So I was reading a tier list for pathfinder...

[Reprimand]

PF clerics and druids now have top slot compared to 3.5 where wizards lorded over everyone.

What's the story there? Loss of splat book support?

What makes cleric and druids so good? Or is it the same story different game?

Because clerics lost DMM too, so like what's going on here.

[Dysart]

I believe it's just that the divine spells in PF are much more evenly balanced when compared to 3.5

[Reprimand]

and then armor/weapons etc?

[Psyren]

All the ones I've seen have put Clerics, Druids and Wizards in the top slot together (T1.) So I don't get where either of your premises (that 3.5 had Wizards in a higher tier than the others, or that PF reversed it) are coming from.

[Reprimand]

weren't wizard like the top of t1 in 3.5?

Now clerics are the top of t1 in 3.5?

or do they all charge equal potential?

I assumed the further to the left they were the closer they were to the next tier etc etc.

[Xervous]

I for one am curious to see which tier lists are being referenced here.

[Reprimand]

I for one am curious to see which tier lists are being referenced here.

I don't have the page anymore it was just off of memory for all I know its changed or was updated it was in a handbook I was reading.

I would be more than happy for someone to explain the pros and cons of each class in t1 or any class/tier and it's placement however.

[Pluto!]

I believe it's just that the divine spells in PF are much more evenly balanced when compared to 3.5

It sounds like you're responding to something specific, but when I google PF tiers lists for context, the only times I see Cleric and Druid over or in front of Wizard or Witch are when the subsections are alphabetized.

The Cleric still doesn't have nearly as many degenerate abilities as the Wizard, IMO. That would probably put the Wizard ahead, but in practice, they're rated together above all the other classes because they do more or less the same things, and you're splitting hairs to pit them against one another.

EDIT:
Wizards weren't top of T1 in any agreed-upon Tier system in 3.5 for the same reason (that they do more or less the same things, even as far as usually being able to cast most of the same spells). I personally maintain that if you're doing that hair-splitting, Wizard has more broken things available than Cleric who has more than Druid, but I've heard that list flipped and maintained as well. So going with Psyren, I don't know if either of your premises are accurate, so I don't know what information you're looking for.

[Dysart]

I'm not a huge fan of the tier system at all but the way it's been explained to be is this:

T1: Can break the game, easily. Virtually unstoppable if they have time to prepare.
T2: Can still break the game, requires more work. Very potent always but doesn't get better with prep time like T1.


The reason for Druids, Clerics, Wizards to be T1 over a Sorcerer for instance is that their spell selection isn't limited, they litterally have access to ALL spells printed/ok'd by the GM and can pick and choose as they please (though this doesn't take into account any cost to the wizard, it's more the blank potential).

It was the same in 3.5, but kind of a little skewed towards the wizard due to the Arcane spells being slightly better at certain levels.

[P.F.]

Wizards, clerics, and druids are all tier 1 in both D&D3.5 and Pathfinder.

Divine spells in Pathfinder are arguably slightly better than in 3.5, while druids are overall slightly less powerful as the animal form now adds only a bonus to your ability scores instead of replacing them. The change to class skills has made use magic device a more viable cross-class skill for any class, which lessens the distinctions between various full-casters who are generally less dependent on skills for their class abilities than other classes which rely on UMD.

Probably the Pathfinder list you were looking at lists these three classes in the same order they as appear in the handbook: alphabetical order, not ranked within the tier.

[Reprimand]

I'm not a huge fan of the tier system at all but the way it's been explained to be is this:

T1: Can break the game, easily. Virtually unstoppable if they have time to prepare.
T2: Can still break the game, requires more work. Very potent always but doesn't get better with prep time like T1.


The reason for Druids, Clerics, Wizards to be T1 over a Sorcerer for instance is that their spell selection isn't limited, they litterally have access to ALL spells printed/ok'd by the GM and can pick and choose as they please (though this doesn't take into account any cost to the wizard, it's more the blank potential).

It was the same in 3.5, but kind of a little skewed towards the wizard due to the Arcane spells being slightly better at certain levels.

