Tier list for PF classes, or summary of each?

[Fishbone]

I haven't seen any of the Advanced Player's Guide stuff in action. Just how good are those? I'd have to put the Summoner on the higher end as opposed to the lower end. 4 skills, 3/4 BAB, 6th level spells with some of them being moved down, like Evard's Black Tentacles at level 3, hell yeah. Summoning guys as a standard action, sometimes Augmented, they sound pretty good just off that. Throw in all the bonkers stuff you can do with an Eidolon...

Inquisitor looks quite good as well. Cavalier looks like a weakened version of the 3.5 Knight, if anything. Has anybody got any experience with the APG classes?

Same with the Magus. Has anybody playtested those guys? Same with the Witch. I'd love to play one. I think they get derided as Wizard lite, but those Hexes look great and the Patron spells look fun as well.

 

[SteelDraco]

The only one of those classes I've seen in play is the witch. She's our arcane caster for our current PF game, and roughly seems as effective as a wizard in most things. She has been able to fly for a while with a class ability, which is very nice for a caster type. She's a blaster and occasional buffer, mostly buffing with hexes - there's one that lets an ally roll twice for any d20 roll that's very handy in a pinch. Keep in mind that we're a moderately casual table that doesn't powergame too much. I'm usually the biggest powergamer, and I'm playing an arcane archer.

I'm looking forward to trying a magus, inquisitor, and alchemist - they all seem like useful and flavorful classes to me. Action economy seems like the great strength of a summoner. Inquisitors can make good mobile tank types, as near as I can tell. Alchemists just seem fun to play.

I don't like the cavalier. I jettisoned it and added a homebrew commander class that functions as a tactical leader-type. The rest of the cavalier stuff is rolled into archetypes and feats.

 

[Mad Hamish]

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.

You've got a bit of versatile in design or versatile in play.
as an example a fighter can be designed to do different things but once you've picked ability scores & feats it can be tough to change options.

A cleric can pick a new set of spells overnight but no class can change their skills and if you've specialized as a wizard you've restricted your options for large changes (if you picked summoning as your main school with enchantment and divination as the opposition schools then you aren't going to do great reworking to use a lot of mind affecting spells and divination)

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.

There's rules for low obstacles and cover and how it applies.
If the logs are big enough they could provide cover as low cover to enemies but if you're larger than them they might not be big enough to give you cover or if you're ranged you could be far enough back that they won't give you cover or concealment.

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?

I'd see your best options as a spellcasting class because they have more chance to cover a lack of items.
For a full caster either Cleric or druid (praying for spells so can change them every day exactly as required) or sorceror or oracle (known spells always learnt)
Summoner is probably also an option

if you're looking at a weapon using combat character you probably need to look at getting spells or other abilities to compensate

inquisator, magus give you a fair amount of options with spells
paladin lets you choose to bind to your weapon so you can give it magic abilities and you also have spells that can partially compensate for lack of equipment

and a bard can be very useful for the party providing buffs which again helps to compensate lack of items.

 

[Celtavian]

I haven't seen any of the Advanced Player's Guide stuff in action. Just how good are those? I'd have to put the Summoner on the higher end as opposed to the lower end. 4 skills, 3/4 BAB, 6th level spells with some of them being moved down, like Evard's Black Tentacles at level 3, hell yeah. Summoning guys as a standard action, sometimes Augmented, they sound pretty good just off that. Throw in all the bonkers stuff you can do with an Eidolon...

Summoner seems tough on paper. Not so tough as you get into the upper levels. He's pretty tough at lower levels. That eidolon is a beast. But once you start running into things like outsiders with access to word spells, powerful AoE and melee damage dealers like dragons or giants, the eidolon gets wasted. The summons are nice, but as inconsistent and situational as ever. But if you don't play past lvl 12 or so much, summoner can be pretty tough.

Inquisitor looks quite good as well.

Inquisitor is a beast of a class. The stacking bonuses for damage are insane. You must not have read my above post, but I'm averaging 60 points of damage a hit at lvl 12 not fully buffed with a greatsword.

I can do lots of little nifty things like invisibilty purge, restore my own ability damage, heal myself, and self-buff against mind control. I have Stalwart which lets me shrug off many of the most dangerous attacks. And judgements are versatile. You can go from boosting your hit and damage to boosting your saves and AC as needed.

A bit of a mad class, so need to focus on dex, con, wis or str, con, wisdom. Basically melee or ranged. You can't gimp intelligence either. You need Knowledge skills to take advantage of Bane.

