Pathfinder Tier List

[hakarb]

To address some of the balance issues inherent with 3rd edition. I'd like to put together a tier list for pathfinder and see where they stand. Here's what I came up with so far. If you feel something should be in a different tier or a higher or lower placement within that tier, please explain why.


Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard.

Tier 2: Oracle, Psion, Sorceror, Summoner.

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

Tier 4: Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin, Ranger, Samurai, Soulknife.

Tier 5: Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk.

*EDIT*
To frame this request, I'm looking at what makes a class strong or not strong, and if so, what can be done to bring more classes to similar power levels. The feedback thus far has been incredible.

[Forrestfire]

Honestly, I'd put Rogue in T4 or 5. From what I've seen, even if it's stronger than the 3.5 rogue in a vacuum, the game changed around it and made it much, much weaker.

[hakarb]

Honestly, I'd put Rogue in T4 or 5. From what I've seen, even if it's stronger than the 3.5 rogue in a vacuum, the game changed around it and made it much, much weaker.

If possible, can you explain what you mean specifically? I'm aware that the rogue didn't get much while many other classes did. Additionally with the skill changes, skill-based classes became much less useful as other classes could much more easily get skills that they needed. Did that cover it?

[Forrestfire]

A few posts in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?361443-Favorite-Martial-Base-Classes-and-why) thread, especially this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17759954&postcount=17), explain it better than I could.

It comes down to the skill thing, sneak attack being easily negated (seriously, there's a feat that anyone can grab that turns off your sneak attack), and most of the rogue's goodies being gettable through better classes. Even trapfinding is easily gotten, through a trait. On top of that, the rogue is still overwhelmingly average. 3.5 rogue wasn't that strong, so it's not a really high bar to be better than it.

[deuxhero]

Rogue/Ninja is easily 4/5, not 3 by a long shot.

Cavalier can do one thing well (CHARGE!), but is pretty useless when that thing isn't useful and he sucks latter on (no flying mount naturally means no charging against flying targets)

[inertia709]

A few posts in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?361443-Favorite-Martial-Base-Classes-and-why) thread, especially this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17759954&postcount=17), explain it better than I could.

It comes down to the skill thing, sneak attack being easily negated (seriously, there's a feat that anyone can grab that turns off your sneak attack), and most of the rogue's goodies being gettable through better classes. Even trapfinding is easily gotten, through a trait.

What is this this sneak attack negating feat that you're talking about? I'm curious.

Also, what do you think of the ninja being tier 3? I think that the ki pool + ninja tricks might be enough for a weak tier 3, but I'm leaning towards a strong tier 4. At low levels however (i.e. when you can effectively get quickened Vanish at frickin' level 2) I agree that they're definitely tier 3 material.

[deuxhero]

Flanking Foil

Ninjas are too MAD to afford good charisma for extensive Ki use.

[hakarb]

Flanking Foil

Ninjas are too MAD to afford good charisma for extensive Ki use.

Fighting multiple foes is easy for you.

Benefit: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.

Yeah, it's no fun to have a feat that just negates an entire classes primary feature.

[inertia709]

Flanking Foil

Ninjas are too MAD to afford good charisma for extensive Ki use.

Wow. What a "screw you" to rogues. No prereqs and all you have to do is hit, which is many BBEGs' specialty.

[CIDE]

Why is the Witch tier 1? Did it get a huge boost while I wasn't looking? I thought it hung out with the (tier 2) Sorc?

[Khosan]

Gunslinger is T4. They do damage exceedingly well but kinda suck when the problem can't be solved by the application of more bullets. They're the definition of a T4 character.

Paladin is a low T3, I think. They're not as MAD as they used to be (they even got a good will save) and they're well-equipped for both combat and social situations with a high Charisma helping both.

[deuxhero]

Witch wobbles between 1/2, while Summoner does the same for 2/3. It's so easy to expand your spell list in PF that the Witch's spell list isn't nearly as damning to it as say... Spirit Shaman (Druid list takes a huge hit when you don't have a friendly loyal animal or the ability to turn into a dinosaur as a class feature).

Witch did get a great buff from Gravewalker which lets them do horrible things to what is otherwise one of their biggest counters though.

Khosan: Paladin is kept out of tier 3 by its 2 skill points/level and still being MAD enough it can't pump int, so the social skills take a hit. He breaks into it pretty easily (possibly going higher) with Sacred Servant (Along with Zen Archer, some combo of Gingong/Sensei/Hungry Ghost and Razmirian Priest it's one of the few archetypes that takes you UP an entire tier.). Antipaladin is also tier 3 or higher due to Fiendish Servant getting crazy at higher levels in utility (Add a functional rogue to your party or add a face that boosts the ENTIRE PARTY's highest stats by 2 and gives them telepathy. Both come with infinite vampiric touch for fueling spell storing weapons)

[Iwasforger03]

Warpriest low tier 2 high tier 3,
swash high tier 4 low tier 3.
slayer tier 3 or 4 (not sure which),
Shaman is either tier 1 or 2,
Arcanist tier 1,
Bloodrager tier 4 (though i think by the end we might see a tier 3 version in an archetype),
Brawler was i think tier 4,
investigator is tier 4 or 3 (i think combat wise it's tier 4 at best but it has so many other things i can do it might still be tier 3),
Skald tier 3,
Hunter tier 4 or barely tier 3.

[Eldaran]

You're missing the other psionic classes. I'd say

Tier 2: Tactician
Tier 3: Aegis, Cryptic, Vitalist
Tier 4: Dread, Marksman

As for your list, I think Rogue is tier 5, or maybe low tier 4. It just gets outclassed in its role now. Ninja I feel is probably a low tier 3. They get enough versatility from their Ki Pool and Ninja tricks (and poison I guess) that they can pull their own in T3.

[Psyren]

Flanking Foil

Good luck hitting the Ninja as opposed to one of his 7 mirror images (assuming you can see him at all.) With nearly 90% miss chance and 15ft. reach thanks to Lunging with a kusarigama, this feat is hardly the silver bullet it's made out to be. Just play smart.


Ninjas are too MAD to afford good charisma for extensive Ki use.

I see this argument a lot and I have to wonder where all the playground's thirst for optimization vanishes off to when ninjas are involved. Is it really that hard to use/UMD a ki mat between fights, get your hands on a necklace of ki serenity and two rings of ki mastery, or pick up a couple of Extra Ki feats? There is so much use for ki that you have no reason not to pump this stat to the stratosphere.

No, a ninja can quite easily get to T3 with basic optimization, and I for one think rogues are still T4. The game changed around them in bad ways yes, but in good ways too (e.g. not needing crystals to sneak attack undead, constructs and plants anymore) so it's a wash.


You're missing the other psionic classes. I'd say

Tier 2: Tactician
Tier 3: Aegis, Cryptic, Vitalist
Tier 4: Dread, Marksman

As for your list, I think Rogue is tier 5, or maybe low tier 4. It just gets outclassed in its role now. Ninja I feel is probably a low tier 3. They get enough versatility from their Ki Pool and Ninja tricks (and poison I guess) that they can pull their own in T3.

I would swap Aegis and Marksman but otherwise I'm fine with this ranking.

[inertia709]

You're missing the other psionic classes. I'd say

Tier 2: Tactician
Tier 3: Aegis, Cryptic, Vitalist
Tier 4: Dread, Marksman

As for your list, I think Rogue is tier 5, or maybe low tier 4. It just gets outclassed in its role now. Ninja I feel is probably a low tier 3. They get enough versatility from their Ki Pool and Ninja tricks (and poison I guess) that they can pull their own in T3.

I argue that the Tactician is tier 4, like the 3.5 Warmage. Their power list is mostly weak and very narrow, and none of their strategies are earth-shattering. That being said, their optimization ceiling is rather high, since a few good choices of powers with Expanded Knowledge can help them out quite a bit, and if there's a psion in the party, using their powers known is quite helpful with their PP/level. I'll point out that I am speaking from experience, since I've built one and since I've GM'd a game in which a player (who is a pretty good optimizer) played one, and both the player and I were disappointed with the class's abilities.

The Dread is IMO a tier 3, since it has 6+int skills per level, good melee capability with its Channel Terror ability and its proficiency with one martial weapon (read: scythe haha), and a good power list. In particular, I get the feeling that people forget that the Dread has an aura that gives a -4 penalty on saves against fear and removes all immunities to fear, meaning that their "narrow" power list is always relevant. Sure, the radius of the aura is only 10ft, but well-built dread should be in melee half of the time anyway. Not to mention that Untouchable Aura + Aura of Fear is one of the best defensive options that psionics has to offer.

[Chaosvii7]

Flanking Foil

But to say that every enemy your GM will ever build will have this feat is a gross overstatement, and could potentially be considered bad or aggressive GMing on their part. A GM's designed to give you building blocks that you then turn into a story that you all weave together. Sure, he might have some encounters designed against you to make them a particular challenge, but that's where you make sure you devise other answers.

That said, I have OCD so I organize my tier list into 4 tiers(because 5 and 6 are gross to me). I posted it once before but I got a lot of flack on the fact that I basically made it read "Full spellcasters > Partial spellcasters > Half Spellcasters > Mundanes", but I honestly feel that the spread of versatility is such that the disparity is really in "Can you cast or not?" There's no grey areas, not even with Paragon Surging and the like; It's really all about the wider array of spells you can pull out of seemingly nowhere to answer all of the problems.

That said, Combat Maneuver specialists like Lore Warden Fighters and Monks are actually very powerful, albeit only against enemies. A wizard's strength definitely still lies in solving every problem, but martial characters have become leaps and bounds more compotent and gangbanging things when you get a few in a room together with a BBEG.

[Eldaran]

I see this argument a lot and I have to wonder where all the playground's thirst for optimization vanishes off to when ninjas are involved. Is it really that hard to use/UMD a ki mat between fights, get your hands on a necklace of ki serenity and two rings of ki mastery, or pick up a couple of Extra Ki feats? There is so much use for ki that you have no reason not to pump this stat to the stratosphere.


A lot of people seem to overlook that Ninjas can take Monk vows as well, since it says any user of Ki can take them. A lot of them are pretty inconsequential, like Cleanliness, and Truth or Silence aren't bad either (though can be RP problematic). That buys you a lot of extra Ki.




I would swap Aegis and Marksman but otherwise I'm fine with this ranking.

Interesting. Having played with an Aegis I found them to impressively versatile, especially with Rapid Augment feat from Utimate Psionic. As a swift action you can get things like flight, blindsight, or energy immunity. Their customizations allowing for multiple arms, stat boosts, size and damage increases make them a very strong melee combatant, and they can even be an effective skill monkey with harness shard and some other ones, and to top it all off they're really hard to kill.

Marksman just seems like the Ranger, 4th level powers aren't enough to carry them to tier 3.



I argue that the Tactician is tier 4, like the 3.5 Warmage. Their power list is mostly weak and very narrow, and none of their strategies are earth-shattering. That being said, their optimization ceiling is rather high, since a few good choices of powers with Expanded Knowledge can help them out quite a bit, and if there's a psion in the party, using their powers known is quite helpful with their PP/level. I'll point out that I am speaking from experience, since I've built one and since I've GM'd a game in which a player (who is a pretty good optimizer) played one, and both the player and I were disappointed with the class's abilities.

I strongly disagree with this. Perhaps it was simply the player, but how could they possibly be tier 4? They're a full manifester, with 20 powers known (way better than Wilder), and their list is actually quite good. Poor power selection can hurt them of course, but they have a ton of good buffs, debuffs, and utility. On top of that they're decent at melee with 3/4 BAB and medium armor (as well as the amazing Hostile Empathic Transfer) and the power of the collective can not be underestimated. Then on top of all of that, they have a bunch of class features that are not terribly impressive (and kind of MAD) but it adds a whole bunch more options, and options make a character strong. At the very least they have to be a high tier 3, and easily jump into tier 2 with maybe a couple Expanded Knowledge.

[Psyren]

Tactician is almost certainly T2.



Marksman just seems like the Ranger, 4th level powers aren't enough to carry them to tier 3.

Thing is, that's not really how psionics works. What truly matters is not a power's base level, it's how far you can augment it. This is the same reason Gifted Blades are also T3.

For example, a Marksman with the Psionic Knack trait and Expanded Knowledge can summon a 9th-level Astral Construct, or cast Greater Dispel Magic at full power, or Dominate Monster. Even just sticking to their own list, they get things like Quickened True Strike, Uncanny Dodge in power form, True Seeing, Touchsight, Dimension Door and Haste. That's significantly more raw power than your average Ranger or Paladin possesses, even if you do factor in their potential companion.

[Iwasforger03]

Normal Gunslinger is tier 5. Pistolero is tier 4. Normal gunslinger requires too many optimization tricks to keep up, pistolero requires fewer tricks and is more innately competitive.

Two Handed Fighter Archetype is tier 4 thanks to the enhanced str bonus to dmg and the power attack options. Getting an auto crit doesn't hurt either.

I think there's a few monk archetypes that push the monk to tier 4 as well.

I would argue that since rogue CAN get much (though not all) of what the Ninja has, and that since as mentioned Flanking Foil won't be on every enemy ever (if it is, the DM has a problem and that's not ok).

People talk about how easy something is to nerf or make ineffective, but truth of it is, That's Bull. Yes, some things are easily negated, but when you're specifically making a character completely ineffective time and again by negating a basic ability of the class, that's the DM being an ******* and it needs to stop. That's not reasonable, that's not ok. This isn't reality, this is a game, and games need to be enjoyable for all. Sure, sometimes a player just builds badly, but that's not really reflective of the class either, that's the player.

[Kurald Galain]

A lot of people seem to overlook that Ninjas can take Monk vows as well, since it says any user of Ki can take them.
That doesn't help. All "vow" feats explicitly increase your ki by one per every N monk levels. So the ninja is stuck with Extra Ki.



I see this argument a lot and I have to wonder where all the playground's thirst for optimization vanishes off to when ninjas are involved. Is it really that hard to use/UMD a ki mat between fights, get your hands on a necklace of ki serenity and two rings of ki mastery, or pick up a couple of Extra Ki feats?
At the levels that most campaigns actually play at? Yes, this is really hard. You're talking 46,000 gold pieces worth of items, or about half of the total wealth of a level-12 character (wealth which he also needs for standard +attack, +defense, and +save gear). Yes, it's very much a problem of the ninja class that he doesn't have even remotely enough ki points.

[Firechanter]

Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard.

Tier 2: Oracle, Psion, Sorceror, Summoner.

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

Tier 4: Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin, Ranger, Samurai, Soulknife.

Tier 5: Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk.

Agreement on most parts, with a few exceptions:

- I hear differing opinions about the Witch; it is a full-casting class yes, but some say the spell list is so lackluster that it doesn't qualify for T1. (Disclaimer: I never experienced a Witch in actual play.)

- Rogue is not T3, but rather dropped to T5, for the reasons explained in the linked post.

- Rating Ninja at T3 might also be a bit of an overstatement; they are not as bad as Rogues but maybe T4 is a more valid rating.

- Unsure about Monk, some of the Archetypes look pretty powerful. It might actually make it to T4 - but again, I'm no expert here.

Some extra thoughts on the Fighter:
I used to think Fighters had made it up to T4 in PF, but discussions on these boards have swayed my opinion. They can fight and they are excellent at it, BUT only as long as no meanie spellcaster decides to ruin their day. Barbarians and Paladins get meaningful defenses against magic, the Fighter - does not. That's why Barbs and Pallies are correctly rated at T4 and the Fighter is still stuck at T5.

Fighters _can_ be great to have in the party, because they can be skilled for the Tanking shtick very well - but at all times they must rely on a functioning party and solid teamwork. If the other players don't support you like a well-oiled machine, you will suck.

[Kurald Galain]

I hear differing opinions about the Witch; it is a full-casting class yes, but some say the spell list is so lackluster that it doesn't qualify for T1. (Disclaimer: I never experienced a Witch in actual play.)

I'll say about the Witch that their hexes, i.e. the main feature they get in exchange for a reduced spell list and fewer spells per day, are fairly lacklustre. The exception is the Slumber hex, of course. So the witch is clearly weaker than a Wizard. How much weaker, that's up for debate.

[Psyren]

At the levels that most campaigns actually play at? Yes, this is really hard. You're talking 46,000 gold pieces worth of items, or about half of the total wealth of a level-12 character (wealth which he also needs for standard +attack, +defense, and +save gear). Yes, it's very much a problem of the ninja class that he doesn't have even remotely enough ki points.

Oh please. Half your wealth at level 12 spread across 4 separate items is not that big a deal, and you don't even need all of them. The best item is probably going to be the ki mat, which only costs 5000 to make (the ninja can even craft it all by himself, with Master Craftsman, followed by retraining the feat) or 10k to buy - put it in the cart as the party rides from point A to point B when your ki is low, and take 10 on the check. You can also buy potions of Ki Leech at a whopping 750gp a pop, each of which will last for the entire fight. At higher levels, a single wand of Replenish Ki (21k) can restore 100 ki points before you need another.

You can also take a couple of Extra Ki feats, and retrain them later once you get your wand. You can even take monk vows for more ki as Eldaran mentioned. Yeah you can never have enough ki, but you are not nearly as starved as conventional "wisdom" would indicate. I rarely spend more than 3 ki per fight anyway. (1 for Shadow Clone, maybe another 1 or 2 for Acrobatic Master to switch targets safely. or for that extra attack on a weak foe I'm trying to drop for Ki Leech.)


That doesn't help. All "vow" feats explicitly increase your ki by one per every N monk levels. So the ninja is stuck with Extra Ki.

The monk vows explicitly state that they increase the ki pool of any user of ki. Your reading would mean that they do not increase a ninja's ki pool, which violates RAW.

[Iwasforger03]

Claiming the rogue is tier 5 is a clear indication someone doesn't understand the tier system. Tier 3 is about being able to do multiple things or solve multiple problems in different manners. That's almost the definition of rogue. They can be sneak, charismatic, track, trap, trap find, fight, even cast spells. They have multiple approaches to a given situation and they are accomplished at all of them. Perhaps they are not the best at any one thing, but they don't need to be when they can still do it well, and they STILL have multiple options to solve problems.

Rogue IS tier 3. They just may not be as strong a tier 3 as they used to be. Tier 3 doesn't mean being good at combat innately, it's about being able to do more than one thing fairly well, which Rogue does.

Being good at ONLY one thing, and being effective at it, that's tier 4. Being only good at one thing, and not actually very good at it, that's tier 5. Rogue is neither of those things. Rogue is fairly good at many things. Ninja is fairly good at many things, and often better at them than the rogue. Ninja is a better tier 3 than rogue, but Rogue is still tier 3.

[illyahr]

Claiming the rogue is tier 5 is a clear indication someone doesn't understand the tier system. Tier 3 is about being able to do multiple things or solve multiple problems in different manners. That's almost the definition of rogue. They can be sneak, charismatic, track, trap, trap find, fight, even cast spells. They have multiple approaches to a given situation and they are accomplished at all of them. Perhaps they are not the best at any one thing, but they don't need to be when they can still do it well, and they STILL have multiple options to solve problems.

