Pathfinder Tiers vs D&D Tiers

[Mongobear]

What is the overall difference (if any) in the tier ranks of the updated classes versus their regular D&D counterparts?

Did Paizo change enough about the lesser classes like Samurai/Monk so that they are playable compared to 3.5's?

Are the Tier 1 and 2 classes less game-breakingly abuseable? Or should I still expect players to be able to manipulate the very world with a mere thought?

What is the Tier of the Pathfinder exclusive classes like Alchemist, Gunslinger, etc that dont have a D&D equivalent?

[Anlashok]

What is the overall difference (if any) in the tier ranks of the updated classes versus their regular D&D counterparts?

Did Paizo change enough about the lesser classes like Samurai/Monk so that they are playable compared to 3.5's?

Are the Tier 1 and 2 classes less game-breakingly abuseable? Or should I still expect players to be able to manipulate the very world with a mere thought?]/quote]
The answers, respectively, are "a little bit, kinda, and no".

Druids are noticeably weaker because of changes to wild shape and such.. but that's it. Wizards don't have ice assassin anymore and summon monster is slightly more restrictive.... there aren't feats like irresistible spell, but that doesn't take away the fact that they're still wizards. They get more class features now and a better HD anyways, which pads out some of their weaknesses. Technically they are a bit worse, but not by a large enough margin to mean much.

Sorcerers and Oracles (which are favored souls with class features) are vastly better now too, as you can be a half-elf and get a spell that lets you access their entire list.


the rest of the classes are more or less where they were in 3.5.


[quote]What is the Tier of the Pathfinder exclusive classes like Alchemist, Gunslinger, etc that dont have a D&D equivalent?
Alchemists are stripped down artificers and middle of the road. Gunslingers do lots of damage and nothing else, putting them in T4-T5 depending on who you ask and whether or not the DM is fiating their damage away (because the DM can do that freely within the rules).

[The Grue]

Just to add: T1 classes are slightly weaker than 3.5 in comparison to other classes, but their optimization ceiling is still head and shoulders above the competition.

Druid is still the king of the hill.

[Gemini476]

The Paladin is a bit better in PF, but he only really manages to break into Tier 3 with a few specific archetypes.
How do you feel about completely free Planar Ally?

Beyond that? Monk gets into Tier 4 with archetypes, Fighter gets into Tier 4 with Lorewarden, Rogues were horribly nerfed, and the Samurai is a completely different class but is still a tier higher than the CW one on account if not being that awful.

Casters are still crazy and have more feats than before, while martials effectively have less feats due to expanded feat chains. Oh, and there's some really crazy metamagic - one makes any damaging spell a SoL by adding a daze effect, and another makes you roll twice when saving against it. And more, of course. It's not really like DMM or Arcane The as is abuse, but there's still a lot they can do to break the game.

Wizards didn't really lose much in the way of spells other than polymorphing and summoning, since except for a few outliers most of the broken spells are in core and a lot of them got through relatively unchanged. Not to mention how they added more spells and spellcasters.

Clerics are pretty different without DMM and the changes to Divine Power, but still wreck face. Druids were greatly needed and now only have 2.5 classes worth of class features rather than 3 classes, but they still wreck face as a bear ridding a dire bear while summoning bears.

Most of the non-combat options are still just for casters. Mundanes can craft magic items now, but need an extra feat for each skill they're planning to use and operate at a penalty. Wizards can prepare 1/4th of their spells in a single minute, and Oracles can get access to any spell on the Cleric or Wizard lists as a standard action.

Oh yeah, and the change to class skills means that having one is effectively equal too having Skill Focus. They don't mean much, in other words, and you're better off leaving it too someone who has that attribute as a primary stat.
Also, all casters now have UMD for some ungodly reason.

But yeah, overall there hasn't been much change in the tier lists. Rogue went down a tier and Samurai went up one, while Monk and Paladin both have options that knock them up one as well. The Sorcerer, Bard, and Favoured Soul/Oracle also have options that boosts them a tier.
Oh, and I guess the Artificer got bumped down two tiers if you consider it similar to the Alchemist.

[grarrrg]

Rogues were horribly nerfed, and the Samurai...
...
Oh yeah, and the change to class skills means that having one is effectively equal too having Skill Focus.

Doing a straight compare between 3.5 Rogue and PF Rogue, the PF Rogue wins hands down.
The problem is that the game changed around them, specifically the Skill system. It's much too easy for anyone to be a Skill Monkey now.
And while Sneak Attack -can- work on more opponents, actually -enabling- a Sneak Attack got harder.

As for Samurai, the ONLY thing in common with 3.5 is the name. It is an entirely different class (technically a Super-Archetype of Cavalier).



Oracles can get access to any spell on the Cleric or Wizard lists as a standard action.
But you must be a specific Race, and jump through a couple hoops to get there.
An Oracle (or a Sorcerer) who (ab)uses Paragon Surge can be considered Tier 1.

[Chaosvii7]

Personally, I don't rate Pathfinder with 6 tiers. I do 4 instead, because the NPC classes aren't and weren't designed to be in players' hands so they shouldn't need to be represented on the table, and the number of both classes and options is severely skewed.

That said, I put my 4 tiers into something like this:

Tier 1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid

Tier 2: Alchemist, Summoner, Sorcerer, Witch, Oracle, Bard

Tier 3: Paladin, Ranger, Magus, Inquisitor

Tier 4: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue/Ninja, Monk, Cavalier/Samurai, Gunslinger

Ignores archetypes, but anybody who's looking at tiers can probably see the scant differences between most archetypes.

The differences between each tier are definitely less significant than 3.5's tiers, but it's still all about the most versatile classes, with spellcasting being superior. Anything that casts spells gets a pretty distinct advantage over the mundanes, but there's definitely more ways to move things around the tiers and less disparity between them all.

[grarrrg]

Tier 2: Alchemist, Summoner, Sorcerer, Witch, Oracle, Bard

Tier 3: Paladin, Ranger, Magus, Inquisitor

I wonder, what is your reasoning for Alchemist and Bard getting a higher tier than Magus and Inquisitor?
And why is Witch Tier 2 as well?

[Pluto!]

It's the same game.

Prepared 9th level spellcasters whose spell lists grow with each supplement still have easy answers to practically every problem. Ie. what people mean by Tier 1 in 3e.

Spontaneous 9th level spellcasters whose spell lists grow with each supplement still have easy answers to most problems. Ie. what people mean by Tier 2.

6th level spellcasters and 9th level casters with limited or unexpanded spell lists (eg. Word of Power users) still have approximate answers to most problems. Ie. what people mean by tier 3.

Non- and half-casters rarely auto-succeed obstacles or encounters, but can participate in encounters with varying degrees of regularity and competence. Ie. tiers 4-6.

The summoner might blur the line between the second and third categories, but that's because its class features and its spell list itself blur the lines between level 6 and 9 effects.

The biggest change would be that the Paladin beats faces a lot more easily, but it's still not as versatile as the 2/3 casters.

[Chaosvii7]

I wonder, what is your reasoning for Alchemist and Bard getting a higher tier than Magus and Inquisitor?
And why is Witch Tier 2 as well?

Magus is very combat-oriented; Most gish classes don't really rise above and beyond because they typically neuter their spellcasting as the cost of their combat focus, and one of the most commonly referenced aspects of the old tier list was that combat is not the be-all end-all, especially for the tier system, which was focused around being able to solve a multitude of challenges. Bards and Alchemists have some all around greater utility; I might be a little bit biased in putting them up a tier because I've played Alchemist more than Magus, and Bard is hands down my favorite class in every game system basically by default.

As far as Inquisitor goes, I ought to have used what the original tier system used and italicize the classes that I wasn't very experienced with. Out of all of the Pathfinder Classes, Inquisitor is the only one I haven't played for more than one session(I had a PFS Inquisitor that got killed off in First Steps Part II; Two sessions was unfortunately not enough to draw a decent conclusion through gameplay.) Typically, Inquisitor is usually taken for it's strong combat focus, and it suffers from a somewhat constrained spell list.

Hex abuse aside, Witch is most definitely tier 2 by the standard definitions of the Tier system: It's got a lot of potential because it gets full 9-level spellcasting in a system where it's somewhat rare, and it's got a lot of utility and flavor in it's Hexes, but it's spell selection is a lot less powerful because it's a fixed list. A fixed list means that it while it may be able to get a share of the strongest spells available to spellcasters, it can't do everything, which is why Tier 1 exists; With the right magic, they can do everything. It's the same thing that holds back Sorcerers and Oracles, but that doesn't make it weak by any means. Bard and Alchemist have a slightly better time with more diverse choices of spells(Alchemists have some damage-dealing mixed in in the form of harmful abjurations and some not-so-friendly transmutations).

2 other things of note that I feel silly for not including in the original post I made are:


The sweet spot of the list is tiers 2-4; Anything with spellcasting that isn't unrestricted in any real way.
The difference between tiers is basically "Unrestricted Spellcasting > Restricted Spellcasting > Singularly-Focused Spellcasting(be it combat or otherwise) > Mundane"
Feats make or break builds a lot more decisively than in 3.5, because Pathfinder's pool of prestige classes are actually very well-balanced. Feats are what make the big gaps in builds and their strengths, and the right picks can launch people up a tier or two(a Dirty Trick-using Rogue with wand support is actually an easy Tier 3 character in my opinion.)


I tried to make this as generalized as possible to what I consider typical optimizational play, but I also play very casually at my FLGS; There is only one other person at the table who knows how to optimize well, and after some stuff that happened just last night regarding his character I think he's seen that we don't really do high-op around here. My views are skewed, but at this point I've played everything for at least 1 level and do get the idea of the tier system to the point where I'm comfortable saying that I do believe in this tier system.

Hope that answered everything, it's early in the morning where I am so I might have skipped over something or not given enough detail. My apologies!

[StreamOfTheSky]

Druid weakened but stayed (now low) tier 1. Wizard (especially) and Cleric got even stronger and stayed tier 1. Sorcerer* is tier 2 as before.

Rogue got horrifically weakened. Mainly due to the game around him (much harder to get ranged sneak, can't sneak with flasks, tumble is now suicide, "class skill" is practically worthless, the only thing exclusive to trapfinding now is disarming (not even finding...hell, detect magic is inifini-cast now) magical traps...), yes...but the end result is still "why would you play a rogue?" It dropped to tier 5.
Monk also got pretty badly weakened (bet you didn't think that was possible) but they're already rock bottom so they didn't actually move in tier, they're just even MORE unplayable now. Special exception to Zen Archer and Sohei, who climb to tier 4 by ditching nearly everything monk-like to kick ass with weapons/bows and such and in the Sohei's case wear armor.

Paladin is easily tier 4 now, as is Fighter for sheer damage output (can't do anything else, though). Ranger is also tier 4 if it wasn't already. Barbarian remains in tier 4. Bard stayed tier 3; performances got nerfed hard but the casting's better and they got a bunch of skill monkey stuff that makes the rogue cry.

New classes... all the 6-level casters (including alchemist) are somwhere in tier 3 except Summoner, who is tier 2 and arguably stronger than the Sorcerer. Some think Magus is low in the tier (since he's focused on damage-dealing evocation magic), though Hexcrafter archetype easily fixes that... Cavalier/Samurai is tier 5. Ninja is a little better than the Rogue and probably high tier 5, arguably low tier 4 at level 10+. Oracle* is tier 2. Witch is low tier 1, arguably tier 2 the spell list is so narrow. It can spam (mostly mind-affecting/will) save or dies all day long, but can't do a lot else compared to any other prep. caster.
Gunslinger is...whatever the highest tier noncasters who dish out unstoppably high nigh-auto-hitting damage each round can achieve. Tier 3? High tier 4? It's a class that combines high base damage with full attack all the time (ranged), touch attack all the time (guns), ranged power attack despite the rules not allowing it w/ touch normally, and single stat-dependent dex to damage for good measure. That's all it can do, but gunslinger's power is mostly only limited by how much money he's willing to spend in a round to make something dead. Which is just...a wonderful way to balance something. :smallannoyed:

*With the Paragon Surge spell, Sorcerer and Oracle jump to god tier, tier 0. As they can then spont. gain any spell on their lists whenever they want. Oracle is particularly nasty, as he can pick from his list AND the sorcerer's list at level 11+.

[Chaosvii7]

If I had to toss out archetypes, Qingong Monk would definitely deserve a mention for giving the Monk some added SLA utility, but not a diverse option. The only thing is that you'd need vows to make sure you had a hefty Ki Pool to use them a lot. Not a problem if somebody crunched the best and worst Vows available to optimize the amount of Ki you can have, but I think it save the Monk the torture of having an excessive amount of abilities that make it so poor on it's own.

[Anlashok]

The witch is a full progression spellcaster with a good list and amazing hexes patch up most of the weaknesses in her spell list. She's firmly T1... not the best T1, but she's too versatile to compare to non-half elf sorcerers

T2 characters have "break the game" potential like T1, but less raw versatility (hence sorcerer who's a less versatile wizard and oracle who's a less versatile cleric). Neither bards nor alchemists really have that capability at their hands. Alchemist in particular has so many caveats placed on his abilities against abuse it's really hard to make anything of it. He can fight well and he gets good utility with his infusions, but that's it.

Listing "rogue/ninja" as a single entity feels disingenuous too. The rogue is significantly worse than the superarchetype and probably belongs in T5 (along with the unarchetyped monk, samurai and potentially the base fighter or gunslinger).


Typically, Inquisitor is usually taken for it's strong combat focus, and it suffers from a somewhat constrained spell list.
The inquisitor is in many ways a divine bard (with the emphasis switched from being charming to being threatening). The two classes have extremely comparable combat abilities and spell lists. The bard is slightly more social and the inquisitor is slightly more fighty, but you can switch that up with archetypes and either way they still have really comparable tools at their disposal.

The inquisitor lacks Jack of All Trades and Lore master which are great ways to pump the bard's skillmonkey abilities but it's not like Monster Lore, Stern Gaze, Track and at will detect alignment are horrible alternatives. You still get full social skills and almost every knowledge skill (you don't get nobility, local or engineering with the inquisitor) along with a pretty good six level spell list and a great variety of ways to help win fights.



It's a class that combines high base damage with full attack all the time (ranged), touch attack all the time (guns), ranged power attack despite the rules not allowing it w/ touch normally, and single stat-dependent dex to damage for good measure. That's all it can do, but gunslinger's power is mostly only limited by how much money he's willing to spend in a round to make something dead. Which is just...a wonderful way to balance something
The gunslinger pumps out good DPR, but gated behind a lot of caveats, is entirely at the whim of the DM as to whether or not he can do that damage, and somehow manages to rival the unarchetyped fighter in terms of "versatility". If you just need raw damage you're still probably better off with a barbarian, so I'm really not seeing how the Gunslinger fits alongside the bard. His only big advantage is that his DPR is easier to deliver than the fighter's because it's at range... and if you're looking for that you might as well take a zen archer or ranger.

[Erik Vale]

*Reads a couple of posts and then skips to the end*

For tier one and various top of the hills, I'd like to say everyone rather wrong when they place the sorcerer anywhere but spot one. Pages of spell knowledge + money abuse put them head and shoulders above the mightiest wizard because they have more spells per day and they can cast any spell. Sure, they get hit harder by a dispel, but you can prep for that. They also can get their hands on a animal companion at full level with great ease, punching a hole in one of the larger arguments for druid.

Of course, if you rigidly enforce WBL, they drop back down to tier 2.

[RedMage125]

I think the Fighter might have improved enough to be moved into Tier 4, because it can be "capable of doing one thing quite well", having extra class features and whatnot, but since the majority of what makes a fighter what he is is still dependent on feat selection, it's hard to make that call. A level 20 Human Fighter has 22 feats, but if you chose crappy feats, you'll remain in Tier 5. That's what makes it so difficult to judge the Fighter as having moved up. Yes, his new class features are a vast improvement (especially Bravery and Armor Training), but each fighter build would have to be judged on it's own merit, which is why a lot of people maintain that Fighters are still Tier 5.

Monks are better in PF than in 3.5e, but it's difficult to say if they moved up a whole tier. They're still very gear-dependent, probably still more so than any other class, and if you're using a point buy system, it's very difficult to make them effective. Yes, a Monk with phenomenal rolled stats and the right selection of ACFs can be Tier 4, but as whole, the monk has not dramatically improved its performance. Leaps and bounds ahead of the 3.5 one, though.

Like has been said, all prepared-spell casters are still Tier 1 and all spontaneous ones are Tier 2. Witches are more like Wizards than Sorcerers, and I'd put them in Tier 1. They can learn an unlimited number of spells, their familiar is basically an ambulatory spellbook. They are NOT "limited casters" in the same sense that an oracle or sorcerer is, so I don't know why that was said. Even without "hex abuse", hexes generally are about on par with the school specialization abilities of a wizard, and in some corner cases, even better. Semi-casters, such as the Magus and Inquisitor, are right up there in Tier 3 with the Bard.

Samurai are better than the 3.5 CW Samurai (which was Tier 6), but about on par with a cavalier (it's basically an alternate cavalier, after all). It's harder to NOT be better than a CW Samurai. A 3.5e Monk is better than a CW Samurai.

It's important to note, though, that the Tier System is not meant to be a gauge of how much "better" one class is than another (CW Samurai just sucks though, Tier system or no). Lower Tier classes are not "unplayable", if Higher Tier ones are an option. The Tier System is meant to be a quick reference for a DM to gauge what the party is ultimately capable of (especially at high levels), and get a quick grasp of what kinds of things will challenge them. A level 20 Wizard with a day's notice of what he's going to be facing (or at least a good idea) is pretty much going to succeed at anything. A level 20 Bard will have the same capabilities tomorrow that he will today, so he has an advantage if time is a constraint, but what he is capable of outright "dealing with" by himself is limited. An optimized level 20 Fighter is a dangerous physical combatant, but physical combat is about all he's got going for him.

That doesn't mean that Fighters, Monks, and Rogues are "useless" in a world with Wizards and Druids. A well-balanced and fairly well-optimized party should include members of different classes. After all, if the Rogue is good at doing what he's supposed to, then the wizard doesn't need to prepare spells that cover the rogue's role, and can prepare spells of a different nature. Same with other "mundane" classes. The Gunslinger shows a remarkable lack of long range (in general, I know there are ways around this), but can also be a very good mid-range combatant. If that well-balanced party of 6 people includes both an Archer and a Gunslinger, the Wizard can worry less about dealing direct damage (although having a disintegrate or two prepared is always fun, just in case you want that big single-target damage).

Bottom line is: Don't get so wrapped up in the Tier Ranking System that you start to dismiss the classes at lower Tiers. Just because they can't handle EVERYTHING, doesn't mean they can't be good. By the same token, just because a class can be good at what it does, doesn't mean it warrants a higher Tier. The Tiers mean very specific things. A Tier 3 class is not "worse" than a Tier 1 class, it just means that a hypothetical build of each, given what the class options available are, that a Tier 1 class could, in theory, handle a wider variety of situations.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The inquisitor is in many ways a divine bard (with the emphasis switched from being charming to being threatening). The two classes have extremely comparable combat abilities and spell lists. The bard is slightly more social and the inquisitor is slightly more fighty, but you can switch that up with archetypes and either way they still have really comparable tools at their disposal.I went over this in another thread, but the inquisitor has no real special fighting tricks. They have a way to somewhat approximate a basic meleer's damage... if they focus in it. Whereas Bards, if they focus in combat, can kick serious ass. Bards are also better at skill monkeying if they focus in that.
The gunslinger pumps out good DPR, but gated behind a lot of caveats, is entirely at the whim of the DM as to whether or not he can do that damage, and somehow manages to rival the unarchetyped fighter in terms of "versatility". If you just need raw damage you're still probably better off with a barbarian, so I'm really not seeing how the Gunslinger fits alongside the bard. His only big advantage is that his DPR is easier to deliver than the fighter's because it's at range... and if you're looking for that you might as well take a zen archer or ranger.Eh, I'm not seeing the caveats as much. Under the circumstances that the gunslinger actually exists, he can pretty much craft his own stuff and go to town. And targeting touch AC at a range is much more reliable than the damage most T4s pump out, including barbarian. At level 5 a TWFing pistolero is doing something like +6/+6/+6 ranged touch, 1d8+7 per hit. Compare to a vanilla fighter melee'ing for ~+13, 2d6+9, or a Barbarian melee'ing for... about the same.

[Anlashok]

I went over this in another thread, but the inquisitor has no real special fighting tricks. They have a way to somewhat approximate a basic meleer's damage... if they focus in it. Whereas Bards, if they focus in combat, can kick serious ass. Bards are also better at skill monkeying if they focus in that.
Oh sure. Bards are the better skillmonkies, but inquisitors aren't that much worse unless you hit the few areas of expertise they can't handle and I think you're underestimating judgements and domains (and the other bits and pieces) a bit in your analysis of their combat abilities.




Eh, I'm not seeing the caveats as much. Under the circumstances that the gunslinger actually exists, he can pretty much craft his own stuff and go to town. And targeting touch AC at a range is much more reliable than the damage most T4s pump out, including barbarian. At level 5 a TWFing pistolero is doing something like +6/+6/+6 ranged touch, 1d8+7 per hit. Compare to a vanilla fighter melee'ing for ~+13, 2d6+9, or a Barbarian melee'ing for... about the same.
Crafting his own stuff isn't a concern, but he does rely on certain weapon enchantments becoming available and relies on the DM approving of his action economy to function. And in the end that leaves him being one of the better damage dealers, but not by a particularly huge margin and lacking in versatility and without the raw range of other ranged DPS.

[Endarire]

My experience with Pathfinder Presitge Classes is as caster boosters.

Otherwise, what StreamOfTheSky generally said.

[T.G. Oskar]

The Paladin is a bit better in PF, but he only really manages to break into Tier 3 with a few specific archetypes.
How do you feel about completely free Planar Ally?

I...dunno if this should be good or bad, but what about Empyreal Knight's Celestial Ally class feature? Why it doesn't take the Paladin to Tier 3 as it would Sacred Servant?

Sacred Servant's Call Celestial Ally is great, but it's tricky. It requires to voice a "reasonable task" in order to get the free service, and to get the best use of it, the ally must agree to no less than 1 week of service. Otherwise, you don't get the service of a powerful ally until 1 week later. Note that, since Call Celestial Ally is a spell-like ability, you can't activate spell completion items (a.k.a. scrolls) to get free uses of Planar Ally and their kin. So...it's a 1/week use of a powerful spell, but if you make a frivolous request, you probably won't get the aid (and effectively waste the spell) or get it at a price.

Empyreal Knight is somewhat more restricted on the list, but has far more uses (Cha mod. uses per day). It's not that hard to get really useful creatures to summon: I mean, you can summon with the right books stuff like Dire Lions, Griffons, young and adult Giants, and even some really strong celestials like the Trumpet Archon. Still not enough? Perhaps the Summon Good Monster feat can suffice, adding a plethora of creatures to summon. Even just by limiting to Celestial Creatures, Archons and Angels, but if you do a strict reading of the feat (it adds them to your list), you could easily add a whole bunch of creatures. Even if taking away the Azatas because they're Chaotic, that still leaves quite a bit of Agathions to summon, and many Neutral Good monsters as well. Yes, you lose a source of self-healing, but it's either reliable self-healing or a reliable set of companions in battle.

And yet, I don't hear people saying Empyreal Knight raises the Paladin to tier 3. In fact, I'm still doubtful that Sacred Servant, with its choice of domain and its holy symbol divine bond can raise the Paladin to tier 3 either. Placing all the weight of the archetype in one class feature without analyzing the rest isn't a good way to justify a statement of those likes. I'd like to hear more reasons why it's good other than "free Planar Ally", because while it's definitely a great spell, it's not a Tier-booster on its own (particularly when Empyreal Knight gains many more uses of a very similar ability that can be boosted to an equal level of power). I would say both archetypes are roughly equal, though EK has a greater loss than SS (losing Divine Grace for nothing HURTS, but Celestial Ally alone almost completely justifies it. Almost.)

[Psyren]

The tiers are mostly the same in PF but the gaps between them are smaller.

Archetypes can indeed change a class' tier, much like ACFs could in 3.5 (e.g. Mystic Ranger.)

[I3igAl]

My Pathfinder Tier list, the classes are also ordered inside their Tiers assuming mild optimisation.

1-Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch
2-Oracle(gets lots of nice tricks aside of his spellcasting), Sorcerer, Summoner
3-Inquisitor(really hard to mess up), Bard, Alchemist, Magus(barely IMO)
4-Paladin(good Damage, good saves, nice Support skills), Barbarian, Ranger(assuming instant enemy or a fitting campaign), Samurai, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Fighter
5-Ninja, Rogue, Monk

-Monk moves up to Tier 4 with the right Archetypes and Feats becoming a good enough melee guy.
-Fighter might be considered Tier 5 in mid-high level games due to crappy saves and becoming unable to deal damage(can be forgone with the right wayfinder)
-Paladin with the Sacre Servant Arcehtype might move to Tier 3
-Alchemist might be the strongest Tier 3 with the right Archetypes
-Paragon Surge can catapult an Oracle/Sorcerer to the Top of Tier 1, as can the Arcane Sorcerer Bloodline Capstone in connection with a wish item.


As said by others most classes are playable. The Paladin and Inquisitor will even likely outshine the Tier1s in a low optimisation group as might a Barbarian.
The Monk really needs some optimisation before he can fight well. Rogue and Ninja are quite weak but still playable.

[Psyren]

^ Ninja is T4, bordering on T3.

Samurai, Cavalier and Gunslinger are T5 - damage is all they can do, and even in that respect a Barbarian, Paladin, Ninja and Ranger can outshine them.

[Larkas]

*Reads a couple of posts and then skips to the end*

For tier one and various top of the hills, I'd like to say everyone rather wrong when they place the sorcerer anywhere but spot one. Pages of spell knowledge + money abuse put them head and shoulders above the mightiest wizard because they have more spells per day and they can cast any spell. Sure, they get hit harder by a dispel, but you can prep for that. They also can get their hands on a animal companion at full level with great ease, punching a hole in one of the larger arguments for druid.

Of course, if you rigidly enforce WBL, they drop back down to tier 2.

Sorcerers had Knowstones in 3.5, and they were still T2. The only thing that can pump them to the top of T1 is Paragon Surge.

[LordBlades]

It's important to note, though, that the Tier System is not meant to be a gauge of how much "better" one class is than another (CW Samurai just sucks though, Tier system or no). Lower Tier classes are not "unplayable", if Higher Tier ones are an option.

Sadly, that's not true if the tier gap is too big and/or if the classes fill similar roles. If you have a CoDzilla in party low tier melee (like fighters or monks) are almost unplayable. Number-wise, anything thar challenges the CoDzilla will flatten a fighter instantly.


That doesn't mean that Fighters, Monks, and Rogues are "useless" in a world with Wizards and Druids. A well-balanced and fairly well-optimized party should include members of different classes. After all, if the Rogue is good at doing what he's supposed to, then the wizard doesn't need to prepare spells that cover the rogue's role, and can prepare spells of a different nature. Same with other "mundane" classes.

I think you're looking at it from a slightly wring angle. A wizard+a rogue will obvioulsy be better than just a wizard. Thing is usually the fixed parameter in a D&D group is the number of players. The rogue's player's options aren't play rogue or not play, they're play rogue or play wizard, and I don't think anyone can argue wizard+rogue is anything but strictly inferior to wizard+wizard.

[gomipile]

Gunslingers do lots of damage and nothing else, putting them in T4-T5 depending on who you ask and whether or not the DM is fiating their damage away (because the DM can do that freely within the rules).

What does this mean? The only thing I can think of that you could be referring to is the optional rule about Daring Acts for gunslingers, but that doesn't quite seem to qualify as the GM fiating away all the gunslinger's damage.

[Raven777]

What does this mean? The only thing I can think of that you could be referring to is the optional rule about Daring Acts for gunslingers, but that doesn't quite seem to qualify as the GM fiating away all the gunslinger's damage.

He might mean the recently FAQed reasonable limit the GM can impose on the amount of Free Actions within a round? Because otherwise, I'm not aware of another RAW fashion to directly "nerf" Gunslingers.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

There's also the less-recent dev post that states (directly against all RAW that's ever existed on the matter) that anything that gives you an ability score modifier to X does not stack with anything else that gives you an ability score modifier to X. So no Trench Fighter 3/Gunslinger X. But that really takes Gunslinger from "even more damage than a gundolon" back down to "as much or more damage as the best damage dealers" territory.

The only other thing I can think of is, the DM can fiat Gunslingers out of existence if he wants a more medieval and less renaissance world and says "no/very rare guns."

(I would also like to see a ninja or ranger do more reliable damage than +6/+6/+6 ranged touch, 1d8+7 at level 5, or a Paladin to even approximate that against a neutral foe, or a Barbarian to get there without rage cycling, but that's me).

[I3igAl]

^ Ninja is T4, bordering on T3.

Samurai, Cavalier and Gunslinger are T5 - damage is all they can do, and even in that respect a Barbarian, Paladin, Ninja and Ranger can outshine them.

Why do you think the Ninja is that good? Vanishing Trick is really strong, but your Ki-Pool won't hold that long. The Capstone is kinda broken, but it won't see much actual play.

Samurai and Cavalier could be considered T5, but the Fighter would be too then. He has a hard time outdamaging those guys -though it's possible with lots of optimisation- and even less utility. And outdamaged by a Ninja with his mere 3/4 attack bonus?

[RedMage125]

Do some of the people here not know what the Tier system is and what it's supposed to be? It really seems like some people only know what they've gleaned from reading the optimizers on these threads and are under the misinterpretation that the Tier system is a way to rank "this class is better than that class".

For everyone, here's the link:
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0



Of course, if you rigidly enforce WBL, they [Sorcerers] drop back down to tier 2.
"If you rigidly enforce WBL"? Dude, if WBL is ignored, then even a 3.5e Monk would be a lot better. If he could afford a +5 tome for STR, DEX, CON, and WIS, and the belt that gives +6 to all 6 stats, and have the most optimal item in every gear slot...he wouldn't suck as much.

Of course the class seems better if he has more gear. That reflects nothing on the virtues of the class itself.

And saying that gear basically moves the class up a Tier shows a poor understanding of what the Tier system is and how it works. I suggest you follow the link above.


^ Ninja is T4, bordering on T3.

Samurai, Cavalier and Gunslinger are T5 - damage is all they can do, and even in that respect a Barbarian, Paladin, Ninja and Ranger can outshine them.
I really don't know how you can say that about any of those classes. I disagree with the earlier assertion that Rogues dropped to Tier 5; after all, less creatures are immune to Sneak Attack, ranged Sneak Attack has always been a pain to pull off, and I'd say Rogue Tricks make up for the diluting of trapfinding. But Ninja is pretty much a Rogue.

Samurai, Cavalier, and Gunslinger, since they do damage and do it well, but "often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining" makes them Tier 4. I suggest you re-read the link to the Tier system and re-familiarize yourself with what a Tier means, and what it does not.

Sadly, that's not true if the tier gap is too big and/or if the classes fill similar roles. If you have a CoDzilla in party low tier melee (like fighters or monks) are almost unplayable. Number-wise, anything thar challenges the CoDzilla will flatten a fighter instantly.
I really don't know where you get this idea from. Are you talking about a strictly "high-op" game where even the DM is optimizing, and is genuinely trying to kill the PCs, while still staying technically within acceptable Encounter Level guidelines? Because this may come as a shock to you, but that's not how most people play D&D.

And you are flat wrong when you're telling me that what I said about the Tier system is "not true". I provided the link, go re-read the Tier system for yourself. Especially the list of what the Purpose of the Tier system is.


I think you're looking at it from a slightly wring angle. A wizard+a rogue will obvioulsy be better than just a wizard. Thing is usually the fixed parameter in a D&D group is the number of players. The rogue's player's options aren't play rogue or not play, they're play rogue or play wizard, and I don't think anyone can argue wizard+rogue is anything but strictly inferior to wizard+wizard.
Better from what point of view? From the point of view of someone whose ego is so fragile that he won't play D&D unless his character is at the very least equal to the "best" PC at the table? Because that's the only person I can imagine that thinks like that.
And most games typically involve more that just combat. Take social situations, a Rogue with ranks in social skills (especially if is wizard friend hits him with an Eagle's Splendor) is going to fare better, both in case-by-case basis and in the long run, then a pair of wizards trying to spam Charm Person, especially given the fact that 1)casting a spell is usually noticeable 2) no effect and spell slot wasted on successful save 3)wears off, while using skills does not. Oh, and what do you know? If you actually read the Tier system post, it explicitly calls out social situations as making the Tier system moot.

Seriously dude, the Tier system is NOT, and never has been, a way to say "class X is strictly better than class Y". Especially when you consider that an individual wizard's spell selection, for example, could drop him as low as tier 3 (if, say, he only focused on blasting for example). The Tier system shows how versatile a hypothetical build of a class could be, and how effective the class is, with a hypothetical build, at fulfilling its primary focus, based solely on class features offered.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Oddly enough, the problem with the rogue isn't a wizard necessarily... but Bards/Inquisitors/Alchemists do the Rogue's thing better in pretty much every way.

[Psyren]

But Ninja is pretty much a Rogue.

This reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the Ninja's mechanics, specifically what its ki powers are capable of as well as its proficiencies. Out of the box, the Ninja is capable of techniques that rogues can only poorly imitate.


Samurai, Cavalier, and Gunslinger, since they do damage and do it well, but "often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining" makes them Tier 4. I suggest you re-read the link to the Tier system and re-familiarize yourself with what a Tier means, and what it does not.

"Doing damage and doing it well" is not enough to get a class past T5. Even Fighter is capable of very large amounts of damage, yet it is nevertheless T5. I suggest you re-read the tier system.


Why do you think the Ninja is that good? Vanishing Trick is really strong, but your Ki-Pool won't hold that long. The Capstone is kinda broken, but it won't see much actual play.

It's far more than just the invisibility. Even basic tasks (like flanking targets or getting into position) are harder for rogues than ninjas. And yes, many of these abilities cost ki, but a rogue spending a feat on Extra Ki gets more benefit from that than a rogue spending that same feat on almost anything else. Plus there are several items that both boost and replenish ki as well.

1) Combat - Ninjas can get an extra attack (or two, if you use shuriken) at their highest attack bonus.
2) Tumble - Acrobatic Master means a Ninja will almost never fail a tumble check
3) Deadly Range - increased sneak attack range that stacks with all magic items, racials or spells.
4) Mirror Image - a ninja can gain up to 80% miss chance, giving them much greater survivability in melee, even against foes that can see invisibility or have Blind Fight.
5) Bonus feats/rogue talents - as if their own list weren't good enough, they can borrow choice items (like Skill Mastery) from the rogue list as well.



Samurai and Cavalier could be considered T5, but the Fighter would be too then. He has a hard time outdamaging those guys -though it's possible with lots of optimisation- and even less utility. And outdamaged by a Ninja with his mere 3/4 attack bonus?

A well-played ninja is almost guaranteed his sneak attack against most targets. Even without Invisible Blade, you only need a single item (Goz Mask or Fogcutting Lenses) and you're all set.

[Anlashok]

What does this mean? The only thing I can think of that you could be referring to is the optional rule about Daring Acts for gunslingers, but that doesn't quite seem to qualify as the GM fiating away all the gunslinger's damage.
High DPR gunslinger tricks rely on free action reloading between each attack and how often you can do that is entirely at the DM's discretion.

I just am not comfortable rating a class highly when "must have lenient/reasonable DM" is a requirement to function at that level.

