| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a tier list.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 either. I was trying to imply that anything I play is Tier 1 because I'm play it ... I'll try to imply harder next time =P
I'm just a dunce...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was trying to imply that anything I play is Tier 1 because I'm play it ... I'll try to imply harder next time =PI'm just a dunce...
Yeah you dunce, you should be smart like me =P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tier 2 has as much raw power as tier 1, just less flexibility.
I guess this is where I have trouble with some of the distinctions that tier lists give - There's more than one kind of flexibility.
I'll define them as follows:
Versatility: A characters overall options available to them, given time to prepare.
Adaptability: A character's ability to react to things in the moment.
(You don't have to agree with thess definitions, I'm just defining them so you can refer to them and understand what I'm talking about.)
With these definitions we see that of course Wizards have more Versatility. Clerics and Druids are the absolute gods of versatility, knowing every spell on their list automatically.
Sorcerers and Oracles don't have as much Versatility as their prepared counterparts, but they have significantly more Adaptability. Provided you have a reasonably balanced list of spells knowns your ability to adapt on the fly is much higher than a prepared caster who has to find a use for the exact spells they prepared ahead of time.
(And I guess Arcanists are great at both really. Not quite as Adaptable as a Sorcerer, but much more Versatile. Not quite as Versatile as a Wizard, but much more Adaptable.)
So when people talk about "Tier 1 classes" (prepared casters) being more flexible than "Tier 2 classes" (spontaneous casters) I always think they're missing half the story.
Even if we assume that's true you're still talking about high level play. What about the other 15 levels before you get to that point?
Tier lists that focus on high levels are only useful for playing high levels, which is much less common than playing low or mid levels. Capstone abilities are often ignored entirely because nobody uses them - even the people who do get to level 20 don't usually play for long there, they're only playing to finish up the campaign.
I think players often have less fun when there's a double-up on party roles and one character is better at that role. When this happens the "higher tier" characters will often do better (eg. Investigator vs Rogue).
Even when you have the double up it's not always a given though, some classes are still different enough strengths that they both feel valuable in the same party (Bloodrager vs Barbarian).
Some roles - eg damage dealing - are still usually the perview of "lower tier" classes, so the tier system doesn't really help if that's what you're looking for.
If the characters are filling different roles then there isn't usually a problem with a character feeling bad. Finding classes that synergize in a party is usually going to end up with a "higher tier party" than a party full of "high tier characters".
JaronK's tier system is interesting enough to give it a good think over, but not especially useful IME. It's perhaps a reminder that there can be more to a RPG than hack'n'slash and that some characters may be poor at the game outside that area; or that some D&D/PF characters break many game plots.
There was another tier system linked near the start of this thread which doesn't seem to be obviously better or a great deal different to me.
Sorcerers and Oracles don't have as much Versatility as their prepared counterparts, but they have significantly more Adaptability. Provided you have a reasonably balanced list of spells knowns your ability to adapt on the fly is much higher than a prepared caster who has to find a use for the exact spells they prepared ahead of time.
There are useful spells that can applied to virtually any situation. If a Sorcerer can have a reasonably balanced list of spells known, so too can a Wizard. The difference is that a Wizard has the option of preparing niche but more effective spells if the situation calls for it. Not only that but if the Sorcerer makes a mistake, they're pretty much stuck with it whereas the Wizard can simply change tactics the next day. Sorcerers don't even really have a spell slot advantage either since a Specialist Wizard is only a single spell slot behind them most levels(And they get Scribe Scroll for free which is absurdly good for Wizards and make the spell slot comparison even worse).
The comparison gets even worse vs the Druid or Witch
So someone not of the same tier level won't have as much fun? I've never once seen evidence of this. And people all playing the same tier but not the top tier wont be able to accomplish anything? Again, not based on anything factual. A group of rogues would be a very effective group for a lower tier group because their skill sets and tactics and what they need to do to accomplish a goal are all very similar.
