| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember seeing people on the sight giving some classes different tier levels and would like to know what scale is?
Also what tier level does each class in Pathfinder belong to?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny how people complain about how OP summoners are when they almost never place in the highest tier.
It's funny how people complain about how OP summoners are when they almost never place in the highest tier.
Like CoDzilla in D&D, it does the martial thing as well as a specialist while still having more spells. It breaks niche protection.
Also JaronK rates prepared spellcasting very highly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't usually agree with tier lists, but in general the meta for PF is that spells are king.
9th level casters are top tier, followed by 6th level casters, then 4th level casters and finally non-casters. It's difficult to argue with this analysis, even for someone who doesn't like tier lists. Classes/archetypes with particularly powerful or versatile tool-kits might be bumped up a tier level (eg. I think the Brawler's Martial Flexibility adds a lot of versatility to the class).
I also find is that tier lists tend to over-value prepared casters compared to their spontaneous counterparts. Spontaneous casters have to pick their spells and stick to them, but if you have a reasonable level of experience you should be able to get a powerful and versatile list of spells that will get you through. If you don't have enough experience to handle that you're probably not going to do much better playing a spreadsheet wizard.
One final thing to note is that nearly all tier-lists are geared towards high-level play (16-20), and most players spend most of their time at low to low-ish levels (1-10). This means that a lot of tier lists aren't really reflective what you'll actually experience. At very low levels (1-4) you can almost reverse the tier list I gave and get a reasonably accurate picture of those levels (Martial characters will do better than casters, as the casters will run out of spells too quickly, and most low-level problems don't need high-level solutions).
My Cleric was basically a liability in our Kingmaker campaign in a party full of Paladins. I had some moments to shine, but more often than not I was being rescued by the invincible god-party (which was actually really fun).
My Bloodrager may not be carrying the party in our Iron Gods game, but without him the Wizard, Bard and Gunslinger find everything a LOT more difficult. The wizard is definitely a huge boon to the party, but it's the Bard that we really miss when she's not around.
I wish there were tiers for classes according to role play creativity. It would be fun to see which classes are getting the short end of entertaining characters.
It's extra subjective. I'd say most classes are equally open to role play creativity. A few like the cleric and paladin are a bit limited by the outside influences of their religion and alignment. But those limitations can themselves make versatile hooks to use when role playing the character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember seeing people on the sight giving some classes different tier levels and would like to know what scale is?
Ability to solve problems including but not limited to combat. I.E There is a big famine, what does a Fighter or Rogue do about that?
Tier 1
Prepared Full Casters(Druid in particular stands out, Wildshape and Druidic Herbalism is more practically overpowered vs the Wizard's theoretical power)
Tier 2
Spontaneous Full Casters and Chained Summoner
Tier 3
All the 6th level casters. Paladin(Especially Sacred Servant), Barbarian(Chained Only with Spell Sunder/Invulnerable Rager), Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue
Tier 4(They can fight well and have decent skills)
Ranger, Slayer, Kineticist at best, Fighter(With AWT), Gunslinger(If all you have is a really big brick...), Unchained Barbarian, Monk(Chained or not), Cavalier, Swashbuckler
Tier 5
Rogue(Even if they're unchained)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tier 1: capable of breaking the game in lots of ways. Practically speaking a full prepared spellcaster.
Tier 2: capable of breaking the game, but only in a single way or a few ways for any given character build. Mostly full spontaneous spellcasters.
Tier 3: capable of filling multiple roles well but without gamebreaking power. Mostly 6-level spellcasters but the PF paladin might just squeeze in here via its healing.
Tier 4: capable of filling a single role well, or multiple roles poorly. Barbarians, 4-level spellcasters, overly specialised 6-level spellcaster classes.
Tier 5: has only a minor role it does well (like traps). Chained rogue, arguably some more.
Tier 6: you suck. Commoner, any other membership of this tier is disputed.
I guess the most common tier list is the one avr and Scavion just gave, but between those posts and the links SheelpishEidolon gave us you can see variation.
In these tier lists 4th level casters (Bloodrager/Ranger/Paladin) are usually tier 4, but avr and Scavion value them highly enough that they get bumped up to tier 3, while at least one of the linked tier lists drops them to tier 5.
Those are definitions and examples from memory, not mine. Personally I'm iffy about claiming that class tiers can be defined independent of optimisation, which claim is the foundation of these lists.
