| 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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would take a total obsessive nutcase to do this for every class and archetype.
Not to mention every way of Combining archetypes. I don't even know of a comprehensive list of archetype combinations, let alone evaluating ranking them.
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.
I feel like this is probably both more achievable and more useful. Ranking things every level is a spreadsheet and not many people are really going to evaluate things to that level of detail. However knowing which classes tend to be strong at 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and 16-20 is something people can look at and easily see trends.
I'm not totally sure how granular you'd want to get either. As you say you could do them in four 5-level blocks or five 4-level blocks . Which one is more useful might depend a bit on which classes you're looking at. For example, at level 4 all 6/9 casters and all 9/9 casters have a maximum spell level of 2nd level spells, but at level 5 suddenly Clerics, Druids, Shamans, Witches and Wizards have a new level of power so they jump up a tier. Meanwhile Arcanists, Oracles, Psychics and Sorcerers don't get that new level of power until level 6. If you did levels 1-5 that would probably put the prepared casters up a tier since they end up with more powerful spells by the end of that bracket but if you did levels 1-4 you'd have all the 9/9 casters on the same level of spells at the end of each bracket, even though they got there at different times. But then the question is, do you WANT that difference to be shown or would you prefer to diminish it? That difference might help you decide on a difference in tiers, or it could be something you think is a difference, but not worthy of a whole change in tier, so you might not want to emphasise it quite so much.
We're getting into how to present data here ... what narrative you want to tell using the data. You probably don't know until you do the comparisons, so perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself =P
Actually the other thing is whether or not you want 4-5 uniform groups of levels? Maybe levels 1-4 are one group, but 5-11 are the next group, and 12-20 are the last group? There's no particular reason it has to be all the same number of levels. It might be more important to separate them at specific levels when certain abilities come online ... just a thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.I feel like this is probably both more achievable and more useful. Ranking things every level is a spreadsheet and not many people are really going to evaluate things to that level of detail. However knowing which classes tend to be strong at 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and 16-20 is something people can look at and easily see trends.
I am sure you are right about this. Not to mention making it less work to do, though it is still a huge undertaking.
I follow what you say about various spellcasting classes. Experienced players all know this and will consider it when choosing a class. If you are going to compare classes you should not have an agenda beyond trying to be objective. A lot of classes or builds have noticeably bigger power jumps when they reach certain levels than others. You would probably mention these in notable cases.
My main point is all the tier lists I have seem look at level 20, or very close to it, only. That is OK as far as it goes and is relatively easy to rate and compile. But it zero rates the power level of the character at all lower levels. And it zero rates the fact that most campaigns never get close to level 20. I wanted a measure of how powerful a class is as you actually play it. And to point out what is missing from and, to many, misleading about the way class tier systems work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sick of Power Tier Class Discussions, 2015/05 holds many of the defining posts and criticisms.
Maybe.
My computer does not want me to go to most of the links on the thread, which does not help me following the arguments.The thread was closed down due to lack of civility which is more than justified.
Talking to people like they are intellectually disabled because they do not acknowledge that tier systems measure the ability to change a campaign's narrative is very uncivil indeed. Especially as some tier systems just talk of classes power.
A big part of changing the narrative is by persuasion, talking creatures into doing what you want w/o mind control of any kind. I don't recall any real talk of this in class tier discussions.
The amount of game-time spent in a class (popularity) doesn't address effectiveness of a build.
I keep saying this. I wanted to measure the power of classes considering the amount of time you play each class at each level.
has never publicly disclosed that aggregated play history.
Maybe. I did read a very interesting survey Paizo did publish that included details of player's class choices and [especially relevant here] what level campaigns typically reached.
Just before I stop, I think most of what you say and didn't comment on entirely sensible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I'll add is that if someone does want to put in the mountain of effort required to create a tier-by-level-range system, the Guide to the Class Guides might be a starting point on ranking the options available for each class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to compare classes you should not have an agenda beyond trying to be objective.
I understand what you're saying, but that's not really how our brains work.
My take on Wizards vs Sorcerers for example - TLDR: Sorcerers shouldn't get their new spells a level after Wizards.
Wizards are supposed to have more breath of spell knowledge, but in return Sorcerers are supposed to be able to do more spell-slinging. While it's Technically true that they can, in reality they can't - or more specifically they can't with their highest level of spells, the spells most likely to impact the game.
