Removing bottom tiers?

[JusticeZero]

Including PoW and all the Psionics classes, is there any reason why I shouldn't just expurgate Fighters, Rogues, and Monks? Or at least make them one level NPC classes? What can I use for "generic whacky skill guy"?

[HammeredWharf]

Is there a reason to remove them?

[JusticeZero]

Because I don't like people playing Commoners either? Sort've the same reason I wouldn't want to allow a Truenamer. It is accompanied by removing the T1's.
They're generic and "iconic" so people play them for lack of a better idea, which contributes to a wider spread of power levels. Trying to lift the floor some.

[HammeredWharf]

Sounds a bit heavy-handed. I'd rather explain why they're bad than blanket ban them. Besides, some low-tier classes can be very useful as dips.

[JusticeZero]

Possibly heavy handed. I suppose I need to try to make some CL1 guard templates on PoW chassis to see how that works out for genericity. If I had a good "skill monkey with a sword" class with a higher floor it would help.

[Abd al-Azrad]

Because I don't like people playing Commoners either? Sort've the same reason I wouldn't want to allow a Truenamer. It is accompanied by removing the T1's.
They're generic and "iconic" so people play them for lack of a better idea, which contributes to a wider spread of power levels. Trying to lift the floor some.

This is needless micromanagement of your players. If you are worried about the power level of one of the PCs, there are many ways to address the issue without outright banning core classes. For instance,

- Reconsider the level of threats you are introducing in your combats.
- Spend more time creating situations in which a lower-tier character can lend their strengths.
- Let the players solve their own problems re: balance of power.

I have played in very few games in which one or more characters were utterly overshadowed and useless. Certainly, there is a range and lower-tier classes need more tinkering before they can perform at high levels. But it is frankly insulting to your players to indicate, "I know you are unable to contribute to this game if you try to play as the class you want, and I am so sure of this, I am banning you from trying."

The banhammer should drop only in the most dire of circumstances.

[Sayt]

The Fighter can, with support, contribute meaningfully to combat. So can Cavaliers and Samurai. Can the Warlord or the Ranger or Psychic Warrior do the job better? Well, yeah, but not necessarily in the same ways.

In campaigns which don't focus heavily on combat, Rogues get the most base amount of skill points in the game and one of the most expansive lists.

Monk? Not really so much, Monk needs homebrew help. or warnings against it.

As for the Truenamer, that's broken in the sense that it doesn't operate as intended. A fighter can fight.

Generally speaking, I don't think there's actually much cause to ban classes, if all the players are feeling that they're making a substantive contribution to the game, cool. (Cavalier in one of the game I'm playing pulled a "By the way I'm working for the enemy" and rammed his lance through the back of the druid, 1HKOing him while they were seperated from the party and we couldn't recover the body)

Really, what I'd do is make sure the players aren't over their heads or our to cheese the T1s when they make their character choices instead of blanket bans.

[JusticeZero]

It's not so much that I cannot deal with an under performing character as it is that it's a pain to have a big chunk of the party under performing because they didn't want to look at the other options. Also trying to figure out how best to build "generic combatant #x", and also really annoyed that I can't actually build any iconic Fighters on a Fighter chassis.

[Mnemnosyne]

On the other hand, players tend to expect the DM to build encounters and campaigns around them. If the problem is that players are gravitating toward certain classes purely because they are iconic and 'default', then it is likely they are not optimizing those classes properly to lift them out of their weakness. This suggests they probably expect the DM to compensate and present them with challenges their weaker characters are relevant at. Playing particularly weak characters is making more work for the DM, but most players probably will not be all that appreciative if the DM makes no allowances whatsoever for their poor build choices.

[Abd al-Azrad]

Perhaps I was too harsh in my previous post. Correct me if I am wrong, but I feel like your frustration stems from a more specific problem regarding your gaming group, rather than an overall analysis of the game mechanics. A well-played low-tier class does have its place and can contribute in specific situations, just like a well-played high-tier class can be played in such a way that it doesn't overshadow everyone else.

Have you considered tackling this problem in-game? Introduce a Captain Scoundrel, for instance, who coaches a low-performing character using some of the options presented in the various online Optimization Guides? Advice may seem more genuine coming from a helpful NPC.

Re: Low level "skillmonkey with a sword" characters you could use as generic guards... I don't tend to play this role very often, but a low-level bard with skill-boosting spells would suit the role fairly well, long before their casting gets interesting.

[JusticeZero]

The Fighter can, with support, contribute meaningfully to combat. So can Cavaliers and Samurai...
In campaigns which don't focus heavily on combat, Rogues get the most base amount of skill points in the game.. .
Sure, but that adds the strangeness of making the skill guy a stealth sneak attack guy.. Is just weird. I'd rather have a martial skill class, but I don't know what would fit. If I need a sneaky assassin, there's the Stalker.
Cavaliers are a different problem, they seem to be welded to their mounts, and if they're not somewhere they can use them...