Rogue IS tier 3. They just may not be as strong a tier 3 as they used to be. Tier 3 doesn't mean being good at combat innately, it's about being able to do more than one thing fairly well, which Rogue does.

Being good at ONLY one thing, and being effective at it, that's tier 4. Being only good at one thing, and not actually very good at it, that's tier 5. Rogue is neither of those things. Rogue is fairly good at many things. Ninja is fairly good at many things, and often better at them than the rogue. Ninja is a better tier 3 than rogue, but Rogue is still tier 3.

I agree. Rogue is still versatile, just not as versatile as you would like. I'd peg them as low Tier 3 or high Tier 4.

For the same reason, I'd put Fighter up to Tier 4. Sure, they suck when you have to fight a spellcaster. However, the Tier system isn't about finding the one thing they're bad at. Fighters in 3.5 could only fight, and even that they didn't do very well. Solid Tier 5. In PF, they still can only fight, but they have gotten much more reliable/efficient about it. That puts them at Tier 4.

[Larkas]

No, a ninja can quite easily get to T3 with basic optimization, and I for one think rogues are still T4. The game changed around them in bad ways yes, but in good ways too (e.g. not needing crystals to sneak attack undead, constructs and plants anymore) so it's a wash.

Agreed on both accounts (I'd peg ninja as high T4). The tier definition that applied to the rogue in 3.5 was "capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining", and that's still true in PF. The problem of the rogue in the tier list is the same as its problem in general PF: the game changed around it, and now many classes are capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence. Thing is, the rogue is now an uninteresting class choice, even if it was slightly buffed. It needs a breath of fresh air, so to speak, and alas I haven't seen any exciting official archetype for it.

[hakarb]

Claiming the rogue is tier 5 is a clear indication someone doesn't understand the tier system. Tier 3 is about being able to do multiple things or solve multiple problems in different manners. That's almost the definition of rogue. They can be sneak, charismatic, track, trap, trap find, fight, even cast spells. They have multiple approaches to a given situation and they are accomplished at all of them. Perhaps they are not the best at any one thing, but they don't need to be when they can still do it well, and they STILL have multiple options to solve problems.

Rogue IS tier 3. They just may not be as strong a tier 3 as they used to be. Tier 3 doesn't mean being good at combat innately, it's about being able to do more than one thing fairly well, which Rogue does.

Being good at ONLY one thing, and being effective at it, that's tier 4. Being only good at one thing, and not actually very good at it, that's tier 5. Rogue is neither of those things. Rogue is fairly good at many things. Ninja is fairly good at many things, and often better at them than the rogue. Ninja is a better tier 3 than rogue, but Rogue is still tier 3.

Well said! What do you think could push the rogue into tier 2 or perhaps even tier 1 territory?

[jaydubs]

Agreed on both accounts (I'd peg ninja as high T4). The tier definition that applied to the rogue in 3.5 was "capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining", and that's still true in PF. The problem of the rogue in the tier list is the same as its problem in general PF: the game changed around it, and now many classes are capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence. Thing is, the rogue is now an uninteresting class choice, even if it was slightly buffed. It needs a breath of fresh air, so to speak, and alas I haven't seen any exciting official archetype for it.

Paizo seems to agree, as it is one of the classes being tweaked in Pathfinder Unchained, so you'll only have to wait until next year. *crosses fingers*

[illyahr]

Well said! What do you think could push the rogue into tier 2 or perhaps even tier 1 territory?

Full spellcasting. Seriously, full spellcasting is almost the definition. As rangers, rogues, and bards are pulling out tricks to make themselves more effective, wizards cast wish and you disappear or the cleric casts miracle and you disappear.

[Oazard]

Being good at ONLY one thing, and being effective at it, that's tier 4. Being only good at one thing, and not actually very good at it, that's tier 5. Rogue is neither of those things. Rogue is fairly good at many things. Ninja is fairly good at many things, and often better at them than the rogue. Ninja is a better tier 3 than rogue, but Rogue is still tier 3.

Rogues are only good at skills. They are not good at fighting and it's their only option after skills, so yeah, (low) tier 4 at best. (Sneak Attack is not that great to deal damage and the rogue has a hard time hitting anything because it's the only 3/4 BAB class without any class feature to increase its to-hit chance: at least, the ninja can turn invisible.)

[hakarb]

Paizo seems to agree, as it is one of the classes being tweaked in Pathfinder Unchained, so you'll only have to wait until next year. *crosses fingers*

I also agree, in my rework I gave the rogue a few new toys and am playtesting it now.

[Larkas]

Well said! What do you think could push the rogue into tier 2 or perhaps even tier 1 territory?

Nothing. I really don't mean to be rude, but read JaronK's Tier list for classes (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0) before trying to, you know, tier classes. You seem to be lacking basic understanding of the system.


Paizo seems to agree, as it is one of the classes being tweaked in Pathfinder Unchained, so you'll only have to wait until next year. *crosses fingers*

Indeed! Let's see where they run with it without the weight of tradition on their shoulders. :smallsmile:

[hakarb]

Full spellcasting. Seriously, full spellcasting is almost the definition. As rangers, rogues, and bards are pulling out tricks to make themselves more effective, wizards cast wish and you disappear or the cleric casts miracle and you disappear.

So shouldn't there be two sets of tiers? One for full spellcasters, one for everyone else? Sounds like the power of spells needs to be nerfed then to give any other class a chance to shine if you think about it like that.

[Larkas]

Sounds like the power of spells needs to be nerfed then to give any other class a chance to shine if you think about it like that.

Exactly! :smallsmile: Read the tier system, and you'll see how everything makes more sense!

[hakarb]

Nothing. I really don't mean to be rude, but read JaronK's Tier list for classes (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0) before trying to, you know, tier classes. You seem to be lacking basic understanding of the system.

I have read it and I do understand the system. Full spellcasters and psionics users are extremely powerful (potentially). According to JaronK however the rogue is t4 where many other people would place him at tier 3. So my question really should have been, short of full spellcaster progression, is it possible for any t3 or below class to ever measure up?

[Oazard]

So shouldn't there be two sets of tiers? One for full spellcasters, one for everyone else? Sounds like the power of spells needs to be nerfed then to give any other class a chance to shine if you think about it like that.

There is already one: tiers 1-2 is the set for full spellcasters and tiers 3-5 is for everyone else. :smalltongue:

EDIT: And it's not because a class is not tiers 1 or 2 that this class is necessary bad. Generally, tiers 3 and high tiers 4 are accepted as the sweet spot for a class to be.

[Iwasforger03]

Extreme optimization can allow Rogues to be tier 2. Extreme optimization can allow almost any class to move up a tier. typically just one tier, though sorcerer/oracle can get as high as tier 0 (as can wizard, witch, cleric, and druid).

Rogue IS good at combat. Knife master makes their sneak attack dmg even higher (d8 with knife) and sneak attack scales better than trying to pump str. A rogue can effectively ignore strength and focus on dex and sneak attack. They can flank to hit, there are actually multiple tricks they can get.

Did you know rogue can get vanishing trick? True fact! Mirror Image too! Rogues aren't just good at skills, they're GREAT at them. Rogue tricks can provide all kinds of buffs to skills or combat, and scout archetype makes it really easy for a rogue to deny an opponent dex to dmg. Flanking is easy and fun and the Fighter/barbarian/samurai/paladin/ranger/cavalier appreciates it just as much as the rogue does. Stop looking down at that +3 class skill bonus, that's cool! It makes me better at skills than you! I have more class skills than pretty much everyone, and the base skill pts to match.

Most monsters/enemies aren't going to take a feat JUST to negate the rogue when they still have the entire rest of the party to worry about.

[Larkas]

I have read it and I do understand the system. Full spellcasters and psionics users are extremely powerful (potentially). According to JaronK however the rogue is t4 where many other people would place him at tier 3. So my question really should have been, short of full spellcaster progression, is it possible for any t3 or below class to ever measure up?

See, that's not how Tiers 1 and 2 work, unfortunately. It's not about huge power, it's about gamebreaking power. You can make an extremely powerful bard, for example, but unless you go sublime chord, you'll never break the Tier barrier. Basically, the only thing that can give you that kind of power is full casting, or at least partial casting from an extremely powerful list (like the summoner, though I'd argue that even it is only very high T3).

About the rogue, almost no one place it in T3. They simply don't live up to the expectations of the tier, which are, and I quote, "capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area". I think no one disputes that they aren't capable of doing any one thing quite well, so let's focus on the second definition. Can they do many things? Certainly. Can the do ALL things? Nope. That's it. They are not fit for T3. They qualify easily for T4, however, which is reserved for classes "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 competence without truly shining". Of course, with proper optimization, characters can jump tiers, but the system is about the class, not any one character.

One thing you seem to be missing is that the tier system are not for saying that a "T1 is better than a T5, and you should be ashamed of playing the latter". Here's what JaronK had to say about this in his FAQ (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0;msg=3304):


Q: So, which is the best Tier?

A: In the end, the best Tier is the Tier that matches the rest of your party and appeals to you. If your party is Fighter, Rogue, Healer, Barbarian, then Tier 4 or 5 is going to be the best. If your party is Sorcerer, Beguiler, Crusader, Swordsage, then Tier 2-3 will be best. Really, if you're having fun and no one in the party feels either useless or overpowered, then you're doing it right. Personally, I prefer Tier 3, but I still match to whatever party I'm in if I join after other characters are created.

Q: So what exactly is this system measuring? Raw Power? Then why is the Barbarian lower than the Duskblade, when the Barbarian clearly does more damage?

A: 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.

The Tier System is merely a tool, not for selecting classes, but for knowing what to expect from a class. It isn't shameful for playing a T4/5 class - a well-played character from those tiers can still easily outshine a poorly-played T1/2. The Tier System, as such, is more important to DMs than to players, as he can calibrate his game based on what he expects the PCs to achieve. And can balance what he thinks needs balance with further confidence that something isn't breaking just his game. :smallsmile:

[hakarb]

See, that's not how Tiers 1 and 2 work, unfortunately. It's not about huge power, it's about gamebreaking power. You can make an extremely powerful bard, for example, but unless you go sublime chord, you'll never break the Tier barrier. Basically, the only thing that can give you that kind of power is full casting, or at least partial casting from an extremely powerful list (like the summoner, though I'd argue that even it is only very high T3).

About the rogue, almost no one place it in T3. They simply don't live up to the expectations of the tier, which are, and I quote, "capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area". I think no one disputes that they aren't capable of doing any one thing quite well, so let's focus on the second definition. Can they do many things? Certainly. Can the do ALL things? Nope. That's it. They are not fit for T4. They qualify easily for T4, however, which is reserved for classes "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 competence without truly shining". Of course, with proper optimization, characters can jump tiers, but the system is about the class, not any one character.

One thing you seem to be missing is that the tier system are not for saying that a "T1 is better than a T5, and you should be ashamed of playing the latter". Here's what JaronK had to say about this in his FAQ (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0;msg=3304):



The Tier System is merely a tool, not for selecting classes, but for knowing what to expect from a class. It isn't shameful for playing a T4/5 class - a well-played character from those tiers can still easily outshine a poorly-played T1/2. The Tier System, as such, is more important to DMs than to players, as he can calibrate his game based on what he expects the PCs to achieve. And can balance what he thinks needs balance with further confidence that something isn't breaking just his game. :smallsmile:

I'm here to learn and use the knowledge make my rework perfect. Lots of opinions from other players and DMs is good stuff. Additionally seeing how other people interpret the tier lists are always good too. Thank you for the feedback!

[BlackDragonKing]

Extreme optimization can allow Rogues to be tier 2. Extreme optimization can allow almost any class to move up a tier. typically just one tier, though sorcerer/oracle can get as high as tier 0 (as can wizard, witch, cleric, and druid).

Rogue IS good at combat. Knife master makes their sneak attack dmg even higher (d8 with knife) and sneak attack scales better than trying to pump str. A rogue can effectively ignore strength and focus on dex and sneak attack. They can flank to hit, there are actually multiple tricks they can get.

Did you know rogue can get vanishing trick? True fact! Mirror Image too! Rogues aren't just good at skills, they're GREAT at them. Rogue tricks can provide all kinds of buffs to skills or combat, and scout archetype makes it really easy for a rogue to deny an opponent dex to dmg. Flanking is easy and fun and the Fighter/barbarian/samurai/paladin/ranger/cavalier appreciates it just as much as the rogue does. Stop looking down at that +3 class skill bonus, that's cool! It makes me better at skills than you! I have more class skills than pretty much everyone, and the base skill pts to match.

Most monsters/enemies aren't going to take a feat JUST to negate the rogue when they still have the entire rest of the party to worry about.

The rogue has options it can specialize in, but it will NEVER be a Tier 2 class with only the class features it gets from its rogue levels, no matter how much you optimize it.

The gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is small, mostly a question of versatility and capacity to adapt and change load outs; you'll notice prepared casters that can access most or all of the spells in their "sphere" are mostly tier 1, while Spontaneous Casters who have to be more specialized and can't change their abilities on a day-by-day basis are Tier 2, but simple tricks like Paragon Surge closed the gap.

The gap between Tier 2 and Tier 3 is a vast, gaping chasm that requires a complete paradigm shift in how the class interacts with the world to cross.

The rogue is laughably easy to outshine in combat for many of the classes in the game with its mediocre BAB, lack of ways to improve its to-hit, and needing to jump through hoops to activate its only combat-related class feature, but we'll set that aside; there are builds that make it much easier to get sneak attacks and can greatly help the poor ol' rogue out on that front. The rogue DOES get a lot of skills, and a lot of great class skills compared to the INT casters rivaling it for skill points, so it can get good at a great many things. As you've said, if it spends enough feats and talents, it can learn how to do a variety of useful things quite competently. This is still a Tier 3 class, simply because of how staggeringly huge the gap between Tier 2 and Tier 3 is in narrative power.

The best way I can describe it is the classes "playing the game" based on their Tier ranking.

Tier 5 classes struggle to play the game at all and are poorly-suited to reach any of the objectives defined by the rules. They will never compete with anything halfway competent in this regard.
Tier 4 classes can meet one of the game's objectives quite well, even superlatively well, and can offer some stiff competition even to more competent and versatile players in their specialized area, but will not be able to reach many objectives outside the one part of the rules where they are focused without outside assistance. The rules pigeonhole them into only succeeding if they stick to one thing.
Tier 3 classes can meet most or all of the game's objectives to varying degrees; there's usually an area they do quite well, competing both with Tier 4 specialists and higher tier characters in their special area, but unlike the Tier 4, they aren't stymied by moving out of their wheelhouse and can continue to progress by the rules of the game in a variety of ways to achieve the goal.
Tier 2 classes can change what the rules of the game ARE when they don't like them and proceed directly to the goal.
Tier 1 classes can do this and then do it again in a different way if the game's rules try to fight back.

A rogue, with love, care, luck, and system mastery, can excel in a number of things, but it plays by the standardized, original rules of the game. Tier 2 characters have no such restrictions.

[Larkas]

I'm here to learn and use the knowledge make my rework perfect. Lots of opinions from other players and DMs is good stuff. Additionally seeing how other people interpret the tier lists are always good too. Thank you for the feedback!

No problem, glad to be of help! In case you haven't yet, I recommend taking a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-(Rescued-from-MinMax)) thread to better understand why is each class in its tier. It's for 3.5 but most of it should still apply to PF, and the important part is the rationale behind the tiering. :smallsmile:

[hakarb]

No problem, glad to be of help! In case you haven't yet, I recommend taking a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-(Rescued-from-MinMax)) thread to better understand why is each class in its tier. It's for 3.5 but most of it should still apply to PF, and the important part is the rationale behind the tiering. :smallsmile:


I've spent a lot of time using that thread. I just created http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?363232-Rogue-Rework-need-feedback to get some feedback on my rogue rework.

I suppose for this thread the reason is to find out more about why the T3-T5 is where it is.

[Firechanter]

The trouble with the Rogue is... let's look at what he can do, shall we?

Combat: as previously explained, his utility in combat _looks_ like it got better on paper (much fewer Sneak-immune monsters), but in _practice_ he doesn't hold up to expectations. In combat, other classes do his shtick better. So in this department he's doesn't even qualify for T4.

Non-combat: he gets skills, yes, but due to the way the skill system has been reworked, being a skillmonkey means a lot less, seeing how limited the advantage of a "class skill" his and how easy it is to add skills to your class list. This isn't even taking into account how skills are made obsolete by magic.

Trapfinding has been mentioned before; something that can be covered by anyone with a Trait is hardly a unique selling point that pushes a class to T3.

So... if you are willing to say "The Rogue is good at skills and that alone is enough to be T4", then the Rogue is T4. But personally, I think that a class must be measured by in-combat _and_ out-of-combat utility. And keep in mind that the average gaming group earns easily 90% of their total XP by combat.

Long story short, I just don't see how Rogues could make it to T3. They are reasonably good at one thing: Skills. When the thing "Skills" is not required, they are not very useful. Thus, no T3. And personally, I think that their shortcomings in combat make them drop to T5 unless considerably optimized.

As for the Fighter: He can do only one thing, fighting, usually in a single combat role (typically Bruiser or Tank). Never ask anything else of him. So he can never be better than T4. However, to be T4 you must be _reliably, consistently_ be very good at your One Thing, and that's something the Fighter cannot deliver, being easily nullified by a single spell. As opposed to those Martial classes who are much more reliable and self-reliant.

[inertia709]

Arcanist tier 0

Fixed that for you.

[AMFV]

Fixed that for you.

Tier Zero cannot exist in the definition of the Tier System. What would that consist of since Tier 1 are able to solve all situations? Solve more than all situations? It doesn't work by definition.

[kardar233]

The generally accepted idea of Tier 0 is distinguished from Tier 1 by the idea that Tier 1s can have a game-breaking solution to any problem with a day of preparation, while Tier 0s can have a game-breaking solution to any problem immediately. Rainbow Warsnake is sometimes cited as Tier 0.

[Anlashok]

Tier Zero cannot exist in the definition of the Tier System. What would that consist of since Tier 1 are able to solve all situations? Solve more than all situations? It doesn't work by definition.

Well.. let me see

I suppose you could put it this way:

A theoretical tier 0 character can solve any problem like a tier 1 character, but doesn't require a significant investment of time like a tier 1 character could. That is to say, a wizard has a spell for every problem. A theoretical tier 0 has a spell for every problem available right at the time.

Might not be the best way to phrase it, but you can't say the concept is invalid because clearly there's a notable power gap between, say, a wizard and, say, a sorcerer who somehow knew every spell in the list and could cast them all spontaneously.

[PsyBomb]

Tier Zero cannot exist in the definition of the Tier System. What would that consist of since Tier 1 are able to solve all situations? Solve more than all situations? It doesn't work by definition.

I'd always heard it stated: A T1 can solve any problem. A T0 can solve any T1

[Psyren]

The trouble with the Rogue is... let's look at what he can do, shall we?

