Tier-Controlled Gestalt Characters

[Esquire]

The situation is this: I'm the DM for a large group (7-8 players) with unpredictable and often incompatible schedules. As a result, we sometimes go for months without playing, nobody can ever remember what went down last session, and I don't get a lot of enjoyment out of what should be a vibrant world with a lot going on. My intent is to hold one session a week, starting at Time A [e.g. 11am Saturday mornings], followed by the next week at Time B [e.g. 6pm Monday nights], and alternating A and B from then on. This way, there will be a bit more continuity to the storyline, and I'll try to set up the times such that people can make one or the other or both.

My thinking is that this will probably lead to games with very small parties (2 or 3 PCs) pretty frequently, due to the aforementioned crazy scheduling nonsense. I'm thinking of allowing gestalt characters to cover the inevitable missing roles, with the following caveats: players will have to 'buy' the classes for each side of the gestalt. My initial thought is to give six 'gestalt points' and price classes inversely by GITP tier: thus, a Tier 1 caster like the wizard costs 5 'gestalt points,' a Tier 2 4, and so on down to Tier 5, which costs 1 point. A wizard could gestalt with a standard monk or similar option-poor class, while a rogue/ranger or a paladin/sorcerer would be pretty good. I'm thinking access to archetypes could cost a gestalt point as well; you can be a wizard/fighter or an exploiter wizard, but not both.

I think this would shore up small parties without risking the same high-exponential power growth you get with unrestricted gestalts. Obviously some builds (sorcadin) become much, much more viable, but not massively moreso than what a well-played wizard can get up even without gestalt, and I'd honestly like to see the more interesting encounters that come out of something like this in any case. NPCs will not have gestalts, but I'm used to fiddling with encounter difficulties to make up for gestalts and don't expect that to be a problem.

My players aren't especially good at optimizing (well, one is, but generally gives herself bizarre RP handicaps like addictions to hallucinogenic drugs, so it's basically a wash). If necessary, I will of course talk with them about nonfunctional (somehow) builds/game-breaking ones as needed.

Thoughts? I'd like to hear about this as a solution to my problem, and also on its own merits as a source of balance that doesn't require nerfing Tier 1s to [the Nine] Hell[s] and back.

[Cosi]

You're better off putting together specific gestalt options. Synergies between classes aren't uniform, so it's easy to end up with some combinations being correct if you open everything up (for example, under these rules it looks like you can play a Warblade//Factotum, which I think is better than every other martial option by a fair stretch). Also, many classes are either misranked or not ranked.

[ZamielVanWeber]

In addition to Cosi's concerns you could also run into with people who just don't want big heavy magic users. Fighter//Monk is a decent gestalt, if bland, and does little to expand the niche of fighter or monk as your player has just created a better brawler. You would really want to see what the player is looking for and accept there are people who just are not interested in picking up flashy magic.

Also is this PF or 3.5 (or 3.PF)?

[Esquire]

This is Pathfinder [my bad, forgot to specify], so I don't think that specific build is a problem. The point about differently-useful pairings and the one about the limitations of the tier system are well taken, though.

EDIT: Swordsage'd; this is for Cosi.

[Esquire]

In addition to Cosi's concerns you could also run into with people who just don't want big heavy magic users. Fighter//Monk is a decent gestalt, if bland, and does little to expand the niche of fighter or monk as your player has just created a better brawler. You would really want to see what the player is looking for and accept there are people who just are not interested in picking up flashy magic.

Also is this PF or 3.5 (or 3.PF)?

Pathfinder, as in the above - sorry for not specifying. And about half the group plays casters; we've got... let's see, a bard, a barbarian, a sorcerer, a cleric, a rogue, a ranger, a monk, and ~1.5 druids (one regular and one very occasional player). I've certainly got no issue with people not using all of their class points; if they want to be a fighter//monk, more power to them. Have to make that explicit, and/or switch to less value-laden terminology, I suppose.

[zlefin]

would people make new chars each session, or would they be ongoing?

if ongoing and everyone is playing a different oddball gestalt, how do you know that whichever 2-3 people show up will still have necessary roles covered? sure the people will have more coverage than individual classed chars would, but you could still have gaps.

a gestalt of 6 tier 5's probably would still be perfectly fine; just haven't thought about it.


as a general balancer it sounds reasonable; there's other proposals which are very similar which people have used.

an alternative way to fill rolls would be to have a selection of NPCs, maybe cohorts of the party members or something else, of slightly lower level than the party, that whoever shows up can decide to bring along on whatever missions they're doing. Then you can more precisely fill the exact holes of whoever shows up that day.

I suspect the inconsistency of their scheduling will make any long term plot hard for them to follow/play through; they might prefer something more episodic.

[Esquire]

would people make new chars each session, or would they be ongoing?

if ongoing and everyone is playing a different oddball gestalt, how do you know that whichever 2-3 people show up will still have necessary roles covered? sure the people will have more coverage than individual classed chars would, but you could still have gaps.

a gestalt of 6 tier 5's probably would still be perfectly fine; just haven't thought about it.


as a general balancer it sounds reasonable; there's other proposals which are very similar which people have used.

an alternative way to fill rolls would be to have a selection of NPCs, maybe cohorts of the party members or something else, of slightly lower level than the party, that whoever shows up can decide to bring along on whatever missions they're doing. Then you can more precisely fill the exact holes of whoever shows up that day.

I suspect the inconsistency of their scheduling will make any long term plot hard for them to follow/play through; they might prefer something more episodic.

Those are some of the questions I'm hoping to work out in this thread. My initial scheme had been to have each player make a single character, and I'd come up with some sort of plot reason for them to be going on adventures in various groupings - all members of the Companions Adventurer's Guild, or some such. I also wasn't really intending to foolproof the party role situation, just make it possible for a two- or three-person party (not composed solely of Batman wizards) to fill the main ones. Good party and character builds should still be rewarded, and inversely with bad ones. I'm also thinking of getting through the continuity problems by having PCs present for the last session do the recap in the form of [I don't know, tavern boasting, formal reports, 'No-****-there-I-was' stories, etc.], and by structuring things as episodic adventures building towards a larger plot. Maybe the A and B sessions for a month deal with Team A and Team B securing 2-to-4 separate parts for the Grand McGuffin, that sort of thing.

I didn't realize this (or similar) had already been proposed, I'd love to read anything you might happen to have a link handy for. NPC helpers wouldn't be a bad idea, but I think my players would do better with a single character and multiple ability sets, rather than either me having to run a bunch of extra characters or them having to use an extra character they're not necessarily super invested in. If you've got experience to the contrary, again I'd love to hear it - that's just my initial thought.

[Nifft]

Those are some of the questions I'm hoping to work out in this thread. My initial scheme had been to have each player make a single character, and I'd come up with some sort of plot reason for them to be going on adventures in various groupings - all members of the Companions Adventurer's Guild, or some such.

A guild-based city campaign, where each session is a separate (short) adventure, might be awesome.

