Tier list for PF classes, or summary of each?

Walking Dad said:

The real utility classes from level 6+ are the spellcasters, not the rogues.

And doing much damage in combat is very nice. How does the sample barbarian/fighter handles flying or incorporeal opponents? And there are still the save or suck spells.

Click to expand...

A lot of the utility classes are spellcasters now. What utility classes are you speaking of? Rogue is the only class that is severely limited. Ranger, Inquisitor, and Ninja are extremely effective at scouting and other utility activities without wasting spells, though they have them if they need them.

Incorporeal creatures take 50% damage now. Fighter and barbarians smash them to ectoplasm.

If the flying creature gets close enough, they hit it. Otherwise they buy fly potions or a cloak or boots that let them fly. Or maybe the wizard casts fly on them so they don't have to waste a bunch of spells killing them.

If they're an archer, they kill it. They kill everything. They kill wizards if they aren't ready. They murder whatever they face and do it from a few hundred feet away. Cast mirror image or invisibility, they by seeking and blindsense for their bow so they can locate your square and destroy you. Most caster types can't last a round against an optimized archer.

Drathir said:

I will say Stream is pretty much right overall, however number crunchers have chrunched and wizard normally kills cleric (its like a 52/48 thing) and the only class that can consistantly kill one of those is the Barbarian, if you use the exact build... which makes u all but useless at killing non-spellcasters

Click to expand...

I never much understood rating classes in this fashion. Do the majority of people's games end with the PCs getting in a battle royale? Is that how most people play?

I agreed with your list through the first 2, after that...

Any way, I just felt the need to say:

Celtavian said:

19. Alchemist: No real experience. Friend says Ragechemist is a nasty archetype if you want to build a melee alchemist.

Click to expand...

Ragechemist IS a nasty archetype, but not in the way you think. It gives you an extra +2 str in return for int and will save penalties every round you're hit! Ok, you get a will save to resist, but considering will is by far the alchemist's worst save and that every failure just makes the next will save all the harder, plan to fail a lot. Then you hit 0 int eventually and go comatose, yay! You remain that way until one hour AFTER your mutagen wears off! Fun fact: There is presently no way to dismiss a mutagen early. So tack on remaining time and the hour, and you could easily be out for several hours! And then hope the party's willing to wait another hour to brew a new mutagen to repeat the process over again!

Later on it gives small boosts to nat armor in return for ALSO penalizing dex when you fail your saves!

Never never never never never ever use Ragechemist archetype! Hands down the worst (both in how weak it is mechanically and in how it utterly fails to project the invoked image by leaving you as a hospital vegetable after 7-8 rounds of combat) archetype in all of pathfinder, and theres a LOT of godawful ones, so that's really saying something!

/public service announcement

TheAuldGrump said:

I do have to say though that you are better off playing what you like

Click to expand...

Thanks! What I like playing is whatever classes are at the top of the tier list. So this really is what I need to be investigating.

I don't need to play a powerful character, but I do need to play a successful one, and I need to play one that won't bore me. Since the tier list not only is about power but also versatility and range of options, those at the top should generally do well for me. Their presence at the top of the tier suggests that if I get bored doing 1 or 2 things with the class, it should be capable of going in a different direction.

As a general comment for everyone, here is more info. We played our first game last night, and I played a rogue. I understand that rogues are near the bottom of the tier list, and so that flies in the face of my own needs. However, rogue is the only class I've previously played in Pathfinder, and I wanted to start with something I knew I could build well.

And in fact, I did build it well, and in fact, it sucked. I couldn't get enough sneak attack opportunities. Sneak attack relies far too much on the generosity of a DM who will say, "Yeah, that provides cover." In the game I'm in, the DM actually ruled that his bad guys could get cover bonuses from some logs in the forest, but that I could not use those same logs to get cover and attempt a hide check. While there may be good reasons for that which are beyond my understanding, the reasons would also be beyond my interest -- by which I mean, I'm not interested in having to negotiate for class features.

