Tiered Classes Pathfinder

[Lastgrasp]

Going by the old system of tiered classes for 3.5. How does the Pathfinder classes from the core rulebook and APG stack up? What tier would you put them in?

[Veyr]

I haven't read APG, so I can't comment on those.

None of the Core classes have changed enough to affect their Tiers, with the possible exception of the Paladin.

[Doc Roc]

Some might argue that with the new options and better PRC Choices, sorcerer may have snuck across the tiny gap into tier one status.

[GoatBoy]

Oracle - 2
Cavalier - 4
Inquisitor - 3
Summoner - 3 (high, perhaps bordering on 2)
Witch - 1 (Though this might be mitigated that its spell list will be limited by whatever Paizo decides to designate as a "Witch" spell. Otherwise, full casting and no limit on spells known, so Tier 1 by definition)
Alchemist - Hard to say. No limit on spells known but only partial casting. Tier 1 by definition, probably closer to 3 in practice.

[RaginChangeling]

Oracle - 2
Cavalier - 4
Inquisitor - 3
Summoner - 3 (high, perhaps bordering on 2)
Witch - 1 (Though this might be mitigated that its spell list will be limited by whatever Paizo decides to designate as a "Witch" spell. Otherwise, full casting and no limit on spells known, so Tier 1 by definition)
Alchemist - Hard to say. No limit on spells known but only partial casting. Tier 1 by definition, probably closer to 3 in practice.

Witch has a spell list right now
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-list---witch
And with the right patron is definitely Tier 1.

And Cavalier is closer to 5 than 4. Likewise, the Alchemist borders 3 and 4 and the Oracle is like the Definition of Tier 2.

[Rhawin]

Witch has a spell list right now

I think GoatBoy was referring to the problem that subsequent supplements tend to overlook non-core casters, ie will Ultimate Magic add Witch spells or will they only be listed as "Sorcerer/Wizard" spells?

[GoatBoy]

I think GoatBoy was referring to the problem that subsequent supplements tend to overlook non-core casters, ie will Ultimate Magic add Witch spells or will they only be listed as "Sorcerer/Wizard" spells?

That is what I meant, thank you.

And with its skill list and abilities to grant bonuses to allies, I'd consider the Cavalier to be Tier 4. It's certainly better than the 3.5 Fighter/Knight/Paladin.

The Alchemist is in a similar position as the Witch, in that it its usefulness is directly related to the way its extract list expands as new supplements are released.

[Infernalbargain]

Some might argue that with the new options and better PRC Choices, sorcerer may have snuck across the tiny gap into tier one status.

Only the human sorcerer with the APG favored class really could do it because it has roughly double the spells known from 3.5.

Here's my impression:
Witch: Low tier 1 while it is a full list full caster, it doesn't have some of the showiness of the s/w list.
Summoner: Tier 3 it's certainly a beast in combat however it is lacking in things to do during social encounters. Now if you are willing to add in the occasional transmogrify, then it could possibly be tier 2 since an intelligent transmogrify can be an effective "easy button".
Oracle: Tier 2, full caster, spontaneous. Seems obvious
Inquisitor: not familiar enough, but others have said tier 4.
Cavalier: Tier 4/5, he has his shtick but can't do much otherwise.
Alchemist: not familiar, but he seems tier 3ish
Wizard: Tier 1
Sorcerer: As noted above, human sorcerer might barely squeeze into tier 1, otherwise tier 2.
Rogue: Tier 4, yes they've gained the most from the consolidation of skills, but still just do an amalgam of things decently. They're useless in fewer situations now, but they really didn't get any better at anything.
Ranger: don't have a good feel for it
Paladin: not sure, I've heard the improvements are very significant though, haven't seen it in action.
Monk: Tier 5, an unarmed fighter is still better than a monk at DPR despite improvements.
Fighter: Tier 4, they have the tools necessary to fight well... and nothing else.
Druid: Tier 1, nothing really changed despite nerfs.
Cleric: Tier 1, sure they worked hard to make sure they aren't better at fighting than the fighter but still good enough.
Bard: Tier 3, they can now pick between more things to be good at, but they can't be good at more things.
Barbarian: Haven't seen enough.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That is what I meant, thank you.

And with its skill list and abilities to grant bonuses to allies, I'd consider the Cavalier to be Tier 4. It's certainly better than the 3.5 Fighter/Knight/Paladin.

Yeah, it's hard to argue that a class with 4+int skill ranks per level is tier 5.

[true_shinken]

I haven't read APG, so I can't comment on those.

None of the Core classes have changed enough to affect their Tiers, with the possible exception of the Paladin.

I think Pathfinder Druid is not tier 1 anymore.


Yeah, it's hard to argue that a class with 4+int skill ranks per level is tier 5.
Swashbuckler has 4+Int skill ranks/level and it's tier 5 as welll.

[Akal Saris]

Of the core classes, I'd say Rogue and paladin both shifted up one, and druid is much more evenly balanced.

Rogue: Sneak attack works on many more targets now, while the skills consolidation gives 3-4 more effective skills, and the talents are a small buff. Rogue was already one of the borderline cases, so this was enough to justify it being in the "right" zone.

Paladin: Can perform the tanking and party face roles very well, and can be decent damage vs. any evil and has decent in-combat healing/effects mitigation as well. Very good at 2 roles and decent at 2 more? Sounds like T3 to me.

Druid: Sure it's a full caster, but without the ability to dumpster dive every splatbook for perfect wildshape and animal companions, I think the druid lost most of its potential for ridiculous power, and simply became a "strong" choice. Druid spell-casting also isn't on par with the other spell lists - even its strongest 9th level spell, shapechange, is heavily watered down in PF. I'd say druid is a high T3 by now, despite being a full prepared caster. The tier list is a bit wonky here though, since T2 is pretty much reserved for sorcerer-type casting as a limit on flexibility rather than power.

[Veyr]

I think Pathfinder Druid is not tier 1 anymore.
I disagree. They're definitely weaker, but they're still Tier 1. The Druid spell list is plenty good enough for that, and the new Wild Shape is far from useless.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think Pathfinder Druid is not tier 1 anymore.

Riiight, it still has full casting and melee abilities, just because wild shape got nerfed doesn't mean it's enough to change the tier.

[true_shinken]

I disagree. They're definitely weaker, but they're still Tier 1. The Druid spell list is plenty good enough for that, and the new Wild Shape is far from useless.
The new wild shape is a lot weaker, though. The Pathfinder animal companion is a lot weaker than 3.5's animal companion as well.
Druid spell list is still good, but I think he's on par with the Witch, around tier 2.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The new wild shape is a lot weaker, though. The Pathfinder animal companion is a lot weaker than 3.5's animal companion as well.
Druid spell list is still good, but I think he's on par with the Witch, around tier 2.

Witches don't get armor, and the druid has a better weapon selection.

[true_shinken]

Witches don't get armor, and the druid has a better weapon selection.

Witches get mage armor, way better than Druid armor, since it has no check penalty. Witches don't care about weapons, because once you fail a save against a witch (and you will fail, specially with Evil Eye around) you are done.

Druid still needs to play melee while heavily nerfed, Witch is a save-or-lose (and debuff) machine.

[Mahrke]

Personally, I think people are overvaluing Pathfinder casters a little bit.

I'm an avid caster player. In 3.5, even the weakest casters (except warmage and healer) blew everything outside of ToB out of the water at the same levels of optimization.

