Pathfinder Tiers (Once Again)

[Curious]

Usually when you see this thread title, it's people asking what the tiers are for Pathfinder classes. I'm doing something a little different here; I'm going to list what I think are the tiers of the PF classes, and anybody who cares to can challenge it and try to convince me otherwise. Without further ado, here we go.

Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard.

Tier 2: Oracle, Psion, Sorceror, Summoner.

Tier 3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Ninja, Magus, Psychic Warrior, Rogue, Wilder.

Tier 4: Barbarian, Cavalier, (Hungry Ghost) Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Samurai, Soulknife.

Tier 5: Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk.

Whadya' think?

[DeAnno]

I don't know anything about Pathfinder, but its sad that the poor monk gets the short end, especially because in a lot of PF games he won't have access to his ridiculous amount of useful 3.5 splat ACFs.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder adds a layer of complexity - namely, archetypes, which were represented in the old tier system to a smaller extent by ACFs. The right archetype/ACF can raise or lower the tier of a class, such as Mystic Ranger and Wildshape Ranger both being more powerful than the base Ranger.

It's possible to keep the complexity down by only listing an archetype if it changes a class' tier.


Also, add the following to your list:

Tier 2: Psion
Tier 3: Psychic Warrior
Tier 4: Soulknife

Wilder is tricky to place, particularly depending on archetype (I'd say Student is definitely T2) but doesn't fall below T3.

[Curious]

I don't know anything about Pathfinder, but its sad that the poor monk gets the short end, especially because in a lot of PF games he won't have access to his ridiculous amount of useful 3.5 splat ACFs.

Actually, there is a huge amount of Monk love in the latest PF splat-books. There are things like style feats (stances), ki pools (extra attacks, etc.), and archetypes that trade away their myriad useless abilities for useful ones, like cone of cold as a swift action any time you like. Not bad at all.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Fighter is still tier 5. Yeah, it can be a powerful one-trick pony. It could in 3.5 too.

[Bhaakon]

You left out cavalier. I'd consider bumping gunslinger to tier 3 (I think it's closer to an inquisitor, bard, or alchemist than it is to some of the lower-end tier 4's).

[nyarlathotep]

Monk is tier 4 if you include ultimate magic and combat. Fighter is still tier 5.

[Curious]

Fighter is still tier 5. Yeah, it can be a powerful one-trick pony. It could in 3.5 too.

Yes, but the definition of tier 4 is 'powerful one trick pony'. The minimum optimization floor for Fighter is lower in PF, and a lot of the archetypes are quite good, so I thought tier 4 was the right place for it.

Psion, PsyWar, Wilder, Soulknife, and Cavalier added.

[Psyren]

You left out cavalier. I'd consider bumping gunslinger to tier 3 (I think it's closer to an inquisitor, bard, or alchemist than it is to some of the lower-end tier 4's).

Gunslinger is T4. "Can do one thing very well, but often useless when that one thing isn't required." If you need something shot, Gunslinger is your go-to, but if you don't, you get a couple of minor tricks from Utility Shot and nothing else.

[Curious]

Gunslinger is T4. "Can do one thing very well, but often useless when that one thing isn't required." If you need something shot, Gunslinger is your go-to, but if you don't, you get a couple of minor tricks from Utility Shot and nothing else.

Oh wow you're Psyren. Didn't even recognize you at first. Nice avatar. :smallwink:

[Togath]

Gunslinger; Gunslingers are probably high tier 4, or low tier 3, though an optimized one could hit mid tier 3, it would require a little work.
Also the pistolero, and mysterious stranger archetypes help it out as well, helping it reach mid or high tier three with less optimization(as both dex and charisma are useful for non-combat skills). edit; Also one somewhat useful ability for gunslingers is that both mysterious stranger and pistolero can be taken at the same time(at least as far as I can tell)

Monk; As has been said, some of the recent ultimate combat monk changes could help boost it's tier as well, though standard(no alternate class features/archetypes) PF monk is still probably high tier 5/low tier 4 at best.

[Bhaakon]

Gunslinger; Gunslingers are probably high tier 4, or low tier 3, though an optimized one could hit mid tier 3, it would require a little work.
Also the pistolero, and mysterious stranger archetypes help it out as well, helping it reach mid or high tier three with less optimization(as both dex and charisma are useful for non-combat skills). edit; Also one somewhat useful ability for gunslingers is that both mysterious stranger and pistolero can be taken at the same time(at least as far as I can tell)

Monk; As has been said, some of the recent ultimate combat monk changes could help boost it's tier as well, though standard(no alternate class features/archetypes) PF monk is still probably high tier 5/low tier 4 at best.[/SIZE]


I've got to believe that's going to be fixed in a FAQ or errata. It's blindingly obvious (to me, at least) that pistol training was supposed to replace gun training.

[Infernalbargain]

It has been debated a few times with mixed results, but does the human sorcerer break into tier 1? The human sorcerer has 29 spells known over the 3.5 sorcerer (arcane can get another 3). That's a lot. So can the sorcerer get all the game-breaking spells in PF? 75 spells compared to 43 (63 to 34 if you discount cantrips) can't be readily ignored. PF's list of relevant spells is also smaller.

[Togath]

Ah, had missed that ability, aye, it looks like it's ment to replace gun training, though pistolero could still stack with gun tank, without diplomacy or gather information, though, the gunslinger has pretty much no out of combat abilities, leaving it probably at high tier 4, or low tier 3. Maybe higher with optimization, but not by much.

On the sorcerer; hard to say, I would say it isn't as big of a difference despight having 29 more spells, as pf has 43 9th level spells on the srd, it would probably be hard to get all of the game breakers(you would have to choose between different uber spells, rather than simply taking them all), over all, a pf sorcerer is probably still high tier 2, right on the edge between tier 2 and 1

[Curious]

It has been debated a few times with mixed results, but does the human sorcerer break into tier 1? The human sorcerer has 29 spells known over the 3.5 sorcerer (arcane can get another 3). That's a lot. So can the sorcerer get all the game-breaking spells in PF? 75 spells compared to 43 (63 to 34 if you discount cantrips) can't be readily ignored. PF's list of relevant spells is also smaller.

I would answer with a hesitant yes. Tier 1 is all about having all the options ever, and human sorceror can basically do that, but it still doesn't have the sheer ability to decide, 'oh yeah, I'll pick up this spell here for a single situational encounter, and then forget all about it', like a wizard can. I'd say low tier 1.

[Psyren]

Oh wow you're Psyren. Didn't even recognize you at first. Nice avatar. :smallwink:

I'm fond of the little Blue and may return to it, but I couldn't pass up the chance at being Thane for awhile. :smallwink:

/quickscope Dantius


Gunslinger; Gunslingers are probably high tier 4, or low tier 3, though an optimized one could hit mid tier 3, it would require a little work.

At the risk of showing my ignorance, how? T3 by definition requires you to be good at more than just fighting, even if it's fighting at range. None of the Gunslinger archetypes change that; they're all different ways of saying "I shoot it." They don't have the skills required to be a monkey or a face, none of their deeds help them sneak or scout (not to mention, guns are pretty loud anyway), can't bypass obstacles like walls or traps... and even in combat they have weaknesses, such as being in melee or dealing with groups.

[Togath]

I meant low tier 3 due too utility shot(though it's pretty dang weak), and if you dipped diplomacy classes with mysterious stranger(for charisma synergy).
By itself, the standard gunslinger(no dips, or archetypes) is low or mid tier 4, and at it's best is low tier 3, mainly if you use dips, multiclassing, and archetypes.

mainly I put it oddly because I'm tired today, the above is a better example of what I was trying to say

[BlueInc]

There are several monk archetypes that can bump it up to tier 4. Another notable would be the Qinggong (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/qinggong-monk) monk.

Here's a fun question: What tier do you think an eidolon by itself would be? I would put it at tier 4; it can do what it's built to deal with well and occasionally contribute in other ways, too.

[Psyren]

Utility Shot isn't enough to make it T3. You can shoot locks, which has a chance of making the lock even harder to open (not to mention griefing your party by rendering any lock that needs a key/combination unusable, lulz), and which isn't feasible for all locks, never mind any other access barriers. You can shoot tiny objects away from you, assuming you don't accidentally just sunder them instead. (Unattended only, so you can't even shoot the wizard's component pouch/cleric's symbol 15ft. away from them with this.) And you can cauterize bleeds - congratulations, you're now as effective as a cantrip.

