How Accurate Is This Tier Chart?

[drrockso20]

so I found this tier chart for Pathfinder's classes(minus Pathfinder Unchained as it isn't out yet and didn't receive a Playtest Document like Occult Adventures has) on another site, and I was wondering how accurate you guys think it is?



>Tier 1:
Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Witch, Sorcerer (Razmiran Priest/False Priest), Oracle (Paragon Surge/Lunar/Ancient Lorekeeper etc.), Arcanist, Shaman, Psychic

>Tier 2:
Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner, Magus (Hexcrafter), Bard (Magician), Skald (UMD/Expanded Spell Kenning)

>Tier 3:
Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Investigator, Warpriest, Paladin (Sacred Servant), Hunter, Skald, Mesmerist, Occultist, Spiritualist, Bloodrager (Monstrous Physique UMD)

>Tier 4:
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Adept, Brawler, Slayer, Fighter (Eldritch Guardian/Lore Warden/Mutation Warrior/Martial Master/Drill Sergeant), Bloodrager, Medium

>Tier 5:
Cavalier, Samurai, Fighter, Gunslinger, Rogue, Ninja, Swashbuckler, Monk (Archetypes - namely Qinggong Monk), Kineticist

>Tier 6:
Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner, Expert, Monk (Core Only)


also what Tiers would you say the 3rd Party Classes available on the D20PF-SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes) are?

[roko10]

I call bullhinkey on the Monk and Rogue. Monk core is tier 5, and with some archetypes(Qinggong Monk and/or Zen Archer) would be a solid tier 4 or even a tier 3. Rogue has UMD, therefore pushing them up to tier 4 or even tier 3.

Also:
-Summoner is widely considered tier 3.
-The Expert is a tier 5.
-Musket Master/Pistolero Gunslinger is a tier 4
-Medium is tier 3ish, due to having what effectively amounts to a Ghost Eidolon.

[drrockso20]

I call bullhinkey on the Monk and Rogue. Monk core is tier 5, and with some archetypes(Qinggong Monk and/or Zen Archer) would be a solid tier 4 or even a tier 3. Rogue has UMD, therefore pushing them up to tier 4 or even tier 3.

Also:
-Summoner is widely considered tier 3.
-The Expert is a tier 5.
-Musket Master/Pistolero Gunslinger is a tier 4
-Medium is tier 3ish, due to having what effectively amounts to a Ghost Eidolon.

interesting to hear, although I'll admit I don't know enough about the game to judge for sure about this sort of thing(only Pathfinder product I own a physical copy of at the moment is the Beginner Box), also will be interesting to hear other people's opinion on this as well(especially since if I ever run a campaign that goes beyond Beginner Box parameters[including EdOWar's expansion content for it] I'd probably run it using a concept I've seen in several places around the internet where class choice would be restricted to Tiers 3, and 4 for the most part as that supposedly is one of the easier ways to balance the game besides limiting oneself to either Beginner Box levels or E6[which admittedly seems to only be slightly different than just sticking to BB for Pathfinder])

[Kantolin]

While I can't help with most of your questions, I do think DSP's psionics classes tier in as follows:

Tier 2 - Psion, Wilder, Tactician
Tier 3 - Vitalist, Psychic Warrior, Cryptic, Aegis, Dread
Tier 4 - Marksman, Soulknife

There are arguments, and good ones, for the Marksman and the Gifted Blade Soulknife(at least) to hop up to tier 3 due to versatility. The dread is almost certainly 3, but is on the weaker end of it.

I've also heard people state that the wilder's limited powers known pool pushes him down to tier 3, which I don't at all agree with so take that as your mileage may vary.

Still, for people looking for a tier 3/4 game, DSP's psionic classes plug in pretty well. Tacticians are particularly unlikely to utilize tier 2 power (They sync in very well at buffing other people), and wilders vary a bit, so really the only one of these classes that would be pretty out of place in a t3-t4 game by default is the psion - and being spontaneous they won't cause many unpleasant surprises.

[Kurald Galain]

Good list overall, but the following comments:

I don't see how a hexcrafter magus is tier 2; witch hexes are good but not that good. The witch is tier 1 because it's a full caster, not because of its hexes.

Drill sergeant doesn't raise the fighter by a tier, either. It gives cavalier abilities, and the cavalier is also tier 5. I'm not convinced that eldritch guardian probably should raise it a tier either, all it does is add a familiar.

I'm really not seeing how sacred servant is tier 3, or how magician is tier 2. Both are certainly nice but don't seem game changing for their base classes. UMD is not enough to put a class at tier 2, so skald doesn't go there with UMD either, and neither is a bloodrager with UMD a tier higher than a bloodrager without (lots of classes have UMD, after all).

As already been said, monk is tier 5 (4 with qinggong). Ninja probably trumps rogue, because of its ki pool abilities plus vanish. Summoner is commonly called overpowered at low levels, but at high levels it just doesn't reach tier 2 status.

Finally, note that paragon surge has been errata'ed.