Hey! I really appreciate you taking the time to read the three sentences of what I said and nothing else
A party of tier 1 classes being joined by a tier 5 class is going to make the tier 5 class feel really crappy.
This ties in partially to what MrCharisma said(I.E, one of your full casters is a Nature Fang/wildshaping druid mulching everything in melee alongside their tiger companion), but also when the full caster ends encounters with a single spell or ties up everything nicely out of combat, your Tier 4 or Tier 5 classes might feel marginalized(I have 15 ranks in Climb or Stealth, but Spider Climb/Invisibility lol).
A party of tier 3 classes will feel equally great as they have something they can contribute in nearly every situation.
My own words that you apparently ignored. I actually prefer playing in groups closer to Tier 3.
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).
Having played quite a few APs, lacking any Tier 3 or above class is going to be extremely rough. I never said they wouldn't be able to accomplish anything but I would be very surprised to see a party composed of tier 4 or below beat Carrion Crown.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I've been thinking and I don't really have a problem with tier lists usually either. I've read/watched/listened-to them in other games and found them useful and enjoyable.
My problem is with The Tier List that seems to exist in Pathfinder.
I played a lot of Civilization 5, and there were two players on youtube who were very good, and very active with the community. They both put out Tier lists for which civs were better, and their tier lists were completely different. The reason for this is that they were using different metrics to define what makes a "good" civ. They even had discussions with each other about how they came up with their lists, and these discussions were as useful as the lists themselves for players thinking about high level play.
Somewhere in the history of Pathfinder or DnD (or maybe just these forums) someone decided to make a tier list that encompassed everything about the game and ranked all the classes. The Tier list they made has stuck like glue to this community and people use it as a freaking bible.
If you have someone ask: "What are the best classes for dealing damage?" and then someone else asks: "What are the hest classes for dealing with social encounters?" you're going to have 2 completely different lists. These lists can both be useful to newer players, and maybe even useful to veterans who haven't seen particular ideas in action. This can also open up discussion about how to effectively use different tool-kits to accomplish things in your games.
With The Tier List what we get instead is a question answered with a single generic list followed by gate-keeping when people disagree with it. Anyone who disagrees with them is usually met with: "No you're wrong and here's why" using the same proofs that were in that original The Tier List without any thought going into it.
Even if we assume The Tier List is correct it's existence seems to be harmful to productive discussion in the community. Gone are the days of productive discussion, now we have a proof of what's "Correct", so people just follow prescribed thinking. That kind of thinking doesn't usually help, and has in fact CAUSED A FEW PROBLEMS THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
For something as subjective as this there really is no "correct" answer, the whole purpose of tier lists should be to facilitate discussion. Disagreement is totally fine, but not if it shuts people out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who is it, Voltaire(?), that said we must first define our terms?
On what metric are classes being judged?
Damage? Defense? Encounter to Encounter Endurance? Skills? Particularly Social Skills? Percentage of time you can do something useful? What is considered useful? Are averages and percentages weighted or objectively equally? Who is in charge of making these decisions? Why do they get to be The Decider? Should I trust their judgement?
Stupid. Arbitrary. List.
Honestly, I put what most consider Tier 3 as the Top Tier... always want at least one of these guys on the team, fun to play, never bored, never hated, best classes in the game. 6th level casters are some of the most flavorful, fun, and overall useful classes.
90% of games played would be better off without 9th level casters in the party. Maybe have 9th level casters AVAILABLE to the party, but not IN the party. Hire a Cleric to remove a condition, hire a Sorcerer to help you blast something scary... but they are busy, you see, they can't just help you. Most of the classes in Tier 1 are boring and lame... all-powerful, sure, but there's no challenge or fun in that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flaws in tier lists:
1. They discuss dungeon crawls/combat over social encounters. Wizards, for example, are nowhere near Bards for social interactions. These lists seems to treat social encounters as just 1 aspect, rather that being a potential 50-75% of a session, depending.