And... that's it. Marginally better than just bang-bang-dead I suppose, but not nearly enough to change Gunslinger's tier.

[Coidzor]

Actually, there is a huge amount of Monk love in the latest PF splat-books. There are things like style feats (stances), ki pools (extra attacks, etc.), and archetypes that trade away their myriad useless abilities for useful ones, like cone of cold as a swift action any time you like. Not bad at all.

Kind of odd though, I wonder what it was that caused them to change their minds since they hadn't already while setting out to make the system in the first place.

[Curious]

Kind of odd though, I wonder what it was that caused them to change their minds since they hadn't already while setting out to make the system in the first place.

Painful experience?

[Krazzman]

With the roudn nerfs of the druid I would say it's gone to high tier 2.

But that's just my opinion.

Have a nice Day
Krazzman

[Curious]

With the roudn nerfs of the druid I would say it's gone to high tier 2.

But that's just my opinion.

Have a nice Day
Krazzman

Still full spellcaster.
Still has animal companion.

Looks like tier 1 to me.

[Psyren]

With the roudn nerfs of the druid I would say it's gone to high tier 2.

But that's just my opinion.

I can't see how. It's still SAD, still has all its spells, still knows all its spells, and still gets a fighter as a class feature. Yeah Wild Shape was nerfed and Natural Spell killed, but those were both bonuses rather than the true engine behind the druid's tier.

And being able to drop the critter for a domain is pretty nice too, letting the PF Druid do silly things like enter Sovereign Speaker.

[NNescio]

Spellcasting and full access to the Druid's spell list is what makes it Tier 1. A Druid without Wildshape and the Animal Companion is still Tier 1 -- those bennies are just icing on the cake. They are rather nice bennies, yes, but those aren't what make the Druid Tier 1.

[Midnight_v]

Pathfinder adds a layer of complexity - namely, archetypes, which were represented in the old tier system to a smaller extent by ACFs. The right archetype/ACF can raise or lower the tier of a class, such as Mystic Ranger and Wildshape Ranger both being more powerful than the base Ranger.

It's possible to keep the complexity down by only listing an archetype if it changes a class' tier.


Also, add the following to your list:

Tier 2: Psion
Tier 3: Psychic Warrior
Tier 4: Soulknife

Wilder is tricky to place, particularly depending on archetype (I'd say Student is definitely T2) but doesn't fall below T3.
I just wanted to give that a plus 1.
Its true, it's relavent, and its pretty awesome.
They did a really good job with those classes.

Edit: I was about to say "didn't they nerf the Animal Companions" but I went to check... Still really good.
Still tier 1. (also apparently you can now pick vermin, no feat required, and its not "Just" off a list of critters. So... you know go wild. )

[Wings of Peace]

It has been debated a few times with mixed results, but does the human sorcerer break into tier 1? The human sorcerer has 29 spells known over the 3.5 sorcerer (arcane can get another 3). That's a lot. So can the sorcerer get all the game-breaking spells in PF? 75 spells compared to 43 (63 to 34 if you discount cantrips) can't be readily ignored. PF's list of relevant spells is also smaller.

In short, no. Not in my opinion anyways. The tiers aren't a measure of anything except the versatility of a class or acf (in the case of things like the Erudite). 29 more spells known radically increases versatility but it's still short of classes who can learn/already know all spells or powers on their lists.

Edit: I think once the list is reasonably accurate consideration should be given for placing Archetypes that radically shift their class' power into tiers.

[Coidzor]

Spellcasting and full access to the Druid's spell list is what makes it Tier 1. A Druid without Wildshape and the Animal Companion is still Tier 1 -- those bennies are just icing on the cake. They are rather nice bennies, yes, but those aren't what make the Druid Tier 1.

Depends on the spell list, mostly.

[Fruchtkracher]

... Yeah Wild Shape was nerfed and Natural Spell killed, but those were both bonuses rather than the true engine behind the druid's tier...

Now I've got to ask, in which way was Natural Spell killed? It looks the same as before to me - combine that with the fact that you can take it even earlier than in 3.5 seems an improvement to me.
And though Wild Shape was nerved, you still have the ability to change in, say, a bird or something way more mobile than your base form.

Am I missing something?

[Psyren]

Am I missing something?

You're not, I was going off something else I'd read rather than reading the feat myself. Edited as I remove foot from mouth.

[NNescio]

Depends on the spell list, mostly.

I specified the Druid's spell list.

[MeeposFire]

I just wanted to give that a plus 1.
Its true, it's relavent, and its pretty awesome.
They did a really good job with those classes.

Edit: I was about to say "didn't they nerf the Animal Companions" but I went to check... Still really good.
Still tier 1. (also apparently you can now pick vermin, no feat required, and its not "Just" off a list of critters. So... you know go wild. )

It doesn't surprise me that those classes weren't made by Paizo and they are better than the vast majority of their efforts.

[Lateral]

It doesn't surprise me that those classes weren't made by Paizo and they are better than the vast majority of their efforts.

Yup, they were made by Dreamscarred Press- and they have the guy who wrote the XPH, and was left out of CPsi. Their work is better than the vast majority of Wizards' efforts, too.

[Curious]

It doesn't surprise me that those classes weren't made by Paizo and they are better than the vast majority of their efforts.

I dunno, Paizo actually isn't that bad. Of the classes that they have created entirely on their own, they break down to-

Tier 1's: Witch.

Tier 2's: Oracle, Summoner.

Tier 3's: Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus.

Tier 4's: Cavalier, Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai.

Not a terrible breakdown really, mostly tier 4 to 3-ish.

[Gametime]

What exactly makes the Summoner tier 2, as opposed to tier 3? Admittedly, I've never played one, but the impression I get from reading it's spell list is that it's on par with the other 2/3 casters. Eidolons are big and strong, but having a pet fighter doesn't bump one into tier 2. Am I missing something?

[NNescio]

What exactly makes the Summoner tier 2, as opposed to tier 3? Admittedly, I've never played one, but the impression I get from reading it's spell list is that it's on par with the other 2/3 casters. Eidolons are big and strong, but having a pet fighter doesn't bump one into tier 2. Am I missing something?

Summons. Same reason why the Binder is Tier 2 with Summon Monster.

[Curious]

What exactly makes the Summoner tier 2, as opposed to tier 3? Admittedly, I've never played one, but the impression I get from reading it's spell list is that it's on par with the other 2/3 casters. Eidolons are big and strong, but having a pet fighter doesn't bump one into tier 2. Am I missing something?

Summoners might only have six spell levels, but the spells they get are usually of a higher level altogether. For instance, looking at their spell list, they get Haste as a second level spell, Create Demiplane (an 8th level spell) as a 6th level, and that's just off the top of my head. In short, their actual spell list is far better than most other 2/3 casters.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Is paladin really only tier 4? Their animal companion has the same power as a druid's now (and a higher intelligence score), and their ability to heal themselves as a swift action, smite an enemy till death, etc etc seem to me to be very major boosts to the class, though maybe I just don't understand.

PS: What about soulknife's alternate rule on the sidebar there boosting both soulknife weapon and psionic casting? Would it be enough to boost it to tier 3?

[Infernalbargain]

Actually I think I found something that might make any arcane sorcerer outstrip wizards with a bit of cheese. So an arcane sorcerer gets additional spells at 9th, 13th, and 17th level. At say, 16th level, they put on a Robe of Arcane Heritage, what happens? Well they should get their 17th level ability, which is learning a new spell. This is harmless. What happens when they take it off? Even if they lose the learned spell when they take it off, they gotta learn a new spell when they put it back on. There's nothing by RAW that's saying they must pick the same spell again, nor is there any kind of delay in the effects. So under this reading, arcane sorcerers can spontaneously cast from their entire list by quickly putting on and off their robe of arcane heritage (between levels 5 and 16 at least). I think that certainly qualifies for tier 1.

[MeeposFire]

Tiers are not designed to be considered for extremely niche build ideas. I don't even like splitting them by class abilities unless it is very character defining but what you are talking about is a single exploit of an item and that is really too niche to put a class up a tier..