Even putting that aside, the gunslinger's damage isn't so much higher than his competition that we can ignore the dearth of options at his disposal when he can't shoot guns at people. His damage is easier to enable than the fighter (because the fighter gets ****ed so hard by mobility), but that's his only big strength here.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

High DPR gunslinger tricks rely on free action reloading between each attack and how often you can do that is entirely at the DM's discretion.Or, he can craft revolvers.
I just am not comfortable rating a class highly when "must have lenient/reasonable DM" is a requirement to function at that level.Rage cycling requires free actions as well. Where's all that barbarian damage coming from now?
Even putting that aside, the gunslinger's damage isn't so much higher than his competition that we can ignore the dearth of options at his disposal when he can't shoot guns at people. His damage is easier to enable than the fighter (because the fighter gets ****ed so hard by mobility), but that's his only big strength here.He targets touch AC at range. How is that not a huge advantage over the meleers?

Edit:


This reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the Ninja's mechanics, specifically what its ki powers are capable of as well as its proficiencies. Out of the box, the Ninja is capable of techniques that rogues can only poorly imitate.The ki pool is still quite limited, though. Ninja is better than Rogue, but not "up two tiers" better.
"Doing damage and doing it well" is not enough to get a class past T5. Even Fighter is capable of very large amounts of damage, yet it is nevertheless T5. I suggest you re-read the tier system.Doing lots of damage reliably will in fact get you into T4. A gunslinger will, with equal optimization, do more damage than a fighter, at a range, targeting touch AC. That's enough of a difference.

[Anlashok]

Or, he can craft revolvers
Revolver damage pales in comparison to dual wielding double barreled pistols.


Rage cycling requires free actions as well. Where's all that barbarian damage coming from now?
Taking away rage cycling hurts, but the base barbarian's DPR is still really high. Rage cycling also only requires two free actions per turn, not thirty six.



He targets touch AC at range. How is that not a huge advantage over the meleers?
I never said it wasn't an advantage. But in terms of raw DPR, the big damage dealing classes are very and that includes hit chance. That puts them, at best, at the same tier as the barbarian because they aren't ruined by mobility like the fighter is. Not, as the person I was originally disagreeing with, up at T3.

[Psyren]

The ki pool is still quite limited, though. Ninja is better than Rogue, but not "up two tiers" better.

Which is why I said T4 bordering on T3, rather than the other way around. That is only 1 tier.


Doing lots of damage reliably will in fact get you into T4. A gunslinger will, with equal optimization, do more damage than a fighter, at a range, targeting touch AC. That's enough of a difference.

Range is frequently not an option though. Thus it is a wash. If you get a nasty monster up in a gunslinger's face and a fighter's face the fighter will very likely perform more effectively.

As for targeting touch AC, they have to be pretty close for that (i.e. within the distance of a single charge.) Not a very safe place for a range-focused character.

[137beth]

The updated paladin is probably tier 4. The changes to the sorcerer make it easier to bring into tier one with optimization, but I think the out-of-the-box class is still tier 2 (unless paragon surge is allowed).

It is harder for the rogue and fighter to move up a tier. Monks have a slightly easier time moving up with optimization. Other than that the core classes are the same tier as in 3.5.

As for the new classes, I think it looks something like this:
Tier 1: Witch
Tier 2: Oracle, summoner
Tier 3:Magus, alchemist, maybe inquisitor
Tier 4:Ninja, maybe inquisitor, gunslinger
Tier 5: Cavalier, Samurai

[RedMage125]

I think a problem with ranking Cavaliers is that in order to rank them fairly, one must look at their class abilities in a vacuum.

Cavaliers' ability to grant teamwork feats to allies, however, is something that CANNOT be judged in a vacuum, since it's a class feature that literally requires allies to be effective. And, of course, not all teamwork feats are created equal. But if we give that one of the "goals" of the class is to not only be an effective melee combatant, but also improving one's allies' combat ability, does that not make the Cavalier "better" at what he's supposed to do?


This reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the Ninja's mechanics, specifically what its ki powers are capable of as well as its proficiencies. Out of the box, the Ninja is capable of techniques that rogues can only poorly imitate.
I'll admit I have not actually seen a ninja in practice yet. Ninja may yet be a tier above the rogue, due to what it can accomplish with ki powers that a rogue cannot with rogue tricks, but I also don't think the Rogue dropped down to Tier 5.


"Doing damage and doing it well" is not enough to get a class past T5. Even Fighter is capable of very large amounts of damage, yet it is nevertheless T5. I suggest you re-read the tier system.


Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength.
Oh, look at that, I know what I'm talking about.
Fighters I addressed earlier. The class features that the PF fighter gets that the 3.5e one did not are an improvemnt, but not necessarily a whole tier's worth (even though the original article put Fighters in high Tier 5. However, they do get more feats than in 3.5e (everyone does, actually). When you look at a class that one of its class features is essentially "a great deal of customization", it makes it difficult to rank the class. Without race entering the picture, a Fighter has 21 feats. The effectiveness of any given Fighter is, therefore, completely dependent on what feats are chosen. While not a bad thing, it does make it difficult to judge the versatility and effectiveness of the class as a given hypothetical of one build.
Furthermore, the fact that Fighters in 3.5e were high Tier 5, and in PF have new features that not only shore up some weak points of the class, but also make it better at what it does (Bravery and Armor Training, respectively), I'd say the Fighter now meets the criteria for Tier 4.

[137beth]

I think a problem with ranking Cavaliers is that in order to rank them fairly, one must look at their class abilities in a vacuum.

Cavaliers' ability to grant teamwork feats to allies, however, is something that CANNOT be judged in a vacuum, since it's a class feature that literally requires allies to be effective. And, of course, not all teamwork feats are created equal. But if we give that one of the "goals" of the class is to not only be an effective melee combatant, but also improving one's allies' combat ability, does that not make the Cavalier "better" at what he's supposed to do?

You could say the same thing about BCF and buff spells. Usually the rankings assume a mix of other classes for the rest of the party.

[Psyren]

Oh, look at that, I know what I'm talking about.

Do you now:


Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight, CW Samurai (with Imperious Command available)

Note that multiple times he says T5s CAN do well. But in doing so they will feel like one-trick ponies (e.g. fighters pretty much have to charge enemies - into obstacles, if they can - to exceed a barbarian's damage just from normal play) and that they can very often be unable to do their thing (list any of the dozen things that mess with charging here.)

Thus, Fighters are T5. And Cavaliers/Samurai are the same, only their one-trick pony involves a literal pony and is just as easy to shut down (by accident or on purpose.)



Furthermore, the fact that Fighters in 3.5e were high Tier 5, and in PF have new features that not only shore up some weak points of the class, but also make it better at what it does (Bravery and Armor Training, respectively), I'd say the Fighter now meets the criteria for Tier 4.

The greater number of feats are sadly a wash, because melee needs more feats to do in PF (Imp. X + Greater X in most cases, compared to simply Imp X.) what they could in 3.5. They also lost very key feats/ACFs like Shocktrooper and Dungeoncrasher that contributed to their "high T5" rating.

This is not to say they are not still high T5 - but T4 is a stretch. And for Cavaliers/Samurai it's even worse. It's not often you can take your horse into the dungeon.

[Ssalarn]

This is not to say they are not still high T5 - but T4 is a stretch. And for Cavaliers/Samurai it's even worse. It's not often you can take your horse into the dungeon.

This is some of that anti-horse specieism (specism? specyism?) that just gets me all fired up. There's a feat called Narrow Frame that allows a large mount to go basically anywhere a medium mount could go.
The Cavalier has some of the highest single target damage in the game coupled with free combat maneuvers and decent buffing (and awesome action economy boosting if you dip a level of Fighter (Tactician) so you can snag Coordinated Charge with your second instance of Tactician), and some really solid archetypes. Samurai gets the amazing Resolve ability, and the order options for both classes are varied enough that you can typically lock in an effective build combo. Cavalier's get a bad rap that they don't deserve. People like to lump them in with the Fighter despite the fact that they have substantially better options, better action economy, etc.
The Cavaliers biggest problem is all of these GM's who've got a problem with horses and make up their own rules to take away a major class feature; even under those circumstances, he's still got alignment free Smite and reasonable buffing abilities. Samurai is even better because Resolve is always good and if he has one of those anti-horse biased GM's he can drop the mount to grab Sword Saint and eventually have a reasonable standard action stand-in for when he has to move and attack.

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well

Given that definition, the Samurai and Cavalier are both pretty solidly Tier 4, particularly the Samurai.

[Psyren]

This is some of that anti-horse specieism (specism? specyism?) that just gets me all fired up. There's a feat called Narrow Frame that allows a large mount to go basically anywhere a medium mount could go.

1) The mount still loses half its movement rate (one of the main reasons you want to be riding it in the first place) and riding it underground is probably not going to be feasible everywhere either (e.g. low ceilings.) Even above ground, there are also social implications to bringing them indoors (the king might not be thrilled at a horse in the throne room for instance, and they probably wouldn't be welcome in the wizard's tower, the tavern or the library either.)

2) You still need basically double-wealth to equip your mount properly (barding for AC, saving throw gear, stat boosts etc.) or else have it crumple like tissue to high-level threats. Even a well-trained horse is going to have problems with incorporeal foes, dragons, giants, poison/curses, negative levels etc. Nor do you have easily shareable buffs/heals like a druid, summoner or even ranger do to compensate for such items, you are basically just paying for two characters.

3) Sword Saint is, quite apart from being Samurai-only (Cavaliers don't get mounted archer), still not a very good replacement, though it at least gives you something to compensate for the times a mount isn't feasible. But a simple full-attack from a Barbarian is going to outdamage it every time.

And it's unfair to solely blame the DM for this - expecting all the world and dungeon design to center around the guy who is a watered-down fighter without his horse in tow is hardly fair.

So no, I roundly disagree - still T5, both of them.

[Erik Vale]

Sorcerers had Knowstones in 3.5, and they were still T2. The only thing that can pump them to the top of T1 is Paragon Surge.

Ah, but knowstones were Dragon Mag and often banned, preventing them from having any affect...
And then there's also the vastly cheaper [and poorly written] spell research.

[Gemini476]

Ah, but knowstones were Dragon Mag and often banned, preventing them from having any affect...
And then there's also the vastly cheaper [and poorly written] spell research.

Do you mean the 3.5 version or the Pathfinder downtime option where the Sorcerer can literally just convert money to extra spells known?

[Psyren]

Do you mean the 3.5 version or the Pathfinder downtime option where the Sorcerer can literally just convert money to extra spells known?

The Downtime rules (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/downtime) I'm reading only allow prepared casters (Wizard, Witch, Magus) to gain additional spells.

[Larkas]

Ah, but knowstones were Dragon Mag and often banned, preventing them from having any affect...
And then there's also the vastly cheaper [and poorly written] spell research.

Well, the Mystic variant bumped the Ranger's tier, is cited in the tier discussion, and is still DragMag content. If Knowstones had any impact in the Sorcerer's tier, you can be sure it would be cited. Besides, you are limited by WBL, even if just roughly.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Revolver damage pales in comparison to dual wielding double barreled pistols.Show me a non-gundolon that out-damages a revolver TWFer at level 5.
Taking away rage cycling hurts, but the base barbarian's DPR is still really high. Rage cycling also only requires two free actions per turn, not thirty six.Fair enough on the free actions, but barbarian's damage isn't some mythical thing like it was in 3.5. They don't get to dump all their BaB into their AC, multiply power attack by 10, and one-round-kill unoptimized great wyrms any more. Again, show me what a Barbarian can do that so outmatches a similarly-leveled revolver-wielding gunslinger.
I never said it wasn't an advantage. But in terms of raw DPR, the big damage dealing classes are very and that includes hit chance. That puts them, at best, at the same tier as the barbarian because they aren't ruined by mobility like the fighter is. Not, as the person I was originally disagreeing with, up at T3.Right, Gunslingers aren't T3. They're T4.


Which is why I said T4 bordering on T3, rather than the other way around. That is only 1 tier.Then I guess the quibble here is, they'd need more ki to be high T4.
Range is frequently not an option though. Thus it is a wash.That's a pretty strong statement. Even in a crowded dungeon area you can usually find yourself targeting something on the ceiling, or hiding behind difficult terrain. Gunslinger don't care.
If you get a nasty monster up in a gunslinger's face and a fighter's face the fighter will very likely perform more effectively.The nasty thing is less likely to be in a dex-focused character's face, since he's more likely to win initiative. Not only that, but this reminds me, did PF fix the silly RAW that ranged full attacks don't provoke AoOs?
As for targeting touch AC, they have to be pretty close for that (i.e. within the distance of a single charge.) Not a very safe place for a range-focused character.Advanced firearms resolve against touch AC within the first 5 range increments. Sure, that means no double pistols, but IMO you don't need 'em.

Note that multiple times he says T5s CAN do well. But in doing so they will feel like one-trick ponies (e.g. fighters pretty much have to charge enemies - into obstacles, if they can - to exceed a barbarian's damage just from normal play) and that they can very often be unable to do their thing (list any of the dozen things that mess with charging here.)Barbarians charge to get their damage. They're pretty much in the same boat, just with bigger numbers. Hence, the bigger numbers is what gets them into T4.
The greater number of feats are sadly a wash, because melee needs more feats to do in PF (Imp. X + Greater X in most cases, compared to simply Imp X.) what they could in 3.5. They also lost very key feats/ACFs like Shocktrooper and Dungeoncrasher that contributed to their "high T5" rating.Do note that Dungeoncrasher is considered T4, which kinda plays into the "if it does a bunch of damage it's T4" argument.

[RedMage125]

Do you now:

Note that multiple times he says T5s CAN do well. But in doing so they will feel like one-trick ponies (e.g. fighters pretty much have to charge enemies - into obstacles, if they can - to exceed a barbarian's damage just from normal play) and that they can very often be unable to do their thing (list any of the dozen things that mess with charging here.)

Thus, Fighters are T5. And Cavaliers/Samurai are the same, only their one-trick pony involves a literal pony and is just as easy to shut down (by accident or on purpose.)

The greater number of feats are sadly a wash, because melee needs more feats to do in PF (Imp. X + Greater X in most cases, compared to simply Imp X.) what they could in 3.5. They also lost very key feats/ACFs like Shocktrooper and Dungeoncrasher that contributed to their "high T5" rating.

This is not to say they are not still high T5 - but T4 is a stretch. And for Cavaliers/Samurai it's even worse. It's not often you can take your horse into the dungeon.
Dungeoncrasher Fighters were Tier 4.

A high Tier 5 that gets improvements made to shore up weaknesses and improve strengths (the ability for a non-dwarf to have no speed reduction in heavy armor, not to mention reduced ACPs, something no other class can do).

And I know Tier 5 says that they CAN do well, but did you really read that entry?

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the rest of the party is weak in that situation and the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.
Meaning that Tier 5 classes DON'T do their "one thing" well, most of the time.
Fighters job, more than staright melee damage-output (which is more the baliwick of the Barbarian) is to be a solid front-line presence. The PF Fighter's ability to have a great AC, solid saves, decent and consistent damage output means that he could very well demonstrate more staying power than a Barbarian. I know 3.5/PF doesn't have class roles like 4e did, but the role of "defender" suits a fighter well. Especially one armed with a reach weapon like a spiked chain, with easy access to Enlarging magic. Short of a wide open space and a flying enemy, a fighter can do a great deal to keep an enemy focuses on him, or suffer consequences. The massive feat selection means that the fighter, more than anyone else, can benefit from multiple Critical feats, and should have a good chance of confirming any critical threat, imposing debilitating status effects when he does so.
HOWEVER, I freely acknowledge that, due to the fact that most of a Fighter's "class abilities" are just a sheer number of feats, that it makes it difficult to say if they moved up a Tier or not. You'll note that was my initial stance on the first page of this thread. I think, given that even the non-Dungeoncrasher Fighter was explicitly "high Tier 5" before, that the PF Fighter, having been given more actual class abilities, Good ones at that (and a few actually useful skills in their class skill list) that the Fighter warrants a tentative Tier 4. But the fact remains that unlike a druid (who will be remarkably similar at level 20, aside from their 10 feat choices), the level 20 Fighters will be VASTLY different from each other, by virtue of having more than double the feats of any other class. Feats alone do not move them up a Tier, that is true, but it also makes it difficult and potentially unfair to dismiss them, too.

And any mounted class has problems in cramped corridors. Cavaliers and Samurai have ACFs for the mount, do they not? A Dm who isn't a jerkbag should let players considering these classes know if the game is going to take place mostly in dungeons, so they can choose those ACFs. Otherwise, I think it's dishonest to assume that you can judge the class based on creating an environment where their class features are explicitly nerfed. That's like saying Wizards in Forgotten Realms are Tier 6, because I could have a campaign set entirely in the Auraunoch desert, which is a giant Dead Magic Zone. That's a dishonest debate tactic. In judging the effectiveness and capability limits of the Cavalier/Samurai (or Paladin), one should assume that they get to use their mount effectively at least some of the time.

Also, I wasn't defending the Samurai. I just mentioned that the Cavlier's ability to improve the performance of his entire party through the sharing of teamwork feats, deserves some consideration when determining what a Cavalier is "supposed to do", on top of his demanding presence in melee combat (which he can do with or without a horse). I didn't even say Cavalier was Tier 4 for sure, I said it merits some consideration. He MAY be Tier 4, maybe just a really high Tier 5. I quite agree that the Samurai is Tier 5. As is the Monk.

[Gemini476]

The Downtime rules (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/downtime) I'm reading only allow prepared casters (Wizard, Witch, Magus) to gain additional spells.

More the spell research (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/downtime#TOC-Research-a-Spell)part of those rules, which explicitly allows you to research existing spells and add them to your spells known. For one tenth of the price of the standard spell research rules, if I'm reading it right. 100gp x spell level is pretty low.

But yeah, the Sorcerer has always been hovering around the top of Tier 2 and nipping at every option to move up. It's not like it's hard to get around the limit on spells known as is, what with scrolls and wands and obscene numbers of spells known and whatnot.


Oh yeah, and the Bard also got some neatish archetypes. I've seen some people say that the Magician (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/magician)is Tier 2. That seems a bit relevant.

[Erik Vale]

@Sorcerer discussion: Pathfinder option, where price is debated [I'm more inclined to the /day reading], and I never noted them debated, I only stumbled upon them by accident.
And giving how much wealth by level is often ignored and wealth varies wildly in campaigns, I can happily say WBL is only notable for when the DM keeps their mind on it, realises that characters are rather underpowered/overpowered and looks to correct by wealth manipulation, or when creating a character.

[grarrrg]

I think a problem with ranking Cavaliers is that in order to rank them fairly, one must look at their class abilities in a vacuum.

Cavaliers' ability to grant teamwork feats to allies, however, is something that CANNOT be judged in a vacuum, since it's a class feature that literally requires allies to be effective.

Umm...there's this class called "Bard" that kinda depends on allies for a good portion of its class features. It's not that hard to account for, especially because most Teamwork feats are kinda cruddy, and unless you have a 'special' Banner, that ability doesn't do a ton either.


Or, he can craft revolvers.

Modern Firearms are up to DM discretion.


Show me a non-gundolon that out-damages a revolver TWFer at level 5.

That all depends on how many free actions are allowed per round.
It is possible to TWF with Double-Barrels at level 5, Gun-Twirling (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/grit-feats/gun-twirling-grit) would probably be the most useful way.
At level 5 you only have 5 Bab, so you aren't getting any Iterative attacks, not that it matters, as either build gets the same number of attacks regardless.
The TWF-Double gets the same number of attacks, but gets extra damage from firing double the shots.
Even with the least favorable "only the base weapon damage is doubled", the Double Barrel still does more damage.
Archetype doesn't matter either as, again, same number of shots.

Also, a level 5 Gundolon is just starting to get going, so it may do less damage anyway.

[Psyren]

More the spell research (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/downtime#TOC-Research-a-Spell)part of those rules, which explicitly allows you to research existing spells and add them to your spells known. For one tenth of the price of the standard spell research rules, if I'm reading it right. 100gp x spell level is pretty low.

Nothing about that says it allows you to exceed your maximum spells known. ?The numbers on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known" are fixed." The new spell gets added to your list but to learn it you need to make room for it somehow, e.g. by retraining or using your 4-level replacement.

Also, it's 100gp * spell level per day, with a total number of days = 7 * spell level. So a new 2nd level spell costs you 200gp * 14 = 2800gp assuming you make all the checks without a hitch (not hard, admittedly.) A 3rd-level spell meanwhile costs you 300 * 21 = 6300gp and so on.

[Kudaku]

On the spell research topic: I asked about this when Ultimate Campaign was first released. It was confirmed that Spell Research does not allow you to exceed the normal amount of spells known.

I'm on my phone at the moment, but I'll see if I can find a link later.

Edit: http://paizo.com/products/btpy8x64/discuss&page=22?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Ultimate-Campaign#1084

[Raven777]

Doing lots of damage reliably will in fact get you into T4. A gunslinger will, with equal optimization, do more damage than a fighter, at a range, targeting touch AC. That's enough of a difference.

I'll also add that the Gunslinger will have more skill points than the fighter, and a better class skill list.

[Gemini476]

On the spell research topic: I asked about this when Ultimate Campaign was first released. It was confirmed that Spell Research does not allow you to exceed the normal amount of spells known.

I'm on my phone at the moment, but I'll see if I can find a link later.

Edit: http://paizo.com/products/btpy8x64/discuss&page=22?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Ultimate-Campaign#1084

Oh, alright. That's fair.

I am kind of irked how standard research is 1000gp x spell level whilst the UC version is 700gp x spell level2, though. And how the necessary time is roughly twice as long.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Modern Firearms are up to DM discretion.Even in emerging guns, they're as rare as... wondrous items. Also, what's to stop the gunslinger from crafting one?
That all depends on how many free actions are allowed per round.
It is possible to TWF with Double-Barrels at level 5, Gun-Twirling (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/grit-feats/gun-twirling-grit) would probably be the most useful way.
At level 5 you only have 5 Bab, so you aren't getting any Iterative attacks, not that it matters, as either build gets the same number of attacks regardless.
The TWF-Double gets the same number of attacks, but gets extra damage from firing double the shots.
Even with the least favorable "only the base weapon damage is doubled", the Double Barrel still does more damage.
Archetype doesn't matter either as, again, same number of shots.

Also, a level 5 Gundolon is just starting to get going, so it may do less damage anyway.Apologies, let me rephrase: What class outdamages the gunslinger at level 5?

[Slithery D]

Even in emerging guns, they're as rare as... wondrous items. Also, what's to stop the gunslinger from crafting one?Apologies, let me rephrase: What class outdamages the gunslinger at level 5?

DM discretion as to whether they have been invented, and if so, whether you can learn how to make them or they're a secret closely held in some distant land.

[LordBlades]

I really don't know where you get this idea from. Are you talking about a strictly "high-op" game where even the DM is optimizing, and is genuinely trying to kill the PCs, while still staying technically within acceptable Encounter Level guidelines? Because this may come as a shock to you, but that's not how most people play D&D.
It doesn't have to be strictly high-op game, just vastly different tiers with characters played to their strengths. To give you a quick and greatly simplified 3.5 example of what I'm trying to say: If you have let's say a Gish(simple Fighter 1/Wizard) with Outsider type in your party he can turn into a Dwarf Ancestor for an AC of 35+(10 base+17 dwarf+4 mage armor +2-3 dex at least). Any monster capable of reliably hitting this guy (+25 attack) will auto-hit even the tankiest tanky level 6 fighter. It works similarly at any tier difference (in a party with a tier 3 character, tier 5-6 characters of similar roles will have issues contributing; what does a rogue contribute next to a bard for example?)


And you are flat wrong when you're telling me that what I said about the Tier system is "not true". I provided the link, go re-read the Tier system for yourself. Especially the list of what the Purpose of the Tier system is.
I meant you're wrong about 'low tiers aren't useless next to high tiers', because often they are.


Better from what point of view? From the point of view of someone whose ego is so fragile that he won't play D&D unless his character is at the very least equal to the "best" PC at the table? Because that's the only person I can imagine that thinks like that.
From a strictly mechanical point of view, and from the point of view of players who want a useful character that makes a meaninful contribution (rather than an Xp/loot sponge that tags along).


And most games typically involve more that just combat. Take social situations, a Rogue with ranks in social skills (especially if is wizard friend hits him with an Eagle's Splendor) is going to fare better, both in case-by-case basis and in the long run, then a pair of wizards trying to spam Charm Person, especially given the fact that 1)casting a spell is usually noticeable 2) no effect and spell slot wasted on successful save 3)wears off, while using skills does not. Oh, and what do you know? If you actually read the Tier system post, it explicitly calls out social situations as making the Tier system moot.
Not an expert in PF, but at least in 3.5 a Wizard (and many other tier 1s) can boost their skill numbers quite a bit beyond what a tier 5 with max ranks can achieve. Now, if you bring UMD into the mix is a different stuff, but then you're a tier 5 spending cash for a bit of tier 1 power.


Seriously dude, the Tier system is NOT, and never has been, a way to say "class X is strictly better than class Y". Especially when you consider that an individual wizard's spell selection, for example, could drop him as low as tier 3 (if, say, he only focused on blasting for example). The Tier system shows how versatile a hypothetical build of a class could be, and how effective the class is, with a hypothetical build, at fulfilling its primary focus, based solely on class features offered.

By JaronK's own assertion (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0)



This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks." It is only a measure of the power and versatility of classes for balance purposes.


So tier system measures both power and versatility(of a class, not specific builds), so it can be used to make mchanical assertions about a class' power relative to another. Maybe it's you who should reread the tier system.

[RedMage125]

Umm...there's this class called "Bard" that kinda depends on allies for a good portion of its class features. It's not that hard to account for, especially because most Teamwork feats are kinda cruddy, and unless you have a 'special' Banner, that ability doesn't do a ton either.


A Bard's exact ability to contribute to his group is included, along with how large said bonuses are, in the class description. The Cavalier, like the Fighter, depends on feat selection. Some Teamwork feats are better than others, which is why I said it makes it difficult to quantify the value of the ability. Some Teamwork feats could be great, others nigh-useless. But anyone can see that a level 20 Bard's Inspire Courage will grant a +4 bonus to ally's attack and damage rolls. What is the value of a "free" teamwork feat fr a few rounds, given that it could be ANY teamwork feat?

That make more sense?

[Psyren]

Fighters job, more than staright melee damage-output (which is more the baliwick of the Barbarian) is to be a solid front-line presence.

You mean the most useless role in D&D/PF, because there is no such thing as aggro or even stopping enemies from waltzing past you without ToB? Tripping doesn't take long to stop working entirely and they are awful at grappling, which leaves... nothing.


And any mounted class has problems in cramped corridors. Cavaliers and Samurai have ACFs for the mount, do they not?

Yes, terrible ones. Samurai get Sword Saint and... yeah that's it, a horribly weak precision damage attack 1/enemy/combat that still pales compared to a Barbarian full-attacking and prevents them from doing the same. One of my most common fixes is to let them do it multiple times per combat and to combine it with full-attack/vital strike.

Cavalier is worse. They get musketeer - which lets you full-attack at level 20, whoopee! - or Standard Bearer, which trades your mount away for a whopping +1 bonus on your banner abilities over the life of your cavalier. You can't seriously consider these to be worthwhile trades, even for an ability with as many limitations/caveats as their mount.


A Dm who isn't a jerkbag should let players considering these classes know if the game is going to take place mostly in dungeons, so they can choose those ACFs. Otherwise, I think it's dishonest to assume that you can judge the class based on creating an environment where their class features are explicitly nerfed.

You're roundly missing the point here. For a class to be T4+, the DM shouldn't have to warp the campaign around them to keep them from sucking just with their basic class features. That is the definition of T5, which you helpfully repeated in your post above. So, thanks for supporting my point?

And it's not just dungeons - jungles, prisons, ships, towers, cities, mountain passes, planar travel, all of these are areas where a mount can be a liability, especially one you have to buy gear for because neither of you have any magic to speak of. Other classes with an animal companion have magic to ease the burden of possessing one - even a Ranger can shrink the damn thing so he can climb a ladder or the party wizard doesn't need 3 more CL to teleport it for you or something. Blaming your DM for not taking your horse into account when designing everything in the campaign just because its the only real class feature you have is just unreasonable.

[Erik Vale]

Cavalier is worse. They get musketeer - which lets you full-attack at level 20, whoopee! - or Standard Bearer, which trades your mount away for a whopping +1 bonus on your banner abilities over the life of your cavalier. You can't seriously consider these to be worthwhile trades, even for an ability with as many limitations/caveats as their mount.


Standard Bearer doesn't trade away their mount... They get it back, at full strength, at level 5, the acquisition is delayed 4 levels to get banner 4 levels earlier, with a bonus... And I very much agree with the limitations, you can't even pick up pearls of speech for it, so communicating it in more than the most broadest commands takes a good while, and you need to play a small race to keep it with you.

[RedMage125]

You mean the most useless role in D&D/PF, because there is no such thing as aggro or even stopping enemies from waltzing past you without ToB? Tripping doesn't take long to stop working entirely and they are awful at grappling, which leaves... nothing.
If you've never seen a "defender" type properly played, that's your inexperience, not a failure of the system. And DMs who play their monsters like every orc and zombie is a master tactician are deviating from the rules. A reach weapon and Combat Reflexes are amazing choices (just noticed spiked chain is no longer a reach weapon, so I'd like to amend my earlier use of that example, I still get my 3.5 and PF crossed sometimes). A defender is not "failing" if some monsters still get past him, this isn't WoW, where the tank should try and "aggro" everything. Bottlenecking opponents, and interposing oneself are usually sufficient. A creature with such a Fighter (assuming a reasonably competent build) in its face ignores him at its own peril.




Yes, terrible ones. Samurai get Sword Saint and... yeah that's it, a horribly weak precision damage attack 1/enemy/combat that still pales compared to a Barbarian full-attacking and prevents them from doing the same. One of my most common fixes is to let them do it multiple times per combat and to combine it with full-attack/vital strike.

Cavalier is worse. They get musketeer - which lets you full-attack at level 20, whoopee! - or Standard Bearer, which trades your mount away for a whopping +1 bonus on your banner abilities over the life of your cavalier. You can't seriously consider these to be worthwhile trades, even for an ability with as many limitations/caveats as their mount.

I'm not aware of what all possible ACFs are, and don't have the knowledge base to defend such a point. And again, I haven't been advocating for these classes to be in Tier 4, certainly not the Samurai. I don't make it a habit to argue points I'm not informed of.


You're roundly missing the point here. For a class to be T4+, the DM shouldn't have to warp the campaign around them to keep them from sucking just with their basic class features. That is the definition of T5, which you helpfully repeated in your post above. So, thanks for supporting my point?


And it's not just dungeons - jungles, prisons, ships, towers, cities, mountain passes, planar travel, all of these are areas where a mount can be a liability, especially one you have to buy gear for because neither of you have any magic to speak of. Other classes with an animal companion have magic to ease the burden of possessing one - even a Ranger can shrink the damn thing so he can climb a ladder or the party wizard doesn't need 3 more CL to teleport it for you or something. Blaming your DM for not taking your horse into account when designing everything in the campaign just because its the only real class feature you have is just unreasonable.
Ah, the classic "strawman" defense.

I never said anything about the DM "having to warp the campaign around them". I said, it would be unfair to not inform a player considering those classes that they may want to consider an option other than a mount. Who said anything about the DM changing the campaign? But that's what you need me to be saying to prove your point, isn't it?

The definition of Tier 5 says that they only really shine when an encounter "matches their strengths", which is about the closest thing I brought up that even remotely resembles the words you are trying to put in my mouth. In the case of a class with a Mount feature, an encounter that "matches their strengths" usually means enough open terrain to maneuver, and enemies that can't fly to get away. If the DM knows ahead of time that his game will not frequently feature opportunities for the mount to even be in play, let alone useful, I think he should let the player know, so that player doesn't end up playing a class without a good chunk of its class features. The alternative is just not fun for anyone involved.

The main point I have been pushing was in regards to the Fighter. Which I noticed you declined to respond about. You keep harping on me about the Cavalier and Samurai, when I have not once claimed that those are "factually" Tier 4 classes, especially not the Samurai. I have said that I think one must bear into consideration what the Cavalier's "role" really is, when considering "how well he performs" in it.

It seems that most people just consider power and/or versatility. While those are certainly factors, they are not the be-all end-all of the Tier ranking system. Seriously, it's like most people who have seen the thread skipped everything before and after the list of which classes are in which Tiers, completely disregarding all information regarding the purpose and scope of the Tier system.

The Tier System is not specifically ranking Power or Versitility (though those are what ends up being the big factors). It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation. Highly versitile classes will be more likely to efficiently apply what power they have to the situation, while very powerful classes will be able to REALLY help in specific situations. Classes that are both versitile and powerful will very easily get what they want by being very likely to have a very powerful solution to the current problem. This is what matters most for balance.
Are those things enough to put the Cavalier in Tier 4? Probably not. And certainly not the Samurai. In fact, I believe my exact words were that believe a Cavalier is "high Tier 5", while monks and Samurai were solidly Tier 5. *looks back at previous post* Yup, that's exactly what I said. Care to strawman my arguments some more?


It doesn't have to be strictly high-op game, just vastly different tiers with characters played to their strengths. To give you a quick and greatly simplified 3.5 example of what I'm trying to say: If you have let's say a Gish(simple Fighter 1/Wizard) with Outsider type in your party he can turn into a Dwarf Ancestor for an AC of 35+(10 base+17 dwarf+4 mage armor +2-3 dex at least). Any monster capable of reliably hitting this guy (+25 attack) will auto-hit even the tankiest tanky level 6 fighter. It works similarly at any tier difference (in a party with a tier 3 character, tier 5-6 characters of similar roles will have issues contributing; what does a rogue contribute next to a bard for example?)AC would be 32, actually, as Polymorph gives you the DEX of the creature you have become (8, in this case).

At any rate, you missed the entire point, not only of my post, but of the post relating to the Tier system, which you, yourself linked. It EXPRESSLY states that the Tier System is not meant to discourage anyone from playing any particular class (although it remains my opinion that Tier system or no, the CW Samurai sucks in every way). It's not about being "better" than the rest of your party.

Sure, a Tier 1 class can theoretically do anything a Rogue can (not at 1st level, but that's besides the point). But a party with a decent Rogue means he doesn't have to. Every spell that a Tier 1 class spends filling another class' role is one he could have spent doing something on;y his class can do.



I meant you're wrong about 'low tiers aren't useless next to high tiers', because often they are.
I'm really not wrong. And everything in the post regarding the Tier system disagrees with you. Also, you're twisting my words. I didn't say that "a CW Samurai in a party with a Wizard will not feel useless". I said "lower-tier classes are not 'unplayable' because higher-tier classes are an option". Which is in regards to the point in time before a player even makes his character. The existence of Tier 1 classes does not mean that a player should only ever pick those classes.

That's the problem with the way a lot of people view the Tier System, like it's some kind of ranking board, and that one can only ever be really "good" or "cool" if they pick a higher-tier class. I'm talking about the grossly incorrect way that so many people view it.


From a strictly mechanical point of view, and from the point of view of players who want a useful character that makes a meaninful contribution (rather than an Xp/loot sponge that tags along).

You seriously need to read the Tier System article again, and this time, read EVERYTHING, not just the "list" of which classes are in which Tiers. You are WAY off base.


Not an expert in PF, but at least in 3.5 a Wizard (and many other tier 1s) can boost their skill numbers quite a bit beyond what a tier 5 with max ranks can achieve. Now, if you bring UMD into the mix is a different stuff, but then you're a tier 5 spending cash for a bit of tier 1 power.

By JaronK's own assertion (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0)

So tier system measures both power and versatility(of a class, not specific builds), so it can be used to make mchanical assertions about a class' power relative to another.
I love that you link the thread (well, another re-posting of it anyways), but demonstrate quite clearly that you have not read it thoroughly.

I chose the example of social situations, because that's one of the ones explicitly called out by JaronK as one where "any character can shine", where gameplay-and even success-have nothing to do with the Tier System.