You could interlink these adventures into a longer plot, where the PCs investigate for a while and then take decisive action against the source of the disturbances they've been investigating.


I also wasn't really intending to foolproof the party role situation, just make it possible for a two- or three-person party (not composed solely of Batman wizards) to fill the main ones. Good party and character builds should still be rewarded, and inversely with bad ones. I'm also thinking of getting through the continuity problems by having PCs present for the last session do the recap in the form of [I don't know, tavern boasting, formal reports, 'No-****-there-I-was' stories, etc.], and by structuring things as episodic adventures building towards a larger plot. Maybe the A and B sessions for a month deal with Team A and Team B securing 2-to-4 separate parts for the Grand McGuffin, that sort of thing.

After Action Reports are good. I used to give in-game rewards for when a player wrote up a journal entry for the campaign.


I didn't realize this (or similar) had already been proposed, I'd love to read anything you might happen to have a link handy for. NPC helpers wouldn't be a bad idea, but I think my players would do better with a single character and multiple ability sets, rather than either me having to run a bunch of extra characters or them having to use an extra character they're not necessarily super invested in. If you've got experience to the contrary, again I'd love to hear it - that's just my initial thought.

If you let NPCs be a thing, then you wouldn't necessarily have to run them yourself -- let the players run the NPCs, with you only acting as a veto -- "NO, your subordinate does NOT give you all her gold and magic gear and then jump in the canal."

Just make sure you establish each NPCs' personality well enough that the players can take them over in combat.

Additionally, there's nothing wrong with gestalt PCs and also a few helper NPCs.

[Kaouse]

My GM used a tier system for Gestalt. Basically, every player gets a number of Character Points to build their character. They can spend these character points on classes and/or templates. Here is the full table:


Character Point costs by Level and Tier
Level | Points Per Level | Total Points | Tier 0 | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | Tier 6 |
1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
3 8 14 4 4 4 4 4 2 1
4 16 30 8 8 8 8 4 2 1
5 24 54 16 16 16 8 4 2 1
6 24 78 32 32 16 8 4 2 1
7 24 102 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
8 24 126 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
9 24 150 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
10 24 174 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
11 24 198 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
12 24 222 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
13 24 246 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
14 24 270 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
15 24 294 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
16 24 318 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
17 24 342 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
18 24 366 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
19 24 390 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
20 25 415 64 32 16 8 4 2 1

You'll note that things get a little expensive as you start to use higher tiered characters.

Perhaps a bit too high in fact. My GM has mentioned that in his future campaign, he's very likely to reduce the cost of Tier 1 classes to 24 CP per level. Because otherwise, you can't even play such classes with the current system.

And if you were wondering, yes, this allows for Tristalts and the like. Do note that archetypes that add stuff like initiating and casting to classes that lack them do increase the tier of the class.

My GM has also had quite a few issues with some initiating classes, so he's going to boost their base Tier from 3 to 2 if the character uses a supernatural discipline.

[Andor13]

On topic, I like the idea, just pay attention to the characters.

Tangentially another way to solve the problem might be troupe play, Ars Magica style. Either have a pool of PCs and have your players run 1-3 of them each depending on needs/ability, or pad out their numbers with some pre-built NPCs using NPC/low tier classes to acting as supporting actors. Then each player gets a PC and a couple of followers. Or hand out free leadership feats, which achieves much the same goal with greater player agency.

[Peat]

There might be a few issues in terms of the Tier 4/5 giving more to a gestalt than they do as a single class - I'm thinking Monk in particular - but the idea seems sound in principle.

Also, be careful about Archetypes altering Tiers. I think some Tier lists put straight Rogue at 5 (although a lot put Unchained Rogue at 3), but an Eldritch Scoundrel is flat up Tier 3, to pick the obvious one.

Maybe allow people who aren't using all their points to pick a third class and/or template?

[Gnaeus]

Ive played a good set of gestalt games and built a number of poly gestalts for different reasons. I basically agree with most of what has been said:

A gestalt of 6 Tier 5 classes is probably fine. As long as the overlap isn’t extreme (aka, with passible optimization skill) it probably comes out T3.

Gestalt tends to highlight differences in player optimization skill. If your problem is (Wizards>fighters) or (we need party roles covered) Tier gestalt works well. But if any part of your problem is (Steve builds T1 casters and breaks the game compared to bob) gestalt will make that worse.

As mentioned and related to the above some T5s actually work disproportionately well gestalted with T1s. My last gestalt game broke around level 11 when I realized that the buffed Wizard//monk was so far ahead of the other PCs in offense, defense and utility that I couldn’t threaten him in fights where the other gestalt PCs could contribute.

[zlefin]

Those are some of the questions I'm hoping to work out in this thread. My initial scheme had been to have each player make a single character, and I'd come up with some sort of plot reason for them to be going on adventures in various groupings - all members of the Companions Adventurer's Guild, or some such. I also wasn't really intending to foolproof the party role situation, just make it possible for a two- or three-person party (not composed solely of Batman wizards) to fill the main ones. Good party and character builds should still be rewarded, and inversely with bad ones. I'm also thinking of getting through the continuity problems by having PCs present for the last session do the recap in the form of [I don't know, tavern boasting, formal reports, 'No-****-there-I-was' stories, etc.], and by structuring things as episodic adventures building towards a larger plot. Maybe the A and B sessions for a month deal with Team A and Team B securing 2-to-4 separate parts for the Grand McGuffin, that sort of thing.

I didn't realize this (or similar) had already been proposed, I'd love to read anything you might happen to have a link handy for. NPC helpers wouldn't be a bad idea, but I think my players would do better with a single character and multiple ability sets, rather than either me having to run a bunch of extra characters or them having to use an extra character they're not necessarily super invested in. If you've got experience to the contrary, again I'd love to hear it - that's just my initial thought.

I don't have any handy links to other such proposals and how they've worked out; I just vaguely know i've seen them around. Usually it's a simpler method than point based: something like tier1's can only gestalt wiht tier 5's; tier 2's can gestalt with tier 4 or below; and tier 3 can gestalt with tier 3 or below.

As to using extra chars people aren't invested in; I don't have much experience, I'd imagine it's rather similar to running a cohort though; do they ever use leadership/cohorts? The extras don't really need to be roleplayed, they're just there to fill a useful party role. The easiest one that fills a niche I can think of would be a straight healbot cleric. They can be quite unoptimized, just stack all the healing feats and spells they can, and that's what they do. during combat they just defend themselves or heal someone who's injured.

sounds like a good overall plan for continuity; though having extra short written recaps of all the sessions would be good since someone might miss multiples in a row. then they can just review the recaps whenever they want. I'd have them typed up electronically so people can also review them easily outside of the game time, in addition to having a printed copy that stays at the gaming site. then they could also be sent out as a weekly mini-newsletter type thing to whoever wants to hear what happened at sessions they weren't at.