[Abd al-Azrad]

How about a Tactician Fighter (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/tactician)?

They get decent skill progression, they can spend their bonus feats on skill feats, and with Human and the Favored Class bonus going to skills, they're getting 6+Int mod skill points per level in addition to combat ability?

For added fun, you can make them take Traits to give access to additional class skills as you see fit - there's a trait for nearly every class skill you can think of.

[Jormengand]

A better solution is to allow players of lower-tier characters to do things to bump them up a tier or even two. A normal fighter (High T5) isn't going to be anything like as good as a water orc Zhentarim Soldier/Dungeoncrasher (High T4), and even a truenamer (T6) becomes a lot more scary when you allow him to take item familiars and be an illumian with a masterwork tool (Jumps up to T4 because he can actually make his checks) and then grab things like mortalbane to triple his first-level damage and allow him to use his insane knowledge check to sacrifice things at 4th level to get a planar ally without actually having to roll... yeah, that may be a bit too much, but you see the point.

Meanwhile, a Sorcerer (T2) becomes a lot less game-breaking when instead of DCS/Paragon surge (which would make him T1) he's almost exclusively filling his spells known list with evocations and enchantments (dropping him to T3).

Player>Build>Class, always. Even a commoner can be deadly in the right hands, and chicken commoner will beat 9-INT wizard unless the wizard's player can think of something fast.

[Sayt]

There is the Slayer for the Sword/Skill guy. It has sneak attack, yeah, but 5d6 means you can get away with something like shatter defenses, but the slayer does have a more martial bent and sacrifices some of the out of combat versatility of the Rogue. But the Stalker can be the Stealthy or he can be in your face with a decent d10 HD deciding on feat/talent/skill selection.

And it's always possible to suggest to characters considering a Cavalier or other mounted character like a Ranger that they'd be well to go for a small character on a medium mount. And then there's the Cavalier archetype which takes a pack of hounds (to UNLEASH! (Psst, Tandem Trip is damn good)) instead of the standard mount.

As before, communication before bans, how much of a combat focus, how many dungeon crawls in close confines, whether or not a megaloceros walking down main street is going to attract undue attention, that kinda stuff.

[Abd al-Azrad]

Even a commoner can be deadly in the right hands, and chicken commoner will beat 9-INT wizard unless the wizard's player can think of something fast.

It better not be too clever, though. Or the chicken-thrower will accuse the idiot wizard of not playing his Intelligence. :smallwink:

[Ssalarn]

Including PoW and all the Psionics classes, is there any reason why I shouldn't just expurgate Fighters, Rogues, and Monks? Or at least make them one level NPC classes? What can I use for "generic whacky skill guy"?

I wouldn't remove the monk. Sure core monk isn't great, but when you have the entire breadth of the Paizo prd as a resource you can combine feats and archetypes to come up with a lot of really solid builds. Sohei, Zen Archer, Sensei, and Tetori can all be made to be very effective, and there's a lot of splat book options that expand upon that.

Rogues.... There's ways to make the Rogue work, and a few character ideas that aren't well covered by other classes. So he's probably worth keeping around.

As to the Fighter.... Fighters still manage to be pretty decent during levels 1-6. And they make great dips for those people who maybe want to start out as a Fighter long enough to put a combat chain like Thunder and Fang together before jumping over to a class that'll fill in the gaps.

I wouldn't take any of these classes out of the game, though I might slap an "Advanced" sticker on them and steer new players away from them towards something more well-rounded.

[Gemini476]

Including PoW and all the Psionics classes, is there any reason why I shouldn't just expurgate Fighters, Rogues, and Monks? Or at least make them one level NPC classes? What can I use for "generic whacky skill guy"?

Well, let's take a look at this approximation of a tier list I nabbed off of the internet.


>Tier 1:
Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Witch, Sorcerer (Razmiran Priest/False Priest), Sorcerer (Paragon Surge), Oracle (Paragon Surge), Arcanist, Shaman
>Tier 2:
Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner, Magus (Hexcrafter), Bard (Magician + Paragon Surge), Skald (Paragon Surge)
>Tier 3:
Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Investigator, Warpriest, Paladin (Sacred Servant), Hunter, Skald
>Tier 4:
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Adept, Brawler, Slayer, Gunslinger, Fighter (Lore Warden), Bloodrager
>Tier 5:
Cavalier, Samurai, Fighter, Rogue, Ninja, Swashbuckler, Monk (Archetypes - namely Qinggong Monk)
>Tier 6:
Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner, Expert, Monk (Core Only)

This is without DSP classes but with ACG classes.