However, I feel like a lot of people are overlooking how spells got changed in Pathfinder. Its not just that melee classes got buffed, or that class features like Wild Shape got made weaker. Its that spells got nerfed, almost across the board. Think of your go-to Wizard build, and its spell list. Think about what it prepared.

Nine out of ten times, your go-to spells have been nerfed. From Ray of Enfeeblement and Glitterdust, all the way to Suggestion and Dispel Magic. They've been hit in ways that are sometimes subtle, but they're there.

Wizard is still tier 1, absolutely. But I think that its distance beyond everything else has been shortened. Druid, who already had a spell list that was arguably weaker than Wizard or Cleric, got its second and third most potent class features ran into the ground. I'd definitely put it at tier two now. Its still very solid, and a full caster, but its 100% behind something like Wizard.

I also think Rogue is being underestimated. The new talents, and skill consolidation, coupled with the fact that everything but an ooze is sneakable now, means that it can be a force.

For example, the new rogue talent that allows you to use a Dispel Magic on every sneak attack, or grants you extra AC equal to your amount of SA dice on a successful sneak attack.

I echo the sentiment that Rogue and Paladin got pushed up a full tier. Ranger is still where its always been, and I'd say Fighter is close to being pushed up a tier, but it probably wasn't quite enough to get it there. Monk is still as bad as ever, until you get Medusa's Wrath, which is post-level-10. An extra two attacks a round at full BaB is pretty potent, and the conditionals aren't hard to activate. Its especially easy to get opponents staggered or flat-footed against you.

Honestly, I feel like Paladin got the most love though. Smite is now a combat-ender against one big thing. Their suite of healing and ability curing is exceptional, and their ability to be a party face is rivaled only by the bard, and maybe a sorcerer focused on it.

[Veyr]

All the Tier 1 casters still have plenty of spells to end combats. Certain notorious spells got nerfed, but plenty went untouched. At best, Paizo just changed which spells you use.

And weakened spells more-or-less cannot shift a Druid from Tier 1 to Tier 2. If there are spells on the Druid's spell list that are powerful enough for Tier 2, then the fact that the Druid can change his spells every day makes him Tier 1. If he no longer has spells that are good enough (which I strongly doubt), then he's not Tier 2, he's Tier 3 (most likely).

[true_shinken]

If he no longer has spells that are good enough (which I strongly doubt), then he's not Tier 2, he's Tier 3 (most likely).
...wait, so you were arguing this whole time without even looking at Pathfinder Druid's spell list?!

Also, 'winning combats with a spell' is not enough to be tier 1 just because you can do it in many ways. Where did you get this idea? There is a lot more to tier 1 than just combat.

[Veyr]

I mean I haven't done a spell-by-spell analysis. From what I have seen, none of the Core classes saw that much change in their spells. Most spells were untouched. Paizo cherry-picked a few particularly notorious spells, and called it a day. Remember, they got massive amounts of feedback on spells that also needed fixing, that they flat-out ignored (and banned those giving it). I am therefore skeptical that they changed enough spells (since they left most spells untouched) to change anyone's Tier.

Further, this is the analysis I've seen by several people who have done more in-depth looks than I have.

Finally, I really appreciate how you went through my post searching for the one thing that you could argue against, and then ignored the rest of it. Nice Argument from Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy).

Re: your edit — fine, replace "combat" with "encounter" and include social encounters and traps and issues like "we have to get halfway around the world in fifteen minutes!" Again, you are not responding to anything meaningful in my post, you're just cherry-picking points to try to make my argument look bad, so you do not have to actually counter any of the real points I'm making. This is a logical fallacy, and I'm calling you on it.

[Greenish]

Yeah, it's hard to argue that a class with 4+int skill ranks per level is tier 5.

Swashbuckler has 4+Int skill ranks/level and it's tier 5 as well.OA samurai also has 4+int, from a decent list. So does aristocrat (which actually has a great list of skills, to boot).

[Mahrke]

Certain notorious spells got nerfed, but plenty went untouched. At best, Paizo just changed which spells you use.

I'm not even going to address the second part of your arguement, because, frankly, this is ridiculous. Paizo nerfed the strong spells, meaning you have to use either nerfed spells, or the weaker ones. But you know what, I'm not going to just say that the spells are worse, I'm going to show you.

Wizard, level 1 spells in the psrd.

Protection from Evil (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/protection-from-evil): No longer surpresses effects on the target, if cast after their effect has begun. Now allows a second saving throw, with a +2 bonus. Nerfed.

Grease (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/grease): Now only has a reflex save to fall down when cast, not at the beginning of each of your turns. In addition, you are not flat-footed for making balance checks while in grease (that's only for narrow surfaces now, not any check). Nerfed, very hard.

Obscuring Mist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/o/obscuring-mist): Unchanged. This is one of those spells you'll be using more. Its nowhere near as potent as Grease, or other control of this level, however.

Charm Person (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/charm-person): Unchanged. This has never been the greatest spell, but, again, one of those spells that will see more use because its brethren have been nerfed.

Sleep (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/sleep): Unchanged. Still hideously broken for levels 1 and 2.

Silent Image (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/silent-image): Unchanged. Tends to be DM dependant, but still solid, especially for uses like the fake Wall of Stone.

Color Spray (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/color-spray): See Sleep.

Ray of Enfeeblement (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/ray-of-enfeeblement): What used to be a go-to spell for dealing with frail casters, and crippling BSFs has gotten rocked. It can't reduce their strength below 1 now, and allows a Fort save to halve the penalty. Ouch. Nerfed.

Enlarge Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enlargePerson.htm) Unchanged...sort've. The spell is the same, but size rules have changed, meaning that you only get a +1 on things like grapple for being large, rather than a +4. This got a stealth nerf because of that, but otherwise still a good buff for your BSF.


Grease, Sleep, Silent Image, and Ray of Enfeeblement were the core all-stars of this level, and of them, two got hit hard enough to send them back to the stone age. I don't even think Ray of Enfeeblement is -good- anymore, and Grease is questionable. Sleep is an all-star, but quickly becomes pointless. Silent Image is the only one that has retained is status as a top tier spell.

Please don't act like these nerfs don't impact casters. They do. You rarely have combat enders in your arsenal, as those have been hit hardest.

PS: Every time someone tries to argue that pathfinder casters haven't been hit hard enough, I find out they haven't actually read through the spell list in pathfinder, and don't know that most of the amazing spells have been run into the ground. READ THE GORRAM SPELLS PLEASE.

[Veyr]

Ray of Enfeeblement never could reduce Str below 1. The save hurts it, but it's far from useless.

Claiming that Sleep and Color Spray is not a problem because they're weak by level 3-4 ignores the fact that by 3-4 the Wizard has 2nd level spells.

Enlarge Person doesn't really care about the changes to the combat maneuvers — those generally favor humanoids anyway, and are sort of a side issue. The point of Enlarge Person has always been the reach. If they haven't ditched that, it's still an excellent spell for exactly the same reason it always was.

Also, why are you even mentioning the Wizard's spells? You already stated that the Wizard is still Tier 1. I never denied that the nerfs did something. I denied that they result in any balance changes significant enough to change the Wizard's Tier.

[Mahrke]

I say this because, in my opinion at least, Tier 1 was -way- ahead of the other tiers, before Pathfinder. Pathfinder brought them down enough that I don't feel like I'm ruining a game by playing a wizard.