[Lateral]

Actually I think I found something that might make any arcane sorcerer outstrip wizards with a bit of cheese. So an arcane sorcerer gets additional spells at 9th, 13th, and 17th level. At say, 16th level, they put on a Robe of Arcane Heritage, what happens? Well they should get their 17th level ability, which is learning a new spell. This is harmless. What happens when they take it off? Even if they lose the learned spell when they take it off, they gotta learn a new spell when they put it back on. There's nothing by RAW that's saying they must pick the same spell again, nor is there any kind of delay in the effects. So under this reading, arcane sorcerers can spontaneously cast from their entire list by quickly putting on and off their robe of arcane heritage (between levels 5 and 16 at least). I think that certainly qualifies for tier 1.

Except that a wizard can do that without dependence on a magic item, without any cheese, and at all levels. Ostensibly, crusaders can kill anything with a single attack and crush the action economy beneath their little finger- does that make them tier 2? No, because that requires serious cheese, a dubious interpretation of the rules, and a gearing of the build towards that end.

(Admittedly, that's a pretty flimsy example, but I can't think of a better one.)

[Fox Box Socks]

Gunslinger Tier 4? Really?

All it can do is shoot things, and it doesn't even do it that well, either. I'd say it's about on par with the Fighter in high Tier 5 land.

[Infernalbargain]

Except that a wizard can do that without dependence on a magic item, without any cheese, and at all levels. Ostensibly, crusaders can kill anything with a single attack and crush the action economy beneath their little finger- does that make them tier 2? No, because that requires serious cheese, a dubious interpretation of the rules, and a gearing of the build towards that end.

(Admittedly, that's a pretty flimsy example, but I can't think of a better one.)

Isn't the tier system assuming that your cheesing things up?

[Lateral]

Isn't the tier system assuming that your cheesing things up?

NOOOOOOOOO.

[Curious]

So, common consensus seems to be that Fighter and Gunslinger both deserve a place in tier 5. Yes, or no?

[Fox Box Socks]

That would be my estimation. Remember, optimization usually results in the class being a tier higher. If the best you can ever hope to possibly be is a one trick pony, that's clear Tier 5 territory.

[Togath]

Mid or high tier 4 seems about right for the gunslinger, or at least a higher tier than fighter, as they possess most fighter abilities in addidtion to thier own abilities. They can only really do damage(without using things such as pistolero and mysterious stranger at the same, which may or may not be possible[and looking at the pistolero, it looks like they aren't supposed to be compatible]), but are still more versitile than a fighter, even if only slightly, it seems like enough to bump them up to tier 4.

edit: nevermind, hadn't relised pf fighters had class features., gunslinger isn't much better then, gunslingers may actually be less versatile

[Curious]

Alright, Fighter and Gunslinger added to tier 5.

[MeeposFire]

Isn't the tier system assuming that your cheesing things up?

No the tiers (at least by JaronK) do not assume any particular optimization level. It assumes that the classes are using the same level of optimization. So if you were using (on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest level of optimization) a level 5 OP for the samurai then you assume the same for a wizard. You don't compare a 10 samurai (intimimancer) and a 1 wizard (blaster wizard with 10 int at level 20) it just isn't fair nor does it make sense.

This is also why the truenamer doesn't fit in the tiers since in order to make it work at all you have to put in a ton of optimization work and if you do then you are comparing against high OPed builds and if you don't it doesn't work at all in which case you are comparing to other classes that actually work (even if they don't work well).

[Frosty]

So, if the party consists mainly of low tier characters, should the DM throw mostly low-tier monsters at the party?

If there's a Witch (t1), Inquisitor (t3), Cavalier (t5? Really?), Ninja (t5), and a Gunslinger cohort (t5), what kinds of encounters might challenge the entire party but not overwhelm them?

[Psyren]

I approve of Gunslinger as T5.

Is PF Rogue still T4? Seems significantly more powerful due to the (much) broader SA application, beefier HD, more skills to spread around, and the acquisition of bonus feats/tricks earlier. I think it finally has the combat punch to pair with its jack-of-all-trades nature and become T3.

Also, there'll be more psionic classes to add when PsiEx is released - Vitalist, Aegis, Marksman, Erudite...

[Curious]

I approve of Gunslinger as T5.

Is PF Rogue still T4? Seems significantly more powerful due to the (much) broader SA application, beefier HD, more skills to spread around, and the acquisition of bonus feats/tricks earlier. I think it finally has the combat punch to pair with its jack-of-all-trades nature and become T3.

Also, there'll be more psionic classes to add when PsiEx is released - Vitalist, Aegis, Marksman, Erudite...

Not to mention it can use ninja tricks, which include things such gems as Invisibility and Greater Invisibility. . .

[Wings of Peace]

Am I the only one who feels like the Witch is the weakest of the PF tier 1s out of curiosity? I like the Witch's flavor and features but their spell list seems like the weakest to me.

[Psyren]

Not to mention it can use ninja tricks, which include things such gems as Invisibility and Greater Invisibility. . .

They can pick ninja tricks too? (Don't have UC.)

I don't even think they need them to be T3, but that helps. They should definitely be bumped up a tier.

[Anathemata]

I notice no one has brought up this particular class: the Witch.

I love the witch, and built one and played it in a one-shot where it was thoroughly trounced by a Dread Necromancer of the same level, 15th. I am not the best at playing/optimizing casters, I'll admit, but my examination of the class tells me that it is really a tier 2 caster (at best) rather than tier one. It seems to me that people take full prepared casting to be proof in itself of tier 1 status, which might not always be the case. Thoughts?

Sorry I don't have details of the one-shot. It was pretty epic.

[Gametime]

Summons. Same reason why the Binder is Tier 2 with Summon Monster.

Except the Binder can do it all day, while the Summoner is limited to 3 + cha uses per day. The Binder can also have multiple summons out at once and doesn't have to give up a crucial class feature to use it, whereas dismissing your Eidolon just to get a single summoned monster seems more like an emergency backup plan than a strong strategy. Admittedly, Binders can only get summons that can be affected by the pseudonatural template, but I think the sheer repeatability of summons is what makes online-vestige-Binders tier 2.

(I assume you're talking about the summon monster class feature of Summoners and not suggesting they use spells known on summon monster spells.)


Summoners might only have six spell levels, but the spells they get are usually of a higher level altogether. For instance, looking at their spell list, they get Haste as a second level spell, Create Demiplane (an 8th level spell) as a 6th level, and that's just off the top of my head. In short, their actual spell list is far better than most other 2/3 casters.

Getting spells at a lower-than-normal spell level isn't exactly rare among 2/3 casters; Bards get, say, Irresistible Dance at 6th level instead of 8th. But assuming you're right about their spell list being stronger (I haven't done the analysis), that doesn't necessarily make them tier 2. They could just be high tier 3. Being better than tier 3's doesn't mean you're ready to rumble with tier 2's; does the Summoner spell list stand up to the Cleric list (via Oracle) or the Wizard list (via Sorcerer)? Since all three have limited spells known, a Summoner should be able to bring to bear comparable power, and I'm just not seeing it.

[Curious]

Except the Binder can do it all day, while the Summoner is limited to 3 + cha uses per day. The Binder can also have multiple summons out at once and doesn't have to give up a crucial class feature to use it, whereas dismissing your Eidolon just to get a single summoned monster seems more like an emergency backup plan than a strong strategy. Admittedly, Binders can only get summons that can be affected by the pseudonatural template, but I think the sheer repeatability of summons is what makes online-vestige-Binders tier 2.

(I assume you're talking about the summon monster class feature of Summoners and not suggesting they use spells known on summon monster spells.)



Getting spells at a lower-than-normal spell level isn't exactly rare among 2/3 casters; Bards get, say, Irresistible Dance at 6th level instead of 8th. But assuming you're right about their spell list being stronger (I haven't done the analysis), that doesn't necessarily make them tier 2. They could just be high tier 3. Being better than tier 3's doesn't mean you're ready to rumble with tier 2's; does the Summoner spell list stand up to the Cleric list (via Oracle) or the Wizard list (via Sorcerer)? Since all three have limited spells known, a Summoner should be able to bring to bear comparable power, and I'm just not seeing it.

Okay, here are a few gems:
Wall of Fire as a 3rd.
Dimension Door as a 3rd.
Contact Other Plane as a 4th.
Mass Buff spells as 4th.
Wall of Stone as 4th.
Simulacrum as a 5th.
Greater Teleport as a 5th.
Wall of Iron as a 5th.
True Seeing as a 5th.
Maze as a 6th.
Dominate Monster as a 6th.
Greater Planar Binding as a 6th.
Teleportation circle as a 6th.