The exact part of my post you responded to with "By JaronK's own assertion" is, ironically, me paraphrasing him. He says "This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks." ". So...were you agreeing with me? Because it's confusing how you couch a statement that supports what I say in a manner that seems to contradict.

And the last thing, about how it measures Power and versatility...I already quoted JaronK, above to Psyren. It is, in fact, NOT just about Power and Versatility, although those are factors. It's about what one can expect a given member of a class to achieve, given a broad spectrum of situations.


Maybe it's you who should reread the tier system.
I've demonstrated-quite a number of times now-that I have a firm grasp of the scope and purpose of the Tier Ranking system. You, however, have consistently made claims that directly contradict what JaronK was saying in regards to the scope and purpose of the Tier System. No, friend. You should re-read it, and this time, read all of what he wrote, not just the "list" part.

[Psyren]

If you've never seen a "defender" type properly played, that's your inexperience, not a failure of the system. And DMs who play their monsters like every orc and zombie is a master tactician are deviating from the rules.

This is a clear contradiction. In one breath you blame my inexperience (erroneously, might I add) on the inability of non-ToB classes to properly "tank." You then immediately follow it up by saying the DM shouldn't be playing smart anyway. So you're fine as long as the DM throws dumb monsters at you, except even dumb monsters would logically run past the guy in a tin can to sink their teeth into the ones wearing soft leather and cloth, now wouldn't they?

And generally speaking, the smart monsters are the ones your party is more likely to TPK on. You should be planning for those, not hoping every fight in the whole campaign is with a plant or ooze.



I'm not aware of what all possible ACFs are, and don't have the knowledge base to defend such a point. And again, I haven't been advocating for these classes to be in Tier 4, certainly not the Samurai. I don't make it a habit to argue points I'm not informed of.

Then why did you bring it up just to admit you haven't done the research and have no intentions to do so? :smallconfused:



I never said anything about the DM "having to warp the campaign around them". I said, it would be unfair to not inform a player considering those classes that they may want to consider an option other than a mount. Who said anything about the DM changing the campaign? But that's what you need me to be saying to prove your point, isn't it?

And having informed them, the DM must either force them to change classes (provided they don't do so of their own volition), allow them to suck, or alter the campaign to suit them, which is what I said. None of these scenarios helps a non-T5 argument.



The main point I have been pushing was in regards to the Fighter. Which I noticed you declined to respond about.

Because I already addressed the fighter several posts back, to which you declined to respond. Yes, they get more feats. They also require more feats to do the same thing (e.g. Trip effectively) so that ends up being a wash. CMD scales too fast for them to keep up without focusing nearly all their resources on a single-strategy, and even then they need buffs they don't possess in order to bridge the gap. Combat maneuvers are harder to execute now due to many of them being a standard action instead of replacing an attack (i.e. in general, one attempt per round instead of multiple.) And when you focus your feats and wealth on one strategy you become a one-trick pony, the definition of T5, though you are at least better off than a Cavalier and Samurai because you can tailor yourself to a campaign instead of the reverse.

Lore Warden is certainly T4, but the base Fighter is T5, even in PF. Barbarians are superior because they have class features that bridge these gaps far more effectively than any feat the Fighter can take (not to mention access to many of those same feats themselves.) On average, the rage and uncanny dodge class features are worth the 10 feats the fighter has over them, especially in PF where Barbarians get rage powers (which may as well be feats themselves due to their game-changing status.)



It seems that most people just consider power and/or versatility. While those are certainly factors, they are not the be-all end-all of the Tier ranking system.

This too shows how mistaken you are; power and versatility ARE the only factors of the Tier system. "This system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal. It's a ranking of the mechanical classes themselves, not of the players who use that class."

Now, I readily acknowledge that these are not the only factors of the D&D/PF game as a whole, and I am a strong advocate of tweaking weak classes so they can shine. But this is a tier thread, so we're operating from the baseline here



At any rate, you missed the entire point, not only of my post, but of the post relating to the Tier system, which you, yourself linked. It EXPRESSLY states that the Tier System is not meant to discourage anyone from playing any particular class (although it remains my opinion that Tier system or no, the CW Samurai sucks in every way). It's not about being "better" than the rest of your party.

Now who is putting words in whose mouth? Show me where I said you should not play X. I am only arguing the rankings themselves, not telling you what to use or not use in your game.



I've demonstrated-quite a number of times now-that I have a firm grasp of the scope and purpose of the Tier Ranking system.

No, you really haven't, and I'm willing to have this discussion with you without any snarky dismissals that only reveal your own ignorance on the subject.

[Mongobear]

First off, Holy Crap, what has the thread turned into. I ask a simple question about the differences between 3.X and PF, and it turns into a presidential debate. Anyways, a few responses of the most recent arguements.



This is a clear contradiction. In one breath you blame my inexperience (erroneously, might I add) on the inability of non-ToB classes to properly "tank." You then immediately follow it up by saying the DM shouldn't be playing smart anyway. So you're fine as long as the DM throws dumb monsters at you, except even dumb monsters would logically run past the guy in a tin can to sink their teeth into the ones wearing soft leather and cloth, now wouldn't they?

And generally speaking, the smart monsters are the ones your party is more likely to TPK on. You should be planning for those, not hoping every fight in the whole campaign is with a plant or ooze.


A battlefield control Fighter like what was described is one of the best "tank" classes you can do without using ToB shenanigans, at least in 3.X land, I have little knowledge of the mechanical differences of PF. But it is all subjective and depends on each encounter for whether they can even function.

In all honesty, a DM that plays any monster with an intelligence below average Human range, 8-12 in my opinion, like they have studied Sun Tzu's Art of War, and are a master tactician is doing it wrong. You are also assuming these creatures even know what armor, whether its metal, leather or cloth even is. To some, it may just look like the various wrappers on a candy bar.

When you get down to the really low Int creatures, their first and usually only thought in a fight is "Mmmmm, food!" and they'll usually just go after whoever is closer. They dont have the thought process to realize that the big guy in armor is any less squishy than the scrawny mage in the back, all they care about is getting to the squishy bits inside the armor.

This is even more apparent with creatures such as your basic Zombies, which iirc, doesnt even have an Int score, and just flails at whatever is closer. There is no logic in these types of Monsters, theyre mindless.




And having informed them, the DM must either force them to change classes (provided they don't do so of their own volition), allow them to suck, or alter the campaign to suit them, which is what I said. None of these scenarios helps a non-T5 argument.

Some people play classes for their aesthetic reasons, not to be the all-powerful Killmachine, or to be the World Champion at Rocket Tag.

Furthermore, this argument is kinda null anyways, because many classes have features that can be argued away as useless depending on each campaign. Now ofcourse, an entire class based on a Mount is a little bit more of a burden, but the main issue can still be present.[/QUOTE]




Because I already addressed the fighter several posts back, to which you declined to respond. Yes, they get more feats. They also require more feats to do the same thing (e.g. Trip effectively) so that ends up being a wash. CMD scales too fast for them to keep up without focusing nearly all their resources on a single-strategy, and even then they need buffs they don't possess in order to bridge the gap. Combat maneuvers are harder to execute now due to many of them being a standard action instead of replacing an attack (i.e. in general, one attempt per round instead of multiple.) And when you focus your feats and wealth on one strategy you become a one-trick pony, the definition of T5, though you are at least better off than a Cavalier and Samurai because you can tailor yourself to a campaign instead of the reverse.

A fighter gets what, 25-ish Feats throughout the full level 20 progression? Depending on what roles they want to fulfill, one could easily focus on 2 areas of expertise so that they can function if one isnt optimal for the current situation. You could easily create a level 20 Fighter that focuses on, say battlefield control Tripping/Reach weapon shenanigans, and also take feats for Power Attack/Charge optimization so thet they can just be a Striker when tripping wouldnt be worth the actions. And in some cases, the feat investments would have crossover synergy, and arent useless when performing as one or the other.

This is why I personally believe a Fighter can potentially be a T4 and not T5, they are customizable, and can be molded to fulfill more than one role. Although Ill admit, theyre maybe a weaker T4 than a Barbarian; but at the same time, a Barbarian is really just pure damage, so maybe theyre equal in the case of "Versatility vs Focused Role"




This too shows how mistaken you are; power and versatility ARE the only factors of the Tier system. "This system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal. It's a ranking of the mechanical classes themselves, not of the players who use that class."

The problem with this is that people have warped the entire point of the tier systems original purpose. When first created, it was meant simply to be a way for DMs to be able to gauge what sorts of Tom-Foolery a party could throw at him based on what their class was. It was NOT meant to be a glorified pissing contest that forces every D&D player to automatically be required to play a T3 or better or else they suck. The internet, and in my opinion, the MMO crowd ruined its intention because todays generation of gamers are always trying to one-up each other, and it just defeats the purpose ofa game like D&D, to have fun.


Now, I admit everyone who is partaking in this heated discussion has brought up fair points, and has answered my original question quite handily, but lately you guys are on the verge of turning this personal and I feel some of you are over-valuing your own opinions and treating them as facts. Just take a step back and calm yourselves, this wasnt meant to turn into a war.

[RedMage125]

This is a clear contradiction. In one breath you blame my inexperience (erroneously, might I add) on the inability of non-ToB classes to properly "tank." You then immediately follow it up by saying the DM shouldn't be playing smart anyway. So you're fine as long as the DM throws dumb monsters at you, except even dumb monsters would logically run past the guy in a tin can to sink their teeth into the ones wearing soft leather and cloth, now wouldn't they?
Is that really how you read that? Or are you intentionally being obstinate?
I did not say "the DM should not be playing smart". Smart creatures should of course be played smart. Oozes and zombies should NOT be played like they're lifelong studies of Sun Tzu. Which was in response to your insinuation that creatures would just CHOOSE to waltz past the big, heavy-armored guy in their face, which, to me, implies that the DM was running them as if they were imparted with meta-game knowledge of exactly what the party's capabilities are.
And again, a good defender does his best to bottleneck his opponents and interpose himself. Yes, monsters could ignore him, but a good defender makes the suffer for that.


And generally speaking, the smart monsters are the ones your party is more likely to TPK on. You should be planning for those, not hoping every fight in the whole campaign is with a plant or ooze.

Every conversation with you is turning into a verbal battle with a strawman. Those are mindless constructs, right?



Then why did you bring it up just to admit you haven't done the research and have no intentions to do so? :smallconfused:
*sigh*
You brought up the mount for those classes, and pointed out dungeon crawling, indicating that the very existence of dungeon crawl adventures made the mount feature of any class useless, and thus those classes had useless class features. Do you remember that? All I said was "they have ACFs to replace the mount, don't they?" It was a question. It was coached as a question, and it was an aside to the bigger issue, that being your intent to move goalposts. Claiming that the mount feature of any class is completely worthless on the grounds that they WILL be in a dungeon, and thus not able to use it is moving the goalposts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts). Because you are intentionally trying to insist on a scenario where only you can win. I followed your response with 2 points: 1) I'd say it's a jerkbag DM who doesn't give a player picking one of those classes a heads up that they will be underground a lot, if that is the case; and 2) That it's dishonest debating to assume that such is the only scenario. If you are going to discuss a Tier Standing of a class, you need to look at the class features honestly, and that means assume that there will be some situations where they'll have the opportunity to use the mount. Yes, there will ALSO be some times that they can't, but just assuming that the whole thing can be dismissed because it just flat-out won't is not being fair or impartial.


And having informed them, the DM must either force them to change classes (provided they don't do so of their own volition), allow them to suck, or alter the campaign to suit them, which is what I said. None of these scenarios helps a non-T5 argument.
No, the DM should not force them to change classes, or alter his campaign. If he informs them, and they still want to play the class (without ACFs), then that's their choice. DMs shouldn't just override player agency and player preference. If the player is forewarned that there won't be much opportunity to use his mount and chooses that class anyway, that's on him.
And, once again, in bold this time because apparently you have trouble reading it:
I HAVE NOT BEEN ADVOCATING THAT EITHER THE CAVALIER OR SAMURAI IS ANYTHING BUT TIER 5.

Maybe now that it's bolded and in all caps, you will see that. It's only the third time I've said in in response to you.

Maybe then you'll stop strawmaning my points.



Because I already addressed the fighter several posts back, to which you declined to respond. Yes, they get more feats. They also require more feats to do the same thing (e.g. Trip effectively) so that ends up being a wash. CMD scales too fast for them to keep up without focusing nearly all their resources on a single-strategy, and even then they need buffs they don't possess in order to bridge the gap. Combat maneuvers are harder to execute now due to many of them being a standard action instead of replacing an attack (i.e. in general, one attempt per round instead of multiple.) And when you focus your feats and wealth on one strategy you become a one-trick pony, the definition of T5, though you are at least better off than a Cavalier and Samurai because you can tailor yourself to a campaign instead of the reverse.
Do you get off on making false statements publicly? Anyone here can go back and see that I responded to every point on the fighter. My post yesterday (post #46) in this thread, I discussed what exactly a Tier 5 definition is. It's also where I brought up a "defender" role, which is the ONLY thing you responded to in regards to the Fighter, in your next post (post #58). You spent the rest of your post tearing apart Cavaliers and Samurai, which I never said were not Tier 5 to begin with. Post #58 is also where you began strawmanning just about everything I said, to twist it around so you could defend your points, although what exactly you are defending is unclear, because it seems you just strawman my points to tear them down, instead of offering anything constructive, such as your last post (post #61). In my previous post to this one (Post #60), I responded to everything you said, even when it was a derisive insult. Therefore, your claim that I "declined to respond" is outright false.
Now, following that falsehood, you appear to have finally responded to what I was saying in post #46, but only just enough to try and tear down my points, but not even addressing all of them.

Ok, trying this one more time: The 3.5e Fighter was high Tier 5. Obviously the glut of feats do not-and can not-make the class Tier 4, because otherwise it would have been in 3.5. Mind you, JaronK freely acknowledges that good optimization can frequently move a class up a Tier, which means that while the Fighter class as a whole is Tier 5, individual Fighters could be Tier 4.

What I'm saying is that the Bravery and Armor/Weapon Training class features are improvements. One shores up a weakness of the class (Bravery), the others improve existing strengths, and in a way that no other class can replicate (Armor Training, especially at 7th). On top of that, the PF class has had a few tiny tweaks to the class skill list, giving them a few more useful skills (like Survival, because now one no longer needs a feat to Track). ALL of this is a direct improvement, while losing nothing. The PF Fighter is faster in full plate than a 3.5e one, has a higher AC, and has more and better skills, and is better in combat. I'm making the point that the Fighter has moved from high Tier 5 as a class, not just one build to Tier 4. You can call it low Tier 4 if it makes you happy, but the Fighter has gotten better as what he's supposed to do, he gets a feat at every level now, and while yes, feats end up being kind of a wash because there's no way to accurately judge ALL of the feats a Fighter can potentilly take, the fact that he gets so many is still a point in his favor.



Lore Warden is certainly T4, but the base Fighter is T5, even in PF. Barbarians are superior because they have class features that bridge these gaps far more effectively than any feat the Fighter can take (not to mention access to many of those same feats themselves.) On average, the rage and uncanny dodge class features are worth the 10 feats the fighter has over them, especially in PF where Barbarians get rage powers (which may as well be feats themselves due to their game-changing status.)
Barbarians are awesome. Never said they weren't.


This too shows how mistaken you are; power and versatility ARE the only factors of the Tier system. "This system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal. It's a ranking of the mechanical classes themselves, not of the players who use that class."

Now, I readily acknowledge that these are not the only factors of the D&D/PF game as a whole, and I am a strong advocate of tweaking weak classes so they can shine. But this is a tier thread, so we're operating from the baseline here I directly quoted the original author of the Tier System to you in saying "power and versatility are not the only factors". I literally copy/pasted from that thread. And you have the gall to tell me that it "shows how mistaken I am", because those ARE, in fact, the only factors?

I don't know how to respond to that other than to laugh.

Re-read the Tier system (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) post again, and this time, read further down, including the FAQ.


Now who is putting words in whose mouth? Show me where I said you should not play X. I am only arguing the rankings themselves, not telling you what to use or not use in your game.
No one's putting words in your mouth. If you will carefully examine post #60, I was responding to LordBlades.


No, you really haven't, and I'm willing to have this discussion with you without any snarky dismissals that only reveal your own ignorance on the subject.
Pot or Kettle? Either way ironic.

[I3igAl]

You're roundly missing the point here. For a class to be T4+, the DM shouldn't have to warp the campaign around them to keep them from sucking just with their basic class features. That is the definition of T5, which you helpfully repeated in your post above. So, thanks for supporting my point?

And it's not just dungeons - jungles, prisons, ships, towers, cities, mountain passes, planar travel, all of these are areas where a mount can be a liability, especially one you have to buy gear for because neither of you have any magic to speak of. Other classes with an animal companion have magic to ease the burden of possessing one - even a Ranger can shrink the damn thing so he can climb a ladder or the party wizard doesn't need 3 more CL to teleport it for you or something. Blaming your DM for not taking your horse into account when designing everything in the campaign just because its the only real class feature you have is just unreasonable.

One can forgo this problem by being a small character.

If you are medium a cavlier mount still makes an awesome Flanking partner/dpr enhancer, just use it the way the ranger's pet does. You can just use it to reliably set up your Teamwork Feats. A cavalier build limited to mounted combat feats is really a situative and kinda bad build. A normal Two-Handed Power Attacker gives for a more versatile Fighter, who makes up for his lack of Weapon Training with Pseudo Smite, can buff the group with Teamwork Feats and the right Challenges and has more skills and a pet. He kinda gets weaker if there are no other melees in the group though.

[Ssalarn]

One can forgo this problem by being a small character.

If you are medium a cavlier mount still makes an awesome Flanking partner/dpr enhancer, just use it the way the ranger's pet does. You can just use it to reliably set up your Teamwork Feats. A cavalier build limited to mounted combat feats is really a situative and kinda bad build. A normal Two-Handed Power Attacker gives for a more versatile Fighter, who makes up for his lack of Weapon Training with Pseudo Smite, can buff the group with Teamwork Feats and the right Challenges and has more skills and a pet. He kinda gets weaker if there are no other melees in the group though.

Yeah, small cavaliers pretty much rock it all the time, and the damage dip for small weapons is pretty negligible in the larger scheme of things anyways. Some of the combos you can pull off with any cavalier are really solid, like sharing Escape Route with your mount to basically never provoke an AoO for movement. You've also got great options for Tactician feats, like Target of Opportunity (good for Luring Cavaliers), and Coordinated Charge, which can be big boosts to the party's total action economy. Target of Opportunity is nice because it'll even trigger off of most of the primary caster's spells, so it's not just locked in to that dynamic of requiring other melee capable characters. Paired Opportunist, Broken Wing Gambit, and Mounted Combat / Trick Riding can be another really good for a Cavalier and his mount to share, especially if you're a small cavalier riding a wolf since you're mixing free trip attacks into the mix. Even little combos like Precise Strike and Tandem Trip can make a huge difference. It looks like there'll be even more options for good teamwork feats when the ACG drops, since they're supposed to be doing a bunch of teamwork feats that allow for things like coordinating bonuses or actions between melee and ranged characters.

The point being, the Cavalier is not just a ****ty Fighter. He's a competent badass who works well with a team, doubly so when he's working with his mount. He's able to continue providing valuable contributions even if the enemy is using magic that prevents or increases the difficulty of combat, unlike a Fighter, and he gets a non-alignment restricted Smite with a "choose your own bonus on top of the base damage" option. Medium Cavaliers may have a few more challenges depending on your campaign, though even those are all pretty much resolved as soon as you can pick up a set of Hosteling Full Plate. The king may not let you walk a horse in through the front door, but if the fight breaks out I'm sure no one is going to pause to ask you to lead your horse out of the throne room (at least not until things are done).

[RedMage125]

Mongo, I like almost everything you said (I also think it's funny that we both used Sun Tzu as an example within minues of each other's posts). I especially like this:


The problem with this is that people have warped the entire point of the tier systems original purpose. When first created, it was meant simply to be a way for DMs to be able to gauge what sorts of Tom-Foolery a party could throw at him based on what their class was. It was NOT meant to be a glorified pissing contest that forces every D&D player to automatically be required to play a T3 or better or else they suck. The internet, and in my opinion, the MMO crowd ruined its intention because todays generation of gamers are always trying to one-up each other, and it just defeats the purpose ofa game like D&D, to have fun.

Because you are 100% spot-on.

[Psyren]

One can forgo this problem by being a small character.

A small cavalier is indeed one solution to some (not all) of the mount issues, but in turn raises problems of its own. Among them:

- Small characters are harder to "bottleneck" with, the tanking technique RedMage suggested above.
- Typically lower CMB/CMD due to size.
- Typically lower Strength, compounding the above.
- Lower weapon damage due to size.

None of these are dealbreakers of course, just tradeoffs to be aware of. And other issues are still present (and may even be compounded) like bringing the saddled and bridled wolf into the throne room etc.



I HAVE NOT BEEN ADVOCATING THAT EITHER THE CAVALIER OR SAMURAI IS ANYTHING BUT TIER 5.

This whole thing started because you adopted an unnecessarily smug tone to respond to me while also being wrong (post #28.) Maybe avoid that in the future and you won't have to get upset.

I'm more than happy to move on from the tier of Cavalier and Samurai. That brings us back to Fighter:


Ok, trying this one more time: The 3.5e Fighter was high Tier 5. Obviously the glut of feats do not-and can not-make the class Tier 4, because otherwise it would have been in 3.5. Mind you, JaronK freely acknowledges that good optimization can frequently move a class up a Tier, which means that while the Fighter class as a whole is Tier 5, individual Fighters could be Tier 4.

And we agree here. Yet part of "good optimization" means ACFs (3.5) and Archetypes (PF). That is what leads us back to what I acknowledged as the T4 Fighter, Lore Warden (post #61.)


What I'm saying is that the Bravery and Armor/Weapon Training class features are improvements. One shores up a weakness of the class (Bravery), the others improve existing strengths, and in a way that no other class can replicate (Armor Training, especially at 7th). On top of that, the PF class has had a few tiny tweaks to the class skill list, giving them a few more useful skills (like Survival, because now one no longer needs a feat to Track). ALL of this is a direct improvement, while losing nothing. The PF Fighter is faster in full plate than a 3.5e one, has a higher AC, and has more and better skills, and is better in combat. I'm making the point that the Fighter has moved from high Tier 5 as a class, not just one build to Tier 4.

They are improvements, yes. But your conclusion is where we continue to disagree, because these improvements are all cosmetic at best. Even taken as a whole they do not get the fighter to T4. Bravery is a joke - a +5 bonus to one subcategory of a save over 20 levels - compare to the Barbarian, who is getting +4 to all will saves and all fort saves over the same period of time (if he doesn't just become immune to fear altogether.) Armor Training is a waste because you can simply buy armor with no (or a trivial) check penalty and render it pointless, if you're even close to failing the checks anyway which for the most part you shouldn't be.

Weapon Training is (sadly) the best of the lot at +4 to attack and damage across 20 levels. Every T4 is capable of trouncing that and doing more besides, thus Fighter is hard to justify in their company. That leaves us with nothing except the capstones, which JaronK explicitly does not consider (otherwise Truenamer and Healer would be T1.) So we're left with... nothing.

But quite apart from being weak bonuses in and of themselves, none of them boost the fighter's tier because none of them let him do anything he couldn't do before, or indeed do the things he could do before substantially better. Barbarians, in addition to comparable flat bonuses, get to do things like reroll his saves, resist energy, heal himself, cut through spells, sprout natural weapons, gain swim/climb/fly speeds, attack during a move, gain special attacks like gore/trample/pounce/overrun, ignore negative levels, and many more. This is the difference between tiers (except 2 and 1) - differences in kind, not merely differences in scale.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

In PF, a halfling will have 2 more AC, 3 less CMB, 2 less CMD, 2-3 less damage and 1 less AB compared to a human who puts his +2 into strength. Not great, but not crippling all told, and there are probably better small races to pick out there. The big problem, as you implied, is that you'll probably never get better than 5' natural reach for "tanking" purposes.

[Raven777]

I'm also not sure how much better a medium mount is going to fare than a large one upon encountering a ladder.

[LordBlades]

The problem with this is that people have warped the entire point of the tier systems original purpose. When first created, it was meant simply to be a way for DMs to be able to gauge what sorts of Tom-Foolery a party could throw at him based on what their class was.

It also has the stated goal of helping the players build characters that fit the group power-wise (if the rest of your group is tier 1, maybe playing Fighter isn't the bestest idea ever you thought it would be). , tied to that, in my experience it also helps troubleshoot cerain party issues ( if the traditional cleric/wizard/fighter/rogue plays more like cleric/wizard/cheerleader/cheerleader, the tier system might help people realize it's not necessarily a player issue.


It was NOT meant to be a glorified pissing contest that forces every D&D player to automatically be required to play a T3 or better or else they suck
Not sure why you think
iy's all so hostile. Most of the time it's honest, well-intentioned advice. People advocate tier 4 (warlock and barbarian pop up pretty often) and above because, unless stated otherwise it's assumed that you want your character to be reasonably competent at what they're trying to do (which tier 5 and 6 as per their very definition usually aren't). If you ask for 'monk advice' people will give you unarmed swordsage and Tashalatora because they thonk you want a character that actually is good at the stuff monk is advertised as being good at (like unarmed fighing and mobility).


The internet, and in my opinion, the MMO crowd ruined its intention because todays generation of gamers are always trying to one-up each other, and it just defeats the purpose ofa game like D&D, to have fun.

Once again I thonk you're overstating the hostility. I seldom see 'help me one-up my fellow players', usually it's 'help me/player x in my group contribute'.

All Internet did IMO is:
-raise people's awareness of their own competence. In MMOs you either come across bosees that act as some sort of objective benchmarks ( you musy be this competent/geared to pass) or, in case of PvP games you come across complete strangers which will do the best to beat you, withot personal feelinga and perceived honor rules holding them back. All of this has made gamers both better at assesing how competent they are as well as interested in being competent.
-help propagate competence. Nowadays it's easier than ever to find guides, discussions and advice about how to get better at pretty much anything.

[avr]

I'm also not sure how much better a medium mount is going to fare than a large one upon encountering a ladder.
Well, there may well be someone in the party who can carry it. That's less likely to be true of a horse than a wolf.

[RedMage125]

A small cavalier is indeed one solution to some (not all) of the mount issues, but in turn raises problems of its own. Among them:

- Small characters are harder to "bottleneck" with, the tanking technique RedMage suggested above.
- Typically lower CMB/CMD due to size.
- Typically lower Strength, compounding the above.
- Lower weapon damage due to size.

None of these are dealbreakers of course, just tradeoffs to be aware of. And other issues are still present (and may even be compounded) like bringing the saddled and bridled wolf into the throne room etc.
Right, and those are issues with a Small character of almost ANY melee class, possibly excepting Rogue/Ninja. After your Sneak Attack dice hits the 2d6 mark, getting Sneak attack means that the fact that your weapon does "1d4+1" or whatever has largely become irrelevant. Small characters work best at range, and usually make GREAT spellcasters (size bonus to AC when you can;t even wear armor = win).

Fixing an issue that makes one class feature more versatile at the expense of every other aspect of your role in combat is not a fix. Psyren and I agree on that point at least.


This whole thing started because you adopted an unnecessarily smug tone to respond to me while also being wrong (post #28.) Maybe avoid that in the future and you won't have to get upset.

My tone in that post was more generally applied to EVERYONE who seems to think that the Tier System is somehow a guide to what classes should and should not be played. Or like it's a bloody ladder ranking with the higher-Tier classes being just "better". And the part directed at you, while a bit smug, is still correct. A Gunslinger is quite capable of producing a significant damage output. And "doing one thing well, but often useless in areas that require other expertise" is Tier 4.

I still maintain what I said about the Rogue though. But you will note I backed down on the Ninja, acknowledging that they may, indeed be a whole Tier of ability above a Rogue. But the greatly-widened berth of creatures that can now be Sneak Attacked (to include constructs and all corporeal undead) and the addition of Rogue Talents makes up for the dilution of Trapfinding. Furtermore, a lot of the skills that were folded together in PF were Rogue class skills, meaning a PF Rogue has even MORE skill points to spread around. Disable Device, Open Lock, Spot, Listen, Search, Hide, Move Silently, Balance, Tumble. Those would collectively be 4 skills in PF. Ranged Sneak Attack was a pain to accomplish in 3.5e, and while the Ninja's ability to enhance the range limitation may make him better at it than a Rogue, the changes to the Rogue in no way made him worth a whole Tier less.



I'm more than happy to move on from the tier of Cavalier and Samurai. That brings us back to Fighter:

And we agree here. Yet part of "good optimization" means ACFs (3.5) and Archetypes (PF). That is what leads us back to what I acknowledged as the T4 Fighter, Lore Warden (post #61.)
Ok, archetypes, to include Lore Warden were not part of 3.5, and since there has been no "official" re-exaination of the Tier System for PF, I should have clarified that I meant a 3.5e fighter.

Oh, and I had to look up Lore Warden, as I don't have the book that it's in. Egads!


They are improvements, yes. But your conclusion is where we continue to disagree, because these improvements are all cosmetic at best. Even taken as a whole they do not get the fighter to T4. Bravery is a joke - a +5 bonus to one subcategory of a save over 20 levels - compare to the Barbarian, who is getting +4 to all will saves and all fort saves over the same period of time (if he doesn't just become immune to fear altogether.) Armor Training is a waste because you can simply buy armor with no (or a trivial) check penalty and render it pointless, if you're even close to failing the checks anyway which for the most part you shouldn't be.

Weapon Training is (sadly) the best of the lot at +4 to attack and damage across 20 levels. Every T4 is capable of trouncing that and doing more besides, thus Fighter is hard to justify in their company. That leaves us with nothing except the capstones, which JaronK explicitly does not consider (otherwise Truenamer and Healer would be T1.) So we're left with... nothing.

But quite apart from being weak bonuses in and of themselves, none of them boost the fighter's tier because none of them let him do anything he couldn't do before, or indeed do the things he could do before substantially better. Barbarians, in addition to comparable flat bonuses, get to do things like reroll his saves, resist energy, heal himself, cut through spells, sprout natural weapons, gain swim/climb/fly speeds, attack during a move, gain special attacks like gore/trample/pounce/overrun, ignore negative levels, and many more. This is the difference between tiers (except 2 and 1) - differences in kind, not merely differences in scale.
We may just have to agree to disagree. Because Armor Training is awesome. It fills me with awe. A high level Fighter can actually invest in heavy armor that isn't mithril, and not have to spend his armor enhancements on things that reduce penalties, and (more importantly) raise the DEX threshold of the armor-something that's unique to the Fighter class. He can tumble in full plate, something no non-dwarf can do. Weapon Training stacks with the (still Fighter-specific) Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization, so yes, I would argue that the PF Fighter did, in fact, get "better at the things he was supposed to do before". And getting "better" when you're already a high Tier 5, and the cutoff between Tier 5 and Tier 4 is that Tier 5s don't usually do their "one thing" all that well, I'd say that the PF Fighter is certainly Tier 4. He may be lower in the Tier than some of the other classes, but on his own merits, he meets the criteria of Tier 4.
And that's what's been bugging me about the way you rank the classes in Tiers. You bear no consideration for the class in regards to the definition of the Tier, in a vacuum. Just because you can build an optimized Barbarian that can blow any optimized Fighter you can build out of the water is not why Barbarians were a Tier above Fighters in 3.5. The class as a whole, irrespective of any one build, and what its capabilities are as layed out in the class features is what puts a class in its Tier. This is why prepared Spellcasters are Tier 1, simply by virtue of their "Spellcasting" class feature, they-as a class-have theoretical access to any spell on their class list. And supplements only made those lists bigger. Every individual wizard is certainly not "Capable of doing absolutely everything, even better than classes that specialize in that thing", that's not what the Tier system is about. Because there are individual spells that, at some point, can pretty much replicate any other class' features, often better/quicker/easier, the class gets that distinction as a whole. Back to 3.5e Barbarians and Fighters, Fighter has almost no class features to speak of, just proficiencies, high BAB, and feats. The glut of feats, though, and especially the really good feats that came out of the power creep in 3.5, made the Fighter high in his Tier, but he was never able to raise out of it, shy of ACFs. The Barbarian, OTOH, had more, and better skills, fast movement, a negligible amount of DR, Uncanny Dodge, and of course, Rage. The Barbarian's role was also clearly spelled out for him in his class features, howling mouth-foaming damage dealer. He did that well. The Fighter's role was not so much. Back when 3.0 was still pretty new, I made a straight Fighter who wore light armor and took nothing but archery feats, he did okay. But a Fighter could be a charging damage-dealer, or a "defender" (which in 3.5e is more about being a Controller, to again borrow a 4e term, but just at close range, due to a lack of "stickiness" or Marking), or a number of other things. What kept Fighters from crawling out of Tier 5 was this simple truism of game design: Versatility in choice is not an advantage when the choice cannot be altered. Take, for example, what they did with humans in 4e. Humans got a +2 to one stat, which they could choose. All other races got +2 to 2 stats, but no penalties, like they do in PF. What that means in reagrds to the truism I mentioned is: that once a human player chose which stat to get the boost (let's say DEX), his race immediately became worse than all the races that had a boost to DEX and another stat (especially true when the update that included "floating" stat mods were released for all the nonhuman races). Feats in 4e were also lackluster compared to 3.5/PF, but that was intentional on the designers' part, so the human bonus feat didn't always mean much, not when other races got cool encounter powers, bonuses to skills, and sometimes even scaling resistances. And your bonus skill had to be a class skill (as contrasted by the Eladrin race, who got one bonus trained skill and it could be any skill). Now in PF, it's "get a +2 to only one stat, but don't take a penalty", and get bonus skill/feat. Which, given that most other racial options include a penalty, is better than 4e's human by leaps and bounds.
I think I rambled a bit, but that was all important to my conclusion here. In 3.5e, the Fighter was a class that could be versatile enough to be a number of things, and be good at one, once picked (hence high in their Tier). But once you started choosing those feats you were stuck with them, and if you made a bad choice or chose a feat that was good at one point in the game, but has become useless later, oh well. And if you ran into a situation where you specialty was not going to help, you were little more than a cheerleader, or worse, a speed bump. And it's not even possible to flat out say what "one thing" the 3.5e Fighter was even supposed to be good at.
Now take the PF Fighter. The new class features clearly define the Fighter as the guy who wears Heavy Armor and does it better than anyone, in ways no other class can replicate. He can compete for the highest armor class in the game, because it's now worth it for a Fighter choosing Heavy Armor to invest more in his DEX (both in base stat and in magic item enhancement), and actually see more gain from it. PF explicitly allows for feat retraining, taking away the "illusion" of versatility, and making versatility an actual advantage, especially given the truly tremendous amount of feats he will have access to. Weapon Training and exclusive access to a handful of feats can bring him up to the attack and damage bonuses expected from a Barbarian of his level. And a Barbarian must remain in Light Armor to fully benefit from fast movement, and takes an AC penalty when raging, so the Fighter never sacrifices his defenses. Granted the Fighter's DR doesn't kick in until level 19, but at that level it's equal to a Barbarian's DR.
God forbid you should do a 3.P game, where feats from 3.5e sources are also allowed. I know the Tier system is not meant to account for individual builds, but consider this. Weapon Supremacy may have a few features made irrelevant by a Fighter's capstone (like the disarm bit), but give a straight level 20 fighter a reach weapon, fill his feat list with all the good Fighter-specific feats, a bunch of critical feats, and some tactical feats, and you have a character that can: make 5 attacks per round (Slashing Flurry); get a miscellaneous +5 bonus on one of them; take 10 on one of them; have a 20% chance to crit, with no confirmation roll necessary, inflicting debilitating status effects when he does (30% chance to crit if you forgo reach for a 18-20 threat range); and has access to a beastly amount of tactical maneuvers in combat. You have a character who in terms of damage output per round can now compete with what you might expect from a Tier 3 class. Play into that what such a character's party could do, like having a UMD character use a wand of Enlarge Person. And have someone use Haste, giving him a SIXTH attack. You want Rage? Wizard casts Rage, and the Fighter's AC will still be above that of a Barbarian of his level. Such a character covers 50 square feet on battlefield terrain, has Combat Reflexes (and enough DEX to make it at least 4 or 5 AoOs per round), and hits HARD. Could get better if you used Wish to become permanently Large at some point, then one of your feats could be Large and in Charge, and that would SERIOUSLY make for a great "defender". Barbarian may have him on hit points, but if his AC is high enough, he'll be losing less of them anyway.

