… And What Is the *Deal* with Pathfinder Tiers?

[Maat Mons]

I really wanna know. (https://youtu.be/AsJYmf_G5d0)

It looks like we never had a Big Tier-Voting Thing™ for Pathfinder like we did for 3.5. So I've been looking at tier ranking from various people, and wondering how much stock I can put in them. I decided to put some of those rankings into a spreadsheet so I could more easily see which classes were the contentious ones. You can see the spreadsheet here. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R-IKmynE5lU2x05sSp0AYiZWdhiUHej3omsmX_4-6k8/edit?usp=sharing)

And then I decided to average the rankings out. Because if I can't trust my data, doing math on it somehow fixes things.



Arcanist1.00
Cleric1.00
Druid1.00
Witch1.00
Wizard1.00
Shaman1.25
Oracle (spell access tricks)1.50
Sorcerer (spell access tricks)1.50
Psychic (spell access tricks)1.60
Psychic (no spell access tricks)1.80
Summoner (master summoner, chained)1.94
Oracle (no spell access tricks)2.00
Sorcerer (no spell access tricks)2.00
Summoner (chained)2.06
Summoner (unchained)2.60
Summoner (master summoner, unchained)2.60
Bard (music beyond the spheres)2.75
Skald (music beyond the spheres)2.75
Bard (magician)2.88
Inquisitor (monster tactician)2.88
Magus (hexcrafter)2.88
Skald (expanded spell kenning)2.88
Alchemist3.00
Bard (vanilla)3.00
Hunter (vanilla)3.00
Inquisitor (vanilla)3.00
Investigator3.00
Magus (vanilla)3.00
Mesmerist3.00
Occultist3.00
Omdura3.00
Skald (vanilla)3.00
Spiritualist3.00
Warpriest3.00
Medium (archmage or hierophant)3.20
Medium (vanilla)3.40
Rogue (eldritch scoundrel, unchained)3.40
Paladin (sacred servant)3.50
Vigilante (with spellcasting)3.50
Antipaladin (succubus or shadow demon)3.67
Bloodrager3.75
Ranger3.88
Slayer (vanguard)3.88
Adept4.00
Antipaladin (vanilla)4.00
Barbarian (chained)4.00
Barbarian (unchained)4.00
Brawler (some archetypes)4.00
Monk (some archetypes, unchained)4.00
Paladin (vanilla)4.00
Rogue (unchained)4.00
Slayer (vanilla)4.00
Vampire Hunter4.00
Fighter (some archetypes)4.06
Monk (unchained)4.20
Brawler (vanilla)4.25
Ninja4.38
Rogue (eldritch scoundrel, chained)4.38
Kineticist (non-blaster)4.40
Monk (some archetypes, chained)4.50
Shifter4.50
Vigilante (vanilla)4.50
Kineticist (blaster)4.60
Cavalier4.63
Samurai (vanilla)4.63
Fighter (vanilla)4.69
Gunslinger (pistolero or musket master)4.69
Gunslinger (vanilla)4.81
Rogue (chained)4.88
Swashbuckler5.00
Monk (chained)5.25
Aristocrat6.00
Commoner6.00
Expert6.00
Warrior6.00


A few comments. Not everyone broke their rating down in the same way. So I mostly figured anyone who didn't call out a specific archetype (or whatever) didn't feel it changed the tier. The major exception was lists written before the Unchained classes were published. I treated those as having no opinion on the Unchained classes, instead of treating them as viewing the the Unchained versions as having the same tier as the Chained versions.

For the classes right on the cusp of a tier border, the .5 mark exactly, I color-coded them with the lower tier. Partly, this is because it made the tiers a little more evenly-sized. Partly, it's because that's what our big ranking project did in the one case where the average of the votes fell right on the line. And partly, it's because the result better fit with my preconceived notions. … Though I think spellcasting Vigilante archetypes should be tier 3.

For color-coding, I decided to go with the visible spectrum, with high frequency corresponding to high tier. I was taught the rainbow went Roy G. Biv, but I needed 6 colors. So I merged indigo and violet into purple. That's how the 6-color rainbow works, right?

[Rynjin]

Interesting to see Shaman voted lower than other full casters, especially Witch for some reason, since it has the potential to essentially become an "omni-caster". You can get access to just about every spell in the game through various means, on a solid d8 HD chassis and access to most of the same tricks that make Witches strong.