This DM also runs a very poor game -- not in the sense that it is "poorly run," as he is a master of running games -- but in the sense that our characters are typically poor and never able to get desired or even necessary items. In a previous campaign which started under a different DM, I received the ghost touch +1 shortspear featured in the Freeport module, probably at level 2. It was an amazing, powerful weapon at that level. However, our current DM then took over, ruled that any item with a + bonus would cost double, and I never saw another item better. We ended the game at level 11, and I was still using that same +1 shortspear I had received at level 2. I'm not really grousing about that as he is a very good DM, but I am noting it as important to my decision making moving forward.

So I'm looking for classes which will maintain my interest, but also serve two new purposes: class features which do not require adjudication from the DM; and a class which can sidestep a poor economy. Oh, also, it needs to work with a 15 point buy, as that's what the DM has set our game to. I've been thinking about these classes, long term:

• Wizard - can craft scrolls, so I am less beholden to the DM for resources. I can eventually fill my backpack with a few dozen utility spells and become a bit of a batman to overcome challenges. However, and this is big, I will never gain any spells other than the 2 per level that come with the class. Why? As hinted, spell acquisition is a class feature that the DM can adjudicate, so it will be gone. I may find a few scrolls during the course of the campaign, so that provides some hope, maybe. But never will I find a full spellbook to complement my own. In any case, the wizard can do so many things that it will maintain my interest.
• Druid - I'm sad that it's the one class that was neglected in Pathfinder, and has apparently dropped a tier. However, doesn't the druid's spell casting work like a cleric? That is, no spellbook, so I can just select from the entire range of spells every day? If so, getting a druid with scribe scroll would enable me to have a massive range of spells. The druid's summons would also be interesting....
• Summoner - this class isn't really as useful as the others, and getting scribe scroll would be stupid, as a summoner's small spell selection means there really wouldn't be much for me to scribe. However, the very large range of summoned critters would be something that would capture my interest for quite some time. I played a 3.5 edition summoner-like class in a previous game, and with augment summoning I really enjoyed printing out modified stat blocks and managing my "builds." Some of you may have seen those on EnWorld -- I really worked up detailed Word documents of augmented monsters. Very fun. Might try the master summoner archetype.

I've also considered an alchemist for the various bombs, but that seems like a one-hit wonder too. Not sure, haven't tried it. Also, inquisitor sounds beefy but I don't know enough yet.

Ideas? Feedback?

It sounds like your GM would be happier running Iron Heroes or Fantasy Craft, where items are less important.

It also sounds like I would not much enjoy his Pathfinder game, since he seems to have enforced power gaming by the way he runs things. He does not sound like a 'master of running games' but rather like a 'control freak'. The incident with the logs being my primary illustration.

I have played in games run by control freaks, and do not play in them anymore.

We had one for the old World of Darkness that never let us spend XP. When challenged on this he said that if he allowed spending then he would have to be 'less generous with XP'....

He typically gave less than half the suggested XP. Halfway through his third adventure without being allowed to spend XP he discovered that he had no players.

But, if you are having fun then have at. Perhaps you enjoy the extra challenge.

If not... find another game, maybe? Or, if you aren't the only one having problems, perhaps have a sit down between players and the GM? If he is rendering classes unplayable by his decisions then there is a problem.

The Auld Grump

TheAuldGrump said:

Not in my experience.

Wizards can do all sorts of wonderful things if those spells are prepared - if they have infinite time to do things then a wizard can disarm traps, open doors, etc.. But if there is a time crunch, and there should often be a time crunch, then the rogue opens the door, disarms the trap, and fakes being a cleric so he can use the wand of cure light wounds on the cleric who is now in negative hit points....

Click to expand...

My experience comes from 3.5, not PF, but my wizards and sorcerers have not been learning Knock. At 7th level, a sorcerer has 3 2nd level spells known; I'm not wasting a slot on Knock if there's a rogue handy. Perhaps my current wizard should have Knock in her book (I blame the DM, who's been really strict with spells), but last night I could have used all four second-level spells just opening doors. Unless there's been some big change in PF that I missed (and none of those numbers changed between 3.5 and PF), 6th level is way too early to expect a wizard to start throwing around Knock.

re

aboyd

Every class cannot do everything any more. The Tier system is flawed because of archetypes.

