Traditional Classes VS Newer Clases

[Gwazi Magnum]

A thought ran across me when it came to Casters, are Wizards and Clerics forever the god classes? Never to be surpassed in amount of power and usability? Or are there now other classes that could rival or beat them? But then I decided, why stop there? Traditionally there are five 'core' classes for roles, where others are usually seen as variants. I'll list the five below compared to what I normally see others arguing as a replacement, but what I really want to see is what you all think. Do the core classes win? Do the contested ones win? Is there a Class I'm not mentioning that does better?

Wizard VS Witch
Cleric VS Warpriest
Fighter VS Paladin* or Barbarian
Rogue VS Investigator
Bard VS Skald

*Ignore RP restrictions for this thread. Assume we're talking strictly mechanics.

[Zanos]

I can only comment on Wizard/Witch.

Witch is a very good class, but the Wizard, ultimately, has a better spell list. At will abilities are very nice, and the Witch is probably more powerful in the hands of many players because of that. However, the Wizard's spell list is much better than the Witch spell list, which lacks many of the better spells. In absolute power, the Wizard is still superior. In practice, the witch often contributes more.

[Tuvarkz]

Warpriest might be a barely better combat specialist than the Cleric if the Warpriest completely focuses on going full melee, but the Cleric is overall a better class (9/9 casting with the exact same list does a lot of the job)
Fighter with WMH can stand proud along the same level of the Paladin and the Barbarian, with similar damage output levels and some side utility
Investigator completely outdoes the Rogue due to extracts and some other class features. Unchained Rogue makes for a closer match but still falls behind.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I can only comment on Wizard/Witch.

Witch is a very good class, but the Wizard, ultimately, has a better spell list. At will abilities are very nice, and the Witch is probably more powerful in the hands of many players because of that. However, the Wizard's spell list is much better than the Witch spell list, which lacks many of the better spells. In absolute power, the Wizard is still superior. In practice, the witch often contributes more.

I've heard this said a lot, but how so exactly?
Like, what is it that could be done with the Hexes that makes it so powerful usually?
And likewise, what are the spells the Wizards are unique in that can be so powerful?

Note, I already have a basic idea on the answers here. But more detail/info/specifics never hurts.

[Serafina]

Wizards keep getting incredibly strong options from Paizo, and still have pretty much the best spell list.
Witches have some strong hexes, but a significantly worse spelllist. They also have to deal with the drawbacks of their witch familiar and other things.

Clerics are full casters.
Warpriests are not. Fervor is really good, but doesn't really compete with high-level casting.
You didn't mention the Oracle. Which is still weaker than the Cleric due to being a spontaneous caster, but still.
You didn't mention the Shaman. Who do get Hexes, the spell list can be made more or less equivalent to the Clerics, and their Spirits provide a ton of flexibility. They can compete with the Cleric on mostly equal footing.

Fighter is actually pretty decent with the right Advanced Weapon Training.
Barbarian can do pretty much everything a classic fighter can, and often better.
Paladins get spellcasting, and maybe more importantly don't have to deal with weak saves. The lack of bonus feats hurts their martial capability to some degree though.
You forgot the Bloodrager - who gets spellcasting and special powers (possibly just being a better barbarian) while having full BAB.

Rogue - well, the Unchained Rogue is pretty nice with Dex-to-Damage, Debilitating Injury, Skill Unlocks and with some of the archetypes (such as Eldritch Scoundrel).
The Investigator gets spellcasting, has less problems hitting than the Rogue will and doesn't have a weak will save. Overall it can fill the same roles much better.
You forgot the Vigilante - which can fill similar roles to a Rogue, but also gets more unique tricks.

Bards have a ton of nice options. There are lots of interesting archetypes.
Skalds are straight-up better for party combat buffing due to granting unique abilities (rage powers), and are better at fighting than the bard. However, they have less archetypes and as such less variety.

Overall:
Wizards and Clerics are still some of the strongest classes. They still get options that utterly win encounters, and have huge versatility. The only new class that really competes at such high levels is the Shaman IMO.
For the other "classic" classes, the new options are generally both stronger and more interesting. The Bloodrager has more unique abilities than the Fighter (discounting some Advanced Weapon Training tricks.) The Skald doesn't just grant a numerical bonus, they also grant rage-powers to their allies. The Vigilantes talents often grant new and unique abilities that are good, the Rogues are mostly rather weak. And so on and so forth.


