Tier Ratings ...

[daryen]

When looking at the common tier ratings, I see that Adept is usually rated as Tier 4. Given this, I have wondered what the tier ratings would be of the following:
- Adept unchanged except it gets full Cleric spell list. (I.e. it keeps the Adept's spell progression, but can use any Cleric spell for the spell levels they have access to.)
- Same thing, but the Adept uses Druid spells.
- Modify the Cleric class to use the Adept's spell progression. Leave the rest unchanged. (This means only spells up to level 5 will be gained.)
- Modify the Druid to use the Adept's spell progression.

The goal of course is to get a Cleric and Druid effect, but at a lower tier.

[grarrrg]

Adept Upgrade: I'd say it probably stays in its tier. It doesn't much matter whether it is the Cleric or the Druid list, both are fairly similar.
It still has (almost) no class features to use. Still only has 2/level Skill points from a small list. Giving it access to more spells won't really affect much.

Druid/Cleric Downgrade: Tier 3 at best, possibly down to Tier 4. Most "6th level casters" are in Tier 3, and 5th level casting isn't far off.
But Clerics don't have much for features outside of their Spellcasting. They lack skill points, and 2 sets of Domain powers can only do so much.
Druids fare a little better, 4 Skills/level, Wildshape is a solid option, and an Animal Companion will keep up better than most domains.
Druid is probably a solid Tier 3, Cleric is low 3/high 4

[Renen]

I dunno... Being able to cast level 5 spells while isn't the best thing ever, is definitely pretty good. I'd say casting up to level 5 from cleric list would deserve tier 3?

[NamelessNPC]

Why not use the hunter as the new druid? It has pretty much the same flavor.

[Grod_The_Giant]

- Adept unchanged except it gets full Cleric spell list. (I.e. it keeps the Adept's spell progression, but can use any Cleric spell for the spell levels they have access to.)
- Same thing, but the Adept uses Druid spells.
Higher in the tier, but still T4: capable of doing most things, but not effectively (and not very often).


- Modify the Cleric class to use the Adept's spell progression. Leave the rest unchanged. (This means only spells up to level 5 will be gained.)
Low T3/high T4: moderately combat-capable thanks to the better chassis and buff spells, with some ability to pick up utility spells. But not good, due to having too few spells/day.


- Modify the Druid to use the Adept's spell progression.
T3, thanks to the power of an animal companion and the utility of Wild Shape, but still on the low end of things.

The slow progression is a big drop in power, but the druid in particular has the class features to make up for it. But you've also got a big issue with spells/day: there aren't enough of them. Which leads into a nasty spiral where you need good physical skills for when you're not casting, so you can't take a good Wisdom, so you need even more Str/Dex/Con... Honestly, stick with the Warpriest and Hunter. They do exactly what you want in a much more balanced and fun fashion.

[Psyren]

Why not use the hunter as the new druid? It has pretty much the same flavor.

This, and use Warpriest for Cleric. Bam, T3 divines.

[Extra Anchovies]

The only issue is the lack of a 6ths-caster who uses the Sor/Wiz list, but that's very easily fixed by swapping out the Investigator's alchemy for casting. Then the only two full casters that aren't represented among the T3s are Witch and Shaman; both of their lists could be made available through archetypes, maybe for the Hunter.

[Psyren]

Staff Magus can sort of be a T3 Wizard. Hexcrafter Staff Magus makes a decent T3 Witch. Shaman isn't necessary to represent I'd say.

Magician Bard, Eldritch Scion Staff Magus or Warlock Vigilante can pass for a T3 sorc.

[Extra Anchovies]

Staff Magus can sort of be a T3 Wizard. Hexcrafter Staff Magus makes a decent T3 Witch. Shaman isn't necessary to represent I'd say.

Magician Bard, Eldritch Scion Staff Magus or Warlock Vigilante can pass for a T3 sorc.

My concern is mostly that there aren't 6ths-casting classes that use the same spell list as the Sorcerer/Wizard (outside of Warlock Vigilante, which is a bad class), Witch, and Shaman, but you do have a good point. The listed classes make for nice substitutes if you don't want to do any homebrew changes or don't have control over whether such changes are allowed.