Combat: as previously explained, his utility in combat _looks_ like it got better on paper (much fewer Sneak-immune monsters), but in _practice_ he doesn't hold up to expectations. In combat, other classes do his shtick better. So in this department he's doesn't even qualify for T4.

Non-combat: he gets skills, yes, but due to the way the skill system has been reworked, being a skillmonkey means a lot less, seeing how limited the advantage of a "class skill" his and how easy it is to add skills to your class list. This isn't even taking into account how skills are made obsolete by magic.

For the record, I think PF Rogues are still T4 rather than T3.

Having said that, the bolded parts seem to be recurring in this discussion and they are bugging the hell out of me, so I wanted to address each of them specifically.

Bold 1:
Repeat after me - it does not bloody matter that other classes can outfight the rogue. Firstly, 3.5 and PF are not PvP games - they are just poorly designed for it. We already have an nice, objective benchmark for determining combat ability, and that is the Bestiary, whose contents do not change depending on the class you have selected. If the Rogue and Barbarian, with PC wealth, only have 2-3 ways total to beat every monster in the book, the fact that the Wizard and Druid have 100 ways to do so is completely irrelevant - what matters is that the first two can win.

Secondly, I can already hear you saying "but what about monsters or enemies with class levels?" To which I answer - what about them? As I said in the second sentence of this paragraph, these games are not PvP games, and that includes battling things with class levels; such enemies or monsters vary far too wildly in difficulty depending on how they are built, including the race, classes, feats, spells, location and especially gear they have chosen. Class levels let you can build a foe that is supremely annoying for a wizard to fight yet a cakewalk for a rogue. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html)


Bold 2:
The reworking of the skill system keeps being brought up too. "Rogues are worse because other classes can use skills now." No, that's not how skills work at all. The Paladin spotting a trap does not mean that the Rogue is suddenly less likely to spot that trap - it simply means they can both spot the trap. Skill DCs have not changed - whatever the rogue was good at before, he's still good at now. Moreso in fact, because with skill consolidation he can get by with less Int/non-human and still hit the major skills for his role.

The common response here is "why would we bring a rogue if another class can spot traps?" The answer here is blatantly obvious - because the guy sitting across from you at the table wants to be a rogue. Yes, you can tell him that a Druid or Wizard can do just about everything better with spells. Yes you can tell him that Trapfinding is available to everyone with a trait and nobody even needs it anymore. All done? Get that out of the way, and he still wants to be a rogue? Then you be an adult and accept that, because if one player's class choice is going to make or break your group's success, that is a reflection on the group's skill level, not that of one player. You are not Roy Greenhilt sitting in the tavern and taking auditions for the party - you are just one more person at the table who is using their free time to do something you enjoy. If you are that more skilled player, don't belittle or passive aggressively judge someone for their character concept - simply be your team's MVP without stealing the spotlight, and Carry Harder. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9A8VJBh_Yc)

The only time telling someone to reroll is valid is if you see that they are not having fun with their current choice and they are unaware of what might be a better option for them. Doing it before they have even started playing is rude and immature, and triply so if they have started playing and are having fun with their current choice. In the game as in life, our friends will sometimes make choices we would not make ourselves - the key to a fulfilling existence is to give help if you are asked for it, and to "live and let live" when you are not.


Bold 3: The strengths of magic very often come up when talk is bandied about of replacing class X or class Y. "Why do we need a rogue when the wizard can see magical auras, or the druid can shapeshift into a rat to scout the area?" But this mindset misses the larger point of magic, and T1/T2 casters in particular - i.e. to be a catchall that can fill in for any gaps in a party's repertoire. Need a sneak? An invisible wizard can do in a pinch, or a druid in owl form, or even a cleric with Find Traps and Augury ("This way!") Need a tank? A Cleric with Divine Power and Magic Vestment can take the front line, or a polymorphed Wizard, or a summoned creature. These spells were created specifically to fill such gaps and let every player choose to play a concept, without being overly concerned checking boxes like in other RPGs.

Rarely however are the drawbacks of magic discussed in this context though, especially spells. For filling the rogue's role in particular, we have a number of hurdles spells have to overcome. For starters, they are noisy, which can make using them in a sneaky situation impractical; they are limited in number and duration, which makes it hard to plan how many you need without perfect knowledge of what is to come; they are limited in range or scope - detect magic doesn't help much for spotting mechanical traps, and can even make some magical traps worse (e.g. symbols), plus it tends to have less range than simple eyesight; there are also traps that can trigger if active spells come too close (detect magic proximity trigger), making spell-based stealth methods like invisibility or shapeshifting impractical as well. And finally, spellcasters can be hosed by effects like dispel magic, dimensional anchor, invisibility purge or AMF tied to (un)hallow.


So to summarize (TL;DR): rogues are competent combatants, competent skillmonkeys, and their mundane abilities lack many of the drawbacks of magic. They are not the most powerful choice for a PC but they are still viable, and T4 is neither a death sentence nor a condemnation for any character.

[inertia709]

Tier Zero cannot exist in the definition of the Tier System. What would that consist of since Tier 1 are able to solve all situations? Solve more than all situations? It doesn't work by definition.

Tier 0 classes are classes have access to a massive arsenal of game-breaking abilities, like the tier 1's, but at any given instant. A high level Beholder Mage is a great example of this.

It was mentioned in an earlier thread that the Arcanist was updated with an ability which allows them to spend 1 point from their Arcane Reservoir to reprepare a spell for the day. Considering that they can cannibalize spells to give themselves a number of Arcane Reservoir points equal to the level of spell sacrificed, they can use this ability very often at mid to high levels. It seems that Paizo came to their senses since in this (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qel1?Official-Revision-Arcanist) revision, the ability no longer seems to exist.

[AMFV]

Tier 0 classes are classes have access to a massive arsenal of game-breaking abilities, like the tier 1's, but at any given instant. A high level Beholder Mage is a great example of this.

It was mentioned in an earlier thread that the Arcanist was updated with an ability which allows them to spend 1 point from their Arcane Reservoir to reprepare a spell for the day. Considering that they can cannibalize spells to give themselves a number of Arcane Reservoir points equal to the level of spell sacrificed, they can use this ability very often at mid to high levels. It seems that Paizo came to their senses since in this (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qel1?Official-Revision-Arcanist) revision, the ability no longer seems to exist.

See this is why I'm not that fond of the Tier list, it tries to measure too many things, and then what it's measuring changes significantly from Tier to Tier. If it was only having abilities at a minute's notice, then non-Uncanny Forethought wizards would be fairly low Tier, despite having good abilities. That's why I don't think it's as descriptive as people believe it to be. Since it measures multiple things and the criteria for what it's measuring changes as you move up it.

[Oazard]

It was mentioned in an earlier thread that the Arcanist was updated with an ability which allows them to spend 1 point from their Arcane Reservoir to reprepare a spell for the day. Considering that they can cannibalize spells to give themselves a number of Arcane Reservoir points equal to the level of spell sacrificed, they can use this ability very often at mid to high levels. It seems that Paizo came to their senses since in this (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qel1?Official-Revision-Arcanist) revision, the ability no longer seems to exist.

It still exists (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lg93?Advanced-Class-Guide-Preview-Arcanist). :smallfrown:

[Firechanter]

@Psyren:

re "Bold 1": the question is which class can do the nominal Rogue's job how well. Is the Rogue the best Rogue, or some other class, like the Ninja? Nobody here brought PVP into the discussion except you.

re "Bold 2": people wanting to play a Rogue does not make it a better class. I don't see how that argument even addresses the criticism.

re "Bold 3": you'll notice how I wrote "not even taking into account...". That's because I didn't.


T4 is neither a death sentence nor a condemnation for any character.

Agreed as True. What is being debated (by me and some others) is whether the PF Rogue even makes it to T4.

[Psyren]

re "Bold 1": the question is which class can do the nominal Rogue's job how well. Is the Rogue the best Rogue, or some other class, like the Ninja? Nobody here brought PVP into the discussion except you.

You're implicitly doing so by envisioning some sort of "best X" competition. The fact that a Ninja, Investigator or Alchemist can out-rogue the rogue means diddly if nobody is playing one. The question then becomes "can someone who simply wants to be a rogue be a competent skillmonkey" - and the answer is yes.



re "Bold 2": people wanting to play a Rogue does not make it a better class. I don't see how that argument even addresses the criticism.

As above - "better" is not the point. "Good enough" is the point, and rogue is good enough. The fact that non-skilled classes can more easily pick up its skills does not take them away from the Rogue.



re "Bold 3": you'll notice how I wrote "not even taking into account...". That's because I didn't.

I know, I addressed it anyway.



Agreed as True. What is being debated (by me and some others) is whether the PF Rogue even makes it to T4.

Clearly it does, because T4 is baseline competence (see also Warlock, Barbarian, Dragon Shaman, Ranger.) T5 and below are "DM assistance needed to continue."

[Larkas]

Agreed as True. What is being debated (by me and some others) is whether the PF Rogue even makes it to T4.

It must, by the very definition of the tier. The rogue can certainly do many things, to a reasonable degree of competence, without truly shining. It might just be the most uninteresting T4 in PF, however.

[Psyren]

It must, by the very definition of the tier. The rogue can certainly do many things, to a reasonable degree of competence, without truly shining. It might just be the most uninteresting T4 in PF, however.

Exactly this. The problem I think is that some people conflate dull with ineffective or incompetent.

Rogues can do their job. They are a no-frills skillmonkey, sure, but still a skillmonkey.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Unless Paizo makes non-casters with actual Extraordinary abilities, we won't be able to see classes like the rogue and fighter ever hope to reach tier 2.

If you allow Ex to be Extraordinary then you will have a shot.

[Dalebert]

Meh. Just play a caster and cast dominate person so you can have a pet rogue to handle stuph as needed.

[Vortenger]

Although the dialogue here is already going strong, I'm compelled to leave these here.

The Tier List(s)... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?214108-Pathfinder-Tiers-%28Once-Again%29)

...For Pathfinder (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1389.0)

[Psyren]

Unless Paizo makes non-casters with actual Extraordinary abilities, we won't be able to see classes like the rogue and fighter ever hope to reach tier 2.

If you allow Ex to be Extraordinary then you will have a shot.

I see nothing wrong with very high level rogues and fighters just becoming supernatural either. If magic is a law of physics in D&D, why can't some talented individuals - high level adventurers, in other words - learn how to tap into that force on an instinctive level?

For example, Shadowdancers in my opinion should not be a prestige class - it should just be something that high level rogues get to do automatically, along with continuing their sneak attack progression and talents. Tome of Magic all but comes out and says this.

[Korahir]

Although the dialogue here is already going strong, I'm compelled to leave these here.

The Tier List(s)... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?214108-Pathfinder-Tiers-%28Once-Again%29)

...For Pathfinder (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1389.0)


the thing i am missing in all threads (including this one):

how about path of war (by dreamscarred press)? are they as expected tier 3-ish or lower?

[Eldaran]

the thing i am missing in all threads (including this one):

how about path of war (by dreamscarred press)? are they as expected tier 3-ish or lower?

Definitely a strong tier 3. There's a lot more versatility in their maneuvers than in ToB, as well as the high number readied and good class features besides the maneuvers.

[caimbuel]

Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard.

Tier 2: Oracle, Psion, Sorceror, Summoner.

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

Tier 4: Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin, Ranger, Samurai, Soulknife.

Tier 5: Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk.

IMO over the last few years I have come to believe witch is Tier 2, spell selection is just not at a wizards level, but I dont think tier 2 is anything to sneeze at. And I put druid at tier 2 for the same reason. Oracle and sorcerer are tier 1 if you allow Paragon Surge. Rogue is tier 5, tho to be fair I think the tier system may need a lower tier for fighter, monk and rogue. There is little they bring to a table that another class cant do easier, with better mechanics. Lastly Ninja is alot better then the rogue but still is tier 4 at best due to how sneak attack is a very sub par mechanic, I miss the iconic DW halfling rogue but with how sneak attack works, combined with 3/4 BAB and no in class way to raise BAB, a two handed half orc just works better.

The 10 new hybrid classes will be out soon and this will shake up this list, as well as unchained is supposed to bring modular swap outs for some of these problem children.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I see nothing wrong with very high level rogues and fighters just becoming supernatural either. If magic is a law of physics in D&D, why can't some talented individuals - high level adventurers, in other words - learn how to tap into that force on an instinctive level?

For example, Shadowdancers in my opinion should not be a prestige class - it should just be something that high level rogues get to do automatically, along with continuing their sneak attack progression and talents. Tome of Magic all but comes out and says this.

I can dig this, but I like a non-magical approach too.

I really think there should be three groups, common abilities, non-magical physic defying abilities, and magical physics defying abilities.

This way everyone can eat their cake.

You can have Batman, Beowulf, and Professor X all in the same game... Or you can have none of them, some of them, or whatever combination the DM and players want.

[Giddonihah]

Definitely a strong tier 3. There's a lot more versatility in their maneuvers than in ToB, as well as the high number readied and good class features besides the maneuvers.

Relatedly using Path of War should bring Fighters up a Tier (or two), as they get enough feats to become pseudo Initiators themselves. Other Martials also benefit, but they don't have as many feats to spare on Martial Training compared to the Fighter that can actually take the line of feats several times.

I've always wondered why we define Tier2 as the "break the game in limited ways' tier, cause Bards are certainly capable of that, but they sit a tier lower, it really should be the '9th lvl casters that don't quite measure up' tier.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I've always wondered why we define Tier2 as the "break the game in limited ways' tier, cause Bards are certainly capable of that, but they sit a tier lower, it really should be the '9th lvl casters that don't quite measure up' tier.

That's really just a shorthand way of putting it, though. Tier 2 is more closely defined like this: "has the capability to output as much power as a tier 1 class, but with less flexibility." A good bard may be able to break the game in a handful of ways, but those are limited to a handful of situations, while an average sorcerer is still stronger than a bard, and an average wizard has just as much power output as a sorcerer, but has more ways of using that power.

On a similar note, the wizard only needs a night to prepare; the sorcerer needs several levels, and the bard may never get the tools the other two are planning to use at all.

[Dalebert]

Normally I'm reluctant to take after MMOs (4.0 bleh!) but I do think a rogue revamp could learn a thing or two from WoW rogues. They should generally be able to dish out steady damage in HtH better than "tanks" but be more vulnerable and need to fight smarter. This should be more interesting than just sneak attack damage, which is very limited as has been pointed out. There could be specializations like the three trees in WoW--one that focuses on sneaking and attacking from surprise, one that's more direct combat but sort of dirty fighting with two weapons, special bleed maneuvers, attacks that do stat damage, etc. No one should get everything, of course, but again it depends on how you specialize. In PF that might be represented by archetypes.

Meanwhile, "tanks" should at best just be okay at dishing out damage but could have more variety in ways to endure a tough fight and protect themselves better while being able to draw heat away from more vulnerable allies. I kind of like those sorts of specializations in MMOs. They just need to no turn it into a generic video game like 4.0 did. I think they got carried away with making sure everyone was exactly equal to the point of boring.

[Psyren]

You can have Batman, Beowulf, and Professor X all in the same game... Or you can have none of them, some of them, or whatever combination the DM and players want.

Batman isn't really all that Ex though; he relies on a combination of mundane skill, high intelligence and extremely high WBL. He also has a Lazarus Pit in the Batcave, which is almost certainly a Magical Location.

And Beowulf isn't wholly mundane either. He may not be entirely human (templated) and vs. Grendel's mom he used not one but two magic swords.

And Professor X is pretty much a regular caster, not somebody who instinctually unlocked supernatural technique through physical mastery.

***

What I'm referring to is more along the lines of Sakashima The Impostor. (http://magiccards.info/sok/en/53.html) I would expect a high-level Rogue to be able to mimic someone to that degree - we already see a touch of it in their Disguise and UMD skills, as well as in the Chameleon and Factotum classes. That's the kind of thing a high-level rogue should be able to do.

Meanwhile I'd expect a high-level fighter to have abilities like Stonebrow (http://magiccards.info/ts/en/247.html) (inspires everyone around him to fight better by fighting), or a ranged high-level fighter would be like Ishi-Ishi (http://magiccards.info/bok/en/110.html) (can AoO spellcasters at range who try doing anything within a radius around him.) Things like that.

The first would be Su while the latter two would probably be Ex but they would still let those classes do something special.

[squiggit]

I would expect a high-level Rogue to be able to mimic someone to that degree
IIRC there's a PrC in pathfinder that makes you so good at assuming someone else's identity that scrying the location of that person reveals you instead. Nothing really helpful in the core class though.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Batman isn't really all that Ex though; he relies on a combination of mundane skill, high intelligence and extremely high WBL. He also has a Lazarus Pit in the Batcave, which is almost certainly a Magical Location.

And Beowulf isn't wholly mundane either. He may not be entirely human (templated) and vs. Grendel's mom he used not one but two magic swords.

And Professor X is pretty much a regular caster, not somebody who instinctually unlocked supernatural technique through physical mastery.

***

What I'm referring to is more along the lines of Sakashima The Impostor. (http://magiccards.info/sok/en/53.html) I would expect a high-level Rogue to be able to mimic someone to that degree - we already see a touch of it in their Disguise and UMD skills, as well as in the Chameleon and Factotum classes. That's the kind of thing a high-level rogue should be able to do.

Meanwhile I'd expect a high-level fighter to have abilities like Stonebrow (http://magiccards.info/ts/en/247.html) (inspires everyone around him to fight better by fighting), or a ranged high-level fighter would be like Ishi-Ishi (http://magiccards.info/bok/en/110.html) (can AoO spellcasters at range who try doing anything within a radius around him.) Things like that.

The first would be Su while the latter two would probably be Ex but they would still let those classes do something special.

Sorry I should have explained something.

Batman: Common Man being awesome.

Beowulf: Ex man being awesome.

Jean Grey (should have used her, she kicks Prof X out of the water): Magical woman being awesome.

So you have all three types that people can be. If Batman can be amazing it really doesn't matter if Beowulf and Jean Grey (Phoenix) can break physics... If all three types are balanced against the world and such.

It can be hard but doable, games of 3.P where everyone is a tier 3 and 2 work just fine.

[Psyren]

IIRC there's a PrC in pathfinder that makes you so good at assuming someone else's identity that scrying the location of that person reveals you instead. Nothing really helpful in the core class though.

For High Level Rogue, I would expect Assassin, Shadowdancer (buffed a bit),and Chameleon (toned down a bit - closer to Factotum as far as the "spellcasting") to all be separate archetypes, among others.

Really, 4e had the right idea with Paragon Paths, they just didn't do nearly enough to differentiate them from one another, because they were chained to the same AWED mechanic for every class they made and power sources were nothing more than fluff.


Sorry I should have explained something.

Batman: Common Man being awesome.

Beowulf: Ex man being awesome.

Jean Grey (should have used her, she kicks Prof X out of the water): Magical woman being awesome.

I know what you're saying, but Batman isn't really "common man being awesome." He's just "really rich common man who was able to afford the best training and gear." Take all that away and he's just a pretty smart guy with much less ability to act on his plans.