If you actually want to replace the "classic" classes with new ones, your best bet is probably something like this:
Cleric -> Warpriest. Similar spells and abilities, just less overwhelming spellcasting at higher levels.
Fighter -> Bloodrager. Just as good at fighter-stuff, but also some spells and unique abilities.
Rogue -> Investigator. Alchemy and more interesting abilities. Vigilante also works, mind.
Wizard -> Occultist. Definitely has the whole "arcane studies" thing, even though their spells are technically psychic. Much less versatile than the Wizard, but still a good class.
The advantage here is that all of those classes would be on mostly the same power level, and that none would have too much versatility to outright replace another.

[Gnaeus]

I've heard this said a lot, but how so exactly?
Like, what is it that could be done with the Hexes that makes it so powerful usually?
And likewise, what are the spells the Wizards are unique in that can be so powerful?

Hexes are at will SUs. That means no AOOs, no spell resistance. The ones that aren't mind affecting even (Misfortune) hit things with spell immunity like golems. It's a really nice default option. Slumber and misfortune will shut down a great many encounters, and will be useful in almost all.

On the wizard side, look at planar binding line. Shapechange. Wish. Gate. Time Stop. Contingency.

[Gwazi Magnum]

You didn't mention the Shaman.

Shaman's probably the one (non-psychic) class I've either never ran into in a campaign or wasn't tossing around as a potential class to use myself. Which is probably why I missed it.
The Oracle deal was the same reason I never mentioned Sorcerer for Wizard, Spontaneous always loses (even if I personally prefer it).


You forgot the Bloodrager - who gets spellcasting and special powers (possibly just being a better barbarian) while having full BAB.

Ah yes, Bloodrager is an odd case I've never decided where to place. It's a Caster and a Melee combatant, though not quite in the Cleric or Druid manner.
If anything, from what I understand of the class it belongs in it's own sixth category alongside classes such as Magus.


You forgot the Vigilante - which can fill similar roles to a Rogue, but also gets more unique tricks.

Not so much forget, more so they're so specialised towards RP heavy campaigns they're sort of a different beast from any of the other classes entirely.
Doesn't help they're also the newest class so the communities rarely had enough time to get a general consensus or understanding of it, or even a handbook.


Skalds are straight-up better for party combat buffing due to granting unique abilities (rage powers), and are better at fighting than the bard. However, they have less archetypes and as such less variety.

For the sake of Devil's advocate (sort of, cause this does actually confuse me a bit). I can see Skalds being better from strictly a Martial sense, cause Rage and Rage powers are pretty powerful. However, there are several things they do have going against it.

1. It's all Rage focused. So even in the limited scope that is combat, nothing much is being provided to your rogue like characters, or your fellow spell casters.
2. Out of combat, Bard has a lot of RP usability or simply other kinds of buffs, which Rage kind of... doesn't. And this a lack of variety they'd have even without there being Bard Archetypes.


If you actually want to replace the "classic" classes with new ones, your best bet is probably something like this:
Cleric -> Warpriest. Similar spells and abilities, just less overwhelming spellcasting at higher levels.
Fighter -> Bloodrager. Just as good at fighter-stuff, but also some spells and unique abilities.
Rogue -> Investigator. Alchemy and more interesting abilities. Vigilante also works, mind.
Wizard -> Occultist. Definitely has the whole "arcane studies" thing, even though their spells are technically psychic. Much less versatile than the Wizard, but still a good class.
The advantage here is that all of those classes would be on mostly the same power level, and that none would have too much versatility to outright replace another.

This would be a pretty interesting party to see in play though. o_o
Honestly, you might have just solved the Caster VS Martial curse Pathfinder and D&D tends to have.

Granted, it's a rather specific class combo. But hey, if it works it becomes a great baseline for homebrewing to expand upon it.

[digiman619]

A thought ran across me when it came to Casters, are Wizards and Clerics forever the god classes? Never to be surpassed in amount of power and usability?