[Jack_Simth]

>Tier 1:
Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Witch, Sorcerer (Razmiran Priest/False Priest), Oracle (Paragon Surge/Lunar/Ancient Lorekeeper etc.), Arcanist, Shaman, Psychic


OK... I can see how an Oracle with Paragon Surge could barely be considered T1 (with the FAQ/errata, it's really just one spell known per day), and how a False Priest Sorcerer could as well (at least, after 9th, as the Sorcerer can sort-of treat Cleric scrolls as spells known), but how does a Lunar Oracle or an Ancient Lorekeeper Oracle change out their spells from day to day to adapt to a situation? Did you mean a Spirit Guide (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle/archetypes/paizo---oracle-archetypes/spirit-guide) oracle grabbing the Lore Spirit (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/shaman/spirits/lore) to shuffle spells known via Arcane Enlightenment?

[Milo v3]

I'd disagree that kineticist is tier 5. I'd say its probably tier 4, and tier low 3 with the edits that Mark has listed are going to be made.

[Snowbluff]

-Summoner is widely considered tier 3.
Summoner has gate and simulacrum, and is a strong fighter and utility caster throughout the levels. It's tier 2.

Alchemist has simulacrum for gamebreaking. Possible t2.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Yeah UMD on it's own isn't enough to bump classes s tier, specially considering that everyone can get it with one measly trait.

Summiner is definitely tier 2, don't let the 6 level spells fool you, they get so many discounted spells it is not even funny.

Alchemist I'm not sure, Simulacrum is definitely a powerful ability, but I'm not sure it is enough to push it to tier 2, very high tier 3, but not 2

[Snowbluff]

Yeah UMD on it's own isn't enough to bump classes s tier, specially considering that everyone can get it with one measly trait. Agreed.


Summiner is definitely tier 2, don't let the 6 level spells fool you, they get so many discounted spells it is not even funny.

Alchemist I'm not sure, Simulacrum is definitely a powerful ability, but I'm not sure it is enough to push it to tier 2, very high tier 3, but not 2

The thing about Simulacrum is that it can replicate a ton of abilities through the creatures you can make. SLAs are not level or HD dependent.

[danzibr]

Huh. I haven't played PF, but I've heard that Gunslingers are really good at what they do. That would make them Tier 4 (at the least), right?

[grarrrg]

*Sorcerer and Oracle can push the Tier 1 boundary through various means. I'd say the Sorcerer has it better since the Paragon Surge/Eldritch Heritage nerfs, but Oracle does pretty well yet.
*Throwing Summoner in Tier 2.5, as there really is no consensus.
*Classes that are only 6th level casters do not break into Tier 2.
*UMD doesn't do anything, as it's already factored into the tier list (and mostly does nothing because EVERYONE can UMD)
*Monk is Tier 5, 4 if Qinggonging it.
*Fighter has plenty of useful archetypes, and plenty of bad ones. It's possible to get one up to Tier 4 easily enough.
*Gunslinger is basically a Ranged Fighter, the key difference is if you are allowed full use of Firearm-stuff (i.e. Free Action reload TWF with Double Barreled Pistols). Tier 4 if yes, Tier 5 if no.
*Removed mention of Occult/NPC's. Don't know anything about the Occult, and I've yet to see ANY reason to ever actually consider playing an NPC class, so they may as well not exist.


>Tier 1: Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Witch, Arcanist, Shaman, Sorcerer (Razmiran Priest/Paragon Surge/Pages of...), Oracle (Paragon Surge/Spirit Guide/etc.)

>Tier 2: Oracle, Sorcerer, Magus (Hexcrafter), Bard (Magician), Skald (UMD/Expanded Spell Kenning)

>Tier 2.5: Summoner

>Tier 3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Investigator, Warpriest, Paladin (Sacred Servant), Hunter, Skald, Bloodrager (Monstrous Physique UMD)

>Tier 4: Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Brawler, Slayer, Bloodrager, Monk (Qinggong Monk+others), Ninja

>Tier 4.5: Fighter, Gunslinger

>Tier 5: Cavalier, Samurai, Rogue, Swashbuckler, Monk


also what Tiers would you say the 3rd Party Classes available on the D20PF-SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes) are?

There are WAY too many 3rd party classes on the SRD to rate them.
It basically breaks down to this:
Tier 1: 9th level casting with access to most/all of its list
Tier 2: 9th level casting with restricted access to list
Tier 3: 6th level caster
Tier 4+: everyone else



Summiner is definitely tier 2, don't let the 6 level spells fool you, they get so many discounted spells it is not even funny.
Discounted is nice yes, but they still get them at similar levels to the other casters, and have fewer spell slots to cast them out of.
The discounting is more of an argument to bump OTHER classes up a notch, as it allows cheap Wands/Scrolls and some spells that wouldn't be Wand-able otherwise.
They also only get access to _4_ 9th level spells in total. Yes Summon Monster 9 and Gate are useful, but they don't cover EVERYTHING.