Beowulf's only Ex ability is his super strength - not enough to get him above T4 by itself, and he ends up having to rely on magic items to succeed just as you'd expect from a T4.

[squiggit]

Batman is kind of a bad example, given that he has hyper inflated WbL and plot armor backing him up to stay competitive.


Really, 4e had the right idea with Paragon Paths, they just didn't do nearly enough to differentiate them from one another
That kinda sums up the whole game. WotC were clearly very aware of the problems they had with 3.5 when they built their new system, especially compared to Paizo. They just didn't spend nearly enough time refining it and giving the different classes some life to them rather than putting every class on the same model.

[Urpriest]

You're implicitly doing so by envisioning some sort of "best X" competition. The fact that a Ninja, Investigator or Alchemist can out-rogue the rogue means diddly if nobody is playing one. The question then becomes "can someone who simply wants to be a rogue be a competent skillmonkey" - and the answer is yes.

Remember, the Tier System rates classes, not characters. The question is not "can someone who simply wants to be a rogue be a competent skillmonkey", it's "why should someone who wants to play a competent skillmonkey play a rogue". In short, what problem-solving resources does the rogue class give a player that other classes do not?

[Psyren]

Remember, the Tier System rates classes, not characters. The question is not "can someone who simply wants to be a rogue be a competent skillmonkey", it's "why should someone who wants to play a competent skillmonkey play a rogue". In short, what problem-solving resources does the rogue class give a player that other classes do not?

The erroneous part of your question is "that other classes do not" - the fact that multiple classes can do a thing is irrelevant. All that matters is "do you want to do X" and "can a rogue do X" - if the answer to both is yes, rogue is a viable choice for you, one among many.

We have objective benchmarks to compare every class to - the CRB gives you the DCs for all kinds of skill checks, just like it gives you the stats for all kinds of monsters. With PC WBL, the rogue can meet (and fight) all of them. The fact that other classes can do it more easily or in more ways is irrelevant - if you want to play a rogue you will not arbitrarily fail.

So to answer your question - "why would someone who wants to play a competent skillmonkey play a rogue" - the answer is simply "because rogue is a competent skillmonkey." It's not the most competent, but it is competent.

[AMFV]

The erroneous part of your question is "that other classes do not" - the fact that multiple classes can do a thing is irrelevant. All that matters is "do you want to do X" and "can a rogue do X" - if the answer to both is yes, rogue is a viable choice for you, one among many.

We have objective benchmarks to compare every class to - the CRB gives you the DCs for all kinds of skill checks, just like it gives you the stats for all kinds of monsters. With PC WBL, the rogue can meet (and fight) all of them. The fact that other classes can do it more easily or in more ways is irrelevant - if you want to play a rogue you will not arbitrarily fail.

So to answer your question - "why would someone who wants to play a competent skillmonkey play a rogue" - the answer is simply "because rogue is a competent skillmonkey." It's not the most competent, but it is competent.

The problem is that a Tier 4 can be competent at something, yet a tier 3 can be hypercompetent at one thing. Which is something that it's in the Tier threads but I've not seen it brought up here.

[Larkas]

The problem is that a Tier 4 can be competent at something, yet a tier 3 can be hypercompetent at one thing. Which is something that it's in the Tier threads but I've not seen it brought up here.

Oh, AMFV-senpai, you'll make me cry if you keep ignoring me like that.


About the rogue, almost no one place it in T3. They simply don't live up to the expectations of the tier, which are, and I quote, "capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area". I think no one disputes that they aren't capable of doing any one thing quite well, so let's focus on the second definition. Can they do many things? Certainly. Can the do ALL things? Nope. That's it. They are not fit for T3. They qualify easily for T4, however, which is reserved for classes "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 competence without truly shining". Of course, with proper optimization, characters can jump tiers, but the system is about the class, not any one character.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing for a rogue to be T3, if that's what you're talking about.

[Psyren]

The problem is that a Tier 4 can be competent at something, yet a tier 3 can be hypercompetent at one thing. Which is something that it's in the Tier threads but I've not seen it brought up here.

That's not a "problem", it's just a thing. A sorcerer can blow a warlock out of the water, yet some people just want to be a warlock. A cleric can destroy a barbarian in combat, yet some people just want to be a barbarian. Again, "higher tier that can do X" is not itself a reason to throw out "lower tier that can do X."

(That is, it may be a reason for some people, but not for everyone.)

[AMFV]

That's not a "problem", it's just a thing. A sorcerer can blow a warlock out of the water, yet some people just want to be a warlock. A cleric can destroy a barbarian in combat, yet some people just want to be a barbarian. Again, "higher tier that can do X" is not itself a reason to throw out "lower tier that can do X."

(That is, it may be a reason for some people, but not for everyone.)

Well I was saying is that it's important for rating the rogue, even if the rogue is a competent skill monkey, they have to more competent than the other skill monkeys to qualify for Tier 3. The other classes DO matter because it is a comparative scale, we aren't basing our scale on some notional unit we're comparing the classes to each other.

I personally as I said, loathe the tier list, since it measures two things on the same scale (and not always very well) and because producing challenges is more based on targeting niches and specific player preparation as opposed to bringing everybody close to the same tier.


Oh, AMFV-senpai, you'll make me cry if you keep ignoring me like that.

Shhh, we can't have people know you came up with things first if I'm going to be able to take credit for it later. That's just not feasible.

[9mm]

Extreme optimization can allow Rogues to be tier 2. No they really can't.


Rogue IS good at combat. Knife master makes their sneak attack dmg even higher (d8 with knife) and sneak attack scales better than trying to pump str. A rogue can effectively ignore strength and focus on dex and sneak attack. They can flank to hit, there are actually multiple tricks they can get. Unfortunately, the ways to GET sneak attack went down. Not only does flanking foil exist, but it's harder to get into position to flank due to how the acrobatics check changed.


Did you know rogue can get vanishing trick?
but don't have the Ki pool to use it. The Ninja trick rogue talent specifically calls this out, unless you are dipping monk, you can't spend the ki to go invisible.

[caimbuel]

A cleric can destroy a barbarian in combat That AM Pouncing from 360' on raging mount doing interiative lance charge attacks, mince meats anything that stands around, probably the best rocket tag melee I have ever seen.

But then I think a barb is the best against non-evil, and pally for evil, not sure what the other non casters are for. Epic skills, splash psionics like SLA's, flat give non casters spell like abilities as quickened actions. If you can get a hold of Kithfinder it has a refreshing idea on what is balanced, and you bring those non casters to protect your casting butt from lvl 1 to 20.

[Psyren]

Well I was saying is that it's important for rating the rogue, even if the rogue is a competent skill monkey, they have to more competent than the other skill monkeys to qualify for Tier 3.
...
The other classes DO matter because it is a comparative scale, we aren't basing our scale on some notional unit we're comparing the classes to each other.


No, it's really not. There is actually a notional unit, in fact there are two - the CR system, and skill check DCs.

So while I actually agree with you that they're not T3 (not without a good amount of optimization anyway), that's not what T3 means. T3 means "really good at one thing, and decent at these other things when the thing you're really good at isn't called for." Again, how competent you are compared to other classes has nothing to do with it - effectiveness is measured by static DCs and the entries in the Bestiary.

You can rank the various classes based on how well they perform against this impartial scale, but there is in fact a baseline point at which you can say "this class is effective." And the fact that other classes are equally or more effective does not take that effectiveness away from any of the others.




Unfortunately, the ways to GET sneak attack went down. Not only does flanking foil exist, but it's harder to get into position to flank due to how the acrobatics check changed.

Flanking Foil is far from a silver bullet. Almost no monster has it unless the DM gives it to them (in which case he's pretty directly trying to hose the rogue anyway) and it also relies on hitting the rogue first, so just use a reach weapon and lunge if you must melee.



but don't have the Ki pool to use it. The Ninja trick rogue talent specifically calls this out, unless you are dipping monk, you can't spend the ki to go invisible.

You don't have to dip, there is a ki pool rogue talent. Not what I would pick as a talent personally but it is there.


That AM Pouncing from 360' on raging mount doing interiative lance charge attacks, mince meats anything that stands around, probably the best rocket tag melee I have ever seen.

Are you trying to say that a barbarian is better in melee than a cleric?

[AMFV]

No, it's really not. There is actually a notional unit, in fact there are two - the CR system, and skill check DCs.

So while I actually agree with you that they're not T3 (not without a good amount of optimization anyway), that's not what T3 means. T3 means "really good at one thing, and decent at these other things when the thing you're really good at isn't called for." Again, how competent you are compared to other classes has nothing to do with it - effectiveness is measured by static DCs and the entries in the Bestiary.


Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area.

I'm not trying to be overly pedantic, I'm just pointing out that "being useful" and "decent" are not exactly synonymous. Although to be fair since this is being started from scratch some difference in definitions might be needed. But those should be posted, in fact I think that the tier definitions may need to shift, since they are not exactly the same in this system as Tier 6 ceases to exist.

Also Tiers are NOT measured against CR or static DC.





A: 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.

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.

Okay, so, here we go.

Tier 6: A Commoner. Situation 1: If he's REALLY optimized, he could be a threat to the dragon, but a single attack from the dragon could take him out too. He can't really offer help getting to said dragon. He could fill up the entire cave with chickens, but that's probably not a good idea. Really, he's dead weight unless his build was perfectly optimized for this situation (see my Commoner charger build for an example). Situation 2: Well, without any stealth abilities or diplomacy, he's not too handy here, again unless he's been exactly optimized for this precise thing (such as through Martial Study to get Diplomacy). Really, again his class isn't going to help much here. Situation 3: Again, no help from his class, though the chicken thing might be amusing if you're creative.

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.

Tier 4: The Rogue. Situation 1: Well he can certainly help get the party to the dragon, even if he's not totally optimized for it. His stealth and detection abilities will come in handy here, and if he puts the less stealthy people in portable holes and the like he's good to go. During the combat he's likely not that helpful (it's hard to sneak attack a dragon) but if he had a lot of prep time he might have been able to snag a scroll or wand of Shivering Touch, in which case he could be extremely helpful... he just has to be really prepared and on the ball, and the resources have to be available in advance. He's quite squishy though, and that dragon is a serious threat. Situation 2: With his stealth and diplomacy, he's all over this. Maybe not 100% perfect, but still pretty darn solid. An individual build might not have all the necessary skills, but most should be able to make do. Situation 3: Perhaps he can use Gather Information and such to gain strategic advantages before the battle... that would be handy. There's a few he's pretty likely to be able to pull off. He might even be able to use Diplomacy to buff the army a bit and at least get them into a good morale situation pre battle. Or, if he's a different set up, he could perhaps go out and assassinate a few of the orc commanders before the fight, which could be handy. And then during the fight he could do the same. It's not incredible, but it's something.

Tier 3: The Beguiler. Situation 1: Again, getting through the cave is easy, perhaps easier with spell support. And again, if he's really prepared in advance, Shivering Touch via UMD is a possibility. But he's also got spells that could be quite useful here depending on the situation, and if he's optimized heavily, this is going to be pretty easy... Shadowcraft Mage, perhaps? Or Earth Dreamer? Either way, he's got a lot of available options, though like the Rogue he's somewhat squishy (and that Dragon won't fall for many illusions with his Blindsense) so he still needs that party support. Situation 2: Again, with his skills he's all over this one, plus the added ability to cast spells like charm makes this one much easier, allowing him to make contacts in the city quickly while he figures out where this guy is. Situation 3: Like the Rogue, he can get strategic advantages and be all over the Diplomacy. He's not quite as good at assassinating people if he takes that route (though sneaking up invisible and then using a coup de gras with a scythe is pretty darn effective), but using illusions during the fight will create some serious chaos in his favor. A single illusion of a wall of fire can really disrupt enemy formations, for example.

Tier 2: The Sorcerer. Situation 1: It really depends on the Sorcerer's spell load out. If he's got Greater Floating Disk, Spectral Hand, and Shivering Touch, this one's going to be easy as pie, since he can just float down (and carry his party in the process) to avoid many traps, then nail the dragon in one shot from a distance. If he doesn't he'd need scrolls with the same issues that the UMD Rogue and Beguiler would need. If he's got Explosive Runes he could create a bomb that would take out the Dragon in one shot. If he's got Polymorph he could turn the party melee into a Hydra for extra damage. If he's got Alter Self he could turn himself into a Skulk to get down there sneakily. Certainly, it's possible that the Sorcerer could own this scenario... if he has the right spells known. That's always the hard part for a Sorcerer. Situation 2: Again, depends on the spell. Does he have divinations that will help him know who's part of the resistance and who's actually an evil spy for the Tyranical Govenerment? Does he have charm? Alter Self would help a ton here too for disguise purposes if he has it. Once again, the options exist that could totally make this easy, but he might not have those options. Runestaffs would help a bit, but not that much. Scrolls would help too, but that requires access to them and good long term preparation. Situation 3: Again, does he have Wall of Iron or Wall of Stone to make fortifications? Does he have Wall of Fire to disrupt the battlefield? How about Mind Rape and Love's Pain to kill off the enemy commanders without any ability to stop him? Does he have Blinding Glory on his spell list, or Shapechange, or Gate? Well, maybe. He's got the power, but if his spells known don't apply here he can't do much. So, maybe he dominates this one, maybe not.

Tier 1: The Wizard. Situation 1: Memorize Greater Floating Disk, Shivering Touch, and Spectral Hand. Maybe Alter Self too for stealth reasons. Kill dragon. Memorize Animate Dead too, because Dragons make great minions (seriously, there's special rules for using that spell on dragons). Sweet, you have a new horsie! Or, you know, maybe you Mind Rape/Love's Pain and kill the dragon before he even knows you exist, then float down and check it out. Or maybe you create a horde of the dead and send them in, triggering the traps with their bodies. Or do the haunt shift trick and waltz in with a hardness of around 80 and giggle. Perhaps you cast Genesis to create a flowing time plane and then sit and think about what to do for a year while only a day passes on the outside... and cast Explosive Runes every day during that year. I'm sure you can come up with something. It's really your call. Situation 2: Check your spell list. Alter Self and Disguise Self can make you look like whoever you need to look like. Locate Creature has obvious utility. Heck, Contact Other Plane could be a total cheating method of finding the guy you're trying to find. Clairvoyance is also handy. It's all there. Situation 3: Oh no, enemy army! Well, if you've optimized for it, there's always the locate city bomb (just be careful not to blow up the friendly guys too). But if not, Love's Pain could assassinate the leaders. Wall of Iron/Stone could create fortifications, or be combined with Fabricate to armour up some of the troops. Or you could just cast Blinding Glory and now the entire enemy army is blind with no save for caster level hours. Maybe you could Planar Bind an appropriate outsider to help train the troops before the battle. Push comes to shove, Gate in a Solar, who can cast Miracle (which actually does have a "I win the battle" option)... or just Shapechange into one, if you prefer.

So yeah, as you move up the Tiers you go from weak, unadaptable, and predictable (that Commoner's got very few useful options) to strong, adaptable, and unpredictable (who knows what that Wizard is going to do?). A Wizard can always apply a great deal of strength very efficiently, whether it's Shivering Touch on the Dragon or Blinding Glory on an enemy army. The Sorcerer has the power, but he may not have power that he can actually apply to the situation. The Beguiler has even less raw power and may have to use UMD to pull it off. The Rogue is even further along that line. And the Fighter has power in very specific areas which are less likely to be useful in a given situation.

So yeah, that's really what the Tiers are about. How much does this class enable you to achieve what you want in a given situation? The more versitile your power, the more likely that the answer to that question is "a lot." If you've got tons of power and limited versitility (that's you, Sorcerers and charging Barbarians) then sometimes the answer is a lot, but sometimes it's not much. If you've got tons of versitility but limited power (hi, Rogue!) then it's often "a decent amount." If you've got little of both (Commoner!) then yeah, it's often "it doesn't."

And of course reversing that and applying it to DMs, you get "how many effective options does this class give for solving whatever encounters I throw at them?" For Commoners, the answer may be none. For Fighters, it's sometimes none, sometimes 1, maybe 2, but you generally know in advance what it will be (if he's got Improved Trip and a Spiked Chain and all that, he's probably going to be tripping stuff, just a hint). For Wizards, it's tons, and they're all really potent, and you have no idea how he's going to do it. Does he blind the enemy army or assassinate all its leaders or turn into a Solar and just arbitrarily win the battle? There's no way to know until he memorizes his spells for the day (and even then you might not see it coming).

As you can see the tier system is examining ability to resolve scenarios not ability to deal with a specific CR encounter or specific skill challenges.

Edit: The reason why this is important is because it is easy to optimize for specific CR challenges and skill DCs in ways that would produce really skewed results for the tier system, which is why it's easier to look at potential solutions to a series of scenarios.

[caimbuel]

Are you trying to say that a barbarian is better in melee than a cleric? Depends on the game, depends on how much buff time we are talking. A good mounted raging barb will dish enough damage to plain kill the cleric with all the splat to cherry pick from in pathfinder. In 3.5 the ungodly cleric can solo walk alot of dungeons if ran right. Nerf to persistant spell and a few other chages switched this power curve IMO. Does that mean a Barb should be higher then tier 4, probably not, swinging a big weapon for big damage does not "win" a game. Its still those spells that can literally change a campaign, as we well know.

YMMV

[Psyren]

As you can see the tier system is examining ability to resolve scenarios not ability to deal with a specific CR encounter or specific skill challenges.

Exactly - CR and DCs are the unit of measurement for a scenario. It's how you know, for example, the difference in difficulty between the three orcs roughing up the halfling in the back alley, and the vampire that preys upon the village every night before returning to his foreboding castle during the day. It's also how you know the difference between eavesdropping on the merchant's guards who are getting drunk in the tavern, and sneaking into the grand vizier's royal vault. And so on.


Depends on the game, depends on how much buff time we are talking. A good mounted raging barb will dish enough damage to plain kill the cleric with all the splat to cherry pick from in pathfinder.

The game is Pathfinder, and while the removal of persistent spell does hurt CoDzilla it by no means removes it.

[AMFV]

Exactly - CR and DCs are the unit of measurement for a scenario. It's how you know, for example, the difference in difficulty between the three orcs roughing up the halfling in the back alley, and the vampire that preys upon the village every night before returning to his foreboding castle during the day. It's also how you know the difference between eavesdropping on the merchant's guards who are getting drunk in the tavern, and sneaking into the grand vizier's royal vault. And so on.

If you'll note in the spoiler text, he didn't use them. DCs again are skewed, and they're not a good representation at all levels. The question isn't can a rogue disarm all the traps (because he should be able to do that), but can he also be useful in other skillful scenarios.

