lot of work for little value to me.
The benchmark would be neither Bob nor Joe. The benchmark would be one that is designed to be able to take on 1/4 of four CR appropriate encounters, and by the last one, have the 50/50 chance of survival. The benchmark doesn't represent a specific character build, it would be a benchmark to compare all character builds against. The benchmark would be designed to meet specific odds of success and probabilities, based on the estimated CR guidelines in the books. In the case of the wizard, it would be a weak wizard. In the case of a rogue, it would likely be a highly optimized rogue.
This gives you a point of comparison to see how above or below the power curve you are.
Additionally, if there's a big disparity between players (an obvious one would be an optimized wizard and a poorly built rogue, but for less obvious ones would be where it would be helpful) this could help you see it before game so the guy lagging behind could be helped out to atch up a bit to the other players.
|
|
@Marcus; none of that is very specific though.
What if steve and mike both build archery rangers, and I want to be able to accurately and meaningfully compare them?
I'm not sure what sort of industry you'e referring to, but it sounds like you're describing an industry where they can't take their measurements by running statistics. For instance, for car safety, they often crash many cars (crash test dummies) to collect data regarding the car's safety.
@Marcus; none of that is very specific though.
What if steve and mike both build archery rangers, and I want to be able to accurately and meaningfully compare them?
I'm not sure what sort of industry you'e referring to, but it sounds like you're describing an industry where they can't take their measurements by running statistics. For instance, for car safety, they often crash many cars (crash test dummies) to collect data regarding the car's safety.
Cars is a good example. You do this to compare designs not products. You can test products.
For Archers (assuming Fighter archers) count the DPR, AC, and Saves. Then weight those values. For an Archer DPR and Saves are worth more than AC. If the archer is at far enough range the value of saves goes down (since a lot of severe effects are close range), but not much lower. So if archer A had twice the DPR, but half the saves and AC than archer B, then Archer A is probably better (provided that the saves are above critical values).
Pure archers don't really have spell effects though. Which is the main comparison point.
EDIT: Something I inferred is that you asked "who is the better archer" instead of who is the better character. The weights to the metrics will fluctuate on role. The general weights make tiers. Specific weights evaluate roles. Not all parties have the same rolls. In truth there is always many many factors to consider when making comparisons. What's funny is I think Guild Wars 2 meta actually fits PF pretty well, since it is also an aggro-less game. If your campaign plays like PvE then DPS is king, because you need to kill the enemy before someone is unlucky. If it's more like PvP then suddenly the meta is a lot more complicated.
|
TLDR
My two cents: If we want a full scope, we'd need to have different categories. Each character is rated from 1-10, with 10 being the best. To define each category, we find characters that would be exemplars of such categories. Here's an example of some categories:
Raw Damage Defense: Simple enough, calculate this based off of AC, HP, resistances, and DR
Raw Damage Offense: DPR full attacks, situational DPR (calculated based on likelihood of the situation in the typical party, examples being sneak attack, or fighting evil creatures) AND DPR while on the move
Special Defense (ability to resist Special Offense): CMD, Saves and SR
Special Offense (ability to take enemies out of the fight without resorting to damage): CMB, Spell DC's, Ability DC's, usability (number of times it can be used a day).
Special Buffing (ability to increase the capabilities of those around you, based on the fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric setup with you being the 5th wheel): spells/feats that buff party members
Mobilitiy: Calculated based on types of movement (Run, Fly, Swim, Burrow, climb, and/or teleportation), ability to bypass AoO's (such as acrobatics), ability to sustain such movement, etc...
Utility: Which of the non-combat roles can you perform?
With these categories, we can narrow the "who's better" down to "X does more DPR than Y, so it gets a 8 in damage dealing, but has less saves than Y, so it gets a 5 in special defense".
For anything related to party cohesion, assume standard party (fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric). When spells are involved, make 1 list of spells you would have prepared to handle all a normal day and base your character evaluation off of that.
|
TLDR
My two cents: If we want a full scope, we'd need to have different categories. Each character is rated from 1-10, with 10 being the best. To define each category, we find characters that would be exemplars of such categories. Here's an example of some categories:
Raw Damage Defense: Simple enough, calculate this based off of AC, HP, resistances, and DR
Raw Damage Offense: DPR full attacks, situational DPR (calculated based on likelihood of the situation in the typical party, examples being sneak attack, or fighting evil creatures) AND DPR while on the move
Special Defense (ability to resist Special Offense): CMD, Saves and SR
Special Offense (ability to take enemies out of the fight without resorting to damage): CMB, Spell DC's, Ability DC's, usability (number of times it can be used a day).