Every single one of these spells are down a level from their original form, and some are down two or even three.

So, yeah, they basically have spell lists competitive with full spontaneous casters, as well as a very good beatstick as a class feature, and the ability to summon more if you need to.

[Arbane]

Am I the only one who feels like the Witch is the weakest of the PF tier 1s out of curiosity? I like the Witch's flavor and features but their spell list seems like the weakest to me.

In my extremely limited experience, (Disclaimer - I've only gotten my witch up to level 3 so far), their spells definitely don't seem to have as much ULTIMATE COSMIC POWAR!@!! as the Wizard, but they can spend most fights spamming Hexes and save the spells for before and after battles. But they are fairly flexible, and can usually find a spell for any situation the Hexes can't help.

And since the tier list ranks classes by both flexibility and raw power, I think they probably deserve a spot on Tier 1. Possibly at the bottom of it, but consider the competition.


I love the witch, and built one and played it in a one-shot where it was thoroughly trounced by a Dread Necromancer of the same level, 15th. (SNIP)
Sorry I don't have details of the one-shot. It was pretty epic.

Can you recall how you got beat? If you just blew a save at the wrong time, that'll do it. All the COSMIC POWAR!!! in the universe can't save you when the dice betray you.

[Lans]

Gunslingers get access to all the deeds of the appropriate level correct?

[Curious]

Gunslingers get access to all the deeds of the appropriate level correct?

Correct. They can also gain additional Deeds through feats.

[Lans]

In that case I think they might edge into tier 4 territory, but I'll have to look over it more

[Drothmal]

This is the first tier list I have found so much agreement with

I think the summoner is Tier 2 (you can break the game with certain builds, and you have a lot of flexibility in an out of combat. IMHO, itmight not be as crazy as sorcerer and oracle, but it's so much closer to them than to the other T3s that it should be a T2)

And I would argue that ninja and rogue are T3. The addition of Forgotten trick gives a lot of opportunities for getting the right combat or style feat to bypass or be incredible effective in a given encounter. While you have other good class features and really good skills)

Edit: I have not played gunslingers yet, but I find it difficult to see them as being a whole tier above fighter (at least for now)

[Curious]

Alright, so we've got more arguments for Nina/Rogue as tier 3's. Any dissenters, or more agreement? If we can get another few opinions, we can get these guys sorted.

Personally, I'm not certain, and will probably go with the popular vote, as I can see good arguments for both tier 4 and 3.

[Psyren]

Personally, I'm not certain, and will probably go with the popular vote, as I can see good arguments for both tier 4 and 3.

Aside from inertia from the old tier-system, what makes the PF Rogue T4?

(Can't comment on the Ninja as I haven't read through all the Tricks, but it certainly seems to be a step up from the WotC version as well.)

[Curious]

Aside from inertia from the old tier-system, what makes the PF Rogue T4?

(Can't comment on the Ninja as I haven't read through all the Tricks, but it certainly seems to be a step up from the WotC version as well.)

The inherent limitation of the skill system. Really, with so many skills easily replaceable by spells or just brute strength, the usefulness of skills seems a bit questionable.

But, as I said, I could also see them as tier 3's, since they have plenty to do out-of-combat, as well as having solid in-combat power.

[Chess435]

I'm really thinking that Human Oracle/Sorcerer should get bumped to low T1 through the increased spell list that they get, at least at higher levels. At worst, they're high T2.

[nyarlathotep]

The inherent limitation of the skill system. Really, with so many skills easily replaceable by spells or just brute strength, the usefulness of skills seems a bit questionable.

But, as I said, I could also see them as tier 3's, since they have plenty to do out-of-combat, as well as having solid in-combat power.

ninja maybe tier 3 but rogue is still solidly tier 4.

[Arbane]

I'm really thinking that Human Oracle/Sorcerer should get bumped to low T1 through the increased spell list that they get, at least at higher levels. At worst, they're high T2.

As I understand it, it isn't about raw power, it's about flexibility. Both Sorcerers and Oracles have wide-open spell lists, but each individual will only have a small fraction of those spells that they can cast.

So yeah, high T2.

[Curious]

As I understand it, it isn't about raw power, it's about flexibility. Both Sorcerers and Oracles have wide-open spell lists, but each individual will only have a small fraction of those spells that they can cast.

So yeah, high T2.

What he means is that PF Sorcerors get a good number more spells known than 3.5 sorcerors, and Human Sorcs get another 17 on top of that. I think somebody did the math earlier, but it came out to 60-ish spells of level 1 to 9 for a Human Sorc. A heck of a lot better than a regular Sorc.


ninja maybe tier 3 but rogue is still solidly tier 4.

And what is the big difference between Ninja and Rogue? They both have free access to each others tricks and talents, and their abilities are pretty similar, so what's the reason?

[Psyren]

The inherent limitation of the skill system. Really, with so many skills easily replaceable by spells or just brute strength, the usefulness of skills seems a bit questionable.

Indeed, that's why the Expert isn't T3 - but the Rogue has a lot more going for it than skills.

The only thing that really held it back from T3 in 3.5 was being too weak in combat; this weakness has been tackled in PF in four key ways:

- Lots, lots more critters vulnerable to SA
- Bonus fighter feats much earlier (2 instead of 11)
- More base feats overall
- Skill consolidation, letting you be a "savvy-talky" rogue and have tons of points to spare for the more combat-applicable feats like Tumble, Balance, Escape Artist and UMD.

Combine all of the above with the fact that their out of combat utility is unchanged. In fact, if anything it's increased due to the Talents that let Rogues gain magical abilities of their own. So I definitely think they've made it to T3 now.

[MeeposFire]

Rogues still have terrible standard actions by default. Think the swordsage. It is the standard action attacks that make the swordsage so mobile and effective. Rogues are still stuck trying to find ways to get full attacks and if they don't they can lose about 50-75% of their offense. That is too easy a drawback. Granted that is a very common problem in PF and no vital strike isn't an effective solution.

[Firechanter]

I haven't tested it myself, but so far I read in several sources (forum threads etc) that the PF Fighter had moved up to T4. This is the first time I read the improvements don't upgrade him from T5.

Granted, my biggest beef with the PF Fighter is that they didn't give him anything except _more_ (static) combat bonuses, so he still can't do anything _but_ fighting. So the question is, does that qualify for "doing one thing quite well", or is its combat ability still "not all that well"?

[Wings of Peace]

As I understand it, it isn't about raw power, it's about flexibility. Both Sorcerers and Oracles have wide-open spell lists, but each individual will only have a small fraction of those spells that they can cast.

So yeah, high T2.

Agreed. It's much more versatile but it's still no Wizard.

[Coidzor]

I specified the Druid's spell list.

Well, yes, but the Druid's spell list is not the same in Pathfinder as it is in 3.5, and I recalled a lot being said about Druids having their place in the sun, at least initially, due to Wildshape which further expanded their power and versatility significantly. Rather than Wildshape being nothing more than a drop in the bucket, like Animal Companion, which, while good, didn't really figure into their tier rating.

[DeAnno]

As I understand it, it isn't about raw power, it's about flexibility. Both Sorcerers and Oracles have wide-open spell lists, but each individual will only have a small fraction of those spells that they can cast.

So yeah, high T2.

In standard, the Sorcerer more than almost any other caster really depends on splatbooks for its power. If it wants to go DPS, it needs splats; if it wants extra actions cheaply, it needs splats. Though it's probably still a net gain considering the sheer amount of extra spells and that the rest of T1/T2 have lost some of their tricks as well, a lot of the outrageous stuff that high OP Sorcs (and only Sorcs) use might not be available in PF.

Does this thread assume only PF sources? I wonder if there are any classes that would go up a tier with access to both PF and 3.5 material.

[Sir Enigma]

I haven't tested it myself, but so far I read in several sources (forum threads etc) that the PF Fighter had moved up to T4. This is the first time I read the improvements don't upgrade him from T5.

Granted, my biggest beef with the PF Fighter is that they didn't give him anything except _more_ (static) combat bonuses, so he still can't do anything _but_ fighting. So the question is, does that qualify for "doing one thing quite well", or is its combat ability still "not all that well"?