Bloodrager is arguably Tier 3. Solidly with the Primalist so they can pilfer Spell Sunder/Strength Surge which is what is largely bumping the Barbarian to tier 3 in my own list. I don't really think the Bloodrager makes it there without Primalist since it's a spontaneous caster with a not amazing list.
The Ranger's spell list is not very versatile despite being prepared and their class features angle them too sharply in the wilderness survival route. So I feel pretty confident about them being tier 4.
Paladin has the defenses, condition removal and can reliably fight against anything worth being afraid of effectively through Smite. Sacred Servant lets you call for help for a wide variety of issues.
It's funny how people complain about how OP summoners are when they almost never place in the highest tier.
Its because summoners are OP during the most commonly played levels. Apparently most people don't splash around very much after level 12/13 when they drop off comparatively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not an objective list of abilities. It's spells.
Full 9th level casters are the top, everyone else is below them. Apparently, prepared casters are better than spontaneous casters, but they aren't actually different tiers.
You have 9th level casters.
6th level casters.
4th level casters.
And everyone else...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny how people complain about how OP summoners are when they almost never place in the highest tier.Its because summoners are OP during the most commonly played levels. Apparently most people don't splash around very much after level 12/13 when they drop off comparatively.
It's because of how visibly strong they are. Summoning as a standard action and having them last minutes per level right from the getgo. Or go the Synthesist route and make your fighter feel really sad as he compares himself to your 3 attacks and 2 health bars before 6th level.
It's not an objective list of abilities. It's spells.Full 9th level casters are the top, everyone else is below them. Apparently, prepared casters are better than spontaneous casters, but they aren't actually different tiers.
You have 9th level casters.
6th level casters.
4th level casters.
And everyone else...
A lot of narrative power is relegated to spells only so that is the unfortunate end result. There are however 4th level casters who are very comparable to 6th level ones. You are right that characters without magic simply can't interact with a large portion of conflicts.
As for why Prepared are a higher tier than Spontaneous...well it goes like this.
"Oh no! There's a problem!"
Prepared Caster: "I can solve it with time or if I saw it coming I have already prepared for it.
Spontaneous Caster: "Yup! I know that spell so we're good!" or "Nope!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if it would make any difference if there were a level bracket for tiers?
1-4
5-8
9-12
12-16
17-20
I think most of the class tiers would stay the same throughout. There aren't as many game breaking spells in the first 2 brackets though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tier lists are about potential, not about actual average PC power:
1) Spellcasting needs a solid system mastery to work out. If you randomly pick spells, you are pretty much screwed. And even if you have the right spell at hand, you still have to realize that.
2) Spellcasting starts slow and becomes stronger, but the average PC only makes it to character level 11 (source: survey from 2018).
3) Some GMs will nerf spellcasting, especially arcane one since it's used more offensively. And they might go over the top with it, turning your caster into a lame duck.
4) The versatile classes usually rely on abilities with limited uses per day. Once the campaign pace forces you into many encounters within the same day, things look less bright.
Personally I find tier lists disgusting. They are overly simplistic, reducing complex concepts like classes to a simple-minded number. They can be quite dismissive about classes that can absolutely be fun to play - but that might be my bias as a rogue player. And finally they encourage people to flock to certain classes, no matter whether they can handle them (see numerous threads in Advice section) or fit their playstyle.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The tier idea is a very silly list of straw characters that never lines up with actual play. Tier lists always put the caster on top and the martial on bottom. In actual play, the caster is the most frequent to die, is the one who will delay saying there's nothing useful I can do right now, or I don't want to waste my spells. In pre-written railroad modules, it's usually the martial that the GM complains about breaking the scenario. They killed the villain in one round, he was supposed to escape, or that wasn't supposed to be a combat that guy was twice your level, but you wiped the floor with him. It's the martial the GM complains about not being able to challenge due to their untouchable defenses and their massive damage output. The caster has all sorts of possibilities, but the chance of them actually having a relevant ability to the current situation of the scenario is fairly low. The martial meanwhile can tunnel through the dungeon walls all day every day.
To top it off, casters are often inadvertently nerfed. GMs in trying to fix the difficulty for the martial, often use the terribly designed "advanced template," combined with higher cr monsters. So the spellcaster ends up unable to land spells as the enemy saves have been boosted way to high.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The martial character can excel in some aspects of the game, usually raw damage, but sometimes in skills. And thus a martial can sometimes quickly kill a boss. But frankly, that boss was probably meant to die anyway. The martial didn't really change anything by killing him quickly. The caster meanwhile can break the game inside or outside of combat. A caster might be able to change the world and sidestep the boss and or his minions entirely.
