| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There have been many people who have rated the PF1 classes and organised them into tiers.
All of these, or all those I have seen, consider the ultimate power of the classes i.e. what they are like at level 20.
I recall reading an old survey of PF1 players which I can't at present find. Hopefully someone will turn it up in a reply. It had a lot of interesting results, but what is of interest here is the levels campaigns reached. It showed that the percentage of campaigns that reached level 20 was minimal and the number that even got close was small. In PF Society play is limited to level 12 max for the most part.
This renders the normal tier system ... theoretical and divorced from what you actually play.
What I suggest is to consider the relative strength of each class at each level. Say a number from 1 to 5, with 5 best at that level. Then multiply it by the % of time you actually spend playing at that level. Then you add up the 20 scores and divide the total by 20 for a score of how the class performs when you actually play it.
Most interested in others opinions on these matters.
Sysryke- I see what you mean about the amount of work.
I think it would take a total obsessive nutcase to do this for every class and archetype. I have not seen that done with conventional tier lists only. They rate the classes and occasionally mention am archetype.
And people do a lot of unpaid work over this game and forms of DnD. Writing a detailed guide is a huge amount of work. I may have got further with this idea if I had it a decade or so in the past, when PF1 was going strong.
Giving a score for each level isn't the only way of doing it. It is possible to group levels for example levels 1-4 and then 5-8. Or levels 1-5 and then 6-10 and so on. 20 is divisible by 4 and 5 which makes these groupings convenient.