[Andor13]

I didn't realize this (or similar) had already been proposed, I'd love to read anything you might happen to have a link handy for. NPC helpers wouldn't be a bad idea, but I think my players would do better with a single character and multiple ability sets, rather than either me having to run a bunch of extra characters or them having to use an extra character they're not necessarily super invested in. If you've got experience to the contrary, again I'd love to hear it - that's just my initial thought.

Oops, missed that question.

Yes, I've played Ars Magica, and similar set-ups. It can be quite a lot of fun, generally what you want to do is make the secondary characters as mechanically simple as possible, and give them a big, obvious roleplaying hook like one eye, or a bad accent, or fear of spider, or love of meat pies or something. PCs will tend to use them as comic relief, or to foil/set-up their own characters quirks. If they get into it, if not, don't worry they are still serving their purpose.

[Cosi]

There might be a few issues in terms of the Tier 4/5 giving more to a gestalt than they do as a single class - I'm thinking Monk in particular - but the idea seems sound in principle.

I don't really think this is true, at least of the Monk. Yes, Monk has three good saves. But whatever class you're gestalting it with probably had at least one good save. That doesn't mean its useless, but it does mean you're getting some redundancy. Cleric//Monk gets suggested a lot, but it's not really that good. Cleric//Rogue gets you a better chassis, for example (obviously this example is not directly applicable to the scenario, but I think the point holds). Wizard//Monk sounds good (you get all good saves!), but Wizard//Ranger gets those saves and also better BAB, HD, and skills. Monk class features are good, but not clearly better than other classes.

Monk is bad in gestalt because it is mediocre all over, but gestalt wants you to combine two things that are bad and good in opposite areas.

[Gnaeus]

I don't really think this is true, at least of the Monk. Yes, Monk has three good saves. But whatever class you're gestalting it with probably had at least one good save. That doesn't mean its useless, but it does mean you're getting some redundancy. Cleric//Monk gets suggested a lot, but it's not really that good. Cleric//Rogue gets you a better chassis, for example (obviously this example is not directly applicable to the scenario, but I think the point holds). Wizard//Monk sounds good (you get all good saves!), but Wizard//Ranger gets those saves and also better BAB, HD, and skills. Monk class features are good, but not clearly better than other classes.

Monk is bad in gestalt because it is mediocre all over, but gestalt wants you to combine two things that are bad and good in opposite areas.

The reason monk gets brought up a lot is that it’s an excellent example of a passive class. Especially if it is ruled that most things can full attack with their unarmed strike while making their natural attacks. Double especially if you can use acf or archetypes to shift Wis to AC to another stat.

I agree that rogue//cleric may > cleric//monk. For the cleric to use most monk benefits, he’s giving up armor use that he already has. Sneak attack and a bunch of skills is just better. I don’t remotely agree that wizard//ranger beats wizard//monk.

Wizard//ranger gets 1bab/4 levels, some meh casting that is hard to not be MAD, some weapons you may or may not use and some feat chains you probably won’t use (in PF, you can get better feat chains) and 1 extra hp/lvl.

Wizard//monk with kung fu Genius, carmendine monk or a PF archetype, starts getting Int+dex+Mage Armor + Shield to AC at level 1. Adds a pile more natural armor at 3 from alter self (troglodyte) for an AC likely topping 30 at level 3 and a claw/claw/bite/kick/kick attack routine. By 7 you have replaced alter self with Polymorph for even more unbeatable AC. Yes, you could find or make a huge sword for form shifting. You still aren’t likely as effective since you are giving up claw attacks to wield it. Wizard//ranger is a good gestalt. It checks all the boxes. Wizard//monk is a SAD monster that floorstomps most rivals just by existing. No bother trying to juggle weapons and wands because your weapons are your elbows or knees. Int is added to both flat footed and touch ac so don’t bother trying to find monsters that can hit the wizard//monk that don’t autohit everyone else. Improved trip and grapple both also synergize very well with polymorph forms. And its really simple to optimize because all you need to do is crank Int as high as you can and then pick up some deflection and resistance bonuses, which are cheap. (Note in PF you lose the best parts of Polymorph abuse, but replace them with Foresight school for stacking bonuses to initiative and free rerolls so the monster always goes first and gets what is basically advantage on attacks or saves 3+Int/day)

It isn’t strictly speaking the best gestalt at all possible levels. Wizard//warblade is also a SAD monster. So is Wizard//factotum. (And note that in both those examples you are also checking off Int to stat x boxes while getting things that synergize with form shifting). And Wizard//cleric of mystra loaded up on swift and persisted spells wins once it gets going.

[Nifft]

Wizard//ranger gets 1bab/4 levels, some meh casting that is hard to not be MAD, some weapons you may or may not use and some feat chains you probably won’t use (in PF, you can get better feat chains) and 1 extra hp/lvl.

Wizard//monk with kung fu Genius, carmendine monk or a PF archetype

If you're letting the Monk take feats out of Dragon Compendium or setting-specific books, then it's only fair to compare it against a UA Wildshape Ranger.

Natural Spell (at level 6 of course) allows all spellcasting to work in Wild Shape -- so the Wizard's spells are going to go off just fine even when the Wizard is disguised as her own Familiar. Even without Natural Spell, you've still got your [Reserve] feats working while in the form of a small bird.

Ranger skills, Light armor with relevant enhancements to get 0% ASF, martial ranged weapons at low levels -- it's a great package with a lot of synergy, and that synergy increases massively when Wild Shape comes online.

[Cosi]

The reason monk gets brought up a lot is that it’s an excellent example of a passive class.

The "active class/passive class" theory of Gestalt is mostly bunk. The best gestalt combination is a Caster//Caster gestalt that uses more of their spell slots on buffs and/or celerity. The whole "passive classes" thing appears to be an attempt to carve out any space at all where you'd rather play a non-caster.


Wizard//monk with kung fu Genius, carmendine monk or a PF archetype, starts getting Int+dex+Mage Armor + Shield to AC at level 1. Adds a pile more natural armor at 3 from alter self (troglodyte) for an AC likely topping 30 at level 3 and a claw/claw/bite/kick/kick attack routine.

It's interesting that you consider "casts a Wizard spell" to be an advantage the Wizard//Monk has over the Wizard//Ranger.

But ultimately, I agree with Nifft. Obvious a core Ranger looks less good than a dumpster dived Monk. But you can dumpster dive a Ranger too. For example, a Mystic Wildshape Ranger with Sword of the Arcane Order close to doubles your casting up to 10th level (and doesn't go away after that), and gives you Wild Shape. If you have some way to bump your Wild Shape up to large, you can go for Giant Octopus + Multitasking cheese, which gives you a pile of extra actions. That seems better than "slightly higher AC".


It isn’t strictly speaking the best gestalt at all possible levels. Wizard//warblade is also a SAD monster. So is Wizard//factotum. (And note that in both those examples you are also checking off Int to stat x boxes while getting things that synergize with form shifting). And Wizard//cleric of mystra loaded up on swift and persisted spells wins once it gets going.

Wizard//Factotum is nowhere near as good as people think it is. You don't need double actions most of the time, and when you do something like Wizard//Beguiler or Wizard//Archivist using celerity gets you more than enough while also getting an entire extra suite of casting. Warblade//Factotum is good.