Cavalier looks like a weakened version of the 3.5 Knight, if anything. Has anybody got any experience with the APG classes?

No experience with cavalier. Done some sick mathematical calculations for damage with a lance while charging. But haven't tried one yet.

Same with the Magus. Has anybody playtested those guys?

Magus seems pretty tough. They seem pretty focused around one spell: shocking grasp. Not sure another spell would work for them. But the Kensai Magus does good damage even without the spell. At 2nd level, the magus did a 50 point crit. It was pretty devastating. The weapon abilities he can add with the arcane pool are pretty nasty. The magus in our group is already able to add keen to his katana giving him a 15-20 crit range at level 5.

Same with the Witch. I'd love to play one. I think they get derided as Wizard lite, but those Hexes look great and the Patron spells look fun as well.

I used a hex that causes a melee attacks to do half damage to the attacker to great effect on a two-weapon fighter. I also used the hex that gives a + half-level bonus on skill checks, saves, and attack rolls and a equal negative to other two to great effect. I had the witch give the character a half-level bonus on skills and a half-level negative on saves and attack rolls. It was pretty devastating.

Their spell list is fairly good.

Just can't get past the familiar having all their spells and if it dies, they basically lose their spell book. That's not a fun thing to worry about as a DM.

Haven't found too many classes that aren't fun and effective in Pathfinder. The rogue is the only class I've seen that is easily made useless. It also has really boring archetypes that don't provide much bang forthe buck and fairly useless powers.

 

[Walking Dad]

Let us just say that not everyone agrees with you.

Some of us disagree quite a bit, actually.

The Auld Grump

For the record, I do agree with StreamOfTheSky and completely disagree with Celtavian.

So, yes, there are two sides with a disagreement.

---

BTW, Pathfinder is (nearly) as badly balanced as 3.5 (Monk equal to a wizard? Sunder as good an option as trip? Non-casters have as many options as non-casters?), NPC and monster creation is a mess (size of the statblocks and build like PCs) and forward steps are taken back.

(Sample for the last: they removed LA from the races. At least the last playtest reintroduces them.)

I really hope Wizards doesn't try to make D&D similar than it (I have my fears after reading there Witch subclass).

---

That said, I still like and play (low-level) Pathfinder and was one of the founders of the Living Pathfinder game here, so please don't act like I just hate the game.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

For the record, I do agree with StreamOfTheSky and completely disagree with Celtavian.

So, yes, there are two sides with a disagreement.

---

In which case, I disagree with you, too.

As I said above, my experience does not match your own, in part, I think, because I am typically the GM, and take steps to prevent such imbalance from becoming an issue - and have for long enough that I don't even think about it. I do not actively write things in to prevent a power mad wizard from destroying my setting, but it gets done anyway - I like timelines, and the idea that the bad guys don't wait around for the wizard to regain spells. It also makes for a more believable setting. I have run games this way since 1981 or thereabouts, so it long predates second edition, let alone third.

So, I am not saying that your experience is invalid, merely that it does not match mine, at all.

BTW, Pathfinder is (nearly) as badly balanced as 3.5 (Monk equal to a wizard? Sunder as good an option as trip? Non-casters have as many options as non-casters?), NPC and monster creation is a mess (size of the statblocks and build like PCs) and forward steps are taken back.

This I can't address - I don't have monks in my campaign setting - based on Reformation/Counter-Reformation, D&D style monks are thin on the ground....

(Sample for the last: they removed LA from the races. At least the last playtest reintroduces them.)

I am waiting on watching in regards to the Races book - I did manage to recreate the variant Ogres from my settings without an LA, but then they aren't all that much like standard Ogres.

Not sure on the pricing on a special racial feature - Ogres in my setting are slow, not stupid. A negative modifier to Int, but a bonus when taking 20 on Int based tests. Astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers, chess players... but they do very badly on Jeopardy.

I really hope Wizards doesn't try to make D&D similar than it (I have my fears after reading there Witch subclass).

---

And if Wizards produce a balance-at-the-cost-of-anything-like-enjoyment D&D again then I will pass on the thing. Sorry, as I have said before, I have literally enjoyed watching paint dry more than playing 4e. (As I have also said before, I like painting miniatures, so it is not quite as bad as that sounds - watching drying paint shows if the shading is going on right.)

That said, I still like and play (low-level) Pathfinder and was one of the founders of the Living Pathfinder game here, so please don't act like I just hate the game.

I like low level play as well, but I do not have a problem with higher level play in the 3.X architecture, either.