Also, I take issue with that fact that you think that the HYPERNERFING of Wild Shape, and the really hard-hitting nerf to the animal companion doesn't warrant the druid moving around on the tier scale. Its spells are not good enough on their own to compare to a wizard or cleric list. At the very least, the druid is now the bottom of tier 1, but I think nearer to tier 2.

Think about it, reasonably. When was the last time you saw a druid build that optimized casting, rather than optimizing wild shape while keeping full casting so they could hang onto their nifty buffs and utility?

Druidic offensive spellcasting is just not as good as a wizard's, and their buff spells don't match a cleric's. Not when they don't get to walk into melee as a real bear.

[Veyr]

Again, you ignored my post.

If a Druid's spell list is so bad, then he's not Tier 2. A Tier 2 needs access to those great spells in order to be Tier 2. The access to mechanical "win-buttons" is what defines Tier 2.

The difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is that a Tier 1 can have access to all the win buttons, given enough time (typically 1 day to change his spells), while Tier 2s have to pick certain win buttons and keep them.

As such, since the Druid can change his spells every day, he can't be Tier 2. If he has no win buttons, then he's not Tier 2, he's Tier 3 or lower. If he does have win buttons, then he's Tier 1, since he can always change his spells to get the win buttons he needs, given enough time. A Tier 2 might be able to sneak into Tier 1 by having enough spells known, but any prepared-caster cannot be Tier 2 any way that I can see.

Yes, the changes to the Druid affect his power greatly. Yes, he's probably the bottom of Tier 1 now. But I'm convinced he's still Tier 1, and not Tier 3. His spells may not have been his star feature, but you seriously underestimate how powerful they were. A Druid can do a lot on just his spells.

[Akal Saris]

As a sidenote, all of the people who were banned for "giving feedback" were doing so while being disruptive and insulting to other posters.

Anyhow, I'll reiterate that druids aren't the powerhorses they once were. AC is much less flexible and doesn't scale as well, WS is much weaker and no longer allows you to ignore your physical stats.

With that said, most key druid spells were left unchanged.

Key druid spells in PF:
Entangle: you break free as a move action, not a full round action.
Dispel Magic: Now only allows targeted dispels or counter-spelling.
Call Lightning: Unchanged
Animal Growth: Unchanged, though size bonuses to CMB checks are only +1.
Baleful Polymorph: Unchanged
Call Lightning Storm: Unchanged
Control Winds: Unchanged
Dispel Magic: Mostly unchanged
Fire Seeds: Unchanged
Heal: Unchanged
Wind Walk: unchanged
True Seeing: Unchanged
Earthquake: Unchanged
Finger of Death: Now it's 10 dmg/CL, or save for 3d6. Ick.
Reverse Gravity: Unchanged
Foresight: Unchanged
Shapechange: Heavily nerfed
Summon Nature's Ally I-IX: All different critters, and its difficult to say how well that's worked out for the druid. Probably a net even.

Frankly, I think druids are pretty well balanced at this point with T3's like dread necro and beguiler. But it's all subjective, of course

[Mahrke]

If that's where you're coming from, then I'll be so bold as to say that pathfinder succeeded in getting rid of tier one completely.

The 'I-Win' buttons are, by and large, gone. I'm currently playing a wizard, and literally every spell that used to result in a combat ended well enough that I felt safe pulling out the crossbow has been hit.

If your definition of Tier 1 is having access to spells that win an encounter with their casting, then I say tier 1 is no more.

Addendum: Baleful Polymorph got changed. It now uses the Pathfinder polymorph rules, which mean that turning that ogre into a mouse gives it +6 DEX, -4 STR, +1 Natural Armor, and diminuitive size. Not nearly as potent as what it is in 3.5

[Veyr]

As a sidenote, all of the people who were banned for "giving feedback" were doing so while being disruptive and insulting to other posters.
That's true, but it doesn't make their feedback inaccurate. Moreover, the move by Paizo was grossly unprofessional, and they basically held a grudge about it and refused to fix those problems. None of these is good for the game.


If that's where you're coming from, then I'll be so bold as to say that pathfinder succeeded in getting rid of tier one completely.

The 'I-Win' buttons are, by and large, gone. I'm currently playing a wizard, and literally every spell that used to result in a combat ended well enough that I felt safe pulling out the crossbow has been hit.
Well, then, you're wrong. There most definitely still are win-buttons, unless they've Errata'd the hell out of the Core thing after release.

[Mahrke]

Please provide a few examples to back up your argument. Thank you in advance.

[true_shinken]

I mean I haven't done a spell-by-spell analysis. From what I have seen, none of the Core classes saw that much change in their spells. Most spells were untouched. Paizo cherry-picked a few particularly notorious spells, and called it a day. Remember, they got massive amounts of feedback on spells that also needed fixing, that they flat-out ignored (and banned those giving it). I am therefore skeptical that they changed enough spells (since they left most spells untouched) to change anyone's Tier.
Basically, you're using the old 'they banned a few people who tried to make their point by being rude' instead of actually reading.


Further, this is the analysis I've seen by several people who have done more in-depth looks than I have.
Well, their analysis seems to disregard the fact that you simply can't get an animal companion as strong as before, for starters.
Or the heavily, heavily nerfed list of summonable nature's allies. No more unicorns, no more arrowhawks, no more tojanida, no more xorn, no more invisible stalker.
Druids were nerfed hard. They can still break the game if heavily focused on action economy and that's about it.


Finally, I really appreciate how you went through my post searching for the one thing that you could argue against, and then ignored the rest of it. Nice Argument from Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy).
You are welcome.


Re: your edit — fine, replace "combat" with "encounter" and include social encounters and traps and issues like "we have to get halfway around the world in fifteen minutes!" Again, you are not responding to anything meaningful in my post, you're just cherry-picking points to try to make my argument look bad, so you do not have to actually counter any of the real points I'm making. This is a logical fallacy, and I'm calling you on it.
Well, I'm sorry if you don't see a difference between 'any situation' and 'combat', because I think it's a very relevant point.
It's also funny that you mention social encounters. Mind telling me how the pathfinder druid handles those?



The access to mechanical "win-buttons" is what defines Tier 2.

Exactly. And this does not mean spells alone, it doesn't even have anything to do with being a caster (Binder with online vestiges reacher T2, for example).
The druids action economy advantage due to summoning ability and animal companion is as much a 'I win button' as the Binder's.

[Mahrke]

Mind telling me how the pathfinder druid handles those?

Baleful Polymorph them into a squirrel. Wild Empathy.

Eh? Eh?

[Greenish]

It's also funny that you mention social encounters. Mind telling me how the pathfinder druid handles those?Isn't diplomacy still a class skill for them? And with high wisdom and PF skill changes, Sense Motive should work too.

[true_shinken]

Isn't diplomacy still a class skill for them? And with high wisdom and PF skill changes, Sense Motive should work too.

Exactly where I wanted to get. One single way of solving the issue. Tier 2.

[Lateral]

Is it just me, or is the temperature in this thread rising? Dudes, calm down. :smallannoyed:

I'd just like to mention that, from what I've seen, the PF Psion is stable at tier 2 like it was before, as is the Psychic Warrior at tier 3. The Soulknife, what with its complete overhaul, is probably a tier 4, but it still can't do much beyond combat and so won't reach tier 3. Wilder is harder to pin down; it certainly is too strong to be tier 4 at this point, but there's no way it's versatile enough for tier 3. I might say that it's a tier 2, but on the very low end due to the low powers known. The Student's Surge surge type helps make it a bit more versatile (and higher up), but still can't compete with a Psion.

