Current Tier list


General Discussion


Now that the Playtest is complete and we are now awaiting the final edition, I thought I'd get people's opinions. Let's hear your tier list, who's at the top of the mountain?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The monk who lives at the top of the mountain .


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Meh, haven't had enough experience with all the classes {and revamps of classes} to really rank them

What I will say thought is they really did improve Rogues. While I have my grips about the system {though I understand its a playtest, so grips are also going to be part of the process to improvement} I'm really happy what they did for the Rogue, and they should be higher on the list then they were in PF1 at the very least.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tier 1: not having a tier list

Tier 12: having a tier list


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh jeez, this is awkward. I thought this was the Pathfinder forum. My mistake, you guys go back to discussing Smash Brothers or whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tier lists are not as clear as they were in 1e. Late game still seems a bit dominated by casters but now martials can do stuff.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Siro wrote:

Meh, haven't had enough experience with all the classes {and revamps of classes} to really rank them

What I will say thought is they really did improve Rogues. While I have my grips about the system {though I understand its a playtest, so grips are also going to be part of the process to improvement} I'm really happy what they did for the Rogue, and they should be higher on the list then they were in PF1 at the very least.

Oh yeah. Rogues really feel like they have a nice, full bag of tricks in the playtest, including ways of getting sneak attacks without a flanking buddy. I've always been a rogue fan, back from when they were still called Thieves, but in PF1 they fall behind everyone else, even with the boosts from the Unchained Rogue. But the Playtest does make me want to play one again. I'd say they're the most improved class in the playtest.

Liberty's Edge

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Tiers as a measure of versatility in problem solving (their original function) are a perfectly reasonable thing to have. As a measure of objective power they have issues, and even more so in PF2 than in PF1.

So, for PF2, I'd argue there are really only 3 Tiers, versatility-wise:

Tier 1 (Wide variety of problem solving tools, capable of changing their problem solving tools easily and readily): Cleric, Druid, Wizard.

Tier 2 (Have lots of problem solving tools, but can't change them very readily): Alchemist, Bard, Rogue, Sorcerer.

Tier 3 (Have limited problem solving tools, this isn't nearly as bad as in PF1, but it exists comparatively): Barbarian, Champion (ie: Paladin), Fighter, Monk, Ranger.

Alchemist is maybe debatable in its current form, but with Mutagens I think it manages Tier 2, and with more alchemical items it may hit Tier 1 at some point.

Tier 3 Classes are also much better in a straight fight in this edition, comparatively to Tier 1 and Tier 2. It's no accident that everyone with Master or higher in Weapons or Armor is Tier 3.

Indeed, Type might be a better term than Tier the more I think on it. Type 1 through Type 3, with Type 1 for Prepared Casters and their bag of tricks but limited martial prowess sans spells, Type 3 for martial combatants with their higher Proficiency, and Type 2 for spontaneous casters and others somewhere in the middle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I don't think you can make a tier list with so little experience with the system. The tiers are something that begins to settle out once there's been a whole lot of play and trends begin to emerge. TBH, I'd even still hesitate to create a tier list for Starfinder, and I've been playing that for the one and a half years since its release.

A few things are for sure:

  • Martial classes have been given somewhat more utility than before (both through the wide-spread availability of skill feats AND with how much more reliably martial classes like Fighter and Rogue can provide common debuffs).
  • Encounter and adventure breaking spells, strategies and combinations have been eliminated or reduced to a shadow of what they once were. While spellcasters still have a lot of utility abilities, they don't have many spells that are way above curve. Summoning is far more restrained, Save or dies are limited and unreliable, few to no spells allow you to do another class's "thing" better than them.
  • You're still going to want to fly, teleport, scry, divine, etc, etc. These are problem solving capabilities that are still going to be the spellcaster's wheelhouse. This isn't Starfinder, where technological solutions are often cheaper and longer lasting than magical solutions.


  • 3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Deadmanwalking wrote:
    Tiers as a measure of versatility in problem solving (their original function) are a perfectly reasonable thing to have. As a measure of objective power they have issues, and even more so in PF2 than in PF1.

    I'd agree; tiers were never about power, but rather problem-solving ability. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you were to ask me to build my 4-person-party dream team for PF1, it would probably contain a Fighter. He's not particularly versatile, but he's extremely good at what he does.