Special Buffing (ability to increase the capabilities of those around you, based on the fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric setup with you being the 5th wheel): spells/feats that buff party members
Mobilitiy: Calculated based on types of movement (Run, Fly, Swim, Burrow, climb, and/or teleportation), ability to bypass AoO's (such as acrobatics), ability to sustain such movement, etc...
Utility: Which of the non-combat roles can you perform?
With these categories, we can narrow the "who's better" down to "X does more DPR than Y, so it gets a 8 in damage dealing, but has less saves than Y, so it gets a 5 in special defense".
For anything related to party cohesion, assume standard party (fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric). When spells are involved, make 1 list of spells you would have prepared to handle all a normal day and base your character evaluation off of that.
Yeah, nice. That can work for ballparking effectiveness for sure. Especially if we assess them against average ability scores etc.
As for the other challenge we're looking at here with the dungeon crawl thing, that's a completely separate issue for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Super Weight is a good measure of power.
|
|
I'll throw a thread together later with the details and see what comes of it Anzyr, and anyone else who wants in.
I know it's not exactly what you were after Darkholme, but maybe we can get something from it.
Also, this will need thinking about in terms of classes that are built for support more than direct combat. Maybe we throw some NPCs in from NPC codex to fill the roles your character doesn't.
|
|
How would you choose a benchmark though? That's really the issue here. Is the benchmark Bob? Or is it Joe? And why is that benchmark meaningful? I mean I can see comparing different players classes, but that seems like a lot of work for little value to me.The benchmark would be neither Bob nor Joe. The benchmark would be one that is designed to be able to take on 1/4 of four CR appropriate encounters, and by the last one, have the 50/50 chance of survival. The benchmark doesn't represent a specific character build, it would be a benchmark to compare all character builds against. The benchmark would be designed to meet specific odds of success and probabilities, based on the estimated CR guidelines in the books. In the case of the wizard, it would be a weak wizard. In the case of a rogue, it would likely be a highly optimized rogue.
This gives you a point of comparison to see how above or below the power curve you are.
Additionally, if there's a big disparity between players (an obvious one would be an optimized wizard and a poorly built rogue, but for less obvious ones would be where it would be helpful) this could help you see it before game so the guy lagging behind could be helped out to atch up a bit to the other players.
Make one of those encounters social. A big failing of most DPR builds is they are unable to meaningfully contribute outside of combat.
Make one of those encounters social. A big failing of most DPR builds is they are unable to meaningfully contribute outside of combat.
I would suggest also having an environmental hazard encounter. Needing skills or spells to climb a wall, cross a rickety bridge, etc.
|
|
Make one of those encounters social. A big failing of most DPR builds is they are unable to meaningfully contribute outside of combat.I would suggest also having an environmental hazard encounter. Needing skills or spells to climb a wall, cross a rickety bridge, etc.
I'm trying to incorporate that into my dungeon challenge system.
Well, there's always the good ole tier list as a measuring stick.Bwahahaha magus weak tier 3. Bwahaha
Or better put. Magus somehow being worse than Hunter (not that hunter is bad, but really?)
Of course nearly all theorycraft is assuming The dex focused dervish dance build magus trap.
Magus is solid tier 3. If however, you are confusing tier with battle power then you will be confused by that. Tier ratings aren't about damage output, tier ratings are a tool to help DM's identify potential narrative power gaps in their groups.
Make one of those encounters social. A big failing of most DPR builds is they are unable to meaningfully contribute outside of combat.How would you choose a benchmark though? That's really the issue here. Is the benchmark Bob? Or is it Joe? And why is that benchmark meaningful? I mean I can see comparing different players classes, but that seems like a lot of work for little value to me.The benchmark would be neither Bob nor Joe. The benchmark would be one that is designed to be able to take on 1/4 of four CR appropriate encounters, and by the last one, have the 50/50 chance of survival. The benchmark doesn't represent a specific character build, it would be a benchmark to compare all character builds against. The benchmark would be designed to meet specific odds of success and probabilities, based on the estimated CR guidelines in the books. In the case of the wizard, it would be a weak wizard. In the case of a rogue, it would likely be a highly optimized rogue.