Now let's look at the same list without Tier 1-2 and Tier 5-6 (the gamebreakers and underachievers, basically)


>Tier 3:
Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Investigator, Warpriest, Paladin (Sacred Servant), Hunter, Skald
>Tier 4:
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Adept, Brawler, Slayer, Gunslinger, Fighter (Lore Warden), Bloodrager

So as it turns out, you actually get a few classes! Four of which aren't even casters.
The Investigator is a pretty good skill guy, as is the Bard. Although to be honest after what Pathfinder did to the skill system there's no longer such a thing as a "skill monkey" - just have Int as a primary stat and you'll soon surpass a Rogue in everything except the glorified Skill Focus that is class skills.

I do believe that all of the DSP classes are Tier 3-4, with the exception of the full casters. Maybe you should bring Tier 2 in, but given the general potential of such classes I'm leery about that.


I still hold that XPH+ToB (or maybe UP+PoW in this case) are a pretty good "replacement Core".

[icefractal]

The thing about that list is that it doesn't take multiclassing into account. For example, I'd say that a Ninja with a Gunslinger dip is probably stronger than a pure Gunslinger (more damage, more skills, better abilities, less accuracy but you're making touch attacks). And a lot of characters can benefit from some Monk levels, especially Master of Many Styles.

[Ssalarn]

You can fill a lot of the traditional Fighter-type ideas with the Warder or Warlord, though neither does exactly what the Fighter does.... I take that back, they both hit things hard, but then they've got a bunch of other goodies. They're basically your tank/tactical guy (Warder), and your charismatic, lead-from-the-front guy (Warlord).

Stalker makes a good Rogue with lots of combat options.

The monk is so flexible with all of his archetypes, especially considering that they released that FAQ that allows Qinggong to stack with basically every archetype out there, that I hate to see him tucked into the Tier 5 "drop em like they're hot" list. He's got some really good options that allow him to bring some cool and unique builds to the able. Zen Archer is, of course, pretty much the best archer option in the game, Sensei with Mantis Style feats and Touch of Serenity can be a wickedly effective debuff-tank capable of targeting multiple defenses to shut down an enemy's offensive capabilities, Sohei is one of the better mounted combatants in the game, there's several good builds that use Dragon Style to great effect, and there's a large enough pool of other options out there that I could go on for a bit without running out of viable and effective builds.


The thing about that list is that it doesn't take multiclassing into account. For example, I'd say that a Ninja with a Gunslinger dip is probably stronger than a pure Gunslinger (more damage, more skills, better abilities, less accuracy but you're making touch attacks).

Or some of the craziness you can pull off with enough splat books at your command. A dwarven Rogue with Gun Twirling can deliver a lot of sneak attack damage without ever suffering a misfire chance, and....

Crap, I'm blanking on the feat name right now (Dirty Trick Mastery?) but there's a feat in Bastards of Golarion that, when combo'd up with the Dirty Fighter racial archetype, can turn the Fighter into one of the nastiest battlefield control shutdown experts out there.


Granted, those are pretty much like the 2 cases I'd ever consider single-classing a character into either of those classes, but still...

[Raven777]

Including PoW and all the Psionics classes, is there any reason why I shouldn't just expurgate Fighters, Rogues, and Monks? Or at least make them one level NPC classes? What can I use for "generic whacky skill guy"?

It is better to let players play what they want to play (ultimately, agency over their character is part of the fun), but it doesn't stop you from mentioning alternatives if they are unaware of them.

[Cloud]

The main reason not to remove them is dipping, to be honest, that's about it. I'd be pretty tempted to remove tier 5 and 6 as well, but luckily with my players they tend to gravitate towards tier 3-4 classes naturally. Still blanket banning might be excessive, and it might just be easier to talk to your players, explaining that you're not your class and that some classes really aren't good at the thing they should be good at.

[upho]

Including PoW and all the Psionics classes, is there any reason why I shouldn't just expurgate Fighters, Rogues, and Monks? Or at least make them one level NPC classes? What can I use for "generic whacky skill guy"?I'm actually planning on doing this in my next campaign, but rather than flat out ban the tier 1-2 and 5-6 classes, I'm limiting them to max 5 levels (not including the more useful monk archetypes Ssalarn mentioned), and no casting above the equivalent of a vanilla bard. I'd also let tier 1-2 casting somewhat stack with tier 3-4 casting, meaning you can expand and speed up your casting abilities by for example having your bard or magus dip sorcerer or wizard, although you won't be able to access higher level spells. With the PoW classes, there's virtually never any mechanical reason to take more than five rogue, monk or fighter levels.