    I mostly agree with your PF2 list, with a few exceptions. I would put the Cleric at T2 due to the inferiority of the divine spell list, and I would put Bard and Sorcerer at T1. I feel the playtest spell list simply had too many trap options, such that spontaneous casters could already know the majority of the worthwhile spells anyways. The fact that many former spells are now rituals also alleviates their spell known requirement. This may not be the case in the full version, but for the purpose of playtest tier lists I would put the spontaneous casters on the same level as the Wizard and Druid.

    Cellion wrote:
    Martial classes have been given somewhat more utility than before (both through the wide-spread availability of skill feats AND with how much more reliably martial classes like Fighter and Rogue can provide common debuffs).

    This is very true, but everyone got the same treatment so it just raised the versatility floor. I think Deadmanwalking more or less codifies that with the range having shrunk down to only 3 tiers.

    Liberty's Edge

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Dasrak wrote:
    I'd agree; tiers were never about power, but rather problem-solving ability. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you were to ask me to build my 4-person-party dream team for PF1, it would probably contain a Fighter. He's not particularly versatile, but he's extremely good at what he does.

    Yeah, the misuse of Tiers as a measure of power was always a bit odd. I mean, on some levels and in some situations it's true in PF1, but only on some levels and in some situations.

    In PF2 I don't think it's even as true as it was in PF1.

    Dasrak wrote:
    I mostly agree with your PF2 list, with a few exceptions. I would put the Cleric at T2 due to the inferiority of the divine spell list, and I would put Bard and Sorcerer at T1. I feel the playtest spell list simply had too many trap options, such that spontaneous casters could already know the majority of the worthwhile spells anyways. The fact that many former spells are now rituals also alleviates their spell known requirement. This may not be the case in the full version, but for the purpose of playtest tier lists I would put the spontaneous casters on the same level as the Wizard and Druid.

    The current list of rituals is actually super anemic, which is why I mostly didn't count them towards versatility (though that will hopefully change in the final version).

    As for Clerics, I agree wholeheartedly that the Divine spell list is by far the worst in the PF2 playtest, but in terms of utility I actually don't think it's that bad. It's mostly the combat spells on the Divine list that are notably underwhelming (especially the buffs...and often lack thereof), at least IME. It's perhaps a tad weaker on utility than the other lists, but still very versatile with lots of problem solving tools, and the Cleric has them all freely available. I assure you, my Doomsday Dawn main party, where the only caster was a Cleric, made full use of this fact, and he was exactly the sort of swiss army knife, spot-fixing, character that defines Tier 1 (or Type 1, or whatever we call it).

    Would he have been better at Tier 1 as a Wizard? Quite possibly. As a Sorcerer? I think not. Preparing Water Walking and Water Breathing for the whole party is a great trick (that got used in Chapter 4) that costs the Cleric nothing to have available and is almost impossible for a non-prepared caster to duplicate, just for one example.

    Dasrak wrote:
    This is very true, but everyone got the same treatment so it just raised the versatility floor. I think Deadmanwalking more or less codifies that with the range having shrunk down to only 3 tiers.

    Yep. That's definitely the basic idea. The scope between most and least versatile has narrowed quite a bit. As has the scope between most and least powerful, actually. Both seem like good things to me.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I have never seen the term "tier" used for anything but a measure for comparison of power. The word itself implies some are superior and some are inferior.

    I guess it will be impossible to retire this concept entirely, but I think it will be much watered down in PF2. I interpret the devs' statements on new edition goals as indicative of that.

    Of course, it will be impossible to assess until we get the nitty-gritty of the final rules. But the playtest gave us a good indication of how balance between classes is handled: At the very least, tiers will be much more blurred, compared to PF1.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Deadmanwalking wrote:
    Yep. That's definitely the basic idea. The scope between most and least versatile has narrowed quite a bit. As has the scope between most and least powerful, actually. Both seem like good things to me.

    Very good things indeed. Despite all my other concerns with PF2, the raising of the versatility floor is a huge improvement and skill feats are quite possibly one of the most promising things in PF2. Here's hoping that the final version has more Cat Falls and fewer Experienced Smugglers.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Deadmanwalking wrote:

    Tier 1 (Wide variety of problem solving tools, capable of changing their problem solving tools easily and readily): Cleric, Druid, Wizard.