[Grod_The_Giant]

My concern is mostly that there aren't 6ths-casting classes that use the same spell list as the Sorcerer/Wizard (outside of Warlock Vigilante, which is a bad class), Witch, and Shaman, but you do have a good point. The listed classes make for nice substitutes if you don't want to do any homebrew changes or don't have control over whether such changes are allowed.
You could also just take the Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch chassis and change the spells progression to mirror that of the hunter/warpriest

[daryen]

Why not use the hunter as the new druid? It has pretty much the same flavor.

Very fair question. The answer is because I like wildshape and want the domain, not the animal companion. Hunter is all about the animal companion, and I don't want that. Also, the one archetype that allows wildshape uses the most reluctant version of wildshape in the game. Simply put, the Hunter class leaves me cold.

On the other hand, what about using Druid, but replacing the Druid's spell progression with the Hunter's spell progression. Would that knock the Druid down to Tier 3?

[Extra Anchovies]

Very fair question. The answer is because I like wildshape and want the domain, not the animal companion. Hunter is all about the animal companion, and I don't want that. Also, the one archetype that allows wildshape uses the most reluctant version of wildshape in the game. Simply put, the Hunter class leaves me cold.

How is Feral Hunter's Wildshape "reluctant"? Disallowing plant and elemental forms isn't much of a nerf.

That archetype is probably a downgrade, though, so it'd be fair to tack a domain onto it.

[daryen]

How is Feral Hunter's Wildshape "reluctant"? Disallowing plant and elemental forms isn't much of a nerf.

My bad. I was thinking it restricted sizes, too. It doesn't. I was probably thinking of the old 3.5 wildshape Ranger.


That archetype is probably a downgrade, though, so it'd be fair to tack a domain onto it.

But if I am modifying the class, why not just tack the Hunter's spell progression to the Druid chassis? Just as simple, plus it gives me what I want, as long as it stays Tier 3.

[Extra Anchovies]

But if I am modifying the class, why not just tack the Hunter's spell progression to the Druid chassis? Just as simple, plus it gives me what I want, as long as it stays Tier 3.

That's a fair point. Druid with Hunter progression would definitly be T3, and somewhat on the high end due to the combat power provided by the companion and the utility from wildshape/spells.

[grarrrg]

Hunter is all about the animal companion, and I don't want that. Also, the one archetype that allows wildshape uses the most reluctant version of wildshape in the game. Simply put, the Hunter class leaves me cold.

Now now, that simply isn't true.
There are plenty worse options with worse Wild Shape.
Feral Hunter gets full effective level Wild Shape, but is limited to Animal forms.
Dragon Shaman (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo---druid-archetypes/dragon-shaman) gets a -4 effective level penalty (unless turning into a Lizard).
A Totemic Skald (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/skald/archetypes/paizo---skald-archetypes/totemic-skald), he takes a -1 effective level penalty, can only become Small/Medium versions of a specific animal, and gets at most 3/day uses at level 17.
And then there is the VMC Druid (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/character-advancement#TOC-Core-Classes). It doesn't get Wild Shape _at all_ until level 15, and you are limited to 2/day, Small/Medium Animals only. At level 19 it 'upgrades' to 3/day, and you can take any shape that a _6_th level Druid could.

Feral Hunter really isn't all that bad when it comes to Shaping.

[daryen]

Now now, that simply isn't true.


Again, I misunderstood the restriction. I though size restrictions were present, too, and they are not. So, my complaint on this feature is indeed unfounded.

Regardless, I still don't like the class because it highlights the features I don't care about at the expense of those that I do. The class still leaves me cold.

And, realize, this is just my take, not absolute truth. I am not denigrating those that like the class; my dislike is just my own valuation for me, not a devaluation of the class itself. And, knowing that the Druid chassis with 6th-level casting will acceptably knock its power down, that's what I needed to know.

EDIT: Actually, I should say the Druid chassis with the Magus spell progression, so it is still explicitly a prepared caster, rather than implying a change to be a spontaneous caster.