Retiering the Classes (PF): Barbarian, Bloodrager, Fighter, Cavalier, Samurai

[Gnaeus]

Looking at how edition differences change the tier.

The Mundane Beat Sticks (part one): Barbarian, Fighter, Samurai (CW), and Samurai (OA) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516602-Retiering-the-Classes-Barbarian-Fighter-Samurai-(CW)-and-Samurai-(OA)&p=21747927#post21747927)

3.5 thread results:
Barbarian T4
Fighter T4* (Right on the line, additional votes may shift it, but appears to be either very top T5 or bottom T4)
Samurai: not relevant, since 3.5 samurai and PF samurai are very different

I thought hard about whether to put bloodrager with Magus, because it seems to me about halfway between barbarian and the half casters.

Bloodrager 3.5 tied 4/4 between 3 and 4
Fighter 4
Cavalier 5
Samurai 5
Barbarian 4.

[Gnaeus]

My votes:
Barbarian: T4. It gets a lot more options. Some are traps, but I think it gets more than it gives up.

Bloodrager: T4. I think its close to top of T4, since spells give more problem solving ability, but its only 4 level casting and I don't think its fully T3.

Fighter: I'll say T4 for 2 reasons. 1. I don't want to relitigate the world and I don't think its WORSE than the 3.5 fighter, and 2. What PF mostly gives fighters is better numbers, in the form of weapon/armor training and bravery. At this point in tiers, numbers matter. Still, I'd say that fighter is the very bottom of T4 and anything weaker than fighter is T5. I'd also add that fighters have some decent Archetypes, which are a little higher in T4, and if we are weighing good archetypes a little higher than bad ones......

Cavalier: T5. Less feats than fighter. Gets a mount, which is good, but I think the Cavalier class features are mostly weaker than feats.

Samurai: T5. Like Cavalier.

[Psyren]

I'd put Bloodrager at 3. Yeah the casting is 4th-level but they have full CL and some darn good buffs in those 4 levels (e.g. Monstrous Physique 2, Ghost Wolf, etc), bloodline powers, and most importantly, action economy due to the free-action rage-auto-buffing. In addition, Primalist is basically Barbarian+, and barbs are already T4.

Agreed on Fighter being 4.

Cavalier can get to 4 with Order of the Beast.

[Krazzman]

Barbarian stays T4 for the most part but is pretty high up since damage comes really easy which let''s you focus on other things... on a side note what about the fix/nerf of unchained barbarian?

Bloodrager on the other hand is even Barbarian+ with some limitations. It's either low T3 or high T4 depending on bloodlines and archetypes. Available buffs and utility spells are the main points of my reasoning for this.

Cavalier and samurai... depends on the party. Can enough people benefit of the shared teamwork feats and this could raise at least the Cavalier to T4. If I remember correctly there is a build focusing on commanding and giving aid another on a really big scale which is probably at T4.

Fighter. He is still T4. Weaponmaster Handbook brings weapon tricks on the table that could lead to a jump to T3 but I just got my copy of that book 3 days ago and haven't had the chance to really look through the book.

What about the paladin? I think if we include the Bloodrager we should include both ranger and Paladins here too.

[Gnaeus]

What about the paladin? I think if we include the Bloodrager we should include both ranger and Paladins here too.

I'm following the other Tier thread. I'll do ranger and paladin after Eggynack. It's the classes without 3.5 equivalents that take effort to figure out where they go. I don't want to do more than 4-5 at a time, for ease of discussion

I agree that Bloodrager is low T3 or high T4. Which way are you voting. I think I understand Psyren's votes.

[Krazzman]

I'm following the other Tier thread. I'll do ranger and paladin after Eggynack. It's the classes without 3.5 equivalents that take effort to figure out where they go. I don't want to do more than 4-5 at a time, for ease of discussion

I agree that Bloodrager is low T3 or high T4. Which way are you voting. I think I understand Psyren's votes.

Bloodrager? Low T3. I think the armor archetype knocks it down to T4 but most of the straight abilities result in a good and well balanced melee character with a lot of options and the possibility of utility like getting flight or other forms of movements, reach or size increases and good self buffing.

[Firechanter]

I'm not sure about the Cavalier; might depend a lot on the campaign, but by and large probably not too high up on the ladder.

Anyway, the PF Barbarian is a _lot_ more powerful than both the 3.5 Barb and the Fighters of either edition. Rage Powers make a huge difference. While not enough to catapult him up to T3, the performance advantage over the Fighter should be reflected by the tier rating imho.

Both Fighter and Barb are really good at dealing physical damage, if they both get to do their shtick. However, it's much harder to keep a PF Barb from doing his shtick and to keep any Fighter from doing theirs. Barbs actually have something like No buttons, or at least a better defense against enemy spellcasters. A Fighter has jack squat.

As I said in the other thread, there are so many ways you can frustrate a Fighter, E.B. Browning could write a sonnet about it.

Both classes have gained _something_ over their 3.5 counterparts. However, the Barb got better at _both_ dishing out hurt _and_ saying No to casters. The Fighter got better at shaking his pointy stick about, but only as long as nobody objects. Hit each of them with a Hold Person and you'll see what I mean.

In absolute terms, the chassis of the PF Fighter has gotten better than the 3.5 version. In relative perspective, however, the class has gotten weaker because everything else got buffed more.

--> Therefore,
Barbarian T4
Fighter T5

[Coretron03]

Barbarians: T4-They are simple and effective. Rage and pick up the biggest weapon you can find and you've got a decent melee combatant from the get go. More skill points then other martials and a better skill list then some. Some rage talents are really nice, like spell sunder and superstious allowing you to shatter defenses and gain huge saving throw bonuses against spells if your human. Has some good archtypes. Solid enough combatant to warrant a tier 4 spot.

Bloodrager: Tier 3/4-unsure which tier, haven't messed around with them enough. Can have self buffing when they rage and primalist can get you some good barbarian rage talents. Can gain flight and such without magic item support and various other utilities that put them enough above the rest to consider being tier 3.

Fighter: Tier 4-Class features in core gained are little, Although they can craft magic items for themselves fairly easily due to a large abundance of feats and are hefty in the damage department with weapon training. Outside core they gained some really good stuff from archtypes like martial master giving versitility and the alternate weapon training benifits that are enough to warrant a tier bump.

Cavalier: Tier 5-The base abilities seem pretty weak, as their a fighter with only 3 bonus feats, a worse version of smite evil and some charge bonuses. The Mount is pretty good in addition to him though and order of the beast can make his mount into a very powerful combatmant by giving it bonuses to hit and wildshaping it into something even more deadly which could warrant a tier bump. Decent skills and skill list but basicly has to max out ride. You might have trouble fitting your mount into a dungeon and a cavlier without his horse is a crappy paladin with no spells, weak smite and order abilities.