The martial just expedites while the caster breaks. Of course, this doesn't fully kick in till higher levels, but it is a problem.
It's not like a wizard needs to know "every spell". A lot of them are fairly redundant. A regular wizard with just a little resources and downtime can know every meaningfully useful spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also find the idea of white room tier lists to be distasteful at best. The issue I have with them is basically the Batman arguement, where we place wizards witches druids and the like at the top because they can solve issues with a (literal) wave of the hand and the statement of "with enough time and prep they can overcome that, so we assume they do" which amounts to "of course he can do it hes The Batman". Well, unless you have knowledge of all spells to know which to even have; the resources to place them all in your books and the foresight to pick those exact ones, time and planning don't help you and you cant always take 8 hours to adjust.
If I WAS to make a tier list I'd place it in order to how easy it would be to be useful to the party no matter the system mastery you have. No optimization needed, no tricks or loopholes and no must have feats to pour over to be useful. This would actually place 6th level casters on top tier since they can always do SOMETHING, and maybe cleric too for the same reasons. It's hard to screw up making them.
Tier lists tend to focus on individual effort vs team help (ie putting spells above teamwork feats) and for PFS I get that. But for regular groups it's totally the opposite and tier lists should be scrapped completely.
I prefer my tier lists to include a floor as well as a ceiling. It tells a better story of where that class fits in the grand scheme of things
Like low tier for kineticist is probably "c or d rank" just because its hard to be an F for a class if you can do more damage than a lightly optimized fireball or lightning bolt every turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Utterly failing with a kineticist - rather than being just a bit weak - usually means not understanding their rules or the implications of those rules. Like you need to have some burn taken to get elemental overflow up and running, and saving it all for a possible big boss fight means you suck. Too much burn means you drop when a monster frowns at you. That's not the only issue either.
A kineticist isn't a class to hand to a newbie to play. There are a few traps when building them too.
Utterly failing with a kineticist - rather than being just a bit weak - usually means not understanding their rules or the implications of those rules. Like you need to have some burn taken to get elemental overflow up and running, and saving it all for a possible big boss fight means you suck. Too much burn means you drop when a monster frowns at you. That's not the only issue either.
A kineticist isn't a class to hand to a newbie to play. There are a few traps when building them too.
There are, but honestly "I move action gather power standard action composite blast 5' step still trumps a badly built fighter rogue or monk.
The floor and ceiling system of classification is far superior to a tier list...
Looking at each class individually, and evaluating its potential floor, and ceiling, is going to provide a much more useful and truthful result versus dumb $#!+ like "all prepared full casters are tier 1".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more books printed the more "meaningful useful spells" become harder to locate and even pick for newer players. And again while options grew it's not like spells per day did.
Honestly, there are very few meaningfully useful spells outside of the core books. We aren’t talking about 50 ways to deal damage with fire here.
And spell slots are limited, but you can leave a slot open. Or you spontaneously cast any one from your bonded object. And then there the various methods of quick study.
A full caster is a bit harder for prep and new players, but if you level the character from 1, you can make it work pretty easily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
\
Honestly, there are very few meaningfully useful spells outside of the core books. We aren’t talking about 50 ways to deal damage with fire here.
Kinda the same with feats too
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that there are far more useful feats when you give up on gimmick BS like combat maneuvers (except Dirty Tricks), feinting, or whatever nonsense strings together AoO... when you actually just pursue solid mechanical choices, useful feats exist in abundance. And a lot of them come from post-CRB toolboxes. It is easy to get overwhelmed with all the superfluous crap focused on gimmick BS, though. This is obviously coming from the perspective of a martial... martials NEED feats... or at least most of them do.
I do not know the extent of, nor give a $#!+ about feats for spellcasters... did you need a feat for proficiency in your spells? Didn't think so. Did it require a whole string of feats for your chosen offensive strategy to key off of your highest stat? No? Get lost. Go sit in your tower (your Tier 1 tower).
I find that there are far more useful feats when you give up on gimmick BS like combat maneuvers (except Dirty Tricks), feinting, or whatever nonsense strings together AoO... when you actually just pursue solid mechanical choices, useful feats exist in abundance. And a lot of them come from post-CRB toolboxes. It is easy to get overwhelmed with all the superfluous crap focused on gimmick BS, though. This is obviously coming from the perspective of a martial... martials NEED feats... or at least most of them do.