[Peat]

I agree that rogue//cleric may > cleric//monk.

Which is still a Tier 5 who's arguably better than Tier 4s for gestalt purposes.


I don't want to get into a deep argument over Gestalt optimisation (although don't let me stop anyone), I was just making a few observations for the specific scenario the OP suggests - which means PF only, so no INT Monks (I don't think PF has one) or Wildshape Rangers; no caster-caster (unless T3 + T3*, or someone still counting an Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue as T5 for some mad reason); and a fairly low optimisation floor, which means a good active//passive build could be a spotlight stealer. I doubt it's going to prove a huge issue, but if he's counting on T1+T5 being roughly equal to T2+T4, things could go awry. Particularly in PF, where archetypes can make a mockery of Tier lists.

*Not gonna lie, my first thought on reading this was "I wonder how well Warpriest and Inquisitor would work together in practice". Although on further thought, I suspect Magus//Investigator would be better in practice.

[Gnaeus]

If you're letting the Monk take feats out of Dragon Compendium or setting-specific books, then it's only fair to compare it against a UA Wildshape Ranger.

Natural Spell (at level 6 of course) allows all spellcasting to work in Wild Shape -- so the Wizard's spells are going to go off just fine even when the Wizard is disguised as her own Familiar. Even without Natural Spell, you've still got your [Reserve] feats working while in the form of a small bird.

Ranger skills, Light armor with relevant enhancements to get 0% ASF, martial ranged weapons at low levels -- it's a great package with a lot of synergy, and that synergy increases massively when Wild Shape comes online.

Ok. You COULD do that and dumpster dive for something that is worse than straight wizard/ranger.

So you can be a bird. Meh. You have no feats, so are straight worse 1-4. 5 you have no natural spell so pretty useless for a wiz. 6 you have an advantage and 7 the wizard// gets Polymorph and is turning into something with a billion natural attacks and an AC of yes. WS ranger//wizard is a solid choice in a campaign only at level 6.

And yes, cosi, the wizard//monk makes us se of spells. I realize that you have not the most basic understanding of how T5 powers can synergize to make stronger results. But the point isn’t that they can both cast shield, Mage Armor and and Polymorph. It’s that those things stack with monk abilities in a way they don’t stack with light armor and bow or TWF feats. And you are actually using wizard side resources for it. Natural Spell is a fair trade for carmendine as feat taxes, but those other forms are all feats that could be helping you wizard. Oh, and SOTAO is a feat requiring ranger 4, so you can’t take it and natural spell together until at least 9th level .

Oh, and WS ranger is T3. So you aren’t making something worse, you are making something worse in a tiered gestalt that uses more (gestalt points). Thank you for clarifying my point that gestalt will amplify existing differences in optimization skill.

[Cosi]

So you can be a bird. Meh. You have no feats, so are straight worse 1-4. 5 you have no natural spell so pretty useless for a wiz. 6 you have an advantage and 7 the wizard// gets Polymorph and is turning into something with a billion natural attacks and an AC of yes. WS ranger//wizard is a solid choice in a campaign only at level 6.

polymorph lasts minutes/level for a 4th level spell slot. Wild Shape lasts hours/level for no spell slots. If your plan is to fight polymorphed at 7th level, you're likely spending all your 4th level slots to do it. This, of course, is stupid, because you are spending most of your resources to do something suboptimal.


I realize that you have not the most basic understanding of how T5 powers can synergize to make stronger results.

You've confused "have fairly good AC" and "fight in melee" with things Wizards care about, but somehow forgotten that "take extra actions" and "get an hours/level version of polymorph that doesn't cost spell slots" are things they do want. Are there Monk synergies? Sure. But they suck. Because Monks suck.

[Lans]

Isn't there a wildshape monk that you would be using if you are using wildshape ranger?

[Gnaeus]

polymorph lasts minutes/level for a 4th level spell slot. Wild Shape lasts hours/level for no spell slots. If your plan is to fight polymorphed at 7th level, you're likely spending all your 4th level slots to do it. This, of course, is stupid, because you are spending most of your resources to do something suboptimal.

You've confused "have fairly good AC" and "fight in melee" with things Wizards care about, but somehow forgotten that "take extra actions" and "get an hours/level version of polymorph that doesn't cost spell slots" are things they do want. Are there Monk synergies? Sure. But they suck. Because Monks suck.

And you have confused (turn into a small or medium animal only) with Polymorph. How do you get extra actions? You turn into a giant octopus. Then you take multitasking. So your feats must be
Level 6 SoTAO or natural spell
Level 9 the other one
Level 12 something that lets you wildshape into a large creature you haven’t explained that bit
Level 15 multiattack
Level 18 multiweapon fighting
Level 21 improved multiweapon fighting
Level 24 multitasking (requires 3.0 stuff, but ok)

That’s fantastic. That’s all your feats after 3 for a combo that comes on line at 21 if you drop SoTAO. One of us is spending all our resources for something suboptimal. The other spent exactly 1 feat to get an AC that’s probably unhittable by anything in level range, including touch attacks.

[Cosi]

Isn't there a wildshape monk that you would be using if you are using wildshape ranger?

I don't see a Wild Shape Monk on this list of ACFs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?444354-3-5-Alternative-Class-Features-(ported-from-Wizards-community-boards)). It doesn't include Dragon Magazine though, but I don't know of a list that does. If you do exclude Dragon Magazine, the Wizard//Ranger does lose Mystic Ranger which is at least a moderate hit.

[Cosi]

Level 12 something that lets you wildshape into a large creature you haven’t explained that bit

Two levels of Master of Many Forms does it, and between your familiar and the Ranger's free Endurance gets in for free. As a result, everything moves forward a bit. It does delay your casting, so you might drop Mystic Ranger. However, since your casting pretty much caps at 5ths, you could reasonably do Mystic Ranger 10/Master of Many Forms 10.


Level 15 multiattack

You can qualify as early as first level depending on racial choice.


Level 18 multiweapon fighting

"[Multi-Weapon Fighting] replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." Combined with the Wizard variant the gets Fighter Bonus Feats and some graft that gives you an extra arm (or just Wild Shape), you can get both by 10th level. That gets you Multitasking at 12th level. Not quite as fast as Druid//Rogue cheese does, but way better than you think. Incidentally, going this way leaves your 9th level feat free for Sword of the Arcane Order.

But yes, I'm the one who doesn't know about combining options.

[Gnaeus]

Two levels of Master of Many Forms does it, and between your familiar and the Ranger's free Endurance gets in for free. As a result, everything moves forward a bit. It does delay your casting, so you might drop Mystic Ranger. However, since your casting pretty much caps at 5ths, you could reasonably do Mystic Ranger 10/Master of Many Forms 10.



You can qualify as early as first level depending on racial choice.