In fact:

Tier 4: The Rogue. Situation 1: Well he can certainly help get the party to the dragon, even if he's not totally optimized for it. His stealth and detection abilities will come in handy here, and if he puts the less stealthy people in portable holes and the like he's good to go. During the combat he's likely not that helpful (it's hard to sneak attack a dragon) but if he had a lot of prep time he might have been able to snag a scroll or wand of Shivering Touch, in which case he could be extremely helpful... he just has to be really prepared and on the ball, and the resources have to be available in advance. He's quite squishy though, and that dragon is a serious threat. Situation 2: With his stealth and diplomacy, he's all over this. Maybe not 100% perfect, but still pretty darn solid. An individual build might not have all the necessary skills, but most should be able to make do. Situation 3: Perhaps he can use Gather Information and such to gain strategic advantages before the battle... that would be handy. There's a few he's pretty likely to be able to pull off. He might even be able to use Diplomacy to buff the army a bit and at least get them into a good morale situation pre battle. Or, if he's a different set up, he could perhaps go out and assassinate a few of the orc commanders before the fight, which could be handy. And then during the fight he could do the same. It's not incredible, but it's something.

That's not really changed in Pathinder. I'm not arguing the rogue is a different tier, just arguing about measuring things. As I've said I don't like the system I just like arguing.

[Psyren]

If you'll note in the spoiler text, he didn't use them.

He did not say "level X rogue vs. CR Y dragon," no. But it's impossible to "not use them" - they are a foundation of the game. If you sent a level 1 wizard or level 1 druid through those challenges, the only one they'd have a decent chance of making it through alive is the second one - does that mean they aren't T1?

[AMFV]

He did not say "level X rogue vs. CR Y dragon," no. But it's impossible to "not use them" - they are a foundation of the game. If you sent a level 1 wizard or level 1 druid through those challenges, the only one they'd have a decent chance of making it through alive is the second one - does that mean they aren't T1?

Well obviously we aren't using scenarios significantly outside the CR system, but being able to defeat a CR 25 at ECL 1 does not affect your position on the tier system. I mean you could have a Hulking Hurler that could kill any CR thing and it would still be Tier 4.

[Anlashok]

Again, "higher tier that can do X" is not itself a reason to throw out "lower tier that can do X."

I disagree to an extent. Saying "Why play a barbarian when you can be a wizard" might fly with that argument, but that's simply not the case in all of these scenarios. Throwing out the Warrior because the Fighter exists is perfectly valid, because the latter does everything the former does in similar ways but better.

[Psyren]

Well obviously we aren't using scenarios significantly outside the CR system, but being able to defeat a CR 25 at ECL 1 does not affect your position on the tier system. I mean you could have a Hulking Hurler that could kill any CR thing and it would still be Tier 4.

It sounds like you agree with me then - there are CR and DC assumptions being made in the various scenarios, such that a vastly under-leveled character is not expected to be put through them. Hence my earlier statement - "it is not possible to 'not use' these concepts" - they are baseline assumptions of the entire game.


I disagree to an extent. Saying "Why play a barbarian when you can be a wizard" might fly with that argument, but that's simply not the case in all of these scenarios. Throwing out the Warrior because the Fighter exists is perfectly valid, because the latter does everything the former does in similar ways but better.

Warrior is not a PC class so you are quite justified in throwing it out.

[AMFV]

It sounds like you agree with me then - there are CR and DC assumptions being made in the various scenarios, such that a vastly under-leveled character is not expected to be put through them. Hence my earlier statement - "it is not possible to 'not use' these concepts" - they are baseline assumptions of the entire game.



Warrior is not a PC class so you are quite justified in throwing it out.

Well you said that they were being used as a measuring tool in the tier system which is not exactly accurate. They are not being excluded but they are not being used as a measuring stick. Or else the Hulking Hurler would be much higher tier.

[Anlashok]

Warrior is not a PC class so you are quite justified in throwing it out.
Then replace Warrior with CW samurai. Or look at .. well Pathfinder rogue and ninja/vivisectionist/thatonebardarchetype.

[caimbuel]

Can I ask why play a Rogue when a Vivisectionist Alchemist gets almost to more skills by needing INT more. It also has the same sneak attack, and instead of the crappiest IMO abilities of rogue talents, he gets alchemist casting, mutagens, etc.

Other then fluff not wanting spells, which I get for a concept reason why play the rogue. If your intent is to be a trap detector why not be a seeker oracle or sorcerer. The variant bloodline sorcerer that uses int instead of cha and has trapfinding will blow that rogue out of the water. But after having a player try to play a rogue, monk or to a lesser extent fighter I just see how they suffer for the chasis they used to convey their concept.

[Zrak]

Why is the Witch tier 1? Did it get a huge boost while I wasn't looking? I thought it hung out with the (tier 2) Sorc?

It's kind of an edge case. It's clearly weaker than a wizard, since hexes don't make up for the missing spells, but it's clearly stronger than pretty much everything in tier two. Since spell lists are pretty easy to expand in Pathfinder, I'd say at the very least the stronger/more versatile archetypes fit into tier one.

[Psyren]

Well you said that they were being used as a measuring tool in the tier system which is not exactly accurate. They are not being excluded but they are not being used as a measuring stick. Or else the Hulking Hurler would be much higher tier.

Hulking Hurler is not higher because it can only handle equal-level CR combat encounters. It has no tools to help it with a CR-appropriate social, research, mentoring or other skill-based encounter.

Moving up in the tier rankings means being able to handle more varieties of these more easily and in more ways.


Then replace Warrior with CW samurai. Or look at .. well Pathfinder rogue and ninja/vivisectionist/thatonebardarchetype.

To clarify, T6 and below is in fact where you would start "throwing things out." As I said earlier in the thread, T4 is the minimum standard of competence where you don't need DM assistance. T5 is where you do.

As rogues are T4, they are not at this stage.


Can I ask why play a Rogue when a Vivisectionist Alchemist gets almost to more skills by needing INT more.

Because a rogue with PC wealth can clear CR appropriate challenges. The fact that a Vivisectionist can also do this, or even do it in more ways, is not relevant because it does not diminish the rogue's capacity to succeed.

[caimbuel]

Because a rogue with PC wealth can clear CR appropriate challenges. The fact that a Vivisectionist can also do this, or even do it in more ways, is not relevant because it does not diminish the rogue's capacity to succeed.

But that is where I disagree, IMO the rogue is expected to be damage in combat, but they are the only 3/4 bab class I can think of that can not up their accuracy with class abilities. Inquisitor's, clerics, oracles, alchemists etc can buff their hit so that they stay close to the full bab just not as many attacks. Between this and how combat changed in PF I firmly believe that even with excellent system mastery they are sub par at best, and plain awful at worst. Want to sneak, invis is +20 stealth, to have a rogue supersede what a int based wiz or sorc does is ludicrous. And class skills reason rogues used to have is meh now, 10 ranks is 10 cross class, 13 class. The ninja is a little bit better, but somehow pazio values sneak attack way to high compared to what it does to a game.

[Psyren]

Rogues "up their hit" by catching their opponent unawares, because flat-footed/dexless AC is almost always lower than normal. Eventually you will need Hellcat Stealth and Dampen Presence but both are obtainable.

Also, UMD is a thing if they really need magical buffs for whatever reason. They can even get magic mart as a class feature. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---rogue-talents/black-market-connections-ex)

[caimbuel]

Rogues "up their hit" by catching their opponent unawares, because flat-footed/dexless AC is almost always lower than normal. Eventually you will need Hellcat Stealth and Dampen Presence but both are obtainable.

Also, UMD is a thing if they really need magical buffs for whatever reason. They can even get magic mart as a class feature. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---rogue-talents/black-market-connections-ex)

Both of what you said EVERYONE can do. They bring little to nothing to the table that something else cant fill. Traps are rare, and when they are around there is a lot of ways past them. But this horse has been dead so I am moving on. Cheers Psyren

[Psyren]

Both of what you said EVERYONE can do.

Ease matters. You can turn a commoner into a wizard with sufficient effort, that doesn't make it likely.

[illyahr]

The Tier System does not judge a class based on other classes, it judges the class based on what it can do. Just because one class can perform action x better than another, doesn't mean the second class is bad.

So let's break down a rogue's effectiveness using standard D&D/Pathfinder scenarios and judge, assuming standard rogue build with mid optomization:

1. Party vs. group of CR-appropriate mooks: can support with acrobatics and SA in order to take out creatures.
Usefulness: C
Singe target abilities somewhat limit the damage output a rogue can achieve simply because of the damage overflow. Fortunately, only a few creature types are immune to SA in Pathfinder.

2. Party vs. CR appropriate boss: acrobatics into flanking postion, TWF can stack SA damage very quickly.
Usefulness: B
Single target combat is where a rogue shines. Unless target is one of the few with immunity to SA, will drop target quickly. Just make sure to watch your HP

3. Party vs. skill checks: can bluff and diplomacy, or stealth and steal
Usefulness: B
Just because everyone can do skills, doesn't mean the rogue is any worse at it

4. Party vs. special creatures: SA can still hit most creatures. UMD against flyers or things immune to SA.
Usefulness: C
The rogue has a way around most defenses as long as he has time to prepare his gear.

5.Party vs. spellcasters: hide and try to get close to pull a quick SA, pray that they are squishier than you.
Usefulness: D
Depending on the optimization level of the spellcaster, might have trouble. However, this is more about how broken magic is in general than lack of skill. Still, try to avoid groups of wizards/clerics/druids.

These are the five categories that most encounters I have seen fall into. The rogue is already fairly useful in almost all situations and only needs to shore up his tactics against spellcasters to be useful all around. As defined in the Tier System, that puts him in Tier 3. He can specialize in one thing quite well and still be useful when that one thing isn't appropriate. He can also spread out his skills and be helpful in all situations.

[AMFV]

The Tier System does not judge a class based on other classes, it judges the class based on what it can do. Just because one class can perform action x better than another, doesn't mean the second class is bad.

So let's break down a rogue's effectiveness using standard D&D/Pathfinder scenarios and judge, assuming standard rogue build with mid optomization:

1. Party vs. group of CR-appropriate mooks: can support with acrobatics and SA in order to take out creatures.
Usefulness: C
Singe target abilities somewhat limit the damage output a rogue can achieve simply because of the damage overflow. Fortunately, only a few creature types are immune to SA in Pathfinder.

2. Party vs. CR appropriate boss: acrobatics into flanking postion, TWF can stack SA damage very quickly.
Usefulness: B
Single target combat is where a rogue shines. Unless target is one of the few with immunity to SA, will drop target quickly. Just make sure to watch your HP

3. Party vs. skill checks: can bluff and diplomacy, or stealth and steal
Usefulness: B
Just because everyone can do skills, doesn't mean the rogue is any worse at it

4. Party vs. special creatures: SA can still hit most creatures. UMD against flyers or things immune to SA.
Usefulness: C
The rogue has a way around most defenses as long as he has time to prepare his gear.

5.Party vs. spellcasters: hide and try to get close to pull a quick SA, pray that they are squishier than you.
Usefulness: D
Depending on the optimization level of the spellcaster, might have trouble. However, this is more about how broken magic is in general than lack of skill. Still, try to avoid groups of wizards/clerics/druids.

These are the five categories that most encounters I have seen fall into. The rogue is already fairly useful in almost all situations and only needs to shore up his tactics against spellcasters to be useful all around. As defined in the Tier System, that puts him in Tier 3. He can specialize in one thing quite well and still be useful when that one thing isn't appropriate. He can also spread out his skills and be helpful in all situations.

If you'll reread the scenario as was posted on JaronK's thing which I reposted, it remains almost exactly the same.

[illyahr]

If you'll reread the scenario as was posted on JaronK's thing which I reposted, it remains almost exactly the same.

I know. JaronK contradicts himself by putting rogue at Tier 4 but then explaining why it qualifies for his definition of Tier 3. It's an interesting thought exercise, but doesn't come off right in a few places. :smallwink:

[AMFV]

I know. JaronK contradicts himself by putting rogue at Tier 4 but then explaining why it qualifies for his definition of Tier 3. It's an interesting thought exercise, but doesn't come off right in a few places. :smallwink:

No, the rogue is good at one thing, and not good at any of the other scenarios, that's the definition of tier 4. The rogue is good at skills, shoddy at combat, shoddy at non-skills encounters. And skills encounters should be rated less important additionally in that they (especially social skills) are more likely to be mitigated by DM interference, or less effective, and in that they are also the easiest thing to get even if you don't have them.

To be Tier 3, a rogue would have to be good at it's niche and then acceptable when it's not in it's niche, and the rogue is too specific, in combat it's limited to a very specific easily countered style, it gets skills but no spells to back those up. After about level 6, acrobatics ain't gonna cut it no more, you've got people, hell mundane people, who can fly or have flying pets, at this point a rogue is starting to fall further and further behind.

To compare, an Alchemist is a Tier 3, they can do pretty much everything a rogue can do, and better, and be good at other things. A Bard is a Tier 3 and with the right Archetype they can become a rogue with spells, which is clearly better than just a flat rogue, furthermore a rogue with spells that isn't dependent on one weak attack form. So clearly the rogue is less powerful than they are, it doesn't have nearly so many tricks.

Lastly, in Pathfinder, skills are worth less, since cross-class no longer cost more, but instead lack the +3, which is completely negligible by mid-early levels, meaning any character can be as good at skills as a rogue if not as broad. Which makes rogues inherently worse. The same way that humans are slightly worse since feats aren't worth as much (Still awesome, just not always a clear winner in the race war), and Fighters need a bunch of archetypes and fighter-only tricks to keep up, and they are Tier 4, pretty solidly (possibly Tier 5, depending on build).

You can't take Tiers in a vacuum a tier 3 character should be able to solve most situations without assistance, maybe a little clunky, but they're still workable.

Edit: I might even argue for Tier 5, with the devaluation of skills, but that'd be a hard sell and I'm not sure about it myself. Skills are not worth as much in Pathfinder as they were in 3.5

[Psyren]

The Tier System does not judge a class based on other classes, it judges the class based on what it can do. Just because one class can perform action x better than another, doesn't mean the second class is bad.
...
Just because everyone can do skills, doesn't mean the rogue is any worse at it.

Yes, this is more or less what I've been harping on for the last few pages.

UMD I will not rate quite as highly because gear is more DM-dependent than class features. Even with Black Market Connections, the rogue is still dependent on the DM to stick him in a city. It is supremely helpful when you can use it, but lack of control in terms of what you have access to and your chances of success bring it down.

Thus I think T4 is appropriate for them, with Ninjas being a step up in T3.

[AMFV]

Yes, this is more or less what I've been harping on for the last few pages.

UMD I will not rate quite as highly because gear is more DM-dependent than class features. Even with Black Market Connections, the rogue is still dependent on the DM to stick him in a city. It is supremely helpful when you can use it, but lack of control in terms of what you have access to and your chances of success bring it down.

Thus I think T4 is appropriate for them, with Ninjas being a step up in T3.


The real reason that rogue is tier four is that factotum is just plain better. As a skill monkey, a factotum has no cross class skills and most likely has more skill points as well given its emphasis on INT. A straight rogue is also pretty MAD, or must use precious feats to make himself more SAD. Not so with a factotum, INT all the way and anything else is a bonus (brains over brawn is a prefect example). A party with a rogue and factotum would make it very hard for the rogue to feel useful.

There you go, it clearly compares the two classes. Therefore that is clearly a factor in tier choice.

Edit: Tier 4 is definitely the right for them, I'm not sure about Ninjas, mostly because I'm not familiar with their Ki powers and how useful those actually are. But from what I've heard they could be lower Tier 3, not able to compete with the fullcasting folks (well Partial) who now have flooded Tier 3.

[illyahr]

No, the rogue is good at one thing, and not good at any of the other scenarios, that's the definition of tier 4. The rogue is good at skills, shoddy at combat, shoddy at non-skills encounters. And skills encounters should be rated less important additionally in that they (especially social skills) are more likely to be mitigated by DM interference, or less effective, and in that they are also the easiest thing to get even if you don't have them.

Skills encounters 'should' be rated less important? That sounds like a personal play style, not a mechanics question. Circumstance bonuses/penalties are added to combat values as well as skill checks. That's a determination by the DM, not by the rules.


To be Tier 3, a rogue would have to be good at it's niche and then acceptable when it's not in it's niche, and the rogue is too specific, in combat it's limited to a very specific easily countered style, it gets skills but no spells to back those up. After about level 6, acrobatics ain't gonna cut it no more, you've got people, hell mundane people, who can fly or have flying pets, at this point a rogue is starting to fall further and further behind.

And yet, it can still perform adequately in most situations. And "easily countered" is, again, a product of DM fiat.


To compare, an Alchemist is a Tier 3, they can do pretty much everything a rogue can do, and better, and be good at other things. A Bard is a Tier 3 and with the right Archetype they can become a rogue with spells, which is clearly better than just a flat rogue, furthermore a rogue with spells that isn't dependent on one weak attack form. So clearly the rogue is less powerful than they are, it doesn't have nearly so many tricks.

Yes, an alchemist is Tier 3. A bard is Tier 3. That has nothing to do with whether a rogue is/is not Tier 3. Definition of Tier 3 is "performs one task well and is passable at all others, or can do most things decently well." Depending on build, a rogue can be either.


Lastly, in Pathfinder, skills are worth less, since cross-class no longer cost more, but instead lack the +3, which is completely negligible by mid-early levels, meaning any character can be as good at skills as a rogue if not as broad. Which makes rogues inherently worse. The same way that humans are slightly worse since feats aren't worth as much (Still awesome, just not always a clear winner in the race war), and Fighters need a bunch of archetypes and fighter-only tricks to keep up, and they are Tier 4, pretty solidly (possibly Tier 5, depending on build).

How does this make the rogue fail in this regard? Can he still make skill checks? Yes, he can. The fact that anyone can make passable skill checks bumps the other classes up a bit. It doesn't make the rogue start to fail skill checks.


You can't take Tiers in a vacuum a tier 3 character should be able to solve most situations without assistance, maybe a little clunky, but they're still workable.

Edit: I might even argue for Tier 5, with the devaluation of skills, but that'd be a hard sell and I'm not sure about it myself. Skills are not worth as much in Pathfinder as they were in 3.5

A rogue is able to solve most situations without assistance. They may be a little clunky, but they still work. These are your own words, and they apply to a rogue that is intelligently designed.

Can the rogue hold his own in melee? Yes
Can the rogue hold his own at range? Yes
Can the rogue hold his own against spells? Yes, with a decent build
Can the rogue hold his own with skill checks? Yes

This makes him decent at almost all adventuring tasks, which qualifies for Tier 3.

Is he particularly good at any of it? Only if he specializes at one, which makes the others difficult. However, he can still perform passably, which also qualifies for Tier 3.

Saying that another class does it all better doesn't make the rogue any weaker. It just means the other class might need to be considered for Tier 2.


There you go, it clearly compares the two classes. Therefore that is clearly a factor in tier choice.

And yet, he repeatedly defines the Tiers on how classes perform their tasks, not how they relate to other classes. Rogue may be low Tier 3, but it's still Tier 3, by his own definition of the Tiers.

[AMFV]

Skills encounters 'should' be rated less important? That sounds like a personal play style, not a mechanics question. Circumstance bonuses/penalties are added to combat values as well as skill checks. That's a determination by the DM, not by the rules.



And yet, it can still perform adequately in most situations. And "easily countered" is, again, a product of DM fiat.