1. Not exactly? Bards are awesome, but the primary benefit is that they have the skills as a class skill and can sub perform skills in for other skills so that they have the skill points for them(and aren't wasting ranks in perform). Most social encounters boil down to a single roll(Or no roll at all in which case your social skills don't matter). The Social Combat system from Ultimate Intrigue/War for the Crown for example expands social encounters to include several non-charisma skills. But the crux of this issue here is that anyone with some skill ranks and didn't dump charisma can be a decent face of the party. This is without getting into how some spells might obviate the need for some encounters I.E contact other plane/Speak with Dead/Call Spirit/Divination
2. Spell Resistance, Evasion, Twist Away, Golems, Undead (mind-affecting), etc. There are way more "you do nothing to me" options against spells than there are against a good ol' fashioned great sword.
2. There are spells that are always useful. SR No stuff and whatnot. There are significantly more options for avoiding physical damage or just ways to bump your AC. DR, Incorporeal, Blink, Mirror Image, Stoneskin, Displacement etc.
3. Damage scaling. Maybe because of my limited knowledge of the game, but it felt like in order for a spell caster to keep up with a fighter in damage output, you had to be WAY more specialized and deep into a build than the fighter had to. I freely admit, it may only seem this way to me because of my limited experience with "use all books" Pathfinder games.
3. Core Rulebook comparisons to Fighters have never gone well for the Fighter. A Druid's Animal Companion outperforms them until around level 8+ not to mention the Druid itself. A Barbarian fares much better. Sorcerers make pretty good blasters and have only gotten better with more books(Orc Bloodline and Blood Havoc? Oh my!).
4. Low-level game content. It's also my experience that as you get higher level, it becomes more common for players and GMs to grow a bit bored and want to see a new campaign. Usually around the low teens, then there's a new game. Focusing on what a class can do at 16-17+ is really limiting. Also, I had a hard time believing that a level 2 sorc is going to be two tiers above a level 2 paly.
4. I have a similar experience. I'd argue that a Paladin is only really 1 tier lower but the comparison is pretty good. Paladins rock. The notion that spellcasters are weak early game is mostly a myth though because they have stuff that is INCREDIBLY potent that ONLY works at low level like Sleep and Color Spray. Just for funsies though, the Human Orc Bloodline/Blood Havoc Sorcerer with Spell Focus Evocation and Spell Specialization Burning Hands does 4d4+8 damage a pop. Take the human bonus feat part away and it drops to 2d4+4 though.
Somewhere in the history of Pathfinder or DnD (or maybe just these forums) someone decided to make a tier list that encompassed everything about the game and ranked all the classes. The Tier list they made has stuck like glue to this community and people use it as a freaking bible.
It's because the game hasn't really changed that much from it's 3.5 incarnation. So if something was roughly true back then, it's probably still roughly true now. Most tier lists made now reflect the one from those days albeit some folks like Paladins got bumped up.
It's also intrinsically tied to the Caster/Martial Disparity discussion so if you don't believe it exists or think it doesn't matter, then you'll likely also dislike the tier list. Much like what ShadowcatX said, the tier list also functions as a critique on class design with Tier 3 being the goal. Tier 4 meaning that these classes really need out of combat options that help them interact with the narrative. Tier 5 being classes that have mechanically failed at what the class is supposed to accomplish. Tier 2 and Tier 1 classes being able to completely derail/bypass sections of the campaign without GM fiat being their main critique.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading over these and thinking about it more, the whole idea of tiers linked to classes just feels really out of date and out of touch with the pathfinder rules. It makes sense in D&D to talk about class tiers because class is the single most defining feature of your character and two characters of the same class are going to be fairly similar in abilities.
That's not at all true in pf1. I'd argue that pf1 has changed considerably from its 3.5 roots. In pf1, you can make a party of all "rogues" with almost no overlap in abilities. There are archetypes which drastically change the function and capabilities of classes. There are feat chains and other non-class based options that add game changing abilities. You can build characters around racial powers, magic items, or some weird obscure thing like occult skill unlocks. There's just too many variables in play to have "tier" be any meaningful thing that you can categorize classes in because class is only one small part of any pc build.