Finally, note that paragon surge has been errata'ed.
But being able to grab a few spells you didn't know at the start of the day is still super handy, and can also be used on "downtime days" for all your scrying/utility without having to waste dedicated spells on such.
Oracles can still get access to 1 spell known of their highest level, or 2 of not-highest (Expanded Arcana feat).
Sorcerers can still do the Eldritch Heritge>Arcane trick to get up to 3 of their highest level.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Medium is tier 3ish, due to having what effectively amounts to a Ghost Eidolon.

Wrong class. Medium is the one that calls spirits and has a 4-level spell list; Spiritualist has the ghost eidolon.

___

Paragon Surge isn't as strong as it used to be (you can't choose your feat unique each time you cast anymore), so I wouldn't call it PS Oracle tier 1 anymore. If you put all the tricks into Oracle I suppose it might be, though.

Contemplative Wilder (Ultimate Psionics) is tier 1; the ability to rotate its powers known out each day is just that strong.

The Erudite Subdiscipline Psion (Ultimate Psionics) might be strong enough to be tier 1, but it's borderline if so.

Gunslingers are only "good at what they do" because what they do is really bad at base. It's like adding sweetener to bad coffee.

[Psyren]

Psychic is T2, not T1; they have limited powers spells known. Oracle can no longer get to T1 either thanks to the much-needed PS nerf.

Skalds are T3; Expanded Spell Kenning does not get them to T2. None of the lists they gain access to allow them to get above 2/3 casting.

Qinggong Monk + some other archetypes (e.g. Zen Archer) can get all the way to T3. Most other monk archetypes (the ones that remove useless things like Slow Fall especially) hover around T4. Base monk is T5, not T6 - no PC classes are T6 in PF.


SLAs are not level or HD dependent.

[citation needed]

[MyrPsychologist]

After playing in an all psionic pathfinder campaign I really don't see how you could place any psionic class on par with wizard.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Oracle can no longer get to T1 either thanks to the much-needed PS nerf.

I dunno, Half-Elf Spirit Guide Oracle can get all those bonus spells known from Favored Class + the Lore Wandering Spirit's Arcane Enlightenment (depending on the GM's reading of RAW/RAI) + the daily spontaneous choice of paragon surge. It's pretty damn close with a favorable GM. Any one of those individually, or even 2/3? No, definitely not.


After playing in an all psionic pathfinder campaign I really don't see how you could place any psionic class on par with wizard.

Psions and Wilders are only tier 2 because they don't swap out their abilities each day. Both of the options I listed remove that issue; Erudite gains additional powers known each day that they can swap out daily, and Contemplative swaps out all of their powers known.

Even then, being tier 1 doesn't mean they're on the same level as wizard. Wizard is often said to be "Tier 0" for a reason.

[Snowbluff]

[citation needed]
All of them. Races and playable monster rules.

I dunno, Half-Elf Spirit Guide Oracle can get all those bonus spells known from Favored Class + the Lore Wandering Spirit's Arcane Enlightenment (depending on the GM's reading of RAW/RAI) + the daily spontaneous choice of paragon surge. It's pretty damn close with a favorable GM. Any one of those individually, or even 2/3? No, definitely not.



Um, even then, Spirit Guide learns the spells of the Spirit. So even if Arcane Enlightenment doesn't work, you still have options for a bunch of spells. While most of them aren't useful, a full of set of healing and recovery abilities are available with the Life Spirit, and you can pick up Time Stop, I guess.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Um, even then, Spirit Guide learns the spells of the Spirit. So even if Arcane Enlightenment doesn't work, you still have options for a bunch of spells. While most of them aren't useful, a full of set of healing and recovery abilities are available with the Life Spirit, and you can pick up Time Stop, I guess.

It's a Wandering Spirit and comes with a Hex, which means you can take Arcane Enlightenment - which is any Sorc/Wiz spell. Which is where the GM RAW/RAI comment comes into play because of some of the specifics of the Hex and some of the eccentricities of Wandering Hex.

[Snowbluff]

It's a Wandering Spirit and comes with a Hex, which means you can take Arcane Enlightenment - which is any Sorc/Wiz spell. Which is where the GM RAW/RAI comment comes into play because of some of the specifics of the Hex and some of the eccentricities of Wandering Hex.

I'm referring to this:

At 4th level, she adds the bonded spirit's spirit magic spells to her oracle spells known for that day, but only of spell levels she can cast. At 7th level, she gains the spirit ability of her current bonded spirit. At 15th level, she gains the greater spirit ability of her current bonded spirit.

Arcane Enlightenment's problem is that Oracles don't prepare spells normally. It's weeeeeeird.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Yep, which is exactly what I was talking about needing GM discussion. If "preparable spells" equals "spells known" to the DM, you're golden. Me, I'd allow it but I've gone on record so many times as always leaning towards flexibility so my ruling may not be the average one.

