Updated Tier List for Pathfinder?

[Palanan]

Is there a reasonably current tier list for Pathfinder, covering the base classes in the Paizo hardcovers?

I have a very specific need here, which is a list of Pathfinder classes which are more or less Tier 4. I’m assuming ranger, barbarian, rogue, paladin will fall into that range, but I’m not sure about classes like bard, monk, unchained rogue, etc.

I should state up front that I’m not personally advocating for any one Pathfinder class to be in any given tier—I’m just looking for a general consensus list. My interest is practical rather than theoretical, so responses that guide me toward such a list are most helpful.

For my purposes I’m only interested in the classes found in the official Paizo hardcovers—the CRB, APG, ACG, Unchained and the Ultimates. From these sources, is it relatively simple to assemble a list of Tier 4 classes?

[Gnaeus]

I started a parallel to the retiering project but didn’t finish. I am shamed. 😢

[Kurald Galain]

Is there a reasonably current tier list for Pathfinder, covering the base classes in the Paizo hardcovers?
With very few exceptions, it goes

(1) prepared full casters
(2) spontaneous full casters
(3) partial casters (bard goes here)
(4) non-casters (u-monk and u-rogue go here, as does Paizo's fighter)
(5) a very small amount of unfixed mistakes, such as non-u monk and baseline kinny

So yeah, if you want a strictly T4 game, go with Barbarian, Fighter, U-Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Shifter, Vigilante, Ninja, Swashbuckler, Slayer, or Brawler. HTH.

[Psyren]

Tiering is complicated in PF because some archetypes are enough to move a class into a different tier. The unmodified monk is T5 for instance as Kurald mentioned, but Qinggong is definitely good enough to get it into T4. Ditto for unmodified Fighter vs. Martial Master or Child of War. Psychic is T2, but the Amnesiac gets it closer to T1 by letting you access your entire list spontaneously.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
Tiering is complicated in PF because some archetypes are enough to move a class into a different tier.

Yeah, I had the impression that archetypes can be a whole other kettle of aboleths. Are there any archetypes that would boost a baseline T4 class in unexpected ways?

Also, what base classes fall into the T3 range? Does paladin usually rank as T3 in Pathfinder?

[stack]

Yeah, I had the impression that archetypes can be a whole other kettle of aboleths. Are there any archetypes that would boost a baseline T4 class in unexpected ways?

Also, what base classes fall into the T3 range? Does paladin usually rank as T3 in Pathfinder?

Things that give significant versatility, which usually means spell access from a good list, probably up to 6th level spells.

Baseline paladin I would peg at tier 4. They can dish out a ton of damage in the right circumstances a few times a day, but they don't have the spell breadth or depth to make tier 3.

General opinion, I believe, is that anything with level 6 spells is tier 3, except chained summoner, which hits 2 due to spells being lower level on its list and getting a bunch of high level castings if summing monster.

[Kurald Galain]

Also, what base classes fall into the T3 range? Does paladin usually rank as T3 in Pathfinder?

"Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate"; yes, pally qualifies.

(edit) because of healing ability, variant channeling, and getting a fully-leveled animal companion.

[Palanan]

So, without getting into the weeds too much, is it possible to rough out a simple list of the classes in each tier?

I assume T1 involves the usual suspects--cleric, wizard, druid, plus or minus witch--and T2 would include oracle, psychic, sorcerer, and maybe alchemist. (I'm not a tier theorist, so bear with me.)

But what usually falls into T3? And where does something like mesmerist wind up?

[Psyren]

"Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate"; yes, pally qualifies.

(edit) because of healing ability, variant channeling, and getting a fully-leveled animal companion.

And even if base paladin didn't qualify, archetypes like Sacred Servant certainly would.


So, without getting into the weeds too much, is it possible to rough out a simple list of the classes in each tier?

I assume T1 involves the usual suspects--cleric, wizard, druid, plus or minus witch--and T2 would include oracle, psychic, sorcerer, and maybe alchemist. (I'm not a tier theorist, so bear with me.)

But what usually falls into T3? And where does something like mesmerist wind up?

Eugh... like I said this is really tough once archetypes are taken into account. I can rough something out for the unmodified base classes, but almost nobody actually plays Pathfinder that way so it's a starting point at best. There is room for considerable debate with at least some of the rankings, so take with a grain of salt.

Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard, Arcanist

Tier 2: Oracle, Sorceror, Summoner, Shaman, Psychic

Tier 3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Ninja, Magus, Bloodrager, Hunter, Investigator, Unchained Summoner, Skald, Warpriest, Unchained Rogue, Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, Spiritualist, Omdura

Tier 4: Barbarian, Unchained Barbarian, Unchained Monk, Cavalier, Paladin, Ranger, Samurai, Rogue, Brawler, Antipaladin, Slayer, Vampire Hunter

Tier 5: Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk, Swashbuckler, Kineticist

Note also that T5 in Pathfinder is not as damning as it is in 3.5 for a number of systemic reasons, like ability to craft or use skills.

[Bucky]

Pre-unchained Rogue was tier 5; they tended to do worse than Fighters. They might've gotten some new tricks since I stopped paying attention.

[Psyren]

Pre-unchained Rogue was tier 5; they tended to do worse than Fighters. They might've gotten some new tricks since I stopped paying attention.

Without sparking a huge debate I disagree with that. "Capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining" was a fine description of the base rogue in PF.

[Kurald Galain]

Pre-unchained Rogue was tier 5; they tended to do worse than Fighters. They might've gotten some new tricks since I stopped paying attention.
They might have? Yes. Yes, they did. So, not tier 5 :smallamused:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
I can rough something out for the unmodified base classes, but almost nobody actually plays Pathfinder that way so it's a starting point at best.

This is a good starting point, and I appreciate it.

Where is the shifter in your estimation? And are any of the NPC classes anywhere near T5?

[Psyren]

This is a good starting point, and I appreciate it.

Where is the shifter in your estimation? And are any of the NPC classes anywhere near T5?

4 or 5 for the Shifter. Probably 5 but I haven't been interested in it enough to really read it (unlike the Kineticist), especially not when Metamorph Alchemist is closer to my idea of a Shifter anyway.

I never really saw the point in rating NPC classes myself. Like, sure a commoner might be "T6" but you're not supposed to play one anyway.

[Kurald Galain]

Where is the shifter in your estimation?

T4, probably. It's got good damage numbers, and decent abilities like early-access flight. The shifter is derided because it is highly unoriginal, not because it's ineffective.

[Bucky]

Adepts are solidly in T5. They get quite a bit of utility, some of which is of the sort that never goes out of style, but it's slow compared to even the T3 Bards and Inquisitors.

Notably, they automatically know all spells on their list, so any level 9+ Adept can pull up a Remove Curse or Daylight or whatever overnight if there's no cleric available.

You might be able to argue them up to T4 on the strength of their level 1-4 before they fall behind in casting progression, Animate Dead minionmancy at mid levels, and sufficiently powerful 5th level slots at 16+, but that leaves some serious holes in their progression.

[Kurald Galain]

Eugh... like I said this is really tough once archetypes are taken into account. I can rough something out for the unmodified base classes, but almost nobody actually plays Pathfinder that way so it's a starting point at best. There is room for considerable debate with at least some of the rankings, so take with a grain of salt.
From this list, arguably,

Witch is T2. Paladin is T3. Bloodrager, Medium, and Fighter are T4. Cavalier, Samurai, and Slayer are T5.

And yeah, take with 1d6 grains of salt. But tiers in PF are just much less of a big deal than in 3.5.

[GrayDeath]

Why would you put Witch in T2?

I mean sure, their SPell List is worse than Wizards, but they are still a full prepared Arcane Caster with bonus Ability via their hexes to save Spells.
Low T1, sure, but T1 nonetheless if you ask me.

As for Pala....if you dont ban archetypes I would put jhhgim at the border of T3 or 4, depending.

Which brings me toa gree with above posters: The Archetypes make it really really hard to Tier Pathfinder better than saying "one of these 2 Tiers, most likely".

[Kurald Galain]

Why would you put Witch in T2?

I mean sure, their SPell List is worse than Wizards,

Yes, that is why. Same as the shaman, really.

[GrayDeath]

Yes, that is why. Same as the shaman, really.

So you consider Pathfinder Wizards to be in the lower T1 area, if a slightly worse Spell List but (again most often sued Archetypes, see Post above^^) better Class Features make the Witch T2?

Interesting view, dont think I agree, but at low Levels I can see why one could argue that way.

However, one could also argue the same for PF Druid (as its FAR worse than 3.5 Druid) depending on Level.....tough to tier, PF is. Say so, Yoda does.