The thing is, he got given a bunch of little combat bonuses to things that the fighter was never having trouble with to begin with - small attack and damage bonuses, improved dex bonus and check penalties on armor (seriously? was this really a problem? A flat AC boost would at least have had some relevance...). These do nothing to solve the fighter's problems of lack of mobility (reliant on full attacks, mobile or flying enemies still leave you pretty screwed) and lack of options (your options in combat are still limited and your options out of combat are as poor as ever)

In return, a lot of their best tricks got nerfed. Power attack is far weaker than before (and less controllable), trip now requires an extra feat and eats your attacks of opportunity, you can't get reach and close attacks at the same time (spiked chain was nerfed and not replaced, the best you can get now are weapons that switch from reach to close-up but not both at once), and their main feature (lots of feats) has been devalued by the increased feat gain for all other classes. Overall, I see no reason they should move up a tier; if anything, they're lower in tier 5 than before.

On the human sorcerers, I think they're still high Tier 2. They're more flexible than they used to be, with the extra spells, but they still lack the adaptability of a wizard - if they find a situation they don't have a spell for, they can't change their list to adapt the way a wizard can, and that's the real hallmark of Tier 1. They're still "all the game-breaking power of a wizard, but fewer options for how to do it", which is the definition of T2.

[Engine]

you can't get reach and close attacks at the same time (spiked chain was nerfed and not replaced, the best you can get now are weapons that switch from reach to close-up but not both at once),

Well, you can (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/lunge-combat---final).

[Sir Enigma]

Well, you can (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/lunge-combat---final).

Not the same - it only applies on your turn, so it can't be applied for attacks of opportunity.

The closest thing I've found is this (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/dorn-dergar-dwarven), but it eats your move actions to switch, and can't be used for both at once.

[Engine]

The closest thing I've found is this (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/dorn-dergar-dwarven), but it eats your move actions to switch, and can't be used for both at once.

You could switch with a swift action, as here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/darting-viper-combat).

There's Combat Patrol (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/combat-patrol-combat) if you need reach off-turn.

I know, none of them is the same as the 3.5 spiked chain.

[Killer Angel]

On the human sorcerers, I think they're still high Tier 2. They're more flexible than they used to be, with the extra spells, but they still lack the adaptability of a wizard - if they find a situation they don't have a spell for, they can't change their list to adapt the way a wizard can, and that's the real hallmark of Tier 1. They're still "all the game-breaking power of a wizard, but fewer options for how to do it", which is the definition of T2.

Are their options so limited?
They've got not only the extra spells, but, having a feat at every odd-numbered level, with expanded arcana, a sorc. should really be full of options.

[Wings of Peace]

Are their options so limited?
They've got not only the extra spells, but, having a feat at every odd-numbered level, with expanded arcana, a sorc. should really be full of options.

The difference is that while they have a lot of options they don't have ALL the options which is the defining feature of a tier 1. They're not that far from being tier 1 and they're definitely the higher end of tier 2 but even with a spell selection focused on utility their list of options will be smaller than that of a caster like Wizard who has full list access.

[Curious]

-Snip-

While most of what you said is true, any reasonably well-optimized fighter is going to be trading those worthless pluses to hit for archetype abilities, which are almost universally better.

[Sir Enigma]

The difference is that while they have a lot of options they don't have ALL the options which is the defining feature of a tier 1. They're not that far from being tier 1 and they're definitely the higher end of tier 2 but even with a spell selection focused on utility their list of options will be smaller than that of a caster like Wizard who has full list access.

Pretty much this. The increased spells known unquestionably make Sorcerers more powerful and flexible - a lot more. What they don't have, and what IMO keeps them in Tier 2, is the possibility to change out their options to fit the situation. A sorcerer can't, for example, use divination spells to know what's coming and then swap around his spells to be prepared for it - whatever they pick, they're stuck with.


While most of what you said is true, any reasonably well-optimized fighter is going to be trading those worthless pluses to hit for archetype abilities, which are almost universally better.

*shrug* I don't know enough about the archetypes to comment on them one way or another - I think archetypes are for a separate discussion once the base classes are placed. It's possible that good archetypes could move the fighter up from T5 to T4 (like Dungeoncrasher does in 3.5), I just think that the base fighter should remain T5.

[Gnaeus]

The inherent limitation of the skill system. Really, with so many skills easily replaceable by spells or just brute strength, the usefulness of skills seems a bit questionable.

But, as I said, I could also see them as tier 3's, since they have plenty to do out-of-combat, as well as having solid in-combat power.

Rogue benefits are debatable. Low-mid op rogues are stronger. High op rogues are much weaker (no swift action wands in wand chambers, no flask sneak attacks, many spells nerfed ability to get full round sneak attack (Blink, grease), so much lower damage output from high op rogue.)

[MeeposFire]

While most of what you said is true, any reasonably well-optimized fighter is going to be trading those worthless pluses to hit for archetype abilities, which are almost universally better.

Yea but most of the archetypes for fighters aren't very good (they sometimes get one good ability but tehn end up replacing decent abilities for bad abilities so it is a wash if you keep taking fighter levels). The mobile fighter might be best but its benefits come so late. Unless they got something really good recently?

[Psyren]

Granted, my biggest beef with the PF Fighter is that they didn't give him anything except _more_ (static) combat bonuses, so he still can't do anything _but_ fighting. So the question is, does that qualify for "doing one thing quite well", or is its combat ability still "not all that well"?

They still have awful standard action attacks due to lack of bonus damage, still have awful full attacks because they have to sacrifice their mobility for them, still have few to no uses for their swift/immediate built-in, and even the greater number of feats is nearly a wash due to PF's fighter feat dilution.

[MeeposFire]

Awful standard actions is probably my most common complaint about PF classes. Despite the options getting much better at the end of 3.5 PF ignores it and goes back to a more 3.0 mindset on actions.

[Gametime]

Yea but most of the archetypes for fighters aren't very good (they sometimes get one good ability but tehn end up replacing decent abilities for bad abilities so it is a wash if you keep taking fighter levels). The mobile fighter might be best but its benefits come so late. Unless they got something really good recently?

DISCLAIMER: I've never played any of these archetypes in a game, so this is all just theoretical. I may be entirely wrong.

The Aldori Swordlord mostly trades bonuses for roughly equivalent bonuses, but at level 11 they get the ability to counterattack as an immediate action. Not exactly Jack B. Quick levels, since you can only do it once a turn, but if you don't mind the weapon restriction it's still better than what you lose.

Brawlers get some decent battlefield control abilities, including threatening 5-foot steps at level 9 and a big bonus on Stand Still (as well as it as a bonus feat) at level 13. Kind of late, but still better than what you're giving up. A decent way to trip without a reach weapon, if for some reason you're determined to do so.

Cad is pretty forgettable for the most part, but the ability to use an immediate action to use a dirty trick against a flat-footed enemy you hit is pretty sweet, if you can reliably trigger it. Dirty tricks are normally terrible, since you're trading your standard action for their move, but being able to shut off an enemy's full attack while still full attacking them is pretty good action economy.

Dawnflower Dervish gets pseudo-pounce, like the mobile fighter; still later than they should, still better than nothing.

Roughriders get full attacks plus move at level 15, way later than they should (and only while mounted, when most mounted builds want to charge charge charge). I guess it's an okay backup if the terrain doesn't allow charging; likely better than what they lose from straight fighters, anyway.

I'm not sure how good Tactician is because I haven't reviewed the teamwork feats (though I'm not optimistic). At the very least, the bonus skill points and boost to initiative (instead of saves against fear) seems well worth the lose of some small bonuses to attack and AC.

Unbreakables get some okay bonuses - +x to saves against all mind-affecting, not just fear; ability to make another Fort save against something as a standard action; mettle - but nothing spectacular. The ability to make a new save against something, in particular, suffers from the same problem as Iron Heart Surge: anything you really want to get rid of probably won't let you take the action to get rid of it.

Aside from that, most of the "specific weapon" archetypes seem better than going vanilla fighter and using that weapon, but offer mostly only small bonuses. So, yeah; my intuition is that a few archetypes - mobile, brawler, tactician, dawnflower, maybe cad, maybe some of the specific weapon ones - boost things up to tier 4. But again, I could be completely off base.

[Retech]

If you are like Treantmonk and you really like Summon Monster spells, imo summoners are tier one and will continue to improve as they add more monsters to summon monster.

Since they can summon as a standard action and have summons last for 1 min per level, if they want a spell, they can just summon something that can cast it and have it sticka round for a while longer.