[Xsatra]

If you're just starting out with Pathfinder OP, I can recommend using Spheres of Power (http://www.dropdeadstudios.com/spheres-of-power-kickstarter-paypal-pledges/) instead of vancian casting. It eliminates a lot of the headaches with tiers and spells, while still being fun, versatile and customizable. It tends to adjust casters to fall within the tier 3 range, moving some up and some down. There are some threads on the forum about it if you'd like to know more.

[Necromancy]

I really don't see how the tier system applies so much with pathfinder.

If you play without the use of 3rd party material, there's not a lot out there that's all too crazy.

3/4 of your character's power is going to be subject to your skill at sorting through a mountain of bullcrap archetypes, feats and spells to form something cohesive.

The only thing the tier system really says to me is "which characters have more options outside of combat" which is only so exciting tbh.

[Psyren]

All of them. Races and playable monster rules.

Those rules point to the standard (full-HD) versions of all those monsters. There is no entry in any bestiary for a half-HD efreet, half-HD Pit Fiend etc. you can point to and definitively say "these have the same SLAs as the regular versions."

A GM can rule that way if he wants, or he can just as easily rule the other way. But no matter what, he has to specifically state what those half-HD creatures get. Thus, simulacrum is only as broken as the GM lets it be.



Yep, which is exactly what I was talking about needing GM discussion. If "preparable spells" equals "spells known" to the DM, you're golden. Me, I'd allow it but I've gone on record so many times as always leaning towards flexibility so my ruling may not be the average one.

Anything that "needs GM discussion" to even work is not broken on its own. It requires a GM to allow it, rather than requiring a GM to stop it, which is the normal problem with T2/T1 game breakage.

[arkangel111]

I don't see how UMD matters at all in PF. the difference is maybe 6 points, between class skill and not, and even then traits are available to all classes and can actually give someone without it as a class skill more points (both traits give +1 on top of making it a class skill). But with a umd of around 25 you are set regardless. I think most people include it as a hold over from 3.5 and really just shows their ignorance of the system.

[Snowbluff]

I really don't see how the tier system applies so much with pathfinder.

If you play without the use of 3rd party material, there's not a lot out there that's all too crazy.

3/4 of your character's power is going to be subject to your skill at sorting through a mountain of bullcrap archetypes, feats and spells to form something cohesive.

The only thing the tier system really says to me is "which characters have more options outside of combat" which is only so exciting tbh.

While I like to pick on PF for being full of bullcrap, 3.5 did have it share of crap when the tier system was devised.

When you looks at the list, it's important to keep in mind what each of the parts mean.

6 is crap.
5 might as well be worse.
4 is generally boring, barring a few exceptions. (Fighter "I hit things" versus Warlocks "Woo magic!" and Rogue's "I have a skill for that.")
Then you get into the playable area.
Tier 3 is good and well rounded. Making a decision of "Fun versus power" is made here. A Dread Necro is a different beast than a sorcerer.
Tier 2 is Tier 1 with less tricks. In terms of breaking a game, they are pretty much just as bad. On the other hand, there are ways to play these in less optimal ways. It's easier to play down, you see.


Those rules point to the standard (full-HD) versions of all those monsters. There is no entry in any bestiary for a half-HD efreet, half-HD Pit Fiend etc. you can point to and definitively say "these have the same SLAs as the regular versions."

A GM can rule that way if he wants, or he can just as easily rule the other way. But no matter what, he has to specifically state what those half-HD creatures get. Thus, simulacrum is only as broken as the GM lets it be.
By RAW, No Rule -> No interaction. Ergo, no change.

"Being only as broken as GM lets it be" is not only incorrect, but would also apply to pretty much all T1 capabilities. If it sounds like Oberoni, that's probably because it is.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Anything that "needs GM discussion" to even work is not broken on its own. It requires a GM to allow it, rather than requiring a GM to stop it, which is the normal problem with T2/T1 game breakage.

I thought the divider between T1 and T2 is that T1 can break the game with an order of magnitude less preparation time and in a different way every day.

This is the first time I've heard that particular "problem", but if it was just a matter of me not understanding the distinction then I'll go ahead and change my comment.

[Snowbluff]

I thought the divider between T1 and T2 is that T1 can break the game with an order of magnitude less preparation time and in a different way every day.

This is the first time I've heard that particular "problem", but if it was just a matter of me not understanding the distinction then I'll go ahead and change my comment.

He's saying a trick that doesn't work by RAW used by a Tier 3 can't break it into Tier 1 and Tier 2, not that it makes a difference between those tiers 1 and 2.

[Psyren]

T4 is absolutely playable and can even be fun, particularly for folks looking for a challenge or who want to avoid outshining their less experienced teammates without artificially limiting their output.



By RAW, No Rule -> No interaction. Ergo, no change.

"Being only as broken as GM lets it be" is not only incorrect, but would also apply to pretty much all T1 capabilities. If it sounds like Oberoni, that's probably because it is.

No, the fallacy doesn't apply (and even if it did, Fallacy Fallacy is a thing.)