Um, to be blunt, yes. With the exception of Pathfinder's Arcanist, they generally tend to shy away from making more Tier 1 classes, as it's been proven up one side and down the other that that's simply put too much power, As for the rest of your argument, somethings become iconic; there are those that to this day find not including a cleric and rogue in the party as unthinkable, even though healing and skill monkey/trap-dealing can be done with other classes. It's why we still have the monk as a base class in 5th; they removed it in 4th (at least as a core class), and everybody complained. As long as D&D exists (or things directly based off it like Pathfinder), we will have the Fighter, Cleric, Rouge, and Wizard classes, for better or worse.

[Gnaeus]

Um, to be blunt, yes. With the exception of Pathfinder's Arcanist, they generally tend to shy away from making more Tier 1 classes, as it's been proven up one side and down the other that that's simply put too much power, As for the rest of your argument, somethings become iconic; there are those that to this day find not including a cleric and rogue in the party as unthinkable, even though healing and skill monkey/trap-dealing can be done with other classes. It's why we still have the monk as a base class in 5th; they removed it in 4th (at least as a core class), and everybody complained. As long as D&D exists (or things directly based off it like Pathfinder), we will have the Fighter, Cleric, Rouge, and Wizard classes, for better or worse.

Witches and shamans are T1s. Just a little below wizards on the scale.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Hexes are at will SUs. That means no AOOs, no spell resistance. The ones that aren't mind affecting even (Misfortune) hit things with spell immunity like golems. It's a really nice default option. Slumber and misfortune will shut down a great many encounters, and will be useful in almost all.

On the wizard side, look at planar binding line. Shapechange. Wish. Gate. Time Stop. Contingency.

So if I'm following right, the Hexes work on almost anything, any time?

Meanwhile looking at those Wizard spells, those all seem to be either End-Game 9th Level spells, or the kind that don't much use outside of your complete and total optimiser groups. Is that the level of optimising needed to make Wizard better? Or am I inflating things here?


Um, to be blunt, yes. With the exception of Pathfinder's Arcanist, they generally tend to shy away from making more Tier 1 classes, as it's been proven up one side and down the other that that's simply put too much power, As for the rest of your argument, somethings become iconic; there are those that to this day find not including a cleric and rogue in the party as unthinkable, even though healing and skill monkey/trap-dealing can be done with other classes. It's why we still have the monk as a base class in 5th; they removed it in 4th (at least as a core class), and everybody complained. As long as D&D exists (or things directly based off it like Pathfinder), we will have the Fighter, Cleric, Rouge, and Wizard classes, for better or worse.

To clarify I'm not arguing for the classes to be gotten rid of. I'm just questioning the opportunity for alternates.

[Eldariel]

I've heard this said a lot, but how so exactly?
Like, what is it that could be done with the Hexes that makes it so powerful usually?

Off the top of my head:
Slumber is the big one early on. It's just great. Flight too, obviously - the earlier the better. Then there's like Cackle (Move Action, fits well into action economy) combined with Fortune/Evil Eye, Scar enables buffing at up to 1 mile range (also a good way to get a Scry sensor slipped in), and some minor stuff like Misfortune/Healing/Warding/etc.

Higher up, Beast Eye is a nice Scry, Hag's Eye also provides some divination, Weather Control come a bit early (you get your first Major Hex on level 10, while the spell becomes available on level 13) but becomes obsolete once you get the spell, mostly Major Hexes aren't anything to write home about.

Grand Hexes have Forced Reincarnation, Summon Spirit, and some save-or-Xes; Eternal Slumber is perhaps the most interesting. Still, sleep immunity is a thing so it isn't that reliable anymore. Forced Reincarnation is awesome though and Summon Spirit can get you awesome underlings depending on the statted dead NPCs in the campaign. As with Planar Binding, you can trivially win the opposed Charisma-check with Moment of Prescience. The negative level and a lack of clear list of available targets makes the hex significantly less powerful than its spell cousin though.


And likewise, what are the spells the Wizards are unique in that can be so powerful?