[Psyren]

I see Witch as T1, their list is quite a bit better than it's usually given credit for. Yes, lots of enchantment and illusion with all the weaknesses those imply (weaknesses which are less debilitating in Pathfinder anyway) - but they also get the summon monster line, plenty of shapeshifting and lots of utility, and that's before you factor in the patron spells or hexes.

The lines are blurrier than 3.5 so there is plenty of room for debate but I'm comfortable with them in T1.

[Chaos Jackal]

Yeah, I'd also go with witches in tier 1. Maybe a bit borderline, but hexes almost make up for the list. Which is not that stunted. There are some important absences, but also some important inclusions, and the combination of some good arcane spells with some good divine ones plus the patron isn't too shabby. And protection from X no longer invalidates enchantment in PF.

The guidelines Kurald mentioned cover the basics usually; prepared full casters are tier 1, spontaneous full casters and summoner are tier 2 (arguably unchained summoners too, albeit at the lower end), casters with 6th-level spells are tier 3, most lower-end casters and martials are tier 4, and stuff like monks, gunslingers and swashbucklers (possibly kineticists, chained rogues and basic fighters) are tier 5.

There are a few outliers, of course. Notably, paladins straddle the line between 3 and 4, and are definitely tier 3 with some of their best archetypes. Similarly, fighters are straddling the line between 4 and 5, with archetypes like Mutation Warrior being solid tier 4s. On the higher end, most spontaneous full casters that can pick up ways for expanded spell access (mnemonic vestments, pages of spell knowledge, possibly Paragon Surge) can break into tier 1, and there are ways to kick up bards and skalds up a notch from 3 to 2.

So, for tier 4 you probably have all classes that don't get 6th-level spells, minus the baseline martials and the two deed classes.

[Zanos]

Why would you put Witch in T2?

I mean sure, their SPell List is worse than Wizards, but they are still a full prepared Arcane Caster with bonus Ability via their hexes to save Spells.
Low T1, sure, but T1 nonetheless if you ask me.
I'm not familiar enough with the Witch spell list to classify it as T1 or T2, but how many spells can you remove from the Wizard spell list before it is no longer Tier 1? There's certainly some amount, and the Witch spell list is much, much smaller since it's not a core class that gets spell list expansion in nearly every supplement. Hexes can't raise a class from Tier 2 to Tier 1, they're just not powerful enough. But a quick glance at the Witch spell list shows a ton of the best core Wizard spells along with some choice picks off the core Cleric list. Probably have a hard time arguing that a class with prepared access to a bunch of the best core Wizard and Cleric spells isn't Tier 1.

[Gnaeus]

I'm not familiar enough with the Witch spell list to classify it as T1 or T2, but how many spells can you remove from the Wizard spell list before it is no longer Tier 1? There's certainly some amount, and the Witch spell list is much, much smaller since it's not a core class that gets spell list expansion in nearly every supplement. Hexes can't raise a class from Tier 2 to Tier 1, they're just not powerful enough.

Really the witch spell list does get new spells in most PF supplements. Spells like Air Bubble, adhesive spittle, blood money, ear piercing scream, frostbite, long arm, touch of blindness just as non core first level spells I would put in book.

And hexes are undervalued. As SUs they give a lot of flexibility against things like grapples or anything else that requires concentration, SR/magic resistance, or silence as well as just throwing out scaling save or sucks at will. I’d put witch at T1 anyway, but slumber is a level 1 power that is virtually a SoD and is probably the most banned for raw power of any first level power or spell.

I’d put shifter in T5. Clearly worse than ranger. If adept was T4 in 3.5 I don’t see why it dropped. It’s basically unchanged (losing the Eberron domain variant). I’d still put core Paladin in T4 although rather higher (it’s a better class, but loses winners like battle blessing). I agree that virtually all 6 level casters are T3. I’d put cavalier in 5. I think chained rogues are still T4.

[Bucky]

If adept was T4 in 3.5 I don’t see why it dropped. It’s basically unchanged (losing the Eberron domain variant).

The tier 4/tier 5 bar got raised somewhat. Even the defective PC classes get a little utility slotted into their dead levels and have extra build options from favored class bonuses and archetypes.

[NigelWalmsley]

I'm not familiar enough with the Witch spell list to classify it as T1 or T2, but how many spells can you remove from the Wizard spell list before it is no longer Tier 1?