I do not know the extent of, nor give a $#!+ about feats for spellcasters... did you need a feat for proficiency in your spells? Didn't think so. Did it require a whole string of feats for your chosen offensive strategy to key off of your highest stat? No? Get lost. Go sit in your tower (your Tier 1 tower).
Combat maneuvers are for sure in need of a massive condensing. I kind of wonder if more feats wouldn't benefit from the Equipment trick/Weapon trick/magic trick style of rebalancing, where you take the feat and then as you fulfill more requirements you get different benefits from it.
I'm about half done reworking all the weird skill related feats in a similar way and folding them into Signature Skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improved Maneuver:
Prerequisite;
The misguided desire to attempt any Combat Maneuver.
Benefit;
You no longer provoke AoO when attempting any Combat Maneuver. Furthermore, you receive a +2 bonus to your CMB when you attempt any Combat Maneuver.
AND, that fixes 'em all...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improved Maneuver:
Prerequisite;
The misguided desire to attempt any Combat Maneuver.Benefit;
You no longer provoke AoO when attempting any Combat Maneuver. Furthermore, you receive a +2 bonus to your CMB when you attempt any Combat Maneuver.AND, that fixes 'em all...
Combat Expertise: Prereq int 13. You no longer provoke attacks of opportunity for attempting a combat maneuver, gain +2 to all combat maneuvers. (counts as all improved combat maneuver feats currently in game)
Dodge: Prereq dex 13. Gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC, when moving through a threatened area this increases to +5 vs attacks of opportunity provoked from movement. When making an attack roll you may take -1 to hit to gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC until the beginning of your next turn. Every 4 BAB increase the penalty and bonus by 1.
Declutters a massive amount of feat tangle.
Combat maneuvers are a 3 feat chain to the quick maneuver option and a 2 feat investment for any maneuver past the first. Much more reasonable.
Whirlwind attack becomes a 3 feat chain.
I also like the idea of combat feat chains working more like vigilante talents, where you pick one and get 2-3 options staggered by level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like a wizard needs to know "every spell". A lot of them are fairly redundant. A regular wizard with just a little resources and downtime can know every meaningfully useful spell.
This is the best argument I've seen for why Sorcerers are a tier higher than Wizards.
It's not like a wizard needs to know "every spell". A lot of them are fairly redundant. A regular wizard with just a little resources and downtime can know every meaningfully useful spell.This is the best argument I've seen for why Sorcerers are a tier higher than Wizards.
eh, i find wizard schools more compelling than sorcerer bloodlines 9/10 times
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like a wizard needs to know "every spell". A lot of them are fairly redundant. A regular wizard with just a little resources and downtime can know every meaningfully useful spell.This is the best argument I've seen for why Sorcerers are a tier higher than Wizards.
I think their tier should be about even, especially if the sorcerer has gained extra spells known, like with the human favored class bonus.
It’s a very fine line with knowing every spell you could reasonably need and with having enough slots to know that many spells. And it takes way more system mastery to cherry pick those spells. The wizard is much more beginner friendly, because if you pick the wrong spell, you’re just down a little gold and downtime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like a wizard needs to know "every spell". A lot of them are fairly redundant. A regular wizard with just a little resources and downtime can know every meaningfully useful spell.This is the best argument I've seen for why Sorcerers are a tier higher than Wizards.I think their tier should be about even, especially if the sorcerer has gained extra spells known, like with the human favored class bonus.
It’s a very fine line with knowing every spell you could reasonably need and with having enough slots to know that many spells. And it takes way more system mastery to cherry pick those spells. The wizard is much more beginner friendly, because if you pick the wrong spell, you’re just down a little gold and downtime.
To be clear, I don't actually think Sorcerers are a tier higher than wizards, but that argument really really argues for spontaneous casters over prepared casters - which is fairly contrary to most tier lists I've seen.
Also for beginners do I highly recommend spontaneous casters over prepared casters. With just a little help from your friends when picking spells you can make sure you're not "useless", and after that you spend WAY less time staring at lists and spreadsheets and never have to worry about picking your spells at the start of the day. Prepared 9th level casters are a nightmare for new players, and often a nightmare for everyone else at the table who's waiting for their turn.