    Tier 2 (Have lots of problem solving tools, but can't change them very readily): Alchemist, Bard, Rogue, Sorcerer.

    If tiers are a measure of versatility, there's no difference between wizards and sorcerer. A sorcerer is limited by his repertoire, a wizard is limited by his spellbook. A wizard needs scrolls to expand his spellbook; if he can find scrolls, so can the sorcerer.

    Anyway, in PF2, Tier 1 = fighter. +2 to hit >> everything. Even if spellcasting was useful, any character can get it with a few feats.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Gaterie wrote:
    If tiers are a measure of versatility, there's no difference between wizards and sorcerer. A sorcerer is limited by his repertoire, a wizard is limited by his spellbook. A wizard needs scrolls to expand his spellbook; if he can find scrolls, so can the sorcerer

    Wizards get to add 2 spells known every time they level up. This is roughly the same as the Sorcerer knows, which means if the wizard learns any additional spells whatsoever they will know more.

    It's also worth noting that when it comes to uncommon spells Sorcerers need to learn them like wizards do... which kinda sucks when you're a Cha-based class and have to attempt a difficult Int-based skill check.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Tiers in general do represent power, in terms of breadth of power. This is because a significant range of challenges in P1E have reliable or at least respectable solutions - especially a load of ready-made spells. The rocket tag dynamic of higher level play creates a sort of soft ceiling in ability at a given thing (e.g. you can't double Wish into Geas somebody into doing what you order them to harder, completely enslaving them once was enough).

    There's also a strong tendency in TTRPGs to thread variety through the challenges faced. Swim this river, stealth past that guard, persuade this bunch of important people. Fight these bandits, now some zombies that are immune to mind affecting stuff, here's an elemental so criticals won't work etc. This structure of nominally not being able to solve everything with one hammer (unless you craft your campaign that way), and the binary nature of save or suck, turns, actions and so on meaning there's a point of sharply diminishing returns, means real dominant power usually lies in how wide a spread of challenges you can reach some "Solve it" button for and thus consistently overwhelm. It's how often you are powerful.

    IMHO anyway.

    Liberty's Edge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gaterie wrote:
    If tiers are a measure of versatility, there's no difference between wizards and sorcerer. A sorcerer is limited by his repertoire, a wizard is limited by his spellbook. A wizard needs scrolls to expand his spellbook; if he can find scrolls, so can the sorcerer.

    Not exactly. Scrolls are one way, but a Wizard can also learn new spells from other spellbooks or anyone who knows said spell. And scrolls aren't really that expensive. Being able to spend nominal GP costs and get pretty much every spell of all but your top few spell levels makes Wizards vastly more flexible than Sorcerers in terms of problem solving tools. The Sorcerer can buy scrolls, too, but they can only use them once rather than the infinite times a Wizard can use the spell they've learned.

    Gaterie wrote:
    Anyway, in PF2, Tier 1 = fighter. +2 to hit >> everything. Even if spellcasting was useful, any character can get it with a few feats.

    Well, first, Fighter is only +1 to hit over most other martial characters.

    Secondly, no, this isn't how Tiers work. Spellcasting remains an excellent problem solving tool, and is only gonna get powered up for the final game. Fighters and other hardcore martial characters reign supreme in their area (doing damage in a straight fight)...but that's a narrow area, not versatility.

    Investing Feats in spellcasting certainly adds to versatility, but not nearly as much as being a spellcaster given the respective number of spell slots.

    Artificial 20 wrote:
    Tiers in general do represent power, in terms of breadth of power. This is because a significant range of challenges in P1E have reliable or at least respectable solutions - especially a load of ready-made spells. The rocket tag dynamic of higher level play creates a sort of soft ceiling in ability at a given thing (e.g. you can't double Wish into Geas somebody into doing what you order them to harder, completely enslaving them once was enough).

    There's some truth in this in PF1. Rocket Tag is vastly less of a thing in PF2, though, and it's just generally a lot less applicable there.

    There are certainly still varying obstacles, but many can be overcome more easily by Skills than in PF1, and Rogues at least often have a wide enough array of skills to cover the whole list, or near enough as makes no difference. And for in-combat challenges, martial characters tend toward a much wider repertoire of options as well, in addition to higher base bonuses (which are their own form of power).