Mind you, it is a lot easier to write a mystery for low level characters, higher level produces more of a challenge in that regard. Not impossible, but a challenge.

The Auld Grump

 

[prosfilaes]

(Sample for the last: they removed LA from the races. At least the last playtest reintroduces them.)

I think pointing to a playtest as an example of what PF is doing is a bit unfair.

Taking all powerful races out of the game isn't much of a step forward, and it's a solution terribly easy to implement by houserule (no LA races). Is it really that bad for LAs of 1 or 2 and no HD? It seems like the primary solution for D&D 3, since level is the primary quantum of power boost. Suggestions on better solutions?

 

[Celtavian]

For the record, I do agree with StreamOfTheSky and completely disagree with Celtavian.

So, yes, there are two sides with a disagreement.

---

BTW, Pathfinder is (nearly) as badly balanced as 3.5 (Monk equal to a wizard? Sunder as good an option as trip? Non-casters have as many options as non-casters?), NPC and monster creation is a mess (size of the statblocks and build like PCs) and forward steps are taken back.

(Sample for the last: they removed LA from the races. At least the last playtest reintroduces them.)

I really hope Wizards doesn't try to make D&D similar than it (I have my fears after reading there Witch subclass).

---

That said, I still like and play (low-level) Pathfinder and was one of the founders of the Living Pathfinder game here, so please don't act like I just hate the game.

Neither of you have a good foundation for your argument. I've played Pathfinder at all levels, it's a well-designed game.

You sound like folks with almost no experience with high level play. I can only gather that this is by choice as high level play reaches a level of power you don't enjoy or choose to parcitipate in because it does reach absurd levels and needs a great amount of prepartation.

But it is playable. And is fun for many people.

And the whole melee/caster disparity does not exist unless two things occur that almost never happen:

1. You are fighting each other.

2. The caster has time to prepare for that melee in particular.

Melees are nasty now. Very friggin nasty. The fact that both you and Stream of the Sky discount the power of an archer indicates to me you haven't had much experience with them at high level. They win initiative, any caster they fight might as well say goodbye unless he has a prepared a contingency to deal with it.

Same with many physical damage dealers. They are beasts to deal with. I have a much harder time coming up with enemies to deal with them than I do with casters. Casters often deal with enemies that are outright immune or completely negate what they're doing. Wheras nothing negates physical damage and physical damage dealers deal even more physical damage than they used to.

I see now why you both post mostly on this board. Your arguments against Pathfinder are so easily dissected and shown to be false by experienced Pathfinder gamers that most only participate in the discussion for their own amusement.

Neither you nor Stream of the Sky are making cogent arguments based on the game system, your arguments are solely based on your personal preferences which you want to impose on the rest of us. Which is why you both probably write house rules.

I'm ok with that. I write house rules as well. And in our campaigns the rogue is like the monk must be in both your campaigns. No one plays them. They have shown to be weak in actual play over and over again. Whereas the monk is a gigantic pain to deal with because the one guy that likes monks makes bad to the bone monks. I can only gather than you two play with players that don't spend the time to make a monk worth a darn or are following the 15 to 20 point buy system to the letter.

Until you grasp that the advantage of Pathfinder is system flexibility as in the game fits many different styles even though it is written one way, I can't consider your arguments as valid in any way. Style arguments shouldn't exist for a game system. You want a particular style, then modify the system to obtain it as you are both doing. Don't waste your time acting as though your viewpoint is somehow "how it should be". It isn't how it is should be. It's merely your preference and yours differs from mine.

In my experience, which is just as valid and real as either yours or Stream of the Sky's, monks rip it up. Monks have not had any trouble whatsoever being powerful contributors in a party in Pathfinder, and are even more dangerous with the addition of the Ultimate Combat. Your experience differs. So be it.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Wow, my name is worth bolding now. I'm so honored!

 

[Celtavian]

In this, you are badly mistaken.

SotS may be highly opinionated, and he may be ranting a bit here, and I might even disagree with him completely on this ... but he knows PF backwards and forwards. For confirmation, you might want to check out pretty much any of the threads he started.

When you attempt to support a position that is entirely founded in personal preference and make it seem as though this something that can be proven empirically, you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't care how well someone knows the rules. That person should still know the difference between personal preference and empirically proveable fact.

The way Stream of the Sky and quite a few others speak, you can tell they very much confuse the two. Just like they confuse ideas of balance with comparable power rather than party role. I can prove that Pathfinder is a very balanced system according to party role. I can also prove it is balanced according to character capability. I can also name what classes have advanatages in certain areas like versatility and what classes have advantages in areas like damage dealing, damage taking, and saving throws.