... Also summon builds. #&@% summon builds!
It's not like a wizard needs to know "every spell". A lot of them are fairly redundant. A regular wizard with just a little resources and downtime can know every meaningfully useful spell.This is the best argument I've seen for why Sorcerers are a tier higher than Wizards.I think their tier should be about even, especially if the sorcerer has gained extra spells known, like with the human favored class bonus.
It’s a very fine line with knowing every spell you could reasonably need and with having enough slots to know that many spells. And it takes way more system mastery to cherry pick those spells. The wizard is much more beginner friendly, because if you pick the wrong spell, you’re just down a little gold and downtime.
To be clear, I don't actually think Sorcerers are a tier higher than wizards, but that argument really really argues for spontaneous casters over prepared casters - which is fairly contrary to most tier lists I've seen.
Also for beginners do I highly recommend spontaneous casters over prepared casters. With just a little help from your friends when picking spells you can make sure you're not "useless", and after that you spend WAY less time staring at lists and spreadsheets and never have to worry about picking your spells at the start of the day. Prepared 9th level casters are a nightmare for new players, and often a nightmare for everyone else at the table who's waiting for their turn.
... Also summon builds. #&@% summon builds!
The big thing about prepared is the ability to leave like 1 spell slot of each level empty after a minute and just hunt the exact story control spell you need inbetween fights
I have always thought that spontaneous casting was FAR superior to prepared. Especially with Sorcerer vs Wizard.
One of them, YOU are freaking magical. The magic comes from you, in you, you don't need no books or time to adjust. You are the weapon.
The other one has to carry around their precious books because they ain't $#!+ without those books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always thought that spontaneous casting was FAR superior to prepared. Especially with Sorcerer vs Wizard.
One of them, YOU are freaking magical. The magic comes from you, in you, you don't need no books or time to adjust. You are the weapon.
The other one has to carry around their precious books because they ain't $#!+ without those books.
I actually prefer the flavour of wizards, but mechanically I prefer spontaneous casters as well. I have an Occultist who I flavour as more of a wizard type (she has books and scrolls and things) but she's a spontaneous caster. Her sells come from releasing the inherent magic within powerful items, so the limited spell list totally fits
In case I haven't plugged them enough, you should all try playing an Occultist, they're my new favourite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I think it's amazing that the arcanist, sorcerer and wizard all fill the same niche in different ways and are still all very balanced against each other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also for beginners do I highly recommend spontaneous casters over prepared casters.
Do I?
Yes I think I do.
...
Derp =P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I think it's amazing that the arcanist, sorcerer and wizard all fill the same niche in different ways and are still all very balanced against each other.
Me too.
I do think wizards have the edge, but not by a whole tier (unless they're small tiers I guess?) and not for the reasons people usually give in these threads.
Of the 9th level classes Clerics are my favourite, but I love playing holy types, so that's more of a flavour thing. I also don't usually play 9th level casters, so having one that can also carry a big stick and wear armour makes my lifestyle easier (I love the flavour of Oracles as well, I just haven't gotten round to playing one yet).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tier lists tend to focus on individual effort vs team help (ie putting spells above teamwork feats) and for PFS I get that. But for regular groups it's totally the opposite and tier lists should be scrapped completely.
This is the wrong way to think about tier lists. The tier list is useful because it sets a nice balancing point for your players to gather around. A party of tier 1 classes being joined by a tier 5 class is going to make the tier 5 class feel really crappy. A party of tier 3 classes will feel equally great as they have something they can contribute in nearly every situation. A party of tier 5 classes is going to have a extremely rough time because they lack several areas that most games demands they have(Condition Removal, Special Senses, Magic Removal, HP recovery etc etc).
I also find the idea of white room tier lists to be distasteful at best. The issue I have with them is basically the Batman arguement, where we place wizards witches druids and the like at the top because they can solve issues with a (literal) wave of the hand and the statement of "with enough time and prep they can overcome that, so we assume they do" which amounts to "of course he can do it hes The Batman". Well, unless you have knowledge of all spells to know which to even have; the resources to place them all in your books and the foresight to pick those exact ones, time and planning don't help you and you cant always take 8 hours to adjust.
I think you're vastly overstating the "foresight" the player needs to anticipate what's coming up in the adventure. If your DM says, you'll be fighting undead or demons and that's what you've been doing a long time...it doesn't take a genius to prepare dismissal, halt undead, etc etc. You can take APs or modules for example. They make it pretty obvious what the theme is(Not to mention players guides).