Okay, I got a little carried away. I actually sincerely apologize. I'm not deleting it because I spent so much time on it now. The bottom line of my point is this: Given that PF has more clearly defined what a Fighter is, AND given him actual class features to help accomplish that (and a slightly expanded Class Skill List), the PF fighter no longer suffers from much of what made the 3.5e Fighter suffer. He can actually be GOOD at his role, and has the option to switch out "useless" feats when he levels, which makes his bonus feats actually worth more than the 3.5e Fighter's bonus feats were. And so meets the criteria for Tier 4, in class features, not just one build.



It also has the stated goal of helping the players build characters that fit the group power-wise (if the rest of your group is tier 1, maybe playing Fighter isn't the bestest idea ever you thought it would be). , tied to that, in my experience it also helps troubleshoot cerain party issues ( if the traditional cleric/wizard/fighter/rogue plays more like cleric/wizard/cheerleader/cheerleader, the tier system might help people realize it's not necessarily a player issue.
It is absolutely NOT meant to dissuade players from choosing a class they want to play. If the rest of your group is Tier 1, and you really want to play a Fighter, it gives you some solid ground to go to your DM and say "Hey, in the interest of keeping up with the rest of the party, can I be a Desert Half-orc/Half-minotaur Fighter?". JaronK even says "better build characters that fit in with their group" not "know what classes to NOT play, based on group makeup.
And as to your wiz/clr/cheerleader/cheerleader point...if that's really going on and it's not hyperbole, and the rest of the party is THAT useless, something went wrong somewhere, and it's human error. That said (assuming you were exaggerating a bit to make your point), D&D has always seen that kind of dynamic at high levels. Keep in mind, a level 3 wizard is not some kind of all-powerful godlike being. He's got like 5 spells a day, not counting cantrips, and he's trying to divinde them between utility and something useful in combat, while he meanwhile shoots his crossbow with his pathetic BAB. He NEEDS that Fighter and Rogue to protect him. Then, by the time the party is level 15 (and probably sooner), the rest of the party is pretty much there to keep the wizard from getting his own blood on his shiny new robes. That's been true of D&D since pretty much forever. Theoretically, the "balance" of the power divide is seen over the course of the progression. But if you only play in games that start at level 12+, yeah, the "mundane" classes are gonna seem pretty terrible.


Not sure why you think
iy's all so hostile. Most of the time it's honest, well-intentioned advice. People advocate tier 4 (warlock and barbarian pop up pretty often) and above because, unless stated otherwise it's assumed that you want your character to be reasonably competent at what they're trying to do (which tier 5 and 6 as per their very definition usually aren't). If you ask for 'monk advice' people will give you unarmed swordsage and Tashalatora because they thonk you want a character that actually is good at the stuff monk is advertised as being good at (like unarmed fighing and mobility).
Your post got a little chopped up there, don't know if you noticed it. I also think you missed what he was saying in regards to the "pissing contest". He meant that people who THINK that the Tier system is some kind of ranking system, and that they're basically playing some kind of match of "rocket tag", where they NEED to be the "best". The pissing contest is not necessarily in the way the advice is delivered (although sometimes it is), but also in the way the advice is received, particularly by people who don't know what the Tier System really means, but get advice on why this class is worse than that class, using the Tier system as justification for those points. It promotes this "pissing contest of which he speaks. He's using generalities, too. And I agree with him, but one should be clear that he's not attacking all of the people giving advice to those who ask for it. Sometimes, it's the attitude of the people asking.


Once again I thonk you're overstating the hostility. I seldom see 'help me one-up my fellow players', usually it's 'help me/player x in my group contribute'.Ok, his closing remark is a little hostile. Sounds kind of like how reactionary I was in college when all the meatheads who made fun of videogames in high school were suddenly like "let's drink some beer and play some Halo!". And while he is perhaps a little too eager to lay the blame at the feet of the MMO crowd, his dissatisfaction with the "I need to win at D&D" attitude is something I can certainly relate to.


All Internet did IMO is:
-raise people's awareness of their own competence. In MMOs you either come across bosees that act as some sort of objective benchmarks ( you musy be this competent/geared to pass) or, in case of PvP games you come across complete strangers which will do the best to beat you, withot personal feelinga and perceived honor rules holding them back. All of this has made gamers both better at assesing how competent they are as well as interested in being competent.
-help propagate competence. Nowadays it's easier than ever to find guides, discussions and advice about how to get better at pretty much anything.
Honestly, I hate this about gaming nowadays. In my day, you didn't look online for a walkthrough (not that internet access was exactly common then anyways). You usually had to figure it out yourself. Or you and all your friends who played it talked about it and figured it out. If you wanted a walkthrough you had to shell out $15 at Software, etc. and buy the book. Or if you had a subscription to Game Players or Nintendo Power and were LUCKY enough to have the game you were working on featured. There was also a TV show that would occasionally go over popular Nintendo games and discuss some strategy (sure helped me beat Snake Man in Mega Man 3).
The over-proliferation of free handouts to the tone of "here, this is how to beat the game", disgusts me. What happened to beating a game on your own merit? I just recently played the new Xbox 360 Tomb Raider, didn't look online until I beat the game (with a 98% completion rate I might add). Did the same for Castlevania Lords of Shadow 2, only missed 2 of the "city guide" things. And you know what? I felt proud of my accomplishment because I did it myself.

Sorry...unrelated to topic of thread...
/rant

[LordBlades]

All the tier system does is highlight the problem: playing a fighter in a tier 1 group all other things equal will not work. Whether the solution to this problem is 'don't play fighter' or 'give fighter bunch of freebies' is up to every group. Also, to me at least 'building a character' includes class selection.

And as to your [quote]wiz/clr/cheerleader/cheerleader point...if that's really going on and it's not hyperbole, and the rest of the party is THAT useless, something went wrong somewhere, and it's human error. That said (assuming you were exaggerating a bit to make your point), D&D has always seen that kind of dynamic at high levels.

I was exaggerating a bit but it's based on personal experience. In my first d&d groups (all new players DM included) there were 2 if us that happened to play archetypes that worked well, like CoDzilla (was a half-orc cleric of Kord that actually took Wapon prof. Greatsword as a feat and ended up completely out fighting the group's fighter), summoner wizards, blaster psions etc. while the others kept trying stuff that jusy didn't work like Weapon Finesse monks or sword&board paladins. Since the same 2 guys consistently outdid the party by quite a bit, everyone (us included) concluded there was a player problem and the group broke (not on good terms).


Keep in mind, a level 3 wizard is not some kind of all-powerful godlike being. He's got like 5 spells a day, not counting cantrips, and he's trying to divinde them between utility and something useful in combat, while he meanwhile shoots his crossbow with his pathetic BAB. He NEEDS that Fighter and Rogue to protect him. Then, by the time the party is level 15 (and probably sooner), the rest of the party is pretty much there to keep the wizard from getting his own blood on his shiny new robes. That's been true of D&D since pretty much forever. Theoretically, the "balance" of the power divide is seen over the course of the progression. But if you only play in games that start at level 12+, yeah, the "mundane" classes are gonna seem pretty terrible.
Wizard maybe,(in new player games at least, before they find Focused Specialist and Abrupt Jaunt) but tier 1 also includes Clerics and Druids, which is hard to argue they need a mundane to protect them at any level.


Honestly, I hate this about gaming nowadays. In my day, you didn't look online for a walkthrough (not that internet access was exactly common then anyways). You usually had to figure it out yourself. Or you and all your friends who played it talked about it and figured it out. If you wanted a walkthrough you had to shell out $15 at Software, etc. and buy the book. Or if you had a subscription to Game Players or Nintendo Power and were LUCKY enough to have the game you were working on featured. There was also a TV show that would occasionally go over popular Nintendo games and discuss some strategy (sure helped me beat Snake Man in Mega Man 3).
The over-proliferation of free handouts to the tone of "here, this is how to beat the game", disgusts me. What happened to beating a game on your own merit? I just recently played the new Xbox 360 Tomb Raider, didn't look online until I beat the game (with a 98% completion rate I might add). Did the same for Castlevania Lords of Shadow 2, only missed 2 of the "city guide" things. And you know what? I felt proud of my accomplishment because I did it myself.

Sorry...unrelated to topic of thread...
/rant

I agree wholeheartedly (personally I only look for guides on competitive online games, part of the single player fun is the challenge/discovery) but for every guy that thinks like this there were a few others that just dialed the difficulty down rathet than try to dial their own competence up.

[Firechanter]

First off, Holy Crap, what has the thread turned into. I ask a simple question about the differences between 3.X and PF, and it turns into a presidential debate.

I only read the first page of the thread, but I'll try to sum up my thoughts on the PF tiers and power level:

Basically, not much has changed. Most of the insight in the first few replies is dead on.
Generally, PF has narrowed the optimization range by raising the floor and lowering the ceiling. This doesn't invalidate the tier system, however.

For instance, nearly every combat class gets piles and piles of bonuses To Hit, but no meaningful way to convert excess bonuses to Damage. The Rogue is one of the few who lose out, being stuck with Medium BAB and no meaningful To Hit bonuses, which is one of the reasons why the class is generally regarded as the big loser of PF.

I've never seen a PF Monk in action so I can't say if they are really even worse than in 3.5; on paper the class certainly looks much better, but I may easily be mistaken.

A major issue with PF is that feats have been devalued to the point of irrelevance. Sure, there still are some must-haves, like Precise Shot for archers etc.; and a scant few new feats that are actually good, like Deadly Aim. But all the really powerful 3.5 feats are just gone, and the new PF-native feats are mostly crap. Some of them do nothing at all, some actually actively make you _weaker_, something even the worst 3.5 trap feats never did.

This also shows, btw, when you compare Handbooks for 3.5 and PF classes that rate options with colours or stars. Typically, stuff like Weapon Focus that gets maybe 1 to 2 Stars in 3.5 gets 3 to 4 Stars in PF handbooks -- not because the feat had been improved (it hasn't), but for the lack of anything better to choose from.

Thus, the increased feat progression in PF is also eyewash. Firstly, over the first _12 levels_ of the game the net gain is _one feat_. Seeing how each feat is worth so much less here, at the bottom line it's a definitive loss in this department.

However, the PF philosophy is to implement anything worth having into the classes themselves. Stuff that used to be a feat for anyone is now a Special that is only available as, say, a Level 12 Rage Power. This effectively means that casual players can't gimp their characters so easily. All the good stuff comes automatically, and all the choices you might mess up are made meaningless, so your character will be "good" no matter how much or little effort you put into it.

Of course, this frustrates players like myself, who enjoy fiddling and tweaking and optimizing their characters. PF says "Sure, you can fiddle and tweak and optimize all you want, but the result ain't gonna be much better than if you hadn't."
So in short, Paizo wants to make their game idiot-proof, and they might succeed at that, but at the expense of players who want their choices to be meaningful.

(I even remember reading a post by someone saying they stopped assigning feats altogether in protest, seeing how it's a waste of time and doesn't improve the character one bit.)

[Ssalarn]

Core monk in PF is Tier 5. He's got lots of abilities that are good in and of themselves but which don't click together into a comprehensive whole.
PF monk with archetypes can be an easy Tier 4 or better, with archetypes like Zen Archer, Tetori, Sohei, and Sensei, combined with the fact that they made Qinggong compatible with any other archetype.

[Psyren]

Right, and those are issues with a Small character of almost ANY melee class, possibly excepting Rogue/Ninja. After your Sneak Attack dice hits the 2d6 mark, getting Sneak attack means that the fact that your weapon does "1d4+1" or whatever has largely become irrelevant. Small characters work best at range, and usually make GREAT spellcasters (size bonus to AC when you can;t even wear armor = win).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we discussing the "tanking" role? Fighters, Barbarians, et al. don't get sneak attack die, and their CMB/CMD are more relevant than those of a rogue-type class because being the desired target of attacks means you're also going to be the target of maneuvers - many monsters get free ones (particularly grapple and trip) just from attacking normally. And being grappled by a monster can result in all kinds of nasty secondary effects - they can full-attack you with a +4 bonus, they can constrict you, they can rake you, they can swallow you whole etc. The smaller you are the more dangerous this situation becomes.

Which is not to say that a Rogue in this situation wouldn't be disadvantaged either, but again - the expectation for a rogue is that they would not be taking on attacks for the party, i.e. that they would not be tanking. Rogue-types are expected to enter melee only when the monsters in question already have another target to focus on.



My tone in that post was more generally applied to EVERYONE who seems to think that the Tier System is somehow a guide to what classes should and should not be played. Or like it's a bloody ladder ranking with the higher-Tier classes being just "better". And the part directed at you, while a bit smug, is still correct. A Gunslinger is quite capable of producing a significant damage output. And "doing one thing well, but often useless in areas that require other expertise" is Tier 4.

Your third sentence basically admits that you knew my argument had nothing to do with telling people what they should not play, yet you treated me as though I were saying that anyway. That's the definition of a strawman.

And again I say that damage is not enough. As I quoted from the tier system thread, T5s can also occasionally do one thing well. And that is the key word, because a fighter and gunslinger, though good at damage, need specific situations to deliver that payload properly.

Let's go back to the tier thread again. Here is JaronK's write-up for Fighter vs. scenarios:



Situation 1: A Black Dragon has been plaguing an area, and he lives in a trap filled cave. Deal with him.

Situation 2: You have been tasked by a nearby country with making contact with the leader of the underground slave resistance of an evil tyranical city state, and get him to trust you.

Situation 3: A huge army of Orcs is approaching the city, and should be here in a week or so. Help the city prepare for war.

...

Tier 5: A Fighter. Situation 1: If he's optimized for this sort of thing (a tripper might have trouble, though a charger would be handy if he could get off a clear shot, and an archer would likely work) he can be a threat during the main fight, but he's probably just about useless for sneaking down through the cave and avoiding any traps the dragon has set out without alerting said dragon. Most likely the party Rogue would want to hide him in a bag of holding or something. Once in the fight if he's optimized he'll be solid, but if not (if he's a traditional SAB build or a dual weilding monkey grip type) he's going to be a liability in the combat (though not as bad as the Commoner). Situation 2: As the commoner before, his class really won't help here. His class just doesn't provide any useful tools for the job. It's possible (but very unlikely) that he's optimized in a way that helps in this situation, just as with the Commoner. Situation 3: Again, his class doesn't help much, but at least he could be pretty useful during the main battle as a front line trooper of some sort. Hack up the enemy and rack up a body count.

Here is the problem with saying they are up a tier in PF. What class features do they get in PF that allows them to perform any of the three jobs above more easily? The PF Fighter, despite all the "improvements" you listed in your previous post, will run into all the same obstacles and handle all these threats in the same way, and even with the same effectiveness (read: not much.) Bravery and Weapon Training provide minimal help, Armor Training even less, and I can't think of any feats that would really help either. (The really useful ones for this - Incarnum feats - are 3.5.)

I agree with you that they are nice abilities compared to the nothing they got before, but even combined they do nothing to change the Fighter's tier. Their most useful aspect is their ability to be traded out for archetypes that actually make the Fighter work better, like Paizo's Lore Warden or Radiance House's Warshade.



I still maintain what I said about the Rogue though. But you will note I backed down on the Ninja, acknowledging that they may, indeed be a whole Tier of ability above a Rogue. But the greatly-widened berth of creatures that can now be Sneak Attacked (to include constructs and all corporeal undead) and the addition of Rogue Talents makes up for the dilution of Trapfinding. Furtermore, a lot of the skills that were folded together in PF were Rogue class skills, meaning a PF Rogue has even MORE skill points to spread around. Disable Device, Open Lock, Spot, Listen, Search, Hide, Move Silently, Balance, Tumble. Those would collectively be 4 skills in PF. Ranged Sneak Attack was a pain to accomplish in 3.5e, and while the Ninja's ability to enhance the range limitation may make him better at it than a Rogue, the changes to the Rogue in no way made him worth a whole Tier less.

Well, the problem for rogues was not that Trapfinding was diluted, it was that enabling sneak attack was diluted. Ranged sneak attack is actually harder in PF, because they basically want rogues in melee flanking foes. In other words, in PF, your options for sneak attack are reduced primarily to: flanking, going first (only works for one attack sequence on average), and using items or spells (which for a rogue are the same thing.) The main ranged sneak attack enablers, Blink and Grease, don't work anymore, Stealth is harder because Perception is easier, and even flanking is harder because Acrobatics is harder. Plus melee is more dangerous Escape Artist is harder because you're pitting one stat against two and everyone gets Use Rope etc. I do think these disadvantages are cancelled out by the advantages to sneak attack vs. creature types however and so my opinion is that Rogue has neither risen nor fallen in tier.

The skills argument I don't buy. Yes, Rogues effectively get more now thanks to some of the key ones being consolidated, but they already had the good ones anyway. What are they going to grab now, Profession? Maybe they have more points to sink into Appraise? And in some respects the consolidation hurt them, because now just about any official or scholar has a very good chance of seeing through your forgeries.



Honestly, I hate this about gaming nowadays. In my day, you didn't look online for a walkthrough (not that internet access was exactly common then anyways). You usually had to figure it out yourself. Or you and all your friends who played it talked about it and figured it out. If you wanted a walkthrough you had to shell out $15 at Software, etc. and buy the book. Or if you had a subscription to Game Players or Nintendo Power and were LUCKY enough to have the game you were working on featured. There was also a TV show that would occasionally go over popular Nintendo games and discuss some strategy (sure helped me beat Snake Man in Mega Man 3).
The over-proliferation of free handouts to the tone of "here, this is how to beat the game", disgusts me. What happened to beating a game on your own merit? I just recently played the new Xbox 360 Tomb Raider, didn't look online until I beat the game (with a 98% completion rate I might add). Did the same for Castlevania Lords of Shadow 2, only missed 2 of the "city guide" things. And you know what? I felt proud of my accomplishment because I did it myself.

Sorry...unrelated to topic of thread...
/rant

"Get off my lawn you crazy kids!" :smalltongue:

You may not like this aspect of the information age - that people want to share information, heh - but the tier system itself is a product of this new gaming culture. And it's not about beating the game - it's just about being aware of some of the pitfalls you (and your DM!) might run into ahead of time so you can plan accordingly. Forewarned is forearmed they say.

[Anlashok]

but the Fighter has gotten better as what he's supposed to do.

That's really debatable. The PF fighter can't be built to do as much damage as the 3.5 fighter can simply because of the changes to and lack of feat and dip options, combine that with slightly fixed AC math and weapon training is less than a wash. On the defensive side, CMD makes performing maneuvers significantly harder and, again, the lack of feat options and viable dips means even when you do manage to trip an opponent the result is going to be much less scary. No imperious command, no never outnumbered, no dungeoncrash and so on either.

Having a bigger feat pool is nice, but having feats broken up into extended trees like they are significantly mitigates the value of that. Not completely, but still to a fairly large degree.

In terms of noncombat ability? Lore Warden is head and shoulders above the 3.5 fighter and traits make the base fighter a bit better, so at least that goes to Pathfinder.

[I3igAl]

Here is the problem with saying they are up a tier in PF. What class features do they get in PF that allows them to perform any of the three jobs above more easily? The PF Fighter, despite all the "improvements" you listed in your previous post, will run into all the same obstacles and handle all these threats in the same way, and even with the same effectiveness (read: not much.) Bravery and Weapon Training provide minimal help, Armor Training even less, and I can't think of any feats that would really help either. (The really useful ones for this - Incarnum feats - are 3.5.)

A Wayfinder with a clear Spindle Ioun Stone will make a Fighter(or a Rogue) into a much more viable character and IMO really able to do their job. Though that's not really enough nor is it a class feature.

[Gemini476]

A Wayfinder with a clear Spindle Ioun Stone will make a Fighter(or a Rogue) into a much more viable character and IMO really able to do their job. Though that's not really enough nor is it a class feature.

...How exactly will not needing to eat or drink make them "really able to do their job"?

[Kudaku]

Instructions unclear; ioun stone stuck in forehead.

More seriously, look up how Wayfinders interact with ioun stones. For 4500 GP a rogue/fighter can get immunity to charm/compulsion effects as from Protection from Evil.

[Psyren]

A Wayfinder with a clear Spindle Ioun Stone will make a Fighter(or a Rogue) into a much more viable character and IMO really able to do their job. Though that's not really enough nor is it a class feature.


Instructions unclear; ioun stone stuck in forehead.

More seriously, look up how Wayfinders interact with ioun stones. For 4500 GP a rogue/fighter can get immunity to charm/compulsion effects as from Protection from Evil.

Note that is a much weaker effect in Pathfinder because PfX only suppresses aligned effects. This is the reason that the best alignment for your Enchanter wizard is TN.

More importantly, this doesn't help with any of JaronK's three hypothetical situations.

[RedMage125]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we discussing the "tanking" role? Fighters, Barbarians, et al. don't get sneak attack die, and their CMB/CMD are more relevant than those of a rogue-type class because being the desired target of attacks means you're also going to be the target of maneuvers - many monsters get free ones (particularly grapple and trip) just from attacking normally. And being grappled by a monster can result in all kinds of nasty secondary effects - they can full-attack you with a +4 bonus, they can constrict you, they can rake you, they can swallow you whole etc. The smaller you are the more dangerous this situation becomes.

Which is not to say that a Rogue in this situation wouldn't be disadvantaged either, but again - the expectation for a rogue is that they would not be taking on attacks for the party, i.e. that they would not be tanking. Rogue-types are expected to enter melee only when the monsters in question already have another target to focus on.
We were, yes. That was an aside. I was saying MOST melee class, tank or not, frequently will have issues with a Small race. So I was making a general statement about Small Melee that agreed with, and encompassed what you were saying about Small tanks.

Then I said a Rogue might be the only melee class that can reasonably get away with being Small, because the lion's share of their damage output doesn't come from STR of weapon size.



Your third sentence basically admits that you knew my argument had nothing to do with telling people what they should not play, yet you treated me as though I were saying that anyway. That's the definition of a strawman.
What? It does not at all. How do you get that from what I said? I acknowledged that my statement directed at you in that post was smug in tone, yes. That's me admitting the tone of my statement. I also never said that YOU were saying "don't play x class". THAT comment was general, regarding the nature of the Tier System and how it's being perceived. So, no strawman. Except from you. Again. Because this? This false claim that I'm strawmanning you and trying to call me out on it? Since it's not true, THAT'S a strawman.
Here is the entirety of post #28 that was directed at YOU, if you don't believe me:

I really don't know how you can say that about any of those classes. I disagree with the earlier assertion that Rogues dropped to Tier 5; after all, less creatures are immune to Sneak Attack, ranged Sneak Attack has always been a pain to pull off, and I'd say Rogue Tricks make up for the diluting of trapfinding. But Ninja is pretty much a Rogue.

Samurai, Cavalier, and Gunslinger, since they do damage and do it well, but "often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining" makes them Tier 4. I suggest you re-read the link to the Tier system and re-familiarize yourself with what a Tier means, and what it does not.
Was it a bit smug? Yes, my one certainly was. My irritation was more general regarding the way the Tier system is being used, and you were just the next guy to make a comment about it that set me off. I apologize for my tone, because it was not you, specifically, that put me in the frame of mind where I was shooting off at the mouth like that.
HOWEVER, nowhere did I accuse you-specifically-of "telling people which class to not play". Ergo, strawman. On your part, not mine.

Do you want to be done with this part? Because we can go rounds, and I will neither back down nor lose when it comes to claims about what I did or did not say. I'm Irish, and they say God created being stubborn just so we could be the very best at something. But I'm willing to let it go if you are.


And again I say that damage is not enough. As I quoted from the tier system thread, T5s can also occasionally do one thing well. And that is the key word, because a fighter and gunslinger, though good at damage, need specific situations to deliver that payload properly.
Again, there's a fine line there. Tier 5's generally DO NOT do their "one thing" well, but occasionally will. A Tier 4 is also more or less a one-trick pony, he's just really good at his trick. And I know my Fighter write up was long, but did you really read all of it? Part of what made the Fighter Tier 5 is the illusion of versatility, coupled with an indistinct definition of what he's "supposed to do". When you clearly define that, give him ways to be GOOD at that that no other class can imitate, and add in actual, honest-to-Pelor versatility to his massive feat roster, he's actually enough to be "Good at one thing" rather consistently.


Let's go back to the tier thread again. Here is JaronK's write-up for Fighter vs. scenarios:



Here is the problem with saying they are up a tier in PF. What class features do they get in PF that allows them to perform any of the three jobs above more easily? The PF Fighter, despite all the "improvements" you listed in your previous post, will run into all the same obstacles and handle all these threats in the same way, and even with the same effectiveness (read: not much.) Bravery and Weapon Training provide minimal help, Armor Training even less, and I can't think of any feats that would really help either. (The really useful ones for this - Incarnum feats - are 3.5.)
Here's the problem with those 3 situations: They are explicitly skewed to hamper straight melee combat types. You have a semi-combat situation that laregly focuses on skills/stealth/avoidance first; then a social situation, then a "mass-combat" that's really more about preparation and planning ahead of time. To wit: the Barbarian is Tier 4, and what could he do in any of those 3 that would in any way be different from how a Fighter does? He might have the hit points to survive triggering ll the traps in situation 1, he's useless in situation 2, given that the goal is "gain the guy's trust", so Intimidate won't help, and in situation 3, he might actually be WORSE off than the Fighter, because if he's still in the middle of the battlefield when Rage runs out, he's fatigued. A TWF Ranger, too, might excel in the first situation, due to his stealthiness, but unless the contact in situation 2 is an awakened animal, he's got nothing the Fighter doesn't. And situation 3? Same boat. The example Tier 4 class he used for those 3 was the Rogue, a class that excels in Stealth and skills, helping him get through 1 and even 2 easily. And he's even got some "if you don't like the game don't play" options for situation 3 (like going out and assassinating orc leaders).
No, those 3 situations were given to help JaronK emphasize his point regarding general levels of Power and Versatility, as well as highlighting that he's talking about a class in a general framework, and not a specific build. Those specific situations break down if you look at Fighter and Barbarian side by side, I even doubt that a Crusader (again, generally as a class, not one build) would handle those specific situations as well as the Beguiler did (the Tier 3 class he used for an example). So on that point, I call shenanigans, because it's a skewed playing field. It's like if you were saying you could beat me at chess, but I get to insist that when we play, I get to take away your queen and your rooks, replacing them with more pawns, and I get to replace half my pawns with more knights and bishops.


I agree with you that they are nice abilities compared to the nothing they got before, but even combined they do nothing to change the Fighter's tier. Their most useful aspect is their ability to be traded out for archetypes that actually make the Fighter work better, like Paizo's Lore Warden or Radiance House's Warshade.
Haven't looked at anything outside Paizo for PF (just recently acquired the Dreamscarred Press Psionic stuff, I have heard good things). However, having looked at the Lore Warden, I think it's certainly at least Tier 4. Then again, back in 3.5e Dungeoncrasher was Tier 4...


Well, the problem for rogues was not that Trapfinding was diluted, it was that enabling sneak attack was diluted. Ranged sneak attack is actually harder in PF, because they basically want rogues in melee flanking foes. In other words, in PF, your options for sneak attack are reduced primarily to: flanking, going first (only works for one attack sequence on average), and using items or spells (which for a rogue are the same thing.) The main ranged sneak attack enablers, Blink and Grease, don't work anymore, Stealth is harder because Perception is easier, and even flanking is harder because Acrobatics is harder. Plus melee is more dangerous Escape Artist is harder because you're pitting one stat against two and everyone gets Use Rope etc. I do think these disadvantages are cancelled out by the advantages to sneak attack vs. creature types however and so my opinion is that Rogue has neither risen nor fallen in tier.
Ok, I don't see it. Ranged Sneak Attack was difficult in 3.5e, too. You either needed surprise, stealth, or magic. What has changed in PF to make Ranged Sneak Attack that much harder than it was in 3.5e? I don't play rogues personally. I did check on Blink, that was kind of a surprise that I didn't catch on my first reading, but Grease still works. Under the Acrobatics skill description, if you need to make an Acrobatics check and move at half speed to avoid falling, you lose your DEX mod to AC.
Honestly the decision regarding folding the 2 skills into one for Stealth was something that I approve of (and it's one of the few houserules I implemented in 3.5e, and I combine Spot and Listen into Perception, LONG before I picked up PF). In the long run, it's more beneficial to players, and more fun, because how many times have you seen a rogue roll well on his Hide but then have to roll Move Silently with it, and botch that roll, even with a good modifier? Or vis versa? And if Stealth is one skill, Spot and Listen cannot remain separate ones, because the "defenders" of Stealth attempts would get 2 chances to notice. I did notice that more classes get Perception as a class skill than got Spot in 3.5e, is that what you're talking about?

Mind you, we seem to agree on the Rogue, so none of this is an attempt to bait you into an argument on this point. I genuinely do not see what makes a PF Rogue have a harder time getting Ranged SA than a 3.5e Rogue. Ranged SA has always been a pretty much inferior way to go about it, if SA damage is your goal.


The skills argument I don't buy. Yes, Rogues effectively get more now thanks to some of the key ones being consolidated, but they already had the good ones anyway. What are they going to grab now, Profession? Maybe they have more points to sink into Appraise? And in some respects the consolidation hurt them, because now just about any official or scholar has a very good chance of seeing through your forgeries.
Those 4 skills cover most of the Rogue's basic necessities that all good Rogues should have. He's free to spend his remaining skill points (should have at least 5 or 6 left after those 4) on just about anything. UMD, of course, but now he can focus on social skills if he wants to, which in 3.5e, he would have had to find a balance between practical skills and social ones, unless he wanted to massively boost his INT (in which case his CHA would suffer). Point is, Rogues STILL have the largest class skill list in the game, and no one can take everything. But his options are wide open.


"Get off my lawn you crazy kids!" :smalltongue:

You may not like this aspect of the information age - that people want to share information, heh - but the tier system itself is a product of this new gaming culture. And it's not about beating the game - it's just about being aware of some of the pitfalls you (and your DM!) might run into ahead of time so you can plan accordingly. Forewarned is forearmed they say.
I have no problem with people sharing information, I have a problem with the "I don't even want to try to do it myself" mentality that is becoming a part of gaming culture. Sometimes you need help. Do you know how many video games of my youth stood unbeaten for YEARS because I couldn't get past a certain hurdle? Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the first one) for the Nintendo...that game was HARD. In my youth, I never got past the level where you had to swing on the ropes to cross rooftops. Looking for help when you're stuck or need help is different than basically having someone else do it for you. For example, those 2 games I mentioned I beat recently? After I beat them, I did look for some help, just to assuage my OCD need for completion, but I did my best to do it without help first. No one should ever be afraid or too proud to ask for help when it's needed. But my rant was more in regards to the people who have the walkthrough loaded up on their computer screen as they're starting the game for the first time.
That was mostly a tangent on video games. D&D is of course different. With a game that's got so many varied options and ways to play there is no way to "win", but there are some people that lose focus on the point of having fun. Because that's what's important. If you play in a high-op game where the DM is doing his level best to kill your characters with high-op monsters, you may NEED the help of the best optimizers here. And hey, if that's what you enjoy, more power to you. But some people don't tailor their advice to the situation, and you have people playing casual, mid-op games, where they're just looking to be a little better at something so they can have fun with their character, and I still see people giving them high-op advice on how to just become god-like or something. It's not always about that, and I think that's where Mongobear was going with his initial rant. That's what I got from it anyway. Maybe I'm the one with the skewed perception.

*shrug*

[LordBlades]

Here's the problem with those 3 situations: They are explicitly skewed to hamper straight melee combat types. You have a semi-combat situation that laregly focuses on skills/stealth/avoidance first; then a social situation, then a "mass-combat" that's really more about preparation and planning ahead of time. To wit: the Barbarian is Tier 4, and what could he do in any of those 3 that would in any way be different from how a Fighter does? He might have the hit points to survive triggering ll the traps in situation 1, he's useless in situation 2, given that the goal is "gain the guy's trust", so Intimidate won't help, and in situation 3, he might actually be WORSE off than the Fighter, because if he's still in the middle of the battlefield when Rage runs out, he's fatigued. A TWF Ranger, too, might excel in the first situation, due to his stealthiness, but unless the contact in situation 2 is an awakened animal, he's got nothing the Fighter doesn't. And situation 3? Same boat. The example Tier 4 class he used for those 3 was the Rogue, a class that excels in Stealth and skills, helping him get through 1 and even 2 easily. And he's even got some "if you don't like the game don't play" options for situation 3 (like going out and assassinating orc leaders).

Situations seem constructed to hamper melee types because combat is only a subset of situations a PC might encounter, and melee combat is only a subset of combat. The fact that in actual games most combat happen in small rooms (that favor melee) is a concession most DM make to the fact most of their parties lack meaningful ranged capabilities, but from an in-game consistency and logic point of view, there's a reason wizard build towers and not dungeons: if you could not be within 20 ft. from the guy with the pointy stick, you'd have a pretty big advantage. Dragons are 50x more scary when faced out in the open (until you're high enough level to lock them down reliably at least).



No, those 3 situations were given to help JaronK emphasize his point regarding general levels of Power and Versatility, as well as highlighting that he's talking about a class in a general framework, and not a specific build. Those specific situations break down if you look at Fighter and Barbarian side by side, I even doubt that a Crusader (again, generally as a class, not one build) would handle those specific situations as well as the Beguiler did (the Tier 3 class he used for an example). So on that point, I call shenanigans, because it's a skewed playing field. It's like if you were saying you could beat me at chess, but I get to insist that when we play, I get to take away your queen and your rooks, replacing them with more pawns, and I get to replace half my pawns with more knights and bishops.

Barbarian is tier 4 because he's actually good at melee, while fighter is less so. Barbarian can gain pounce, extra attacks from whirling frenzy, while fighter really gains nothing unique (fighter only feats aren't that great) that makes it better at melee.
Crusader:
1. Crusader is way more resilient that fighter/barbarian, between self healing (which can be employed via a bag of tricks/summons from allies if needed), stuff like Mountain Hammer (that allow a crusader to carve a path where there was none for example, avoiding all traps altogehter), delayed damage pool, etc., he stands a better chance of surviving the trap filled cave than a Fighter/Barbarian. In combat with the dragon, crusader is also quite competent.
2. Crusader has Diplomacy and Intimidate as class skills, and Cha as a secondary stat (due to Indomitable Soul). If you manage to stumble into some resistance goons, odds are you can Intimidate them into telling you where the leader is, and then use Diplomacy to gain his trust. Not a Crusader's forte but it can solve this with some effort (has a better shot at it than Fighter/Barbarian).
3.While you can do little to actually prepare the city from war (apart from Knowledge (history) to draw on the knowledge of past battles), the whole Devoted Spirit and White Raven schools make a Crusader a much better front line leader in a massed battle than a Fighter/ Barbarian (even low-level stuff like Leading the Charge can turn a charge from 'charge, do some damage, slim chance to kill the other guy' into 'charge, one-shot the enemy and break their line' for all NPCs in 60 ft.).