[true_shinken]

The Soulknife, what with its complete overhaul, is probably a tier 4, but it still can't do much beyond combat and so won't reach tier 3.
They also make good scouts but that's all I got. You're probably right, they should be around tier 4. Probably high tier 4, but tier 4 nonetheless.

[MeeposFire]

Exactly where I wanted to get. One single way of solving the issue. Tier 2.

Just out of curiosity what was the druid using before in these situations in 3.5? It has been a while but I don't recall druids being a major force in social situations.

[Greenish]

Just out of curiosity what was the druid using before in these situations in 3.5? It has been a while but I don't recall druids being a major force in social situations.Is there a situation where turning into a bear doesn't help?

…If there is, have you tried riding a bear or shooting bears? :smalltongue:

[Lateral]

Sup dawg, bears bears bears bears bears. :smalltongue:

[Tvtyrant]

With proper ranks in throwing classes you can be a bear that rides a bear while throwing bears to do bearly any damage.

[Greenish]

Oh damn, I started the pun-avalanche. :smalleek:

This is… intolerable!

[MeeposFire]

Oh damn, I started the pun-avalanche. :smalleek:

This is… intolerable!

Are you sure you don't mean...unbearable?:smallamused::smallsigh:

[Lateral]

Yeah, this happens a lot to threads involving Druids. Someone mentions bears (since they're iconic for Druids), someone mentions wildshaped bears summoning bears, and then the thread devolves into pundemonium.

Although I guess my 'sup dawg' doesn't exactly help. :smallsigh:

[true_shinken]

Just out of curiosity what was the druid using before in these situations in 3.5? It has been a while but I don't recall druids being a major force in social situations.

Summoning a unicorn with Charisma 24 is a good short term solution (specially since a 3.5 druid gets it so soon). I'm sure there are better summon options.

[Ernir]

There most definitely still are win-buttons, unless they've Errata'd the hell out of the Core thing after release.
Please provide a few examples to back up your argument. Thank you in advance.

Interesting. I made a list of the core Sorcerer/Wizard spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10567646&postcount=11) I think are the most broken a few weeks back. I'm going to go over it now.
Rope Trick - a "The rope cannot be removed or hidden." clause was added. This might be sufficient.
Explosive Runes: Unchanged.
Shrink Item: Unchanged. Unless the falling objects rules and such were rewritten, this is as dangerous as ever.
Minor Creation: Unchanged. They did, however, change how poisons work (notably, the old go-to Black Lotus Extract can't be directly ported), which was always the main offender when it came to combat, as far as I know. Maybe that's enough.
Polymorph: Changed to hell and back, it seems.
Lesser Planar Binding: They didn't change a word, as far as I can tell. COME ON. :smallfrown:
Magic Jar: Unchanged, as far as I can tell.
Planar Binding: They changed the wording here some, but I don't see a nerf.
Contingency: Unchanged.
Wall of Iron: The line "Iron created by this spell is not suitable for use in the creation of other objects and cannot be sold." was added. A bit of a hack, I feel, but OK. Fixed.
Simulacrum: They removed the XP cost and increased the material cost, which is rather unimportant to the spell's real problems.
Greater Planar Binding: See Planar Binding.
Polymorph any Object: I honestly don't know. This inherits from other PF polymorph spells, and I'm just not well versed enough in it to tell if the crazy stuff is still there.
Gate: They didn't even close the Gate-in-creature-who-can-cast-Gate loop, as far as I can tell. The XP cost has been replaced with a fat GP cost, but that's irrelevant.
Astral Projection: There are now penalties for being killed, at least. But it still creates new sets of equipment, as well as providing the basic function that is being a remote control on the universe.
Shapechange: Fundamentally changed, whoo!

I dunno. They fixed about half of it? Probably enough to make a difference, but with crap like Planar Binding and Simulacrum still hanging around, I'm not terribly impressed if the goal was to make the class not able to bend a setting over its bony old knee.

[Akal Saris]

Isn't diplomacy still a class skill for them? And with high wisdom and PF skill changes, Sense Motive should work too.

Actually, PF druids don't get Diplomacy. It was removed from their skills list.

[Doc Roc]

Interesting. I made a list of the core Sorcerer/Wizard spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10567646&postcount=11) I think are the most broken a few weeks back. I'm going to go over it now.
Rope Trick - a "The rope cannot be removed or hidden." clause was added. This might be sufficient.
Explosive Runes: Unchanged.
Shrink Item: Unchanged. Unless the falling objects rules and such were rewritten, this is as dangerous as ever.
Minor Creation: Unchanged. They did, however, change how poisons work (notably, the old go-to Black Lotus Extract can't be directly ported), which was always the main offender when it came to combat, as far as I know. Maybe that's enough.
Polymorph: Changed to hell and back, it seems.
Lesser Planar Binding: They didn't change a word, as far as I can tell. COME ON. :smallfrown:
Magic Jar: Unchanged, as far as I can tell.
Planar Binding: They changed the wording here some, but I don't see a nerf.
Contingency: Unchanged.
Wall of Iron: The line "Iron created by this spell is not suitable for use in the creation of other objects and cannot be sold." was added. A bit of a hack, I feel, but OK. Fixed.
Simulacrum: They removed the XP cost and increased the material cost, which is rather unimportant to the spell's real problems.
Greater Planar Binding: See Planar Binding.
Polymorph any Object: I honestly don't know. This inherits from other PF polymorph spells, and I'm just not well versed enough in it to tell if the crazy stuff is still there.
Gate: They didn't even close the Gate-in-creature-who-can-cast-Gate loop, as far as I can tell. The XP cost has been replaced with a fat GP cost, but that's irrelevant.
Astral Projection: There are now penalties for being killed, at least. But it still creates new sets of equipment, as well as providing the basic function that is being a remote control on the universe.
Shapechange: Fundamentally changed, whoo!

I dunno. They fixed about half of it? Probably enough to make a difference, but with crap like Planar Binding and Simulacrum still hanging around, I'm not terribly impressed if the goal was to make the class not able to bend a setting over its bony old knee.

Sounds like Commodore Guff is still viable. If you think this isn't tier 1, you have another think coming, carried on a giant golem fist.

[Veyr]

Please provide a few examples to back up your argument. Thank you in advance.
No. I don't care that much. Neither of you has met me halfway in any way, shape, or form, so if you think I'm putting in that much work, you've got another thing coming.


Basically, you're using the old 'they banned a few people who tried to make their point by being rude' instead of actually reading.
No, I'm saying that this is a historical fact that reflects hideously on Paizo. Also, no, I have read — little, if anything, reported but said posters — and there were more than a few, as I recall — was fixed. I'll admit that the way the information was presented was poor. It doesn't make them wrong. And the whole situation only proved that Paizo is incapable of admitting mistake, and that their entire playtest was a publicity stunt and nothing more. So yeah, I have little-to-no respect for them. Pathfinder Core is a (relatively thorough but not thorough enough) series of houserules, and nothing more.

I've heard their original material is better; that's nice to hear. But I'm not commenting on those.


Well, their analysis seems to disregard the fact that you simply can't get an animal companion as strong as before, for starters.

Druids were nerfed hard. They can still break the game if heavily focused on action economy and that's about it.
They can break the game with the right spells.
They can change their spells every day.
You have admitted the first fact, and the second has never been disputed. This is the definition of Tier 1.