This gives you a point of comparison to see how above or below the power curve you are.
Additionally, if there's a big disparity between players (an obvious one would be an optimized wizard and a poorly built rogue, but for less obvious ones would be where it would be helpful) this could help you see it before game so the guy lagging behind could be helped out to atch up a bit to the other players.
Does meaningfully contribute outside of combat mean "must roll highest on a non-class skill with a non-important-to-me-stat modifier?" Because that's silly. I think a more reasonable metric here is # of skills where you are likely to aid another on a roll of 5.
Or just number of skills you can make a DC10 check with a roll of 5,
DC 15, DC 20, DC 25, DC 30.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your goal is to clear this dungeon of threats so the land around it can be settled.
Throw me your divination.
Every day the dungeon remains uncleared, the creatures in the area raid or kill some folks nearby. More importantly 4 or 5 days of rooms being empty without the place being completely cleared may lead to other things coming in, unless you take steps to prevent this somehow.
For the scenario at level 10+, a caster uses divination spells to find the entrances. Then seal them off with other spells. Then rig them with alarms and magic traps, so when critters come to clear them they get hurt/incapacitated/killed, and you can teleport in to finish them off and re-seal as needed.
Contrast with a fighter, who pretty much has no option but to physically enter the dungeon and go through it room by room, because he can't find the hidden entrances, and if he leaves followers to watch the ones he does find, they simply get eaten by monsters. A rogue or ranger might be able to find the hidden entrances and trap them, but his mechanical traps are incredibly feeble compared to trap spells, and he doesn't get the alarm and transportation abilities, either.
DPR is fine and dandy, but the ability to not follow the railroad is infinitely better. That's narrative power, and for reasons unclear it's been freely given to some classes for the taking, and largely witheld from others no matter what they do.
So.... the tier list? Because that's essentially versatility that you are talking about which is precisely what the tier list measures.Hmmmm. I think a decent way to measure characters is in the amount of agency they have.
What can they do?
Can people stop them from doing it?
How much can they limit the agency of others?Not exactly.
For example, the one-true barbar builds doesn't do a whole lot but does those things really well and basically nothing can prevent him from doing it. His only form of limiting agency is applying the "dead" condition (but he does this well). So he out classes all fighter and monk builds, comes up sort against wizards, clerics, and druid. But he could easily edge out the average(not borked) sorcerer (who needs to build very carefully have both good defenses, the ability to debilitate foes, and abilities that allow them to do interesting things).
This was funny.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magus is solid tier 3. If however, you are confusing tier with battle power then you will be confused by that. Tier ratings aren't about damage output, tier ratings are a tool to help DM's identify potential narrative power gaps in their groups.
There are a lot of misconceptions about the tier system floating around on this thread.
#1: the tier system compares classes, not individual characters.
#2: the tier system measures how likely a character of a given class is to send the game off the rails, not how effective it will be in combat.
As an example, consider a hypothetical Dicemaster class. The Dicemaster has the single class ability to fudge dice -- he can dictate the outcome of any die rolled at the table. This is an awesomely powerful ability in combat, since it means neither he nor anyone else will ever be hit in combat, he and his allies will always hit for max damage, et cetera.
It's also, narratively, a very weak power, because he can't do anything a lucky commoner couldn't do. No Sno-cone wishes, no divinations, no teleportation, not even flight. So the Dicemaster is probably tier 3.
Magus is solid tier 3. If however, you are confusing tier with battle power then you will be confused by that. Tier ratings aren't about damage output, tier ratings are a tool to help DM's identify potential narrative power gaps in their groups.
There are a lot of misconceptions about the tier system floating around on this thread.
#1: the tier system compares classes, not individual characters.
#2: the tier system measures how likely a character of a given class is to send the game off the rails, not how effective it will be in combat.As an example, consider a hypothetical Dicemaster class. The Dicemaster has the single class ability to fudge dice -- he can dictate the outcome of any die rolled at the table. This is an awesomely powerful ability in combat, since it means neither he nor anyone else will ever be hit in combat, he and his allies will always hit for max damage, et cetera.
It's also, narratively, a very weak power, because he can't do anything a lucky commoner couldn't do. No Sno-cone wishes, no divinations, no teleportation, not even flight. So the Dicemaster is probably tier 3.