And the Eidolon + skilled evolution makes for a better skillmonkey than the rogue for low levels.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The mobile fighter archetype gets a gimped move+full attack at 11th, and a non-gimped move+full attack at 20th. The abilities come too late, but 'lateness' doesn't keep it out of low T4. It can move and hit things, and it does it pretty well by PF standards. Of course, the Barbarian can get real Pounce one level earlier, so there ya go.

If Summoners are T2 they are the lowest T2 I've ever experienced. T2 requires them to have broken tricks; while they get certain spells, like Wall of Fire, at the same time a T1 caster would get them, those are not the spells that are going to obviate entire adventure plans. I'd put them at high T3 unless you can really go bananas with summon monster.

Witch hexes can cause some serious shenanigans when optimized properly; they're low T1, but still T1. The tier system isn't some crystal ball that magically describes every potential problem a DM might encounter with certain classes. That's why human sorcerers are T2, even though they are probably more of a problem for a DM than a T1 witch.

[MeeposFire]

DISCLAIMER: I've never played any of these archetypes in a game, so this is all just theoretical. I may be entirely wrong.



Aside from that, most of the "specific weapon" archetypes seem better than going vanilla fighter and using that weapon, but offer mostly only small bonuses. So, yeah; my intuition is that a few archetypes - mobile, brawler, tactician, dawnflower, maybe cad, maybe some of the specific weapon ones - boost things up to tier 4. But again, I could be completely off base.

Aldori swordlord-Bad. counter attack looks like a good ability but it costs both an AoO and your immediate action and that is too costly for what you get. 3.5 stuff was better and that did not raise the fighter's tier.

Brawlers-Seems nice though the lack of reach is very troubling as is still the lack of mobility options. Does not fix any of the fighters real problems sadly.

Cad- is too weak. One ability that is sort of worth it (but not really) isn't worth what you lose and does not make the fighter better.


Dawnflower- this is like mobile fighter but worse. Still better than most sadly.

Roughrider-mobile fighter is better and does not require you to use a mount that is likely to die. It is far too specialized.

tactician-I love the skill points. I don't like most everything else especially since I think they overlap with mobile warrior which means you can't do both. If I could do both that might be worth while since it helps to two different key fighter problems.

Unbreakable-This gets some nice stuff but it still lacks the fixes to other important (possibly more important) areas and its bonuses prevent you from getting those other abilities from other archetypes.

You are not completely off base but the biggest issues are that you can't combine these together. Only getting one is not sufficient to change its tier. Getting the important abilities of mobile fighter (mobility), tactician (skills), unbreakable (defenses), an possibly brawler (disruption and control) would make the fighter decent if you could get them all at once. Sadly doing this would make your fighter about equal to what the fighter had in 2e AD&D but it would be better than what we have now by far.

EDIT: You did a fairly good job of cutting through the bad. Swordlord I admit looks good if you miss the double action whammy and roughrider isn't bad as much as it is too specialized. Dawn Flower is worse than mobile fighter but it does have one of its important abilities so it did have that.

[Drothmal]

If Summoners are T2 they are the lowest T2 I've ever experienced. T2 requires them to have broken tricks; while they get certain spells, like Wall of Fire, at the same time a T1 caster would get them, those are not the spells that are going to obviate entire adventure plans. I'd put them at high T3 unless you can really go bananas with summon monster.



I would argue that summoners are a good T2 since they get a better version of an animal companion + all the summon spells + a bunch of good spells

There are ways to abusing all 3 of those abilities separately. Together, you have a solid T2

[Frosty]

The Dragoon archetype for Fighter finally allows for a weapon that can reach both far and near and threaten both far and near. No EWP needed either, since you're proficienct with spears and lances as a fighter.

[MeeposFire]

The Dragoon archetype for Fighter finally allows for a weapon that can reach both far and near and threaten both far and near. No EWP needed either, since you're proficienct with spears and lances as a fighter.

That one ability is very nice but the rest is bad. Too many archetypes have a single good ability but ruins it with bad abilities everywhere else.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I would argue that summoners are a good T2 since they get a better version of an animal companion + all the summon spells + a bunch of good spells

There are ways to abusing all 3 of those abilities separately. Together, you have a solid T2Eidolon: T4 by itself. 2/3 spellcasting: Low T3 by itself. Summon Spells: Eh... I want to say T3 by itself, until I see an argument for something gamebreaking. There are ways to abuse CW Samurai, too, but that doesn't put it into a tier of potential gamebreakers. Just like the Druid would still be T1 if it just had the spellcasting, Summoners don't break out of T3 just because they have more T3/4 features. They are very nice out of the box, though... something which the tier system has trouble describing.

[Curious]

Dawnflower- this is like mobile fighter but worse. Still better than most sadly.

Wait- you mean better, right? It's the exact same thing, but it gets an extra attack instead of 'take 10 on acrobatics', and it doesn't lose it's capstone to do it.


Eidolon: T4 by itself. 2/3 spellcasting: Low T3 by itself. Summon Spells: Eh... I want to say T3 by itself, until I see an argument for something gamebreaking. There are ways to abuse CW Samurai, too, but that doesn't put it into a tier of potential gamebreakers. Just like the Druid would still be T1 if it just had the spellcasting, Summoners don't break out of T3 just because they have more T3/4 features. They are very nice out of the box, though... something which the tier system has trouble describing.

True, but its 2/3 casting is actually more like Conjuration-focused full-casting, seeing as they get a metric ton of spells heavily discounted spell levels from the Wiz list.

[Drothmal]

Eidolon: T4 by itself. 2/3 spellcasting: Low T3 by itself. Summon Spells: Eh... I want to say T3 by itself, until I see an argument for something gamebreaking. There are ways to abuse CW Samurai, too, but that doesn't put it into a tier of potential gamebreakers. Just like the Druid would still be T1 if it just had the spellcasting, Summoners don't break out of T3 just because they have more T3/4 features. They are very nice out of the box, though... something which the tier system has trouble describing.

Definitions of T2 and T3, emphasis mine

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.


Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

I would argue that the combination of all the summoner features makes the times they can bypass an encounter non-trivial.

There are many ways of breaking the game with the Eidolon (from combat maneuvers to abusing the skilled evolution).
There are many spells that can end encounters or facilitate them by a very large degree
I am no expert on the summon monster spells (there are a lot of people much better than I at that), so I will leave exploits of that feature to others


Also, having the eidolon and access to hast at level 2 gives you more action economy than any of the T3 classes, which I feel is enough to pull them over the T2 barrier


I am assuming all level of optimization being the same. Sorcerers are T2 because they can break the game with the right spell selection, while still being very useful/flexible/powerful with a less optimized one. I believe that the summoner, with an equivalent level of optimization to the sorcerer, can be almost as broken/powerful (respectively)

And yes, I did say almost, but I think it is an almost that still leaves the summoner in a T2


EDIT: +1 to Curious' comment on the 2/3 casting being closer to full casting (should we say 85% :smalltongue:)

EDIT 2: I just went through the summoner's spell list: Most of their lvl 6 spells are lvl 8 sorc/wiz (at least 1 lvl 9). I think that's a bit better than others 2/3 casting

[Engine]

And yes, I did say almost, but I think it is an almost that still leaves the summoner in a T2

EDIT 2: I just went through the summoner's spell list: Most of their lvl 6 spells are lvl 8 sorc/wiz (at least 1 lvl 9). I think that's a bit better than others 2/3 casting

I agree on T2 for the Summoner. While it's true that the Summoner only gets 6 levels of spellcasting, the Summoner's spell list contains high level spells (and good ones too).
Yes, the Bard gets high level spells too. But if one read them will see that are almost all Compulsion spell: a simple Protection (a meager level 1 spell) could render the high level spells of the Bard useless.
Summoner's spells are more varied and, in my opinion, better.

[Curious]

Holy- I'm looking through the Barbarian rage powers right now, and I'm seriously considering whether they belong in tier 3.

No, really! Check this; they can gain Pounce, flight and ER and DR (from one source), what is basically a good Will progression, the ability to Sunder spells, extra natural attacks, aggro abilities based on Intimidate, eat spells and gain temp hp equal to CL, a feat that makes it so they don't leave rage when unconscious, and more!

[Retech]

Lots of the abilities come online kinda late and by that time, they're kinda meh.

They were probably buffed, but not in a versatility path.

[Gametime]

Cad- is too weak. One ability that is sort of worth it (but not really) isn't worth what you lose and does not make the fighter better.