I also think Vigilante is highly underestimated, with or without the casting archetypes. It has access to some very strong features, though I imagine most "reviews" for Vigilante were for its launch state, which was subpar. But they added a few blockbuster talents to the list over time. It's definitely better than a Ninja, for example.

(Fighter results are also going to be skewed because pre- and post-Advanced Weapon/Armor Trainings Fighter is night and day).

[Akal Saris]

And What Is the Deal with the Adept?! I mean, way to outshine a dozen PC classes, you jerk! Guess you're too cool to hang out with the Peasants and the Warriors, huh?

Anyhow, thanks for doing this! Always interesting to see what happens when you mix together opinions from several different sources.

[Buufreak]

Can I request a lighter color font on the darker colors? My color blindness literally can't see black text on blue/purple/green that you have currently.

[Maat Mons]

Yeah, I almost felt personally offended when I saw some lists ranking Shaman in Tier 2. I felt a little better when some of the discussion in those threads opined that Witch should also be in Tier 2. I mean, I don’t think Witch belongs in Tier 2 either, but at least dear, sweet, innocent Shaman wasn’t completely alone in his undeserved ostracism.

I think Adept outranked several PC classes on the 3.5 Tier list too.

Like this?


Arcanist1.00
Cleric1.00
Druid1.00
Witch1.00
Wizard1.00
Shaman1.25
Oracle (spell access tricks)1.50
Sorcerer (spell access tricks)1.50
Psychic (spell access tricks)1.60
Psychic (no spell access tricks)1.80
Summoner (master summoner, chained)1.94
Oracle (no spell access tricks)2.00
Sorcerer (no spell access tricks)2.00
Summoner (chained)2.06
Summoner (unchained)2.60
Summoner (master summoner, unchained)2.60
Bard (music beyond the spheres)2.75
Skald (music beyond the spheres)2.75
Bard (magician)2.88
Inquisitor (monster tactician)2.88
Magus (hexcrafter)2.88
Skald (expanded spell kenning)2.88
Alchemist3.00
Bard (vanilla)3.00
Hunter (vanilla)3.00
Inquisitor (vanilla)3.00
Investigator3.00
Magus (vanilla)3.00
Mesmerist3.00
Occultist3.00
Omdura3.00
Skald (vanilla)3.00
Spiritualist3.00
Warpriest3.00
Medium (archmage or hierophant)3.20
Medium (vanilla)3.40
Rogue (eldritch scoundrel, unchained)3.40
Paladin (sacred servant)3.50
Vigilante (with spellcasting)3.50
Antipaladin (succubus or shadow demon)3.67
Bloodrager3.75
Ranger3.88
Slayer (vanguard)3.88
Adept4.00
Antipaladin (vanilla)4.00
Barbarian (chained)4.00
Barbarian (unchained)4.00
Brawler (some archetypes)4.00
Monk (some archetypes, unchained)4.00
Paladin (vanilla)4.00
Rogue (unchained)4.00
Slayer (vanilla)4.00
Vampire Hunter4.00
Fighter (some archetypes)4.06
Monk (unchained)4.20
Brawler (vanilla)4.25
Ninja4.38
Rogue (eldritch scoundrel, chained)4.38
Kineticist (non-blaster)4.40
Monk (some archetypes, chained)4.50
Shifter4.50
Vigilante (vanilla)4.50
Kineticist (blaster)4.60
Cavalier4.63
Samurai (vanilla)4.63
Fighter (vanilla)4.69
Gunslinger (pistolero or musket master)4.69
Gunslinger (vanilla)4.81
Rogue (chained)4.88
Swashbuckler5.00
Monk (chained)5.25
Aristocrat6.00
Commoner6.00
Expert6.00
Warrior6.00


Hmm, that looks pretty g- ow, my eyes! The yellow, it hurts!

Would it look silly to have the yellow use a different font color?


