Gnaeus
2017-03-01, 10:37 AM
So, this is the base thread for discussing pathfinder tiering. I plan on following Eggynack’s basic format and discussions. We are discussing how tiers are different in PF.
Some basic concepts and differences:
1. The 3.5 Tiers are, for purposes of this debate, what they come out to in the parallel Eggynack thread. The Definitions are what they are in the Eggynack thread unless clearly spelled out as different, which I don’t think will happen much. If you don’t like the concept of tiers, or the specific tiers, that’s your right but don’t argue it here. This thread is to analyze how PF classes fit into the Tier system as developed by JaronK and discussed by Eggynack and others in the 3.5 threads. That is all. The 3.5 class tier will be assumed to be what it comes out to in the 3.5 thread.
2. The arguments for the basic classes should be discussed in the 3.5 thread. This is not where you say Sorcerer is as good as Wizard because spontaneous casting rocks! This is where you say Sorcerer is as good as Wizard because PF sorcerers can utilize item crafting more efficiently, or because they get so many more spells known, or because they now get bonus feats. If an argument is made in the 3.5 thread, it doesn’t need to be repeated here. If you have to refer back to the 3.5 thread, doing so with links or spoilers is strongly preferred. Consistent violations will result in you and your vote being ignored.
3. PF being as it is, Optimization is less dependent on sourcebook than 3.5. Core only would be considered as low op, but as long as it is on the PFSRD or other open source sites, if it is first party, source isn’t terribly relevant. The hallmark of Low Optimization is taking things that sound cool, even if they may be mechanically subpar. The hallmark of Mid optimization is picking generally consistently good options. The hallmark of High optimization is taking optimization choices that require combining distant abilities, planning several levels ahead, and recognizing non-obviously good tricks and powers. Game destroyers and infinite loops are considered TO and not considered.
4. Archetypes will generally be considered as part of the optimization range of the base class (like feats, gear, etc). Bad archetypes should generally be given less weight than good ones (since it is less likely that a casual player will go through the effort of reading dozens of class options only to pick the worst ones). If particular archetypes are strongly argued to need a different tier because they are so different, we can do that on a case by case basis, but in general.
5. In general, class dependence on particular gear (especially gear that the class can’t make natively) should be weighed against the class in tier analysis. Ability to exceed WBL/get particular gear by crafting (which is easier in PF than 3.5) should be weighed in favor of the class in tier analysis, particularly if the class in question has other abilities (bonus crafting feats, familiars, bonuses to spellcraft, etc) that make that easier. This extends to other abilities that modify WBL only if a clear, on its face reading of the base ability suggests that the ability was intended to modify PC gold. We’re not talking about binding genies to make poisons or candles of invocation.
6. I understand that PF was designed to be compatable with 3.5. Please assume here only first party PF sources. If someone wants to discuss how 3.PF works, I’ll be glad to read about it in your thread. If it goes long enough, I may discuss classes that are 1st party in 3.5 but 3rd party in PF, like PoW, Akasha and Psionic classes. In that case, they will be assumed to be PF 1st party + relevant materials from DSP or the other author.
7. New posters votes will not be counted until they demonstrate by actions elsewhere on site that they are not multiple accounts or banned posters.
Some basic concepts and differences:
1. The 3.5 Tiers are, for purposes of this debate, what they come out to in the parallel Eggynack thread. The Definitions are what they are in the Eggynack thread unless clearly spelled out as different, which I don’t think will happen much. If you don’t like the concept of tiers, or the specific tiers, that’s your right but don’t argue it here. This thread is to analyze how PF classes fit into the Tier system as developed by JaronK and discussed by Eggynack and others in the 3.5 threads. That is all. The 3.5 class tier will be assumed to be what it comes out to in the 3.5 thread.
2. The arguments for the basic classes should be discussed in the 3.5 thread. This is not where you say Sorcerer is as good as Wizard because spontaneous casting rocks! This is where you say Sorcerer is as good as Wizard because PF sorcerers can utilize item crafting more efficiently, or because they get so many more spells known, or because they now get bonus feats. If an argument is made in the 3.5 thread, it doesn’t need to be repeated here. If you have to refer back to the 3.5 thread, doing so with links or spoilers is strongly preferred. Consistent violations will result in you and your vote being ignored.
3. PF being as it is, Optimization is less dependent on sourcebook than 3.5. Core only would be considered as low op, but as long as it is on the PFSRD or other open source sites, if it is first party, source isn’t terribly relevant. The hallmark of Low Optimization is taking things that sound cool, even if they may be mechanically subpar. The hallmark of Mid optimization is picking generally consistently good options. The hallmark of High optimization is taking optimization choices that require combining distant abilities, planning several levels ahead, and recognizing non-obviously good tricks and powers. Game destroyers and infinite loops are considered TO and not considered.
4. Archetypes will generally be considered as part of the optimization range of the base class (like feats, gear, etc). Bad archetypes should generally be given less weight than good ones (since it is less likely that a casual player will go through the effort of reading dozens of class options only to pick the worst ones). If particular archetypes are strongly argued to need a different tier because they are so different, we can do that on a case by case basis, but in general.
5. In general, class dependence on particular gear (especially gear that the class can’t make natively) should be weighed against the class in tier analysis. Ability to exceed WBL/get particular gear by crafting (which is easier in PF than 3.5) should be weighed in favor of the class in tier analysis, particularly if the class in question has other abilities (bonus crafting feats, familiars, bonuses to spellcraft, etc) that make that easier. This extends to other abilities that modify WBL only if a clear, on its face reading of the base ability suggests that the ability was intended to modify PC gold. We’re not talking about binding genies to make poisons or candles of invocation.
6. I understand that PF was designed to be compatable with 3.5. Please assume here only first party PF sources. If someone wants to discuss how 3.PF works, I’ll be glad to read about it in your thread. If it goes long enough, I may discuss classes that are 1st party in 3.5 but 3rd party in PF, like PoW, Akasha and Psionic classes. In that case, they will be assumed to be PF 1st party + relevant materials from DSP or the other author.
7. New posters votes will not be counted until they demonstrate by actions elsewhere on site that they are not multiple accounts or banned posters.