[RedMage125]

Situations seem constructed to hamper melee types because combat is only a subset of situations a PC might encounter, and melee combat is only a subset of combat. The fact that in actual games most combat happen in small rooms (that favor melee) is a concession most DM make to the fact most of their parties lack meaningful ranged capabilities, but from an in-game consistency and logic point of view, there's a reason wizard build towers and not dungeons: if you could not be within 20 ft. from the guy with the pointy stick, you'd have a pretty big advantage.
This does not at all address the point I was making. What could a Barbarian do in those exact 3 situations that would be better than a Fighter?

Answer: nothing.


Dragons are 50x more scary when faced out in the open (until you're high enough level to lock them down reliably at least).
I read this and laughed because it reminded me of the recent D&D comic taht was produced. You ever read it? In one of the opening few pages one of the party members makes a comment along the lines of "Dungeons. Why is it always dungeons?" To which the Dwarf Paladin responds: "In a world with dragons, fortified underground complexes big enough to admit a man, but not much larger are just practical."

That made me laugh. It's true, though.


Barbarian is tier 4 because he's actually good at melee, while fighter is less so. Barbarian can gain pounce, extra attacks from whirling frenzy, while fighter really gains nothing unique (fighter only feats aren't that great) that makes it better at melee.
You will note that ACFs that significantly altered a Tier Standing (such as Dungeoncrasher Fighter or Wildshape Ranger) were explicitly noted in the Tier Ranking, so that means ALL Barbarians, not just whirling Frenzy or Totem Barbarians, are Tier 4.
And if you think I've been arguing that the 3.5e Fighter is Tier 4, then you haven't been paying attention. I freel acknowledge (and even brought up a wealth of reasons to support) that the 3.5e Fighter deserves a Tier 5 ranking.


Crusader:
1. Crusader is way more resilient that fighter/barbarian, between self healing (which can be employed via a bag of tricks/summons from allies if needed), stuff like Mountain Hammer (that allow a crusader to carve a path where there was none for example, avoiding all traps altogehter), delayed damage pool, etc., he stands a better chance of surviving the trap filled cave than a Fighter/Barbarian. In combat with the dragon, crusader is also quite competent.
2. Crusader has Diplomacy and Intimidate as class skills, and Cha as a secondary stat (due to Indomitable Soul). If you manage to stumble into some resistance goons, odds are you can Intimidate them into telling you where the leader is, and then use Diplomacy to gain his trust. Not a Crusader's forte but it can solve this with some effort (has a better shot at it than Fighter/Barbarian).
3.While you can do little to actually prepare the city from war (apart from Knowledge (history) to draw on the knowledge of past battles), the whole Devoted Spirit and White Raven schools make a Crusader a much better front line leader in a massed battle than a Fighter/ Barbarian (even low-level stuff like Leading the Charge can turn a charge from 'charge, do some damage, slim chance to kill the other guy' into 'charge, one-shot the enemy and break their line' for all NPCs in 60 ft.).
Fair enough. At least situation 2. Could the Warblade do as much then? Would that be a better example of a Tier 3 class to highlight my point?

Clearly you get some of what I was saying, but I made a bad example by picking the Crusader.

[Firechanter]

Fair enough. At least situation 2. Could the Warblade do as much then? Would that be a better example of a Tier 3 class to highlight my point?

Actually, in scenario 2, the Warblade may be slightly worse -- same skills but lower Cha; however we're only talking about a couple of points here, and he won't be as completely lost as a Fighter or Barb. In S3, the Crusie may again be a bit better thanks to martial healing, however the Warblade will not lose out entirely because they both get White Raven. Finally, killing dragons is what Warblades do.

However, I have to say I'm not a big fan of these "three scenarios" since they are always the same, and moreover it has somehow led to a perception on these boards that you have to be able to do all of these to qualify for T3. Keep in mind that "can do anything" is the definition of T1, not T3.

As you see here, the Crusie scores a bit better than the Warbie on 2 of these scenarios, however I still think that at the end of the day, the Warblade is the superior class.

Those scenarios are highly selective. You could also add a scenario that asks you to negotiate a volcanic cavern with rock pillars and the floor is lava. Of course, anyone who can fly wins. But you can skew that in, say, the Warblade's favour by making the lava emanate an AMF, so you need to move from pillar to pillar without Su abilities.
[We had a similar scenario once in actual play; luckily only one character had to get across, and the Warblade cleared the course brilliantly with Leaping Dragon Stance and Shadow Teleport maneuvers.]

[Psyren]

This does not at all address the point I was making. What could a Barbarian do in those exact 3 situations that would be better than a Fighter?

Answer: nothing.

Scenario 1 - Trap Sense, Perception, Uncanny Dodge and DR make him much, much more likely to survive the route to the dragon; in particular, he will arrive with more health and thus be less likely to be taken out with a single breath. In addition, rage powers give him far superior defenses to the fighter, who only has wealth to rely on. Acid resistance, SR and DR neuter many of the dragon's attacks and allow him to focus his WBL on offense, mobility and utility. Spell Sunder keeps the dragon from immobilizing you and escaping if it realizes the battle is going south.

Scenario 2 - you are severely undervaluing Intimidate. You don't even have to browbeat the target himself - an hour of friendliness from a trusted underling/gatekeeper is all the "in" you need. He will trust you if they do long enough for you to demonstrate your usefulness; the fighter has a much harder time getting even that far.

Scenario 3 - In addition to the fighter's usage (i.e. rocking the actual combat), here again going Drill Sergeant mode with Intimidate will get the mayor or whoever to institute the training regimen you want very quickly. You can then use the training rules in Ultimate Campaign to impart the commoners with some of your weapon/armor proficiencies and even techniques. You also have far more mobility than the fighter thanks to Fast Movement and Rage Powers, enabling you to always be where the fighting is thickest.

Notice how all the above are once again differences in kind rather than differences in scale.

And for the record I consider Warblades and Crusaders to be T4 also, though higher in that spectrum than Barbarians (at least 3.5 ones) are.

[squiggit]

going Drill Sergeant mode with Intimidate
Fighter also has intimidate on his list. 2+int sucks but one of your three (since you need an int bonus for maneuvers) usually goes into there.

[RedMage125]

Scenario 1 - Trap Sense, Perception, Uncanny Dodge and DR make him much, much more likely to survive the route to the dragon; in particular, he will arrive with more health and thus be less likely to be taken out with a single breath. In addition, rage powers give him far superior defenses to the fighter, who only has wealth to rely on. Acid resistance, SR and DR neuter many of the dragon's attacks and allow him to focus his WBL on offense, mobility and utility. Spell Sunder keeps the dragon from immobilizing you and escaping if it realizes the battle is going south.
First of all, since I was discussing the skewed nature of those 3 scenarios, I meant a 3.5 Barbarian. I also think you grossly overestimate the value of Trap Sense, especially when most mechanical traps are Reflex, and most magical traps split between Reflex and Will. Uncanny Dodge, while great, is not likely to help against traps. So it really just boils down to what I said before, that he's just got more hit points to survive triggering them all, or he climbs into the Rogue's Bag of Holding like the Fighter would.


Scenario 2 - you are severely undervaluing Intimidate. You don't even have to browbeat the target himself - an hour of friendliness from a trusted underling/gatekeeper is all the "in" you need. He will trust you if they do long enough for you to demonstrate your usefulness; the fighter has a much harder time getting even that far.
I'm not undervaluing anything. You are incorrect. The second situation is "gain this guy's trust". The Fighter has Intimidate, too. It's like, the only useful skill on his class list. So nothing you have said here answers the question: "What could a [3.5e] Barbarian do that a Fighter couldn't?" You need to cite actual class features that the Barbarian gets.


Scenario 3 - In addition to the fighter's usage (i.e. rocking the actual combat), here again going Drill Sergeant mode with Intimidate will get the mayor or whoever to institute the training regimen you want very quickly. You can then use the training rules in Ultimate Campaign to impart the commoners with some of your weapon/armor proficiencies and even techniques. You also have far more mobility than the fighter thanks to Fast Movement and Rage Powers, enabling you to always be where the fighting is thickest.
And once again, was talking 3.5e. The point of this exercise was to demonstrate that even though the Barbarian is a whole Tier above the Fighter, he would be just as crappy in those 3 situations. And so far, nothing you've suggested (apart from Trap Sense in S1) relates to the 3.5 Barbarian at all.

Anything Intimidate related the Fighter can do as well. And if wading into the thick of combat is the order of the day, that Barbarian is going to either a)not go into Rage if he can help it or b)only participate for a short time. Because once his Rage wears off, he'll be a tired boy.


Notice how all the above are once again differences in kind rather than differences in scale.

And for the record I consider Warblades and Crusaders to be T4 also, though higher in that spectrum than Barbarians (at least 3.5 ones) are.
That's fine, but the official listing has them @ T3. The point is, that when JaronK used a T4 class, he used a Rogue, a class that could explicitly excel in S1 and S2, and even had some decent options for S3. If he had chosen a Barbarian for the example, it would not have looked nearly as good. And for T3, he chose a class based around stealth and guile, who also happens to be a spontaneous-class-list caster. Not the non-casting Warblade. You want further proof to my point? The CA Ninja is a T5 class. But because of what its class abilities are specifically geared to, in these 3 situations, it can do anything a Rogue can. They get Trapfinding, Disable Device as a class skill, all the sneaky skills, they just get 2 less skill points. They don't get UMD, which really sucks.

If you used the CA Ninja for the T5 class, and the 3.5e Barbarian for the T4 class and the Warblade for the T3 class, you want to tell me that those 3 situations would still highlight why the Tier system works? I would like a genuine response to this, Psyren. Either admit that I'm right about why the 3 situation thing is jacked up, or prove me wrong by running those 3 classes through it. And let's not assume that any of the players are morons.

Tell you what, I'll get you started by doing the T5 for you. S1: The CA Ninja has all the same stealth and detection skills that te Rogue does to get past the traps, but will do better in combat with the dragon. Why? Because he goes ethereal at the end of his turn in the round, approaches the dragon (Blindsense won't detect an ethereal creature), and goes ethereal again. Since he can strike creatures on the Material Plane while ethereal, he can full attack the dragon, with all of his attacks benefitting from Sudden Strike. Hell, he could even do it at range. At teh end of every round, he uses Ghost Step to remain ethereal. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. Dead Dragon. S2: Again, similar to the Rogue. He may not have Diplomacy, but he has Bluff. He can also use Disguise to help some of the slaves escape the city-state to gain the leader's trust. S3: Same as the Rogue, again. Although with Ghost Step, he'll have an even easier time leaving the orc encampment after he assassinates the leaders.

Btw, for clarification, I am pointing this out not to shoot slings and arrows at the Tier system, but at the 3 Situation examples. Those are a really crappy way to highlight the point. The CA Ninja is T5, I agree, but these 3 situations are explicitly geared so that someone of his skillset would do better than some of the other classes in a higher Tier.

[Psyren]

First of all, since I was discussing the skewed nature of those 3 scenarios, I meant a 3.5 Barbarian.

But you are the one claiming PF boosts the Fighter to T4. Why would we then discuss 3.5 versions?


I also think you grossly overestimate the value of Trap Sense, especially when most mechanical traps are Reflex, and most magical traps split between Reflex and Will. Uncanny Dodge, while great, is not likely to help against traps.

This is simply false; many traps (both mechanical and magical) make attack rolls in addition to targeting saves. Both Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge therefore are useful because traps that attack often catch their targets flat-footed. You've also ignored their damage reduction as well as other defenses their rage powers can grant like energy resistance.


I'm not undervaluing anything. You are incorrect. The second situation is "gain this guy's trust". The Fighter has Intimidate, too. It's like, the only useful skill on his class list. So nothing you have said here answers the question: "What could a [3.5e] Barbarian do that a Fighter couldn't?" You need to cite actual class features that the Barbarian gets.

Fighters get it too but (a) Barbarians have more skill points and (b) have higher strength for Intimidating Prowess (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/intimidating-prowess-combat---final), allowing them to succeed with equal or even lower Charisma than the Fighter, allocating those precious points elsewhere. They can also intimidate much more quickly than the Fighter thanks to Intimidating Glare.

And you're cutting out the first half of the challenge. It's not just "gain this guy's trust" - it's "find this guy and gain his trust." Barbarians are better at the former because they have Perception/Survival (and the skill points to take them) while Fighters don't.


Anything Intimidate related the Fighter can do as well. And if wading into the thick of combat is the order of the day, that Barbarian is going to either a)not go into Rage if he can help it or b)only participate for a short time. Because once his Rage wears off, he'll be a tired boy.

(1) Most battles in D&D/PF are short anyway (6 rounds or less), and (2) rage-cycling is rather easy - a single item or even racial (if human) makes the penalty a non-issue.



That's fine, but the official listing has them @ T3.

That ranking has been debated several times (with JaronK participating on occasion) and has not yet been totally settled. What it typically ends up boiling down to are how Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics are read.

But for the sake of avoiding a rehash of that debate I'll say that for the purposes of this discussion all the ToB classes can be considered T3.


If you used the CA Ninja for the T5 class, and the 3.5e Barbarian for the T4 class and the Warblade for the T3 class, you want to tell me that those 3 situations would still highlight why the Tier system works? I would like a genuine response to this, Psyren. Either admit that I'm right about why the 3 situation thing is jacked up, or prove me wrong by running those 3 classes through it. And let's not assume that any of the players are morons.

Tell you what, I'll get you started by doing the T5 for you. S1: The CA Ninja has all the same stealth and detection skills that te Rogue does to get past the traps, but will do better in combat with the dragon. Why? Because he goes ethereal at the end of his turn in the round, approaches the dragon (Blindsense won't detect an ethereal creature), and goes ethereal again. Since he can strike creatures on the Material Plane while ethereal, he can full attack the dragon...

I stopped here because you're forgetting a rather trivial tactic the dragon can use in this scenario, i.e readying, and can flatten the ninja as it appears before he gets his attacks off. At best the Ninja will have one round of attacks on the dragon ("attack" really, since it's a surprise round so the Ninja will only get a single standard action), not nearly enough to put the big guy down for the count. Catching the dragon flat-footed means little as most of a dragon's AC does not come from Dex. Finally, See Invisibility is a pretty low level spell anyway so you aren't even guaranteed to be able to sneak up on it to begin with.

Your only guaranteed way of succeeding would be a dragon that has no tactics to fight stealthy characters - which would count as a scenario tailored to the ninja.


S2: Again, similar to the Rogue. He may not have Diplomacy, but he has Bluff. He can also use Disguise to help some of the slaves escape the city-state to gain the leader's trust.

S2 is a scenario specially tailored to social/skill-based classes and so both a Rogue and Ninja will shine here. But T5 classes can indeed shine in scenarios tailored to their strengths so this proves nothing about their ranking.


S3: Same as the Rogue, again. Although with Ghost Step, he'll have an even easier time leaving the orc encampment after he assassinates the leaders.

Again, even being able to assassinate the leader is an example of tailoring the encounter to their strengths. In reality, killing a single individual (if there even IS one!) is probably not going to stop an orcish horde, even assuming you can do so (an orc chieftan who is not prepared for any assassins at all seems doomed to die before you even get there.)

As for the preparation, the ninja is unfortunately poorly suited to train anyone in the village. Even if he can do so, such abilities are poorly suited to take on armies.

[Mongobear]

But you are the one claiming PF boosts the Fighter to T4. Why would we then discuss 3.5 versions?

Im pretty sure he is using the 3.5 versions since that is what this entire topic has been about, and is also what the original Tier list was written for. I have yet to see a similar list by JaronK or anyone else exclusively for Pathfinder classes, which is why I made this topic.



This is simply false; many traps (both mechanical and magical) make attack rolls in addition to targeting saves. Both Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge therefore are useful because traps that attack often catch their targets flat-footed. You've also ignored their damage reduction as well as other defenses their rage powers can grant like energy resistance.

I highly doubt 1 or 2 points of DR will make any significant difference in this scenario. And if a Trap is Magical, its probably magic damage to begin with, which negates DR to begin with, and since he was discussing 3.5 Barbs, rage powers are a null arguement.



Fighters get it too but (a) Barbarians have more skill points and (b) have higher strength for Intimidating Prowess (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/intimidating-prowess-combat---final), allowing them to succeed with equal or even lower Charisma than the Fighter, allocating those precious points elsewhere. They can also intimidate much more quickly than the Fighter thanks to Intimidating Glare.

And you're cutting out the first half of the challenge. It's not just "gain this guy's trust" - it's "find this guy and gain his trust." Barbarians are better at the former because they have Perception/Survival (and the skill points to take them) while Fighters don't.

Just because Barbs have more skill points, doesnt mean their Intimidate skill is stronger, they're still limited to the maximum ranks, which will be the same assuming theyre the same level. Also, claiming a Feat makes a Barbarian better at Intimidate than a Fighter is the dumbest thing I have seen you claim yet, since a Fighter could just as easily take it as well, and theyre not working with a limited Feat budget. The only thing they have over a Fighter is the X rounds during rage where they have a slightly higher strength.

Ignoring your assumption this is using Pathfinder, both a Barbarian and Fighter would probably be unable to find the guy they need to gain trust with, since a) Survival is only useful for finding someone with the Track feat, which a Fighter is more likely to have anyways because of their Feat Glut, and b) Unless the DM gives them a captured Underling either class could Intimidate into servitude, the only real way to find him would be through Gather Info, which neither has, and both would be equally crippled with.



(1) Most battles in D&D/PF are short anyway (6 rounds or less), and (2) rage-cycling is rather easy - a single item or even racial (if human) makes the penalty a non-issue.

Thtas true for a regular battle with a small group against a level appropriate encounter, but the scenario sounds more like a long drawn out battle, or a siege of a castle/walled in city, which in historical events, could takes days, weeks, or even months. Look at the 1000 Orcs novel by R.A. Salvatore when Mithral Hall was besieged by the Orc army, im pretty sure that took several weeks before coming to an end, not 36 seconds.

And again, Rage Cycling I think is up to the DM whether it works that way, and may be a PF only thing, I am unfamiliar with the term so Ill not comment on it further.



That ranking has been debated several times (with JaronK participating on occasion) and has not yet been totally settled. What it typically ends up boiling down to are how Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics are read.

But for the sake of avoiding a rehash of that debate I'll say that for the purposes of this discussion all the ToB classes can be considered T3.

Not sure what to say on this one, since I am unfamiliar with any of the outside arguements, but again, its another situation relying on DM rulings, which I tend to want to keep as close to "Rule as Intended" as possible, and not twist the use/misuse of grammar to gain an unfair advantage.



I stopped here because you're forgetting a rather trivial tactic the dragon can use in this scenario, i.e readying, and can flatten the ninja as it appears before he gets his attacks off. At best the Ninja will have one round of attacks on the dragon ("attack" really, since it's a surprise round so the Ninja will only get a single standard action), not nearly enough to put the big guy down for the count. Catching the dragon flat-footed means little as most of a dragon's AC does not come from Dex. Finally, See Invisibility is a pretty low level spell anyway so you aren't even guaranteed to be able to sneak up on it to begin with.

Your only guaranteed way of succeeding would be a dragon that has no tactics to fight stealthy characters - which would count as a scenario tailored to the ninja.

Unless I am just completely wrong, doesnt the Ninja become Ethereal and not Invisible, which would negate the "See Invis" spells? Also if it does work the way I think it does(have never played/DMed with a Ninja PC so I am unfamiliar with them) an Ethereal Ninja become Material when they attack? I always thought they remained on the Etherial Plane for their whole turn, and then they can just reuse the ability and effectively remain there.

Also, readying an action has to meet a very specific criteria on whether the dragon would even be able to attack the Ninja, and would be a situation where the DM is using Fiat to overcome a Player. Also, high Natural Armor can be overcome pretty easily, either with a Brilliant Energy weapon, or with Touch Attacks.

The scenario being tailored to a specific character archetype is just another Flaw with this type of test, which is what RedMage is trying to point out.



S2 is a scenario specially tailored to social/skill-based classes and so both a Rogue and Ninja will shine here. But T5 classes can indeed shine in scenarios tailored to their strengths so this proves nothing about their ranking.

See last point of above reply.



Again, even being able to assassinate the leader is an example of tailoring the encounter to their strengths. In reality, killing a single individual (if there even IS one!) is probably not going to stop an orcish horde, even assuming you can do so (an orc chieftan who is not prepared for any assassins at all seems doomed to die before you even get there.)

As for the preparation, the ninja is unfortunately poorly suited to train anyone in the village. Even if he can do so, such abilities are poorly suited to take on armies.


Tailored encounter is again a point RedMage is trying to make about these "tests" being skewed and improperly biased.

As far as a lack of a "leader" of an Orcish Horde, if there isnt one, then the Orcs wouldnt be attacking. In every work of fiction ever, since the beginning of the Fantasy genre, there has never been a group of Orcs who just randomly come to the idea that they should attack a town for the fun of it. There is always a group of bigger Orcs telling the masses what to do, which is being told what to do by a group of even bigger Orcs, which is in turn being told what to do by the Biggest Baddest Orc that theyre all afraid of.

In D&D terms, youre right, a Ninja makes a poor trainer for masses of commoners/militiamen against a Horde. But historically that is exactly what Ninjas were, Farmers and commoners who took up arms and rebeled. Not these Shadowy Demon Assassins that pop-culture has turned them into, they could very easily show the civilians how to properly hold their weapons, and proper attack/defense posture so theyre not just flailing mindlessly at the Orcs.

[squiggit]

I am unfamiliar with the term so Ill not comment on it further.
Rage cycling is essentially finding a way to negate or avoid becoming fatigued when rage ends so you can rage again (normally you can't rage while fatigued)... this is so you can use rage powers that work once per rage or do something when you activate rage multiple times.


Im pretty sure he is using the 3.5 versions since that is what this entire topic has been about,
The topic is about how Pathfinder tiers are different than 3.5 tiers... and given that when discussing the fighter he was bringing up weapon training, armor training and bravery then saying that rage powers are off limits seems a bit odd.


Tailored encounter is again a point RedMage is trying to make about these "tests" being skewed and improperly biased.
The tests are skewed by design. Calling it out as a "flaw" with the tests is missing the point because the whole idea is addressing lateral versatility.

[Mongobear]

Rage cycling is essentially finding a way to negate or avoid becoming fatigued when rage ends so you can rage again (normally you can't rage while fatigued)... this is so you can use rage powers that work once per rage or do something when you activate rage multiple times.

I figured it was something similar to that, I just didnt want to put my foot in my mouth before I knew otherwise.


The topic is about how Pathfinder tiers are different than 3.5 tiers... and given that when discussing the fighter he was bringing up weapon training, armor training and bravery then saying that rage powers are off limits seems a bit odd.

The original topic yes, but by now the topic has jumped between both systems enough that its hard to tell which is being discussed. I assumed since the actual Tier of some PF classes are up for debate, he is using the 3.5 ones since they are pretty much set in stone.


The tests are skewed by design. Calling it out as a "flaw" with the tests is missing the point because the whole idea is addressing lateral versatility.

They are skewed to so much of a degree though, that they allow certain T4/T5 classes to excel at them more than certain T3/T2 classes could. For example, RedMage's Ninja examples, a class that is a solid T5, but can, under the right circumstances, completely squash the three test examples without much problem outside of bad dice; the a much better class, say Warblade, would have an absolutely terrible time with either of them outside of the Orcish Horde. The tests are just bad by design.

[Raven777]

I dunno about that. These tests always seemed to represent pretty well a broad array of situations a party could come upon in an Adventure Path of Scenario.

Personally, I'm a big fan of Andreww's benchmarks over on the Paizo forums during the Advanced Class Guide playtest. I think the entire community would benefit if the core and base classes could all be ran through the same kind of gauntlets. That would be interesting.

Arcanist vs Moonscar (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qfi2?Playtest-Level-16-Arcanist-versus-The-Moonscar#1)
Arcanist vs Storval Stairs (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qfl1?Playtest-Arcanist-Level-11#1)
Bloodrager vs Custom Encounters (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qgje?Bloodrager-Test-Level-10#1)

[RedMage125]

But you are the one claiming PF boosts the Fighter to T4. Why would we then discuss 3.5 versions?
Rather than get frustrated, I looked back at my last few posts to see what went wrong communication-wise. And while I know what I meant, I can see why it seems that I shifted gears on you, and I apologize. That is entirely my fault.

I should have said this from the beginning, as this was my point and purpose:

You have attempted to cite the 3 Situation scenarios by JaronK as a reason why the PF Fighter is not Tier 4. My point to contest your "proof" is that the 3 Situation scenarios are explicitly geared against a class like the Fighter, and thus the example is skewed and not a fair assessment. In order to highlight this point, I challenge you to run 3 other classes through the 3 Situation scenarios. Run a 3.5e Barbarian -with no ACFs-something categorized as a Tier 4 class. Run a Warblade -something categorized as a Tier 3 class. And run a CA Ninja -something categorized as a Tier 5 class. If the 3 Situation scenario were indeed an objective and fair way to judge the Versatility and Power of class by the Tier system, then the Barbarian would outdo the Fighter or CA Ninja, and the Warblade would outperform them both.

I was not clear that this was my intent, and I can see how your reading of what I posted made it seem like I was shifting gears on you, or worse, moving the goalposts. Mea Culpa. I do not blame you for being frustrated or confused.


Fighters get it too but (a) Barbarians have more skill points and (b) have higher strength for Intimidating Prowess (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/intimidating-prowess-combat---final), allowing them to succeed with equal or even lower Charisma than the Fighter, allocating those precious points elsewhere. They can also intimidate much more quickly than the Fighter thanks to Intimidating Glare.

And you're cutting out the first half of the challenge. It's not just "gain this guy's trust" - it's "find this guy and gain his trust." Barbarians are better at the former because they have Perception/Survival (and the skill points to take them) while Fighters don't.
Mongobear addressed this nicely, but I'll back it up. 1) A Fighter can select that feat, too. 2) Survival is NOT used to Track people in an urban setting, but rather to follow trails in a natural one. To locate someone in an urban setting, one would need Urban Tracking and use the Gather Information skill, something neither Barbarian nor Fighter has.

Also, Intimidating Prowess does not exist in 3.5, so that's moot for what I was asking for anyway. And again, Intimidate likely will not help you earn the trust of a slave revolutionary in a tyrannical state. You want him as an ally, not in fear of you.


(1) Most battles in D&D/PF are short anyway (6 rounds or less), and (2) rage-cycling is rather easy - a single item or even racial (if human) makes the penalty a non-issue.

Another one Mongobear addressed. The actual fight in the 3rd scenario would be a large-scale pitched battle. Much longer than a few rounds. Hence what I said about why the Barbarian would either want to hold off on (if not forgo) raging altogether, lest he end up fatigued in the middle of an army of orcs. The 3.5e Barbarian (a Tier 4 class) may not "cycle" his Rage.


I stopped here because you're forgetting a rather trivial tactic the dragon can use in this scenario, i.e readying, and can flatten the ninja as it appears before he gets his attacks off. At best the Ninja will have one round of attacks on the dragon ("attack" really, since it's a surprise round so the Ninja will only get a single standard action), not nearly enough to put the big guy down for the count. Catching the dragon flat-footed means little as most of a dragon's AC does not come from Dex. Finally, See Invisibility is a pretty low level spell anyway so you aren't even guaranteed to be able to sneak up on it to begin with.

Your only guaranteed way of succeeding would be a dragon that has no tactics to fight stealthy characters - which would count as a scenario tailored to the ninja.
Mongobear also mentioned this, and he is correct. A CA Ninja over level 10 can go ethereal with Ghost Step, and does NOT come out of it when she attacks. Which means that ALL of her attacks while ethereal would benefit from Sudden Strike. So readying an action would do nothing to help the dragon. Dragons' Blindsense would NOT help him detect an ethereal creature, and the CA Ninja can attack material creatures without penalty or miss chance (Ghost Strike, gained at level 8). Or she could just use a Ghost Touch Weapon, since she clearly plans on spending wuite a bit of time in ethereal mode. Only if the dragon could somehow locate the CA Ninja would it be able to make attacks, all of which would have a 50% miss chance (since the dragon's natural attacks count as magic). As it is, the dragon's only option is to use its breath weapon, and hope to catch the Ninja in the area of effect. Which, as a Black dragon, would be less likely since it's a line and not a cone, and anyways would still have a 50% miss chance. And even after the miss chance, it would STILL be a Reflex save, which the Ninja has a good base save, and is based off her primary stat. The CA Ninja may not have evasion, but only having a 50% to be struck by an attack that will likely only do half damage every 1d4 rounds is still pretty good odds. And that even assumes the dragon knows where to aim it, since it's a line. The dragon's only chance is if its Spells Known as a sorcerer happens to include a spell that lets it see into the ethereal plane AND it can either cast Force spells or has a metabreath feat that allows it to affect incorporeal creatures without miss chance. Which is a pretty narrow set of circumstances.


S2 is a scenario specially tailored to social/skill-based classes and so both a Rogue and Ninja will shine here. But T5 classes can indeed shine in scenarios tailored to their strengths so this proves nothing about their ranking.

Right, but you're missing the big picture. YOU used the 3 scenarios as "proof" that the PF Fighter could not be T4. I am outperforming the Fighter in ALL THREE with a T5, and have laid down the gauntlet for YOU to outperform the Fighter with a 3.5e Barbarian (a Tier 4) and a Warblade (a Tier 3). If the Tier 5 class outperforms the T4 and T3 classes in ALL THREE scenarios, then clearly the 3 Scenario is not a valid and objective way to judge the Fighter's Tier standing, because it's a test specifically oriented in such a manner that the Fighter (and other classes like it) will do poorly.

This hasn't been a randomly-or even individually-collected group of counter arguments to your points. There is a big picture, and it is this:

1) The 3.5 Fighter had almost no class features, but had great versatility, which meant that individual builds could be great at what they were built to do, but the spread of things that 3.5e Fighters could be built to do was wide, because the Fighter itself did not have a clearly defined role. THAT, in and of itself, is enough to keep the Fighter out of Tier 4. The massive feat selection the Fighter has to be able to do well at its one thing makes it high in Tier 5, maybe even the top of Tier 5, but it can NEVER be Tier 4 because the Tier system was meant to rank them "as a class, and not individual builds", to paraphrase JaronK. And a Fighter has no class features that can make it excel at ANYTHING. But within a microcosm of one build, it can, in fact, excel at one thing, maybe even two. Those bonus feats are not a complete wash, but because they can be ANYTHING the player qualifies for, it is impossible to gauge their effectiveness in the Fighter's accomplishment of his role as a class

2) The PF Fighter has a clearly defined role. That being: Guy Who Wears Heavy Armor And Does It Better Than Anyone, while being a Very Effective Weapon User. And then gives THAT guy a bunch of feats to be good at THAT. Now the PF Fighter can be "Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining", the very definition of Tier 4. Now that we can say what the PF Fighter's "one thing" is, and now that he actually has class features that help accomplish that goal (not to mention the ability to retrain feats, meaning that a PF Fighter is not locked into the "illusion of versatility as an advantage" fallacy), the PF Fighter can meet the terms of Tier 4.

3) When I brought all this up the first time, YOU brought up the "3 Situation" scenarios, posited by JaronK, as "proof" that the PF Fighter could not be Tier 4, because he would fare not better than the 3.5e Fighter in the "3 Situations".

4) Everything I have been saying about running a 3.5 Barbarian (with no ACFs), a Warblade, and a CA Ninja through those same 3 scenarios has been to the goal of making you realize that the "3 Situations" are explicitly skewed in a manner as to make classes like the Fighter, 3.5e Barbarian, and Warblade suck, while a Tier 5 class, the CA Ninja, can shine. Since that is the case, the "3 Situations" are NOT, in fact, a valid yardstick by which to measure the PF Fighter's Tier standing.

So please, by all means. Admit that the "3 Situations" are a skewed -and therefore invalid- means to judge a class' Tier standing. Because that puts us right back at point 2, above. Which is where I've been leading with all of this anyway.

As a caveat, I would like to say this: JaronK picked the classes he did for the "3 Situations" (Wizard, Sorcerer, beguiler, Rogue, Fighter, and Commoner) because it highlighted the points he was making about the Tier system in general. It's not an accident that he didn't pick Dread Necromancer for the Tier 3 class, or Marshal for the Tier 4 one (although Marshal would blow Situation 3 out of the water, it's kind of his main schtick). I am not knocking the Tier System, or even the 3 Situations he used to highlight the point. I am saying that the 3 Situations were not meant to be used as some kind of "absolute yardstick" by which to measure a class' standing. That can be proven because anyone can intellectually perforate the "3 Situations" by pointing out Tier 5 classes that do well in them, and Tier 3 ones that do not.

The last 2 paragraphs of your post were adeptly answered by Mongobear, and I don't even have anything to add to his statements.

[squiggit]

because the Fighter itself did not have a clearly defined role. THAT, in and of itself, is enough to keep the Fighter out of Tier 4.
Yeah I'm not really seeing that. The core fighter's problems were inherent issues with its capabilities, not anything as nebulous as "not being clearly defined enough". I mean many of the core classes are intentionally vague in design and that doesn't really have any bearing on general power and versatility. Literally nothing at all to do with it.


The PF Fighter has a clearly defined role. That being: Guy Who Wears Heavy Armor And Does It Better Than Anyone, while being a Very Effective Weapon User. And then gives THAT guy a bunch of feats to be good at THAT
I'm not really sure I agree here either. Having a "clearly defined role" (even though that role is more or less the same as it was in 3.5 other than the emphasis on heavy armor) doesn't innately give you anything. Some of the feats are nice, but many of them are broken down into overly long trees which mitigate the "I GET SO MANY FEATS" draw of the fighter. Even the good ones though don't propel the fighter toward anything particularly amazing (hence T4 being the highest you push even with archetypes and optimization) and generally fall into the same trap as 3.5's "+X to Y" fodder feats. Worse still you're missing some of the scariest things the 3.5 fighter had access to and are even more at the mercy of high-mobility targets (unless you're an archer fighter, which defies your 'clearly defined role' so I"m not sure how relevant it is).

[Psyren]

You have attempted to cite the 3 Situation scenarios by JaronK as a reason why the PF Fighter is not Tier 4. My point to contest your "proof" is that the 3 Situation scenarios are explicitly geared against a class like the Fighter, and thus the example is skewed and not a fair assessment.

The scenarios he picked are pretty common things that a PC might be expected to do - albeit rarely alone, but being versatile while alone is another of the tier system's assumptions as shown by his "Factotum separated from the rest of the party" example. If they appear geared "against" the Fighter, it is only because the Fighter is so barely capable that any number of situations would appear thusly opposed to them.



Mongobear also mentioned this, and he is correct. A CA Ninja over level 10 can go ethereal with Ghost Step, and does NOT come out of it when she attacks. Which means that ALL of her attacks while ethereal would benefit from Sudden Strike. So readying an action would do nothing to help the dragon.

Ethereal creatures cannot affect the material plane by any means (not even with ghost touch weapons), so staying that way would not help the Ninja in this fight either.

"An ethereal creature can’t affect the Material Plane, not even magically." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#etherealness)

He must go material, and thus expose himself to attack by the dragon.

Mongobear made other errors too (See Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/seeInvisibility.htm) does specifically let you spot ethereal creatures for instance) but this is the big one.



Right, but you're missing the big picture. YOU used the 3 scenarios as "proof" that the PF Fighter could not be T4. I am outperforming the Fighter in ALL THREE with a T5, and have laid down the gauntlet for YOU to outperform the Fighter with a 3.5e Barbarian (a Tier 4) and a Warblade (a Tier 3).

To start with, you have done no such thing. You've shown that the CA Ninja can do well at exactly one of them (S2) which just so happens to be the one geared towards a skill-based/sneaky class. You made a rather glaring error in your assessment of S1 and have provided nothing to address S3 aside from hoping that one, too, is tailored towards a sneak by having a single target that the ninja can eliminate to stop the entire army.