Yes, an alchemist is Tier 3. A bard is Tier 3. That has nothing to do with whether a rogue is/is not Tier 3. Definition of Tier 3 is "performs one task well and is passable at all others, or can do most things decently well." Depending on build, a rogue can be either.



How does this make the rogue fail in this regard? Can he still make skill checks? Yes, he can. The fact that anyone can make passable skill checks bumps the other classes up a bit. It doesn't make the rogue start to fail skill checks.



A rogue is able to solve most situations without assistance. They may be a little clunky, but they still work. These are your own words, and they apply to a rogue that is intelligently designed.

Can the rogue hold his own in melee? Yes
Can the rogue hold his own at range? Yes
Can the rogue hold his own against spells? Yes, with a decent build
Can the rogue hold his own with skill checks? Yes

This makes him decent at almost all adventuring tasks, which qualifies for Tier 3.

Is he particularly good at any of it? Only if he specializes at one, which makes the others difficult. However, he can still perform passably, which also qualifies for Tier 3.

Saying that another class does it all better doesn't make the rogue any weaker. It just means the other class might need to be considered for Tier 2.

I've posted the 'Why the rogue is in it's tier section". And I've posted the reason why the other classes are considered, if you don't want to use the same standards as they do for the tier system that's fine, but there is clear precedent here.

[Anlashok]

A rogue is able to solve most situations without assistance. They may be a little clunky, but they still work.

Being able to complete all tasks with a modicum of competence but not very cleanly describes Tier 4 though. You literally describe tier 4 while trying to explain why rogues are tier 3.

[illyahr]

Being able to complete all tasks with a modicum of competence but not very cleanly describes Tier 4 though. You literally describe tier 4 while trying to explain why rogues are tier 3.

Tier 4 is being able to do one thing well but failing at most other tasks. For example, barbarians do melee combat very well, but they have almost nothing in the way of ranged combat, magical combat, or skill checks.

Rogues may not be able to do everything as well as a bard or alchemist, but they have enough skill to hold their own in most situations, even without heavy optimization.


I've posted the 'Why the rogue is in it's tier section". And I've posted the reason why the other classes are considered, if you don't want to use the same standards as they do for the tier system that's fine, but there is clear precedent here.

Precedence is only as good as the premise it is founded on. There is precedence for separating people into separate but equal positions. That doesn't mean it's a good idea or that it works. I've noticed inconsistencies in JaronK's description of the Tier system and some points are fairly vague. A lot of it is open to interpretation and that is what causes most disagreements about what class is in what Tier.

[Yanisa]

Tier 4 is being able to do one thing well but failing at most other tasks. For example, barbarians do melee combat very well, but they have almost nothing in the way of ranged combat, magical combat, or skill checks.

Rogues may not be able to do everything as well as a bard or alchemist, but they have enough skill to hold their own in most situations, even without heavy optimization.

Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)

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.

[AMFV]

Tier 4 is being able to do one thing well but failing at most other tasks. For example, barbarians do melee combat very well, but they have almost nothing in the way of ranged combat, magical combat, or skill checks.

Rogues may not be able to do everything as well as a bard or alchemist, but they have enough skill to hold their own in most situations, even without heavy optimization.

But a Rogue is not adequate at other tasks once it's built towards one task, just because a notional rogue could be built that could be adequate at a particular task, the fact that it can't be good at all tasks without building towards that puts it in Tier 4.

Secondly, I posted discussion from JaronK, that the Rogue got pushed to Tier 4, largely because of the Factotutum.

[Anlashok]

Tier 4 is being able to do one thing well but failing at most other tasks. For example, barbarians do melee combat very well, but they have almost nothing in the way of ranged combat, magical combat, or skill checks.
Er... says right here:


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.
Bolded for emphasis.

Being able to do a bunch of things without really shining describes the rogue pretty well ,as they're a class that can be kind of functional in any situation but need encounters specifically designed with them in mind to shine and need a lot of out of class support if they can't do their main gimmicks.

This differentiates itself from tier 3 by the latter being truly versatile. A rogue can find a way to do something sometimes usually if it isn't in their comfort zone, but not particularly well (tier 4) while a bard or alchemist will always have a reasonably strong option (tier 3).

[illyahr]

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

A rogue can specialize, but is still useful if his specialty isn't involved. That means Tier 3.

A rogue is capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize. That also means Tier 3.

This is one of the inconsistencies I mentioned. By definition, the rogue qualifies as both Tier 3 and Tier 4 at the same time.

[AMFV]

A rogue can do skill checks quite well, but is still useful if no skill checks are involved. That means Tier 3.

A rogue is capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize. That also means Tier 3.

This is one of the inconsistencies I mentioned. By definition, the rogue qualifies as both Tier 3 and Tier 4 at the same time.

We've posted things that indicate exactly the opposite. Skill check optimization is not enough to be Tier 3 or the Expert would be Tier 4, after all they're the best class at that, and that's being good at one thing. A rogue is capable of doing all things but with mediocrity, they can manage but not well, not even as well as the other classes that are jacks-of-all-trades. Which makes them Tier 4.

[The Grue]

I think when three separate people quote the same post back-to-back - including the original author of said post - that's a signal that the discussion isn't getting anywhere.

[illyahr]

We've posted things that indicate exactly the opposite. Skill check optimization is not enough to be Tier 3 or the Expert would be Tier 4, after all they're the best class at that, and that's being good at one thing. A rogue is capable of doing all things but with mediocrity, they can manage but not well, not even as well as the other classes that are jacks-of-all-trades. Which makes them Tier 4.

Hence, why the JaronK Tier System is flawed. Each DM has a different style so each DM will place more importance on different aspects of the game. What happens if you are in a campaign where almost no combat happens? Suddenly, all combat related options are next to useless. Should we ignore the barbarian's rage ability, since it now sees little play? What of a low-magic campaign where it requires a concerted effort to cast anything higher than a Level 3 spell? Wizards suddenly drop Tiers as they can't get access to higher-level spells on their own. In a campaign that primarily runs intrigue and political maneuvering, Tier 1 would be dominated by bards, rogues, and other skill monkeys as they could call in a favor for any challenge they come across.

[AMFV]

Hence, why the JaronK Tier System is flawed. Each DM has a different style so each DM will place more importance on different aspects of the game. What happens if you are in a campaign where almost no combat happens? Suddenly, all combat related options are next to useless. Should we ignore the barbarian's rage ability, since it now sees little play? What of a low-magic campaign where it requires a concerted effort to cast anything higher than a Level 3 spell? Wizards suddenly drop Tiers as they can't get access to higher-level spells on their own. In a campaign that primarily runs intrigue and political maneuvering, Tier 1 would be dominated by bards, rogues, and other skill monkeys as they could call in a favor for any challenge they come across.

Low Magic doesn't really work, in Pathfinder or 3.5, the system assumptions crumble, you'd be better off using a different system. And almost no combat happening just affects the martial classes. High powered casters are still up there. Besides which there are literally thousand of published adventures, it's pretty easy to deduce the amount of combat that would happen in a standard or normal game. If you start changing the rules obviously the tier system won't work, but that's just common sense.

Furthermore skills still remain fairly easy to exploit and still most characters can be good at them. In Pathfinder much more so than in 3.5. I still remember in 3.5 when I decided to create a Barbarian who could serve as party face, it was definitely easy to do without really sacrificing any combat ability, in Pathfinder it's even easier (not even costing the feat it cost me). Any class can with just a modicum of optimization be fairly good at any skill and in Pathfinder literally any class can excel at literally any skill, meaning that skills aren't that useful, between four people you should be able to cover all of them without any skill monkeys (and you'd still have overlap).

Edit: And I don't even like the Tier System, but what you're attributing to it as a flaw is not one of it's flaws. It's major flaw is that it tries to measure two things (Power and Versatility) on the same scale without defining the scale well.

[Yanisa]

A rogue can specialize, but is still useful if his specialty isn't involved. That means Tier 3.

A rogue is capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize. That also means Tier 3.

This is one of the inconsistencies I mentioned. By definition, the rogue qualifies as both Tier 3 and Tier 4 at the same time.

The difference between Tier 3 and Tier 4 in this regard is that Tier 3 is capable of all things, whereas Tier 4 ain't.

Rogues are not capable of all things, that's more the domain of magic users.

[Anlashok]

A rogue can specialize, but is still useful if his specialty isn't involved. That means Tier 3.
A rogue struggles when he isn't in his area of expertise. That's tier 4.


A rogue is capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize. That also means Tier 3.
A rogue is capable of doing a variety of things, but not particularly well. That's tier 4.


This is one of the inconsistencies I mentioned. By definition, the rogue qualifies as both Tier 3 and Tier 4 at the same time.

Only because you're mucking up the definitions of the two and inflating the rogue's capabilities. The rogue can be versatile, but not as versatile as a tier 3 and he definitely struggles outside his area of expertise. When the rogue can't sneak or flank (the latter of which is much harder in pathfinder) he struggles. Tier 4.

[The Grue]

I think that when people start repeating themselves in lieu of actual discussion, that's a sign that the discussion isn't getting anywhere...

...oh, wait. Darn.

[Susano-wo]

Not sure in on the question of tier 3 vs tier 4(though from the evidence 4 seems reasonable), but I think people really seem to be underestimating the rogue talents in bumping the rogues skills.

Aside from the fact that nobody is better than the rogue at his class skills (caveat: someone with max ranks in a WIS skill from a higher wisdom class might edge out ion those) and many are 15%(or more in the case of traps)worse, rogue talents give rogues unique advantages when using many of those skills. Fast stealth, faster lockpicking, not setting off a trap without rolling 10 under the DC, etc. Rogues are absolutely the best in the area of stealth, trap disabling, and iirc, they even have some social skill rogue talents that give them the edge there too.

Doesn't mean anything with the argument that they are tier 3/4, but tier 5 is plainly out of the question.

Regarding tier judging based on other classes, with tiers 1 and 2 its pretty much unavoidable, since one of the factors is being able to do something better than someone who ostensibly specializes it, but you really do have to limit it, or it just ends up in an A to Z of which class is 'better.'

So a class doesn't have to be better than other classes at that task to qualify for tiers 3 or 4, just good at it. JaronK using factotum to bump the bard is A: a matter of something he was on the fence about(vs one he felt solidly fit one tier of the other), and B: was him making a mistake in the application of his tier standards. It happens, fairly certain he's human. (or else hes an extremely elaborate attempt to pass the Turing test. :smalltongue:)

[Kurald Galain]

rogue talents give rogues unique advantages when using many of those skills. Fast stealth, faster lockpicking, not setting off a trap without rolling 10 under the DC, etc. Rogues are absolutely the best in the area of stealth, trap disabling, and iirc, they even have some social skill rogue talents that give them the edge there too.

The main issue is that rogues just don't get a lot of those talents. A tenth-level rogue has less talents than a first-level cleric has spells. Aside from that, numerous talents are restricted to once per day for no good reason.

[Anlashok]

Aside from the fact that nobody is better than the rogue at his class skills (caveat: someone with max ranks in a WIS skill from a higher wisdom class might edge out ion those)

I'm not so sure. Rogues are great at Acrobatics, but they lose out at Appraise compared to an int based caster. Bards especially but generally any Cha class is gonna beat them at Bluff. They're probably one of the better climbers given that most Str heavy classes are in armor. Craft they lose to spellcasters. Diplomacy again goes to Bards. Disable device they're pretty damn good at, but they don't have a tool as useful as at-will detect magic for hunting traps. Escape artist, probably one of the better classes. Intimidate? Goes to Cockatrice cavaliers and Cha classes. Knowledge? Nothing special here, int classes win. Ditto with Linguistics. You already covered Perception. Perform is clearly the realm of Bards. Profession and Sense Motive you also already covered. Sleight of hand... I can't think of any other class with tools for them. Stealth? Naw. Rogues get the worst version of HiPS in the game. Other stealth boosters are nice but they lack that lynchpin. Swim? Again, probably get a good edge here given that most other classes who'd consider it are in heavy armor. UMD? That I'll give them, especially if Counterfeit Magician ends up being any good.

So really I'd say they're "best" (marginally) at non-stealth Dex based skills and UMD, with Str heavy rogues being pretty good at climb and swim too.

[Psyren]

I'm not so sure. Rogues are great at Acrobatics, but they lose out at Appraise compared to an int based caster. Bards especially but generally any Cha class is gonna beat them at Bluff. They're probably one of the better climbers given that most Str heavy classes are in armor. Craft they lose to spellcasters. Diplomacy again goes to Bards. Disable device they're pretty damn good at, but they don't have a tool as useful as at-will detect magic for hunting traps. Escape artist, probably one of the better classes. Intimidate? Goes to Cockatrice cavaliers and Cha classes. Knowledge? Nothing special here, int classes win. Ditto with Linguistics. You already covered Perception. Perform is clearly the realm of Bards. Profession and Sense Motive you also already covered. Sleight of hand... I can't think of any other class with tools for them. Stealth? Naw. Rogues get the worst version of HiPS in the game. Other stealth boosters are nice but they lack that lynchpin. Swim? Again, probably get a good edge here given that most other classes who'd consider it are in heavy armor. UMD? That I'll give them, especially if Counterfeit Magician ends up being any good.

So really I'd say they're "best" (marginally) at non-stealth Dex based skills and UMD, with Str heavy rogues being pretty good at climb and swim too.

Listing X separate classes that beat them at X separate things seems to me to be missing the point. They are still one class that can accomplish many things and do so with little to no reliance on magic.

[Kurald Galain]

Listing X separate classes that beat them at X separate things seems to me to be missing the point. They are still one class that can accomplish many things and do so with little to no reliance on magic.

But a rogue isn't good at many things. A rogue can pick one or two things to be good at, and then he runs out of talent slots.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

But a rogue isn't good at many things. A rogue can pick one or two things to be good at, and then he runs out of talent slots.

If you took away the 1/day requirements and doubled the number of talents a rogue gets then I think they can jump up a tier. Or hell, give them a relearning mechanic that doesn't totally blow chunks like the retraining rules.

Why are so many people afraid of letting the rogue be flexible, reliable, and damn awesome?

[Psyren]

But a rogue isn't good at many things. A rogue can pick one or two things to be good at, and then he runs out of talent slots.

All I can say to this is that I have both seen and built rogues who are good at more than two things*. It doesn't take more than standard PC WBL and a modicum of optimization, the latter of which can be readily obtained from your nearest handbook dispensary.

Now, if you define "good" as "T2 or better" then yeah, rogues will probably disappoint no matter what.


*"things" such as: avoiding detection, scouting, social encounters, melee dpr, ranged dpr, environment traversal, and 5th-manning via UMD

[Kurald Galain]

All I can say to this is that I have both seen and built rogues who are good at more than two things*.
Then my only question is "at what level?"


If you took away the 1/day requirements and doubled the number of talents a rogue gets then I think they can jump up a tier. Or hell, give them a relearning mechanic that doesn't totally blow chunks like the retraining rules.

Why are so many people afraid of letting the rogue be flexible, reliable, and damn awesome?
I concur. I love the concept of talents (and ninja tricks, and rage powers). But I really want more of those, and I find that too many of them are just too weak to be worth it.

[Psyren]

Then my only question is "at what level?"

All levels, that's the point of CR and WBL after all.

[Susano-wo]

well, I'll admit that when I said the rogues class skills, I was mostly thinking of stealth, detection, and trap disabling. But yeah, they can still be good at a ton of skills, especially if they put their secondary into INT, with rogue talents giving them the edge in many skills that others simply cannot, outside of possibly full casters(depending on the talent), duplicate.

I'll simply concede the possibility of many talents being underpowered, since I don't have enough experience/haven't read up enough to make my own decision. I'm just saying that they are, overall, the best overall in PF at their set of skills(which is a good set), and that the lack of giving other classes the bird regarding anything outside their class-box did not remove that, due to rogue talents, trapfinding, and the class-skill bonus.

[Anlashok]

Listing X separate classes that beat them at X separate things seems to me to be missing the point.
When the point was "no one beats the rogues at rogue skills".. sure it is. Because lots of people beat the rogue at generally every skill and some classes just plain beat the rogue at their own game entirely. Plus it's telling when they're one of the worst classes at performing what's supposedly one of their iconic skills.


They are still one class that can accomplish many things and do so with little to no reliance on magic.
You don't really win much by not relying on a lot of magic and the rogue is still gonna be leaning heavily on UMD and magic items to do most things.

[Psyren]

When the point was "no one beats the rogues at rogue skills".. sure it is.

That is a point that no one made (I certainly did not), and therefore a straw man.

And again I say that "beating the rogue at rogue skills" is irrelevant. That is a PvP consideration and has little to no place in this game. What matters instead is something like "can my level 1 rogue beat the Perception check of the two Hobgoblin Warriors guarding the perimeter of their camp?" Their passive perception is 12 - the answer is easily yes. That's all I care about - not the fact that the wizard can cast Vanish and do the same thing, or put them to sleep, or knock them out with color spray, or distract them with dancing lights or a dozen other ways of bypassing them. Good for him, but the rogue can win too.



You don't really win much by not relying on a lot of magic and the rogue is still gonna be leaning heavily on UMD and magic items to do most things.

Sure, but if that magic gets dispelled, suppressed or countered he is not left totally defenseless.

[Spore]

And again I say that "beating the rogue at rogue skills" is irrelevant. That is a PvP consideration and has little to no place in this game. What matters instead is something like "can my level 1 rogue beat the Perception check of the two Hobgoblin Warriors guarding the perimeter of their camp?" Their passive perception is 12 - the answer is easily yes. That's all I care about - not the fact that the wizard can cast Vanish and do the same thing, or put them to sleep, or knock them out with color spray, or distract them with dancing lights or a dozen other ways of bypassing them. Good for him, but the rogue can win too.

Well, if you go for the standard Dex 16 (low point buy, no race with bonus) with 1 rank and class skill, you have a Stealth of +7. Which is a 25% of "start encounter here" for your DM. It's just too poor. Yes I know you can optimize Sneak and as a rogue you probably should but some of it entails playing certain races. And I HATE when I am stuck with Goblins just because they're sneaky as something 8 levels above it. (No goblin hate, but I hate "fixed" race/class combos).

Now if the Rogues got SOME bonus to sneak (1/2 Class plus Dex again), then we'd be talking. But in the current games, a Urban Barbarian with Dex Rage and Traits is better at sneaking than a rogue. Which is not a core ability of rogues by definition but certainly by tropes. And yes, I know there should be a chance of failure for skill rolls, otherwise it is unrealistic. But if you play a scout, you convince your players (not so much their characters) that scouting is a good thing and then you blow it THAT badly.

Well, let's just say a defective d20/the world's unluckiest dice roller and playing a rogue doesn't go very far.

[Anlashok]

That is a point that no one made (I certainly did not), and therefore a straw man.
er...

Aside from the fact that nobody is better than the rogue at his class skills
Seems pretty straight forward.