Pretty much this, after reading all the way through this thread it seems these guys want a pathfinder simulator. A system that takes all the variables into account.
There is one. It's called pathfinder, and you need like 5 people to use it. You get 5 people and one of you agrees to be the "judge" and the other 4 run the mockup builds for your pathfinder actual game. The judge will direct you through multiple encounters of various difficulties and challenge types, narrate a plot line and interact with you in character as the people in the world. The whole time you should take feverish notes about your toon data so you can refine it and bring it back next week for your next pathfinder simulator test. In just a few months you'll have a character ready for pathfinder actual.
Magus is solid tier 3. If however, you are confusing tier with battle power then you will be confused by that. Tier ratings aren't about damage output, tier ratings are a tool to help DM's identify potential narrative power gaps in their groups.Well, there's always the good ole tier list as a measuring stick.Bwahahaha magus weak tier 3. Bwahaha
Or better put. Magus somehow being worse than Hunter (not that hunter is bad, but really?)
Of course nearly all theorycraft is assuming The dex focused dervish dance build magus trap.
Yeah, but that list had the magus WEAK for tier 3. Ridiculous. Magi are not only battle champions, but can fly, teleport, conjure up castles, and discretely wipe out kingdoms.
At the end of the day, they are still arcane casters with easy spont access to their entire list.
EDIT: I would also note that a certain amount of battle prowess IS narrative power, especially once you reach strategic threat tier.
Magus is solid tier 3. If however, you are confusing tier with battle power then you will be confused by that. Tier ratings aren't about damage output, tier ratings are a tool to help DM's identify potential narrative power gaps in their groups.Well, there's always the good ole tier list as a measuring stick.Bwahahaha magus weak tier 3. Bwahaha
Or better put. Magus somehow being worse than Hunter (not that hunter is bad, but really?)
Of course nearly all theorycraft is assuming The dex focused dervish dance build magus trap.
Yeah, but that list had the magus WEAK for tier 3. Ridiculous. Magi are not only battle champions, but can fly, teleport, conjure up castles, and discretely wipe out kingdoms.
At the end of the day, they are still arcane casters with easy spont access to their entire list.
EDIT: I would also note that a certain amount of battle prowess IS narrative power, especially once you reach strategic threat tier.
I will ceede that the tier system is somewhat mutable and the true places of the new classes haven't been really sorted out. I personally don't subscribe to the idea of "weak" or "strong" within a class, mostly because I don't subscribe to the idea that tiers mean "weak" or "strong" overall.
For a more generalist idea of tiers:
Tier 1: prepared full casters
Tier 2: spontaneous full casters
Tier 3: 2/3 casters
Tier 4: delayed casters, barbarian
Tier 5: all other PC classes
Tier 6: NPC classes
ACG classes probably (except arcanist, which is obviously tier 1) fit into classes 3-5, with most being on the edge between 4 and 3. A bunch of errata and clarifications need to come down to get a better idea.
I'll say though that as an example I think the mutagen master archetype can bring a fighter up from tier 5 into tier 4 because it provides some out of combat tools that are actually effective.
For a more generalist idea of tiers:
Tier 1: prepared full casters
Tier 2: spontaneous full casters
Tier 3: 3/4 casters
Tier 4: delayed casters, barbarian
Tier 5: all other PC classes
Tier 6: NPC classes
ACG classes probably (except arcanist, which is obviously tier 1) fit into classes 3-5, with most being on the edge between 4 and 3. A bunch of errata and clarifications need to come down to get a better idea.I'll say though that as an example I think the mutagen master archetype can bring a fighter up from tier 5 into tier 4 because it provides some out of combat tools that are actually effective.
I was mainly commenting on the magus being WEAK tier 3 not just tier 3.
I would redo the chart just a little bit.
Tier 1: prepared full casters
Tier 1.5: spontaneous full casters
Tier 2: 3/4 casters
Tier 3: delayed casters, barbarian
Tier 4: all other PC classes
Tier 5: NPC classes, Rogue
I don't really feel like spont casters justify their own tier. I think putting them there exaggerates the gap between prepared fullcasters and 3/4th casters.
One use of the tier system is to guide what classes should be in the party. Like how you shouldn't have more than a 2 tier spread. Spont casters having their own tier causes that not to work so well.