When a Wizard gets to an odd level and gets their new level of spells they only have 1 spell-slot, while a Sorcerer has 3. Except it's not really true that a Wizard only has 1 spell-slot, most Wizards also get a School Specialisation slot, which means they have 2. Except that's not true either, they also get an extra spell-slot for having a higher INT, which means they have 3. Unless of course that Wizard has taken a Divine Bond instead of a Familiar, in which case they can technically cast 4 spells of their highest level.
Now of course the Sorcerer also gets +1 of their highest level spells from having a high CHA as well, so their 3/day becomes 4/day, but because they get a new level of spells 1 level after the Wizard, the Sorcerer is only casting 4 max-level spells and the Wizard is casting 5 by then. This means the spell-slinger Sorcerer class actually has Fewer max-level spells than the more versatile Wizard. And this is at the levels where the Sorcerer compares most favourably - Even levels. At Odd levels the Wizard has a whole spell-level above the Sorcerer, and can cast them 4 times per day .
One of these scenarios is true at every level from 3 to 19, it isn't until level 20 that the Sorcerer finally overtakes the Wizard again, and I don't really count level 20 for much because even the games that get there don't usually spend much time there.
Anyway, enough ranting, back to the thread =P
______________________________________________
Now the reason I brought that up and had my rant is that you might decide that Sorcerers are unfairly punished with their slower spell progression. If you think that, you might decide that having a tier-list that goes 1-5 shows off the Wizard's advantage, and helps to display the Wizard's Objective advantages. Or you may think that the Sorcerer has other advantages that make more of a difference, and the Sorcerer really is on-parr, or even better than the Wizard. In this case it might make sense to have the tier levels 1-4, 5-8, etc because at those break-points the Sorcerers and Wizards are much-more on parr, which could help show how objectively similar they are.
Just to be clear, the Wizard does objectively have an advantage, but they are objectively similar. The Sub-jective part is How similar, and how much of an advantage you think the early spell-access gives the Wizard. While it's obviously the intent to be objective, a Tier list is never really objective, so working out what you want to show is really a big part of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a Tier list is never really objective
This is also something worth talking about.
I actually don't really like the way we talk about tier lists here. Not only is an objective tier list impossible, I don't think it's productive. In my opinion the objective of a tier list is to facilitate discussion and the exchange of ideas. Having a definitive list that people just look at and take as gospel is the opposite of that.
While it's hard to ignore the spell-casting meta in Pathfinder we have a tendency to overvalue them. I've seen multiple threads where someone is asking for help because the Barbarian or the Fighter is derailing the campaign by being an unstoppable juggernaut and people just reply with "Well you should be able to deal with it, at least it's not a tier-1 class like a Wizard." Sure an over-tuned Wizard might be harder to deal with, but that doesn't mean a Fighter can't be a problem. Not only is that unhelpful, it stagnates the discussion and blocks creative thinking.
With that in mind, I don't think this SHOULD be "objective" . I think an alternative could be that we just invite people to give their opinions on which classes are strongest at particular levels , and get an aggregate of people's ideas. Getting multiple tier-lists along with the reasoning behind them is more likely to contribute to someone's idea of which characters suits them or what to look for. This would likely be more work, but perhaps it would be spread out among more people - you could simply be the one compiling results ...?
I've probably gone over my limit on rants today, especially in this thread, so I'll leave it there. However you do it I think facilitating more discussion is of more value than trying to come up with an "objective" list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the archetypes thing, I'm in no way familiar with all of the tier lists out there, but I've seen a few that will acknowledge tier adjustments up or down for notably powerful or sub-par archetypes.
I have seen an archetype tier list and lists of compatible archetypes. Neither are anything like comprehensive and up to date.
There is the idea that PF1 (and DnD3.5) go through 3 or 4 stages. You can add the stages of growth to the results BUT it's not how the Game is played and it is difficult to impossible to switch classes even using Retraining.
I am not sure what you mean about stages.
And doesn't everyone know you can't change class? I mean a GM might allow a change of class with a wish but that is the only way I know you could do it.
So I think it is best as a comment added TO the class builds rather than a result by stage.
You went from talking about classes to talking about class builds. That is significant and points to something about tier guides. The guides talk about the power of a class. Which is a gross simplification, you need to rate each archetype as they are different. Even then archetypes are changed by race and the build being followed.
All this adds to the ratings chart is for someone say, "oh my game goes to 12th level so the high ratings are for *this* and *this* class". Yeah. I think an effectiveness rating for 4 stages is internal to the class rather than comparative to other classes.
Not sure what the 4 stages are.
The only thing I'll add is that if someone does want to put in the mountain of effort required to create a tier-by-level-range system, the Guide to the Class Guides might be a starting point on ranking the options available for each class.