Well, I'm sorry if you don't see a difference between 'any situation' and 'combat', because I think it's a very relevant point.
No, it's not, because my statement was intending to encapsulate all of them to begin with. My statement was no less true for all encounters than it was for the subset of encounters known as combat.


It's also funny that you mention social encounters. Mind telling me how the pathfinder druid handles those?
Diplomacy as a class skill, access to plenty of power with which to generate rewards/threats rapidly. Pretty much the same as the 3.5 Druid.


Exactly. And this does not mean spells alone, it doesn't even have anything to do with being a caster (Binder with online vestiges reacher T2, for example).
The druids action economy advantage due to summoning ability and animal companion is as much a 'I win button' as the Binder's.
The Druid can do far more powerful things with his turn than the Binder can.

[balistafreak]

Please provide a few examples to back up your argument. Thank you in advance.

I daresay you already did for him.


Wizard, level 1 spells in the psrd. *snip*

Nerfed, yes, but still good enough for the archetype to succeed - at least as far as anecdotal evidence goes.

I'll take a second to nitpick the grease nerf. Sure, a nerf's a nerf, but it's still preposterously good. Sure, it no longer has the "I've fallen and I can never ever get up" clause but chances are if your party isn't unleashing a can of whoop-arse while they're initially downed in that opening round they'll be crawling 5 feet out of it and getting up the next turn just the same. And if they weren't initially downed by it, them escaping it was a pretty good proposition already, even if it meant dropping prone and crawling those 5 feet out. Those entering a newly greased area still have to make Acrobatics checks and then Reflex saves for failing, just the same as 3.5 grease.

I've found that PF grease is almost as effective as 3.5 grease. I can expect to use it in the exact same manner to get almost identical results.

And since I can pick grease as a low level Wizard, I've found that I'm almost as good when grease is my main spell. So, no, not much of a nerf then. What about higher levels?


Interesting. I made a list of the core Sorcerer/Wizard spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10567646&postcount=11) I think are the most broken a few weeks back. I'm going to go over it now.
*snip*
I dunno. They fixed about half of it? Probably enough to make a difference, but with crap like Planar Binding and Simulacrum still hanging around, I'm not terribly impressed if the goal was to make the class not able to bend a setting over its bony old knee.

I can't polymorph anymore, but I can still planar bind and simulacrum and wall of iron (in combat, which is still ridiculously good). I'm Good Enough to break settings and campaigns.

They may not have as many I Win Buttons, but one nuke is enough to get the job done, and the Wizard still has multiples. They were nerfed, like degrading an H-bomb to a conventional high-explosives Daisy Cutter, except the target was a house of straw... so the conclusion still stands.

To take a break from Wizards and the arcane, I'll say that the Witch is strong Tier 1, and the Summoner low Tier 2.

The Witch's spell-list is a little more unimpressive than the Wizard's. However, it maintains both in/out-of combat usefulness, and the Witch can focus on out-of combat spells in her memorizations because she has preposterous SLAs to use in combat - mainly due to Cackle. The Witch can maintain a free-reroll-per-round on every single one of her comrades given time to buff up, can maintain forced rerolls for every single enemy she manages to break the save on, and can land that forced reroll by hitting said enemy with a no-save save-debuffer, which is also maintained by Cackle. That save-debuffer can debuff more than just saves, while you're at it, although that really is the best debuff.

(Oh, and I guess you can maintain a charmed person indefinitely as long as you're conscious, if you can find a merely unfriendly target and are 8th level. By the way, use Cackle.)

Cackle is ridiculous. The Witch barely needs to cast spells as standard actions in combat when she can be debuffing and force-rerolling without burning a single spell slot. SLAs that are almost more powerful than spells in combat + non-combat tools = Tier 1 in my book.

The Summoner looks like his casting is bad, compared to the arcane list, until you realize that some dork put gems like haste at 2nd level, improved invisibility at 3rd level, and teleport at 4th level, to say nothing of merely level-equivalent spells like . These spells are so potent that combined with your eidolon, you add a preposterous amount of strength to the party, both in combat and out of it.

They "break" the game in the traditional sense, but the way to do it is kind of planned out for them already, with few other options available.

[Bugbeartrap]

As much as I regret to nitpick this, Balistafreak, the witch's abilities are Su (technically more powerful because they don't provoke AoO) and if we are using JaronK's definition of tiers: having superspecialawesome abilities and not being able to change them is tier 2.

Edit:

Also, how does having: full access to a versatile spell-list, the ability to spontaneously convert the useless spells into allies, a meatshield (that you can replace each day for free!), class features (especially an all day buff), decent hit die, the best 2 saves, armor, and middle BAB not count as tier one? That list of abilities screams versatility.

[balistafreak]

As much as I regret to nitpick this, Balistafreak, the witch's abilities are Su (technically more powerful because they don't provoke AoO) and if we are using JaronK's definition of tiers: having superspecialawesome abilities and not being able to change them is tier 2.

Keep on reading. :smalltongue:

Uuumm, yeah, SLAs are Su? I'm not sure why the Supernatural descriptor is a problem, outside of an antimagic field (yuk)? *sweatdrop* Like you said, that they don't provoke is just a bonus.

As for "not being able to change them"... the Witch has "superspecialawesome abilities" with her SLAs, and a spell-list that can change. She'll rarely need/want to use a different strategy than those SLAs in combat due to their raw power (seriously, free rerolls all combat long are nuts, as are no-save, just-suck debuffs) but she can supplement it with changing spells anyways, if she doesn't want to Evil Eye again, and those spells are going to be used in basically the same style as a Wizard out of combat, with a wide selection available to learn and memorize each day. Not quite as good as the Cleric for flexibility day to day, but we knew that one already.


Also, how does having: full access to a versatile spell-list, the ability to spontaneously convert the useless spells into allies, a meatshield (that you can replace each day for free!), class features (especially an all day buff), decent hit die, the best 2 saves, armor, and middle BAB not count as tier one? That list of abilities screams versatility.

Armor and middle BAB mean less than you think (Druids can no longer both do personal melee combat and spellcasting due to a hard Wild Shape nerf), but yeah, otherwise you're correct. The Druid spell-list basically got away scot-free. SNA was nerfed due to loss of "broken" summons but is still preposterous, the freely-replaceable meatshield was distinctly nerfed but is still preposterous, the possible replacement of a meatshield with a Domain is almost as preposterous, they're just as tough as Clerics (compared to arcane casters, preposterous... okay, that's a stretch), and powerful class features other than casting that compared to most of the other classes simply seem... dare I say it...? preposterous.

[Veyr]

OK, I haven't read the Witch, but Sp and Su are two different things, most notably because Su abilities do not provoke AoOs. Which does the Witch have?

[MeeposFire]

To be sure it is not actually the ability to switch out spells that makes classes tier one. It is the versatility. Being able to change spells is one way of gaining versatility but it is not the only way (though it is certainly the easiest and most well known way. archivist have a limited "spell list" but due to its abilities it can create items that can do all it needs to be tier one). You have to look at the entire thing to know for sure..

[Bugbeartrap]

preposterous.

Balistafreak, I like your style.:smallcool:

I agree that witchs are seriously powerful. Their spell list does make them Tier 1. Being tired an all, I just sort of focused on how much you promoted the Su abilities, which I see as basically gravy. "I took Sleep Hex, so I basically don't need to prepare any will save SoDs." (I did so love my witch character). I think a game with competent wizards is on par with a witch though.