For a more generalist idea of tiers:
Tier 1: prepared full casters
Tier 2: spontaneous full casters
Tier 3: 3/4 casters
Tier 4: delayed casters, barbarian
Tier 5: all other PC classes
Tier 6: NPC classes
ACG classes probably (except arcanist, which is obviously tier 1) fit into classes 3-5, with most being on the edge between 4 and 3. A bunch of errata and clarifications need to come down to get a better idea.I'll say though that as an example I think the mutagen master archetype can bring a fighter up from tier 5 into tier 4 because it provides some out of combat tools that are actually effective.
I was mainly commenting on the magus being WEAK tier 3 not just tier 3.
I would redo the chart just a little bit.
Tier 1: prepared full casters
Tier 1.5: spontaneous full casters
Tier 2: 3/4 casters
Tier 3: delayed casters, barbarian
Tier 4: all other PC classes
Tier 5: NPC classes, RogueI don't really feel like spont casters justify their own tier. I think putting them there exaggerates the gap between prepared fullcasters and 3/4th casters.
One use of the tier system is to guide what classes should be in the party. Like how you shouldn't have more than a 2 tier spread. Spont casters having their own tier cause that not to work so well.
I largely agree with that. And while I agree that the rogue is bad I don't know that it is tier 6, I think more likely that the adept is tier 4.
I largely agree with that. And while I agree that the rogue is bad I don't know that it is tier 6, I think more likely that the adept is tier 4.Tier 1: prepared full casters
Tier 1.5: spontaneous full casters
Tier 2: 3/4 casters
Tier 3: delayed casters, barbarian
Tier 4: all other PC classes
Tier 5: NPC classes, RogueI don't really feel like spont casters justify their own tier. I think putting them there exaggerates the gap between prepared fullcasters and 3/4th casters.
One use of the tier system is to guide what classes should be in the party. Like how you shouldn't have more than a 2 tier spread. Spont casters having their own tier cause that not to work so well.
See if rogue is tier 4(my chart) then that means they can play with Tier 2(magi, bards, ect). Pushing the rogue to tier 5 means that they do have a role in parties of tier 3 or lower(only slayer and ranger fall in that range as rogue replacements). Adepts shouldn't be playing with warpriest and magi, so I say they should stay in tier 5. Obviously NPC classes shouldn't be played, but if they were, then they should be in a party without 3/4 or higher casters.
See if rogue is tier 4(my chart) then that means they can play with Tier 2(magi, bards, ect). Pushing the rogue to tier 5 means that they do have a role in parties of tier 3 or lower(only slayer and ranger fall in that range as rogue replacements). Adepts shouldn't be playing with warpriest and magi, so I say they should stay in tier 5. Obviously NPC classes shouldn't be played, but if they were, then they should be in a party without 3/4 or higher casters.I largely agree with that. And while I agree that the rogue is bad I don't know that it is tier 6, I think more likely that the adept is tier 4.Tier 1: prepared full casters
Tier 1.5: spontaneous full casters
Tier 2: 3/4 casters
Tier 3: delayed casters, barbarian
Tier 4: all other PC classes
Tier 5: NPC classes, RogueI don't really feel like spont casters justify their own tier. I think putting them there exaggerates the gap between prepared fullcasters and 3/4th casters.
One use of the tier system is to guide what classes should be in the party. Like how you shouldn't have more than a 2 tier spread. Spont casters having their own tier cause that not to work so well.
Idk, I think that a four person party with a Bard, Ranger, Rogue, and Inquisitor would be OK. The rogue would definitely be the character for the GM to keep an eye on falling behind, but that is the tier system working as designed.
For a more generalist idea of tiers:
Tier 1: prepared full casters
Tier 2: spontaneous full casters
Tier 3: 3/4 casters
Tier 4: delayed casters, barbarian
Tier 5: all other PC classes
Tier 6: NPC classes
ACG classes probably (except arcanist, which is obviously tier 1) fit into classes 3-5, with most being on the edge between 4 and 3. A bunch of errata and clarifications need to come down to get a better idea.I'll say though that as an example I think the mutagen master archetype can bring a fighter up from tier 5 into tier 4 because it provides some out of combat tools that are actually effective.
I was mainly commenting on the magus being WEAK tier 3 not just tier 3.
I would redo the chart just a little bit.
Tier 1: prepared full casters
Tier 1.5: spontaneous full casters
Tier 2: 3/4 casters
Tier 3: delayed casters, barbarian
Tier 4: all other PC classes
Tier 5: NPC classes, Rogue
By the classic definitions, spontaneous full casters (or limited full casters generally) are tier 2.