Samurai: T5-basicly a cavlier so somiliar to above although he can't take order of the beast.

What about the gunslinger? It would fit in this thread and theirs no 3.5 equivalent but this threads already got quite a few classes in it so it might be best for the next one thats martial based.

[Psyren]

Core Fighter is T5 maybe, but given that the parameters of this thread include Advanced Weapon Training (which all Fighters automatically get for free unless it's banned) they easily make it to T4 - and that's without considering strong archetypes like Lore Warden, Martial Master, Mutation Warrior, Mobile Fighter, Eldritch Guardian etc. that give them even more utility and potency.

[Vhaidara]

Cavalier can get to 4 with Order of the Beast.

Out of curiosity, WHICH Order of the Beast? There are two (http://archivesofnethys.com/CavalierOrders.aspx), one from ACG, one from ISG.

I do actually think that a combination of AAT, AWT, and good archs moves the fighter at least to the higher side of T4

[Psyren]

Out of curiosity, WHICH Order of the Beast? There are two (http://archivesofnethys.com/CavalierOrders.aspx), one from ACG, one from ISG.

The ACG one, it gives your mount the ability to shapeshift (including into a dragon!) for a lot of utility and combat power.

[Coretron03]

The ACG one, it gives your mount the ability to shapeshift (including into a dragon!) for a lot of utility and combat power.

Anyone else find it ironic that with order of the dragon you can't have a dragon mount but order of the beast you can :smallbiggrin:. Order of the beast also improves your mounts accuracy when attacking your challenged target which is nice.

[Bucky]

What's Bloodrager doing in this thread? It has Paladin-level casting.

[NamelessNPC]

Barbarians: T4-They are simple and effective. Rage and pick up the biggest weapon you can find and you've got a decent melee combatant from the get go. More skill points then other martials and a better skill list then some. Some rage talents are really nice, like spell sunder and superstious allowing you to shatter defenses and gain huge saving throw bonuses against spells if your human. Has some good archtypes. Solid enough combatant to warrant a tier 4 spot.

Bloodrager: Tier 3/4-unsure which tier, haven't messed around with them enough. Can have self buffing when they rage and primalist can get you some good barbarian rage talents. Can gain flight and such without magic item support and various other utilities that put them enough above the rest to consider being tier 3.

Fighter: Tier 4-Class features in core gained are little, Although they can craft magic items for themselves fairly easily due to a large abundance of feats and are hefty in the damage department with weapon training. Outside core they gained some really good stuff from archtypes like martial master giving versitility and the alternate weapon training benifits that are enough to warrant a tier bump.

Cavalier: Tier 5-The base abilities seem pretty weak, as their a fighter with only 3 bonus feats, a worse version of smite evil and some charge bonuses. The Mount is pretty good in addition to him though and order of the beast can make his mount into a very powerful combatmant by giving it bonuses to hit and wildshaping it into something even more deadly which could warrant a tier bump. Decent skills and skill list but basicly has to max out ride. You might have trouble fitting your mount into a dungeon and a cavlier without his horse is a crappy paladin with no spells, weak smite and order abilities.


Samurai: T5-basicly a cavlier so somiliar to above although he can't take order of the beast.

What about the gunslinger? It would fit in this thread and theirs no 3.5 equivalent but this threads already got quite a few classes in it so it might be best for the next one thats martial based.

I agree completely with you: fighter and barb at 4, cavalier and samurai 5, haven't really seen bloodrager deeply but it looks like tier 4, because its spellcasting does not offer such an increase in power nor versatility compared to a barbarian.

No exp with gunslinger apart from a bolt ace in an e8 campaign, but they seem kinda bad. All they can do is ranged damage, and it doesn't seem particularly high

[Bucky]

Pf Fighter, out of the box, makes 3.5 fighter look distinctly tier 5. Add archetype support and you have Lore Wardens able to abuse Pathfinder's revamped combat maneuvers with enough bonus to affect enemies that are specifically resistant to them, Martial Masters spontaneously casting feat-granted actions, Lore Warden Martial Masters using all the combat maneuvers with the huge bonuses and Mutation Warrior gettiing flight and similar goodies natively.

If you're playing with DSP material the Martial Training feat line from Path of War is effectively a Fighter archetype, trading some bonus feats for slow maneuver progression... that Martial Master can then extend by using the floating feats to learn whatever stances the Fighter feels like using, discipline or no.

[Vhaidara]

Pf Fighter, out of the box, makes 3.5 fighter look distinctly tier 5. Add archetype support and you have Lore Wardens able to abuse Pathfinder's revamped combat maneuvers with enough bonus to affect enemies that are specifically resistant to them, Martial Masters spontaneously casting feat-granted actions, Lore Warden Martial Masters using all the combat maneuvers with the huge bonuses and Mutation Warrior gettiing flight and similar goodies natively.

Combat maneuvers still run into the limits of size. A medium creature can't use the better half of combat maneuvers against anything huge and up.


If you're playing with DSP material the Martial Training feat line from Path of War is effectively a Fighter archetype, trading some bonus feats for slow maneuver progression... that Martial Master can then extend by using the floating feats to learn whatever stances the Fighter feels like using, discipline or no.

I think you meant the Myrmidon archetype is effectively a fighter archetype. And Martial Master doesn't actually work, because you learn them but they aren't readied.

[Coretron03]

I think you meant the Myrmidon archetype is effectively a fighter archetype. And Martial Master doesn't actually work, because you learn them but they aren't readied.
I'm pretty sure he meant taking the feats was basically a archtype for fighters because they "trade" (use) their fighter feats on the manuaver line. For martial master he specifically said using it to get stances which are known rather then readied which I beleive works.

[Bucky]

Size limited - Bull Rush, Drag, Overrun, Reposition, Trip
Not size limited - Dirty Trick, Disarm, Grapple, Steal, Sunder
Not actually a combat maneuver - Feint (but Martial Masters can still boost it with feats)


(E): Coretron03's interpretation of my Martial Training statement is correct.

I'm going to go ahead and claim Martial Master/Lore Warden, played well, is Tier 3 via 'casting' spontaneously off a large list with a bunch of combat utility.

[Krazzman]

Size limited - Bull Rush, Drag, Overrun, Reposition, Trip
Not size limited - Dirty Trick, Disarm, Grapple, Steal, Sunder
Not actually a combat maneuver - Feint (but Martial Masters can still boost it with feats)


(E): Coretron03's interpretation of my Martial Training statement is correct.