Edit: Likewise, I always think of the druids wildshape/bab/armor as gravy. I picture a raven shooting spells while their bear stays inbetween the monsters and the master. I guess if they really wanted to they could turn into a bear too, cast some buffs, and mess up faces. The option is there, and really, options are what we're talking about.

[Greenish]

archivist have a limited "spell list" but due to its abilities it can create items that can do all it needs to be tier one).Archivists probably have the largest spell list this side of spell-to-power-erudite. Maybe you mean artificers?

[balistafreak]

Being tired an all, I just sort of focused on how much you promoted the Su abilities, which I see as basically gravy. "I took Sleep Hex, so I basically don't need to prepare any will save SoDs." (I did so love my witch character).

To speak from a pure design standpoint, Extra Hex should not have printed as a feat. Witches have very little reason to not have all the Cackle-capable hexes since they can grab them as feats. I dunno about you, but a Hex for a feat is completely broke.

Any 4th level Witch can have Cackle, Evil Eye, Fortune, and Misfortune, and still have one feat/hex to spend on whatever the heck they feel like. Two if they're human. You can drop Misfortune or Fortune and your floating feat/hex at 2nd level, and a human can barely snare an unholy trifecta at 1st level.

I once made an encounter with a trio of 1st level Witches pimping these combos, supported by three random, mundane mooks (without anything resembling spells or spell-like abilities). One of them took Fortune and was maintaining it - the other two threw their Misfortunes and managed to stick them on the entire party, after Evil-Eye debuffs and second tries from the other witch if the first witch failed. 6 decently optimized 3rd level characters took it on. It was a TPK, and they didn't kill a single one. Rerolls are just that brutal. :smallamused:

(In retrospect they should have rushed the witches to stop the Cackles, but since they thought that the effects simply had round/level durations, they decided to focus the mooks, since after the witches stuck the Misfortunes they literally sat around and took full-defense, leading the party to think that the Witches were no longer relevant.)

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal but you can see my point.


I think a game with competent wizards is on par with a witch though.

Wizards have better spell-lists, so yeah, they're just as good, if serving a slightly different purpose with somewhat less endurance.

[Bugbeartrap]

Artificers arguably do have access to all spells ever. They have an infusion which turns an object into a wand of whatever spell they want. And they can make all magic items with a simple UMD check and all the delicious bonus crafting feats and free crafting XP.

Umm... did I prove your point that spells are not the exclusive path to Tier 1? or my point that they essentially have access to all spells that make Tier 1?:smalltongue:

Edit: Re:Witch Anecdote

To relate my own human witch story, I felt that evil eye was overkill, and took all those same Hexs. Early levels, I want to say till lvl 7, the rerolls were the bread and butter of the party. On the other hand, by level 12 I had forgotten about the Hexs and most of the heavy lifting was done by spells. So, yes, Witchs are tier 1. Whats next to discuss?

[MeeposFire]

Archivists probably have the largest spell list this side of spell-to-power-erudite. Maybe you mean artificers?

I did I somehow wrote the wrong class. Artificers don't have a large list but their ability to create items make them super versatile.

[Mahrke]

Rope Trick - a "The rope cannot be removed or hidden." clause was added. This might be sufficient.
Explosive Runes: Unchanged.
Shrink Item: Unchanged. Unless the falling objects rules and such were rewritten, this is as dangerous as ever.
Minor Creation: Unchanged. They did, however, change how poisons work (notably, the old go-to Black Lotus Extract can't be directly ported), which was always the main offender when it came to combat, as far as I know. Maybe that's enough.
Polymorph: Changed to hell and back, it seems.
Lesser Planar Binding: They didn't change a word, as far as I can tell. COME ON. :smallfrown:
Magic Jar: Unchanged, as far as I can tell.
Planar Binding: They changed the wording here some, but I don't see a nerf.
Contingency: Unchanged.
Wall of Iron: The line "Iron created by this spell is not suitable for use in the creation of other objects and cannot be sold." was added. A bit of a hack, I feel, but OK. Fixed.
Simulacrum: They removed the XP cost and increased the material cost, which is rather unimportant to the spell's real problems.
Greater Planar Binding: See Planar Binding.
Polymorph any Object: I honestly don't know. This inherits from other PF polymorph spells, and I'm just not well versed enough in it to tell if the crazy stuff is still there.
Gate: They didn't even close the Gate-in-creature-who-can-cast-Gate loop, as far as I can tell. The XP cost has been replaced with a fat GP cost, but that's irrelevant.
Astral Projection: There are now penalties for being killed, at least. But it still creates new sets of equipment, as well as providing the basic function that is being a remote control on the universe.
Shapechange: Fundamentally changed, whoo!


Well, you've got me here. I suppose one of the reasons I blatantly overlooked these, was that I'd always seen them as one of those things that was just too stupidly overpowered to use, like Candle of Invocating for Wishes.

Then again, they're still the same old spells they are. There's no reasons for them to have not been fixed.

I was biased in looking them over, in that I was tackling the spells that were merely good enough to see use in a reasonable game. Then again, I through the polymorph line into this same category of 'Too broken to contemplate'.

I maintain that practical wizards that don't take advantage of what are, essentially, infinite loops, or arbitrarily high damage are far more balanced than they were.

Still though, I can't honestly tell what pathfinder creators were thinking in leaving these things around. Because you're right, these don't merely 'solve' a combat. The spells listed often solve a game.

[kenjigoku]

...
Paladin: not sure, I've heard the improvements are very significant though, haven't seen it in action.
...

Have seen Paladin in action. In undead light campaigns, they are still a warrior that can heal. With stat consolidation for Cha casting, they really are good at what they do, even if what they do is rather limited. IE

Combat
Healing/Cures
Channeling
Spellcasting Lite


In undead heavy or evil heavy campaigns the new smite your target until they die or the day ends is pretty nice. They hit like trucks vs. them and are nigh invincible. If your doing a undead heavy campaign they put tier 1 to shame for most levels under oh... lets say 15 O.o.

Great multiclass if you are playing melee and you have high CHA for the LoH and the saves still. Not to mention the swift action LoH is nice.

As for Ranger... IMHO didn't change much. Still badass if your in the right campaign.

[MeeposFire]

They helped the paladin in many ways though they neglected to give it a good standard action attack. That is the single biggest boost from ToB and unfortunately it is something Paizo has mostly neglected to learn.

[VladtheLad]

Funnily they fixed the spells that won combats but weren't incredibly broken. Wall of stone, evards black tentacles, solid fog, ray of enfeeblement etc.

Spells like gate, simulacrum and planar binding remain unchanged.

The thing is though the "trully broken" category of spells was always easy to ban. On the other side the "very good" category of spells was almost impossible to deal with. Saying " No you can't chain bind ifrits to get infinite wishes" isn't the same as saying "No you can't cast evards black tentacles to grapple the evil wizard and his elite guard".
So I never had a problem with simulacrum (create ifrit/solar) and gate (2 celestial gold dragons) because they were in the auto ban category.


On another note planar binding always had the "unreasonable commands are never agreed to" clause, which allowed the dm way too much leeway in the wording of your request.


In short I think the spell nerfs pretty much destroyed tear 1, unless you do stupid sh*t like gate and simulacrum.
Still its pretty disappointing they didn't fix those.

[Doc Roc]

Don't worry, tier 1 will be back. There are many splats full of spells coming, and no real optimization community to warn you.

[VladtheLad]

That's true, but it doesn't make their feedback inaccurate. Moreover, the move by Paizo was grossly unprofessional, and they basically held a grudge about it and refused to fix those problems. None of these is good for the game.