    Versatility is still definitely a factor in PF2, and one kind of power, but it's not the only kind, and a poor measure of it taken in isolation.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Deadmanwalking wrote:
    Gaterie wrote:
    If tiers are a measure of versatility, there's no difference between wizards and sorcerer. A sorcerer is limited by his repertoire, a wizard is limited by his spellbook. A wizard needs scrolls to expand his spellbook; if he can find scrolls, so can the sorcerer.
    Not exactly. Scrolls are one way, but a Wizard can also learn new spells from other spellbooks or anyone who knows said spell.

    There's no rule to access a spellbook. No rule, no price, etc. Since the spellcasting service of a spell with a casting time of 1 minute costs more than a scroll (... and even more if the spell is uncommon or rare - anyway there isn't any rule to access uncommon or rare spells), any decent GM will set the price for accessing another spellbook to the scroll price (at least).

    Anyway, is the tier a function of the class only, or a function of the houserules and the DM ?

    If it's a function of the class, the tier shouldn't take into account the fact there's a DM somewhere who gives access to every spell for free to wizards and doesn't give any scroll to sorcerers.

    If it's a function of the DM, then the whole concept of tier vanishes to nothingness: I know 1 DM who allows fighters to get a NPC wizard groupie, a fighter with a wizard is better in every conceivable way than a wizard.

    Quote:
    And scrolls aren't really that expensive. Being able to spend nominal GP costs and get pretty much every spell of all but your top few spell levels makes Wizards vastly more flexible than Sorcerers in terms of problem solving tools. The Sorcerer can buy scrolls, too, but they can only use them once rather than the infinite times a Wizard can use the spell they've learned.

    This is not how it works and you know it.

    If you intend to casts the spell an infinite number of time, why isn't it in your repertoire already ? There aren't *that many* spells you intend to cast every time everywhere.

    Basically, from a "casting frenquency" standpoint there are 3 kinds of spell:
    1/ Spells you want to cast everyday, several times per day. eg ??? I can't see any such spell in PF2. Maybe Invisibility and Fly ? In PF1, it would be Glitterdust, Blindness Haste, etc.
    2/ Spells you don't want to cast everyday, but you may need to cast it several time in a short amount of time. eg Teleport (although it isn't a common spell, so there's no rule to get it in PF2).
    3/ Spell that are handy in a very precise situation; you won't cast them often, and you don't usually need to cast them several time at once. eg Breath Water, Freedom of movement...

    For the first kind of spell, wizard = sorcerer. It was the case in PF1 and it's still the case in PF2. Those spell are cast so frequently, scrolls would be too expansive: both the wizard and the sorcerer rely on slots. The wizard can know Glitterdust and Blindness, but he can't access both at the same time: he has to chose which spell he puts in his slots beforehand. He can change everyday, and decide this day Blindness will more efficient than Glitterdust, in the other hand the sorcerer doesn't have to decide beforehand how many time he'll need Glitterdust and how many time he'll need Invisibility this day.

    For the second kind of spell, wizard = sorcerer. Maybe a very small advantage for the wizard, but I'm not even sure. It was the case in PF1 and it's still the case in PF2. If the wizard know he'll need teleport exactly 4 times this day, he can memorize it exactly 4 times and that's awesome. In the other hand, every other day, either he memorizes Teleport once (and lose his slot if he doesn't need it that day), either he relies on scrolls. Sorcerer can either rely on scrolls (as the wizard most of the days), either have it as a spell known, in which case he doesn't lose a slot everyday and he can cast it more time than he though he'd need it in the morning when the situation comes up.

    For the third kind of spells, let's look at the scroll economy. The wizard buy a scroll, and copy it in his spellbook. It costs more than just buying a scroll. In the other hand, the sorcerer buys a scroll, it's cheaper (no cost to copy the spell) and can use it whenever he wants (he doesn't need to memorize it at morning). If the spell is useful only once in the whole campaign (and let's be honest, in a typical campaign you need Breath Water only 0-2 times), then Sorcerer >> wizard. Now, let's assume the wizard needs to have access to the spell at any time (if he needs Freedom of movement at one point of the campaign, he'll need it at the moment, not after 10 minute of quick preparation). So he writes two scrolls. He needs a feat for that (but let's be honest, there aren't many useful skill feat), and it's still more expansive than buying two scrolls (copying the spell in his spellbook had a cost). So the sorcerer does that: he buys two scrolls. In the end, if you need the spell 2 times or less during the whole campaign, Sorcerer > Wizard. If you need the spell 3 times or more, Wizard > Sorcerer. On average, Wizard = Sorcerer. It was the case in PF1, it's even more true in PF2 given every nerf on spellcating.