The usual. Superminionmancy spells in Simulacrum/Planar Binding/Gate, world-changing spells like Polymorph Any Object, combat spells like Contingency/Disjunction/Time Stop, etc. They also lack of the superpowerful (but costly) Limited Wish and Wish-spells but they don't have Miracle either. Thus they completely lack a level 9 "change reality as I please"-spell. Curiously Witches even lack such basic tools as Invisibility, Mirror Image, Silent Image-line and so on: many of the more powerful Illusions. Then there are the various Force-spells; Wall of Force, Resilient Sphere. They have a lot of the basic combat functionality of a Wizard but especially far as minionmancy and doing insane things go, their list falls short.

It's also worth noting that while they have the Summon Monster-line, they don't have any reasonable means of turning those into standard actions (Tattooed Mystic costs multiple caster levels to get the job done), which makes them not excel at that job. Given how insanely strong Pathfinder Summons are, that's actually a significant downside all onto its own.

EDIT: To be clear, Witch can indeed make up for some of those missing spells with the right Patrons. They won't be able to cover all of them though.

[Gnaeus]

So if I'm following right, the Hexes work on almost anything, any time?

Meanwhile looking at those Wizard spells, those all seem to be either End-Game 9th Level spells, or the kind that don't much use outside of your complete and total optimiser groups. Is that the level of optimising needed to make Wizard better? Or am I inflating things here

Well, many hexes are mind affecting, but yes. Can't stop it with grapple. Needs no components. No spell failure chance. Can't run out of them.

On the board we tend to talk about classes in terms of their top potential. If you look at threads where we compare T1s with other stuff (like T3s, or lower tier gestalts), stuff like planar binding comes up a lot. When we talk about powers that short circuit encounters, that obsolete other party members, that break action economy, that change campaigns, we are talking about things like planar binding. But we could look at other things as well. Wizards have about twice as many spells on their list. That matters.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Curiously Witches even lack such basic tools as Invisibility, Mirror Image, Silent Image-line and so on

Honestly you were selling me on Witch (for personal use) until I hit this bit.
Like, higher level game changers? They're super late and tend to break the game beyond repair anyways... But Invisibility? Damn, that's a pretty basic but essential spell. o_o

But yea, I can see the case with Hexes helping it out. Definitely helps prevent them being useless when spells run out.

[Gwazi Magnum]

On the board we tend to talk about classes in terms of their top potential. If you look at threads where we compare T1s with other stuff (like T3s, or lower tier gestalts), stuff like planar binding comes up a lot. When we talk about powers that short circuit encounters, that obsolete other party members, that break action economy, that change campaigns, we are talking about things like planar binding. But we could look at other things as well. Wizards have about twice as many spells on their list. That matters.

I'm a semi-frequent on this board (I dip in and out as tabletop picks up or drops off RL) so I'm well aware.

But I feel it's important to also look at the non-planar binding shenanigans, because let's be honest. How many campaigns do those actually pop up? You need to be both in a High Level game (which MANY campaigns never reach) and have a group pretty comfortable with that level of optimising taking place, which a lot of people aren't, to the extent I've seen groups passionately express how much they hate munchkins but then turn around and hold team meetings because some characters weren't built well enough.

So as accurate as simply pointing to that usual high-end top potential stuff is true, it really isn't something that helps or applies to the majority of campaigns in my own experience.

[Eldariel]

Honestly you were selling me on Witch (for personal use) until I hit this bit.
Like, higher level game changers? They're super late and tend to break the game beyond repair anyways... But Invisibility? Damn, that's a pretty basic but essential spell. o_o

But yea, I can see the case with Hexes helping it out. Definitely helps prevent them being useless when spells run out.

Deception Patron grants Invisibility. Haste can be gained through Time or Agility, Trickery has Major Image and Mirror Image. Plague/Occult both grant Command Undead. There are also some convenient Cleric-spells available like Lesser Restoration, Antilife Shell, Magic Vestment, etc. So it's not hopeless. But you'll have to pick carefully, and make do with a reduced toolbox compared to a Wizard. Though you still generally have a tool available for a given job; it's just you have less tools to pick from (and yeah, not having Invisibility/Haste is a pretty big pain).