For two, the 3.5 Barbarian may not have rage powers, but they still have superior options to the 3.5 Fighter. For example, Steadfast Determination does far more good on a Barbarian, letting them boost their will saves twice when they rage (once from the rage itself, and once from the Con boost), freeing up defensive resources on their gear that can be spent elsewhere. Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense (not to mention the Trapkiller ACF) I've already mentioned the usefulness of, and again do a much better job of ensuring they clear S1 than anything the Fighter has. In some respects, the 3.5 Barbarian is actually more powerful than the PF one, because they can rage 3+Boosted Con rounds for every single use instead of the duration being counted in rounds.

So until you actually invalidate the scenarios there is not much else to discuss regarding your conclusion.

[Mongobear]

The scenarios he picked are pretty common things that a PC might be expected to do - albeit rarely alone, but being versatile while alone is another of the tier system's assumptions as shown by his "Factotum separated from the rest of the party" example. If they appear geared "against" the Fighter, it is only because the Fighter is so barely capable that any number of situations would appear thusly opposed to them.

Youre missing the point that ANY of the Mundane classes without Trapfinding would have a difficult, if not impossible time with S1. Short of just face-checking the traps and hoping they miss/he makes the save, they will all trigger the traps.



Ethereal creatures cannot affect the material plane by any means (not even with ghost touch weapons), so staying that way would not help the Ninja in this fight either.

"An ethereal creature can’t affect the Material Plane, not even magically." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#etherealness)

He must go material, and thus expose himself to attack by the dragon.

Mongobear made other errors too (See Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/seeInvisibility.htm) does specifically let you spot ethereal creatures for instance) but this is the big one.

Complete Adventurer, page 9:

"Ghost Strike (Su):At 8th level and higher, a ninja can
spend one daily use of her kipower to strike incorporeal
and ethereal creatures as if they were corporeal. She also
can use this ability to strike foes on the Material Plane
normally while ethereal (for example, while using her
ghost step ability).
Activating the ghost strike ability is a move action
that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. It affects
the next attack made by the ninja, as long as that attack
is made before the end of her next turn."

So, it would take a Ki Point for each attack, but an Ethereal Ninja CAN attack material foes while remaining ethereal.


To start with, you have done no such thing. You've shown that the CA Ninja can do well at exactly one of them (S2) which just so happens to be the one geared towards a skill-based/sneaky class. You made a rather glaring error in your assessment of S1 and have provided nothing to address S3 aside from hoping that one, too, is tailored towards a sneak by having a single target that the ninja can eliminate to stop the entire army.

For two, the 3.5 Barbarian may not have rage powers, but they still have superior options to the 3.5 Fighter. For example, Steadfast Determination does far more good on a Barbarian, letting them boost their will saves twice when they rage (once from the rage itself, and once from the Con boost), freeing up defensive resources on their gear that can be spent elsewhere. Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense (not to mention the Trapkiller ACF) I've already mentioned the usefulness of, and again do a much better job of ensuring they clear S1 than anything the Fighter has. In some respects, the 3.5 Barbarian is actually more powerful than the PF one, because they can rage 3+Boosted Con rounds for every single use instead of the duration being counted in rounds.

So until you actually invalidate the scenarios there is not much else to discuss regarding your conclusion.

I just proved above that the Ninja handles the dragon perfectly fine, given enough Ki. And as per my last post, this invading Orc Horde wouldnt exist without a leader, and also, a ninja is still proficient with some weapons, they could easily train people for basic stuff.

Steadfast Determination is yet again, another Feat that takes the place of more powerful attack options in a Barbarians very limited feat budget, and it requires 1-2 other feats as well just to meet requirements. AND a fighter can take it just as easily, which outside of Rage nullifies this argument. Trapkiller is a terrible ACF in my opinion. For one, the "search" DC is at a -5 on Survival, which chances are wont be at nearly as high a bonus as an equal level rogue, and even if you do see it, it only works on mechanical traps with obvious moving peices and triggers that you can figure out which ones are worth breaking. Also, depending on the DM, they could rule that common sense says theres a chance whacking a pressure plate with a giant Axe just triggers the trap anyways, since you apply pressure by hitting it.

[Psyren]

Youre missing the point that ANY of the Mundane classes without Trapfinding would have a difficult, if not impossible time with S1. Short of just face-checking the traps and hoping they miss/he makes the save, they will all trigger the traps.

For starters, Barbarians can get Trapfinding (Trapkiller ACF); second, even without it, Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge make "face-checking" far less fatal than it would be for the Fighter even before items.


Complete Adventurer, page 9:

So, it would take a Ki Point for each attack, but an Ethereal Ninja CAN attack material foes while remaining ethereal.

Fair enough, but at a ki point for each attack they are highly unlikely to be able to bring down the dragon before running out of ki and being vulnerable. Worse, it costs a move action to charge so they can't even full-attack. You also haven't addressed see invisibility.




I just proved above that the Ninja handles the dragon perfectly fine, given enough Ki.

They're not handling much with single pokes and limited ki, so no. (Keep in mind that they are also spending ki just on staying ethereal as well, so the little they do get is being drained twice as fast.) You aren't even guaranteed to hit - again, a flatfooted dragon's AC is not that different from a regular one's. Missing even one attack could be a death sentence for you as that is 2 ki down the drain.



And as per my last post, this invading Orc Horde wouldnt exist without a leader,

Again, where is this assumption coming from? Whatever greed or inequity prompted the invasion in the first place would likely still exist after all.

In addition, you're assuming that their leader is just another orc, instead of an Ogre Mage or fiend or something else more complicated.



Steadfast Determination is yet again, another Feat that takes the place of more powerful attack options in a Barbarians very limited feat budget, and it requires 1-2 other feats as well just to meet requirements. AND a fighter can take it just as easily, which outside of Rage nullifies this argument.

Feats are meant to be spent on things. Simply having feats is pointless if you don't actually select any, and SD is a good one that turns a weakness into a strength.


Trapkiller is a terrible ACF in my opinion.

On the contrary, for a class that is operating alone - again, one of the assumptions of the tier system - it is extremely useful. Hypothetical rogues that could do the job better are pointless in a tier discussion, a class' tier is assigned based on solo activity. Similarly, arguments that start with "depending on the DM" are also pointless when discussing tiers.

[Mongobear]

For starters, Barbarians can get Trapfinding (Trapkiller ACF); second, even without it, Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge make "face-checking" far less fatal than it would be for the Fighter even before items.

Yes, they get it, but its at a -5 penalty by default, and using a Skill which, gauging by your fondness for Steadfast Determination, probably doesnt have much higher than a 12 or so in the modifying stat, so you are not nearly as likely to spot the traps. And even if you do, Trapkiller can only be used to disable Mechanical trap which you can obviously tell what parts are vital to its operation, which isnt that many, and often times requires a DM to make rulings for each trap individually.



Fair enough, but at a ki point for each attack they are highly unlikely to be able to bring down the dragon before running out of ki and being vulnerable. Worse, it costs a move action to charge so they can't even full-attack. You also haven't addressed see invisibility.

Belt of Battle can free up some extra move actions quite easily, and is a very common item I see players buy all the time. And due to the wording of "charging" Ghost Strike, you could feasibly charge enough uses of it in a single turn with a "double move" and Belt charges, then Full Attack the dragon in one turn, and potentially take it down right there from the bonus Sudden Strike damage.

As far as See Invisibility, the Dragon would have to be able to come to the conclusion that there is an invisible/ethereal creature attacking it, and outside of using metagame knowledge, I dont see the logic on why it would use the spell right away, and even if it did, it provokes an AoO which since you are ethereal when its provoked, causes another Sudden Strike which could disrupt the cast altogether.



They're not handling much with single pokes and limited ki, so no. (Keep in mind that they are also spending ki just on staying ethereal as well, so the little they do get is being drained twice as fast.) You aren't even guaranteed to hit - again, a flatfooted dragon's AC is not that different from a regular one's. Missing even one attack could be a death sentence for you as that is 2 ki down the drain.

I answered the AC issue in an earlier post, Brilliant Energy enhancement, or Touch attacks bypass the high Natural Armor. And there are ways to make the dragon much weaker outside of straight damage. A Ninja could easily be using poison, ability score damage, and/or level draining attacks which combined with the Sudden Strike damage, will expedite the death of the dragon.

Yes, missing one attack could potentially be bad, but attacking a Flat Footed dragon with a Touch attack or Brilliant Energy sword gives it an AC of 10 +/- Dex and Size penalties, which pretty much equals "don't roll a 1" for the Ninja.



Again, where is this assumption coming from? Whatever greed or inequity prompted the invasion in the first place would likely still exist after all.

In addition, you're assuming that their leader is just another orc, instead of an Ogre Mage or fiend or something else more complicated.

Its just common trends in Fantasy culture. And if a horde of Orcs is following something like an Ogre Mage or a Fiend, 9/10 times its out of fear, and slaying that being usually disbands the horde and they fall apart on their own. And even if they still decide to come fight, they will be so disorganized and potentially even demoralized, you probably won the battle right there, since theyre no longer united and working as a single force. Again, this is an assumption from basically every pop-culture use of Orcs from Tolkien to modern day novelists, so its really up to the DM how this would play out, but going against the norm isnt exactly a common thing in todays D&D culture.


Feats are meant to be spent on things. Simply having feats is pointless if you don't actually select any, and SD is a good one that turns a weakness into a strength.

Yes, everyone gets feats, and everyone will spend them to make themselves better. But a Barbarian is MUCH more limited in his selection than a fighter. Almost every Barbarian ever takes several from the Power Attack chain, as well as several of the Charge Attack buffing Feats, and by this point usually doesnt have many more to afford 2-3 Feats to spend just to get Steadfast Determination, unless their race gives a bonus feat, and the DM is allowing Flaws, it is hard to budget SD before a much later level.

And my point here is more towards the fact that BOTH a Fighter and a Barbarian can select SD if they so choose, and a Fighter is much, much less stressed by the expenditure in order to gain it. I am also saying the the fact that both classes can take SD simply cancels out the fact that it exists just in the argument you are putting forth. Its like in Algebra, whenever the same number/integer is present on both sides of the = sign, they cancel each other out.



On the contrary, for a class that is operating alone - again, one of the assumptions of the tier system - it is extremely useful. Hypothetical rogues that could do the job better are pointless in a tier discussion, a class' tier is assigned based on solo activity. Similarly, arguments that start with "depending on the DM" are also pointless when discussing tiers.

But you are assuming taking the ACF is actually a useful thing to do. Unless you are making an assumption that the Barbarian can boost his Survival skill up to an equal bonus to that of an equal level Rogue, the ability to find traps is unlikely to be of a benefit for level appropriate Traps, due to the inherent -5 penalty, their assumed lack of a high Wisdom(since youre so determined to have Steadfast Determination), and the very limited scope of actual traps that Trapkiller can even handle.

EDIT--Also, I am pretty sure Trapkiller delays the progression of Trap Sense by 1 growth point, but I may be wrong. If I am right, you are trading in passive Survivability in the dragon scenario, for the possibility of maybe bypassing a few traps. Personally Id rather keep the base feature that I lost getting Trapkiller.

And the arguments I make that "depends on the DM" are quite valid, since everyone plays D&D differently, and certain aspects/situations/encounters/layouts of these three tests are completely up to what the DM populates the relavant areas with, and not simply based on which class is running the gauntlet.

[RedMage125]

The scenarios he picked are pretty common things that a PC might be expected to do - albeit rarely alone, but being versatile while alone is another of the tier system's assumptions as shown by his "Factotum separated from the rest of the party" example. If they appear geared "against" the Fighter, it is only because the Fighter is so barely capable that any number of situations would appear thusly opposed to them.

You are still not addressing the issue. That is, that the "3 Situation" scenario is not some kind of be-all, end-all to determining Tier status.

Which, if you believe it is, you could prove by giving us a 3.5 Barbarian (without ACFs, since those are also Tier 4) and Warblade run of them.



Ethereal creatures cannot affect the material plane by any means (not even with ghost touch weapons), so staying that way would not help the Ninja in this fight either.

"An ethereal creature can’t affect the Material Plane, not even magically." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#etherealness)

He must go material, and thus expose himself to attack by the dragon.

Mongobear made other errors too (See Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/seeInvisibility.htm) does specifically let you spot ethereal creatures for instance) but this is the big one.
And how many dragons are going to have See Invisibilty as one of their limited spells known? Especially given that ALL True Dragons have Blindsense.

Also, Mongobear pointed out Ghost Strike (I said it as well, but he posted the whole thing).


To start with, you have done no such thing. You've shown that the CA Ninja can do well at exactly one of them (S2) which just so happens to be the one geared towards a skill-based/sneaky class. You made a rather glaring error in your assessment of S1 and have provided nothing to address S3 aside from hoping that one, too, is tailored towards a sneak by having a single target that the ninja can eliminate to stop the entire army.
S1 the CA Ninja handles quite well. Trap filled tunnel? Best way to win is not to play. Wait until the dragon is sleeping, and go ethereal to bypass the whole lot. The other class examples have shown us that we can assume the guy's party is present, yes? Ok. The CA Ninja buys a Dire Pick. Doesn't need to be proficient in it, the crit multiplier is what's important. Has Greater Magic Weapon cast on it to make it a +5 weapon. Has Bull's Strength cast on him. Uses ability to go ethereal to bypass the tunnel and directly enter the dragon's lair through the walls/ceiling. Approach sleeping dragon ethereally, wait for next round. Coup De Grace the sleeping dragon. A +5 Dire Pick in the hands of a 20th level CA Ninja with an initial STR of 12 (now 16, with Bull's Strength) does ((4.5+8)*4)+(3.5*10)=87. A DC 97 Fort save is only possible on a roll of 20 for a Great Wyrm Black Dragon, and even then only because a natural 20 is always a success on a saving throw. Nothing in the rules says you need to be proficient with a weapon to deliver Sudden Strike. And Coup De Grace is an auto-hit, auto-crit, WITH Sneak Attack. If by some miracle the monster survives, then you fall back on the "Ghost Strike every round" plan. CA Ninja makes it through S1.

And the CA Ninja can do just about anything the Rogue can do for S3. Which I believe the main contribution was "assassination".


For two, the 3.5 Barbarian may not have rage powers, but they still have superior options to the 3.5 Fighter. For example, Steadfast Determination does far more good on a Barbarian, letting them boost their will saves twice when they rage (once from the rage itself, and once from the Con boost), freeing up defensive resources on their gear that can be spent elsewhere. Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense (not to mention the Trapkiller ACF) I've already mentioned the usefulness of, and again do a much better job of ensuring they clear S1 than anything the Fighter has. In some respects, the 3.5 Barbarian is actually more powerful than the PF one, because they can rage 3+Boosted Con rounds for every single use instead of the duration being counted in rounds.

So until you actually invalidate the scenarios there is not much else to discuss regarding your conclusion.

I did say a 3.5e Barbarian without ACFs. And I also said I'm not trying to "invaidate" the scenarios, merely point out that they DO NOT WORK as some kind of "be-all, end-all yardstick" to determine Tier. A CA rogue can blow a 3.5e Barbarian out of the water in the 3 Situations.

And where's the Warblade? Even if you don't believe they should be Tier 3, they should still drastically outperform the CA Ninja if the "3 Situation" thing really is some kind of "ultimate tool" for determining Tier ranking.

So which is it? Are the "3 Situations" a valid "be-all, end-all" way to judge Tier ranking or no?

[Mongobear]

S1 the CA Ninja handles quite well. Trap filled tunnel? Best way to win is not to play. Wait until the dragon is sleeping, and go ethereal to bypass the whole lot. The other class examples have shown us that we can assume the guy's party is present, yes? Ok. The CA Ninja buys a Dire Pick. Doesn't need to be proficient in it, the crit multiplier is what's important. Has Greater Magic Weapon cast on it to make it a +5 weapon. Has Bull's Strength cast on him. Uses ability to go ethereal to bypass the tunnel and directly enter the dragon's lair through the walls/ceiling. Approach sleeping dragon ethereally, wait for next round. Coup De Grace the sleeping dragon. A +5 Dire Pick in the hands of a 20th level CA Ninja with an initial STR of 12 (now 16, with Bull's Strength) does ((4.5+8)*4)+(3.5*10)=87. A DC 97 Fort save is only possible on a roll of 20 for a Great Wyrm Black Dragon, and even then only because a natural 20 is always a success on a saving throw. Nothing in the rules says you need to be proficient with a weapon to deliver Sudden Strike. And Coup De Grace is an auto-hit, auto-crit, WITH Sneak Attack. If by some miracle the monster survives, then you fall back on the "Ghost Strike every round" plan. CA Ninja makes it through S1.


If youre gonna go with this route, why not bring a Goliath Greathammer instead? same multiplier, but base weapon damage is 2d6 AND its two handed, for that extra little oomph of damage. Would be I think, 2 more average dice damage + 1 More Strength damage x4, so the save would be 12 higher.


EDIT--Also, depending on the wording, Sneak Attack requires a Rogue to "make optimal use" of their weapon while performing a Sneak Attack. Which means that generally, stuff like Rapid Shot/Flurry of Blows is usually disallowed. I am not sure if the penalty for non-proficiency counts against or for this since its technically a different ability.

[Juntao112]

Also, depending on the wording, Sneak Attack requires a Rogue to "make optimal use" of their weapon while performing a Sneak Attack. Which means that generally, stuff like Rapid Shot/Flurry of Blows is usually disallowed. I am not sure if the penalty for non-proficiency counts against or for this since its technically a different ability.
What the...

[Karnith]

EDIT--Also, depending on the wording, Sneak Attack requires a Rogue to "make optimal use" of their weapon while performing a Sneak Attack. Which means that generally, stuff like Rapid Shot/Flurry of Blows is usually disallowed. I am not sure if the penalty for non-proficiency counts against or for this since its technically a different ability.
Er, I'm not sure what this is referring to. Are you perhaps thinking of rules for using a Sneak Attack on a volley (which would not apply to Rapid Shot or Flurry of Blows, but which would limit the number of times you'd get to apply Sneak Attacking on, say, Manyshot)?

[RedMage125]

If youre gonna go with this route, why not bring a Goliath Greathammer instead? same multiplier, but base weapon damage is 2d6 AND its two handed, for that extra little oomph of damage. Would be I think, 2 more average dice damage + 1 More Strength damage x4, so the save would be 12 higher.


EDIT--Also, depending on the wording, Sneak Attack requires a Rogue to "make optimal use" of their weapon while performing a Sneak Attack. Which means that generally, stuff like Rapid Shot/Flurry of Blows is usually disallowed. I am not sure if the penalty for non-proficiency counts against or for this since its technically a different ability.

A Great Wyrm Black Dragon has a Fort save of +28. Any save DC over 48 has the same odds of success.

And Sudden Strike says no such caveat, even if I had ever heard of such a restriction on Sneak Attack. Generally, if you meet the prereqs, you get Sneak Attack. A Monk/Rogue who uses Stunning Fist on his first attack on a flurry of blows gets Sneak Attack on all iterative attacks.

[Psyren]

Yes, they get it, but its at a -5 penalty by default, and using a Skill which, gauging by your fondness for Steadfast Determination, probably doesnt have much higher than a 12 or so in the modifying stat, so you are not nearly as likely to spot the traps. And even if you do, Trapkiller can only be used to disable Mechanical trap which you can obviously tell what parts are vital to its operation, which isnt that many, and often times requires a DM to make rulings for each trap individually.

Skill points > stat mod every time. Sure he's not going to be great at any of this - if he was, and powerful in melee, he'd be T3 - but still has several legs up on the Fighter.

The CA Ninja meanwhile is just as MAD, and is a one trick pony when it comes to fighting the dragon. If he can see the Ninja coming by any means, or even just after the first hit, the Ninja is screwed. He can't AoO the dragon at all either (ghost strike is a move action), so he can't stop it from casting spells or even just leaving. This means that even if the Ninja lands the first hit and the dragon doesn't immediately go for a spell or item from its hoard to see invisible, he'll just leave until he has one of those things. Even a white dragon is not stupid enough to sit there and get poked to death over a series of however many rounds (a dozen?) by something it can't see. Worse, you even talk about "ghosting through traps" below, burning precious ki before you even get to the fight itself.

To summarize - the Fighter is T5 in this scenario because it does the fight with the dragon well but not getting to it. The Ninja can get to it well, but has no way to contain it or seal the deal quickly.



Belt of Battle can free up some extra move actions quite easily, and is a very common item I see players buy all the time. And due to the wording of "charging" Ghost Strike, you could feasibly charge enough uses of it in a single turn with a "double move" and Belt charges, then Full Attack the dragon in one turn, and potentially take it down right there from the bonus Sudden Strike damage.

Belt of Battle is a swift action, so you are either maintaining your etherealness for the next round or you are charging up an extra Ghost Strike, not both. You also can't use it in the surprise round, so you're still only getting off one attack. And yet again, your attacks have to actually hit - a flatfooted dragon still has all its natural armor etc.w



As far as See Invisibility, the Dragon would have to be able to come to the conclusion that there is an invisible/ethereal creature attacking it, and outside of using metagame knowledge, I dont see the logic on why it would use the spell right away, and even if it did, it provokes an AoO which since you are ethereal when its provoked, causes another Sudden Strike which could disrupt the cast altogether.

You can't AoO it because you need Ghost Strike to hit it while ethereal. If you drop out of ethereal to AoO, you are then vulnerable to a juicy full-attack from the dragon.


I answered the AC issue in an earlier post, Brilliant Energy enhancement, or Touch attacks bypass the high Natural Armor.

Wrong, brilliant energy does not bypass natural armor. Poison is a joke due to a dragon's fort save. How do you plan on getting touch attacks, ability damage (fort save here, again) and negative levels without multiclassing?



Its just common trends in Fantasy culture.

"Common trends" mean nothing beyond "I hope the DM set the battle up to favor me this way." And it doesn't matter how disorganized they are, the villagers will be even moreso because you were out killing one warchief instead of training them.



Yes, everyone gets feats, and everyone will spend them to make themselves better. But a Barbarian is MUCH more limited in his selection than a fighter. Almost every Barbarian ever takes several from the Power Attack chain, as well as several of the Charge Attack buffing Feats, and by this point usually doesnt have many more to afford 2-3 Feats to spend just to get Steadfast Determination, unless their race gives a bonus feat, and the DM is allowing Flaws, it is hard to budget SD before a much later level.

SD is a nice to have but it's hardly necessary. Even without Trapkiller, thanks to Uncanny Dodge, they can spend one use of rage to boost their saves and run through the cave at 4x speed (+ fast movement), never getting caught flatfooted by any of the traps.



And my point here is more towards the fact that BOTH a Fighter and a Barbarian can select SD if they so choose, and a Fighter is much, much less stressed by the expenditure in order to gain it.

Sure but with his lower Con it does him less good.



But you are assuming taking the ACF is actually a useful thing to do. Unless you are making an assumption that the Barbarian can boost his Survival skill up to an equal bonus to that of an equal level Rogue, the ability to find traps is unlikely to be of a benefit for level appropriate Traps, due to the inherent -5 penalty, their assumed lack of a high Wisdom(since youre so determined to have Steadfast Determination), and the very limited scope of actual traps that Trapkiller can even handle.

It's still an option the fighter does not have. And as I've shown above, even without it the Barbarian has an advantage vs. traps that the Fighter does not, who must rely on items for all of his defenses.



And the arguments I make that "depends on the DM" are quite valid, since everyone plays D&D differently, and certain aspects/situations/encounters/layouts of these three tests are completely up to what the DM populates the relavant areas with, and not simply based on which class is running the gauntlet.

Valid for individuals playing the game, sure, but not when we're discussing tiers, which are DM-independent by design.


You are still not addressing the issue. That is, that the "3 Situation" scenario is not some kind of be-all, end-all to determining Tier status.

Which, if you believe it is, you could prove by giving us a 3.5 Barbarian (without ACFs, since those are also Tier 4) and Warblade run of them.

The Barbarian (without ACFs, as requested) I discussed above - fast movement, uncanny dodge, trap sense and greater health get him through S1 with much less pain than the Fighter. As for the Warblade - even with my limited experience with ToB, I know that between Mountain Hammer and Iron Heart Surge the Warblade most likely won't even notice half the traps much less be impeded by them, assuming he simply doesn't just batter his way through a shortcut from the outside by smashing the cave wall itself. And once he reaches the dragon, he has built in ways to bypass its touch AC such as Emerald Razor. He also has higher reflex than the other two classes to avoid the breath.

I happen to agree with you that the Warblade is not well-suited to S2 which is why I personally consider it to be T4, but someone more experienced with ToB might know of something better the Warblade can do here. Barbarian (again without ACFs) I've discussed.

S3 the Warblade does more good than the Fighter, Barbarian and Ninja could ever hope to do. A single Martial Study feat will make those commoners and warriors terrors on the battlefield compared to non-initiating targets, assuming the armies were more or less equally-matched before. White Raven makes him a superior leader as well.


And how many dragons are going to have See Invisibilty as one of their limited spells known? Especially given that ALL True Dragons have Blindsense.

Wands and scrolls are a thing. And again, if the dragon has no access to it he'll simply leave, with the Ninja powerless to stop him. Nobody with an Int above 1 is going to stand there and get poked to death by something it can't attack.



S1 the CA Ninja handles quite well. Trap filled tunnel? Best way to win is not to play. Wait until the dragon is sleeping, and go ethereal to bypass the whole lot.

So you burn through half your ki if not more just reaching the dragon - sound plan. Then you get a single attack off in the surprise round and he knows you're there even if he can't see you and can react accordingly with you unable to AoO him.


The other class examples have shown us that we can assume the guy's party is present, yes? Ok.

Where'd you get that from? The tier system assumes acting alone. Otherwise you can say that the Barbarian gets greater invisibility cast on him or drops in on the dragon with the Wizard's astral projection etc.

In any event, a great wyrm dragon is a level 15 sorcerer - more than high enough to get Contingency for when it sleeps. And this is the big difference between the CA Ninja and the Fighter, Barbarian and Warblade - all of your success hinges on getting off Sudden Strike. Without it you have nothing to fall back on - you either damage like a limp noodle or you are useless at your other jobs. Even if the dragon sees the Fighter or Barbarian coming, they still have a chance (especially the Barbarian) to charge in and drop it, and finish it off if it tries to run. The Ninja has to be hope to get lucky and be fighting a dragon too stupid to plan for invisible attackers.



And the CA Ninja can do just about anything the Rogue can do for S3. Which I believe the main contribution was "assassination".

Neither of you have yet explained how an assassination is a foolproof way to stop an army. If the DM is being nice it will work, I agree, but plans that hinge on the DM's providence are not very impressive. It also fails the actual text of the challenge, which was "prepare the village."



I did say a 3.5e Barbarian without ACFs. And I also said I'm not trying to "invaidate" the scenarios, merely point out that they DO NOT WORK as some kind of "be-all, end-all yardstick" to determine Tier. A CA rogue can blow a 3.5e Barbarian out of the water in the 3 Situations.

See above, they have not. Also see above for Warblade.


So which is it? Are the "3 Situations" a valid "be-all, end-all" way to judge Tier ranking or no?

If you don't like them, shouldn't you be taking it up with JaronK? But even then, yes, I do consider them reasonable and basic scenarios for an adventurer and neither of you have shown me otherwise.

[Mongobear]

Skill points > stat mod every time. Sure he's not going to be great at any of this - if he was, and powerful in melee, he'd be T3 - but still has several legs up on the Fighter.

The CA Ninja meanwhile is just as MAD, and is a one trick pony when it comes to fighting the dragon. If he can see the Ninja coming by any means, or even just after the first hit, the Ninja is screwed. He can't AoO the dragon at all either (ghost strike is a move action), so he can't stop it from casting spells or even just leaving. This means that even if the Ninja lands the first hit and the dragon doesn't immediately go for a spell or item from its hoard to see invisible, he'll just leave until he has one of those things. Even a white dragon is not stupid enough to sit there and get poked to death over a series of however many rounds (a dozen?) by something it can't see. Worse, you even talk about "ghosting through traps" below, burning precious ki before you even get to the fight itself.

To summarize - the Fighter is T5 in this scenario because it does the fight with the dragon well but not getting to it. The Ninja can get to it well, but has no way to contain it or seal the deal quickly.

To be fair, I never mentioned the "ghost through traps" option, it was RedMage, but thats a minor point.

As far as the Dragon just leaving if it cant find a way to find its attacker, that's fine, and is a small victory in and of itself, since it has just abandoned its hoard with an unknown assailant present; assuming the Dragon would actually do that since many of them are so protective of their hoards, especially the Great Wyrms which have several centuries worth of loot there. If it has to go for an item in its hoard in order to find its attacker, thats just as good as well, since it will still take a long time for it to find said item, which isnt going to be an immediate thing, just look at Smaug's hoard in The Hobbit, I would say a D&D version of a Great Wyrm's hoard is probably near enough to that magnitude.



Belt of Battle is a swift action, so you are either maintaining your etherealness for the next round or you are charging up an extra Ghost Strike, not both. You also can't use it in the surprise round, so you're still only getting off one attack. And yet again, your attacks have to actually hit - a flatfooted dragon still has all its natural armor etc.

Fair point, I have not played a CA Ninja ever before this discussion started, and usually dont buy a BoB, so the activation methods were unfamiliar to me.



You can't AoO it because you need Ghost Strike to hit it while ethereal. If you drop out of ethereal to AoO, you are then vulnerable to a juicy full-attack from the dragon.

If you are using turns to charge extra Ghost Strikes, it is possible that you might have an extra use available for an AoO. But yes, you wont be able to AoO on everything the dragon does to provoke them.


[QUOTE=Psyren;17630519]Wrong, brilliant energy does not bypass natural armor. Poison is a joke due to a dragon's fort save. How do you plan on getting touch attacks, ability damage (fort save here, again) and negative levels without multiclassing?

Again, my own unfamiliarity with the specific item is the factor here, but I guess that explains why no one in the history of ever has bought a Brilliant Energy weapon, ignoring NA would make it almost too good I guess. For the Ability Damage, Touch Attacks, and Negative Levels, while an easy method of even having them is multi-classing, A Ninja could just as easily buy scrolls of spells that have one or more of these effects on it, and Yes, I know Spell Resistance exists, but not all spells allow it.

Off the top of my head, one Touch Attack spell that comes to mind that I have seen a player use to one shot a Dragon in my own games is Chill Touch? I think thats what it was called, its a Melee Touch Attack that does a lot of Dex damage, and lasts for multiple rounds/attacks, and most True Dragons have little more than maybe 12-14 Dex on average.



"Common trends" mean nothing beyond "I hope the DM set the battle up to favor me this way." And it doesn't matter how disorganized they are, the villagers will be even moreso because you were out killing one warchief instead of training them.

You're making the mistake of assuming this scenario takes place over the course of a few minutes like a normal battle in a dungeon would. Pitched Battle scenarios often take place over the course of several days, not to mention that the adventurer could have been in the town for several days/week BEFORE the Horde even shows up, which gives plenty of time for a Ninja to show the commoners basic melee attack stances, and how to hold their weapons. Plus, using their knowledge of Traps, they could also start work on primitive Punji Pits and other pitfalls around the Wall/Moat/Gates or whatever defenses the town has to slow down/bottleneck the Horde. Just because a Ninja isnt your typical Student of Warfare class like a Fighter or any of the ToB classes, doesnt mean theyre completely hopeless in showing proper fighting methods.



SD is a nice to have but it's hardly necessary. Even without Trapkiller, thanks to Uncanny Dodge, they can spend one use of rage to boost their saves and run through the cave at 4x speed (+ fast movement), never getting caught flatfooted by any of the traps.

While sprinting through the dark tunnel, you round a corner and all of a sudden the floor falls out from under you to reveal a 100' deep pit with spikes at the bottom. Uncanny Dodge does nothing to help you here, and unless you somehow have a rediculously high reflex save, you just fell and are now a Raging Porcupine Meatball. This is a common trap right out of the DMG, CR 9 Wide Mouthed Pit Trap, page 73. Its a DC 25 to avoid so even in optimal scenarios, youre gonna fall ~50% of the time, and are trapped in a 100 foot deep pit which manually resets, sealing you inside, unless you can climb the walls and manage to smash the fake floor to get out.



Sure but with his lower Con it does him less good.

But by having more feats to work with while creating/leveling a Fighter can pick up SD, and still have 2-3 full Feat chains in order to specialize in a few areas of combat. While a Barbarian is limited to just enough Feats to make himself the true combat beast that makes him a Tier 4, and not enough free slots for something like this.



It's still an option the fighter does not have. And as I've shown above, even without it the Barbarian has an advantage vs. traps that the Fighter does not, who must rely on items for all of his defenses.

Yes, its an option they have ontop of a Fighter, but the benefits arent nearly enough to truely make a real difference. Looking at the DMG, the high CR traps that use attack rolls are either 1) a Touch attack, which pretty much dont care about whether youre a Fighter or Barbarian, or 2) Have such a high attack bonus, that unless you have specifically built a Turtle character, will hit you anyways, or 3) Both which if its a Touch attack with a High bonus, your AC is 10 +/- your Dex with Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense.



Valid for individuals playing the game, sure, but not when we're discussing tiers, which are DM-independent by design.

In a vacuum youre right, Tiers dont care about what a DM will do. But, in actual application someone could create the exact same character for any DM in the planet and have absolutely different results with each one based solely on how that DM runs their game.

[Psyren]

To be fair, I never mentioned the "ghost through traps" option, it was RedMage, but thats a minor point.

As far as the Dragon just leaving if it cant find a way to find its attacker, that's fine, and is a small victory in and of itself, since it has just abandoned its hoard with an unknown assailant present; assuming the Dragon would actually do that since many of them are so protective of their hoards, especially the Great Wyrms which have several centuries worth of loot there. If it has to go for an item in its hoard in order to find its attacker, thats just as good as well, since it will still take a long time for it to find said item, which isnt going to be an immediate thing, just look at Smaug's hoard in The Hobbit, I would say a D&D version of a Great Wyrm's hoard is probably near enough to that magnitude.

Hoard Gullet lets it swallow the whole thing, assuming it doesn't just grab a magic item from the pile it can use to reveal and attack you. I can't imagine a dragon getting all the way to Great Wyrm with no way of dealing with ethereal assailants or transporting its hoard. But yeah, if it doesn't have any reasonable countermeasures at all you would have driven it away, at least for a time.



Fair point, I have not played a CA Ninja ever before this discussion started, and usually dont buy a BoB, so the activation methods were unfamiliar to me.

If you are using turns to charge extra Ghost Strikes, it is possible that you might have an extra use available for an AoO. But yes, you wont be able to AoO on everything the dragon does to provoke them.

Ghost Strike wears off if you don't use it that round, so at most you can charge two of them even with a belt.


Again, my own unfamiliarity with the specific item is the factor here, but I guess that explains why no one in the history of ever has bought a Brilliant Energy weapon, ignoring NA would make it almost too good I guess. For the Ability Damage, Touch Attacks, and Negative Levels, while an easy method of even having them is multi-classing, A Ninja could just as easily buy scrolls of spells that have one or more of these effects on it, and Yes, I know Spell Resistance exists, but not all spells allow it.

Off the top of my head, one Touch Attack spell that comes to mind that I have seen a player use to one shot a Dragon in my own games is Chill Touch? I think thats what it was called, its a Melee Touch Attack that does a lot of Dex damage, and lasts for multiple rounds/attacks, and most True Dragons have little more than maybe 12-14 Dex on average.

Shivering Touch is subject to SR. This isn't as big a deal for a primary caster who has feats and a high caster level, but for your ninja UMD-ing it from an item you'll basically be fishing for 20s. In addition, you cannot use it while ethereal (ghost strike applies to attacks, not spells) due to the rule I quoted above, so you will not only have to manifest to use it, you will even provoke an AoO for doing so.