Arcanist1.00
Cleric1.00
Druid1.00
Witch1.00
Wizard1.00
Shaman1.25
Oracle (spell access tricks)1.50
Sorcerer (spell access tricks)1.50
Psychic (spell access tricks)1.60
Psychic (no spell access tricks)1.80
Summoner (master summoner, chained)1.94
Oracle (no spell access tricks)2.00
Sorcerer (no spell access tricks)2.00
Summoner (chained)2.06
Summoner (unchained)2.60
Summoner (master summoner, unchained)2.60
Bard (music beyond the spheres)2.75
Skald (music beyond the spheres)2.75
Bard (magician)2.88
Inquisitor (monster tactician)2.88
Magus (hexcrafter)2.88
Skald (expanded spell kenning)2.88
Alchemist3.00
Bard (vanilla)3.00
Hunter (vanilla)3.00
Inquisitor (vanilla)3.00
Investigator3.00
Magus (vanilla)3.00
Mesmerist3.00
Occultist3.00
Omdura3.00
Skald (vanilla)3.00
Spiritualist3.00
Warpriest3.00
Medium (archmage or hierophant)3.20
Medium (vanilla)3.40
Rogue (eldritch scoundrel, unchained)3.40
Paladin (sacred servant)3.50
Vigilante (with spellcasting)3.50
Antipaladin (succubus or shadow demon)3.67
Bloodrager3.75
Ranger3.88
Slayer (vanguard)3.88
Adept4.00
Antipaladin (vanilla)4.00
Barbarian (chained)4.00
Barbarian (unchained)4.00
Brawler (some archetypes)4.00
Monk (some archetypes, unchained)4.00
Paladin (vanilla)4.00
Rogue (unchained)4.00
Slayer (vanilla)4.00
Vampire Hunter4.00
Fighter (some archetypes)4.06
Monk (unchained)4.20
Brawler (vanilla)4.25
Ninja4.38
Rogue (eldritch scoundrel, chained)4.38
Kineticist (non-blaster)4.40
Monk (some archetypes, chained)4.50
Shifter4.50
Vigilante (vanilla)4.50
Kineticist (blaster)4.60
Cavalier4.63
Samurai (vanilla)4.63
Fighter (vanilla)4.69
Gunslinger (pistolero or musket master)4.69
Gunslinger (vanilla)4.81
Rogue (chained)4.88
Swashbuckler5.00
Monk (chained)5.25
Aristocrat6.00
Commoner6.00
Expert6.00
Warrior6.00


Or do a top-/bottom-half thing?


Arcanist1.00
Cleric1.00
Druid1.00
Witch1.00
Wizard1.00
Shaman1.25
Oracle (spell access tricks)1.50
Sorcerer (spell access tricks)1.50
Psychic (spell access tricks)1.60
Psychic (no spell access tricks)1.80
Summoner (master summoner, chained)1.94
Oracle (no spell access tricks)2.00
Sorcerer (no spell access tricks)2.00
Summoner (chained)2.06
Summoner (unchained)2.60
Summoner (master summoner, unchained)2.60
Bard (music beyond the spheres)2.75
Skald (music beyond the spheres)2.75
Bard (magician)2.88
Inquisitor (monster tactician)2.88
Magus (hexcrafter)2.88
Skald (expanded spell kenning)2.88
Alchemist3.00
Bard (vanilla)3.00
Hunter (vanilla)3.00
Inquisitor (vanilla)3.00
Investigator3.00
Magus (vanilla)3.00
Mesmerist3.00
Occultist3.00
Omdura3.00
Skald (vanilla)3.00
Spiritualist3.00
Warpriest3.00
Medium (archmage or hierophant)3.20
Medium (vanilla)3.40
Rogue (eldritch scoundrel, unchained)3.40
Paladin (sacred servant)3.50
Vigilante (with spellcasting)3.50
Antipaladin (succubus or shadow demon)3.67
Bloodrager3.75
Ranger3.88
Slayer (vanguard)3.88
Adept4.00
Antipaladin (vanilla)4.00
Barbarian (chained)4.00
Barbarian (unchained)4.00
Brawler (some archetypes)4.00
Monk (some archetypes, unchained)4.00
Paladin (vanilla)4.00
Rogue (unchained)4.00
Slayer (vanilla)4.00
Vampire Hunter4.00
Fighter (some archetypes)4.06
Monk (unchained)4.20
Brawler (vanilla)4.25
Ninja4.38
Rogue (eldritch scoundrel, chained)4.38
Kineticist (non-blaster)4.40
Monk (some archetypes, chained)4.50
Shifter4.50
Vigilante (vanilla)4.50
Kineticist (blaster)4.60
Cavalier4.63
Samurai (vanilla)4.63
Fighter (vanilla)4.69
Gunslinger (pistolero or musket master)4.69
Gunslinger (vanilla)4.81
Rogue (chained)4.88
Swashbuckler5.00
Monk (chained)5.25
Aristocrat6.00
Commoner6.00
Expert6.00
Warrior6.00


Alternately, are these colors any better?