EDIT: One thing to note about Witches is that they have Use Magic Device in class which is quite convenient and they get a fair number of decent Cleric-spells.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Deception Patron grants Invisibility. Haste can be gained through Time or Agility, Trickery has Major Image and Mirror Image. Plague/Occult both grant Command Undead. There are also some convenient Cleric-spells available like Lesser Restoration, Antilife Shell, Magic Vestment, etc. So it's not hopeless. But you'll have to pick carefully, and make do with a reduced toolbox compared to a Wizard. Though you still generally have a tool available for a given job; it's just you have less tools to pick from (and yeah, not having Invisibility/Haste is a pretty big pain).

EDIT: One thing to note about Witches is that they have Use Magic Device in class which is quite convenient and they get a fair number of decent Cleric-spells.

That sounds like I'm picking my Hexes in order to be a limited Wizard at that point, not for the Hex abilities which is meant to be the classes appeal.

And I'm assuming you say they have UMD you mean as a class skill? That's nice over the Wizard, but really it's a +3 bonus. The Paladin is still going to outperform them there and he's not even that much of a caster.

[Eldariel]

That sounds like I'm picking my Hexes in order to be a limited Wizard at that point, not for the Hex abilities which is meant to be the classes appeal.

Patron is a separate class feature from Hexes. You get a Patron to bolster your spell list and then you pick Hexes to do Witch-things; it's kinda like Cleric Domains while Hexes are more like Channel Energy. But yes, Wizard will inevitably be the superior caster in spite of the Cleric-spells on the Witch list, while the Witch has some interesting unique options and longetivity in Hexes (and seriously, Forced Reincarnation is just hilarious).


And I'm assuming you say they have UMD you mean as a class skill? That's nice over the Wizard, but really it's a +3 bonus.

It's not a bad bonus though, for using off-class Wands or whatever earlier.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Patron is a separate class feature from Hexes. You get a Patron to bolster your spell list and then you pick Hexes to do Witch-things; it's kinda like Cleric Domains while Hexes are more like Channel Energy. But yes, Wizard will inevitably be the superior caster in spite of the Cleric-spells on the Witch list, while the Witch has some interesting unique options and longetivity in Hexes (and seriously, Forced Reincarnation is just hilarious).

Oh...
Seem's I misread... And read into the class more. o_o

That does certainly help the Witches case though.


It's not a bad bonus though, for using off-class Wands or whatever earlier.

True, every little bit helps. It just wouldn't be anywhere close to my selling point.
Hell, UMD would only sell me on the Artificer, and that's not even Pathfinder. XD

[digiman619]

To clarify I'm not arguing for the classes to be gotten rid of. I'm just questioning the opportunity for alternates.

Then I can only give you the advice that works for me: Ditch the standard magic and martial paradigm and use Path of War (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war) and Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/) subsystems for martial and mystical needs, respectively. The links are to free wikis that have the relevant info.

[Manyasone]

Then I can only give you the advice that works for me: Ditch the standard magic and martial paradigm and use Path of War (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war) and Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/) subsystems for martial and mystical needs, respectively. The links are to free wikis that have the relevant info.

While I agree that PF has some great 3rd party material, and I also use most of it in my own campaigns, for some 3rd party is a big nono

[Gwazi Magnum]

While I agree that PF has some great 3rd party material, and I also use most of it in my own campaigns, for some 3rd party is a big nono

Personally I'm a big fan of the Professional Rogue variant, especially on the Unchained Rogue.
And although not technically 3rd Party, the 3.5 rules of Unearthed Arcana and Spell Points are also quite nice.

[Kurald Galain]

The big question is, at what level? Sure, at level 20 the full casters are hands down the best, but that's not a useful comparison as almost nobody ever plays at level twenty anyway. It gets much more interesting if you look at level five or level eight, and ignore the upper-level capstones.

As to the comparisons you mention,

Wizard is better than witch, because the witch's spell list is weaker, and because people tend to overvalue hexes. See, hexes are weaker than your spells, that's why you get an infinite amount; the main exception is the oft-banned Slumber hex.
In terms of melee, warpriest holds the edge in action economy, as putting up a free buff once per turn is a big deal. In terms of caster, cleric is obviously better, and domains are much better than blessings.
Pally and barb aren't newer classes, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
Rogue is better at combat (I'm talking about the unchained rogue, not the original one). Investo is better at skills.
Bard is an all-round class; skald should basically have been an archetype, its usefulness depends highly on what your party members are (and in most parties, bard will be better).