Strange, to me it seemed that certain people were so stunned that paizo (or other posters) didn't agree with their feedback that they became very offensive and got banned.
These people were the ones that held a grudge about it and pretty much never loose a chance to bash on pathfinder or paizo.

[VladtheLad]

Don't worry, tier 1 will be back. There are many splats full of spells coming, and no real optimization community to warn you.

That is worrying. Thankfully the spells in advanced players guide were ok-ish (with the exception of low level pit spells).

Hopefully ultimate magic won't change that, but we will see.

[Infernalbargain]

Don't worry, tier 1 will be back. There are many splats full of spells coming, and no real optimization community to warn you.

I spend quite a bit of time on the Paizo boards. The community there is very well aware of all the major tricks since a good number of them are 3.5 players who just want to play something that's still in print. Sure the makers of Pun-Pun aren't there but enough people chain bind efreets.

[Veyr]

Strange, to me it seemed that certain people were so stunned that paizo (or other posters) didn't agree with their feedback that they became very offensive and got banned.
These people were the ones that held a grudge about it and pretty much never loose a chance to bash on pathfinder or paizo.
Not saying they didn't. Again, that doesn't make them wrong. In fact, the fact that Paizo dismissed their (extremely thorough) testing out of hand is the source of the attitude the banned posters had. It was stupid, and proved, once again, that the playtest was a publicity stunt and nothing more.

[Akal Saris]

Actually, I think their bad attitude is something that the banned posters took with them to the playtest, not something that Paizo is to blame for. But yes, I agree, the playtests had a dual purpose of improving balance and serving as a publicity stunt.

Honestly, I don't think that Paizo has been any worse off without the majority of the vocal CO community. We tend to take ourselves way too seriously, as if we're the guardians of balance or the only ones who can truly appreciate the game - which is ridiculous. Paizo will just develop a new generation of min/maxers while most of the CO grognards continue to play 3.5, and eventually those that don't convert to PF will be as relevant to the current gaming discussion as 2E players are today.


Don't worry, tier 1 will be back. There are many splats full of spells coming, and no real optimization community to warn you.

Oh no, won't somebody please think of the children?!

[VladtheLad]

I never said it makes them wrong. They offered their suggestions and paizo, for whatever reason, didn't agree with them. That doesn't make paizo stupid. Unless you think everybody that disagrees with you is stupid (as do I :smallbiggrin: ).
Even if their suggestions were spot on and paizo ignored them, raging about it forever doesn't make them right, just immature.


Also though I agree the playtesting was a publicity stunt, I wouldn't say "nothing more". Some of the feedback was used in the end product and some mistakes were avoided thanx to the playtesters. But yeah it was mostly a marketing tactic and a good one at that.
The thing that cracked me up was the we had 10.000 playtesters (every random dude who downloaded the free pdf) ridiculousness.

[Infernalbargain]

Not saying they didn't. Again, that doesn't make them wrong. In fact, the fact that Paizo dismissed their (extremely thorough) testing out of hand is the source of the attitude the banned posters had. It was stupid, and proved, once again, that the playtest was a publicity stunt and nothing more.

That being said, I know at the very least that they've actually listened to what was said during the gunslinger round 1 playtest because that version was definitely tier 6 material. The round 2 is closer to tier 4, though its feat starvation might put it at tier 5. Though they did simply refuse to budge on them being touch attacks in first range increment.

[Veyr]

I agree, the playtests had a dual purpose of improving balance and serving as a publicity stunt.
That's not agreeing with me — I deny that the test was ever intended to improve balance. Paizo doesn't care about balance any more than is necessary to include 'improved balance' on its selling points. Whatshisface who runs it is hard-headed, opinionated, and does not know the game very well. This is a very bad combination. And he never intended to change anything meaningfully once the playtest started.


Honestly, I don't think that Paizo has been any worse off without the majority of the vocal CO community. We tend to take ourselves way too seriously, as if we're the guardians of balance or the only ones who can truly appreciate the game - which is ridiculous.
They claimed 'balance' as a selling point, and then ignored those who know balance best. I could not disagree with you more.


Paizo will just develop a new generation of min/maxers while most of the CO grognards continue to play 3.5, and eventually those that don't convert to PF will be as relevant to the current gaming discussion as 2E players are today.
Wow, you have a lot of faith in Pathfinder. I don't see this as particularly likely. 3.5 still heavily dominates this forum, anyway, and this forum is relatively low-OP and cares less about balance than some others (you know, those forums that the banned posters came from).


I never said it makes them wrong. They offered their suggestions and paizo, for whatever reason, didn't agree with them. That doesn't make paizo stupid. Unless you think everybody that disagrees with you is stupid (as do I :smallbiggrin: ).
We're talking about pure mechanical and numerical analysis. You can't really dispute a lot of what was being discussed. Case in point: the Monk still does not have full BAB, and Simulacrum is still in the game. These are both objectively horrible choices as far as balance is concerned. I've met no one who doesn't think Pathfinder was just being unnecessarily stubborn with their "compromise" on the Monk. There is no good reason the Monk shouldn't have full BAB, and lots of compelling reasons why it should. Meanwhile, as has been said: they nailed down a lot of the more notorious spells, while leaving others (that were pointed out to them) completely untouched.


Even if their suggestions were spot on and paizo ignored them, raging about it forever doesn't make them right, just immature.
No, being "spot on" makes them right. Yes, raging about it is immature. But guess what? Dismissing them out of hand, ignoring their analysis as "wrongbadway" to look at the game, and then banning them over it is also immature. And frankly, I have much higher expectations of a game company than I do of forum trolls. Yes, there is a double-standard here, and there should be — Paizo wants me to pay them money.


Also though I agree the playtesting was a publicity stunt, I wouldn't say "nothing more". Some of the feedback was used in the end product and some mistakes were avoided thanx to the playtesters. But yeah it was mostly a marketing tactic and a good one at that.
Nothing meaningful really changed, though. Which is why Pathfinder Core's balance is no better than 3.5 Core's. Which is to say, again, terrible.


That being said, I know at the very least that they've actually listened to what was said during the gunslinger round 1 playtest because that version was definitely tier 6 material. The round 2 is closer to tier 4, though its feat starvation might put it at tier 5. Though they did simply refuse to budge on them being touch attacks in first range increment.
This reminds me ever so much of the Monk arguments. Paizo's refusal to budge on things like this makes them look really bad.

[VladtheLad]

We're talking about pure mechanical and numerical analysis. You can't really dispute a lot of what was being discussed. Case in point: the Monk still does not have full BAB, and Simulacrum is still in the game. These are both objectively horrible choices as far as balance is concerned. I've met no one who doesn't think Pathfinder was just being unnecessarily stubborn with their "compromise" on the Monk. There is no good reason the Monk shouldn't have full BAB, and lots of compelling reasons why it should. Meanwhile, as has been said: they nailed down a lot of the more notorious spells, while leaving others (that were pointed out to them) completely untouched.

No we aren't. You said that paizo held a grudge against some posters and that's why it didn't do as they asked. I said that this isn't the case and that they simply could have had an honest disagreement. And that also it was the posters that actually held a grudge.



No, being "spot on" makes them right. Yes, raging about it is immature. But guess what? Dismissing them out of hand, ignoring their analysis as "wrongbadway" to look at the game, and then banning them over it is also immature. And frankly, I have much higher expectations of a game company than I do of forum trolls. Yes, there is a double-standard here, and there should be — Paizo wants me to pay them money.