Options > Raw number of Casts of a limited pool of spells. Got it.

oh it was alphabetical order I'm so dumb... >_<

[Xervous]

Glancing at the tier list (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11990.0) floating around minmaxboards there is no specific note made of a discrepancy between the various denizens of T1 other than Shaman being in last place. From what I gather they are all effectively prepared casters or capable of shifting their spells known on at least a daily basis... the usual T1 goodies.

[Red Fel]

PF clerics and druids now have top slot compared to 3.5 where wizards lorded over everyone.

Well, I kind of see two issues with that statement.

First: I wouldn't say that anyone has "top slot" when it comes to the Tier Lists, in 3.5 or PF. Tier 1 classes are so gamebreakingly powerful it's like comparing two different planet-busting weapons. Sure, one may have more precision and the other more boom, but both can demolish an entire planet, so it's not like a difference in caliber is that different.

That's the point. In 3.5, Wizards are Tier 1 because, with a single ability score (Int), they could prepare for any scenario, overcome any challenge or encounter, and perform any job better than classes designed to do. Not or, and. Clerics and Druids (collectively, CoDzillas) are Tier 1 because, while they might not have the incomparable arcane casting list, the divine casting list is no slouch either. And between full 9th-level spells and their various class features turning them into melee monsters, not to mention the fact that divine spells are not subject to ASF, a CoDzilla is easily able to do anything it wants.

In PF, matters have changed slightly. Archetypes increase the versatility of many classes. A Druid's Wild Shape ability has been nerfed, but this has been offset by other things. And while a Cleric no longer has DMM, that particular feat was more like icing on the Cleric's already-impressive cake. Point is, I'd question whether Clerics or Druids have "top spot" compared to Wizards, but it's fairly clear that all three are still Tier 1 classes, in PF or in 3.5. Which leads to...

Second: Whether Wizards lorded over everyone in 3.5. This is somewhat true, but not entirely. For example, a Wizard has always been dependent upon his spell selection for the day. Similarly, in a situation where magic is unavailable, the Cleric is still able to fight, and the Druid still has a flanking buddy; the Wizard's familiar is rarely suited to direct combat. Did Tier 1 classes lord over other classes? You bet. But that's collectively. And while the Wizard's options for expanding his spell list make him the pinnacle of spellcasters (absent StP Erudite cheese), the Cleric and Druid's class features still kept them easily in the running.

Think about it this way; the 3.5 Wizard, despite having a superior spell list, was encouraged to PrC out of its class as soon as possible, because it lacked any class features to speak of. Druid was the only core class that could be taken from 1 to 20 and still demonstrate respectable power; Wild Shape was just that good, minionmancy was just that easy, and the Druid spell list was still quite impressive.

And while Wizards may have been at the core of many pure spellcasting builds, when it came to martial casters, using Cleric as your base was almost inevitable. DMM was a thing, but even without it, Clerics were a force with which to be reckoned. I don't think it's quite safe to say that Wizards "lorded over" everyone in 3.5, and I don't think it's safe to say any of the triumvirate of Wizards, Clerics, or Druids can safely be called top dog in PF, either.

[Reprimand]

I just realized the problem I was having the tier list I was looking at listed things in alphabetical order and I assumed it was power level within said tier.

So that was me derping.

[Douglas]

I'm not a huge fan of the tier system at all but the way it's been explained to be is this:

T1: Can break the game, easily. Virtually unstoppable if they have time to prepare.
T2: Can still break the game, requires more work. Very potent always but doesn't get better with prep time like T1.
I believe the original definition goes like this:
T1: Can break the game, in many different ways, on a single build.
T2: Can break the game, in many different ways, but only one or a few per build.

The difference between tiers 1 and 2 is whether you have to switch characters if you decide that you want to break the game today in a different way than you did yesterday.

[Psyren]

I just realized the problem I was having the tier list I was looking at listed things in alphabetical order and I assumed it was power level within said tier.

So that was me derping.

I figured this was the case. Problem solved.

And no, even using "intra-tier" rankings, wizards are still on top in PF. The most powerful cleric and druid toys, like Divine Power and Shapechange, were nerfed, while things like Planar Binding and Simulacrum barely changed, so if you were using the broken interpretations of those things before you can largely continue to do so in PF.