I'm going to go ahead and claim Martial Master/Lore Warden, played well, is Tier 3 via 'casting' spontaneously off a large list with a bunch of combat utility.

While this might be true, coming from the replies to my plea (?) of restructuring this to give special note to certain game changing archetypes... that's a fine build but doesn't change the fact that a fighter is a T4 class. The same is for a wizard that only uses blasting spells and as such operates far below T1. Especially considering stuff that is not part of Paizo since then we could just implement a homebrew archetype for every class that gives it casting as a wizard.

[Tuvarkz]

Alright:
Barbarian-Tier 4: Remains around the same. To note, a slightly lower, but in the same tier, rating for Unchained Barbarian. UBarb's rage is weaker for 2H, and there's plenty of other parts where it's a stealth nerf.

Bloodrager-Very High T4: While yes, some builds of the Bloodrager do reach Tier 3, I'd argue that the large majority of the Bloodrager builds are going to be T4.

Fighter-Tier 4: Thanks to the AWT and AAT Fighter's gotten some real nice options available, making the unarchetyped class rather good. However, most of the archetypes that used to be the better ones back before these two books came out relied on trading out abilities that these two books use for cool stuff, so they don't really go into T3. I'll mention though, that some of the old archetypes that trade out Weapon Training and do not give an equivalent ability do fall into Tier 5.

Cavalier-Tier 5: Order of the Beast may be a thing, but in the large majority of cases it's a restrictive choice that is T4 only in such a scenario. Tier 5 fits most of the other cases.
Samurai: Same as Cavalier.

[Gnaeus]

What's Bloodrager doing in this thread? It has Paladin-level casting.

Yeah, but it's also pretty close to a barbarian alt class and I felt like it should be near barbarian. I was also torn because Samurai was in this thread but it seemed like Cavalier was more like knight, and I thought they should be together. If I erred, sorry.

[Kurald Galain]

PF's samurai is effectively a cavalier archetype, I don't see the point of listing those separately. Cavaliers are built on the concept of sharing teamwork feats with your allies, which is thematically very cool but turns out to be pretty weak for a standard action, due to the overall crappiness of most teamwork feats. Other than that, its main strength is whacking things with a sword. Tier 5.

It appears to be problematic that Eggynack's thread has decided that the 3.5 fighter is somehow T4, because the PF fighter is much stronger while at the same time not being on the same level as the partial casters. For example, eldritch guardian gets a familiar (that shares your combat feats), mutation warrior gets free-action flight, martial master can switch feats in mid-combat (and these three archetypes stack if you're so inclined), and feat chains like smash from the air allow you to literally deflect spells with your blade (from level 9).

Bloodrager has the same issue. It is clearly stronger than the 3.5 fighter (primarily due to its surprisingly long spell list) but it's also clearly not a T3.

So yeah, T4 to the lot of them. We can add gunslinger and swashbuckler under tier 5, since basically all they do is combat damage.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So yeah, T4 to the lot of them. We can add gunslinger and swashbuckler under tier 5, since basically all they do is combat damage.
"All they do is combat damage" is pretty much archetypally T4, though. T5 is for classes that are seriously flawed in one way or another-- things like Monk that actively fight you, or like the Dragon Shaman that just don't give relevant abilities.

[Bucky]

The 4/5 tier boundary appears to have moved modestly upwards in Pathfinder, largely due to martial characters getting better late class features. This includes significant capstones for base classes that in 3.5 would have been PrC'd out of.

On the other hand, Pathfinder seems to have fewer worthwhile PrCs. So the net effect is a gain for the tiered classes and a net loss for characters that wouldn't appear on the tier list.


Fighters get some potent crit-fishing. If they used their bonus feats on critical feats, including the fighter-exclusive Critical Mastery, they can tack multiple save-or-suck effects, including a no-save stagger, onto each crit.

Samurai get some fairly potent defenses, culminating with the ability to completely ignore five otherwise-fatal injuries in a row at 20.

Cavaliers get comparatively little, just a ton of bonus damage on mounted charges.

Compare that to 3.5 Fighters (just another bonus feat they could have taken 6 levels ago), Monk (a type-change whose defensive utility is much weaker than a Samurai's resolve), and Barbarian (yet another incremental bonus while Raging)

[Eldonauran]

Would the Fighter make it close to Tier 3 with the one archetype that gives it spellcasting abilities? Child of Acavna and Amaznen from Arcane Anthology. Child of War (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo-fighter-archetypes/child-of-war-fighter-archetype/) as it is know in open content.

[Vhaidara]

Would the Fighter make it close to Tier 3 with the one archetype that gives it spellcasting abilities? Child of Acavna and Amaznen from Arcane Anthology. Child of War (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo-fighter-archetypes/child-of-war-fighter-archetype/) as it is know in open content.

Not even close. They trade all of their potentially useful class features for delayed bloodrager casting with none of the bloodrager's useful class features. That archetype is basically making you Bloodrager---

[Psyren]

Yeah I'd say it's a wash. Spells are great, don't get me wrong, but the bloodrager list is slow enough without being 4 levels behind too. T4 at most.

[Kurald Galain]

Would the Fighter make it close to Tier 3 with the one archetype that gives it spellcasting abilities? Child of Acavna and Amaznen from Arcane Anthology. Child of War (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo-fighter-archetypes/child-of-war-fighter-archetype/) as it is know in open content.

Probably not. In the original tier system, everything at tier 3 or above is either at least a 6/9 caster, or from the Tome of Battle. I don't see how getting a 4th level spell as late as 13th level is going to qualify.

Rather, I'd say this makes the fighter T4 instead of its regular T5, and that apparently the 3.5E thread is also considering optimized abilities like that (rather than the base class) when they think the fighter is T4.

[Psyren]

PF Fighter isn't T5 unless you're talking about a pretty bad archetype.

[legomaster00156]

I have to agree that PF Fighter is T4-ish. Feat taxes, sadly, are still very much a thing, but there aren't quite as many total trap options in terms of feats, and many more good ones. The addition of actual class features is a nice bonus. Basically, the Fighter can actually do what its name implies.

[Eldonauran]

Not even close. They trade all of their potentially useful class features for delayed bloodrager casting with none of the bloodrager's useful class features. That archetype is basically making you Bloodrager---

Spellcasting delayed by a single level, at level 5 maybe. Since they use the ranger spell table, they still spells as long as they have a high enough casting stat. Their caster level is still equal to their class level.