Which players like Stream of the Sky seem to want to boil down into "If this class went against this class, this class would win. Thus the game isn't balanced". That isn't how D&D has ever been balanced or ever should be balanced in my opinon.

It should be balanced as Pathfinder is currenlty balanced, which is balance built around party roles. If you look at it from that perspective rather than like this is some kind of battle royale, you can empirically prove the game is balanced.

I always hear the example of time stop and gate being tossed around like that combination is easy and inexpensive execute. Yet I rarely hear anyone say "Wait a minute. By the time you can summon a balor, a lvl 20 physical damage dealer can vastly outdamage and can probably kill one or more balor level enemies a round in melee combat". Because physical damage dealers do indeed do that much damage.

So it's irritating to see someone post on a game, claiming knowledge of the game, when things have changed dramatically from the previous edition and I have experenced these changes first hand at 1st through 20th level for multiple classes.

So when a person claims Pathfinder is imbalanced while I'm having a tougher time dealing with the Come and Get Me Invulnerable Rager Barbarian and the Two-hander Fighter than I am the wizard or cleric, I have to call "horse puckey" on that person.

That person pointing about "But you can do this and this and this to deal with them", all of those options involving statting out a caster with the perfect spell set up to deal with them as though they were alone, sounds like a ridiculous fool to me. When I do set up that spell option to deal with them, they seem to forget Mr. Wizard or Mr. Cleric in the group is cleaning off whatever spell I just tried because he knows Mr. Barbarian or Mr. Fighter does way more damage than he could ever do and pretty much guarantees that whatever Mr. Fighter and Mr. Barbarian get their hands on is going to die.

Whereas all I have to do to deal with Mr. Gloryhound Wizard or Cleric is make a creature with high spell resistance or high saves that shrugs off their save or die spell, toss on a spell turning so they're saving against their own spell, or make the creature outright immune.

While I can't even allow a big powerful physically damage dealing creature like a dragon or shoggoth near Mr. Barbarian or Mr.Two-weapon Fighter or Mrs. Archer because each one of them does 1.5 times to 2 times the damage the dragon or shoggoth can and they have magic items to counter some of their best attacks like grapple.

The Come and Get Me barbarian once he enters melee range hits for 60 points a hit with +40 bonus to hit or so using power attack, gets his 4 attacks, and then gets to attack every time the dragon or creature swings at him, took the Step Up line of feats so the dragon couldn't use reach against him, and is dead by round two if tries to go toe to toe with the barbarian who has over 450 hit points while raging and a DR of 12/- against every physical attack and saves where he only misses on a 1. He bought a ring of evasion so he evades easier than the rogue.

The two-hander fighter can do a standard action attack that averages 270 points of damage against any creature not immune to crit.

The archer can fire 7 times a round without haste for an average of 35 points an arrow. If she crits, it gets much, much worse.

There's no save against these forms of attack. And I can't make every encounter a powerful magic using creature with the perfect defenses. Even when I do toss one in, all the party wizard or cleric has to do is counter the guy and any one of the physical damage dealers can end him in a round or two.

So when I hear about this caster-phyiscal damage dealer disparity, I think "What game are you playing and who are you playing with?" Physical damage dealers are nightmares to deal with. They have their weaknesses like any class. But within the group dynamic that D&D is built around, they aren't lacking. They have more options in Pathfinder than they ever had in 3.5.

And liking Prcs versus Archetypes is purely a matter of preference with nothing to do with balance.

I would say given the success of Pathfinder, it is much improved over 3.5 in terms of intersting options for physical damage dealers. The caster-martial disparity in power versus each other was never as big an issue as people made it out to be. The issue was making physical damage dealers more fun to play with more options. Pathfinder successfully accomplished that without neutering casters, which only a small minority cared about because this game is not now, and never has been, a battle royale.

I'll leave the discussion as it is never ending. Stream of the Sky has his opinion...and it is nothing more than an opinion...I made sure to let new players wanting to try out Pathfinder know the tier system is not the same any longer.

Casters cannot do everytying. CoDzilla does not exist anymore. Wizards cannot summoner creatures or buff themselves to equal physical damage dealers any longer. Physical damage dealers have quite a few options for their builds. And physical damage dealers are quite fun to play.

Including the monk, which just got a whole lot better with the expanded number of weapons they can use and the new martial arts. I've never seen it so good for physical damage dealers as they have it now.