Planar Binding/Gate - tell you exactly what you get. You open the Bestiary and you go to that entry - straightforward.
Polymorph/Shapechange/et al. - tell you exactly what you get. There is a list of abilities each grade of spell gets you, and you go to the Bestiary entry for your chosen monster and see if that ability is there - also straightforward.

Simulacrum - you have to rebuild the monster from scratch, and stop halfway. What does it get/not get? Up to the GM. And if he doesn't give you the specific SLA you want, you can yell "Oberoni!" until you're blue in the face, but he's still not wrong or deviating from RAW for doing so, because there simply is no RAW. The rules don't cover everything, and half-HD monsters are one of those gaps.

The only things we can definitively say are tied to HD are quantitative things like creature type, BAB, hit points, and saves. SLAs are qualitative.

[Necromancy]

Interesting side discussion, how do you think mythic affects the tiers?

[Psyren]

Interesting side discussion, how do you think mythic affects the tiers?

The mythic tracks are basically PrCs that also let you progress your base class features, so I would treat them like that.

[Snowbluff]

No, the fallacy doesn't apply (and even if it did, Fallacy Fallacy is a thing.)
"This isn't broken because the DM says it isn't.



The only things we can definitively say are tied to HD are quantitative things like creature type, BAB, hit points, and saves. SLAs are qualitative.
Exactly. An Aasimar would still have Daylight if he was level drained down 4 levels. A Glabrezu with 6 levels missing is still a Glabrezu, so he can still grant wishes (not that you would want his help). There is no precedent for what you are saying, so no change is made.

[Psyren]

"This isn't broken because the DM says it isn't.


Exactly. An Aasimar would still have Daylight if he was level drained down 4 levels. A Glabrezu with 6 levels missing is still a Glabrezu, so he can still grant wishes (not that you would want his help). There is no precedent for what you are saying, so no change is made.

1) Simulacrum does not create a regular monster and then add negative levels to it, so your analogy here is not relevant. It creates a new version of that monster with half the HD.

2) Level drain does not remove HD in PF, so those examples are especially not relevant. A PF Glabrezu with 11 negative levels still has 12 HD, so we still have no idea what a 6 HD Glabrezu would look like; the GM would have to create one and decide what abilities it gets. Maybe you get the wish, maybe you don't, neither answer is wrong.

[Anlashok]

It's a decent houserule Psyren. Probably a good one actually, it cuts out on a lot of little abuses being referred to.

But it isn't anything more than that and referring to it as such obfuscates the actual point, which is that it is a good idea.

[Psyren]

That's the point - declaring that the simulacrum gets all the SLAs of the creature it's based on is just as much of a houserule. So either stance can be embraced or dismissed with equal aplomb.

[eggynack]

No, the fallacy doesn't apply (and even if it did, Fallacy Fallacy is a thing.)

I think you're really committing the fallacy fallacy fallacy there. In particular, it would be the idea that, just because someone's argument against your claim is largely boiled down to a fallacy, that means that it falls under the fallacy fallacy, and is therefore fallacious. An argument can, in fact, be made either dubious or completely lacking through the simple application of a fallacy, assuming the argument hinges on that fallacious reasoning. Some arguments are only partially predicated on a fallacy, and in those cases a simple fallacy citation is inadequate, making the fallacy fallacy fitting, but here the rebuttal seems to encompass the entire argument, whether it's a fair rebuttal or not, so calling upon the fallacy fallacy fallacy seems fair. Also, I really wanted to say fallacy fallacy fallacy. That may, in fact, be my primary motive for posting this.

[Snowbluff]

Thanks for that, eggy... that was... insightful. :smalltongue:

1) Simulacrum does not create a regular monster and then add negative levels to it, so your analogy here is not relevant. It creates a new version of that monster with half the HD.

2) Level drain does not remove HD in PF, so those examples are especially not relevant. A PF Glabrezu with 11 negative levels still has 12 HD, so we still have no idea what a 6 HD Glabrezu would look like; the GM would have to create one and decide what abilities it gets. Maybe you get the wish, maybe you don't, neither answer is wrong.
1) It's the same thing. THe monster has to have less HD. If you were to pick Glabrezu and were to someone how lose HD, losing your Wish ability isn't an option. It'd be like an Orc losing Dark Vision.

2) AFAICT, the spell text was unchange, and so the function is identical.

[Anlashok]

That's the point - declaring that the simulacrum gets all the SLAs of the creature it's based on is just as much of a houserule. So either stance can be embraced or dismissed with equal aplomb.

Isn't that just munchkin in reverse? "It doesn't say you get to keep anything, so it's fine to remove whatever I want to remove". Sounds like it. Either way it seems like a fairly shaky interpretation and feels like it holds less weight than assuming that because things aren't specifically called out they stay the same.

[eggynack]

Thanks for that, eggy... that was... insightful. :smalltongue:

Take note, the only thing more fun than using the phrase "fallacy fallacy fallacy" repeatedly is explaining in horrifying and exacting detail exactly what that means and how it applies. Although, I think I may have really opened myself up to accusations of falling into the fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy.