But, yeah. Trading away weapon training and 6 bonus feats seems a bit much. Perhaps I put too much weight on spellcasting, even if it is 4th level casting.

[Vhaidara]

Spellcasting delayed by a single level, at level 5 maybe. Since they use the ranger spell table, they still spells as long as they have a high enough casting stat. Their caster level is still equal to their class level.

But, yeah. Trading away weapon training and 6 bonus feats seems a bit much. Perhaps I put too much weight on spellcasting, even if it is 4th level casting.

You also trade away proficiency with two handed martial weapons, and you need to spend a swift action to reduce (not remove) Arcane Spell Failure

[Eldonauran]

You also trade away proficiency with two handed martial weapons, and you need to spend a swift action to reduce (not remove) Arcane Spell Failure

I don't see those as problems, or a loss of power, but areas to make a build around. What I picture when I see that is a finesse fighter in mithril medium armor, using arcane strike to supplement his damage on turns he is not casting spells.

Look at it this way, you can still quicken a True Strike (no somatic components) :smallsmile:

[Vhaidara]

Look at it this way, you can still quicken a True Strike (no somatic components) :smallsmile:

You can? Last time I checked, Quicken was a +4 metamagic. Neat trick to apply that on a 4 spell slot class.

And even then, it just means your first attack, at your highest BAB, which should hit anyways unless you roll a 1, will hit unless you roll a 1.

[Bucky]

And even then, it just means your first attack, at your highest BAB, which should hit anyways unless you roll a 1, will hit unless you roll a 1.

I can take a swift action between hits in a full attack just fine, right?

[Psyren]

You can? Last time I checked, Quicken was a +4 metamagic. Neat trick to apply that on a 4 spell slot class.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but rods do exist. (And even if you're only applying it to your best attack, there's lots of ways to get mileage out of that - power attack, fighting defensively, combat expertise etc.)


I can take a swift action between hits in a full attack just fine, right?

Yes, you can do this

[Peat]

Spellcasting delayed by a single level, at level 5 maybe. Since they use the ranger spell table, they still spells as long as they have a high enough casting stat. Their caster level is still equal to their class level.

But, yeah. Trading away weapon training and 6 bonus feats seems a bit much. Perhaps I put too much weight on spellcasting, even if it is 4th level casting.

The general consensus seems to be that spellcasting topping out at level 4 doesn't get you Tier 3; if that holds, then the weakest lvl4 spellcaster doesn't make Tier 3.

Although I guess there are some pushing Bloodrager as a 3, and there might be some talk when the time comes of Paladin as T3 (or at least Sacred Servant Paladins). Bloodrager is just adding spellcasting with no complications to a fairly versatile T4 though; the Child Archetype takes some power and versatility away from a bordeline T4/5 in exchange for magic with complications.

[Bucky]

Are we taking variant multiclassing into account at all?

[Krazzman]

Are we taking variant multiclassing into account at all?

Why should we? Was Gestalt taken into consideration? Wounds and Vigor? Elemental Race Variants?

I think the only optional variant that should be taken into consideration for these threads is Unchained Classes.

Everything else in Pathfinder Unchained either changes everything for everyone (Stamina) with some that can benefit from it more than others or don't really have an effect on the Tiering.

[Psyren]

Are we taking variant multiclassing into account at all?

I would say nothing from Unchained except classes should be considered. As much as I badly, badly want Combat Stamina to be in the equation and its use throughout the playerbase to be widespread, Unchained content adds enough additional variables that if we evaluate it at all, it should be done separately.

Skill Unlocks should be evaluated as part of the Unchained Rogue however.



Everything else in Pathfinder Unchained either changes everything for everyone (Stamina) with some that can benefit from it more than others or don't really have an effect on the Tiering.

Just to play devil's advocate, you can limit Stamina to being a Fighter exclusive. (I would never do this personally but it is an option.)

[Krazzman]

Just to play devil's advocate, you can limit Stamina to being a Fighter exclusive. (I would never do this personally but it is an option.)

Yes and we just got the unchained book recently (last week) and haven't really gotten the time to read it... in the games I will run that rule will be in effect, don't know if it's going to be fighter specific though...

[Kurald Galain]

It is probably fair to include a listing for Stamina Fighter (assuming stamina rules work only for fighter) and Unlock Rogue (assuming skill unlocks only work for rogues) and see if this makes a difference for their tier, because those combinations are explicitly suggested in the rules. Other than these two, I suggest that using these rules or not using them does affect all classes more-or-less equally (e.g. because one of the better stamina options is Improved Initiative).

[Firechanter]

On the other hand, Pathfinder seems to have fewer worthwhile PrCs. So the net effect is a gain for the tiered classes and a net loss for characters that wouldn't appear on the tier list.


I have very limited experience with PF-proprietary PrCs, but maybe they are indeed tailored towards specific campaigns / APs.
Of course, any class's mileage may vary according to the campaign played.

For example, a friend of mine claims that in Kingmaker (which he DMed twice), the Cavalier is an excellent base class, and particularly the Battle Herald PrC performs superbly in late-game. His reasoning being that you need characters that can do 20-30 encounters per day, which means the spellcasters may run dry while mundanes may keep going as long as the Healing lasts.

edit: on the whole, he classified only the Rogue and Alchemist as "Poor" for this AP, but some of the T1-T2 casters (like Wizard) only rank as "Good", while Fighters, Cavaliers and suchlike get a "Very Good" by him.

(I have only played KM in the very early stages so far, and during the Hexploration phase you generally don't have more than 1-2 encounters per day, but that seems to change drastically in later chapters of the AP.)

[Kurald Galain]

His reasoning being that you need characters that can do 20-30 encounters per day
The standard is 3 or 4 encounters per day. I'll grant that in some campaigns it's good to be able to do twice as many, but 20 encounters per day is utterly ridiculous (and completely not how kingmaker works, either).

It's funny how he simultaneously asserts infinite healing for the martials, while also claiming that the spellcasters (who perform this healing) will run out. Clearly that is self-contradictory.

[Firechanter]

Well, HP healing obviously doesn't come from precious spell slots. That's what you have CLW wands for. Or Infernal Healing wands. Or, ideally, a Life Oradin with Boots of the Earth or what they are called -- completely free healing, ever, for everybody.

In the past I've done something like 15 encounters per day. That's totally possible even with Core material only, but at the end of that, everyone was really completely dry.
He mentioned this 20-30 Enc gauntlet in context with "conquering a city", btw.

[Kurald Galain]

Life Oradin with Boots of the Earth or what they are called
Yeah, that one was errata'ed.