    In PF1, the versatility of the Wizard compared to the Sorcerer is mostly a myth, based on the idea the wizard knows exactly every spells he'll need every morning. In actual play, the Sorcerer has versatility thanks to scrolls, sometime the Wizard is better because he knows exactly what will happen in the day and can prepare the right spells, sometime the Sorcerer is better because this day he needed 5 Glitterdust (no wizard prepares 5 times the same spell). The PF1 wizard can cast any spell with his bonded item - doesn't exist in PF2. The PF1 wizard can scribe scroll and change his spell during the day - costs feats in PF2. Fun fact, quick preparation is a feat, any multiclass character can take it at level 8. Ie any multiclass character can fill his spellbook with a lot of spell, and access the right spell at the right moment with this feat. Since quick preparation is especially useful on the third kind of spells, the number of slots per day isn't an issue. A fighter-wizard is infinitely better than a wizard during fight, and can access any spell at any time if needed.

    Finally, in PF1, the wizard is far more powerful than the sorcerer at every odd level (ie half of the time): more slots, more powerful slots. The wizard is in a higher tier than the sorcerer because he's more powerful - in term of versatility, he's exactly the same, except in a strange campaign where the wizard get a lot of spellbook while the sorcerer doesn't get any single scroll. In PF2, this advantage vanishes. There's no reason to put the wizard in a higher tier than the sorcerer, except "it was the case in PF1 so I guess it's still the case maybe ?"

    Quote:
    Well, first, Fighter is only +1 to hit over most other martial characters.

    Didn't they change UTEML to -/0/+2/+4+/6 ? Did they introduce a strange exception for weapon proficiencies ?

    Quote:
    Secondly, no, this isn't how Tiers work. Spellcasting remains an excellent problem solving tool, and is only gonna get powered up for the final game. Fighters and other hardcore martial characters reign supreme in their area (doing damage in a straight fight)...but that's a narrow area, not versatility.

    What can a level 5 wizard do that a level 5 fighter can't do ? Using only common spells, since tiers shouldn't be a measure of how generous the DM is.

    There's at least one area where the fighter contribute while the wizard does nothing: fights. Everytime there's a fight, the turn of the wizard is a waste of everyone's time - especially with the new UTEML.

    Even if there are some useful spell, it requires 1 feat to be able to use any scroll. Fighter/Wizard >> Wizard, in term of power and versatility. If you think spellcasting is useful in PF2, you should play a team of fighter/wizard, figther/bard, fighter/druid, and maybe a fighter/paladin (for the canalization), and compare how it perform compared to a more traditional team.

    Liberty's Edge

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gaterie wrote:
    There's no rule to access a spellbook. No rule, no price, etc. Since the spellcasting service of a spell with a casting time of 1 minute costs more than a scroll (... and even more if the spell is uncommon or rare - anyway there isn't any rule to access uncommon or rare spells), any decent GM will set the price for accessing another spellbook to the scroll price (at least).

    Spellbooks are explicitly listed as a treasure option. It's on p. 348. But really, that's beside the point. Which is that a Sorcerer can buy scrolls and use them as consumables, but a Wizard can buy them and get permanent additions to their flexibility...and still have them as consumables.

    And, actually, no. Scrolls are more expensive than spellcasting services (though the prices are fairly close). Spellcasting is just listed in silver, while scrolls are listed in gold.

    And all that ignores getting new spells from other spellcasters, which is an explicit option, free of GP charge, and pretty doable with Diplomacy and a bit of time.

    And of course all this is GM dependent, but going by the rules we have, Wizards are more versatile than Sorcerers.

    Gaterie wrote:

    This is not how it works and you know it.

    If you intend to casts the spell an infinite number of time, why isn't it in your repertoire already ? There aren't *that many* spells you intend to cast every time everywhere.