Arcanist1.00
Cleric1.00
Druid1.00
Witch1.00
Wizard1.00
Shaman1.25
Oracle (spell access tricks)1.50
Sorcerer (spell access tricks)1.50
Psychic (spell access tricks)1.60
Psychic (no spell access tricks)1.80
Summoner (master summoner, chained)1.94
Oracle (no spell access tricks)2.00
Sorcerer (no spell access tricks)2.00
Summoner (chained)2.06
Summoner (unchained)2.60
Summoner (master summoner, unchained)2.60
Bard (music beyond the spheres)2.75
Skald (music beyond the spheres)2.75
Bard (magician)2.88
Inquisitor (monster tactician)2.88
Magus (hexcrafter)2.88
Skald (expanded spell kenning)2.88
Alchemist3.00
Bard (vanilla)3.00
Hunter (vanilla)3.00
Inquisitor (vanilla)3.00
Investigator3.00
Magus (vanilla)3.00
Mesmerist3.00
Occultist3.00
Omdura3.00
Skald (vanilla)3.00
Spiritualist3.00
Warpriest3.00
Medium (archmage or hierophant)3.20
Medium (vanilla)3.40
Rogue (eldritch scoundrel, unchained)3.40
Paladin (sacred servant)3.50
Vigilante (with spellcasting)3.50
Antipaladin (succubus or shadow demon)3.67
Bloodrager3.75
Ranger3.88
Slayer (vanguard)3.88
Adept4.00
Antipaladin (vanilla)4.00
Barbarian (chained)4.00
Barbarian (unchained)4.00
Brawler (some archetypes)4.00
Monk (some archetypes, unchained)4.00
Paladin (vanilla)4.00
Rogue (unchained)4.00
Slayer (vanilla)4.00
Vampire Hunter4.00
Fighter (some archetypes)4.06
Monk (unchained)4.20
Brawler (vanilla)4.25
Ninja4.38
Rogue (eldritch scoundrel, chained)4.38
Kineticist (non-blaster)4.40
Monk (some archetypes, chained)4.50
Shifter4.50
Vigilante (vanilla)4.50
Kineticist (blaster)4.60
Cavalier4.63
Samurai (vanilla)4.63
Fighter (vanilla)4.69
Gunslinger (pistolero or musket master)4.69
Gunslinger (vanilla)4.81
Rogue (chained)4.88
Swashbuckler5.00
Monk (chained)5.25
Aristocrat6.00
Commoner6.00
Expert6.00
Warrior6.00

[pabelfly]

Top-bottom half looks best, IMO.

Why not run a vote thing for Pathfinder, out of interest? I'm guessing it's because of the huge workload involved, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

[Biggus]

Thank you for doing this. I don't know PF well enough to contribute, but I've bookmarked it for future use.

I think one of the last two color versions looks best.

[Buufreak]

Top bottom half and half looks best. Thank you.

[Biggus]

Why not run a vote thing for Pathfinder, out of interest? I'm guessing it's because of the huge workload involved, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

Looking at the list, I count 75 classes, of which 21 are within 0.2 points of a tier border. Maybe just have people vote on those to reduce the workload, since the others aren't likely to change tier anyway? Even if you include a handful of other classes if a lot of people think they've been seriously under/overestimated, it would still reduce it by about two-thirds.

Edit: I'd be willing to do this if nobody else wants to.

[Wildstag]

I think any Pathfinder tier system worth its salt should do vanilla classes only, minus archetypes. Archetype tiering should be treated the way the old PrC tiers worked: judge them based on how much they improve or degrade the class. Besides, all of the archetypes just clutter the chart.

Thanks for your hard work though. It's much appreciated.

[Rynjin]

I think any Pathfinder tier system worth its salt should do vanilla classes only, minus archetypes. Archetype tiering should be treated the way the old PrC tiers worked: judge them based on how much they improve or degrade the class. Besides, all of the archetypes just clutter the chart.

Thanks for your hard work though. It's much appreciated.

Agreed, FWIW. Though it does get a bit awkward in that some classes have SEVERAL archetypes that are basically upgrades to the base class in different ways.