I dunno, all you lose are bravery (which is nice but not huge), armor training (which everyone complains about being basically useless anyway), and weapon training (which is a nice bonus but, again, insufficient), and you get some of the weapon training bonuses back in the form of Payback.

In exchange, you get the ability to deny one enemy a round their full attack action in exchange for 1) being able to hit them flat-footed; and 2) using an immediate action. That seems like a pretty nice gain for a small investment. Is it huge? No. But it's nice.




You are not completely off base but the biggest issues are that you can't combine these together. Only getting one is not sufficient to change its tier. Getting the important abilities of mobile fighter (mobility), tactician (skills), unbreakable (defenses), an possibly brawler (disruption and control) would make the fighter decent if you could get them all at once.

I think your standard for tier 4 is too high. Dungeoncrasher alone brought fighters up to tier 4 in the original tier system, which did only little to boost their mobility, almost nothing to booth their disruption and control, and absolutely nothing to boost their skills or defenses. Fighters are really close to tier 4 as-is; a small jump in action economy or mobility is probably sufficient to make them competent at their one job, which is all tier 4 really needs.

[Psyren]

...a feat that makes it so they don't leave rage when unconscious...

Note that dropping out of rage when you lose consciousness is actually a Pathfinder nerf to Barbs (a significant one at that), and the feat in question restores them to 3.5 functionality rather than giving them anything new.

I'm undecided on Summoner. It seems they should be T2 - D&D being D&D, summoning things is just that good - but not sure if that pushes them over the wall.

[9mm]

Note that dropping out of rage when you lose consciousness is actually a Pathfinder nerf to Barbs (a significant one at that), and the feat in question restores them to 3.5 functionality rather than giving them anything new.

I'm undecided on Summoner. It seems they should be T2 - D&D being D&D, summoning things is just that good - but not sure if that pushes them over the wall.

The Ultimate magic Archetypes seal it's T2 spot. It was a decent second-line caster; now summoners can be a nasty frontliner, swarmer, and skill-monkey.

[Killer Angel]

If you are like Treantmonk and you really like Summon Monster spells, imo summoners are tier one and will continue to improve as they add more monsters to summon monster.


They got a too limited spell selection, to be T1

[Firechanter]

But, and this has been pointed out before, summoning stuff gives you access to many further spells! Just summon something that can cast the spell you need. Done.

[Engine]

But, and this has been pointed out before, summoning stuff gives you access to many further spells! Just summon something that can cast the spell you need. Done.

I'm not sure. Reading the descriptions of the creatures you could summon on PFSRD it seems to me that you could get access just to 7th level spells through summoning or Wish. So while I could agree that the Summoner is a powerful class, earning it a spot in the T2 line, I doubt one could put it in T1 because it lacks sheer flexibility: you could break a game, but not in so many ways like a full spellcaster.

[Killer Angel]

But, and this has been pointed out before, summoning stuff gives you access to many further spells! Just summon something that can cast the spell you need. Done.

Wouldn't that be true also for Sorcerers?

[Firechanter]

Wouldn't that be true also for Sorcerers?

Good point.

[Elixia]

Alright i'll brace for impact here,

can someone explain tiers to me? i assume its a system for making a well rounded balanced group but like what the difference between a tier 1 to a tier 5? if you have a link i can info binge on, fantastic!

[Prime32]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293

[Firechanter]

Ah right, that link is better than the one I was about to post.

<snipped>

edit:
Basically T1 means "Can do anything, up to and including breaking the game in a multitude of ways", and T5 means "Is barely decent at what it's supposed to do, let alone at other things". The other Tiers fill the gradient between those points.
The actual lower extreme is T6, "Not even any good at what it's supposed to do", but this is rarely relevant in play.

[Elixia]

ah ha!! got it.

so I'm tier 2, sorceress. interesting. now to info binge on that link.

(half read, explains why i struggled as a rogue in 3.5 though i did managed to get some complex battle plans to work but thats nothing to do with character stats)

[Manrata]

Synthesist should be Tier 1.

The Synthesist is majorly broken:
- Gets lots of spells, alot of the good ones before the wizard. Like haste on level 4.
- Have the evolution surge spell, which allows for more or less instant adaption to any situation.
- Have more attacks than most, and all at full BAB. (Presuming you use same primary attack)
- Has an AC that goes through the roof, even more with Barskin, which he can cast himself.
- Good saves, don't have to waste attribute points on physical stats
- Really good HP, combo of Eidolon and own.
- High strength and can be large from level 7, and therefore pretty good damage.
- Can get inbuild flight early
- Evasion

Played with a party where one made a Synthesist, and one played a druid. The druid tried his best making the wildest character. The synthesist wasted several feats on RPG things. Still when it came to combat, about 70% of everything killed by the party was killed by the synthesist.

This was in the Carrion Crown campaign, heard a similar tale from a friend in the Kingmaker campaign.

The only downsides to the synthesist is bad touch AC, and a weakness against dismisal/banishment, against which he has an pretty good Will save.

[Answerer]

If there's a Witch (t1), Inquisitor (t3), Cavalier (t5? Really?), Ninja (t5), and a Gunslinger cohort (t5), what kinds of encounters might challenge the entire party but not overwhelm them?
Part of the idea of the Tier System is to impart the knowledge that, all else being equal, that party may be a Bad Idea. Which isn't to say it can't work, but it's going to be very, very difficult for a DM to challenge the high-tiers without leaving the low-tiers useless. Especially if he's trying to avoid This Looks Like a Job for Aquaman (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisLooksLikeAJobForAquaman).


The only thing that really held it back from T3 in 3.5 was being too weak in combat; this weakness has been tackled in PF in four key ways:

- Lots, lots more critters vulnerable to SA
- Bonus fighter feats much earlier (2 instead of 11)
- More base feats overall
- Skill consolidation, letting you be a "savvy-talky" rogue and have tons of points to spare for the more combat-applicable feats like Tumble, Balance, Escape Artist and UMD.

Combine all of the above with the fact that their out of combat utility is unchanged. In fact, if anything it's increased due to the Talents that let Rogues gain magical abilities of their own. So I definitely think they've made it to T3 now.
While this is true, I don't think it's enough. Sneak Attack has also been nerfed in some subtle ways, and Paizo seems to have the idea that letting the Rogue get a full-attack worth of Sneak Attack on a regular basis is a bad thing. Also, I'm not aware of any trivial ways of getting movement+full-attack on a single-classed Rogue, PF or not. This was a major problem for the 3.5 Rogue; has Pathfinder solved it?


I haven't tested it myself, but so far I read in several sources (forum threads etc) that the PF Fighter had moved up to T4. This is the first time I read the improvements don't upgrade him from T5.

Granted, my biggest beef with the PF Fighter is that they didn't give him anything except _more_ (static) combat bonuses, so he still can't do anything _but_ fighting. So the question is, does that qualify for "doing one thing quite well", or is its combat ability still "not all that well"?
Then you're reading the wrong threads; everyone whose opinion on the matter I trust agrees that Paizo did barely anything with the Fighter. As you note, the changes only give him static numerical bonuses: the Fighters problems were never in the numbers. The 3.5 Fighter can achieve plenty of very-high numbers. It's the lack of options and abilities that places him in his tier, and Paizo hasn't addressed that to my knowledge.


Pretty much this. The increased spells known unquestionably make Sorcerers more powerful and flexible - a lot more. What they don't have, and what IMO keeps them in Tier 2, is the possibility to change out their options to fit the situation. A sorcerer can't, for example, use divination spells to know what's coming and then swap around his spells to be prepared for it - whatever they pick, they're stuck with.
I'm not familiar enough with the spell lists, but certainly on a hypothetical level, if a Sorcerer has enough spells known to simply know everything he'd ever want to cast (yes, even then), then he's pretty obviously be Tier 1 – and at the top of it. I think an argument along these lines certainly could be made.

[NamelessNPC]

There's this seemingly innocuous spell, Paragon Surge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/paragon-surge) that gives you a feat you qualify for for minutes/level. It is a half elf spell, but says "ask your DM" if you are of another race and want to cast it. For the feat, you choose Improved Eldritch Heritage (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/improved-eldritch-heritage), choosing the 9th level blodline power from the arcane bloodline: You add a sorc/wiz spell to your spells known. This means a 11th level half elf (or human) caster can choose the best spell for the situation in every situation. That's tier 1. The spell is not on the bard's, oracle's, inquisitor's or summoner's list (the other spontaneous casters), but what are wands for if not this?