"[Multi-Weapon Fighting] replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." Combined with the Wizard variant the gets Fighter Bonus Feats and some graft that gives you an extra arm (or just Wild Shape), you can get both by 10th level. That gets you Multitasking at 12th level. Not quite as fast as Druid//Rogue cheese does, but way better than you think. Incidentally, going this way leaves your 9th level feat free for Sword of the Arcane Order.

But yes, I'm the one who doesn't know about combining options.

No, just the one who doesn’t understand cost benefit. So at level 1 you have a multiattacking race, likely giving up a feat or better stats. Then you give up your level 1 feat for multiattack. Then you pick your familiar to meet a feat prereq. So you start the game as a wizard with bad feat choices.

Then you dump your actually useful wizard feats for 2 fighter feats as prerequisites. So at level 6, when you have natural spell and turn into a bird, your feats are multiattack and multiweapon fighting (assuming you can meet prereqs). That’s fantastic. From a guy who thinks wizards who melee suck. You are basically a wizard who set his feats on fire for 11 levels. Then, 12+, assuming you live that long you are a monster as long as you can be a giant octopus. Yay?

I spent exactly 1 feat to be virtually immune to attack rolls at all levels, 1-20. I’m even better at fighting in monster forms than you, despite you spending all your feats on it.

[Cosi]

No, just the one who doesn’t understand cost benefit. So at level 1 you have a multiattacking race, likely giving up a feat or better stats. Then you give up your level 1 feat for multiattack. Then you pick your familiar to meet a feat prereq. So you start the game as a wizard with bad feat choices.

Fun fact: all familiars grant Alertness. You don't "pick your Familiar to meet a prereq", you meet the prereq for having a familiar at all. But yes, you lose a little power at low levels. That is true. Not a huge amount because feats generally compare poorly to extra casting, but some. But at high levels you get to act four times a round forever. At high levels the monk ... relies on AC as a defense and hitting people with their fists.


Then you dump your actually useful wizard feats for 2 fighter feats as prerequisites. So at level 6, when you have natural spell and turn into a bird, your feats are multiattack and multiweapon fighting (assuming you can meet prereqs). That’s fantastic. From a guy who thinks wizards who melee suck. You are basically a wizard who set his feats on fire for 11 levels. Then, 12+, assuming you live that long you are a monster as long as you can be a giant octopus. Yay?

A giant octopus that acts four times every round, gets extra 4th and 5th level spell slots for celerity or utility, eventually gets all day polymorph for free (and if you opt to go Warshaper, it's closer to shapechange), and can still get into Incantatrix for long enough to get the important bits. If you don't go all-in on Master of Many Forms you can do Incantatrix + Primal Scholar and shoot off four fifth level spells every round of every combat forever.


I spent exactly 1 feat to be virtually immune to attack rolls at all levels, 1-20. I’m even better at fighting in monster forms than you, despite you spending all your feats on it.

First of all: the Wizard//Ranger is not fighting in monster forms. It's casting in them. And it casts four times a round in them. But even if I was impressed by "my AC is about ten points higher on net" trick, all that takes is one level of Monk. So you can make a Monk 1/Ranger 5 and get 99% of the benefits. You miss out on a total of four points of AC over the entire game, and bonuses to damage less impressive than pulling out Arcane Strike.

[Gnaeus]

So, in this system, each class costs gestalt points = 6-tier ranking. Cosi's Wizard//Wildshape Mystic Ranger is an 8 (5 for wizard, 3 for mystic/ws ranger.) I will use whereever possible feats and options he has suggested. Kobold with web enhancement will get him his level 1 multiattack.

I will compare it with a human Wizard//Monk//Swashbuckler//Dragon Shaman using Carmendine Monk. I'll build 1, 5, 10, 12. 28 PB. No retraining.

I'm tired of unsupported claims. Lets look at it.

[Cosi]

So, in this system, each class costs gestalt points = 6-tier ranking. Cosi's Wizard//Wildshape Mystic Ranger is an 8 (5 for wizard, 3 for mystic/ws ranger.) I will use whereever possible feats and options he has suggested. Kobold with web enhancement will get him his level 1 multiattack.

I will compare it with a human Wizard//Monk//Swashbuckler//Dragon Shaman using Carmendine Monk. I'll build 1, 5, 10, 12. 28 PB. No retraining.

My point was that Wizard//Ranger was better than Wizard//Monk. It costing more points is consistent with that. If you want to prove your point, present a Wizard//Monk. Otherwise you're admitting the build is not as good as you said, and we don't need to do this at all.

Also, the build's trick comes online at 12th level, and I've admitted it trades off some power before that point for it. It is therefore unfair to do 12 as the highest point of comparison. If you want to compare a Wizard//Monk to a Wizard//Ranger at, say, 6th, 12th, and 18th levels, I would be provisionally interested in that.

[The Shadowmind]

I don't see a Wild Shape Monk on this list of ACFs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?444354-3-5-Alternative-Class-Features-(ported-from-Wizards-community-boards)). It doesn't include Dragon Magazine though, but I don't know of a list that does. If you do exclude Dragon Magazine, the Wizard//Ranger does lose Mystic Ranger which is at least a moderate hit.


Wild Monk is from Dragon Mag. Issue 324. Pg 97
Loses: 1/2/6 bonus feats. Still Mind, Slow Fall, Abundant step, and Empty Body.
Unknown if you keep the Monk's AC bonus, and Unarmored Speed Bonus.
Gain: Wildshape at 6, progresses toward large, tiny, huge, and elemental forms. Less uses per day than a normal druid.

[Gnaeus]

My point was that Wizard//Ranger was better than Wizard//Monk. It costing more points is consistent with that. If you want to prove your point, present a Wizard//Monk. Otherwise you're admitting the build is not as good as you said, and we don't need to do this at all.

Also, the build's trick comes online at 12th level, and I've admitted it trades off some power before that point for it. It is therefore unfair to do 12 as the highest point of comparison. If you want to compare a Wizard//Monk to a Wizard//Ranger at, say, 6th, 12th, and 18th levels, I would be provisionally interested in that.

Hahaha! Watch him backpeddle. Did i point out that WS mystic. Ranger is T3 and uses more gestalt points? Indeed I did. Did he realize what a steaming pile of poop he will look like when he is a bird with a bunch of useless feats? Uh huh. The disadvantages of taking a race that qualifies for multiattack vs a wizard race? Having to keep a vanilla familiar for the alertness feat while I am abrupt jaunting? Are we unwilling to look at how awful our gestalt is until 12? Looks like. You lose sir. It gets its backside kicked for more than half of the game. Although it would be funny to see 18 when a full half of his gestalt gets obsoleted by shapechange.

[The Shadowmind]

Not completely sure how the Wild Monk and the Wild Shape ranger as all that relevant, since this is for pathfinder.