They can do anything tier 1 can, but it takes a lot more resources for any one build to do them.The difference between asking God for a specific 9th level spell (for free) or paying nearly 100,000 and waiting several months for a page of spell knowledge to be crafted for you is significant in terms of how easily the caster will break your game. As a GM, I can stop an oracle from getting a world-shattering spell fairly easily (the item isn't available or will take too long); it's much harder and more heavy-handed to try to stop a cleric from getting a specific spell.
|
|
Your goal is to clear this dungeon of threats so the land around it can be settled.
Throw me your divination.
Every day the dungeon remains uncleared, the creatures in the area raid or kill some folks nearby. More importantly 4 or 5 days of rooms being empty without the place being completely cleared may lead to other things coming in, unless you take steps to prevent this somehow.
For the scenario at level 10+, a caster uses divination spells to find the entrances. Then seal them off with other spells. Then rig them with alarms and magic traps, so when critters come to clear them they get hurt/incapacitated/killed, and you can teleport in to finish them off and re-seal as needed.
Contrast with a fighter, who pretty much has no option but to physically enter the dungeon and go through it room by room, because he can't find the hidden entrances, and if he leaves followers to watch the ones he does find, they simply get eaten by monsters. A rogue or ranger might be able to find the hidden entrances and trap them, but his mechanical traps are incredibly feeble compared to trap spells, and he doesn't get the alarm and transportation abilities, either.
DPR is fine and dandy, but the ability to not follow the railroad is infinitely better. That's narrative power, and for reasons unclear it's been freely given to some classes for the taking, and largely witheld from others no matter what they do.
Prove it Kirth. Come join the challenge
|
|
The thread is to find a metric that indeed compares how well the classes actually play. It is a simulator.
And as stated, the best one is actually playing.
Sadly, those of us who use that simulator as evidence for why the Tier system breaks down and why DPS is a dodgy mechanic and why casters aren't the "roxor" get booed from threads as not understanding and not being impartial or using Fiat (which is treated as a dirty word in the advice threads)
If you want to stick to those theories dodgy maths provides without accepting counter points from experience, then be prepared to be booed out as well.
There's a chance here to really see if those claims work. Let's get it going and see what comes of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should be sticking to RAW then. Otherwise it makes your "test" meaningless.
While I normally am very much a RAI guy, and I admit I make homebrew changes, I have to agree with Anzyr. Any test attempting to measure anything about pathfinder should be run as close to RAW as possible, without any houserules or the data is intrinsically polluted and invalid.
The SGT is a general metric and shows class power due to it being run in a RAW way. This is why in 3.5 rogues were considered acceptable, because they had things like flasks and rings of blink that while may not have been RAI were most definitely RAW.
Please if you wish to run any testing I recommend using a panel of at least 3 impartial judges with excellent RAW knowledge. The first name that pops into my head is Wraithstrike, you might also ask TOZ.
15 point buy is pathfinder standard, but perhaps 20 pb might be better as it is what is used for PFS.
The above is of course my opinion, I hope this helps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I normally am very much a RAI guy, and I admit I make homebrew changes, I have to agree with Anzyr. Any test attempting to measure anything about pathfinder should be run as close to RAW as possible, without any houserules or the data is intrinsically polluted and invalid.
Indeed. Add in too many house rules or GM fiat calls and the test tells you more about "Pathfinder as run by Bob the GM" than Pathfinder. And even if Bob the GM says that all of his calls were ones that "any reasonable GM" would make, anyone who spends much time on the forums knows that there are a lot of issues where you'll get as many opinions on what's reasonable as there are posters in the thread.
Not to mention house-ruling a test can provide such wonderfully skewed results as "Wizards don't break the game as long as you remove all their game-breaking abilities."
Considering it is impossible to actually run PF RAW, your test may have some problems.
|
|
Considering it is impossible to actually run PF RAW, your test may have some problems.
I'm still willing to find out though.
The challenge thread is belting out rules now. I'd be happy for impartial judges to drop in. I would really love this be a community event even.
I'll do descriptions and monsters. I'll check with judges for DM calls on spells etc.
I think we've even got someone willing to run the NPCs for things.
Seems at least fun, and might give us a bunch of information that supports many claims, or doesn't or maybe even opens up new stuff.