You're making the mistake of assuming this scenario takes place over the course of a few minutes like a normal battle in a dungeon would. Pitched Battle scenarios often take place over the course of several days, not to mention that the adventurer could have been in the town for several days/week BEFORE the Horde even shows up, which gives plenty of time for a Ninja to show the commoners basic melee attack stances, and how to hold their weapons. Plus, using their knowledge of Traps, they could also start work on primitive Punji Pits and other pitfalls around the Wall/Moat/Gates or whatever defenses the town has to slow down/bottleneck the Horde. Just because a Ninja isnt your typical Student of Warfare class like a Fighter or any of the ToB classes, doesnt mean theyre completely hopeless in showing proper fighting methods.

No, I was assuming days. In both 3.5 and PF, teaching someone else your feats does in fact take days to do per feat. (DMG2 and UCamp respectively.)


While sprinting through the dark tunnel, you round a corner and all of a sudden the floor falls out from under you to reveal a 100' deep pit with spikes at the bottom. Uncanny Dodge does nothing to help you here, and unless you somehow have a rediculously high reflex save, you just fell and are now a Raging Porcupine Meatball. This is a common trap right out of the DMG, CR 9 Wide Mouthed Pit Trap, page 73. Its a DC 25 to avoid so even in optimal scenarios, youre gonna fall ~50% of the time, and are trapped in a 100 foot deep pit which manually resets, sealing you inside, unless you can climb the walls and manage to smash the fake floor to get out.

First off, "manual reset" means the dragon or whoever has to come out and reset it themselves. It won't magically lock you in on its own.

Second - Rolling Rocks, Tripwires, Portcullis, Scything Blade and Poisoned Darts are also "common traps right out of the DMG" (pgs. 70-72) and Uncanny Dodge helps you against every single one, as it does with any other trap that has an attack roll. So obviously it depends on which traps are being used, does it not?

And to your CR 9 pit trap example, a level 9 barbarian and a level 9 ninja have the exact same reflex save vs. a trap before accounting for Dex. A Barb's Dex will be lower of course, but with higher Str and Con they have an easier time surviving the trap and climbing back out.


But by having more feats to work with while creating/leveling a Fighter can pick up SD, and still have 2-3 full Feat chains in order to specialize in a few areas of combat. While a Barbarian is limited to just enough Feats to make himself the true combat beast that makes him a Tier 4, and not enough free slots for something like this.

It's a wash - thanks to rage, they don't need as many feats as the Fighter to be effective in the first place. If you instead go with their PF versions, where the Fighter gets even more feats, he is blown away by rage powers.


Yes, its an option they have ontop of a Fighter, but the benefits arent nearly enough to truely make a real difference. Looking at the DMG, the high CR traps that use attack rolls are either 1) a Touch attack, which pretty much dont care about whether youre a Fighter or Barbarian, or 2) Have such a high attack bonus, that unless you have specifically built a Turtle character, will hit you anyways, or 3) Both which if its a Touch attack with a High bonus, your AC is 10 +/- your Dex with Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense.

(1) the CR of the traps being employed depends on the CR of the dragon. (2) Trap sense applies to touch AC too (dodge bonus, which UD allows you to keep along with your Dex even if the trap catches you off guard) so every bit helps and puts you above the fighter.

The Ninja will be better off of course, though the fort save traps will be a big problem for him unless he is etherealing through everything, spending ki every 6 seconds.


In a vacuum youre right, Tiers dont care about what a DM will do. But, in actual application someone could create the exact same character for any DM in the planet and have absolutely different results with each one based solely on how that DM runs their game.

And I'm fine with that, but this thread is about the rankings within the tier systems, not "actual application by DM X."

[bekeleven]

Just chiming in to say that, if anything, the fighter got worse from 3.5 to PF.

Let's review:


High-Op: The fighter lost its favorite damage tricks like dungeon crasher, shock trooper, leap attack and even proper power attack. So much for ubercharger.
The fighter class went from having +160% the feats of a non-fighter character (ex. Barbarian) to +100%. So much for defining class feature.
The 3.0 (and 3.5) fighter failed because the designers looked at the PHB, realized he could grab any feat that meant anything with his huge number of them, and rushed to spread abilities over trash prerequisites (Dodge), overly long trees (TWF), and traps (Endurance/Diehard). Then, they never made any long feat trees that would actually require fighter feats until relatively late in 3.X's life (PHB2 for instance). In other words, it failed due to the low purchasing power of its primary. Guess what Pathfinder did: it nerfed combat such that nearly every reliable high or mid-op combat maneuver requires twice as many feats to reach baseline competence, and some are still comparatively worse than 3.5 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17457535&postcount=35). And due to the higher number of baseline feats, fighter still has no exclusive access to these artificially inflated tax trees.

[RedMage125]

The Barbarian (without ACFs, as requested) I discussed above - fast movement, uncanny dodge, trap sense and greater health get him through S1 with much less pain than the Fighter. As for the Warblade - even with my limited experience with ToB, I know that between Mountain Hammer and Iron Heart Surge the Warblade most likely won't even notice half the traps much less be impeded by them, assuming he simply doesn't just batter his way through a shortcut from the outside by smashing the cave wall itself. And once he reaches the dragon, he has built in ways to bypass its touch AC such as Emerald Razor. He also has higher reflex than the other two classes to avoid the breath.
So it boils down to "set them off with his face, and use hit hit points to soak it up" for the Barbarian, yes?
And the Warblade also has no means to bypass the traps, just is able to shrug off taking them to the face...gotcha.

And a Black dragon's cave is likely narrow and half-filled with water, so I don't know if a Barbarian will be able to charge during the fight.

But..whatever, you did what I asked.


I happen to agree with you that the Warblade is not well-suited to S2 which is why I personally consider it to be T4, but someone more experienced with ToB might know of something better the Warblade can do here. Barbarian (again without ACFs) I've discussed.
And the Barbarian did not fare better than a Fighter could. As I so clearly pointed out regarding Track and Urban Tracking.


S3 the Warblade does more good than the Fighter, Barbarian and Ninja could ever hope to do. A single Martial Study feat will make those commoners and warriors terrors on the battlefield compared to non-initiating targets, assuming the armies were more or less equally-matched before. White Raven makes him a superior leader as well.
Fair enough, but the 3.5e Barbarian still suffers.


Wands and scrolls are a thing. And again, if the dragon has no access to it he'll simply leave, with the Ninja powerless to stop him. Nobody with an Int above 1 is going to stand there and get poked to death by something it can't attack.
Assuming the Dragon survives the Coup De Grace...


So you burn through half your ki if not more just reaching the dragon - sound plan. Then you get a single attack off in the surprise round and he knows you're there even if he can't see you and can react accordingly with you unable to AoO him.
Of course not. I suggest ignoring the tunnel completely, and going in through the shortest route via a direct line from a ground surface. Ethereal creatures are incorporeal. Maybe 2 rounds of travel, an then allow it to drop once on top of the sleeping dragon and get a CDG.


Where'd you get that from? The tier system assumes acting alone. Otherwise you can say that the Barbarian gets greater invisibility cast on him or drops in on the dragon with the Wizard's astral projection etc.
I got it from JaronK. He mentions the Fighter getting carried through the tunnel in the rogue's bag of holding.

But fine, the CA ninja uses his own +5 Composite Shortbow (+1 STR bonus). That's still ((3.5+6)*3)+(3.5*10) = 63.5 damage. A DC 73 Fort save is STILL going to require a natural 20 from our Great Wyrm Black Dragon. You can use a bow to deliver a coup de grace, as long as you are adjacent.


In any event, a great wyrm dragon is a level 15 sorcerer - more than high enough to get Contingency for when it sleeps. And this is the big difference between the CA Ninja and the Fighter, Barbarian and Warblade - all of your success hinges on getting off Sudden Strike. Without it you have nothing to fall back on - you either damage like a limp noodle or you are useless at your other jobs. Even if the dragon sees the Fighter or Barbarian coming, they still have a chance (especially the Barbarian) to charge in and drop it, and finish it off if it tries to run. The Ninja has to be hope to get lucky and be fighting a dragon too stupid to plan for invisible attackers.

...
Yes, the whole CA Ninja class hinges on getting Sudden Strike, which is worse than Sneak Attack, because at least SA can be gained from flanking. I don't understand your complaint. The whole purpose of the "3 Situation" scenario is to use the class' class features to your advantage to show how to win the day. CA Ninja may normally suck six ways from Sunday, but he's also one of the only classes has a class ability that allows it to ghost through the walls of a dragon's lair while it sleeps and deliver 63 points of damage. Wizards I'm sure could go ethereal and replicate something to that effect with a spell, and a Rogue could do that much damage on a CDG, but lacks a class ability that allows it to pass through walls and bypass Blindsense.
And I don't see how a Contingency would help if a CDG is the only attack you take. Here's how a CDG works. If someone with a STR of 8 does a CDG on you for (2.5-1)*2=3 damage, you STILL need to make a Fort save (DC=10+damage dealt) or die. Granted, a GW Black Dragon could make a DC 13 Fort Save easily, but a any Fort save with a DC of 48 or more is going to require a natural 20 on the roll. And regardless of the fact that the dragon only took 63 points of damage (and thus had 473 hp remaining), if it fails the Fort save, it drops to -10 and is DEAD.
I'm sorry that you don't like it, but the CA Ninja can blow S1 out of the water better than any T3 class, and I'm not assuming anything outside of class abilities other than a STR of 12 (which a level 20 character should have), and a +5 weapon (which a level 20 character BETTER have). No special feats required to pull this off, no special rules. Hell, a CA Ninja built with nothing but the Complete Adventurer and the PHB can do this.


Neither of you have yet explained how an assassination is a foolproof way to stop an army. If the DM is being nice it will work, I agree, but plans that hinge on the DM's providence are not very impressive. It also fails the actual text of the challenge, which was "prepare the village."
Take it up with JaronK, who cited the rogue doing that.


See above, they have not. Also see above for Warblade.

They certainly do. See above.


If you don't like them, shouldn't you be taking it up with JaronK? But even then, yes, I do consider them reasonable and basic scenarios for an adventurer and neither of you have shown me otherwise.
I have no problem with the scenarios, for their intended purpose. Which was to highlight the difference in Power and Versatility to demonstrate the Tier System vis a vis classes that only really have Versatility, like a Rogue, or Power, like a Fighter, or Both, like a Wizard. It was never said by JaronK that it was meant to be some kind of "be-all, end-all absolute yardstick" to determine Tier standing. He explicitly picked the classes he did from their respective Tiers to highlight his point. Why did he pick a Commoner and not a CW Samurai? In those specific 3 Situations, I think a CW Samurai would have done the same as a Fighter, despite overall being a much worse class. Why did he pick a Fighter and not a CA Ninja or a Healer? Because a CA Ninja would have done about as well as a Rogue, which also would have made his point less clear. Also, a Healer would have done much worse in S1, but better in S2 and S3. Why did he choose a Rogue and not a Warmage? Again, the Rogue class demonstrates ability to handle traps, and has some social ability, which shows it doing well, without outright solving it like higher-Tiered classes. And a Warmage would just detonate/destroy all the traps, and blast the bajeezus out of the dragon (hopefully someone playing a Warmage is going to take the Spell Penetration feats, if blasting is all you do, you had dern do your best to make sure your spells at least do SOMETHING). His Tier 3 choice was Beguiler and not Crusader because a Beguiler demonstrably can handle trap disabling as well as a Rogue, and can STILL cast spells. Beguiler can also one-up the Rogue in the other situations as well. Tier 2 classes are generally just spontaneous casting versions of Tier 1 classes, so that one would look about the same regardless, and of course he picked the Wizard for Tier1. Wizards have the largest spell list of any class in the game and have theoretical access to ALL of it, and has the ability to choose and prepare what his available spells per day are, and worse case scenario, gets Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat, so he can have spells available that he didn't even prepare.

No, I don't have a "problem" with the 3 Scenarios. I have a problem with you trying to claim that that's the be-all, end-all of Tier determination. Because they were just meant to be examples to highlight his point on Versatility and Power among classes, and the scenarios he presented were deliberately and carefully constructed to showcase his point. The very fact that a CA Ninja (a Tier 5 class) can do just as well as a Rogue (a Tier 4 class) in S2 and S3 and BETTER than a Rogue in S1 showcases MY point in this regard.

EDIT: Psyren, you know Hoard Gullet doesn't auto-suck in your whole hoard, right? It allows you to STORE things in your new magical Second Stomach like a bag of holding. You still have to orally ingest the whole hoard. That spell is for dragons who have the time to move their whole hoard, or for looters who wish to get lots of gems, coinage, and other small objects out.

[LordBlades]

Regarding ninja etherealing through the walls and CDGing the dragon while sleeping:

1. Hiw can you tell if/when he's sleeping.
2. How can you determine the dragon's lair layout so you don't run out of Ki uses by stumbling around?

[RedMage125]

Regarding ninja etherealing through the walls and CDGing the dragon while sleeping:

1. Hiw can you tell if/when he's sleeping.
2. How can you determine the dragon's lair layout so you don't run out of Ki uses by stumbling around?
Plan ahead. Simple as that.

You could do this in any number of simple ways. Obviously you have found the dragon's lair. At least a full day in advance of your planned attack, use Ghost Step to bypass all the traps and find the main chamber, and then fly straight up from the location above the main hoard, to determine where aboveground that spot it. Make note of the distance you had to fly up (let's say the cavern floor is 120 feet below the surface), and make sure your whole party knows where the spot is.

Your party spellcasters can use clairaudiance/clairvoyance to scry beneath that spot, as the location must either be "known" or "obvious". "I wish to scry into a spot 100 feet straight down" counts as pretty "obvious". Have them scry for no longer than it takes to determine if the dragon is awake or asleep, and dismiss the spell immediately if he's awake.

Does that answer your questions?

[LordBlades]

You could do this in any number of simple ways. Obviously you have found the dragon's lair. At least a full day in advance of your planned attack, use Ghost Step to bypass all the traps and find the main chamber, and then fly straight up from the location above the main hoard, to determine where aboveground that spot it. Make note of the distance you had to fly up (let's say the cavern floor is 120 feet below the surface), and make sure your whole party knows where the spot is.

You do realize at level 10 you have about 10 rounds of Ghost Step, right? And that you turn non-ethereal between uses (avoidable if you have Enduring Ki but Tier system doesn't discuss specific builds) so you'd have to always find spots that don't trigger any traps/proximity alarms.


Your party spellcasters can use clairaudiance/clairvoyance to scry beneath that spot, as the location must either be "known" or "obvious". "I wish to scry into a spot 100 feet straight down" counts as pretty "obvious". Have them scry for no longer than it takes to determine if the dragon is awake or asleep, and dismiss the spell immediately if he's awake.

Does that answer your questions?

So your 'simple way' is 'having a higher tier caster on hand'?

[Mongobear]

You do realize at level 10 you have about 10 rounds of Ghost Step, right? And that you turn non-ethereal between uses (avoidable if you have Enduring Ki but Tier system doesn't discuss specific builds) so you'd have to always find spots that don't trigger any traps/proximity alarms.

Level has never been a factor in any of these hypothetical situations, as everyone making any arguement for/against a certain class has been using general assumptions based just on what a class has available. Also, certain classes' power wax/wanes based on their level and when certain features become available. I am pretty sure the Tier ranking assumes that a class has all available features at hand, so most likely anyone is level 20 doing these.



So your 'simple way' is 'having a higher tier caster on hand'?

For one, Scorlls/Wands exist, and going with the above reply, chances are we are doing this at level 20 so affording a handful of low level items like a few Scrolls of CA/CV isnt a factor.

Secondly, as stated previously, JaronK in his own posts has referenced being able to use another member of your party to set up certain situations, namely referencing the mundanes "being carried through the trap filled cave inside someones bag of holding." And again when RedMage gave an example when he had another member buff his hypothetical Ninja with Bull's Strength and Greater Magic Weapon, which these could be ignored anyways due to the existence of magic items.

Also, as long as someones way of dealing with one of these situations isnt "I use my wealth to bribe a level 20 Wizard to magick the situation out of existence." I see no problem having a few buffs, or small set up effects happening via another party member, as long as all of the actual situation solutions come via a solo attempt.

[LordBlades]

Level has never been a factor in any of these hypothetical situations, as everyone making any arguement for/against a certain class has been using general assumptions based just on what a class has available. Also, certain classes' power wax/wanes based on their level and when certain features become available. I am pretty sure the Tier ranking assumes that a class has all available features at hand, so most likely anyone is level 20 doing these.


Actually, tier system tries to evaluate a class over whole level range (hence Healer/Truenamer not being tier 1). Even at level 20, argument still stands ( you got maybe 20-25 rounds). On phone atm so can't find exact quote but IIRC tier system was aimed at levels 5-15 or something like that.


For one, Scorlls/Wands exist, and going with the above reply, chances are we are doing this at level 20 so affording a handful of low level items like a few Scrolls of CA/CV isnt a factor.

Secondly, as stated previously, JaronK in his own posts has referenced being able to use another member of your party to set up certain situations, namely referencing the mundanes "being carried through the trap filled cave inside someones bag of holding." And again when RedMage gave an example when he had another member buff his hypothetical Ninja with Bull's Strength and Greater Magic Weapon, which these could be ignored anyways due to the existence of magic items.

Also, as long as someones way of dealing with one of these situations isnt "I use my wealth to bribe a level 20 Wizard to magick the situation out of existence." I see no problem having a few buffs, or small set up effects happening via another party member, as long as all of the actual situation solutions come via a solo attempt.

Given that your whole plan hinges on the dragon being asleep, I wouldn't call it a 'small set-up effect'.

Also, as a personal opinion, the higher in level you go, the more the ninja is at a disadvantage. Ninja only gains some flat bonuses (like more Ki) while the dragon gains more spell levels of tier1- 2 casting.

EDIT: Found the level bit about the tier system (it's geared more toward early levels):




Q: But what about dips? I mean, I rarely see anyone playing single class characters. What would a Barbarian 1/Fighter 6 be, for example?

A: It's pretty simple. This system is paying attention to the fact that people are more likely to take the early levels of a class than the later levels, either because they simply don't get to a level where they'd see the late levels, or because of dipping.

[RedMage125]

You do realize at level 10 you have about 10 rounds of Ghost Step, right? And that you turn non-ethereal between uses (avoidable if you have Enduring Ki but Tier system doesn't discuss specific builds) so you'd have to always find spots that don't trigger any traps/proximity alarms.



So your 'simple way' is 'having a higher tier caster on hand'?

So your "counter argument" is to suddenly assume I have to be a lower-level character? JaronK, in his Wizard write-up, postulated the use of the Genesis spell, which is a 9th level spell. The Sorcerer is cited as using Mindrape, so we're at least allowed level 18. Why would I assume I was working at level 10 for my example? And is insisting I do the only way you can counter my point?

I'm even being fair to the monster and assuming a Great Wyrm Black Dragon (CR 22), which JaronK never specified.

Also, please cite your source for declaring that you suddenly "must" turn non-ethereal between uses? It's certainly not in the Complete Adventurer. The ability says it lasts for a round, if I use it again before the round is up, I remain ethereal.

Both this point, and your point about draining the ki pool are made completely irrelevant for a level 20 Ninja, who just spends 2 uses of Ki to gain the effect of Ethereal Jaunt at a CL of 20, which would last 20 rounds. It's called 'Ghost Walk', and it's a class ability of the CA Ninja, look it up.

And no, the caster is just for the preparation stage, to help determine when the dragon is sleeping. The CA Ninja does all the trap-bypassing and dragon-slaying herself. You'll note even Psyren didn't object to that. And that was just the first thing I came up with.

[Mongobear]

I am personally at the point with this whole discussion that I just dont care anymore. My original question was answered, then the thread turned into a debate on whether X Class should be Y Tier, which has devolved into an Internet Pissing Contest where neither side will let up that their opinion on the matter may be slightly biased.

To those of you who responded and kept it civil, thanks for your help. The rest of you, you need to calm down and drink a glass of milk. There is no reason this thread should have been 4 pages long for such a simple question. You have almost made me want to avoid posting any further threads here simply because I dont want my Notification box to explode when it turns into a great debate barely relevant to why I posted in the first place.

[squiggit]

Likewise Mongo, there's no need for you to be so bitter about this.


So your "counter argument" is to suddenly assume I have to be a lower-level character?
10th level isn't a particularly low level. And yes, it is reasonable to assume a more normal level range here, generally the discussion about this intentionally discounts paricularly high or low levels because the game breaks down to some extent at those extremes and balance can get weird at those points.

[RedMage125]

10th level isn't a particularly low level. And yes, it is reasonable to assume a more normal level range here, generally the discussion about this intentionally discounts paricularly high or low levels because the game breaks down to some extent at those extremes and balance can get weird at those points.
I didn't say 10th level WAS "low level", but it's considerably lower than the level I was operating at. I said "lower-level".

And the Wizard and Sorcerer's responses to the "3 Situations" get to involve level 9 spells, meaning at least 17th for the Wizard and 18th level for the Sorc. So...NO...it is NOT reasonable to insist I must use a level 10 CA Ninja for the 3 Situations.

So if the limitations of a level 10 CA Ninja is the only way anyone can "debunk" my run of the 3 Situations with it, then it's not really "debunking" anything. Because I'm not going to adhere to some artificial level restriction that JaronK did not adhere to in his examples.

EDIT: Mongobear, you know you can turn off the notifications, right?

[squiggit]

It's not particularly artificial, it's a logical restriction to make. Things break down when you have access to 9th level spells and 20th level WBL and things get weird too at particularly low level when RNG tends to matter more than anything else and you don't have enough features to really define or differentiate a class to a particularly significant degree (also classes tend to play radically different there too. A first level fighter who isn't TWF is a high mobility skirmisher, but by the time you hit level 6 you turn into a turret with crippling mobility issues). And again, truenamer.

The bad is probably on JaronK here for using crappy examples.

[RedMage125]

It's not particularly artificial, it's a logical restriction to make.
If one class gets to use level 18-20 as an example, it is ABSOLUTELY artificial to impose a "level 10" restriction on the other. Especially if it's for no other reason that to "disprove" what that person is saying about the 2nd class' capabilities. It's pretty much textbook definition of "artificial restriction".

If I said I got to run a level 20 Dread Necromancer through the 3 Situations, and asked you to run an Artificer, but you had to be level 8, would that not be an artificial restriction? Would it be a logical one? And would it prove that a Dread Necromancer deserved to be in a higher Tier than the Artificer?


The answers to those questions are: Yes; No; and No, respectively.


Things break down when you have access to 9th level spells and 20th level WBL and things get weird too at particularly low level when RNG tends to matter more than anything else and you don't have enough features to really define or differentiate a class to a particularly significant degree (also classes tend to play radically different there too. A first level fighter who isn't TWF is a high mobility skirmisher, but by the time you hit level 6 you turn into a turret with crippling mobility issues). And again, truenamer.

The point is to use class features granted by the class and not relay on any one build. Which is why JaronK did not discuss Specialist choices for a wizard. And why if one ran a Favored Soul through, one would be obliged to assume they have wings. Abilities gained as class features are justifiably permitted when discussing what any one class is capable of.

And JaronK does address Truenamer It doesn't go into a Tier ranking because the class is, to his use words "broken, in the sense that it does not function appropriately". The class yo-yos between being grossly ineffective like a Commoner is ineffective to one-shotting random opponents. The class just doesn't work. And I mean it does not work in a way that a CW Samurai does. And I loathe that class.



The bad is probably on JaronK here for using crappy examples.
And if you want to tear apart the idea of using the "3 Situations" as some kind of absolute barometer for determining Tier standing, be my guest. It has been my point all along that the "3 Situations", while useful as a means to showcase JaronK's point, are not some kind of barometer for determining Tier standing.

Take the Dread Necromancer, for example. DN would probably out-do all other classes at Situation 1, by simple expedient of never entering the cave. Given the DN's class features the specifically revolve around having a larger undead-control pool than just about anyone, I think it's fair to assume that he's got some undead minions...quite a few, actually. Send in all the low-level peon undead to trigger the traps, and send all the incorporeal undead further in to attack the dragon. Have an Empowered Shivering Touch already cast and charge held on a Spectral Hand, with a readied action to hit the dragon if it tries to flee the cave. 3d6 DEX damage averages out to 10.5, and Great Wyrm Black Dragons have a DEX of 10. Immobile dragon = dead dragon = new minion. A sufficient amount of minion undead will clear out any traps. Even a 10' pit eventually fills up with corpses.

There's very little a DN can do in S2. Other than Bluff and Disguise to help find the leader, and maybe use Disguise to help him smuggle out some slaves to earn his trust. Actually...that sounds pretty good.

DN would be AMAZING at S3. Simple solution: Go animate the city's entire graveyard, until you've reached your max HD limit of undead controlled. Try to get a few Create Undead and Create Greater Undead spells in there, don't just make nothing but zombies. The Great Wyrm Black Dragon Zombie you've already got will also be of help. Let the town sit behind their walls while your own army decimates the orcs.

Does that mean the DN deserves to be Tier 1 or 2? No. He's just got a skillset that blows most others out of the water for those specific situations.

[LordBlades]

Also, please cite your source for declaring that you suddenly "must" turn non-ethereal between uses? It's certainly not in the Complete Adventurer. The ability says it lasts for a round, if I use it again before the round is up, I remain ethereal.




Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

So if you become ethereal on your turn, you will be ethereal until just before the start of your next turn.Since you can only become ethereal again on your turn, there is an amount of time when you aren't.

[RedMage125]

So if you become ethereal on your turn, you will be ethereal until just before the start of your next turn.Since you can only become ethereal again on your turn, there is an amount of time when you aren't.

A) If you use your swift action to become ethereal at the end of your turn, then "the start of your next turn" isn't a whole round, is it?

And more to the point...
B) Made irrelevant by the fact that she can spend 2 uses of ki to become ethereal for 20 rounds, as per the Ghost Walk ability.

[LordBlades]

A) If you use your swift action to become ethereal at the end of your turn, then "the start of your next turn" isn't a whole round, is it?


Fact remains that, per RAW an effect with a duration of '1 round' ends just before the start of your next turn, period, regardless on when during your previous turn you activated it.

[RedMage125]

Fact remains that, per RAW an effect with a duration of '1 round' ends just before the start of your next turn, period, regardless on when during your previous turn you activated it.

You did not address B), which was the point.

There a reason for that?

[LordBlades]

You did not address B), which was the point.

There a reason for that?

Yes there is. My objection was referring to the use of Ghost Step which lasts for 1 round, not Ghost Walk.

[RedMage125]

And I pointed out Ghost Walk as soon as you mentioned it. Yet you continued to harp on it like it mattered.

[LordBlades]

And I pointed out Ghost Walk as soon as you mentioned it. Yet you continued to harp on it like it mattered.

Do you even check facts before you post? Or is that too much effort? Find one post from me mentioning that again after you brought up Ghost Walk apart from explaining why Ghost Step doesn't work(which is a topic on which you were wrong but with absolutely 0 connection on how Ghost Walk works).

[RedMage125]

Do you even check facts before you post? Or is that too much effort? Find one post from me mentioning that again after you brought up Ghost Walk apart from explaining why Ghost Step doesn't work(which is a topic on which you were wrong but with absolutely 0 connection on how Ghost Walk works).

I brought it up in post #115. And mentioned that it made the issue of becoming non-ethereal in between rounds irrelevant.

And in post #121 you continued to bring it up.

Do YOU even check facts before you post? Or are you just as insulting and demeaning as possible?

[LordBlades]

I brought it up in post #115. And mentioned that it made the issue of becoming non-ethereal in between rounds irrelevant.

And in post #121 you continued to bring it up.

Do YOU even check facts before you post? Or are you just as insulting and demeaning as possible?

Which exactly was post 115 as I am on phone and post numbers are not visible for me?

EDIT: In post 115, along with bringing up Ghost Walk you also asked for a source on turning non-ethereal between Ghost Step uses. Post 121 simply provides that source while making 0 additional consideration on wheter Ghost Step is still relevant to the discussion or not.

So, by you own assertion, to provide a clarification YOU SPECIFICALLY asked for ('please cite your source...') is 'to harp on it like it mattered' ?

[RedMage125]

Which exactly was post 115 as I am on phone and post numbers are not visible for me?

EDIT: In post 115, along with bringing up Ghost Walk you also asked for a source on turning non-ethereal between Ghost Step uses. Post 121 simply provides that source while making 0 additional consideration on wheter Ghost Step is still relevant to the discussion or not.

So, by you own assertion, to provide a clarification YOU SPECIFICALLY asked for ('please cite your source...') is 'to harp on it like it mattered' ?
Sorry for the long response, I was becoming uncivil, and it was late, so I left.

First of all, I made a mistake in post #111 by using the term "Ghost Step", I had been thinking of Ghost Walk even then. I am sorry for the confusion.

Second, you really ticked me off when your response showed that your only counter-argument to my Situation was to arbitrarily assume I was using a level 10 character, when that was never said nor implied. In fact, all the other classes got level 20 or close to it, builds to run through, why shouldn't I? It made it seem like you were suddenly Moving the Goalposts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts). You'll note that I got into with squiggit about that. Because it was an artificial restriction, and shows that you just simply desired to prove me wrong, but lacked the ability to actually punch any hole in my argument.

Third, the "request for clarification" was an aside, as it did not matter to me anyway. It was a moot point. When I pointed out how moot it was, and you ignored it TWICE, my perception was that you were still trying to say that the CA Ninja's run of Situation 1 would not work because of this "proof" you had. I see now that you were simply being a stickler for details regarding "Ghost Step", which I can understand.

That clear up the confusion?

[LordBlades]

Sorry for the long response, I was becoming uncivil, and it was late, so I left.

First of all, I made a mistake in post #111 by using the term "Ghost Step", I had been thinking of Ghost Walk even then. I am sorry for the confusion.

No problem, but since you said Ghost Step I responded to the assumption the Ninja was using Ghost Step and not Ghost Walk :smalltongue:


Second, you really ticked me off when your response showed that your only counter-argument to my Situation was to arbitrarily assume I was using a level 10 character, when that was never said nor implied. In fact, all the other classes got level 20 or close to it, builds to run through, why shouldn't I? It made it seem like you were suddenly Moving the Goalposts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts). You'll note that I got into with squiggit about that. Because it was an artificial restriction, and shows that you just simply desired to prove me wrong, but lacked the ability to actually punch any hole in my argument.

Once again, since Ghost Step was brought up I assumed you were implying 'Ninja can do it from level 10', therefore I assumed level 10, or, at least, like JaronK discusses it in the 3 situation examples, a willingness to discuss how abilities that come online at various levels would help in overcoming these situations (they never had any 'build to run' through this situations, it's merely a list of different stuff of different levels with 'these might come in handy' tags).

Even the fact that you insist so much on the Ninja needing to be level 20 IMO doesn't speak too highly of the Ninja's ability (or at least your opinion of it) to run this situation at any other level. Honestly, I don't think Ninja can do it very well at level 20 either, not vs a Great Wyrm Black anyway, which casts as a Sorcerer 15 at that point (so 7 level spells, which may involve a metric ton of divinations and/or contingencies, even something as simple as Contingent Dimension Door or one casting or Contact Other Plane per day kind of invalidates the whole strategy, then there's Detect Scrying and a ton of other stuff the dragon could do etc.). Ninja 20 vs. sorcerer 15 would probably be a lengthy discussion in itself and most of it probably applies to many other tier 4-5 characters as well. I do feel that in a low-tier PC vs. Dragon scenario increasing the level helps the dragon way more than it helps the PC.

I do agree that these examples are just that (examples) and not an actual tier benchmark.

[RedMage125]

I do agree that these examples are just that (examples) and not an actual tier benchmark.

And all of this, regarding the CA Ninja, the Dread Necromancer, all of it...has been to prove that point.

If I can show that a Tier 5 class can do objectively better than even a Tier 4 class in the 3 Situations, then those situations are not a valid objective and absolute barometer of Tier standing.

And all of that ties into the discussion on topic of this original post.

That being: I maintain that the PF Fighter, through gaining a more clear conceptualization of what a Fighter is meant to be, and then gaining actual class features to improve that concept, while never losing anything that made the 3.5e Fighter "high Tier 5", now makes the PF Fighter meet the definitions of Tier 4-as layed out by JaronK-as a class, not any one build. Had a few class skills added to his list, too. Almost forgot that. Decent ones, too (Survival and 2 Knowledge skills).

[LordBlades]

meant to be[/i], and then gaining actual class features to improve that concept, while never losing anything that made the 3.5e Fighter "high Tier 5", now makes the PF Fighter meet the definitions of Tier 4-as layed out by JaronK-as a class, not any one build. Had a few class skills added to his list, too. Almost forgot that. Decent ones, too (Survival and 2 Knowledge skills).

The line between tier 4 and 5 is quite hazy IMO. Fighter (both 3.5 and PF) is focused on combat, so he'd either be:
-Capable of doing one thing quite well (if tier 4)
-Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well (if tier 5).

Now, a barbarian is arguably better at fighting than a fighter (and I assume it's the same in PF). JaronK decided that in 3.5 this difference is enough to put the 2 classes on different sides of 'does melee well' standard.

So the question is: does a PF fighter do melee well, or not that well? Without and objective measuring stick or an authority figure (like JaronK was for 3.5 tier system, and still high X/low Y is still debated/not agreed upon for some classes ) a definitive answer will most likely never be reached

[RedMage125]

The line between tier 4 and 5 is quite hazy IMO. Fighter (both 3.5 and PF) is focused on combat, so he'd either be:
-Capable of doing one thing quite well (if tier 4)
-Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well (if tier 5).

Now, a barbarian is arguably better at fighting than a fighter (and I assume it's the same in PF). JaronK decided that in 3.5 this difference is enough to put the 2 classes on different sides of 'does melee well' standard.

So the question is: does a PF fighter do melee well, or not that well? Without and objective measuring stick or an authority figure (like JaronK was for 3.5 tier system, and still high X/low Y is still debated/not agreed upon for some classes ) a definitive answer will most likely never be reached

That's not the whole point. The Barbarian's job is doing damage in melee, and he, as you have said, arguably does it better than the Fighter.

But was the Fighter a melee combatant as a class? You could build a straight Fighter who focuses solely on archery and be [more than] competent in your damage-dealing. You'd lack any class skills that benefitted from your high DEX, and your heavier armor proficiencies would be wasted, as was your tower shield proficiency (something NO OTHER CLASS IN 3.5e GETS), since you'd probably stick to lighter armors that take advantage of your DEX. So such a choice is not the best use of your abilities, but you'd still do your archery well.