    Firstly, that 'and you know it' is condescending, basically an accusation that I'm lying, and generally inappropriate. You can claim me to be factually wrong all you like and I may disagree, but it's a normal part of debate. But the accusation of lying? That's a serious dick move, and I suggest you not repeat it in the future. I'm going to assume it was unintentional and proceed with discussion, but words have meaning and you should think about what you're saying.

    Now, on to the actual discussion:

    That is, in fact, exactly how it works. Getting the whole list is usually not worth it, sure, but you absolutely can do so (barring Rarity concerns, anyway)

    And all you need to do is want to cast it more than once to wind up putting it in your spellbook. For utility spells, given that Quick Preparation is currently built in to all Wizards, that and a few minutes let you use whichever one you need.

    Speaking of which, per the current version, Quick Preparation is not a Feat but a Wizard Class Feature, and cannot be acquired via multiclassing.

    Also speaking of which, Quick Preparation kinda makes most of your points on Type #2 spells untrue. It lets you swap out for whatever non-combat spells you like in relatively short time periods.

    And we're talking PF2, where copying a scroll has no cost at all (beyond the cost of said scroll), so bringing up it costing things is weird. Especially when, in PF1, there were in fact cheap costs for copying spells that didn't require buying them in any other way.

    Gaterie wrote:
    Didn't they change UTEML to -/0/+2/+4+/6 ? Did they introduce a strange exception for weapon proficiencies ?

    In the final game? Absolutely. Of course, the final game is also changing a vast number of other things most of which we are uninformed about, so while it may get mentioned we are by necessity discussing the Playtest (where it's a +1).

    They've also specifically noted that for the final game people like, say, a Wizard wind up Expert in weapons by high levels, so any speculation on how divergent the Fighter's Proficiency is from everyone else is more than a bit speculative...

    Gaterie wrote:
    What can a level 5 wizard do that a level 5 fighter can't do ? Using only common spells, since tiers shouldn't be a measure of how generous the DM is.

    Sure, let's look through stuff that a Fighter is just incapable of:

    Cantrips: Detect Magic, Light, Prestidigitation,

    1st level: Air Bubble, Alarm, Ant Haul, Create Water, Feather Fall. And that's just utility, Color Spray providing an area debuff or Burning Hands an are attack are also things a Fighter is incapable of.

    2nd level: Comprehend Languages, Darkness, Endure Elements, Invisibility, Knock, See Invisibility, Water Breathing, Water Walk. And again, that's just utility, with Mirror Image the best defensive spell in the game once again, Enlarge an excellent buff, and various other combat options a Fighter lacks.

    3rd level: Clairaudience, Dispel Magic, Invisibility Sphere. And then there's the combative awesomeness of Fireball, or potentially stuff like Haste.

    Now, most Wizards won't have all of those (though given their free ten 1st level spells, they may well have most of the 1st level ones), but all are things a Fighter just can't duplicate. Or not at 5th level anyway.

    Gaterie wrote:
    There's at least one area where the fighter contribute while the wizard does nothing: fights. Everytime there's a fight, the turn of the wizard is a waste of everyone's time - especially with the new UTEML.

    The Chapter 5 Evoker in my Doomsday Dawn game who killed a demilich almost single-handedly would like a word with you regarding his effectiveness in fights. Indeed, he was by far the single most effective character in that chapter by a rather wide margin.

    Which has nothing to do with Tier, of course, since that's a measure of versatility rather than power.

    Gaterie wrote:
    Even if there are some useful spell, it requires 1 feat to be able to use any scroll. Fighter/Wizard >> Wizard, in term of power and versatility. If you think spellcasting is useful in PF2, you should play a team of fighter/wizard, figther/bard, fighter/druid, and maybe a fighter/paladin (for the canalization), and compare how it perform compared to a more traditional team.

    Adding in multiclassing is sort of cheating in this regard, really. Yes, someone multiclassing Wizard and burning their Feats gets a fair amount of versatility out of it, but the whole point of the list is to make it clear what Classes are inherently most flexible.

    If you want to use it as a 'What class do I multiclass to give my Fighter the most versatility?' tool, it's as valid for that as anything else, but the point is to analyze the Classes in their default state.

    I mean, yes, if you think a Multiclass Wizard is Tier 1 then that's defensible (I might argue Tier 2 due to low number of problem solving tools, even if you can switch them out)...but then so is literally anyone else multiclassing Wizard. Making the chart completely misleading: 'Oh, yeah, Fighter is Tier 1 but only if you multiclass Wizard and they're getting all their versatility from the multiclass.'