In the past I've done something like 15 encounters per day.
Oh, I'm sure that some people do that on occasion. But claiming that this is normal (or normal for Kingmaker) is really silly, as is claiming that fighters and cavaliers deal with a 15-encounter day better than wizards and alchemists do.

[Psyren]

It is probably fair to include a listing for Stamina Fighter (assuming stamina rules work only for fighter) and Unlock Rogue (assuming skill unlocks only work for rogues) and see if this makes a difference for their tier, because those combinations are explicitly suggested in the rules. Other than these two, I suggest that using these rules or not using them does affect all classes more-or-less equally (e.g. because one of the better stamina options is Improved Initiative).

There's a slight difference here though. Stamina is wholly optional, with the "Fighter-only" rule being another layer of optional beyond that. Skill Unlocks however are an expected part of the Unchained Rogue, whether you want the Unlock system to be available for other classes or not. Basically, they have a class feature that says "they always get to use this subsystem", much like the Artificer relies on Action Points existing.

[Peat]

I have very limited experience with PF-proprietary PrCs, but maybe they are indeed tailored towards specific campaigns / APs.
Of course, any class's mileage may vary according to the campaign played.


Possible I guess, but I don't think they've ever said anything to that effect. Certainly a lot of them are exchanging class qualities for rather niche and situational things.

I think even if you're regularly encountering the PrCs' strengths though, the exchange rate is poor a lot of the time. They give too little and mid-to-late Martial class abilities are too strong.

[Gnaeus]

I would say nothing from Unchained except classes should be considered. As much as I badly, badly want Combat Stamina to be in the equation and its use throughout the playerbase to be widespread, Unchained content adds enough additional variables that if we evaluate it at all, it should be done separately.

Skill Unlocks should be evaluated as part of the Unchained Rogue however.

Just to play devil's advocate, you can limit Stamina to being a Fighter exclusive. (I would never do this personally but it is an option.)

I agree w/ Psyren.

If Stamina was fighter exclusive, do we have many people for whom it is a Tier shift? Is there a strong argument that it pushes into T3 or (among the T5 voters) across a barrier into T4?

[Psyren]

If Stamina was fighter exclusive, do we have many people for whom it is a Tier shift? Is there a strong argument that it pushes into T3 or (among the T5 voters) across a barrier into T4?

With archetypes (particularly Martial Master) I think it can get the Fighter to T3 territory. With the basic fighter (even with AWT and AAT) I'm not so sure, but it would definitely be pretty high in T4. Stamina + AWT + AAT would allow a Fighter to rival Rage Powers.

[Tuvarkz]

I agree w/ Psyren.

If Stamina was fighter exclusive, do we have many people for whom it is a Tier shift? Is there a strong argument that it pushes into T3 or (among the T5 voters) across a barrier into T4?

Not really. I don't see many particularly game-changing tricks from Stamina, even if Fighter-exclusive, that would merit the shift to T3. And Barrom Brawler+Abundant Tactics+Item Mastery combo isn't enough to merit it either imo.

[Kurald Galain]

Not really. I don't see many particularly game-changing tricks from Stamina, even if Fighter-exclusive, that would merit the shift to T3. And Barrom Brawler+Abundant Tactics+Item Mastery combo isn't enough to merit it either imo.

I agree. It strikes me that the stamina system as a whole is fairly underwhelming, and that few people actually use it precisely for that reason. If it was powerful or exciting, people would be pushing for its usage more, even though it's optional.

[Gnaeus]

Not really. I don't see many particularly game-changing tricks from Stamina, even if Fighter-exclusive, that would merit the shift to T3. And Barrom Brawler+Abundant Tactics+Item Mastery combo isn't enough to merit it either imo.

Even if it were, that seems to be getting specific enough to not change class Tier as a whole.

[EldritchWeaver]

Yeah, that one was errata'ed.

I've been trying to find the errata for the boots of earth, but I found only a PDF for PFS, which I presume isn't applicable as a general errata. Can someone please point me to right link?

[Bucky]

I took this discussion to some offline friends. They put together a good case that vanilla Barbarian is T5 by virtue of being completely overshadowed by Bloodrager.

Thoughts?

[Krazzman]

I took this discussion to some offline friends. They put together a good case that vanilla Barbarian is T5 by virtue of being completely overshadowed by Bloodrager.

Thoughts?

So the Sorcerer is T5 because wizard does it better?

The vanilla Barbarian by definition of the system in place is 4. He can do one thing really well but often useless when that thing is not available. Even without any other book than core a barbarian has everything he needs: Rage Power's, the availability of rage cycling, power attack and big weapons.

He can branch out of offensive feats and get something else and still manages to do melee quite well.

[Bucky]

One of the defining features of tier 5 is that it's easily outclassed in its own area of expertise even by mid-tier characters who focus less on it. So either Barbarian isn't T4 or Bloodrager isn't.

[Sayt]

One of the defining features of tier 5 is that it's easily outclassed in its own area of expertise even by mid-tier characters who focus less on it. So either Barbarian isn't T4 or Bloodrager isn't.
Thats a possible trait that T5, but it isn't sufficient or necessary to qualify a class as T5.

T5 is, to quote JaronK, "Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute.

Barbarians are straightforwardly designed for combat, but they are pretty damn good at it: d12 HD, full BAB, rage, rage powers, DR.

To put it another way: the tiers are benchmarks, vague ones, but still not a sliding, relative scale. If you made a Barbarian+ that was the same except it got +20 to hit and +20 damage from being cool, it would still be T4, and the normal barbarian would still T4.

[Psyren]

One of the defining features of tier 5 is that it's easily outclassed in its own area of expertise even by mid-tier characters who focus less on it. So either Barbarian isn't T4 or Bloodrager isn't.

This logic is based on a faulty premise; it asks us to believe that every time two classes are in the same tier but one is stronger than the other, it must be because they don't actually belong in the same tier. But that's not how tiers work - tiers are based on ability to clear objective challenges, not some PvP standard where you're comparing the performance of one class to another.

A Barbarian is T4 because it is capable of doing one thing very well (melee, due to high strength and multiple attacks) but struggles when that one thing isn't important - that's the definition, and it doesn't depend on a Bloodrager's performance. For it to be T5, its one thing would also have to be weak, but nobody I've seen has ever complained about a Barbarian's melee output.

Ninja'd

[Bucky]

I think that puts Bloodrager into T3, since they can do everything the barbarian's doing, while also getting utility spells and bloodline feats.

[legomaster00156]

Actually, a Bloodrager's spell list is pretty combat-oriented, as are their bonus feats. Therefore, they still excel only in combat.