So there. From level 11, all casters can be tier 1, in my opinion.

[Saidoro]

So with a specific spell-race-feat combination a sorcerer has unparalleled out of combat versatility(using two actions for your optimal spell is usually not worth it). That is a tier one option, but it's also a highly specific combination, pun-pun doesn't make paladins tier 1.

[grarrrg]

First off
TURN UNTHREAD!


Synthesist should be Tier 1.

The Synthesist is majorly broken:

Umm.
No, that is not how Tiers work.
Tiers are measures of Power and Flexibility, both in and out of Combat.
Summoners/Eidolons are great In-combat, less so out of Combat.

And while they do get _some_ 8th or 9th equivalent spells, they do NOT get a good variety of them, nor do they get a lot of them. And Summoner Spells are VERY Summon/Buff focused. If you can do it with a Summoned creature GREAT! If not then you are out of luck.
Wizards can cast ANY spell EVER from the Wiz/Sorc list.
Sorcerers can cast ANY spell EVER from the Wiz/Sorc list (but have limited Known).
Summoners can cast a FRACTION of the Wiz/Sorc list (and also have limited Known).

And they are extremely poor Skill-wise as well.
They only get 2 Skills/level, and have no reason to boost INT super high.
And yes, a Synthesist can Surge the Skilled Evolution onto himself for a quick +8. This is massive at low levels, fairly Ho-Hum at high levels, moreso because you won't have the base level of Skill points, and you are MUCH less likely to have other Gear/Feat boosts to it.
So at the higher levels, where the Tier-ranking is focused on, Summoner/Synthesist is VERY lacking.

They are High Tier 3/Low Tier 2.

[Starbuck_II]

While this is true, I don't think it's enough. Sneak Attack has also been nerfed in some subtle ways, and Paizo seems to have the idea that letting the Rogue get a full-attack worth of Sneak Attack on a regular basis is a bad thing. Also, I'm not aware of any trivial ways of getting movement+full-attack on a single-classed Rogue, PF or not. This was a major problem for the 3.5 Rogue; has Pathfinder solved it?

True, but they gave stealth boosts like items.

1) Decoy Ring is Mislead at will (Mislead casts Greater Invisibility and a illusion of you, ring's G Invis is only a few rounds before you have to activate again though)
You activate the ring with Withdraw action (which doesn't require you to be near enemy to start by RAW).
2) Ninja archetype can go invis (as spell) as Swift action (later upgrades to Greater version)

Sadly, they also nerfed flasks (can't apply sneak to them in PF), so no sneak attack touch attacks. The splash effect was just extra.

[Answerer]

True, but they gave stealth boosts like items.

1) Decoy Ring is Mislead at will (Mislead casts Greater Invisibility and a illusion of you, ring's G Invis is only a few rounds before you have to activate again though)
You activate the ring with Withdraw action (which doesn't require you to be near enemy to start by RAW).
2) Ninja archetype can go invis (as spell) as Swift action (later upgrades to Greater version)

Sadly, they also nerfed flasks (can't apply sneak to them in PF), so no sneak attack touch attacks. The splash effect was just extra.
But what does that do for their mobility?

Also, invisibility as the spell is almost useless to a Rogue in combat. See my earlier point about Paizo feeling that a Rogue getting a full Sneak Attack routinely was a bad thing. And the ring's even worse if it's activated as a standard action, which it does seem to be.

[Starbuck_II]

But what does that do for their mobility?

Also, invisibility as the spell is almost useless to a Rogue in combat. See my earlier point about Paizo feeling that a Rogue getting a full Sneak Attack routinely was a bad thing. And the ring's even worse if it's activated as a standard action, which it does seem to be.

Hey, the ring's no worse than activating a standard to activate a scroll of G. Invis (it is just at will without a UMD check).

[Gnaeus]

Witch hexes can cause some serious shenanigans when optimized properly; they're low T1, but still T1. The tier system isn't some crystal ball that magically describes every potential problem a DM might encounter with certain classes. That's why human sorcerers are T2, even though they are probably more of a problem for a DM than a T1 witch.

Yeah, to some degree, the tiers break down hard on PF classes. In 3.5, it is pretty clear that a T1 wizard is more powerful and flexible than a T2 Sorcerer. They have bonus feats, are much better at item crafting, spells 1/2 level ahead, and access to a wider variety of I-Win buttons.

In PF, the sorc also gets bonus feats. He is virtually tied in item crafting because you no longer need prereqs, and while the wizard may be able to memorize the correct I-win spell for the right opponents, the Human Sorcerer is much much more likely to have the winning spell for any situation, because he can now pick lots more of the best spells of his top 3 levels and use them at will. The only real advantage that the wiz retains is the spells 1/2 level earlier. I see the argument that T1 = flexible spell casting, and I get it, but when you reach the level where the tier 2 is actually likely to be stronger/more flexible than the T1 at low/mid op, it is a major breakdown in the system.

[Endarire]

A Pathfinder Human Sorcerer, even with the Favored Class bonus spells, is still tier 2. It's a higher tier 2, but can't change his spells every day like a Wizard, nor does it have a theoretically infinite repertoire.

[Wise Green Bean]

Paladins. They're tier 3 now. Pathfinder gave them a whole lot of love.

-They're no longer MAD(fighter+CHA is not too burdensome, WIS can now bugger off).
-Pathfinder smite is a far superior ability(ignore DR and AC boost), especially in a world where the overall damage cap tends to be lower(no uberchargers).
-IMMUNITY TO COMPULSIONS, ending the risk of your awesomeness being used against the party.
-Weapon bond opens up a whole new range of options. Fighting treants? Flaming weapon. Need to take prisoners? Merciful weapon. Incorporeals? Ghost touch.
-Lay on hands does more healing overall, and as a swift action, making them one of the few classes with viable combat healing.
-Mercies makes it easy for them to help with debuffs. Your barbarian buddy will love you. 'I raged and now I'm tired!' 'No you aren't.'
-No longer limited to just one fighting style. Paladins are more than mounted chargers, now they can be archers, TWF, and more.

And their spell list was never bad. They're much better casters too, now that they actually focus on their casting stat.

Pathfinder also gives them more flexibility in terms of skills. They don't really need to dump INT quite so badly now that WIS is unecessary, and of course there is the favored class bonus, though that usually goes to more HP rather than more skill points(but then, the archeradin doesn't need quite so much HP...).

So I think they make it to tier 3. There aren't many situation that you can throw at a mid level group that a paladin can do nothing about. Spells, more skill flexibility, better combat options, more combat options.

[Psyren]

And if the above weren't enough, then you've got the archetypes that get summon monster/planar ally to give you even more utility.

[ThiagoMartell]

It has been said before, but Fighters are t4. One trick ponies, but their trick works. Same goes for Gunslinger.


But what does that do for their mobility?

Also, invisibility as the spell is almost useless to a Rogue in combat. See my earlier point about Paizo feeling that a Rogue getting a full Sneak Attack routinely was a bad thing. And the ring's even worse if it's activated as a standard action, which it does seem to be.

Scout's Charge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes/scout) + Vulpine Pounce (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/vulpine-pounce-combat) ot Claw Pounce (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/arg-feats/claw-pounce-combat-catfolk) gets you a full sneak attack plus movement. I'm sure there are other ways.

Also, why isn't greater invisibility or vanishing trick considered an option?

[Answerer]

It has been said before, but Fighters are t4. One trick ponies, but their trick works.
I assume, then, that you disagree with the Fighter's tier in 3.5? Because Pathfinder didn't change anything meaningful about them that I am aware of.


Scout's Charge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes/scout) + Vulpine Pounce (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/vulpine-pounce-combat) ot Claw Pounce (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/arg-feats/claw-pounce-combat-catfolk) gets you a full sneak attack plus movement. I'm sure there are other ways.
I'm not taking either Vulpine or Claw Pounce seriously, not with those prereqs.


Also, why isn't greater invisibility or vanishing trick considered an option?
Who said they're not? I was only responding to the specific options that were suggested. Mostly, I'm trying to figure out what Pathfinder has done differently that would justify increasing their tier relative to 3.5.

[TechnoWarforged]

I still don't understand why monks, a melee fighting class with hardly any other notable abilities (In and outside of combat), still doesn't get full BAB.

A Class that only does what it's supposed to be good at medicorely is a sad Tier 4 in my books.