Let me give you some examples:

1. Ranger Archer: This class now has spells like instant enemy, bow spirit and hunter's eye. Build them as an archer with a harsh bow and you're sick. This character killed a Huge red dragon in two rounds at lvl 8. Did something like 242 points of damage. Has great skills. And a lot of fun class abilities.

2. Human Invulnerable Rager Barbarian: Take Beast Totem to eventually get the ability to pounce and make a full attack with a two-handed weapon. Take Superstitious and the human favored class bonus for +17 on all saves versus spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities on top of your other bonuses. Basically you only miss on a 1 at high level against gnarly DCs.

You have DR 10/-. If you get Come and Get Me, you do so much fricking sick damage you kill anything you face the majority of the time. You rip stuff apart.

3. Monk Zen Archer: You get up to 8 attacks with your own power with a bow. 9 with haste. My friend took four levels of ranger for gravity bow and +16 BAB for Deadly Aim. He gets a huge number of attacks and does insane damage from long range. It's a nasty combination. Has a great AC because he is fully wisdom focused. He can boost his arrow damage to 4d8 with gravity bowactive.

There are countless powerful combinations in the game.

You cannot equal melees at their specialty as a wizard any longer. Polymorph is not the same. So druids, clerics, and wizards cannot change spells and be better fighting than melee classes. They get tons of stuff that makes them very powerful and stand out.

The hardest class I have to deal with right now is the Human Invulnerable Rager Barbarian. He rarely misses his saves. He does nutty damage which got even worse with Raging Brutality. He has Come and Get Me so that nothing in the game built by standard D&D rules can survive a round against him while attacking him. He can kill leveled giants and balors in one round if they try to go toe to toe with him.

This is not 3.0. Things are not the same. Folks that try to tell you they are don't have much experience running or playing Pathfinder and thus haven't seen well-built classes in action.

I have.

Though I'll still tell you that a wizard with time to prepare can kill every class one on one a great deal of the time.

I won't tell you the wizard does everything as well as every class. Not even close. No matter how you build a wizard, they will never match other classes focused on what they do. The physical damage dealers in general outclass them by a huge margin on damage. They can do all sorts of crazy stuff.

The two-hander fighter in my group can run up to a group, use lunge, and AoE stun every creature within 10 feet of him for indefinite periods while averaging roughly 60 points plus a hit and making them all make a save versus stun and a save versus massive damage every round.

Pathfinder is a very different game from 3.x. Thinking of it in tiers is not the best way to go about it. You might make a wizard thinking "I'll be really tough". Then watch Mr. Barbarian ripping through stuff like some kind of Tazmanian chainsaw or watching a Magus dimension door like nightcrawler while slashing an enemy apart or watching a two-hander fighter crit something for 200 plus points of damage. Capabilities are very different now, very, very different.

TheAuldGrump said:

But, if you are having fun then have at. Perhaps you enjoy the extra challenge.

If not... find another game, maybe?

Click to expand...

No, he's good. He can do things as a DM that I cannot, and I admire him for being more capable. But he also has a play style that rewards certain types of classes -- those that are more self-sufficient and self-contained. So I'm here to see if anyone can collaborate with me on what those classes might be in a Pathfinder game.

I feel as though I'm settling on the druid. He can have many critters which I will enjoy statting out over the course of months. He gets access to all his spells, without needing the DM to drop scrolls or spell books. He isn't as diverse as a wizard or cleric, but there are a lot of various things he can do. He will complement the party paladin, so that between us we probably won't need a cleric for healing.

My issue right now is that I don't know how to get the 3 feats I need at 1st level. I need scribe scroll, spell focus (conjuration), and augment summoning. Are there ways in Pathfinder to get more than 2 feats at 1st level?

I guess if I had to settle on only 2, I'd hold augment summoning for later. At low levels, there is a paucity of spells, so being able to scribe many backup scrolls would be paramount.

(Summoners & Sorcerers -- they cannot scribe just "any" scroll available to the class, right? They can only scribe scrolls of spells that they've learned. Yeah? Somewhat similarly, though not as limited, a wizard can only scribe scrolls of spells that are in his spell book. If he never added Knock to his spell book, then he can't scribe a scroll of it. Correct?)