[Kurald Galain]

I think that puts Bloodrager into T3, since they can do everything the barbarian's doing, while also getting utility spells and bloodline feats.

No. As Sayt points out, just because one class is stronger than another doesn't mean they're in different tiers. This cannot be the case because there are (many) more classes than tiers.

Aside from that, the bloodrager can't do "everything" the barb is doing because they don't get rage powers. And there are some good rage powers out there. But overall, your premise that "either the barb is T5 or the BR is T3" is incorrect.

[Psyren]

I think that puts Bloodrager into T3, since they can do everything the barbarian's doing, while also getting utility spells and bloodline feats.

They can't actually do everything the Barbarian does - not without the Primalist archetype anyway, and per the rules in the source thread we're considering archetypes and ACFs separately. Even when you consider Primalist, if they get more than a handful of rage powers they end up losing potentially very valuable Bloodline Powers .

[Bucky]

Even when you consider Primalist, if they get more than a handful of rage powers they end up losing potentially very valuable Bloodline Powers .

Let's consider Primalist then. Bloodline power for rage powers might be a bad trade, but suppose we do it anyway. A barbarian 20 has 10 rage powers. A Primalist 20 can trade five bloodline powers for those rage powers, and they still have one bloodline power left over.

So they're left with everything the barbarian has, one bloodline power, five bonus feats and spellcasting.

[Psyren]

Let's consider Primalist then. Bloodline power for rage powers might be a bad trade, but suppose we do it anyway. A barbarian 20 has 10 rage powers. A Primalist 20 can trade five bloodline powers for those rage powers, and they still have one bloodline power left over.

So they're left with everything the barbarian has, one bloodline power, five bonus feats and spellcasting.

And? At best that's an argument for the Primalist archetype being a tier higher, not the base Bloodrager. And depending on the bloodline, you may very well be weaker than a basic Bloodrager if you give away all (or even any) of your bloodline powers like you've proposed.

[Bucky]

Regarding your first point, your second point answers it nicely.

[Psyren]

Regarding your first point, your second point answers it nicely.

My point is that you have not proven that Bloodrager and Barbarian belong in separate tiers. Primalist Bloodrager might, since it gives you total freedom to cherry-pick the best of both worlds. (Though even then, I would point out that Barbarian rage powers interact more freely with feats and items since they actually have the class feature.)

[Krazzman]

My point is that you have not proven that Bloodrager and Barbarian belong in separate tiers. Primalist Bloodrager might, since it gives you total freedom to cherry-pick the best of both worlds. (Though even then, I would point out that Barbarian rage powers interact more freely with feats and items since they actually have the class feature.)

While I can agree with you on this... going for the Abyssal Bloodline and trading out the 8th level and 16th level bloodline power for 4 ragepowers can really make a difference (it's the only bloodline I know so far since I am currently building something with it...). I doubt that the option of taking it (since you basically only gain the option of taking them...) was a mistake on the dev's part. It's Totem Barbarian all over again but this time with actual benefits. And unless you take an archetype that alters Bloodline your Bloodrager WILL be a Primalist.

But still saying that you have to look at the class itself to place it and stop thinking about that class X overshadows it. Elsewise Cleric, Druid and so on wouldn't be at T1 since Wizards do it better, always. That said the Barbarian is, at least in my opinion and reading of the rules, in the center of T4 while the Bloodrager is most likely at the border to T3... that said a barbarian could survive only taking Power Attack and Guarded Life (? or how the not dieing feat is called) and invest his feats into other things that give him some much needed out of combat help. Although I don't really know the assumes Meta for Barbarians anymore... (last barbarian I built was around the release of Ultimate Combat).

[Psyren]

But still saying that you have to look at the class itself to place it and stop thinking about that class X overshadows it. Elsewise Cleric, Druid and so on wouldn't be at T1 since Wizards do it better, always. That said the Barbarian is, at least in my opinion and reading of the rules, in the center of T4 while the Bloodrager is most likely at the border to T3... that said a barbarian could survive only taking Power Attack and Guarded Life (? or how the not dieing feat is called) and invest his feats into other things that give him some much needed out of combat help. Although I don't really know the assumes Meta for Barbarians anymore... (last barbarian I built was around the release of Ultimate Combat).

Agreed with all of the above completely, but just to finish my thoughts:


I don't deny for a moment that Primalist is (very) good - which is why I said it can possibly be elevated a tier. But how good it is compared to the alternative does depend on variables, notably the bloodline chosen; Abyssal does indeed have some less useful bloodline powers that you won't miss much, and having the option to trade those for rage powers is great. But you can just as easily make the argument that you hobbled yourself out of the gate by picking a weak bloodline like Abyssal in the first place, rather than simply picking a good bloodline like Aberrant instead. Using that perspective, Primalist is merely correcting your suboptimal choice, rather than truly elevating your class.


And unless you take an archetype that alters Bloodline your Bloodrager WILL be a Primalist.

Or unless you play PFS (where it is banned). And as noted above, there are indeed bloodlines where you can be quite comfortable not trading any of the powers out, or alternatively, doing so for their bloodline familiar rather than rage powers.

[Peat]

I don't see how one bloodline power, five bonus feats and mainly martial 4th level spellcasting changes the flexibility of Bloodrager sufficiently to be considered Tier 3, or changes the power level needed to succeed as a Martial to the point that everything else gets demoted to Tier 4.

Could be wrong about the former, pretty sure I'm not about the latter.

edit: Took too long to post it, ninja'ed.

[Krazzman]

I don't see how one bloodline power, five bonus feats and mainly martial 4th level spellcasting changes the flexibility of Bloodrager sufficiently to be considered Tier 3, or changes the power level needed to succeed as a Martial to the point that everything else gets demoted to Tier 4.

Could be wrong about the former, pretty sure I'm not about the latter.

edit: Took too long to post it, ninja'ed.

You aren't. While the bloodrager indeed gets some really really nice goodies like class in-built availablity of flight and some other things the supposed melee power depends on Bloodlines.
As Psyren said there are good and bad bloodlines alike. Abyssal gets you a really big amount of Str Bonus (I believe around +14 str while bloodraging) but doesn't really get you anything else except inbuilt enlarge person.
You have some BFC available to you (although your DC's will probably not be strong enough to be really good) and at least some other good spells. (Although Draconic might take the cake in usefulness giving you Fly (spell) and another form of movement.