Edit: Other thing of note, while a call of inverse munchkinry is a fair one, even better is phrasing the argument in terms of normal munchkinry. Monsters come in advanced HD forms, after all, and the inverted argument would probably call for those advanced forms to gain some extra abilities outside the normal confines of HD or other explicitly stated benefits. If losing HD should mean something, then so too should gaining HD, because the abilities under that claim would come from the HD rather than intrinsically from the monster.

[Snowbluff]

Take note, the only thing more fun than using the phrase "fallacy fallacy fallacy" repeatedly is explaining in horrifying and exacting detail exactly what that means and how it applies. Although, I think I may have really opened myself up to accusations of falling into the fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy.

I'm pretty sure if we pointed it out it would be a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy.

[Psyren]

1) It's the same thing. THe monster has to have less HD. If you were to pick Glabrezu and were to someone how lose HD, losing your Wish ability isn't an option. It'd be like an Orc losing Dark Vision.

2) AFAICT, the spell text was unchange, and so the function is identical.

1) An Orc's darkvision, like your earlier example of an Aasimar's daylight, doesn't work - they get those things with only 1 HD anyway. No amount of reduction or starting with less HD will change that.

2) Right, and it says nothing about negative levels in either edition, making your analogy no use. And even if it did mention negative levels, they function differently in PF, so you could not point to a level drained Glabrezu retaining his wish-granting power as proof of anything at all regarding what "and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD" is supposed to mean.


I think you're really committing the fallacy fallacy fallacy there. In particular, it would be the idea that, just because someone's argument against your claim is largely boiled down to a fallacy, that means that it falls under the fallacy fallacy, and is therefore fallacious. An argument can, in fact, be made either dubious or completely lacking through the simple application of a fallacy, assuming the argument hinges on that fallacious reasoning. Some arguments are only partially predicated on a fallacy, and in those cases a simple fallacy citation is inadequate, making the fallacy fallacy fitting, but here the rebuttal seems to encompass the entire argument, whether it's a fair rebuttal or not, so calling upon the fallacy fallacy fallacy seems fair. Also, I really wanted to say fallacy fallacy fallacy. That may, in fact, be my primary motive for posting this.

Getting someone to say that was was part of my motive as well :smallbiggrin:

But the fallacy is indeed misapplied in this case. Oberoni refers to the fact that, while an existing rule may be problematic, it nonetheless exists and an individual DM's actions won't change that fact. But the issue in this case is that a rule does not exist. Simulacrum tells you that the half-HD creation should have the special abilities of a creature with that reduced HD, but gives no instructions or guidelines beyond that. It is up to the GM to come up with the finer details here; granting every SLA, granting none of them, or anything in between, are all houserules at that point because the RAW is silent on the subject.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Guys, this is getting pretty far off topic. >>

[Snowbluff]

Not my fault, dude. Just because it's in my domains (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16413466&postcount=246) doesn't mean it was me. :smalltongue:

It's a decent houserule Psyren.

For it to be misapplied it would have to have been misapplied.

[Psyren]

For it to be misapplied it would have to have been misapplied.

Your stance (simulacrum = gets all SLAs) is just as much a houserule.

[Snowbluff]

Either way it seems like a fairly shaky interpretation and feels like it holds less weight than assuming that because things aren't specifically called out they stay the same.

For it to have been a houserule I would have to have made a rule.

[Jack_Simth]

2) Level drain does not remove HD in PF, so those examples are especially not relevant. A PF Glabrezu with 11 negative levels still has 12 HD, so we still have no idea what a 6 HD Glabrezu would look like; the GM would have to create one and decide what abilities it gets. Maybe you get the wish, maybe you don't, neither answer is wrong.This is quite correct: the spell says "it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)" but never defines how to go about determining what is or is not appropriate. That makes a hole in the rules. Like any hole in the rules, when it comes up, the proper procedure is to ask the DM for a ruling. One DM will go one way, another DM will go the other.

However, with the Pathfinder version of Simulacrum, it's easy to get around when you realize one simple thing:
Pathfinder removed the requirement of having a piece of the original.

So you don't make a Simulacrum of a stock Efreeti (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/genie/efreeti). You make a simulacrum of an efreeti advanced by ten racial hit dice (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-advancement). So the "Original" is a base 10 HD Efreeti + 10 racial HD as part of advancement. The simulacrum of the "original" gets its HD divided by 2 as it's a simulacrum. This results in an Efreeti with 10 racial hit dice, just like the stock Bestiary version. At that point, it's somewhat difficult to rationally argue that if a 10 HD Efreeti gets the ability to grant Wishes that an Efreeti Simulacrum with special abilities appropriate to a 10-HD Efreeti shouldn't have them.

[Platymus Pus]

I'd give Ranger's a bit more credit, with the limited spell pool they have they can do some pretty nice stuff compared to fighters.