Okay, going by 6-Tier for the cost, and 1 point to change to an archetype. each build should be able to fulfill 2 roles well, and a third one with general competence.
Using this list for tiers:
http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11990.0

[6 points.]
[Archetype Access.] (-1 Point)
Expert. [-0 Points] [Set skill points to 6+Int., Choose 10 skills to add to class skills],
Monk. Archetype (-0 Points.). Grants, all good saves, long range attacks.
Brawler [url=https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/brawler/archetypes/paizo-brawler-archetypes/exemplar]Exemplar (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo-monk-archetypes/zen-archer/Zen Archer[/url) Archetype. (-1 Point). Limited Bardic Music, gets shareable teamwork feats, and allows access to niche feats as needed.
Figther Relic Master (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo-fighter-archetypes/relic-master-fighter-archetype/) Archetype. Gains more bonus feats. And with the Brawler allows doing the Iron Caster build. (-1 Point)
Adept. [-2 Point]
Expert//Monk//Fighter//Brawler/Adept. [5 Points.]
Produces a competent combatant that can switch hit from melee and range, and isn't useless in social and other non-combat situations. If needed can take the trap finder trait in traps are expected to be frequent.

[Cosi]

Oh good, Gnaeus agrees with me. The Wizard//Ranger does take more gestalt points. That is because it is better than the Wizard//Monk, exactly like I was saying. If he would like to prove that the Wizard//Monk is better, he will need to use a Wizard//Monk, not a Wizard//Monk//Swashbuckler//Dragon Shaman. The fact that he won't means he doesn't think he can, so we're done here. He's wrong, I'm right, and we agree.

And no, I have no idea why he thinks this is on topic. My original post was simply pointing out that Monk gestalt tends not to get you very much because Gestalt overlaps rather than stacks. He responded by declaring that you can dumpster dive for Monk synergy. He clearly thinks this is very important, but he also thinks taking Monk levels is a thing you should do.

[Gnaeus]

Oh good, Gnaeus agrees with me. The Wizard//Ranger does take more gestalt points. That is because it is better than the Wizard//Monk, exactly like I was saying. If he would like to prove that the Wizard//Monk is better, he will need to use a Wizard//Monk, not a Wizard//Monk//Swashbuckler//Dragon Shaman. The fact that he won't means he doesn't think he can, so we're done here. He's wrong, I'm right, and we agree.

And no, I have no idea why he thinks this is on topic. My original post was simply pointing out that Monk gestalt tends not to get you very much because Gestalt overlaps rather than stacks. He responded by declaring that you can dumpster dive for Monk synergy. He clearly thinks this is very important, but he also thinks taking Monk levels is a thing you should do.

The only thing I agree with is that wizard//WS ranger with this design is a terrible pile of worthless junk for more than half of the campaign, and as such is a terrible gestalt. And at high levels, it can take 4 standard actions at the low low cost of most of the cool wizard tricks it could have been doing with those feats, starting at level 1 when it lost scribe scrolls.

Wizard//monk beats Wizard//ranger. Wizard//WS monk beats Wizard//WS ranger but wizard//WS monk would still be a waste of resources since it is worse than Wizard//3 Tier 5 gestalts including monk or Wizard//a better T3 class. This is called opportunity cost.

I’m sorry my grey elf wizard monk didn’t have the opportunity to spank your kobold featless ranger. But I can see how that would be embarrassing for you.

[Cosi]

I'll do a level 15 comparison any time you want. But obviously you won't do that, because you know that "four actions" beats the crap out of "slightly higher AC", so you have to pretend that the AC buff (which the Ranger build can also get, because it's one level), is better because you get a crap trick from level one instead of a great one from level twelve.

But again, this was over when you refused to support the claim you actually made and admitted that Ranger was worth more than Monk. There's no point arguing with you, because you proved my point for me.

[Gnaeus]

I'll do a level 15 comparison any time you want. But obviously you won't do that, because you know that "four actions" beats the crap out of "slightly higher AC", so you have to pretend that the AC buff (which the Ranger build can also get, because it's one level), is better because you get a crap trick from level one instead of a great one from level twelve.

But again, this was over when you refused to support the claim you actually made and admitted that Ranger was worth more than Monk. There's no point arguing with you, because you proved my point for me.

A crap trick at level 1 is better than a great one when the game is about to end. Especially when your single great trick takes the bulk of your feats and other choices until then. Especially when the point at which it comes online is when the wizard just dominates by showing up with memorized spells. If you leave nicely now I will leave you to your shame. If you keep arguing I will demonstrate, with actual builds using the thread rules, exactly why you won’t live long enough to cast 4 spells per round at 12.

The sad fact that this is all obscuring is that he hasn’t made it about ranger at all. It’s all about multitasking. Honestly, if you gave up the stupid 3.0 cheese and just took actually useful feats instead of multiattack and multiweapon fighting, ranger isn’t bad in gestalt. Tier 4 vanilla ranger is ok as a passive base. Still not as good as monk, and way not as good as monk + other T5. But a respectable gestalt choice. But Octopus man has a hard road. A good gestalt functions for 20 levels. He is good for 8, and the 8 are the least helpful.

[Cosi]

You know what? Enlighten me. So far, what I've seen from you in favor of the Monk is that it lets you add your INT to AC, and that it (arguably, you admitted you might not get the natural attacks + unarmed strike ruling you need) buffs your melee output. But INT to AC happens at Monk 1, and e.g. Arcane Strike is massively better for damage boosting. What makes Wizard 20//Monk 20 better than Wizard 20//Monk 1/Mystic Ranger 19? Because it sure isn't the 4 points of AC you got from those 19 other Monk levels. Forget all the cheese with Wild Shape and Multitasking. What does Monk give you that it doesn't give you at 1st level?

[Gnaeus]

You know what? Enlighten me. So far, what I've seen from you in favor of the Monk is that it lets you add your INT to AC, and that it (arguably, you admitted you might not get the natural attacks + unarmed strike ruling you need) buffs your melee output. But INT to AC happens at Monk 1, and e.g. Arcane Strike is massively better for damage boosting. What makes Wizard 20//Monk 20 better than Wizard 20//Monk 1/Mystic Ranger 19? Because it sure isn't the 4 points of AC you got from those 19 other Monk levels. Forget all the cheese with Wild Shape and Multitasking. What does Monk give you that it doesn't give you at 1st level?

If the ranger is a T3 mystic, from an out of print dragon then I’ll happily add another class. But I’ll happily compare monk with ranger level for level. Your argument is a straw man since if you are dipping a level of a frontloaded class instead of comparing full 20 level gestalts, I certainly can also.

But to answer your question, Ranger gets slightly more HP and BAB, better weapon proficiency and some feats he probably won’t be using, along with some low level too late spells and a speed bump. Monk gets evasion and improved evasion when you get regular evasion, bonuses against disabling saves, scaling attacks which stack with the natural attacks I get from forms and benefit from size changes, a bonus in resisting grapples, better AOOs when people try to rush me to stop spellcasting, poison immunity, better battlefield positioning via movement, free DDoor (as an undisruptable SU), and spell resistance, which sucks for a single class monk who needs to be buffed to function, but since your spell resist doesn’t apply to your own spells is actually fairly sexy for a gestalt monk//T1. And for some reason a 2kgp ring.