[upho]

Barbarian: T4. Full bab, d12 HD, rage and rage powers - some of which provide truly unique and very strong melee abilities, including things which don't primarily increase DPR *GASP!*, but which instead give pretty solid control and debuff/anti-caster power. I find it humorous, and oh so well deserved, that the barb (or primalist bloodrager) can be made into a better dispeller than any other class in the game AFAIK. (A barb can easily end up with a sunder CMB well above +60, which means most opponents below CR 25 or so tend to quickly get stripped of their magic). Mid to high T4 in most cases (although certain MC builds primarily based on barbarian could be T3).

Bloodrager (generally): T4. As others have said, it's basically barbarian+, trading rage powers and an average of 1 hp/level for 4/9 casting and combat oriented bloodline powers and bonus feats. I've built, played and GM:ed for a lot of bloodragers, and would say it's definitely the strongest full bab class in PF (excluding one or two archetypes of pallys). But despite potentially great strengths, like being able to end up second only to synths in DPR competitions, having a melee reach also second only to eidolons, or being able to fly and become invisible, the bloodrager is generally still very combat focused without being a significantly more powerful combatant than say a barb, so it ends up just shy of T3 IMO.

Bloodrager (Arcane bloodline and/or Primalist archetype): T3. The arcane bloodline, granting the effects of great buff spells like displacement, haste and beast shape IV for free at no action cost, along with great bonus feats and other goodies, is simply too strong to keep the bloodrager in T4 IMO. Makes for a very durable and versatile combatant. Likewise, the ability to exchange the weakest bloodline powers for the strongest rage powers makes for a pretty significant power boost, especially since for a large majority of bloodragers, not one single bloodline actually consists entirely of powers all worth two of the best rage powers. Unlike the base class, these bloodragers really are T3, and together with certain pally archetypes they're the only full bab Paizo alternatives that actually manage to rise above T4 IMO.

Fighter: T4. Pretty significant variations depending on archetypes, AAT/AWT etc, but provided the weakest older trap options are avoided, the fighter has become a rather solid low to mid T4. Still suffers from the general Paizo/3.5 melee issues though (boring repeating full attacks to deal damage, mostly pointless passive durability and no actual defender abilities).

Cavalier: T5. A high charge damage output alone hardly makes for a competent adventurer, even if coupled with some very minor leader abilities. Makes many more recent fighter builds look like extremely adaptable tactical geniuses, which I hope says it all.


T5 is, to quote JaronK, "Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute.I'd like to point out that I assume Gnaeus intends us to follow the same guidelines as in the 3.5 retiering threads (started by eggynack), and those are not using JaronK's original definitions of the tiers, but an updated reworked and IMO more sensible system. If my assumptions are correct, I really urge people to read up on what has changed before posting any votes.

@Gnaeus: Might be a good idea to clearly state in the OP that JaronK's original Tier System has been tweaked and that people should read up on the new stuff before voting (provided you intended us to use the same system as in eggynack's 3.5 threads of course).


And depending on the bloodline, you may very well be weaker than a basic Bloodrager if you give away all (or even any) of your bloodline powers like you've proposed.I actually don't think this is ever the case. Not one single bloodline is made up of only strong (level 4 - 20) powers AFAIK, which means a primalist who makes the right trades is always going to end up stronger than the equivalent non-primalist build. But maybe I'm wrong. Which bloodline would you say is only consisting of powers clearly stronger than two rage powers?

[Bucky]

Unlike the base class, these bloodragers really are T3, and together with certain pally archetypes they're the only full bab Paizo alternatives that actually manage to rise above T4 IMO.

Fighter: T4. Pretty significant variations depending on archetypes, AAT/AWT etc, but provided the weakest older trap options are avoided, the fighter has become a rather solid low to mid T4. Still suffers from the general Paizo/3.5 melee issues though (boring repeating full attacks to deal damage, mostly pointless passive durability and no actual defender abilities).

You do not consider Martial Master based Fighters to achieve T3? What are they missing?

----

I've seen very little discussion of Samurai. They get a very beneficial RAW malfunction, giving them all the fighter's class features if taken at face value:

his samurai levels count as fighter levels and stack.

[Psyren]

I actually don't think this is ever the case. Not one single bloodline is made up of only strong (level 4 - 20) powers AFAIK, which means a primalist who makes the right trades is always going to end up stronger than the equivalent non-primalist build. But maybe I'm wrong. Which bloodline would you say is only consisting of powers clearly stronger than two rage powers?

Aberrant was my main thought; the first-level ability isn't great, but that slot competes with Bloodline Familiar too, which generally adds far more utility to your build than a couple of level 1 rage powers would. I likely wouldn't trade any of the rest.

[Tuvarkz]

You do not consider Martial Master based Fighters to achieve T3? What are they missing?

----

I've seen very little discussion of Samurai. They get a very beneficial RAW malfunction, giving them all the fighter's class features if taken at face value:

Martial Master isn't that great anymore. Fighter can what, get 5 daily uses of Barroom Brawler at levels 10-11 for a couple feats, and short of the very long feat chains, it works for most stuff he needs to pick up. And Martial Master trades out Weapon Training, locking the fighter out of stuff like Advanced Weapon Training>Item Mastery shenanigans.

[upho]

You do not consider Martial Master based Fighters to achieve T3? What are they missing?
Martial Master isn't that great anymore. Fighter can what, get 5 daily uses of Barroom Brawler at levels 10-11 for a couple feats, and short of the very long feat chains, it works for most stuff he needs to pick up. And Martial Master trades out Weapon Training, locking the fighter out of stuff like Advanced Weapon Training>Item Mastery shenanigans.What Tuvarkz said. So while Martial Master may surely increase versatility a bit, it does come at a quite hefty opportunity cost. And simply comparing the MM fighter with for example the barbarian should tell you that martial flex feats are unfortunately not enough for T3.


Aberrant was my main thought; the first-level ability isn't great, but that slot competes with Bloodline Familiar too, which generally adds far more utility to your build than a couple of level 1 rage powers would. I likely wouldn't trade any of the rest.Aberrant is undoubtedly one of the stronger bloodlines also IMO (largely dependent on build goals etc of course), but for example the immunities of the 8th-level power can also be gained through the Internal Fortitude rage power, meaning the Primalist Aberrant ends up with a +1 rage power net gain by replacing it, without losing anything at all. IME, the most significant (mechanical) reason for taking the Aberrant is the 4th-level Abnormal Reach, for a rare threatening reach increase stacking with other such options. Great for melee control focused builds, especially when complemented with certain rage powers (like CaGM).

Reminder: I think you actually already know this, but you cannot trade your 1st-level power for rage powers. So there's rarely any competition between Primalist and Bloodline Familiar anyways (theoretically, I guess there may actually be in the case of certain rare natural attack builds).

[Peat]

Who's going to trade out all their bloodline powers for rage powers anyway? Anyone sensible with mix and match the best ones.