[charcoalninja]

Sacred servant gets a pocket full divine caster for free via Greater Planar Ally 1/week (meaning they can have 2 of these guys going a at high level) and so if a cleric is Tier 1, a Paladin getting a flying, uber cleric as a buddy whenever he wants warrants at least a boost to Tier 3.

[Snowbluff]

This is quite correct: the spell says "it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)" but never defines how to go about determining what is or is not appropriate. That makes a hole in the rules. Like any hole in the rules, when it comes up, the proper procedure is to ask the DM for a ruling. One DM will go one way, another DM will go the other.



Incorrect. We have rules for what happens of there are class levels involved. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes) We know how to determine how many skills ranks they have assigned. (https://www.google.com/search?q=pathfinder+skills&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) We know how many feats they will have due to HD. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html) As well as other traits (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/creature-types). Those are the rules that determine what is appropriate.

[Jack_Simth]

Incorrect. We have rules for what happens of there are class levels involved. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes) We know how to determine how many skills ranks they have assigned. (https://www.google.com/search?q=pathfinder+skills&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) We know how many feats they will have due to HD. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html) As well as other traits (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/creature-types). Those are the rules that determine what is appropriate.
For skills, sure (although when a creature doesn't have max ranks in everything, it's unclear which ones come from which hit dice). For BAB, yes. For base saves, sure. For HP, absolutely. For feats, no contest (although which ones go away isn't necessarily clear without some assumptions, same as the skills note when the ranks aren't full). For class-based special abilities, those are easily derived. Stats get a little trickier, as it's unclear where the HD-based stat boosts went originally, but those are usually low enough that ignoring them won't make a meaningful impact.

Please keep the context in mind, though. Those aren't the bits in question. The question is on "special abilities" that are derived from race (most notably in the discussion, the Glabrezou's Wish granting ability). I am saying the rules do not clearly define a method for determining what special abilities are and are not appropriate at a reduced hit die count, and thus whether or not the resulting Simulacrum has those is subject to a rather wide range of interpretation - which is part of the DM's job. If you'd like to contradict me, please, show me where it is clearly defined what spell-like abilities are appropriate to an Outsider with six hit dice.

You appear to be taking the stance that "Nothing explicit = no change". It's not a bad stance. If I was a player at your gaming table, I wouldn't blink at the ruling (except maybe in an "oh, nifty; there's several ways I can abuse this" manner). Trouble is, while it's accurate that it doesn't explicitly give any rules for removing racials... the spell very much does say that whatever the abilities of the now-reduced critter are, they should be "appropriate" to that critter's new hit die total. What is "appropriate" is never clearly defined. Things not clearly defined? They're up to the DM. How that ends up working will vary by table.

But as I said: In Pathfinder, it's a moot point. Simulacrum no longer requires you have a sample of the original, and removed the advancement caps, so you just make a simulacrum of an imaginary creature that is the expected creature advanced to double the hit dice, and you're set, as your Simulacrum has the exact same HD count as the original. What's appropriate? The abilities of the stock critter.

[Snowbluff]

I can dig it. As far as SLAs are concern, tying them to levels impossible, since the variety available at HD 1 (up to fourth level on Aasimar alone), you can probably find a precedent for any level of SLA below 13 HD (when Simulacrum is available). Honestly, I would probably houserule or cooperate with my player if he tried something extreme. However, I agree that it doesn't matter in the context, since we're making a Tier judgement on the ability. I do agree with you about the "stock critter" copy," so we are in accord.

[drrockso20]

could you guys please stop arguing about Simulacrum or whatever it is you're arguing over(I'll admit most of what you're arguing about completely flies over my head), it's cluttering up the thread, but other than that there's been some interesting suggestions, and would love to see more discussion about the Tier list

[Snowbluff]

could you guys please stop arguing about Simulacrum or whatever it is you're arguing over(I'll admit most of what you're arguing about completely flies over my head), it's cluttering up the thread, but other than that there's been some interesting suggestions, and would love to see more discussion about the Tier list

This is a Tier discussion.

Simulacrum is potentially a very powerful ability. The question is how powerful and whether or not it affects tiers. Putting summoner in T3 without recognizing it would be a mistake. Not considering it for Alchemist would be a mistake.

[Xsatra]

How about we discuss ways to keep the game around tier 3 as that seems to be what OP is looking for?

[Snowbluff]

How about we discuss ways to keep the game around tier 3 as that seems to be what OP is looking for?

Rule 1 of the tier system: Talk to your players and decide on what kind of game it is. Play around that!

[eggynack]

could you guys please stop arguing about Simulacrum or whatever it is you're arguing over(I'll admit most of what you're arguing about completely flies over my head), it's cluttering up the thread, but other than that there's been some interesting suggestions, and would love to see more discussion about the Tier list
A tier thread is almost inevitably an everything thread, because literally any game element, and rules disagreement on the basis of those game elements, has an impact on power level. As long as the question is just, "What is the tier of everything," you're going to get some things you feel are off topic.