A lot. Like, a whole lot. There's a huge number of spells out there, and most of them are things you have never even heard of, let alone learned, prepared, or cast. Also, there's the element of optimization level to consider. The Wizard who only learns spells at level up is still T1 (relative to other classes at similar levels of optimization), and the size of the spell list is not at all constraining there. So I would expect that unless the list is comically short and consists only of terrible spells (and maybe it does, I am not especially familiar with Pathfinder), the Witch is competitive at low and mid optimization. And given that, it would need to fall behind pretty hard compared to an optimized Wizard to fall to T2.

[Zanos]

A lot. Like, a whole lot. There's a huge number of spells out there, and most of them are things you have never even heard of, let alone learned, prepared, or cast.
Yeah, it's a hypothetical. The important bit is that Witch doesn't actually have every wizard spell minus some discrete number, they have Witch spells. Which is like Wizard- but a lot more restrictive in ways that do matter.


Also, there's the element of optimization level to consider. The Wizard who only learns spells at level up is still T1 (relative to other classes at similar levels of optimization), and the size of the spell list is not at all constraining there.
A wizard with four spells known per spell level is not Tier 1, because a Sorcerer gets at least that many. You can optimize around it with stuff like collegiate wizard and other tricks to get spells in your book, but if you're stuck with 41+int mod spells known spread throughout your spell levels, you're pretty much strictly worse than a sorcerer.


So I would expect that unless the list is comically short and consists only of terrible spells (and maybe it does, I am not especially familiar with Pathfinder), the Witch is competitive at low and mid optimization. And given that, it would need to fall behind pretty hard compared to an optimized Wizard to fall to T2.
The Witch is definitely good, and I agree that it's Tier 1. But you can be a prepared arcane caster and not be tier 1. It depends on what your spell list is. The Witch list happens to be pretty damn good.

[NigelWalmsley]

A wizard with four spells known per spell level is not Tier 1, because a Sorcerer gets at least that many.

A Wizard gets four 4th level spells at 8th level, at which point the Sorcerer gets one. At the point where the Sorcerer gets his fourth 4th level spell, the Wizard has 7th level spells, while the Sorcerer only has 6th levels. A big, big part of the Wizard's advantage of the Wizard, particularly at lower levels of optimization, is that he gets his tricks so much faster than the Sorcerer does.

[dude123nice]

Tier 5: Fighter

You haven't played PF fighter in years, have you?

[Psyren]

You haven't played PF fighter in years, have you?

I explicitly said that was my assessment of the base fighter with no archetypes, bells or whistles (no combat stamina or advanced weapon training either.) Fighter with those things easily hits T4 and can potentially hit T3.

[Gnaeus]

The tier 4/tier 5 bar got raised somewhat. Even the defective PC classes get a little utility slotted into their dead levels and have extra build options from favored class bonuses and archetypes.

I agree that most low tier classes got a higher floor. (Although often a lower ceiling, see rogue)

But it seems like generally people are just rating the classes higher as a result. Adepts still get all their utility spells they got before, and some additional spells (enemy’s heart, face of the devourer, scarify), and some of their spells (animate dead) got better, and others (Polymorph) they get comparatively earlier (polymorph only 2 levels after sorcerer)

They also get a racial FCB (Kitsune gain 1/6 magical tail feat. Which would be enough to make me consider kitsune if I were playing an adept.)

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
Fighter with those things easily hits T4 and can potentially hit T3.

So, is it fair to say that in your rough list of rankings, most of the T5 and T4 classes could be nudged up a tier based on specific archetypes and combos?

I’m keeping in mind that you said you were specifically ranking unmodified base classes, so my assumption is that archetypes and/or feats could move most of them up a notch. Just wanted to be sure that my assumption is more or less plausibly grounded.

[GrayDeath]

Going for lower tiers,ergo 5th and 4th, this is an almost entirely valid assumption.

To make T3s jump to T2 you need a LOT of optimization, same goes for 2nd to 1st, so archetypes alone wont do it there.

[Psyren]

So, is it fair to say that in your rough list of rankings, most of the T5 and T4 classes could be nudged up a tier based on specific archetypes and combos?

I’m keeping in mind that you said you were specifically ranking unmodified base classes, so my assumption is that archetypes and/or feats could move most of them up a notch. Just wanted to be sure that my assumption is more or less plausibly grounded.

Yes, I think allowing archetypes and other variants can bring every PC class up to at least T4. As others have said in the thread, PF has a higher floor than 3.5, and this is usually what is meant by that.

Some classes, notably Kineticist, got so little support that this is a tricky climb, but it's not impossible.