The PF Fighter, OTOH, is clearly defined as the guy who wears heavy armor and does it better than anyone. A PF Fighter can invest more in his DEX while wearing Heavy Armor than a 3.5e Fighter can, and he still gets Tower Shield proficiency. At level 7, he can do something that no non-dwarf in either system can do, an that's Tumble in Full Plate. The PF Fighter gets bonuses to attack and damage rolls via Weapon Training that keep up with a Barbarians' bonuses from rage (+4 to hit and damage at level 17 equates to the +8 STR a Barbarian gets at 20), although he starts getting them later (and he gets lesser bonuses with other weapon groups, in the event he must use a weapon other than his preferred one). Bravery may apply only to fear effects, but its still a boost to his weakest save. Again, he got a few better options for Class skills (Survival being the best new one). And, unlike almost every other class in the Core Rulebook (compared to the 3.5e PHB), the Fighter traded nothing to get these boosts. That's right, not ONE THING about his class abilities was diminished, or even altered in any way, only added to*. And everything he had in 3.5 made him "high Tier 5". Well now, the Fighter can boast a truly impressive AC that can greatly increase his staying power in front-line combat. A level 20 PF Fighter in +5 Full Plate not only gets a +14 Armor Bonus, but can swing a +5 DEX bonus in that armor, +7 if he makes it out of mithril. His armor check penalty in such armor is only -2, and he can drop the ACP to 0 by making it out of mithril. The cost of mithril is much less than spending magic item enchants on it at that level, and frees him up to choose other enchantments. His speed is not reduced in it, no matter what its made out of, and he gets DR 5/- in it. No other class can do this. His feat selection has improved in one regard, but that's because of an overall change to 3.5e-PF rules. That is: retraining. As the class with the most feats, the retraining option affects Fighters the most. As I have said before, a truism of any game design is this: Versatility in Choice is not an advantage when that Choice cannot be changed. See post #72 for a more detailed description of that and why it's relevant. At any rate, the PF Fighter's wide number of bonus feats is thus worth MORE than the 3.5e Fighter's was because of this. All of this, I say, makes him good at "doing one thing well". I'm not saying that it's the same "one thing" as the Barbarian, and it would be a mistake to assume that such is my point. The Fighter is now -more than he ever was defined as such in 3.5- a great "meat shield". Whether by actually focusing on trying to "tank" enemies via reach weapons and AoOs, or simply by being up-front and engaged in melee while being difficult to damage with physical strikes. Both fit the definition of "meat shield". And the PF Fighter does it better than the PF Barbarian. The Barbarian may have more hit points (especially when raging), but "Defense" in D&D means one thing, and one thing only: Keeping your hit points in the positive. Having lots of them is one way, sure. But it's far more effective to never lose them in the first place. High AC, high saves, and Spell Resistance are the best ways to go about that. And the Fighter is able to accumulate a higher AC than any base class.

*Obviously available feats are changed. And 3.5e certainly had some power creep in its last few years, so there are some VERY good feats out there. But many people allow 3.5e supplements in PF games, and PF explicitly is designed to make that an option. In the intro to the Core Rulebook of PF, Jason Bulmahn says that PF is compatible with 3.5 rules. Arguably making 3.5 supplements and feats permissible by RAW. I'd say it's up to the DM though. I'm not personally advocating a stance that such is RAW.

Maybe that's why I've had such trouble getting my point across to Psyren. Maybe he still thinks the Fighter's job is the same as the Barbarian's, and that's why he's been fighting me so much. I am arguing that the Fighter's "one thing" is radically different than the Barbarian's, and he has class features to make him do it well, while still being a competent melee damage-dealer.

[Firechanter]

The main roles in combat are, roughly:
* Damage Dealer ("Striker")
* Tank ("Defender")
* Control (might throw in Debuffing here)
* Buffing ("Leader") (might throw in Healing here)

So, which of these roles can a Fighter fill? Let's start with the easy ones: he has no Control and practically nothing in the way of a Leader. In PF there are Teamwork feats but those are very situational and limited.
Defender? Nuh-uh, still no proper Aggro mechanics in PF. A Fighter can do very little to prevent enemies attacking the Squishies. Him having high AC is, if anything, a reason _not_ to attack the Fighter.

So that basically leaves only one thing: Damage Dealer. Same as the Barbarian. Here I see the Barb having higher Burst damage (Rage rounds) while the Fighter has more staying power (due to AC).

Apart from that, the Fighter still has nothing worth mentioning outside of combat. A handful of skills but no points to actually take them with, especially with one of the lower PBs that force you to dump Int. But that's just an aside and not relevant for the distinction between T4 and T5.

What's maybe more interesting here is to look at defenses. T4 requires "doing one thing well". Does the Fighter still do his thing well (whatever he does) when hit by a spell that charms, dominates, entangles, or whatever else targets one of his weak saves?
(I don't know about PF Barbs here either, but could imagine they have some Rage powers that allow them to shrug off such attacks.)
The only thing Fighters get is a small bonus to Fear saves, and practically every single Archetype swaps that out for something more useful.


At level 7, he can do something that no non-dwarf in either system can do, an that's Tumble in Full Plate.

Note that this is the equivalent of a 3000GP armour property in late-era 3.5. I.e. just slap a Continuous Knight Unburdened on your Full Plate and be done with it. Not to mention how Tumble as such was nerfed in PF.

[RedMage125]

The main roles in combat are, roughly:
* Damage Dealer ("Striker")
* Tank ("Defender")
* Control (might throw in Debuffing here)
* Buffing ("Leader") (might throw in Healing here)

So, which of these roles can a Fighter fill? Let's start with the easy ones: he has no Control and practically nothing in the way of a Leader. In PF there are Teamwork feats but those are very situational and limited.
Defender? Nuh-uh, still no proper Aggro mechanics in PF. A Fighter can do very little to prevent enemies attacking the Squishies. Him having high AC is, if anything, a reason _not_ to attack the Fighter.

So that basically leaves only one thing: Damage Dealer. Same as the Barbarian. Here I see the Barb having higher Burst damage (Rage rounds) while the Fighter has more staying power (due to AC).

Apart from that, the Fighter still has nothing worth mentioning outside of combat. A handful of skills but no points to actually take them with, especially with one of the lower PBs that force you to dump Int. But that's just an aside and not relevant for the distinction between T4 and T5.

What's maybe more interesting here is to look at defenses. T4 requires "doing one thing well". Does the Fighter still do his thing well (whatever he does) when hit by a spell that charms, dominates, entangles, or whatever else targets one of his weak saves?
(I don't know about PF Barbs here either, but could imagine they have some Rage powers that allow them to shrug off such attacks.)
The only thing Fighters get is a small bonus to Fear saves, and practically every single Archetype swaps that out for something more useful.



Note that this is the equivalent of a 3000GP armour property in late-era 3.5. I.e. just slap a Continuous Knight Unburdened on your Full Plate and be done with it. Not to mention how Tumble as such was nerfed in PF.

Look, you're obviously more familiar with 4e then 3.5e.

By those definitions, the only "defender" class is the Knight. In 3.5e/PF there's no general "aggro" mechanic, so to play a "Defender", you've got to simply interpose yourself physically between enemies and allies. The ability to hinder enemies from trying to slip past you, through extended reach and extra AoOs are a boon to this goal. But even a PF Fighter built for damage output is still at least secondarily in this role due to class abilities (see what I said reagarding 'Meat Shield', above). He still benefits more if he's wearing heavy armor, and is out in front. The lack of "aggro mechanics" doesn't mean a "Defender" isn't possible. It just means you actually have to do it the old fashioned way, instead of having the mechanics of the system hand it to you on a platter and say "here you go, here's how you do this". For decades of D&D, Fighters have been "defenders" in some parties, by simple virtue of being in-between an orc and the party wizard. Long before 4e came along, Fighters could do it. Just because 4e gave us "aggro mechanics" didn't suddenly take that ability away from every pre-4e Fighter out there.

"Control"...what you say about this shows that you don't properly know what it means. EVERY Defender in 4e is engaging in a form of "Control", just at short range. In 3.5e/PF, tripping enemies, Disarm, Sunder, forced movement via Bull Rush, all of these are a form of Control because on some level you are dictating what the enemy is going to have to do with part of its next turn. It's like playing chess. If I keep threatening your pieces in a manner that forces you to move them instead of continuing forward with your planned offensive, I am in control of the board. Add to that the Critical feat selection of PF, some of which can impose status effects like Staggered, etc. on an enemy on a crit. The Fighter's large number of feats could easily be spent acquiring a few of these. Boom, Control under 4e definition even (imposing of status effects).

"Leader" by 4e definitions is only ever going to apply to a spellcaster or a Marshal in 3.5e. The PF Cavalier, through sharing of teamwork feats and his banner ability would be a "secondary Leader" by 4e terms. But yes, the Fighter has nothing in that regard.


As an aside, I'm sick of hearing about how "Tumble was nerfed in PF". The real problem is that it was ridiculously easy in 3.5e. The DC to Tumble at full speed past an kobold wielding a spear was the exact same as the DC to do the same past a Marilith. A six-armed demonic dervish in combat should be able to react quicker, and should therefore be HARDER to Tumble past. Even before ever touching PF, I was contemplating a houserule to make Tumbling some kind of opposed check because of this, but couldn't think of a way to make it fair.

In 3.5e, if you could gain the ability to take 10 on Tumble (not hard, a lot of PrCs granted it, as well as Skill Mastery for a Rogue), and you could muster up a +25 check (not that hard, even before level 10), you could stop putting points in Tumble. Literally, the be-all end-all of Tumble is a DC 35 check. Once you can Tumble at full speed through an enemy's space, what else do you really need to improve it for?

PF makes the difficulty based on the thing you're trying to tumble past, which makes sense. I'm sorry to all the people who whine that it's not super-easy for them anymore, but from an objective standpoint, it really was ridiculous in 3.5e. In PF, you want to be the guy who can slip past anyone? Better keep putting points in Acrobatics, son. There are monsters out there that are very hard to get past.

/rant

I got sidetracked...sorry. Maybe that deserves it's own thread.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

As an aside, I'm sick of hearing about how "Tumble was nerfed in PF". The real problem is that it was ridiculously easy in 3.5e. The DC to Tumble at full speed past an kobold wielding a spear was the exact same as the DC to do the same past a Marilith. A six-armed demonic dervish in combat should be able to react quicker, and should therefore be HARDER to Tumble past. Even before ever touching PF, I was contemplating a houserule to make Tumbling some kind of opposed check because of this, but couldn't think of a way to make it fair.

In 3.5e, if you could gain the ability to take 10 on Tumble (not hard, a lot of PrCs granted it, as well as Skill Mastery for a Rogue), and you could muster up a +25 check (not that hard, even before level 10), you could stop putting points in Tumble. Literally, the be-all end-all of Tumble is a DC 35 check. Once you can Tumble at full speed through an enemy's space, what else do you really need to improve it for?

PF makes the difficulty based on the thing you're trying to tumble past, which makes sense. I'm sorry to all the people who whine that it's not super-easy for them anymore, but from an objective standpoint, it really was ridiculous in 3.5e. In PF, you want to be the guy who can slip past anyone? Better keep putting points in Acrobatics, son. There are monsters out there that are very hard to get past.

/rant

I got sidetracked...sorry. Maybe that deserves it's own thread.TBH I think you're right that the difficulty of tumbling should scale somehow with the combat effectiveness of the enemy. That said, such an action unequivocally nerfs people who use tumble/acrobatics. Skill monkeys shouldn't have to rely on auto-passing tumble checks to be effective... but PF didn't help with this. They just got rid of auto-passing tumble checks.

Also, the math is problematic, because monster HD and stats scale too quickly. Take a level 11 rogue with 24 dex and full ranks in acrobatics. That's a +21 to the check. The rogue is fighting an Elder Fire Elemental, a CR 11 creature with a CMD of 46. The rogue literally cannot succeed at the check, because the fire elemental has big stats and a load of HD.

Yes, there are creatures with lower CMDs. Which brings me to my next point; since CMD is supposed to cover so much ground, you end up with weird situations where that CR 17 Marilith you mentioned is worse at punishing tumbling rogues than a CR 11 fire elemental. Can you fluff a reason for this to be true? Sure, but I could fluff a reason for why rogues were just so damn good at tumbling in 3.5.

[Firechanter]

Look, you're obviously more familiar with 4e then 3.5e.

Just because I used the 4e terminology? You're sure quick to jump to conclusions. Maybe wonder why I put those terms in quotation marks?


By those definitions, the only "defender" class is the Knight. In 3.5e/PF there's no general "aggro" mechanic


Pretty much, yes. It's true that "Defending" is not well supported in 3.X. As a minor point, you are forgetting the Crusader, which has Aggro (Iron Guard's Glare), and btw also meshes well with Knight multiclass. But in general, you're right in that in 3.X, Tanking typically means "short range control".

So how can a PF Fighter exert this kind of control? Just by being there? Not gonna help, unless your DM has his monsters cooperate with the party Fighter by never trying to rush past him. You pretty much have to go into the Trip direction, which in PF costs more feats for less benefit than in 3.5, and still isn't very reliable, since monsters are often larger and much stronger than you.

I've seen many a game where the Fighter player _tried_ to tank, but thought that tanking meant "be hard to hit", placed themselves in the front line with a longsword and shield, and then ended up with that helpless look as the enemies just walked past them and attacked the squishy Wizard.


"Leader" by 4e definitions is only ever going to apply to a spellcaster or a Marshal in 3.5e.


You sound like you never heard of ToB. Anyway, apart from Crusader and Warblade (who can give their fellows extra actions out of turn), the good old Bard qualifies just as well (even before spells, owing to Inspire Courage). Really, I don't care if you want to call it Leader or Buffer or Support or whatever -- the point is, the Fighter is not any of these things. But I think we agree on this.

So essentially, the question is "can the PF Fighter be an effective Tank?". And tbh, I'm not sure about the answer; I have too little experience with PF beyond the low levels.

[Lans]

I would say that a pure pathfinder fighter looses out on a few powerful feat options compared to a fighter, and has to deal with enemies having a better attack routines due to claws and/or bites not being secondary.

I put a PF Fighter ported to 3.5 at tier 4, but still tier 5 in pathfinder itself

[RedMage125]

Just because I used the 4e terminology? You're sure quick to jump to conclusions. Maybe wonder why I put those terms in quotation marks?

Your narrow adherence to the way 4e defined those terms shows a lack of comprehension of older edition material/


Pretty much, yes. It's true that "Defending" is not well supported in 3.X. As a minor point, you are forgetting the Crusader, which has Aggro (Iron Guard's Glare), and btw also meshes well with Knight multiclass. But in general, you're right in that in 3.X, Tanking typically means "short range control".

So how can a PF Fighter exert this kind of control? Just by being there? Not gonna help, unless your DM has his monsters cooperate with the party Fighter by never trying to rush past him. You pretty much have to go into the Trip direction, which in PF costs more feats for less benefit than in 3.5, and still isn't very reliable, since monsters are often larger and much stronger than you.
Fighters and other melee classes have been playing "meat shield" since before the ORCUS team ever sat down to design 4e. The introduction of "aggro mechanics" did not suddenly de-empower all of the previous-edition characters from continuing to do so.

And Defending is "short-range Control" in 4e, too. Fighter and Warden are the classes that emphasize this the most.


I've seen many a game where the Fighter player _tried_ to tank, but thought that tanking meant "be hard to hit", placed themselves in the front line with a longsword and shield, and then ended up with that helpless look as the enemies just walked past them and attacked the squishy Wizard.
So, just because you've seen people who didn't know how to do it right or do it well, it can't be done? That's what I'm getting from what you're saying. Because if a 3.5e or PF Fighter is going to try that, he's going to need reach, and extra AoOs. In 3.5 this is done best with a Spiked Chain (the last 3.5e game I ran, the party bought a wand of enlarge person. The spiked chain Fighter then had a reach of 20', Combat Reflexes, and Improved Trip. Difficult to get past in a dungeon).


You sound like you never heard of ToB. Anyway, apart from Crusader and Warblade (who can give their fellows extra actions out of turn), the good old Bard qualifies just as well (even before spells, owing to Inspire Courage). Really, I don't care if you want to call it Leader or Buffer or Support or whatever -- the point is, the Fighter is not any of these things. But I think we agree on this.
Are you arguing that "Leader" is those classes' PRIMARY role? Because I think that's a hard pill to swallow. ToB classes are secondary "Leaders" in the same way a 4e Paladin is a secondary "Leader".

And a Bard is still a spellcaster, whether he's using his music (which is still magical) or a spell.


So essentially, the question is "can the PF Fighter be an effective Tank?". And tbh, I'm not sure about the answer; I have too little experience with PF beyond the low levels.
The answer lies only within the class abilities, and experience at high levels of play would only show you the capabilities of one build. I could certainly BUILD an effective tank out of a PF Fighter, but that doesn't prove anything about the class (and the Tier system ranks the class as a whole). My whole point has been that the PF Fighter has gained class features that make him "Heavy Armor Wearing Weapon-Using Guy", and do that well. You can build a PF Fighter for straight damage who only accomplishes "Meat Shield" duties tangentially by virtue of being in melee and being hard to hit. The fact that his class features make him able to wear Heavy Armor better than anyone, while still maintaining a solid weapon-user attack/damage output*, all while losing NOTHING from the 3.5e incarnation (which was, again, "high Tier 5"), raises him up into "able to do one thing well".

*The Barbarian's damage output is superior, but the Fighter's Defenses are better. Also, the Barbarian is still limited in his rage time per day, even with "cycling". On a long enough adventure day, the Barbarian's advantages wane. Not to say that the PF Fighter is "better", just more consistent.

[Anlashok]

all while losing NOTHING from the 3.5e incarnation
Only if you're using third party material. Sticking with Pathfinder material the PF fighter doesn't hit has hard, is easier to kite and has worse control in exchange for being slightly better at skills (which admittedly is really good) and having better AC.

[Firechanter]

Your narrow adherence to the way 4e defined those terms shows a lack of comprehension of older edition material

Wow, now that's really thick. I wouldn't mind if you questioned my knowledge of 4e, because that would actually be true, but I've spent quite a bit of time with 3.5 and know how the ****ing game works, thank you very much.


Because if a 3.5e or PF Fighter is going to try that, he's going to need reach, and extra AoOs. In 3.5 this is done best with a Spiked Chain (the last 3.5e game I ran, the party bought a wand of enlarge person. The spiked chain Fighter then had a reach of 20', Combat Reflexes, and Improved Trip. Difficult to get past in a dungeon).


You don't need to repeat to me what I wrote two posts further up, thank you.


Are you arguing that "Leader" is those classes' PRIMARY role? Because I think that's a hard pill to swallow. ToB classes are secondary "Leaders" in the same way a 4e Paladin is a secondary "Leader".


No argument here. Point is, they _can_ slip into that role in a pinch, as opposed to the Fighter.


The fact [...] raises him up into "able to do one thing well".


Which reminds me of the question I also asked before: does that also count when he can't do his one thing, because his utter lack of non-physical defenses is robbing him of his actions?


*The Barbarian's damage output is superior, but the Fighter's Defenses are better. Also, the Barbarian is still limited in his rage time per day, even with "cycling". On a long enough adventure day, the Barbarian's advantages wane.

Yeah I know, I wrote the same thing a few posts up.

[RedMage125]

Wow, now that's really thick. I wouldn't mind if you questioned my knowledge of 4e, because that would actually be true, but I've spent quite a bit of time with 3.5 and know how the ****ing game works, thank you very much.
Then mind your tone of how you post to ME, and I'll be happy to be less condescending to YOU. Turnabout's fair play after all...

Putting aside the rest of your "I said that a few posts ago" statements, because what you quoted me saying when you made those remarks is what I have been saying in the thread for about a week now...



Which reminds me of the question I also asked before: does that also count when he can't do his one thing, because his utter lack of non-physical defenses is robbing him of his actions?

"Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength."

Does that answer your question?

[Firechanter]

Then mind your tone of how you post to ME, and I'll be happy to be less condescending to YOU. Turnabout's fair play after all...

:smallconfused:
I don't know what caused you to imagine my posts being condescending to you. My first post on this tangent was meant to be strictly an objective analysis, then out of the blue you started the ad hominems.

[RedMage125]

:smallconfused:
I don't know what caused you to imagine my posts being condescending to you. My first post on this tangent was meant to be strictly an objective analysis, then out of the blue you started the ad hominems.

It would be that you jumped in apparently without having read the thread, brought up points that I had already addressed (i.e. how to be a "defender" without an "aggro mechanic"), and made claims to the corollary of what I had JUST said was not the case. To wit: I had just gone over, for like the 3rd time, that the PF Fighter's role is not strictly "damage dealer". And you jump in, looking at everything through the lens of strict-4e definitions, and basically say that I don't know what I'm talking about, because "damage dealer is all he can do", and he is inferior to the Barbarian in that regard. I have already acknowledged that yes, the Fighter is inferior to the Barbarian in terms of damage output, especially, as you put it, in "burst damage".

And then asking "what about when he can't do his one thing well?" Which a cursory glance at how the Tier System works (multiple links to which have been posted throughout this thread), will tell you that a Tier 4 character is "often useless" when they cannot do their "one thing".

Regarding your claim of ad hominem:
My first response to you was to assume that you were more familiar with 4e than 3.5e, due to how you insisted on a strict adherence to a 4e definition of "Defender", even though 4e was the first edition to truly introduce "aggro mechanics" as a core mechanic. That does not constitute an ad hominem attack. I continued to explain, using 4e terminology, which I assumed you were more familiar with, why 4e definitions cannot be strictly adhered to when judging roles for 3.5/PF classes.

Was I making an assumption that turned out to be incorrect? Yes. But I can't read your mind, I can only go off what you post. Again, that is not an ad hominem attack. To be an ad hominem attack, I would have either had to be "appealing to prejudices or feelings" or "making an attack on your character, rather than by answer the contentions made". I did not say "you are stupid and therefore can say nothing of value". I came to a conclusion based on what you had presented, and then responded to your points, and why your adherence to the "4e lens" was not applicable to non-4e game elements. So I DID, in fact, answer the contentions made, and said NOTHING about your character that was derogatory (although you took offense to my presumption, which I acknowledge was incorrect).

Your next response: "maybe wonder why I put them in quotation marks?" was snarky and condescending, perhaps you should own up to that. Also, kind of funny that you want to throw out claims of "ad hominem", when phrasing this like you did is Begging the Question to a degree, and more importantly Appeal to Omniscience. I do not, in fact, know why you put them in quotation marks. Perhaps to distinguish them as specific terms, as opposed to just a literal reading of the word, after all, a "Leader" in 4e is not necessarily the party leader. A "Controller" does not literally control others, as per the "Dominated" effect. And many classes strike enemies, but are not "Strikers" as 4e defines the term. So no, I did not "wonder why you put them quotation marks". If you wished to clarify that point, you should have said so. I certainly have had cause to on occasion. If you recognize that someone misinterpreted what you said or how you presented it, you clarify, calmly. It does not strengthen your case to be sarcastic.

My own response to that, in turn, was to point out that they way you narrowly adhered to the way 4e defined those terms shows a lack of knowledge of prior editions. As I have said earlier in this thread, a few pages ago (which you must not have read), and as I repeated to you again, melee classes have been acting as "meat shields" as far back as OD&D, without any kind of "aggro mechanic". The introduction of an "aggro mechanic" in a later edition does not suddenly render all previous edition characters "incapable" of doing that job in those editions. You flat-out said that without "aggro mechanics" a Fighter could not do that job. That such a statement shows a lack of how the game has been played in editions prior to 4e is true. And again, not an ad hominem attack.

And then you respond with language that I can only hope you censored yourself, instead of letting the forum filters catch it. By delivering an emotional response rather than address the fact that I simply made an incorrect presumption and attempting to correct it calmly, you, yourself have undermined any standing you have to call anyone else out on "ad hominem" attacks.

At this point, I told you that I would be happy to take a less condescending tone if you would do the same. As I have said, I am not omniscient, I do not know what you are familiar with and what you are not, I can only know what you commit to printed word. What you showed in your post was that you either neglected to read the earlier points of the thread, or were just presuming to bring up already debunked points from a tone of smug superiority and make claims to the corollary of what I had just addressed (that Fighter's job is not just to do damage) without having at all addressed my support for my argument.

NOTHING I have said constitutes an ad hominem attack, and I take great offense that you had the gall to accuse me of such.

Do you want to drop this "ad hominem" nonsense and get back on track with the discussion? Or we can go rounds. I will not tolerate baseless accusations against my character, and I will not back down when confronted with them. I'm really good at being stubborn that way. I can freely admit that I made a false presumption regarding your knowledge base, but the way you presented your initial point, it was a logical conclusion to arrive at. That you took offense to my incorrect assumption does not make it a personal attack. Are we clear?

Back on topic, did my quote of JaronK's definition of Tier 4 answer the question you felt was so ignored?

[Elderand]

Fighters having better defense than barbarian is both untrue and mean doodly squat.

The only defense a fighter has better than a barbarian is AC, not all defenses, just AC. And past the first few level the benefit of wearing heavier armor is negated by the fact that only extreme level of AC have any chance of mattering at all. That extreme level of AC is only going to be done with the help of magic, either in the form of spells or magic item. Fighters have no spells and magic items anyone can get.

Worse, special materials means even a barbarian can go full plate whitout trouble.
All the advantages of armor training can be replicated at almost no cost.

Even ignoring the possibility of mithral fullplate a barbarian can still get better AC than a fighter if he wants to by proper selection of rage powers.

In the end, that one thing they are supposed to do, either deal damage or have good AC they don't actually do all that well or it's near useless past a few levels.

[RedMage125]

Fighters having better defense than barbarian is both untrue and mean doodly squat.

The only defense a fighter has better than a barbarian is AC, not all defenses, just AC. And past the first few level the benefit of wearing heavier armor is negated by the fact that only extreme level of AC have any chance of mattering at all. That extreme level of AC is only going to be done with the help of magic, either in the form of spells or magic item. Fighters have no spells and magic items anyone can get.

Worse, special materials means even a barbarian can go full plate whitout trouble.
All the advantages of armor training can be replicated at almost no cost.

Even ignoring the possibility of mithral fullplate a barbarian can still get better AC than a fighter if he wants to by proper selection of rage powers.

In the end, that one thing they are supposed to do, either deal damage or have good AC they don't actually do all that well or it's near useless past a few levels.

Mithril Fullplate is still Medium Armor, and still affects the Barbarian's Fast Movement. Furthermore, Mitril Fullplate is still going to have an ACF for the Barbarian, but not for the Fighter. Any magic enhancements to said armor that the Barbarian spends to make the armor less restrictive is money the Fighter does NOT have to spend to do the same.

Barbarians and Fighters have the same Saving Throw progression (although Barbarians get a boost to Fort saves when raging), and the same access to magic items, and neither class grants SR. So aside from a temporary boost to one save, a Fighter WILL have higher defenses than a Barbarian for less investment.

And as far as what the Barbarian can do with Rage Powers, the Fighter can also, if he is interested in doing so, improve his defenses with feats, of which he has more to spare. Also, to wit: if the Barbarian is choosing rage Powers to boost his AC to try and keep up with the Fighter, he is NOT choosing Rage Powers that improve his "one thing" which is melee damage.

If you want to discuss magic items and special properties, the Fighter can have a magic Tower Shield, which the Barbarian cannot (unless he wants to take the nonproficiency penalty to his attack rolls).

No, the PF Fighter has the opportunity to outstrip a Barbarian's AC by a long ways. And he doesn't need to spend money on magic abilities to replicate the features his class gives him.

Look, I'm not saying the Fighter is Tier 3 or anything. I'm not even saying that on some kind of scale he's "better" than a Barbarian, and I feel like so many people who try and shout me down are thinking that I'm saying that. A lot of this feels like "How DARE you imply the Fighter is better than the Barbarian?!". I'm saying that judging the class on its own merits, what class features it has, and how that helps him accomplish those goals, qualifies him as Tier 4. He doesn't need to be "better" than other Tier 4 classes, he needs to meet Tier 4 requirements (as a class, not any one build) on his own merit.

Which he does.

[Svata]

On Fighters and Barbarians having the same saves- Barbarians get a bonus to both Will and Fort(via +Con) when raging, which, while temporary, is something that will me happening most of the time during combat. Their Reflex saves, OTOH, will generally be higher all the time, as being restricted to lighter armor makes them more likely to invest in Dexterity. Before you bring up Archery-based Fighters, remember that Barbarians can do that too, and while they would likely be equally dextrous in that situation, Barbarians still have higher Dex on average.

[Firechanter]

@RedMage:
Alright, let's put that behind us. I'm sorry if I was being unfair to you. Besides, I think that by and large we're pretty much on the same page about the matter.


Back on topic, did my quote of JaronK's definition of Tier 4 answer the question you felt was so ignored?

Well, yes, but it leads me to conclude that the T4 requirement is not met. Let me put it that way: imagine the party is going up against an Umber Hulk (who just busts out of the ground so the party couldn't prepare specifically for this encounter). What is the Fighters thing? Hit It With A Stick. And here Hitting It With A Stick would be entirely a thing that's appropriate. But the Fighter can't do this reliably when he is confused, and odds are he's going to fail his save >50% of cases (Wis mod 0-ish, base save +2, maybe item +1).
[Pardon my using a Non-PF monster; the 3.5 Umber Hulk was the first thing that came to mind. You might substitute anything that somehow disables a character, preferrably vs Will save.]

That's why I have my doubts that the PF Fighter makes it to T4. In my eyes, the "useless when this one thing is not appropriate" refers to situations that, in this case, simply do not call for physical combat. Such as "Negotiate a 100' chasm whose floor is lava" or "get past traps" or "find the Resistance leader", even "track the Werewolf" - whatever. When your thing is "Deal Damage" or "Protect Party Members", and you can't do this when it's necessary, you don't qualify for T4.

[RedMage125]

Well, yes, but it leads me to conclude that the T4 requirement is not met. Let me put it that way: imagine the party is going up against an Umber Hulk (who just busts out of the ground so the party couldn't prepare specifically for this encounter). What is the Fighters thing? Hit It With A Stick. And here Hitting It With A Stick would be entirely a thing that's appropriate. But the Fighter can't do this reliably when he is confused, and odds are he's going to fail his save >50% of cases (Wis mod 0-ish, base save +2, maybe item +1).
[Pardon my using a Non-PF monster; the 3.5 Umber Hulk was the first thing that came to mind. You might substitute anything that somehow disables a character, preferrably vs Will save.]

That's why I have my doubts that the PF Fighter makes it to T4. In my eyes, the "useless when this one thing is not appropriate" refers to situations that, in this case, simply do not call for physical combat. Such as "Negotiate a 100' chasm whose floor is lava" or "get past traps" or "find the Resistance leader", even "track the Werewolf" - whatever. When your thing is "Deal Damage" or "Protect Party Members", and you can't do this when it's necessary, you don't qualify for T4.

By that definition, Barbarians don't make Tier 4, either, and they ARE.

Btw, PF Fighters get Survival, and ANYONE can use Survival to Track in PF, so both Fighter and Barbarian can "Track the Werewolf".

But "100' chasm with lava floor" "get past traps" and "find the Resistance leader" Barbarian and Fighter are both in the same boat.

[Firechanter]

Okay. I was wondering whether the PF Barb maybe had some additional ways of saying No to magic, by ways of Rage Powers etc. In addition to the +2 to Will saves during Rage. I also have to think of the Conan D20 Barbarian who also gets some nice defenses against the supernatural.
But yeah, if we don't want to overturn the entire tier system as established, then they seem to be roughly on even ground in PF.

[FWIW, I'll never understand why 3E Fighters have two poor saves. I mean, if you look at the previous edition(s), Fighters had excellent saves all around, especially at higher levels.]

[Sayt]

Well, once per rage they can cut magic with their swords Axes. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo---rage-powers/spell-sunder-su)

[Ssalarn]

Barbarians also can get Superstition, which in and of itself is a huge bonus to saves, and when combined with a Courageous weapon makes them virtually immune to spells that grant a save

[Firechanter]

Aha, there we are. That's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. So the Barb indeed is (with the right choices) more resilient to the Supernatural than the Fighter, so he will be able to do his thing more consistently even in adverse conditions. Shouldn't this be reflected in the Tier rating?

[squiggit]

Aha, there we are. That's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. So the Barb indeed is (with the right choices) more resilient to the Supernatural than the Fighter, so he will be able to do his thing more consistently even in adverse conditions. Shouldn't this be reflected in the Tier rating?

That's the biggest thing that separates the two (and the T4/5 distinction). Having poor will saves and weak options for dealing with highly mobile enemies means that, despite hitting really hard ( and the last PF DPR contest I saw actually put the fighter's damage above the barbarian's or gunslinger's) you have a great deal of trouble actually being able to deal that damage with any consistency.

[Ssalarn]

Aha, there we are. That's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. So the Barb indeed is (with the right choices) more resilient to the Supernatural than the Fighter, so he will be able to do his thing more consistently even in adverse conditions. Shouldn't this be reflected in the Tier rating?


There's also Rage Powers like Energy Absorption and Eater of Magic, which both make the Barbarian stronger against casters and boost their hp. Ghost Rager can boost their touch AC by an amount equal to their Superstition bonus so that can make them that much harder to hit with ray spells and the like..

Basically, Barbarians are way better at living in a world full of magic and magical threats than a Fighter, which is a big part of why they're typically considered to be higher tier. Combine that with the fact that they also have access to big skill boosts, special movement modes, more skills per level, etc. and numerous ways to rage cycle and get more out of their /per rage abilities, and you can make a pretty solid case for them outclassing the Fighter. Some Fighter v. Barbarian threads end up giving the Fighter a (not actually game affecting) edge in the DPR department, but in most RL play, it's been my personal experience that the Barbarian pretty consistently outdamages the Fighter based on options for delivering the damage to an opponent and staying upright long enough to do it. You can't outdamage anyone from the bottom of a pit, damage done to your own party members doesn't count, you aren't accruing DPR when you're unconscious, blind, or burned to death, so on and so forth.

Dwarven Fighters tend to be able to perform pretty well, but that tends to have a lot more to do with dwarves being one of the better races out there, particularly for martials, than it does with the comparison between a barbarian and fighter.

[Firechanter]

Thank you squiggit and Ssalarn, that's exactly my line of thought.

However, let's have a little look at 3.5 again: here the tier system also rates the Barb at T4 and the Fighter at T5, but as far as I know, the Barb doesn't have as solid inherent defenses available against Supers/Magic. (Note: I played a Barb only once and with rather limited source material.) I know of some PrCs that improve him in that regard, but afaik the Tier system doesn't take these into account.

Sure, the 3.5 Barb is definitely superior to the 3.5 Fighter: much higher damage potential (Pounce et al), and better skills, but I don't see much in the way of Magic Defense beyond those +2 to Will during Rage. Am I missing anything?

(Actually I now have half a mind to try out a Barb in PF, should I somehow end up in a new game. Currently I play in one PF game and have a Cleric there, with so much Melee in the party that I needn't bother switching.)

[Divayth Fyr]

I don't see much in the way of Magic Defense beyond those +2 to Will during Rage. Am I missing anything?
Built in protection from Explosive Runes and other spells requiring one to read something? :smallwink: And technically the bonus can be from +2 to +4(+8 vs enchantments).

[bekeleven]

Barbarians in 3.5 have one of the best sources of pounce, higher strength, more skills, more hp, higher will saves, and can pull off intimidate far better with rage and feat support. Furthermore, keep in mind JaronK's words on Fighters:


Note that the Fighter is actually quite high in Tier 5, bordering on Tier 4. But one of the main markers of the low tiers is a lack of flexibility [...] though the class itself can make many builds, any one build is generally either inflexible (due to specializing in just one trick) or ineffective (due to not specializing in that one trick).

A further note about the Fighter is that a lot of his tricks (shooting, charging, tripping) can be accomplished by about level 6-8. That's great when you get your first trick, but if you try to diversify (for example, adding Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, and Leap Attack to an archer build) you're adding another trick that would be good at level 6-8... but now it's level 16. Having two level 6-8 tricks at level 16 is as bad as a caster getting twice as many 4th level spells at 16. It's not nearly as good as getting level appropriate abilities (in that metaphore, 8th level spells).

In other words: The fighter is close to the top of tier 5. Furthermore, the barbarian can use feats just as effectively to build one combat style as a fighter, it just takes a little longer to reach it. After that, there's a distinct diminishing of returns as the fighter piles more feats, in that he can only use a couple each combat round. So a barbarian sticking to his strengths is equivalent to a fighter sticking to his, plus all of the barbarian's unique bonuses like pounce and rage.

e.g. a level 10 barbarian guisarme tripper will have the important feats of a level 10 fighter guisarme tripper, but also have pounce, rage, etc. The fighter will have a couple of bow feats as well, or a couple grapple feats, or something... but both will have improved trip, leap attack, all the standards. And the barbarian may also have intimidating rage and imperious command or something.