And again I say that "beating the rogue at rogue skills" is irrelevant. That is a PvP consideration and has little to no place in this game.
I disagree here. It's not the whole of the consideration, but a significant part of why Fighters are terrible is that other classes do what the Fighter does better and then does significantly more on top of that. In a hypothetical world where Fighters are the only class good at solving combat encounters their relative value goes up significantly despite their absolute power not changing.

Of course, it's not a primary determining factor in a tier discussion, but it honestly seems like we've stopped talking about tiers a while ago (and nothing said on this page really refutes T4 rogues anyways).

[Susano-wo]

er...

Seems pretty straight forward.

I disagree here. It's not the whole of the consideration, but a significant part of why Fighters are terrible is that other classes do what the Fighter does better and then does significantly more on top of that. In a hypothetical world where Fighters are the only class good at solving combat encounters their relative value goes up significantly despite their absolute power not changing.

Of course, it's not a primary determining factor in a tier discussion, but it honestly seems like we've stopped talking about tiers a while ago (and nothing said on this page really refutes T4 rogues anyways).

Well, we're kinda talking about are rogues even tier 4(as some have suggested they are 5), with the relevant question "are they good at skills." I said that they are the best at their class skills, though I have clarified that I meant their most iconic, IE sneaking, spotting, and disabling traps. But still, I have no idea what a dex rage barb is, so maybe I just don't know the ins and outs of different archetypes to have a comprehensive discussion. Though I still think that the rogue talents are under-accounted for :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

er...

Seems pretty straight forward.

*shrug* then quote/reply to them, not me.



I disagree here. It's not the whole of the consideration, but a significant part of why Fighters are terrible is that other classes do what the Fighter does better and then does significantly more on top of that. In a hypothetical world where Fighters are the only class good at solving combat encounters their relative value goes up significantly despite their absolute power not changing.

Of course, it's not a primary determining factor in a tier discussion, but it honestly seems like we've stopped talking about tiers a while ago (and nothing said on this page really refutes T4 rogues anyways).

1) I am still talking about tiers (the thread topic), so whatever hypothetical other conversation you may be having doesn't matter one bit to me.

2) I am actually in agreement that PF rogues are T4.

[Anlashok]

*shrug* then quote/reply to them, not me.
I did! I replied to you when you replied to me replying to them.


1) I am still talking about tiers (the thread topic), so whatever hypothetical other conversation you may be having doesn't matter one bit to me.
The majority of the posts seemed to have been arguing about how much better Vivesectionists were or talking about WbL, which is sort of outside the confines of a normal tier discussion.


2) I am actually in agreement that PF rogues are T4.

Then we don't really have much to argue there!

What do you think about PF Fighters and Gunslingers?


though I have clarified that I meant their most iconic, IE sneaking, spotting, and disabling traps.
The trouble, from a comparative stance, is that a lot of classes tend to get really good options for that. At-will detect magic is brutal for dealing with higher tier traps. Stuff like a rogue spending a talent to get the Ranger's HiPS (but only one terrain instead of 4) and having no real answer to some of the other options other classes have is also painful.. and honestly feels ass backwards when you think about it (Why does the iconic stealth class' HiPs "function as" a worse version of another class'?).


Though I still think that the rogue talents are under-accounted for :smallbiggrin:

The trouble is that a lot of rogue talents tend to have bizarre limitations (Why is Acrobatic Stunt 1/day?), weak effects (Card Sharp is literally spending a feat on nothing but fluff), or headscratching abilities (Rumormonger lets you spread lies with bluff checks. Which... Why can't you just do that with bluff normally?).

There are a few slick ones, but way too many end up being wimpy or weird. The fact that every talent is essentially either available at level 2 or 10 hurts too, since it gives Paizo this mentality that they can't make regular rogue talents that are particularly strong.

[Susano-wo]

yeah, the at-will detect magic does suck for magic traps. (probably rule that the trap's magic didn't detect until it activated, but that's (obviously) a houserule.)
Aaand I'd have to agree that the 2/10 thing is odd, especially now that they have made other class lists with more gradation in level requirements.
aside from that, maybe its time for a more comprehensive search through the various classes features :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

What do you think about PF Fighters and Gunslingers?

5 and 5. Lore Wardens are 4. There is probably a T4 Gunslinger archetype (Mysterious Stranger maybe?) but I don't know them well enough to know which one that might be.



The trouble, from a comparative stance, is that a lot of classes tend to get really good options for that. At-will detect magic is brutal for dealing with higher tier traps.

For starters, this was no different than in 3.5. You could get Detect Magic permanencied or on a wand or something pretty early on, and magic traps radiate magic there too.

But DM has several disadvantages that almost never get mentioned - max range 60ft., useless for detecting mechanical traps, useless in AMF, can actually set off some traps e.g. symbols or anything with a detect magic trigger of its own (since you need an active spell on yourself to be using it), concentrating on it takes a standard action, and for the at-will version, recasting it has verbal components that can give you away. It takes 3 rounds between spotting an aura and actually determining what school it might be, never mind whether it's a trap or not.

Compare to Perception - which is still and silent, spots all traps, no maximum range, works in AMF, can detect traps far outside their trigger radius, does not require any magical buffs on you, only takes a move action (or no action at all if optimized), and identifies traps right away without 18 seconds of staring.


Stuff like a rogue spending a talent to get the Ranger's HiPS (but only one terrain instead of 4) and having no real answer to some of the other options other classes have is also painful.. and honestly feels ass backwards when you think about it (Why does the iconic stealth class' HiPs "function as" a worse version of another class'?).

HiPS in all terrains is two feats away. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/hellcat-stealth) And the same prereq is used for Darkstalker. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/dampen-presence)


The trouble is that a lot of rogue talents tend to have bizarre limitations (Why is Acrobatic Stunt 1/day?), weak effects (Card Sharp is literally spending a feat on nothing but fluff), or headscratching abilities (Rumormonger lets you spread lies with bluff checks. Which... Why can't you just do that with bluff normally?).

There are a few slick ones, but way too many end up being wimpy or weird. The fact that every talent is essentially either available at level 2 or 10 hurts too, since it gives Paizo this mentality that they can't make regular rogue talents that are particularly strong.

The bad ones do not make the good ones any less good. That is terrible logic. Just skip the bad options. Optimization 101.

[Kudaku]

Why do you see the gunslinger as T5? In my experience they're extraordinarily good at ranged combat but otherwise struggle to contribute - that strikes me as tier 4, not tier 5.

[PsyBomb]

Gunslingers are very solidly in the definition of T4. They can do one thing extraordinarily well (that one thing being ranged physical damage), but have almost nothing to offer outside of their specialty.

[Psyren]

Why do you see the gunslinger as T5? In my experience they're extraordinarily good at ranged combat but otherwise struggle to contribute - that strikes me as tier 4, not tier 5.

They're okay but I wouldn't call them "extraordinarily great." Yeah, Dex to damage is nice, but their damage honestly doesn't get that far above an equal ranger, the quintessential ranged T4. And guns take lots of resources (both wealth for the weapons and ammunition, and feats to fight with them effectively e.g. reloading quickly before you even get to the regular ranged necessities); But even once you take care of all that they have basically no tools to help them stay at range. No companion to tank for them, no spells, no stealth. If you grapple a gunslinger or simply threaten one with Step Up, they are pretty screwed. All the damage in the world won't help if you can't use it.

Rangers meanwhile have comparable ranged damage, plus useful magic, plus a companion, plus good skills, plus good ranged feats they don't need to meet the prerequisites for (like Point Blank Master.)

[Kudaku]

I think you might be underestimating the power of making all ranged attacks resolve vs touch AC. In my experience gunslingers put out significantly more ranged dpr than archer rangers since they'll basically auto-hit on every attack, which means they can pile on attack penalties without being seriously affected - TWF, rapid shot, double-barreled guns etc.

[Psyren]

Resolving on touch is useful but it either requires blowing precious grit (per attack, no less) or standing far too close to the enemy for comfort imo. If left alone and with the proper feats they have a chance at outdamaging the ranger, but the ranger does far better solo or if the party is occupied.

Furthermore, a ranger's total DPR includes their ranged attacks, relevant feats like deadly aim, plus bonuses like favored enemy, gravity bow, their animal companion's attacks (which ALSO get favored enemy) and bow spirit (which also shares their feats.) Plus they bring more utility to the table like being able to grapple or trip foes with the companion, resist energy for fighting dragons, use that cure light wounds wand etc.

[Kudaku]

Resolving on touch is useful but it either requires blowing precious grit (per attack, no less) or standing far too close to the enemy for comfort imo. If left alone and with the proper feats they have a chance at outdamaging the ranger, but the ranger does far better solo or if the party is occupied.

Furthermore, a ranger's total DPR includes their ranged attacks, relevant feats like deadly aim, plus bonuses like favored enemy, gravity bow, their animal companion's attacks (which ALSO get favored enemy) and bow spirit (which also shares their feats.) Plus they bring more utility to the table like being able to grapple or trip foes with the companion, resist energy for fighting dragons, use that cure light wounds wand etc.

The touch AC attacks cap at 40/80 (pistol/musket) feet range if you're using early era guns, which I don't find hugely confining - your experience can and probably will vary based on campaign style though. If for whatever reason you find yourself in lots of long-range shoot-outs, you could pick up Signature Deed with Deadeye to resolve against touch AC within the first two range increments for no grit cost. If you regularly combat enemies outside of 160 feet (something I personally find unusual) then I'd consider investing in a mount option to make you more mobile - again, you can easily make the attacks while taking the penalties for firing on the move, so you don't need to invest in mounted combat feats.

I think assuming the ranger always benefits from the favored enemy bonus is a mistake - apart from Instant Enemy (which is imo is an example of how optimization can move a class up a tier) it's an inconsistent bonus. Moreover, I'm not sure why the gunslinger has to "beat" the ranger?

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 competence without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength.

The gunslinger is an excellent ranged combatant in general, and by targeting touch AC he can single-handedly annihilate creatures that rely on high armor/natural AC like dragons - but is lackluster when an encounter doesn't accommodate for his (ranged) approach to combat. I don't really see how he fails to qualify for T4?

[Psyren]

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 competence without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength.

The gunslinger is an excellent ranged combatant in general, and by targeting touch AC he can single-handedly annihilate creatures that rely on high armor/natural AC like dragons - but is lackluster when an encounter doesn't accommodate for his (ranged) approach to combat. I don't really see how he fails to qualify for T4?

What I take issue with is the claim "capable of doing one thing quite well." "Ranged damage potential" is only a part of "ranged combat" and high numbers do not by themselves make you good at a thing. Even Fighter can get high numbers. No, as I said previously, that damage means nothing if you cannot stay at range, and the gunslinger class gives you next to nothing to help with that objective.

I bring up the ranger as a point of comparison because it has the kinds of things I expect to see in a "capable" class - namely, damage AND utility. An archer ranger who winds up in melee has several options - they can (a) still full attack without provoking, or (b) get his animal to bull rush the threat away as a free action, or (c) ride his animal away as a free action or (d) get his animal to grapple the threat as a free action etc. If they get grappled, they can get free with Liberating Command, or they might have Freedom of Movement up, or their companion can intercept a grapple attempt with Bleed For Your Master, or you can cast Scamper right before the animal flees for a near-guaranteed escape with you in the saddle. A Gunslinger can't do any of these. And once grappled or in melee their DPR plummets through the floor.

[Elderand]

I bring up the ranger as a point of comparison because it has the kinds of things I expect to see in a "capable" class - namely, damage AND utility.

You're being wildly inconsistant here I think. For pages you've been harping on people to judge the rogue based on what he can do an not compare it to other classes but now you do exactly that to the gunslinger.

[Kudaku]

I bring up the ranger as a point of comparison because it has the kinds of things I expect to see in a "capable" class - namely, damage AND utility.

That's not the requirement for tier 4 though - tier 4 says you can either be "decent" at many different things without truly shining at any one point, or "really good" at one thing but frequently useless when that thing is not called for. The way I see it, the only reason the ranger is not tier 3 is because the spellcasting is too limited - in my opinion the PF ranger is very close to tier 3, and certain options (like the Instant Enemy spell) actually bump it up to the next tier.

If you honestly think "very high ranged damage output" and "very high ranged damage accuracy" doesn't qualify you to be described as "quite good at ranged combat", then I think we're better off agreeing to disagree.

Oh, and gunslingers can make full attacks with a pistol while grappled, and the grappling creature can't take the attacks of opportunity provoked by making ranged attacks, since he has the "grappled" condition. The gunslinger actually benefits greatly from being grappled rather than simply in melee. Fun fact :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

That's not the requirement for tier 4 though - tier 4 says you can either be "decent" at many different things without truly shining at any one point, or "really good" at one thing but frequently useless when that thing is not called for. The way I see it, the only reason the ranger is not tier 3 is because the spellcasting is too limited - in my opinion the PF ranger is very close to tier 3, and certain options (like the Instant Enemy spell) actually bump it up to the next tier.

The requirement is "quite well." If damage was all it took to get there, Fighter would be T4 because they can do very good damage numbers too.



Oh, and gunslingers can make full attacks with a pistol while grappled, and the grappling creature can't take the attacks of opportunity provoked by making ranged attacks, since he has the "grappled" condition. The gunslinger actually benefits greatly from being grappled rather than simply in melee. Fun fact :smallsmile:

But you can't reload because that takes two hands. So you full attack once and you're done.

[Kudaku]

The requirement is "quite well." If damage was all it took to get there, Fighter would be T4 because they can do very good damage numbers too.

Are you saying that gunslingers face the same problems as fighters (who is considered high tier 5)?

The fighter's main problems are:
A. Bad Saves
B. No distinct class features
C. No access to Pounce or mobility-enhancing class features
D. Unable to contribute outside of combat
E. Fighter feats are underwhelming, as are bonus feats in general.
F. Bravery is a joke.

With two strong saves and a real use for wisdom, 4 skill points and a genuinely unique set of class features seems to me to differentiate the gunslinger rather strongly from the fighter in this regard. I really don't see the gunslinger and the fighter on equal footing.


But you can't reload because that takes two hands. So you full attack once and you're done.

That's still 12 more attacks than your bow using ranger will get. :smallsmile:

"The gunslinger isn't tier 4 because he can be grappled" doesn't strike me as a very convincing argument, especially when you consider that the gunslinger will have a very healthy CMD with full BAB and a high dexterity - he also has the skill points to pick up Escape Artist if he really things constant grappling is going to be a concern.

I still maintain that the gunslinger is an excellent ranged combatant, and so should qualify as tier 4 since he "does one thing quite well".

[9mm]

I think you might be underestimating the power of making all ranged attacks resolve vs touch AC. In my experience gunslingers put out significantly more ranged dpr than archer rangers since they'll basically auto-hit on every attack, which means they can pile on attack penalties without being seriously affected - TWF, rapid shot, double-barreled guns etc.

points of order.
1 Those touch attacks are a function of the guns for the most part not the gunslinger.
2 the vast amount of TWF pistol users are doing it wrong.

A Gunslinger is a fighter speced into archery using bizarre bows. Nothing more, nothing less.

[squiggit]

I feel like a lot of people end up really exaggerating gunslinger power. Yeah, you do more damage than archers, but not to the point I often see it started (where gunslingers are treated as uberchargers and rangers as cheeseless pixie hulking hurlers).

The relative difficulty the class has enabling its damage holds it significantly however and largely mitigates the extra damage it deals. Similar in a lot of ways to Fighter vs Barb, where the former hits harder in a vacuum (in Pathfinder) but has a lot more trouble delivering its damage (because it lacks things like Pounce or Superstitious). In turn, the double barrel pistol gunslinger has a much shorter range and fewer tools to deal with enemies threatening it.

[Psyren]

That's still 12 more attacks than a bow user will get. :smallsmile:

Assuming by "bow user" you mean "ranger," Freedom of Movement, remember? (Plus they have to get past the ranger's Large bodyguard to begin with.)


"The gunslinger isn't tier 4 because he can be grappled" doesn't strike me as a very convincing argument, especially when you consider that the gunslinger will have a very healthy CMD with full BAB and a high dexterity - he also has the skill points to pick up Escape Artist if he really things constant grappling is going to be a concern.

But "the gunslinger isn't T4 because he is very easy to shut down by getting into melee range" is.

Escape Artist is highly inefficient as it's a standard action to get free (wasting at least one of your turns), plus the DC gets painful fast due to CMD scaling. It's a viable tactic for a ranger, who can do it as an immediate, with a big bonus to boot (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/l/liberating-command) (assuming he even got grappled to begin with - pet and FoM again.) Even a rogue, another T4, can stay out of this kind of trouble better than a gunslinger can. It's not a very good fallback for them.


I still maintain that the gunslinger is an excellent ranged combatant, and so should qualify as tier 4 since he "does one thing quite well".

My point is that he does half of one thing well. Being great at ranged damage isn't much use when you're that easy to neutralize, just like a fighter being good at melee doesn't help without pounce because his opponent can simply keep moving away and prevent him from getting a full attack off. These are pretty basic strategies.

They have nothing to increase their speed. They have nothing to escape from melee more easily. They have nothing to help them escape a grapple or reload in one. I say T5 because the class does not help you do the thing it's designed to do, i.e. stay at ranged. You must rely exclusively on the kindness of the party and DM.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Assuming by "bow user" you mean "ranger," Freedom of Movement, remember? (Plus they have to get past the ranger's Large bodyguard to begin with.)



But "the gunslinger isn't T4 because he is very easy to shut down by getting into melee range" is.

Escape Artist is highly inefficient as it's a standard action to get free (wasting at least one of your turns), plus the DC gets painful fast due to CMD scaling. It's a viable tactic for a ranger, who can do it as an immediate, with a big bonus to boot (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/l/liberating-command) (assuming he even got grappled to begin with - pet and FoM again.) Even a rogue, another T4, can stay out of this kind of trouble better than a gunslinger can. It's not a very good fallback for them.



My point is that he does half of one thing well. Being great at ranged damage isn't much use when you're that easy to neutralize, just like a fighter being good at melee doesn't help without pounce because his opponent can simply keep moving away and prevent him from getting a full attack off. These are pretty basic strategies.

They have nothing to increase their speed. They have nothing to escape from melee more easily. They have nothing to help them escape a grapple or reload in one. I say T5 because the class does not help you do the thing it's designed to do, i.e. stay at ranged. You must rely exclusively on the kindness of the party and DM.

I hate to agree with Psyren but he is right. Ranged combat is not just about damage.

(That was a lie, I actually have no feelings for or against agreeing with him... I just typed that for dramatic effect. I blame the House marathon I'm watching)

It would be like saying... The fighter is tier 4 because he is a good at crowd control. Sure the fighter has some of the biggest to hit numbers... But the math doesn't work in his favor and monsters will shut him down more often than not. So is the fighter really good at that one thing? No.

Obviously Lore Warden is the exception, my level 3 lore warden (tier 4 character... Tier 3 PC once I hit level 9...) had a +14 to trip and I'm not even really that optimized (no favored race bonuses).

[Kudaku]

I originally wrote up a long reply, but truth be told I don't really see much point in arguing this. While I understand your arguments, I still see the gunslinger as a tier 4 - it certainly has weaknesses like any classes do, but I don't see those weaknesses as sufficiently crippling to keep it from doing what it does very well indeed.