[Kurald Galain]

So, is it fair to say that in your rough list of rankings, most of the T5 and T4 classes could be nudged up a tier based on specific archetypes and combos?
You... still haven't told us what your mysterious purpose is. You'll plausibly get a better answer from us when you do.

Anyway, the Paizo forums have compiled a list (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UY1RrLleESzHZv2L6rkJnWihtzyazz1kvUzisZTO9TU) of archetypes. If you want to bump a class up a tier, look for anything rated +2/+2 (the maximum), and that will likely do the trick. Note how some classes do not have any +2/+2 archetypes, such as, predictably, the kinny.

[Gnaeus]

So, is it fair to say that in your rough list of rankings, most of the T5 and T4 classes could be nudged up a tier based on specific archetypes and combos?

I’m keeping in mind that you said you were specifically ranking unmodified base classes, so my assumption is that archetypes and/or feats could move most of them up a notch. Just wanted to be sure that my assumption is more or less plausibly grounded.

I would in general be more inclined to put that on the comparative optimization end of the scale rather than the tier end. If core fighter is 4 or border 4/5, but one archetype bumps it to 3 and another drops it to 5, that to me is not necessarily distinguishable from saying “TWF fighter is tier 5 but a 3.5 charge/trip build with ToB is 4” Or “Samurai is T4 because this one build operates at T4”. The trap archetypes are still traps. Certainly there are a handful of archetypes, like there are a handful of ACFs, that really massively change things. In some cases an archetype (Or combination) is practically a different class. The fighter who picks the best archetypes and feats just gets compared with the bard and wizard with the best archetypes and spells.

(Which is a completely different discussion than say, whether fighter in general with the comparative pros and cons of PF overall comes out higher than in 3.5. Which is for me a complex question and tough to answer without specific rulings).

[zook1shoe]

this (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11990.0) one is very up-to-date, and pretty in depth

[Kurald Galain]

this (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11990.0) one is very up-to-date, and pretty in depth

I'd say that list is too much focused on level-20 hyper-optimized theorywork, and not on actual gameplay. Like, getting Wish at level 17 doesn't raise a bard by two full tiers for all the levels below that; and all those martial classes that he puts down as unable to deal damage well do just fine in actual adventures and scenarios.

Frankly the impression I get is that that list is extrapolated from 3.5 by someone who doesn't actually play Pathfinder, or considers it another set of splatbooks for his 3.5 games. YMMV.

[NigelWalmsley]

I mean, it's not like "gets Wish at 17th" is an important thing in 3.5 either. It sounds like someone who cares too much about charop theorycraft and too little about actual gameplay. Which, in fairness, is very much a problem the original tiers had as well.

[Kurald Galain]

I mean, it's not like "gets Wish at 17th" is an important thing in 3.5 either. It sounds like someone who cares too much about charop theorycraft and too little about actual gameplay.

True. The sentiment appears to be that, regardless of what a class does or how it performs, if it has Wish and/or Gate at level 20 then it's automatically placed in Tier One. :smallamused:

[Dmitriy]

One of the best lists I have seen so far is this list published on RPG.SE. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/114425/what-tier-are-the-pathfinder-classes Just in case link rot happens, here will be a short summary with a few of my thoughts:

0) Tiers still sparkle debates. This is why this post is my personal opinion, and I respect others' rights to have their owns. Consider everything I write in this post to be started with "I believe that...".
1) Tiers haven't changed much.
2) Magic still trumps everything.
3) Without 3.5e supplements, certain classes became weaker.


Tier 1: all 9/9 prepared spellcasters, no matter their spell list. Even the weakest T1 class can still do very powerful things, can do it all day long at later levels, and can find a solution for almost every problem within 24 hours (when they prepare their spells again). No matter the class, the turning point is around level 7, when spells of level 4 first appear, which is why those classes are less overpowered in E6.

Tier 2: all 9/9 spontaneous casters. They can still wreak havoc, but there are only so many kinds of havoc they can wreak, and they can't adapt on the fly to work outside their narrow field of specialization. The Chained Summoner is also here because this class gets Summon Monster as a spell-like ability, and because many of its spells are actually got as lower-level ones. For example, the Ch-Summoner gets Haste at character level 4. This means cheaper wands, rods, and scrolls. The Chained Eidolon deals a ton of damage.