[Cosi]

If the ranger is a T3 mystic, from an out of print dragon then I’ll happily add another class.

Literally all 3e content is out of print. It has been for ten years. But no, you don't get another class. You said Monk was better than Ranger. If you only meant some Ranger variants, you should have said that. If you want to claim that Monk is better under these particular rules, that's perhaps reasonable -- but by that logic Monk is better than Archivist or Beguiler.


Your argument is a straw man since if you are dipping a level of a frontloaded class instead of comparing full 20 level gestalts, I certainly can also.

I don't think you understand what the term "straw man" means. If Monk gets enough goodies at 1st that Monk 1/Ranger 19 is better than Monk 20, that's not a sign that Monk is secretly good.


Ranger gets slightly more HP and BAB, better weapon proficiency and some feats he probably won’t be using, along with some low level too late spells and a speed bump.

No, Ranger gets you a (nearly) full set of extra spells, because you are a Mystic Ranger. If you want to not be compared to Mystic Ranger, then don't use Cadamine Monk. Either we're talking about the baseline versions of the classes, or we're talking about the optimized versions of the classes. Monk wins neither of those, so you have to pit optimized Monk versus baseline Ranger. If you are playing a baseline Monk, your low level plan is to be INT/WIS MAD for a marginal boost to AC, minimal combat ability until polymorph (which, frankly, is enough without Monk), and a chassis that is worse on every axis. But yes, let's look at those class features.


Monk gets evasion and improved evasion

A two-level Rogue dip gets evasion faster than either. You won't get improved evasion, but the difference there is kind of tiny when you consider your other defenses. Actually, I'm pretty sure Rogue does everything you want Monk to do better (particularly, sneak attack beats the living hell out of unarmed strike), and it gets you Multitasking without investing other feats.


bonuses against disabling saves

Yes, you get a +2 bonus against Enchantment spells (remember, you have the same baseline bonuses as the Ranger). But you can cast protection from law, so who cares?


scaling attacks which stack with the natural attacks I get from forms and benefit from size changes

You yourself said that this is dependent on rulings, and in any case a) melee is not a good tactic for Wizards b) damage is not the problem polymorph builds have.


a bonus in resisting grapples

Wow, it's almost like freedom of movement is a thing that exists.


poison immunity

Either character has good Fort and access to spells that bump saves. You're not failing saves against poison. Also, by the time this happens, a Wizard's buff routine will make him immune to poison.


free DDoor (as an undisruptable SU)

Su dimension door is nice, but it's also happening at 12th level. Given that you think four actions is bad at 12th level, I'm not impressed.


spell resistance

Again, well past the point where you said four extra actions wasn't enough, so I don't care.

[Peat]

Not completely sure how the Wild Monk and the Wild Shape ranger as all that relevant, since this is for pathfinder.

Okay, going by 6-Tier for the cost, and 1 point to change to an archetype. each build should be able to fulfill 2 roles well, and a third one with general competence.
Using this list for tiers:
http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11990.0

[6 points.]
[Archetype Access.] (-1 Point)
Expert. [-0 Points] [Set skill points to 6+Int., Choose 10 skills to add to class skills],
Monk. Archetype (-0 Points.). Grants, all good saves, long range attacks.
Brawler [url=https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/brawler/archetypes/paizo-brawler-archetypes/exemplar]Exemplar (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo-monk-archetypes/zen-archer/Zen Archer[/url) Archetype. (-1 Point). Limited Bardic Music, gets shareable teamwork feats, and allows access to niche feats as needed.
Figther Relic Master (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo-fighter-archetypes/relic-master-fighter-archetype/) Archetype. Gains more bonus feats. And with the Brawler allows doing the Iron Caster build. (-1 Point)
Adept. [-2 Point]
Expert//Monk//Fighter//Brawler/Adept. [5 Points.]
Produces a competent combatant that can switch hit from melee and range, and isn't useless in social and other non-combat situations. If needed can take the trap finder trait in traps are expected to be frequent.

I gotta really question any tier list for PF that doesn't have Fighter, Unchained Rogue, and Zen Archer Monk at Tier 4. Hell, I've seen plenty of people rank Unchained Rogue at Tier 3.

[The Shadowmind]

I gotta really question any tier list for PF that doesn't have Fighter, Unchained Rogue, and Zen Archer Monk at Tier 4. Hell, I've seen plenty of people rank Unchained Rogue at Tier 3.

It does have Zen Archer as Tier 4. You have a point on the unchained Rogue, it should probably be tier 4. It has Fighter as the top end of Tier 5.
Do you have a better list to use?

[Peat]

It does have Zen Archer as Tier 4. You have a point on the unchained Rogue, it should probably be tier 4. It has Fighter as the top end of Tier 5.
Do you have a better list to use?

Not in the first post it doesn't:

"Barbarian, Unchained Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Adept, Bloodrager, Slayer, Martial Master and/or Mutation Warrior Fighter, Archetyped Brawlers, Kineticist, Shifter"

I'd never entirely got the idea that Kineticist/Shifter were considered Tier 4 either.

But unfortunately, no, I don't have a better list to use. I tried googling it when I saw this thread but didn't see anything I'd consider "nailed it". For the most part, it's only ever really about the Tier 4/Tier 5 border and how finnicky people are willing to be about considering archetypes.

On Fighter - I'm not a 100% sure it should be considered Tier 4, but I think the options given with Advanced Armour and Weapon Training push it there before even considering the large number of Fighter Archetypes that are probably Tier 4.

[Lans]

A wizard/monk could be an anthropomorphic animal, who then uses alterself to take the form of an anthropomorphic octopus to qualify for multitasking at level 6ish.

[upho]

My players aren't especially good at optimizing (well, one is, but generally gives herself bizarre RP handicaps like addictions to hallucinogenic drugs, so it's basically a wash). If necessary, I will of course talk with them about nonfunctional (somehow) builds/game-breaking ones as needed.

Thoughts? I'd like to hear about this as a solution to my problem, and also on its own merits as a source of balance that doesn't require nerfing Tier 1s to [the Nine] Hell[s] and back.Not a bad idea, but I'd be careful to assume Tier numbers will reflect the PCs' actual power.

Yes, the T1 combos will of course at least have the potential to be more versatile than other combos, especially outside of combat, but I believe you first need to consider how much of an impact such versatility actually has in your game. Otherwise, there's a risk you simply end up with, for example, rather one-dimensional but extremely rocket-taggy combat monsters overshadowing other PCs in combat during at least early and mid levels, while the versatility advantages of the T1 gestalts are largely removed because they're underutilized by the players. And keep in mind full casters typically also have some of the lowest optimization floors, and that the Tier system is often a pretty poor indicator of actual power (even though it may be one the best one we have for the purpose of comparing classes in general).