The difference between Tier 2 and Tier 1 is not power, but the ability to retool their kits. Spontaneous Casters can only express that power in very particular ways that are locked in permanently(or very close to permanently) whereas a Prepared Caster can change what they can do on a day to day basis, adventure to adventure basis, or if they leave slots open, in the middle of the day.
Much like a Spontaneous Caster, a Prepared one will generally have decent answers to most problems, but the Prepared Caster has the option of changing things up to better suit their particular needs.
In other words, a Wizard can be Tier 2 sometimes, but a Sorcerer will never be Tier 1(Unless Paragon Surge lol).
But really the Druid belongs in like a Tier 1+ because wow Wildshape, Druidic Herbalism/Animal Companion, 3/4ths BAB, a great spell list and D8 hit die is one hell of a package.
I do think wizards have the edge, but not by a whole tier (unless they're small tiers I guess?) and not for the reasons people usually give in these threads.
The gap between Tier 1 and 2 is a lot smaller than all of the others.
Who honestly even considers the tier list when making a character? Even if you have party balance in mind, or a campaign centered around Undead Demons...?
Let me get out my handy-dandy Official Paizo Tier Rolodex... *flip*flip*flip*... ah yes, Teir 1 classes, here we are...
Literally nobody does that.
People play Wizards and Druids and Shamans because they want to, not because of some stupid, arbitrary number associated with the class on some stupid, arbitrary list.
Tier lists tend to focus on individual effort vs team help (ie putting spells above teamwork feats) and for PFS I get that. But for regular groups it's totally the opposite and tier lists should be scrapped completely.This is the wrong way to think about tier lists. The tier list is useful because it sets a nice balancing point for your players to gather around. A party of tier 1 classes being joined by a tier 5 class is going to make the tier 5 class feel really crappy. A party of tier 3 classes will feel equally great as they have something they can contribute in nearly every situation. A party of tier 5 classes is going to have a extremely rough time because they lack several areas that most games demands they have(Condition Removal, Special Senses, Magic Removal, HP recovery etc etc).
I've never found this to be especially true in practice though.
If I take the usual PF Tier list and apply it to my Iron Gods party we have:A Wizard (tier 1)
A Bard (tier 3)
A Bloodrager (tier 4)
A Gunslinger (tier 5) who's multiclassed to Cleric (probably upping him to tier 4 at this point based on highest level spells known).
The Gunslinger is the lowest tier, and he never feels useless. He's the main damage dealer, and crafts tech items. He also now has some spells to help out.
My Bloodrager is the next lowest tier, and I also never feel useless. I'm the second highest damage output (highest damage potential), I have some debuffing abilities and I'm instrumental in battlefield tactics. If I'm not playing well then the party usually has a bad day.
The bard is the next lowest and he HAS felt useless at times. More importantly a huge part of his power relies on the two lower tier characters being in the party.
Finally the wizard. He's almost always got something to do to help, but is rarely the MVP. He also doesn't work nearly as well without a meat-shield to enable him. Wizards casting Haste often count any extra damage toward their own DPR - As the resident meat-shield I count any spell cast by my party without interference as partially my own.
I also find the idea of white room tier lists to be distasteful at best. The issue I have with them is basically the Batman arguement, ...I think you're vastly overstating the "foresight" the player needs to anticipate what's coming up in the adventure.
Maybe, but if you have a little forsight you can make a Sorcerer or Oracle who has enough variety of spells to get through any encounter, but without the need for a 15 minute break to fill a spell-slot with just the right spell. I tend to find that 6th level casters have more than enough tools at their disposal to get through just about anything, and are less reliant on perfect planning than their tier-1 counterparts.
I think wizards are great - I even would put them in a top tier - but I also think Schrodinger's Wizard gets more love on these forums than is deserved. They're good, but they're not as good as they think they are. I've never seen a wizard live up to the reputation it gets on these boards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who honestly even considers the tier list when making a character?
I only play Tier-1 Characters ... of course my Tier list probably looks different to yours ;)
Who honestly even considers the tier list when making a character?I only play Tier-1 Characters ... of course my Tier list probably looks different to yours ;)
I don't have a tier list.
I play whatever seems fun and useful at the time. Granted, I GM more than I play, but I still judge the players' fun as the main metric of success more than damage or power or whatever.