    That's not Fighter being Tier 1, it's most Multiclasses duplicating (or coming close to) the versatility (if not power) of their core class if you invest in them.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    I mean by that standard you can just multiclass two casters and get a sizable increase in spell slots.

    But I suspect Gaterie is so strongly convinced playtest casting is useless that this all seems moot anyway.

    (FWIW casters have been great in just about everything I've run.)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    Yeah, I really can't see "wizards are so bad that their turn is wasted every turn of every combat" as being an opinion supported by... well, anything in the rules, honestly.

    It's also definitely not an argument that sorcerers are stronger than wizards, because wouldn't they have the same problem...?


    MaxAstro wrote:

    Yeah, I really can't see "wizards are so bad that their turn is wasted every turn of every combat" as being an opinion supported by... well, anything in the rules, honestly.

    It's also definitely not an argument that sorcerers are stronger than wizards, because wouldn't they have the same problem...?

    One thing i felt is that spells with attack rolls felt pretty weak, normally they get like 1-2 extra dice of damage but with monsters current AC it's easier that they will fail a weak saving throw than you will get a hit when your dex as it is almost always 1 point lower than your casting stat.

    But other spells well... They are fine, sometimes you get half damage but with some utility.

    But to the wizard/sorcerer debate. I would say both are tier 1, i mean with sorcerers you can switch spells in downtime and with wizards if you got your spellbook you got access to everything. But yeah, since wizards generally get more spells i find them more flexible.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    I did notice while playtesting that attack roll spells are the one place where spellcasters are still likely to waste turns. Unlike other spells, attack roll spells never have a partial effect if you miss; I almost feel like they should.

    Either that or be commensurately more powerful.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Obligatory True Strike plug. ;P
    Real talk though, it makes SUCH a difference. XD


    Agreed true strike+magical striker is the best thing too xD


    Wizard/sorc multiclass. Getting haste and true strike along with magical striker make for such a nice build.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    oholoko wrote:
    Wizard/sorc multiclass. Getting haste and true strike along with magical striker make for such a nice build.

    Was thinking of doing the same thing except going Bard/Sorc {occult} instead. (easier requirements, especially if you were doing the spellcasting options {assuming you were already bumping up Occultism for bardic Knowledge and 10th level casting,}, plus the slightly higher HP and weapon prof, though with the weakness of having only one spell list to choose from for both you spellcasting, and limited class feats to work with.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Siro wrote:
    Was thinking of doing the same thing except going Bard/Sorc {occult} instead. (easier requirements, especially if you were doing the spellcasting options {assuming you were already bumping up Occultism for bardic Knowledge and 10th level casting,}, plus the slightly higher HP and weapon prof, though with the weakness of having only one spell list to choose from for both you spellcasting, and limited class feats to work with.

    I think he means multiclassing into either wizard or sorcerer, not doing a wizard/sorcerer combination on a single character. You only need one of the two classes to gain access to magical striker and arcane spellcasting. A wizard/sorcerer MC would be a bit redundant, and there's no real stat synergy between them. Bard/Sorcerer, Cleric/Sorcerer, and Paladin/Sorcerer are all great options to snap up magical striker since they can easily pay for the 16 charisma to get in and can afford the feat tax easily.


    Dasrak wrote:
    Siro wrote:
    Was thinking of doing the same thing except going Bard/Sorc {occult} instead. (easier requirements, especially if you were doing the spellcasting options {assuming you were already bumping up Occultism for bardic Knowledge and 10th level casting,}, plus the slightly higher HP and weapon prof, though with the weakness of having only one spell list to choose from for both you spellcasting, and limited class feats to work with.
    I think he means multiclassing into either wizard or sorcerer, not doing a wizard/sorcerer combination on a single character. You only need one of the two classes to gain access to magical striker and arcane spellcasting. A wizard/sorcerer MC would be a bit redundant, and there's no real stat synergy between them. Bard/Sorcerer, Cleric/Sorcerer, and Paladin/Sorcerer are all great options to snap up magical striker since they can easily pay for the 16 charisma to get in and can afford the feat tax easily.

    Should have realized that before that. Working off of 2 hours sleep is never a good idea :p

    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Current Tier list All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion