How Would These Houserules Affect The Tier List?

[Strill]

http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/

My DM has said that he's using the houserules in the above link, with the hopes that they would help out lower-tier martial classes. Generally the changes involve taking a bunch of combat-oriented feats and consolidating them into single feats, or just giving them to everyone for free. I'm curious how much these changes would affect class Tier balance. My guess is that it would probably bump Tier 4 and 5 classes up by one tier.

[AmberVael]

Honestly, I don't think any of this significantly raises the power of the low tier classes. While gaining Deadly Aim/Power Attack for free is a nice feature, that's probably the strongest improvement here and getting either of those feats is pretty much assumed in a warrior build anyway... so the question is, "is an extra feat or two strong enough to boost a class by a tier?" Answer seems pretty obviously no to me.

This does do a good job at what it aimed to do though. I think most of the stuff eliminated and combined here is pretty reasonable and might make building a character rather more varied at least.

[Snowbluff]

Not at all. It would be nice, though.

[Strill]

Honestly, I don't think any of this significantly raises the power of the low tier classes. While gaining Deadly Aim/Power Attack for free is a nice feature, that's probably the strongest improvement here and getting either of those feats is pretty much assumed in a warrior build anyway... so the question is, "is an extra feat or two strong enough to boost a class by a tier?" Answer seems pretty obviously no to me.

This does do a good job at what it aimed to do though. I think most of the stuff eliminated and combined here is pretty reasonable and might make building a character rather more varied at least.

He consolidates six different combat maneuver feats into a single feat. There's another one that consolidates four feats into one. Surely getting eight more feats than normal would make a big difference?

Also, don't these changes make a big difference to MAD classes like the monk and Rogue, which can now forego Strength?

[AmberVael]

He consolidates six different combat maneuver feats into a single feat. There's another one that consolidates four feats into one. Surely getting eight more feats than normal would make a big difference?

The reason that you can combine all those feats and I'll call it reasonable is that the majority of those feats aren't actually worth it on their own. Putting them together potentially makes them viable, but doesn't make them better than some of the other feats out there.

Deft maneuvers is pretty sweet and a good option for every melee character now... but not so big that it would really shift their position in the tier list. Powerful maneuvers significantly improves the feats that composed it, but I still question whether it would be worth the feat slot it'd take up, which should say something.


Also, don't these changes make a big difference to MAD classes like the monk and Rogue, which can now forego Strength?

It is a nice change. Its not a super powerful change. It is again akin to giving them one or two extra feats. And frankly, it doesn't make them so much less MAD that it makes a significant difference.

[Fouredged Sword]

The problem is that you have some fundamental differences between tiers 1-2 and 3-4. The abilities available to tier 3-4 characters are significantly weaker than tier 1-2 characters. Adding access to more tier 3-4 options will turn a tier 4 class into a tier 3 class, but even with all options they will not be tier 2.

[Loxagn]

The way it was explained to me is that tiers are based on the following:

Tier 3: Generally considered the point of 'balance'. The character has fun options, can be powerful in his own right, but is unlikely to break the game without significant charop. The single-school casters, tome of battle classes, and bard go here, in theory.

Tier 1: Typically prepared casters such as Wizards, Clerics, and Druids. These characters have all the options they could ever want, and all of the exceedingly powerful ones.

Tier 2: The same options as Tier 1, but a more limited ability to select from them. Psions and Sorcerors abounds.

Tier 4: The character has a few options, but lacks that certain 'oomph' to give them the extra power to keep up past a certain point. Rogues, Scouts, Paladins, Rangers.
Tier 5: Characters typically only have one or two options, terrible skill selection, and usually contribute nothing more relevant than damage. Fighters and Barbarians, for the most part.

Tier 6: Characters cannot function well in any role wihout significant hand-holding or optimization. Monks, Truenamers, and otherly-terrible similar classes are here.

I may have an incorrect understanding of things, but that's simply what I was told. The issue with the tiers isn't really that the lower ones lack numbers. It's a matter of the higher tiers having choices and options that the lower ones could never even dream of. Adding more numbers onto a fighter is not going to change the fact that the Wizard has access to Wish and he does not.

[Extra Anchovies]

Not at all. It would be nice, though.

This. The houserules wouldn't shift the tiers, but they would eliminate a lot of the ugly-ass feat taxes imposed on martials. I still don't know why Paizo thought it was fair to do that.

[Snowbluff]

I still don't know why Paizo thought it was fair to do that.

Secretly, Paizo is a self-loathing organization. They did this so when people claim that they learned something from 3.5's production run, other people have evidence that they really didn't. :smalltongue:

[illyahr]

Here is a fairly decent run-down of the tiers for those still confused.

Tier 6: Class doesn't even do what they were designed to do (Truenamer, as written, doesn't function, CW Samurai doesn't do anything useful)

Tier 5: Class can only do 1 or 2 things, and not very well (Fighters need magic to overcome DR so they can't fight without help)

Tier 4: Class can do 1 thing well, but loses importance outside that niche (Paladins and Scouts can hit fairly well/consistently but lack the ability to help in other situations)

Tier 3: Class can do one thing very well and mediocre in everything else or can do many things decently (Bard has decent combat options with skill points to spare and magic to shore up weak points)

Tier 2: Class can break the game with raw power OR be prepared for almost any situation (Sorcerer can stack game-breaking spells but have no versatility, or load up with a versatile selection of spells but not anything specific to excel at)

Tier 1: Class can break the game with raw power AND be prepared for almost any situation (Druid can use any spell on its list, which include all manner of buff, control, and reality-altering brokeness)

3.P is a very magic-centric game. I can see Emperor Tippy making a Tier 2 Bard, but that's because his system mastery is legendary. Only casters with access to level 9 spells can hit tiers 1 or 2 without Tippy-level shenanigans.

[Fouredged Sword]

Tier 2 bard is a 3.5 PRC.

Note, tiers are intended to be less about builds than about the structure of the game itself. Optimization isn't taken into account as a badly built wizard is useless despite being tier 1 still.

[Novawurmson]

How Would These Houserules Affect The Tier List?

They won't. Being able to Power Attack for free doesn't make up for the fact that the Wizard/Cleric/etc. is eventually summoning legions of angels and creating their own demiplanes. Hitting things hard =/=being a demigod.

Are these good house rules? Emphatically yes. I have already adopted some similar rules in my own campaigns, and I'm thinking about stealing a few of these, too. Do they change the tier list any? Not really.

[Red Fel]

Siding with pretty much all of the posters here. The Tier System is a measure of the versatility and effectiveness of a given class, in a vacuum; its ability to do one or more tasks, and to do them well. Eliminating feat taxes on martial classes won't make them substantially more versatile; at the most, it still won't give them the versatility of spellcasting classes, which tends to demarcate the line between T3/T4 and T1/T2. That said, it is a good idea, because the feats outlined are generally feat taxes, and nasty ones at that.

I'd like to discuss one of the remarks I saw in the comments section of the article, though:
Fighters are supposed to be the melee powerhouses of the game world. One of the reasons they get feats thrown at them like skittles is so they can accomplish that. Giving this kind of flexibility to all classes seems excessive.

This raises an interesting point. Technically, yes, streamlining these feat taxes, and giving many of them as freebies to anyone with the appropriate BAB, does take some of the shine off of the Fighter's exclusive options. Certainly, it allows melee-oriented casters, like Clerics or Druids, to become even more obscene, but they were going to be obscene anyway.

But I think the key thing is that, now that the Fighter doesn't have to spend his still-precious (if more numerous) feats on these annoying taxes, he can spend them on more valuable feats, and gain greater versatility (again, not as much as a caster) and an even bigger bag of tricks. Alternatively, he can feel just a bit less guilty giving up bonus feats for his archetype, knowing that he'll still get the basics with relative ease.

More importantly, this rule benefits classes like Rogue, Ranger, or Paladin, who don't get the same bonus feats (with the exception of Rogue Talents that allow you to take a feat, or Ranger Combat Styles that let you choose from a narrow list).

[jedipotter]

Ok, Anti-Tier person here, but....


Giving the mundane a couple of bonus feats won't change anything.

Sure not having the ''feat tax'' is nice. So a martial character can take ''feat C'' without wasting the slots on ''A'' and ''B''. But that does not really make the character more powerful.

A couple of feats will never compare to a couple of spells. Try and compare a feat that gives you some sort of bonus when you shoot and arrow with a spell that can A) do direct damage B) burn items and objects C) be used for endless tricks, combos and plans.

You either need to give martial characters tons of magic or nerf the magic of the spellcasters.....

[Lans]

I can see this raising the tier of classes by like .1 Might raise a high tier 5 to a very, very low 4. Overall its a start

[Coidzor]

http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/

My DM has said that he's using the houserules in the above link, with the hopes that they would help out lower-tier martial classes. Generally the changes involve taking a bunch of combat-oriented feats and consolidating them into single feats, or just giving them to everyone for free. I'm curious how much these changes would affect class Tier balance. My guess is that it would probably bump Tier 4 and 5 classes up by one tier.

They're nice, and I especially like the idea of splitting the combat maneuvers into two camps for feat purposes, but they wouldn't really affect tiering. They just help reduce the feat burden of martially inclined characters.

I don't believe there exists a class that is in its tier because of the problem with feat chains, per se. Fighters are where they are because of the quality of the feats they can get. If we went further in addressing the feat chain problem the Fighter might jump up a tier or at least up to the top of its tier due to being able to make the investment to master several different aspects of combat well rather than invest in one and maybe have a partial investment in a secondary trick or so, maybe. This doesn't go far enough to do that, though.

[NEO|Phyte]

As others have said, it's not really gonna change anything up. The thing to note about tiers is that 3 and below covers ability to do one thing well, then 3 and up switches to how many things you can do well. The changes in those houserules are entirely related to doing one thing (melee) well.