Also - jumping the gun a little - but which Paladin archetypes are you thinking Upho?

[upho]

Who's going to trade out all their bloodline powers for rage powers anyway? Anyone sensible with mix and match the best ones.Of course not. The question was whether not trading any bloodline powers for rage powers could ever be considered the best choice. Which I don't think it can. IOW, Primalist is always going to be better than non-Primalist (maybe not considerably better, but still).


Also - jumping the gun a little - but which Paladin archetypes are you thinking Upho?Mostly Empyreal Knight and Sacred Servant. Although admittedly, I haven't seen either in play for quite a while now and would have to check up on them again, and any more recent pally archetypes, before actually voting. So take my previous comments with a grain of salt.

[Gnaeus]

Tallied votes. No surprises except Bloodrager tied between 3 and 4

[Tuvarkz]

Tallied votes. No surprises except Bloodrager tied between 3 and 4

Imo, it should be written that the build can easily cause the swing, Monstrous Physique noted as being one of the deciding factors?

[NamelessNPC]

I'd like to change my vote. I don't think the bloodrager is tier 3. The spellcasting is really bad, pretty much only underpowered blasting and some buffs. Tier 4 for me.

[the_archduke]

Barbarian: Tier 4. I-can-hit-stuff-really-hard the class

Bloodrager: Tier 3. Everything a barbarian can do + spells. I see him as the arcane version of the Psychic Warrior.

Fighter: Tier 4. Much, much, much better than 3.5e. Still stuck with hitting something with a pointy bit of metal. Not much to do other than that. A few archetypes (those that give spells) might push into tier 3.

Cavalier: Tier 5. I-have-a-mount the class. Except if all you wanted was a mount, Druid, Hunter, Ranger and a ton of other archetypes of classes do it better.

Samurai: Tier 5. Essentially an archetype of Cavalier. Nothin gin it changes the tier.

[Bucky]

Cavaliers have a lot going for them but ultimately fall short.

There are a bunch of Teamwork feats that are above-par and synergize nicely. I've been in one party that built around them, sharing Seize the Moment around while a critfisher went to work. Paired Opportunist meant the extra AoOs tended to snowball. Most of the party picked up Combat Reflexes, even a back-rank caster with a reach weapon. And there were some animal companions a bit of tripping shennanigans involved as well. As a result, once the bulk of the party locked onto the target, they tended to combo off and kill them in a flurry of AoOs once any of a number of conditions were met.

That's the ideal.

One problem with teamwork feats is that they generally require buy-in from most of the party to be effective. Tactician means Cavalier parties don't need that buy-in; he can give the feats to any allies. Cavalier even comes with an animal companion that can take its own teamwork feats in addition to the Tactician-granted ones. This almost makes Cavaliers effective.

Unfortunately, they're arbitrarily gimped in that respect. At low levels, they only get to shine in one or two encounters per day before they run out of Tactician uses. Their ability to share multiple teamwork feats at a time, and the flexibility to swap from a library of them on the fly, doesn't come online until level 17(!). Meanwhile, their animal companion enabler is both fragile and hard to replace.

Ultimately, the party above opted for a Holy Tactician Paladin rather than a Cavalier, largely because of the uses per day limit.

(Note that none of this applies to Samurai)

[upho]

I'd like to change my vote. I don't think the bloodrager is tier 3. The spellcasting is really bad, pretty much only underpowered blasting and some buffs. Tier 4 for me.While I think you're generally correct, I also urge you to take a look at what you can do with the Primalist and certain bloodlines (especially Arcane). And keep in mind that the BR also has some pretty neat unique tricks for improving self-buffing action economy.

[upho]

Their ability to share multiple teamwork feats at a time, and the flexibility to swap from a library of them on the fly, doesn't come online until level 17(!). Meanwhile, their animal companion enabler is both fragile and hard to replace.This. Main reasons why cavaliers are largely restricted to their ability to deal high single-target charge damage and are relatively easily robbed of that ability.

[Kitsuneymg]

Why should we? Was Gestalt taken into consideration? Wounds and Vigor? Elemental Race Variants?

I think the only optional variant that should be taken into consideration for these threads is Unchained Classes.

Everything else in Pathfinder Unchained either changes everything for everyone (Stamina) with some that can benefit from it more than others or don't really have an effect on the Tiering.

I think VMC can have a effect on tiering in some cases, and that fighters lose less (benefit more) from VMC than any other class. What is 5 feats to a fighter? A Lore Warden, Martial Master VMC Bard, for instance, won't really miss those feats, but will love having Bardic Knowledge (more skills!), Inspire Courage (team buff!), and a free retrain of a skill into versatile performance (even more skills). Lore Master is okay (much better in 3.p game with Knowledge Devotion on the table), and no one cares about 19th level stuff since no one plays there.

Anyway, the LW/MM vmc Bard is a contender for t3, IMO. Especially since they are still fighters and can thus take the access feats for advanced weapon and/or armor training if desired or use martial flexibility to grab important ones on the fly (which can grant a number of different skills too). I'm not sure if any other build quite manages T3, but that one squeaks in due to extreme flexibility in and out of combat.

I agree that most other VMCs aren't worth mentioning. Certainly nothing for barbarian, bloodrager, cavalier, or samurai springs to mind.

[Krazzman]

I think VMC can have a effect on tiering in some cases, and that fighters lose less (benefit more) from VMC than any other class. What is 5 feats to a fighter? A Lore Warden, Martial Master VMC Bard, for instance, won't really miss those feats, but will love having Bardic Knowledge (more skills!), Inspire Courage (team buff!), and a free retrain of a skill into versatile performance (even more skills). Lore Master is okay (much better in 3.p game with Knowledge Devotion on the table), and no one cares about 19th level stuff since no one plays there.

Anyway, the LW/MM vmc Bard is a contender for t3, IMO. Especially since they are still fighters and can thus take the access feats for advanced weapon and/or armor training if desired or use martial flexibility to grab important ones on the fly (which can grant a number of different skills too). I'm not sure if any other build quite manages T3, but that one squeaks in due to extreme flexibility in and out of combat.

I agree that most other VMCs aren't worth mentioning. Certainly nothing for barbarian, bloodrager, cavalier, or samurai springs to mind.

So basically it's worthless unless going on a class that swims in feats, and is most likely the reason behind the feat bloat, and even then only for 2 or 3 options of this system?

While VMC might be implemented at a specific table it is unfeasible in a discussion about the tiering of the class itself. Because with VMC the Fighter is no longer a Fighter he would be a Fighter VMC Bard.