If I choose a druid, what are some excellent choices for a deity? In particular, a deity that doesn't provide a prohibitive alignment restriction that would wall off a bunch of spells. Not interested in losing spells, if possible.

Also, I'm still open to hearing what other classes are self-contained & interesting long term. Is there a reason why not to choose the druid long term? (Exception: I already know that the cleric fits all my criteria and is even better than the druid, and thus should be what I select; however, I just played a cleric for 5 years, so I've lost interest and need to look at other classes).

Thanks everyone. I'll try to give some more XP now. Much appreciated.

Druid got significantly nerfed (both directly and indirectly -- all of its compatriot full casting brethren got boosted -- by comparison), but it's still at least as good as sorcerer, it's hardly a weak class.

One thing druids did get is that their items now remain functional while wildshaped, other than armor (and iirc shield by eratta, though originally you retained shield AC by strict RAW), which is a significant boon. You also get wildshape earlier, though IME the medium animal forms are pretty weak in combat, you don't start getting awesome till level 6 when you can be large and get pounce. In other words, about the same time as in 3E. You do get huge (ie, reach) 2 levels earlier, which is nice. Another note, paizo made a feat to speak while in Wildshape, in UM I think, which basically with Natural Spell removes any reason 3E druids ever had to not spend all day wildshaped.

If you plan to go well past the early levels and the Boon Companion feat is allowed, IMO you're a fool to not go Feather or Fur (Animal subdomains; I like Feather better) rather than taking the animal companion. Because...then you still get the companion at level 4 (at 3 levels down, which is why you need that feat)! Free spells and a small bonus class feature seems totally worth a feat to me! You will suck much more at 1st level, though.

Druid spellcasting seems to be about as good as before. Entangle got nerfed so that it's not as good late game anymore. For some reason Poison got super nerfed to be nigh useless now, which is a shame since it's one of the druid's early access spells. Baleful Polymorph is exactly as awesome as it used to be, though. Summoning compared to 3E seems to be weaker at spell levels 1-2 or 1-3, and then suddenly gets a major boost in the relative CR of creatures you can summon compared to your CL at 4th or 5th spell level. The splats have added some nice Druid spells, my favorite is Strong Jaw.

All that said, though, Druid is actually more item dependent now than in 3E since you can actually dress yourself in wondrous items w/o any hassle. If you can't take Craft Wondrous Items feat and use it, your DM's game sounds inhospitable for even a Druid.


Summoner on the other hand... Is possibly the least stat and item dependent class in the game (if not him, then Sorc/Wizard, of course). They do rock a sexy charisma and UMD as a class skill, so no magical gadgets hurts, but not that much. And scribe scroll is still useful, just to supplement your battery of spells. Wand might actually be better if you can't count on buying them. I mean, how many mage armor spells do you need for your eidolon? Answer: However many times it gets dispelled +1. Similarly, you'll ideally want to enlarge person your pal every fight. The great thing about summoner is that you can standard action summon monsters that scale with your level ver well, many times per day, and summons never wear gear, so the less the party has, the more powerful the summons seem to be. Further, while you and the eidolon still would like gear, the eidolon's evolutions can buff itself pretty well, and you have a "shared slots" drawback, so you wouldn't have been using those body slot items as well as anyone else anyway. At higher levels, Craft Rod might actually be a good summoner feat. You get quite a few normally 4th level spells at 3rd and can thus buff them with a much cheaper lesser rod. And you get TONS of normally 7th, 8th, even 9th level spells at level 6 or earlier, likewise.

TheAuldGrump said:

Not in my experience.

Wizards can do all sorts of wonderful things if those spells are prepared - if they have infinite time to do things then a wizard can disarm traps, open doors, etc.. But if there is a time crunch, and there should often be a time crunch, then the rogue opens the door, disarms the trap, and fakes being a cleric so he can use the wand of cure light wounds on the cleric who is now in negative hit points....

I run a lot of urban adventures, and rogues end up being some of the busiest characters around.

The Auld Grump

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see someone else who shares my opinions on the "overpoweredness of wizards/clerics/druids". Sure, if the DM gives you enough hints as to what you're facing and you have time to prep, the wizard is unstoppable. No DM should ever do that, however.