Not in the first post it doesn't:

"Barbarian, Unchained Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Adept, Bloodrager, Slayer, Martial Master and/or Mutation Warrior Fighter, Archetyped Brawlers, Kineticist, Shifter"

I'd never entirely got the idea that Kineticist/Shifter were considered Tier 4 either.Well, I'd also hesitate to put the shifter in T4. I'd guess the argument is that it gets some lower level combat advantages (pounce at 4th) and some minor utility stuff which T5's normally lack. But it's extremely pidgeon-holed into being an übercharger natural attacker and exacerbates rather than mitigates the typical problems associated with such builds, being arguably too much of a rocket tagger early on and then it simply stops progressing meaningfully in mid levels, with its WS dependence shutting it out from most out-of-class improvement options. I find it indicative that it's easily overshadowed by a barb or especially bloodrager built for doing the exact same thing in mid levels, and likewise its other abilities provide no lasting advantages in comparison AFAICT.

The kinny is a poorly designed mess of a class with a very low optimization ceiling, but it might actually have enough versatility to belong in T4.


But unfortunately, no, I don't have a better list to use. I tried googling it when I saw this thread but didn't see anything I'd consider "nailed it". For the most part, it's only ever really about the Tier 4/Tier 5 border and how finnicky people are willing to be about considering archetypes.I haven't seen any list considerably better than the one over at minmax either, much less one which most people seem to agree with. But if one searches here, one should be able to find a bunch of about equally decent suggestions in the "Retiering" threads from about a year ago.

And yeah, archetypes can have a lot of impact. But it's good to remember the old "player > build > class" saying, and for the purpose of Tier ratings, very few archetypes have such major impact they ought to be considered to be in the "class" rather than the "build" category and cause a tier shift IME.


On Fighter - I'm not a 100% sure it should be considered Tier 4, but I think the options given with Advanced Armour and Weapon Training push it there before even considering the large number of Fighter Archetypes that are probably Tier 4.I think it really should be T4. If nothing else, I believe this becomes obvious when comparing it to the 3.5 high T5 fighter, which doesn't come with nearly as many viable tools to improve versatility and general effectiveness.

[Bucky]

The kinny is a poorly designed mess of a class with a very low optimization ceiling, but it might actually have enough versatility to belong in T4.

I think they eventually get there on power if you dodge the traps.

The utility talents have a smattering of T1-list 7ths and 8ths. Several elements have some form of native flight, which they can use with unlimited-ammo ranged attacks or summons.

Earth kineticists can notably pull one of the high tier cheap tricks - earth glide underground, make a cave, fight from safety by summoning earth elementals.

[Peat]

Well, I'd also hesitate to put the shifter in T4. I'd guess the argument is that it gets some lower level combat advantages (pounce at 4th) and some minor utility stuff which T5's normally lack. But it's extremely pidgeon-holed into being an übercharger natural attacker and exacerbates rather than mitigates the typical problems associated with such builds, being arguably too much of a rocket tagger early on and then it simply stops progressing meaningfully in mid levels, with its WS dependence shutting it out from most out-of-class improvement options. I find it indicative that it's easily overshadowed by a barb or especially bloodrager built for doing the exact same thing in mid levels, and likewise its other abilities provide no lasting advantages in comparison AFAICT.

The kinny is a poorly designed mess of a class with a very low optimization ceiling, but it might actually have enough versatility to belong in T4.

I thought T4 was for classes who're actually good at their jobs, not versatile guys who are kinda sucky at it? Not that I'm an expert on either class, but from what you're saying they sound more like T5 (although going from Bucky's post, maybe Kinny is T4 after all).


I think it really should be T4. If nothing else, I believe this becomes obvious when comparing it to the 3.5 high T5 fighter, which doesn't come with nearly as many viable tools to improve versatility and general effectiveness.

A good point.


Gotta say, if there's one place I find the Tier system particularly unclear - or maybe where the difference between tiers is smallest - its at the boundary between Tier 4/5. Particularly as most T5 classes can get to T4 effectiveness with a good enough build/selection of the right archetypes. edit: Which is still mildly relevant to the OP's purposes, although I really doubt his group would be pushing enough to make it an issue from the sounds of it.

[upho]

I thought T4 was for classes who're actually good at their jobs, not versatile guys who are kinda sucky at it? Not that I'm an expert on either class, but from what you're saying they sound more like T5 (although going from Bucky's post, maybe Kinny is T4 after all).I don't think the kinny really sucks enough in whatever it focuses on to be T5, even though it's probably impossible to optimize a build much further than maybe low T3, unlike builds of other T4 classes. See also below.


Gotta say, if there's one place I find the Tier system particularly unclear - or maybe where the difference between tiers is smallest - its at the boundary between Tier 4/5. Particularly as most T5 classes can get to T4 effectiveness with a good enough build/selection of the right archetypes. edit: Which is still mildly relevant to the OP's purposes, although I really doubt his group would be pushing enough to make it an issue from the sounds of it.I really think one should be careful not to limit tier definitions to the original ones, as those were based only on 3.5 classes. And as I mentioned in my earlier post, the Tier system isn't necessarily a good measure of actual power. As an example, in what tier would you put a martial who can consistently take out several opponents of a CR at the very least +5 above her level, in every round, every combat, every day, but probably has less utility power than say a decently built magus?

[Nifft]

And as I mentioned in my earlier post, the Tier system isn't necessarily a good measure of actual power. As an example, in what tier would you put a martial who can consistently take out several opponents of a CR at the very least +5 above her level, in every round, every combat, every day, but probably has less utility power than say a decently built magus?

It seems to me that the original Tier System makes the most sense if we assume that it classifies by optimization ceiling, rather than by typical power.

[Peat]

I really think one should be careful not to limit tier definitions to the original ones, as those were based only on 3.5 classes. And as I mentioned in my earlier post, the Tier system isn't necessarily a good measure of actual power. As an example, in what tier would you put a martial who can consistently take out several opponents of a CR at the very least +5 above her level, in every round, every combat, every day, but probably has less utility power than say a decently built magus?

I don't disagree with your assessment of the Tier system's limitations, but I'd rather leave as is and use cautiously than try to redfine. Seems less messy and more useful to me.

[upho]

It seems to me that the original Tier System makes the most sense if we assume that it classifies by optimization ceiling, rather than by typical power.Yeah, or at least mid-op and higher. People who have only played in low-op games also tend to have much greater difficulty making sense of it IME, not to mention there often isn't much immediate use for it in the first place in such games. On top of that, when it comes to PF there's generally less difference between the tiers, and archetypes and other options (especially with 3PP stuff like PoW) means there's a higher risk the system will be misleading. In contrast to 3.5, it appears there's also a non-trivial risk high-op builds fall outside the original tier definitions, because they simply cannot be replicated in 3.5. So perhaps especially in PF, I think it's often given too much weight and used in ways it really never was intended for.

But you can of course still learn a great deal from it and use it as one build/class analysis tool among others (such as Person_Man's Niche Ranking System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System)).


I don't disagree with your assessment of the Tier system's limitations, but I'd rather leave as is and use cautiously than try to redfine. Seems less messy and more useful to me.Well, as long as you're a aware of the system's limitations and don't base your analysis of builds/classes solely on the original tier definitions even should none of them really fit, that should work just fine.