Let's just agree to disagree. :smallsmile:

Edit:
I feel like a lot of people end up really exaggerating gunslinger power. Yeah, you do more damage than archers, but not to the point I often see it started (where gunslingers are treated as uberchargers and rangers as cheeseless pixie hulking hurlers).

It depends on how much optimization you're willing to use really. If you make a TWF pistol build in the early teens and go all out to stack on as many extra attacks as possible, gunslingers are able to dish out truly impractical amounts of damage. As an example, a 12th level hasted gunslinger can make 14 attacks a round and expect to hit on the majority of them. A lot of the fault for that lie with double-barreled weapons though. Not sure who thought "double the attacks for a -4 penalty" was a good idea for a class that has an easier time hitting his target than any other class in the game.

[Psyren]

Let's just agree to disagree. :smallsmile:


Okay, fine by me.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I originally wrote up a long reply, but truth be told I don't really see much point in arguing this. While I understand your arguments, I still see the gunslinger as a tier 4 - it certainly has weaknesses like any classes do, but I don't see those weaknesses as sufficiently crippling to keep it from doing what it does very well indeed.

Let's just agree to disagree. :smallsmile:

Edit:

It depends on how much optimization you're willing to use really. If you make a TWF pistol build in the early teens and go all out to stack on as many extra attacks as possible, gunslingers are able to dish out truly impractical amounts of damage. As an example, a 12th level hasted gunslinger can make 14 attacks a round and expect to hit on the majority of them. A lot of the fault for that lie with double-barreled weapons though. Not sure who thought "double the attacks for a -4 penalty" was a good idea for a class that has an easier time hitting his target than any other class in the game.

Though, it is so easy to shut down the gunslinger, can you really say they are tier 4?

Damage doesn't matter if you can't keep that damage up. So although their damage potential can hit them into tier 4, their practical use won't allow them to go above tier 5.

Besides optimization isn't part of the tier list. You can optimize anything (almost) up a tier. The tier list is about the class itself, not high optimization.

[Larkas]

Though, it is so easy to shut down the gunslinger, can you really say they are tier 4?

Damage doesn't matter if you can't keep that damage up. So although their damage potential can hit them into tier 4, their practical use won't allow them to go above tier 5.

Besides optimization isn't part of the tier list. You can optimize anything (almost) up a tier. The tier list is about the class itself, not high optimization.

Can't you say the same of the T4 Barbarian?

[Kudaku]

Though, it is so easy to shut down the gunslinger, can you really say they are tier 4?

Damage doesn't matter if you can't keep that damage up. So although their damage potential can hit them into tier 4, their practical use won't allow them to go above tier 5.

Besides optimization isn't part of the tier list. You can optimize anything (almost) up a tier. The tier list is about the class itself, not high optimization.

My answer on optimization wasn't related to gunslinger tiers but rather "that people exaggerate the damage output of gunslingers" in general. I kind of hoped I made that clear by quoting the full post.

[Psyren]

Can't you say the same of the T4 Barbarian?

Pounce is generally enough to get melee to T4 because the biggest barrier to melee damage is staying out of melee. Running from a fighter is a good strategy; running from a barbarian means you die tired.

Furthermore, the class has tools to actually keep you in melee and keep you a threat once there. PF Barbarians can fly even without magic items if they need to, or cut through battlefield control, or ignore difficult terrain, or fight with their weapons taken away etc.

The gunslinger's tools meanwhile - when they are focused on damage and not quirky things like shooting locks or cauterizing wounds - focus entirely on numbers and not the ancillary conditions needed to achieve those numbers.

To be T4 there has to be more synergy between the class features and the class role than "this one goes up to 11 gives you more numbers."

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Can't you say the same of the T4 Barbarian?

Yes one could make a case for the barbarian not being t4. Though they have base class abilities that helps them overcome these weaknesses.

I could break the tiers down to 3 based on ease of shut down. This may be an overall better classification, though it would be based on no house rules and before and after the DM actively interfers with how the game was made to play.

Tier C: Able to be shut down easily and often. Poses no real challenge to the creatures or situations of the game unless the DM interfers on behalf the PC.


Example: Fighter, Cavilier, Monk

Tier B: Can be shut down sometimes but other times will have options and abilities that will keep them from being shut down.


Example: Sorcerer, Bard, and Ranger

Tier A: The game can't easily shut down these classes, though it may be possible with DM interference. No matter what the DM does the class will have a way to not be shut down if allowed to exercise this ability.


Wizard, Cleric, Witch


With optimization, deootimization, play style, and DM interference any class can go to different tiers. This will be based on JUST the base class and abilities from the base class.

Or something like that...

*typed barbarian instead of monk, was still thinking about the barbarian haha.

[Kudaku]

Furthermore, the class has tools to actually keep you in melee and keep you a threat once there. PF Barbarians can fly even without magic items if they need to, or cut through battlefield control, or ignore difficult terrain, or fight with their weapons taken away etc.

Do you mean the dragon totem? From what I can tell non-item based flying and pounce are mutually exclusive for the barbarian.

I'm not aware of any rage powers that allow barbarians to ignore difficult terrain - only thing that springs to mind is dragon style. Could you provide a source for this? :smallsmile:

[PsyBomb]

Do you mean the dragon totem? From what I can tell non-item based flying and pounce are mutually exclusive for the barbarian.

I'm not aware of any rage powers that allow barbarians to ignore difficult terrain - only thing that springs to mind is dragon style. Could you provide a source for this? :smallsmile:

Would have been, if it wasn't for the Totem Barbarian Archetype. It's a lot like Quinggong Monk, can go on anything with no drawbacks. In this case, it lets the Barbarian have multiple Totems.

[Kudaku]

Would have been, if it wasn't for the Totem Barbarian Archetype. It's a lot like Quinggong Monk, can go on anything with no drawbacks. In this case, it lets the Barbarian have multiple Totems.

Do you mean the Totem Warrior? The FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qdg) specifically states that you can only pick from one set of totem rage powers, which seems pretty definitive.

[Oazard]

Would have been, if it wasn't for the Totem Barbarian Archetype. It's a lot like Quinggong Monk, can go on anything with no drawbacks. In this case, it lets the Barbarian have multiple Totems.

No (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qdg), it was an error from the Ultimate Combat. The Totem Barbarian Archetype does nothing.

EDIT: Ninja'ed by Kudaku. :smallfrown:

[PsyBomb]

I stand corrected

[Psyren]

Do you mean the dragon totem? From what I can tell non-item based flying and pounce are mutually exclusive for the barbarian.

I'm not aware of any rage powers that allow barbarians to ignore difficult terrain - only thing that springs to mind is dragon style. Could you provide a source for this? :smallsmile:

Didn't you just agree to disagree with me? :smalltongue: I was speaking to Larkas.

To answer your questions anyway: flight allows you to ignore difficult terrain as you are no longer on the ground. As for pounce - this is extremely valuable as it is nearly impossible to replicate with items, while the others can more or less be replicated with wealth. And Barbarians of course can get by more easily than fighters can allocating wealth to such things as they have stronger innate defenses (e.g. better will and fort saves, ceterus paribus) and more utility from their rage powers.

[Kudaku]

Didn't you just agree to disagree with me? :smalltongue:

On the gunslinger! I reserve the right to agree and/or disagree with you on other things. :smallbiggrin:

I find it a bit disingenuous to imply (perhaps unintentionally?) that the barbarian can pounce, ignore difficult terrain and fly without magic at the same time though - either he picks beast totem for pounce (which is countered by difficult terrain or flying enemies to name a few) or he picks dragon totem for flight (losing pounce, meaning he loses massive amounts of DPR if his target is more than a five-foot step away).

[Elderand]

On the gunslinger! I reserve the right to agree and/or disagree with you on other things. :smallbiggrin:

I find it a bit disingenuous to imply (perhaps unintentionally?) that the barbarian can pounce, ignore difficult terrain and fly without magic at the same time though - either he picks beast totem for pounce (which is countered by difficult terrain or flying enemies to name a few) or he picks dragon totem for flight (losing pounce, meaning he loses massive amounts of DPR if his target is more than a five-foot step away).

Discussions about tiers are like discussion about wizard, entirely disingenuous (aka shrodinger wizard) depending on which class any particular poster thinks belong to which tier.

[Psyren]

On the gunslinger! I reserve the right to agree and/or disagree with you on other things. :smallbiggrin:

I find it a bit disingenuous to imply that the barbarian can pounce, ignore difficult terrain and fly without magic at the same time though - either he picks beast totem for pounce (which is countered by difficult terrain or flying enemies to name a few) or he picks dragon totem for flight (losing pounce, meaning he loses massive amounts of DPR if his target is more than a five-foot step away).

It's not disingenuous; you're not thinking nearly holistically enough. Remember, the overall point I made was "my class helps me perform my role" - that is the distinction between T4 and T5, because the definition of T4 is "do something quite well" while the definition of T5 is "do something not necessarily all that well."

Fighters, Monks and Gunslingers - their class helps them perform part of their role, the numbers part (Not even that much in the monk's case really, but at least they have more utility/defenses built in.) But the ancillary stuff - maintaining optimum range to deliver those numbers, or shoring up your defenses so you can reallocate your wealth to performing the same function - that is where they fall flat. Numbers alone are useless because if you're a T5 melee and your opponent can keep you at range, you will never achieve those numbers. Similarly, if you are a T5 ranged and your opponent can keep you in melee and rip you to shreds if you try attacking from there, you will never achieve those numbers. In both cases, the DM and party need to carry/accomodate you.

So you look at a vanilla Fighter (T5) - they need to spend wealth on melee weapon and armor as the bare minimum. They need to spend wealth on other defenses (saves especially) because even their strong save does not scale fast enough on its own to keep up with a nasty attack, never mind the weak ones. They need to spend wealth on movement modes like flight (and swimming in the right campaign) as well as just boosting landspeed in general so they can keep up. They need some consumables because even if there is someone who can heal or buff in the party, they may end up indisposed. And they probably want a ranged weapon and backup melee weapon (usually a light weapon in case they're swallowed) just in case.

Do any of their class features help ameliorate any of those costs? Answer - not a single one. Weapon Training and Armor Training - too slow and minor. Bravery - too narrow. Armor Mastery - useless by the time you get it. Weapon Mastery - good boost but too late. The only really good things they get are, of course, the feats - but unfortunately, quantity is not quality here and even the ones that fighters get early or exclusive access to are not that good.

Compare to a vanilla Barbarian (T4). Rage gives much bigger bonuses than Bravery and Weapon Training, the will save boost applies to everything instead of just fear. They also boost their already titanic fort save even higher, and even boost HP (which is most reflex saves). A barbarian can thus do without buying an item for his saving throws longer. He can buy that item to fly sooner than the Fighter can without having as many weaknesses as a result. Then we get to rage powers and the gap between tiers becomes clear. There are many traps here too, but also many that help the Barbarian perform its primary function - get in a monster's face and dish out as much pain as possible.


TL;DR - if a Fighter never had to close to melee, pass saving throws or even leave the ground in order to dish out melee damage, it would probably be T4. But they do, so they're not.

[Kudaku]

It's not disingenuous; you're not thinking nearly holistically enough. Remember, the overall point I made was "my class helps me perform my role" - that is the distinction between T4 and T5, because the definition of T4 is "do something quite well" while the definition of T5 is "do something not necessarily all that well."

Holistically is perhaps not the best word to use since that implies "seeing the class as a whole", yet "the whole barbarian" can't have both totem powers - he specifically has to choose between the two. Being without either dragon or beast totem means he's vulnerable to obvious and common counter-tactics - moving to avoid full attacks, or using flight and difficult terrain to limit his pounce options.

You previously argued that a class isn't competent at its job if it is very easy to shut it down by doing X. I don't really see how that argument isn't equally valid against a barbarian by either using flight magic v pouncing barbarians or denying full attacks v a flying barbarian?

[Psyren]

Holistically is perhaps not the best word to use since that implies "seeing the class as a whole", yet "the whole barbarian" can't have both totem powers - he specifically has to choose between the two. Being without either dragon or beast totem means he's vulnerable to obvious and common counter-tactics - moving to avoid full attacks, or using flight and difficult terrain to limit his pounce options.

You previously argued that a class isn't competent at its job if it is very easy to shut it down by doing X. I don't really see how that argument isn't equally valid against a barbarian by either using flight magic v pouncing barbarians, or mobility v a flying barbarian?

To summarize the big spoiler (which you obviously skipped :smalltongue:) - a barbarian can obtain flight via items, and can do so early on without sacrificing the core defenses or offenses that a fighter would.

A fighter meanwhile - even after he is able to buy flight later - is more or less unable to buy pounce.

[squiggit]

Holistically is perhaps not the best word to use since that implies "seeing the class as a whole", yet "the whole barbarian" can't have both totem powers - he specifically has to choose between the two. Being without either dragon or beast totem means he's vulnerable to obvious and common counter-tactics - moving to avoid full attacks, or using flight and difficult terrain to limit his pounce options.

You previously argued that a class isn't competent at its job if it is very easy to shut it down by doing X. I don't really see how that argument isn't equally valid against a barbarian by either using flight magic v pouncing barbarians, or mobility v a flying barbarian?

It does, and it's why the barbarian is only considered pretty good and not amazing, but there's still very clearly a large degree of difference between being at the mercy of every counter and being at the mercy of only a couple.

[Kudaku]

To summarize the big spoiler (which you obviously skipped :smalltongue:) - a barbarian can obtain flight via items, and can do so early on without sacrificing the core defenses or offenses that a fighter would.

A fighter meanwhile - even after he is able to buy flight later - is more or less unable to buy pounce.

I didn't skip it, but I was under the impression that the tier system generally tries to avoid WBL. If the barbarian can rely on using items to cover his weaknesses (no natural flight), why can't the gunslinger shore up his weaknesses (ring of freedom of action for example) to do the same? The gunslinger has excellent saves by default, is more or less SAD, has no pressing need for magical armor, and since he's targeting Touch AC he doesn't have a particularly high need for highly enchanted weapons - the difference between +1 reliable distance pistols and +3 reliable distance pistols is minor. He has plenty of money to spare compared to martial classes that plan to be in melee range.


It does, and it's why the barbarian is only considered pretty good and not amazing, but there's still very clearly a large degree of difference between being at the mercy of every counter and being at the mercy of only a couple.

Absolutely, but one page ago arguments were made that a class wasn't tier 4 because "it can be countered by grappling". I don't really see the difference between "the gunslinger avoids grappling by using magic items" and "the barbarian catches flying enemies using magic items".

[Psyren]

I didn't skip it, but I was under the impression that the tier system generally tries to avoid WBL. If the barbarian can rely on using items to cover his weaknesses (no natural flight), why can't the gunslinger shore up his weaknesses (ring of freedom of action for example) to do the same?

This is exactly why I said you need to think holistically. In general, there are three types of class features:

1) Those that give you a needed functionality to directly do your job(s).
2) Those that give you an ancillary functionality or defense, which lessens your reliance on items that do the same thing.
3) Those that do neither (either too weak or focused on something else entirely.)

Think of this as a very scaled down version of the "why each class is in its tier" thread.

Gunslinger's class features largely fall in either the first one (specifically, the ranged damage stuff) or the third one (things like "scoot item" or "cauterize wound" that are largely irrelevant to doing ranged damage.)

Their big problem is that they don't get enough 2 and must rely on items to fill that role - but they also need items for the normal stuff you need items for, like enhancing your gun, enhancing your armor, enhancing your stats, enhancing your saves etc.

That ring you mentioned for instance is 40k. They aren't even allowed to buy one until 11 (50% of WBL), and even then they have a lot of other gear competing for their purse strings by that point. Their class features do not help them manage that expense at all. Compare to a Ranger, who can easily do without such a ring - not only because they can just get a scroll or wand with the spell instead much more cheaply, but because they can even just escape grapples via their magic or avoid them entirely with their large-sized companion etc. etc.


the difference between +1 reliable distance pistols and +3 reliable distance pistols is minor.

You have an odd definition of "minor" - that second one is almost triple the cost of the first. And you aren't factoring in AC, concealment, saving throws, utility...

[Kudaku]

This is exactly why I said you need to think holistically. In general, there are three types of class features:

1) Those that give you a needed functionality to directly do your job(s).
2) Those that give you an ancillary functionality or defense, which lessens your reliance on items that do the same thing.
3) Those that do neither (either too weak or focused on something else entirely.)

Think of this as a very scaled down version of the "why each class is in its tier" thread.

Gunslinger's class features largely fall in either the first one (specifically, the ranged damage stuff) or the third one (things like "scoot item" or "cauterize wound" that are largely irrelevant to doing ranged damage.)

Their big problem is that they don't get enough 2 and must rely on items to fill that role - but they also need items for the normal stuff you need items for, like enhancing your gun, enhancing your armor, enhancing your stats, enhancing your saves etc.

That ring you mentioned for instance is 40k. They aren't even allowed to buy one until 11 (50% of WBL), and even then they have a lot of other gear competing for their purse strings by that point. Their class features do not help them manage that expense at all. Compare to a Ranger, who can easily do without such a ring - not only because they can just get a scroll or wand with the spell instead much more cheaply, but because they can even just escape grapples via their magic or avoid them entirely with their large-sized companion etc. etc.

I think I understand why we disagree on the class now - I agree with your description of class features sorted into three different groups - let's call them Offense, Defense/Utility, and Flavour. I find that the ranger is split fairly evenly between all three - he has decent offense (favored enemy, combat style), a decent defense (two good saves, spell list, 6 skill points/level), and some flavour mechanics that don't really contribute much (Endurance, Woodland Stride).

In comparison the barbarian is either extremely heavily loaded in offense (pounce) and lacking in utility (no flight) or good in offense (no pounce) and has some extra utility (flight).

Finally, I see the gunslinger heavily invested in Offense (dex to damage, touch attacks etc), with a fairly good but not amazing defense/utility (two strong saves and wisdom dependent, 4 skill ranks/level, decent AC and CMD via dex focus and Nimble) and a few flavour mechanics (blast lock, Scoot Unattended Object) that don't really contribute much.

In my experience the solid baseline offense/defense of the gunslinger means he's able to save WBL by avoiding expenses other martials have - since he's not in melee he doesn't have the same need for good armor and a miss chance, since he has extraordinary offense it's not as critical to get +x weapons ASAP and so on.

Edit: I did a bit of googling to seek other opinions and I found a fun post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=11778437&postcount=9). :smallwink: The next day you seem to have changed your mind and call it a tier 5 class, but I don't see any debate or explanation for why the shift happened?

[Psyren]

Edit: I did a bit of googling to seek other opinions and I found a fun post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=11778437&postcount=9). :smallwink:

Yep! I know the exact date I changed my mind (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=12183120&postcount=19) too.

EDIT to your edit:


The next day you seem to have changed your mind and call it a tier 5 class, but I don't see any debate or explanation for why the shift happened?

The short answer is I thought about it some more and have stuck with T5 since.