Oh, I am not going to do it. As I said above, you really need to rate each archetype, archetype combo, race and build for each class. If you don't have to be stark raving mad to attempt that, you will be by the time you finish. If you ever do.
I wanted more to start a more abstract discussion on tier lists which considers the amount of time you spend at each level and the levels reached by most campaigns.
It seems no matter how often I say this I can't get people to take notice of my main idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Mr Charisma,
On Sorcerers and Wizards
I more than agree with you. What you say is correct imho but add to this that the number of spells a sorcerer can use is limited to spells known where wizards can get the whole list.
If Paizo had put me in charge of a project to create a PF1.5 instead of releasing PF2 I would have abolished arcanists, which get the best of both worlds as well as lots of other good stuff. Then revised sorcerers along the lines you suggest and maybe raid the arcanist class to further bolster sorcerers. Sadly Paizo was not so wise.
a Tier list is never really objectiveI've seen multiple threads where someone is asking for help because the Barbarian or the Fighter is derailing the campaign by being an unstoppable juggernaut and people just reply with "Well you should be able to deal with it, at least it's not a tier-1 class like a Wizard."
That arises when some players are playing optimised characters and some are not. But it is true enough.
With that in mind, I don't think this SHOULD be "objective" . I think an alternative could be that we just invite people to give their opinions on which classes are strongest at particular levels , and get an aggregate of people's ideas. Getting multiple tier-lists along with the reasoning behind them is more likely to contribute to someone's idea of which characters suits them or what to look for. This would likely be more work, but perhaps it would be spread out among more people - you could simply be the one compiling results ...?
I agree fully and you seem to be the only person who has posted who has taken note of my main point.
Having one way of constructing a tier list that takes no account of level or the level play will reach is especially bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wanted more to start a more abstract discussion on tier lists which considers the amount of time you spend at each level and the levels reached by most campaigns.
It seems no matter how often I say this I can't get people to take notice of my main idea.
It's not earth-shaking insight or anything, but at lower levels the classes that have abilities that are not limited/slightly limited use (martials attacking [melee unlimited/ranged by ammunition], constant or at least long-term benefits like occultist resonant powers, witch hexes [once per target], etc.) will be likely be considered "stronger" unless the group is doing the "15 minute adventuring day" thing that allows the more limited resource classes to "go nova" frequently.
The limited resource classes usually start to pull ahead somewhere in the middle levels (exactly where depends on the class in question) and start to eat the lunch of the not limited/slightly limited classes as they get into the higher levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dragon Chess Player- You are right of course and also correct that this is known by all knowledgeable players.
I wanted to question the use of a tier system that considers only the power of classes at high levels, especially considering that most campaigns never get close to level 20. Having that as the only way a tier system is done is flawed and misleading.
I was hoping someone would turn up a link to that old survey I was referring to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Their is another thread that goes over some of the ground here which can be found at ClassBuild-Metrics-Part-2.
...has failed EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT to hit something with his bombs and rolled 1s on the roll and ends up lighting himself on fire.
This is a good time to point out that small house rules can have meaningful balance repercussions. By default, rolling a 1 just means you fail. But if you add crit fails as a house rule, then you are making every d20 roll dangerous, and martials roll way more d20s than casters do.
A mid-level monk flurrying will get multiple natural 1s per combat.
A mid-level witch will almost never touch a d20 to roll a 1 in the first place.
This is a good time to point out that small house rules can have meaningful balance repercussions.
Indeed. And this house rule was almost certainly introduced without considering the balance repercussions set out.
That critical fail rules would disturb the balance between martial characters and casters is neither intuitive nor anywhere near obvious.
The lesson is don't mess with the rules unless you know what you are doing. And you must know what you are doing, not merely think you do.
Also, wouldn't it be nice to try and focus rankings made versus expected CRs/DCs for level, rather than versus other classes.
Another perspective which is always a good thing.
You are making the same point about power at different levels as I started with. The more I hear from other people and think about it myself, having one tier system measuring the relative power of classes at high levels is inadequate and misleading.
Measuring power in combat vs expected DCs at a certain level is more specific than just one rating for a class. Which also means its easier to get right, although it is still immensely complicated.
But their a a whole host of other things that make a character effective and fun to play. Diplomacy, crafting mundane and magical items, skill checks, non-combat abilities and magic and so on.
Another matter is how hard they are to play. Arcane casters may dominate the highest tiers, but they are also hardest to play because they die so easily in combat if misplayed or sometimes if they are not.