Tier 3: all 6/9 spellcasters. They can do at least one thing well and can still do something when it's not their time to truly shine and "solve encounters". The Medium needs Archmage or Hierophant spirits for that, the Unchained Rogue needs the Eldritch Scoundrel Archetype. Other spirits give the Medium only 4/9 spellcasting, which puts it reliably in T4, and the Rogue with only its damage and skills can arguably be placed in T4, too. The Bloodrager and the Unchained Monk could be placed in between T3 and T4.

Likewise, any other archetype giving a class 6/9 spellcasting will also place it into T3.

Many people say that T3 classes tend to be the most fun, but it's a matter of preference.

Tier 4: Barbarian, Brawler, Fighter, Kineticist (optimally), Medium (without archmage or hierophant), Ninja, Paladin, Ranger, Vigilante

Well, here is your non-spellcasting party going on. OK, there are a few spellcasters there, but their casting ability is weak and far from being their primary focus.

Pathfinder actually punishes the mundane characters very heavily for not being able to cast spells, putting "realism taxes" and "feat taxes" here and there. That's why it's hard for them to contribute meaningfully outside of their "primary job".

Kineticist is an interesting addition here, because this class is only T4 if played as a melee class.

Tier 5: Gunslinger, Kineticist (blaster), (chained) Monk, (chained) Rogue

Here are the failed classes. They all fail for different reasons, 2 out of 4 were saved by rebalancing them.

Untiered: Antipaladin, Cavalier, Samurai, Shifter, Slayer, Swashbuckler. The author of the post I linked hasn't tried them himself but places the Antipaladin into T4 for his spellcasting, and the rest in T5, presumably because of their lack of spellcasting.

Now, again, this is all subject to debate. You might have a very good experience playing the Vigilante or the Gunslinger, or the Wizard might turn out not to be your piece of cake. But this is, IMO, the most reliable list I have ever seen.

[Psyren]

One of the best lists I have seen so far is this list published on RPG.SE. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/114425/what-tier-are-the-pathfinder-classes Just in case link rot happens, here will be a short summary with a few of my thoughts:

0) Tiers still sparkle debates. This is why this post is my personal opinion, and I respect others' rights to have their owns. Consider everything I write in this post to be started with "I believe that...".
1) Tiers haven't changed much.
2) Magic still trumps everything.
3) Without 3.5e supplements, certain classes became weaker.

*snip*

This list is pretty close to mine and I agree with the reasoning. I also really like their "optimal kineticist" that avoids blasting, which linked to another SE post on the kinny's tier (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/105540/what-tier-is-the-kineticist) I was just looking at for my own research.

I had missed Paizo's apology for the Shifter too, that was a good read.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
I had missed Paizo's apology for the Shifter too, that was a good read.

Wait, what? They apologized for the class? Do you have that link?

[Psyren]

Wait, what? They apologized for the class? Do you have that link?

It was linked in Dimitry's link, but I'll pull it out here: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uuob?Changes-to-the-Shifter

[Palanan]

Interesting, thanks. It does seem they erred by not running it through a playtest, in the sense of actually testing it through gameplay.

He makes a couple comments about improving the design process for future classes by including community input. Were there any other classes after shifter, though?

[Psyren]

Interesting, thanks. It does seem they erred by not running it through a playtest, in the sense of actually testing it through gameplay.

He makes a couple comments about improving the design process for future classes by including community input. Were there any other classes after shifter, though?

The Omdura maybe? I think he was mostly referring to PF2 and SF with that comment.

[GrayDeath]

The Omdura maybe? I think he was mostly referring to PF2 and SF with that comment.

And we all see where that ended up going, sigh....

[Psyren]

And we all see where that ended up going, sigh....

Well, the SF classes have had plenty of playtesting and I think that worked out fairly well.

PF2's issues (from the perspective of this board anyway) are ones of underlying system design rather than the classes themselves - no amount of playtesting would improve P2's reception if the folks doing the testing disagree with the fundamental goals they're trying to achieve with that edition.

[GrayDeath]

@ 2nd Edition: Oh, I totally agree.

Well, I still think Starfinder could have done with more options and MUCH less "Higher LEvel Weapon Dependancy", as it plays more like Diablo in Space if your Soldier is useless after breaking from prison until he exchanges the found Level 1 Hoildout BLaster with a Level appropiate Gun.....

I mean D&D was always more Item dependant than I prefer, but Starfinder made that laughably so.

The Classes themselves where nice concepts and not totally bugged, though, agreed.

Still would like a round to play my Solarian more often than 2 Sessions....ah well.