[Xsatra]

Rule 1 of the tier system: Talk to your players and decide on what kind of game it is. Play around that!

From OPs earlier posts it seems he and possibly his players are somewhat unfamiliar with the game, lacking the system mastery to set the floor and roof themselves. So "just play at the power you want" isn't particularly helpful advice.

[Snowbluff]

From OPs earlier posts it seems he and possibly his players are somewhat unfamiliar with the game, lacking the system mastery to set the floor and roof themselves. So "just play at the power you want" isn't particularly helpful advice.

HE's not going to accomplish anything without his goals communicating to his players first.

[drrockso20]

at the moment, if I were to run Pathfinder I'd probably do a Beginner Box campaign first to familiarize myself and my group with the basics of the rules(although at least one of my friends who'd probably join in is already familiar with the game, and 2-3 other members of the group have played 3rd edition in the past), I just figured I'd get it sorted out which classes in a full 20 level game are either overpowered or comparatively not very useful ahead of time in case I do run it one day(although I'll admit Pathfinder has some stiff competition from several other systems I own in regards to what I run in the near future)

[Psyren]

So you don't make a Simulacrum of a stock Efreeti (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/genie/efreeti). You make a simulacrum of an efreeti advanced by ten racial hit dice (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-advancement).

While you do not require "a piece of the creature" - you do require "an ice sculpture of the target." Furthermore, the effect is to create "one duplicate creature." Your "advanced Efreet" therefore needs to already exist - i.e. the GM has to create one for you - in order for you to create a simulacrum of it. You cannot duplicate something that does not exist, by definition.

This is actually even more robust than the 3.5 version, where "a piece of the creature" was commonly assumed to be in everyone's spell component pouch, aka "the Ice Assassin problem."


This is a Tier discussion.

Simulacrum is potentially a very powerful ability. The question is how powerful and whether or not it affects tiers. Putting summoner in T3 without recognizing it would be a mistake. Not considering it for Alchemist would be a mistake.

I agree this is relevant for a tier discussion, because how you rule it can indeed potentially affect the Alchemist's tier at your table. (The Summoner is T2 even if Simulacrum is not as powerful as you rule it to be however.)


Incorrect. We have rules for what happens of there are class levels involved. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes) We know how to determine how many skills ranks they have assigned. (https://www.google.com/search?q=pathfinder+skills&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) We know how many feats they will have due to HD. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html) As well as other traits (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/creature-types). Those are the rules that determine what is appropriate.

All of those are quantitative and are perfectly fine, I'm not arguing those. It is the "appropriate special abilities" clause where (in the case of special abilities that don't come from class levels) you are forced to houserule one way or another.

[Xsatra]

Let's assume he has and they all agree that they want the campaign to fall within the tier 3-range of power. Do you have any suggestions for OP how to attain that? Anything in particular he should consider? Any recommended houserules, good 3rd party content, things to keep in mind when tier 1 casters aren't available?

[grarrrg]

I just figured I'd get it sorted out which classes in a full 20 level game are either overpowered or comparatively not very useful ahead of time

Well, now you get into a sticky area.
_In general_ Tier 1's are "overpowered" compared to Tier 4's. But you can easily make the most worthless Wizard ever, and shove him next to an Uber-Optimized Barbarian, and the Barbarian will look better in comparison.

Part of what you need is the Optimization _floor_ of the classes, as the Tier list assumes 'above average competence'.
Some classes are decent no matter what you throw on them (as long as it is semi-appropriate), other classes need more focused attention for them to reach a decent power level (i.e. Monk is quite easy to screw up, Summoner is much much harder to screw up).

[Kurald Galain]

Let's assume he has and they all agree that they want the campaign to fall within the tier 3-range of power. Do you have any suggestions for OP how to attain that? Anything in particular he should consider? Any recommended houserules, good 3rd party content, things to keep in mind when tier 1 casters aren't available?

For starting a campaign with new players at level 1, tier discussions are pretty much irrelevant.

Rather, he'd need advice on common trap options (e.g. the Flare cantrip) and common tricks that would make one player upstage the rest of the group at low level (e.g. Summoner). For example, barbarians clearly aren't overpowered; but if you have a low-level party and a power attacking greatsword barb is competing against a wizard spamming Acid Splash, well then the wizard is going to feel very weak. And if that was a first time player, the player may well decide "this game sucks".

[EldritchWeaver]

Let's assume he has and they all agree that they want the campaign to fall within the tier 3-range of power. Do you have any suggestions for OP how to attain that? Anything in particular he should consider? Any recommended houserules, good 3rd party content, things to keep in mind when tier 1 casters aren't available?

If you want to deal only with Tier 2-4 classes, then recommendable 3PPs are "Path of War" (for fun martial classes) and "Spheres of Power" (for fun magic classes plus a magic system which is better balanced what is in core). You also need to deal with the existing core classes. If you don't want to outright ban them, then I've collected alternatives in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19520900&postcount=1). Granted, you have to deal with more rules, which might be a bit much for a beginner group.