They didn't ban them over their analysis. They banned them over their behaviour.
I would say allowing forum trolls to post would be immature for a company.



Nothing meaningful really changed, though. Which is why Pathfinder Core's balance is no better than 3.5 Core's. Which is to say, again, terrible.


The point was wether the playtest was "just a publicity stunt and nothing more" as you said. I just argued against that, not wether nothing meaninful changed.

That said I don't think pathfinders core balance is terrible. The spells nerf and buffing of the melee classes heps a lot.

[Veyr]

{Scrubbed}


The point was wether the playtest was "just a publicity stunt and nothing more" as you said. I just argued against that, not wether nothing meaninful changed.

That said I don't think pathfinders core balance is terrible. The spells nerf and buffing of the melee classes heps a lot.
What buffing to melee? There was none, aside from the Paladin. The Fighter got some extra +numbers; it didn't need them and that does nothing for the problems it actually had. The Monk still has 3/4 BAB and still has no role, no purpose, and no meaningful or useful abilities. The Rogue got some benefits to Sneak Attack and then took huge hits to their ability to apply Sneak Attack. The Combat Maneuver mechanics marginally favor humanoids, but in ways that make it harder to optimize them and the Improved Combat Maneuver feats all got nerfed.

Meanwhile, the casters lost some particularly notorious spells, but retain more than enough firepower to do whatever the hell they feel like.

{Scrubbed}

[VladtheLad]

{Scrubbed}

[Greenish]

The Monk still has 3/4 BABPF monk practically has full BAB in all situations bar non-flurry attacks and feat qualification (assuming you think of flurry as TWF of sorts).

Why they didn't just give them full BAB instead of a bunch of class features that essentially amount to the same I'll never know. :smallannoyed:

[VladtheLad]

{Scrubbed}

[Veyr]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Well that got personal suddenly. I'm done with this. There have been myriad posts by people other than me pointing out all of the flaws in your argument, and you've ignored all of them, so I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion when you're going to start insulting me.

[MeeposFire]

PF monk practically has full BAB in all situations bar non-flurry attacks and feat qualification (assuming you think of flurry as TWF of sorts).

Why they didn't just give them full BAB instead of a bunch of class features that essentially amount to the same I'll never know. :smallannoyed:

First I think it just adds confusion that was not needed. Secondly this means they still suck on the move which is something monks should be good at considering the vast majority of their class features promotes mobility and making sure you keep it. The PF monk is probably the biggest fail in PF.

[VladtheLad]

Really, where are the posts you are referring to?

How did I insult you? It seems from what you said that you consider paizo not doing what they were told to do "holding a grudge".
I just pointed that out, to you.

[Gametime]

That's true, but it doesn't make their feedback inaccurate. Moreover, the move by Paizo was grossly unprofessional, and they basically held a grudge about it and refused to fix those problems. None of these is good for the game.

Banning disruptive posters isn't unprofessional. It's pretty much standard procedure on, well, every forum. Refusing to fix known balance issues out of a grudge is unprofessional, but there's no real evidence that that's what happened; more likely, Pathfinder disagreed that the problems raised were actually problems (and the fact that they were delivered by people insisting that Pathfinder's developers were ignorant and wrong probably didn't help).

There's no reason to assume malice is at work when foolishness is just as good an explanation. (Mind, this all assumes that the remaining balance issues are exactly as dire as you claim, which is somewhat questionable.)




No, being "spot on" makes them right. Yes, raging about it is immature. But guess what? Dismissing them out of hand, ignoring their analysis as "wrongbadway" to look at the game, and then banning them over it is also immature. And frankly, I have much higher expectations of a game company than I do of forum trolls. Yes, there is a double-standard here, and there should be — Paizo wants me to pay them money.

A great deal of Pathfinder material is available for free online. Presumably, Paizo still wants you to pay them money, but I think their approach to free distribution is laudable even if you find nothing of worth in their design.


A. They refused to even consider that they had massive balance problems despite irrefutable mathematical analysis showing that it existed. I don't care who says it, that's not something you can just "disagree with", it doesn't work that way.

I'm not necessarily doubting that such analysis existed (and I certainly don't expect you to provide it), but you must realize that, for anyone who doesn't already agree with you, a phrase like "irrefutable mathematical analysis" holds no weight.


What buffing to melee? There was none, aside from the Paladin. The Fighter got some extra +numbers; it didn't need them and that does nothing for the problems it actually had. The Monk still has 3/4 BAB and still has no role, no purpose, and no meaningful or useful abilities. The Rogue got some benefits to Sneak Attack and then took huge hits to their ability to apply Sneak Attack. The Combat Maneuver mechanics marginally favor humanoids, but in ways that make it harder to optimize them and the Improved Combat Maneuver feats all got nerfed.

I've never really understood the "fighters only gained numbers!" argument. It's true that making fighters better at fighting doesn't fix them. It's not true that it doesn't make them better. Considering one of the major complaints about fighters is how bad they are at fighting, one would think help in that area would be welcome. (Admittedly, the core fighter changes don't make much progress in that direction, but some of the ACFs are pretty nice.)

I also don't really understood the claim that rogues can't sneak attack any more. They lost what, Grease?


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I'm sure you don't intend to, but bolding so many phrases makes you seem angry and argumentative. It doesn't really make what you say more convincing; if anything, I'd hazard a guess that it makes people less inclined to agree with you because it gives the post an air of confrontation.


First I think it just adds confusion that was not needed. Secondly this means they still suck on the move which is something monks should be good at considering the vast majority of their class features promotes mobility and making sure you keep it. The PF monk is probably the biggest fail in PF.

I'll not contest that monks still suck, but I don't think it's because their attacks on the move are too weak. By mid-levels, when the gap between full and medium BAB is high enough to matter, you can make up the difference with buffs and magic items easily.

[MeeposFire]

It totally is. What do monks do well. Move. What can't they do on a move? Flurry. Being able to attack effectively with a standard action is something every melee class should strive for. If they can't pounce is the next best thing. Monks get neither. This means monks need to stand next to targets most of the time to deal decent damage. This leaves them vulnerable. Monks can't really take a beating and if they go mobile to make it harder on the monsters they lose a metric ton of damage. If flurry operated more like the snap kick feat then it would be a good feature that would synergize with their monk mobility to allow them to be dangerous and mobile at the same time. Right now other classes are still better as being unarmed attackers and the monk can't use their mobility to good advantage.

[VladtheLad]

Banning disruptive posters isn't unprofessional. It's pretty much standard procedure on, well, every forum. Refusing to fix known balance issues out of a grudge is unprofessional, but there's no real evidence that that's what happened; more likely, Pathfinder disagreed that the problems raised were actually problems (and the fact that they were delivered by people insisting that Pathfinder's developers were ignorant and wrong probably didn't help).

There's no reason to assume malice is at work when foolishness is just as good an explanation. (Mind, this all assumes that the remaining balance issues are exactly as dire as you claim, which is somewhat questionable.)

This is my exactly my point. Maybe more accurately stated.





I also don't really understood the claim that rogues can't sneak attack any more. They lost what, Grease?



They also lost ring of blink which allowed them to sneak attack with impunity. That said I am not sure I would like pathfinder rogues to be able to do that, the power of a class shouldn't be based on one item.
Rogues do end up kinda kinda meh in pathfinder though.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Lots of external baggage, and way off topic. Thread locked.