[Milo v3]

If anything, druid is now the weakest tier 1. Still tier 1 but it's been nerfed by a degree.

[Psyren]

I think they might be stronger than Witch and Shaman personally. Wild Shape is extremely versatile and useful. Certainly a druid will have an easier time with certain opponents (undead, constructs) than a witch.

[Beowulf DW]

Personally, I've always disagreed with judging classes solely on what they can accomplish at their most powerful. Is a Wizard the most powerful class at level 20? Probably. At level 10, even? Most likely. But what about those early levels? What happens when the bandits start shooting you with longbows, or the wolf pack sends one of its members around the fighter? A druid or cleric played intelligently will never feel useless or overly vulnerable at any level, even if they happen to lose a step or two to the wizard at the mid-to-high levels.

[Chronos]

What happens when the bandits start shooting you with longbows, or the wolf pack sends one of its members around the fighter?
You hit them with a Sleep, Color Spray, or Grease, and take probably half of them out of the fight so the rest of the party can mop up the other half.

[Beowulf DW]

You hit them with a Sleep, Color Spray, or Grease, and take probably half of them out of the fight so the rest of the party can mop up the other half.

Assuming you've won initiative and your party isn't in the line of fire. I've seen too many low level arcane full-casters 1-hit-wondered into negatives to ever feel comfortable playing one at a starting level lower than 5.

[Psyren]

You hit them with a Sleep, Color Spray, or Grease, and take probably half of them out of the fight so the rest of the party can mop up the other half.

Two of those are much shorter range than a longbow though, and the one that is long-range takes a whole round of actions to cast. So it's not quite as automatic as you make it sound.


Personally, I've always disagreed with judging classes solely on what they can accomplish at their most powerful. Is a Wizard the most powerful class at level 20? Probably. At level 10, even? Most likely. But what about those early levels? What happens when the bandits start shooting you with longbows, or the wolf pack sends one of its members around the fighter? A druid or cleric played intelligently will never feel useless or overly vulnerable at any level, even if they happen to lose a step or two to the wizard at the mid-to-high levels.

I agree - in practice, tiers don't matter nearly as much as the list implies they will, because the list doesn't account for player skill/savvy - but it's still good data to have.

[Draz74]

Personally, I've always disagreed with judging classes solely on what they can accomplish at their most powerful. Is a Wizard the most powerful class at level 20? Probably. At level 10, even? Most likely. But what about those early levels? What happens when the bandits start shooting you with longbows, or the wolf pack sends one of its members around the fighter? A druid or cleric played intelligently will never feel useless or overly vulnerable at any level, even if they happen to lose a step or two to the wizard at the mid-to-high levels.

Technically, Wizard is one of the most powerful classes in the game even at Level 1, assuming that you don't count Paladin as top-tier just because of their relationship with Pazuzu.

Wizard 1 grants a rarely-used class feature that loses most of its "oomph" by Level 2, but in the meantime is incredible: several hundred gp in the form of a spellbook. That can get a Wizard (or Archivist or Wu Jen) a veritable army of riding dogs and mules, if they choose to sacrifice long-term power by selling their spellbooks.

If not using this particular brand of cheese, then there's no question that Druids are better than Wizards at Level 1, and Clerics might be too. But everyone is pretty close at Level 1, and Crusaders and Incarnates might just be the top of the heap, so ... don't judge classes too much by Level 1.

[Beowulf DW]

I agree - in practice, tiers don't matter nearly as much as the list implies they will, because the list doesn't account for player skill/savvy - but it's still good data to have.

Oh, no question that it's good to know, I just wanted to express a certain degree of exasperation at the focus on potential power at a certain point over slightly less power throughout a character's career.

[PsyBomb]

Oh, no question that it's good to know, I just wanted to express a certain degree of exasperation at the focus on potential power at a certain point over slightly less power throughout a character's career.

Oddly, I once saw a compilation of what the Tiers would look like at low-op. Guy assembled it by basically asking buddies who don't play what sounded like it could be cool, and just going with it. I'll need to dig it up (and it was 3.5), but the Druid came out WAY on top among Core (Bo9S classes overall), given that there really isn't anything at all they are bad at.