[Kurald Galain]

It's good that you're starting this! I'm sure if you search for Pathfinder Tiers in this forum, you'll get several more people's rates on them, including mine. I've definitely commented on such threads in the past.

And yeah, I'd say you're listing too many archetypes, because most archetypes just aren't a big power boost. I suggest that if an archetype is within 0.5 of the base class, then to not list it separately because the difference is not statistically significant.

And, things like music beyond the spheres and expanded spell kenning are simply feats (or feat-equivalent) that every bard (resp skald) can take; so I don't think it helps to list these separately, unless you intend to make a listing for "Fighter (Power Attack)" and "Fighter (no Power Attack)". Yes they're good feats, but they're not distinct builds or anything. Basically, a shorter list is a clearer list.

[Gnaeus]

Interesting to see Shaman voted lower than other full casters, especially Witch for some reason, since it has the potential to essentially become an "omni-caster". You can get access to just about every spell in the game through various means, on a solid d8 HD chassis and access to most of the same tricks that make Witches strong.


I'm of very mixed opinions about this. I mean you are absolutely correct that a generic shaman can do that. But a specific shaman can't necessarily. To get wizard spells you need lore spirit or unsworn, and then you are getting only a few spells from wizard (depending on how you read the interaction between unsworn and lore). You can take some races and get specific cleric spells on a time delay. Which is only actually a good thing because the Shaman list itself is pretty bad compared to any other T1. (Also, they don't get most of the tricks that make Witches strong. They can't access major hexes or split hex).

[Kurald Galain]

Interesting to see Shaman voted lower than other full casters, especially Witch for some reason, since it has the potential to essentially become an "omni-caster".
Shaman is one of several "schrödinger" builds, that in theory can access pretty much any spell, but in practice doesn't actually do that.

Essentially, you need a minimum int to pick a number of wizard spells based on your cha, but on a wis casting class. By a charitable interpretation, you pick different spells each day; by another interpretation, you switch only one spell each level. That is not such a great combo overall, and I do believe shaman belongs in tier 2 (due to overall poor spell list, and weaker hex list than the witch).

[Gnaeus]

Shaman is one of several "schrödinger" builds, that in theory can access pretty much any spell, but in practice doesn't actually do that.

Essentially, you need a minimum int to pick a number of wizard spells based on your cha, but on a wis casting class. By a charitable interpretation, you pick different spells each day; by another interpretation, you switch only one spell each level. That is not such a great combo overall, and I do believe shaman belongs in tier 2 (due to overall poor spell list, and weaker hex list than the witch).

Indeed, and even if you can pick different spell each day, it is one specific spirit/archetype (which itself is not super impressive aside from the one hex that lets you steal wizard spells). I mean at BEST that seems like "Monk is T5, but qinggong or hungry ghost are higher tier". Or as you pointed out upthread, if spirit shaman is T1.4, and those specific things bump it up by less than 1/2 tier, that is not statistically significant.

[Buufreak]

I do find it odd that master summoner is a step above standard, when wherever I have seen games popping up they call out sythesist as the "broken" archetype.

[Biggus]

I think any Pathfinder tier system worth its salt should do vanilla classes only, minus archetypes. Archetype tiering should be treated the way the old PrC tiers worked: judge them based on how much they improve or degrade the class. Besides, all of the archetypes just clutter the chart.


To be fair, the above PF tier list is exactly the same length as the 3.5 base class tier list (75 on each, if I've counted right).

[Gnaeus]

I do find it odd that master summoner is a step above standard, when wherever I have seen games popping up they call out sythesist as the "broken" archetype.

It kind of depends on what you think broken means. Master summoner is stronger. I would rather have a master summoner in my party. Synthesist (especially chained) is a better muggle than the muggles while also rocking half casting, and has good numbers. I would rather play a synthesist in like a convention survival challenge where being teleported into hostile environments is common. It's really hard to gank the wizard when he is wearing a monster suit. Either one makes fighter or monk look bad, but synthesist is more specifically playing in their pool.

[Wildstag]

To be fair, the above PF tier list is exactly the same length as the 3.5 base class tier list (75 on each, if I've counted right).

This is kinda covered in Kurald's comment, but a lot of the PF tier list presented here isn't even archetypes, it's feats as well. So even if there are fewer base classes in one than the other, my issue is that the tier list should look purely at the core class less modifications. Player choice will always make or break a class's tier.

For example, the legendary Manyshot Wizard is probably functioning at a Tier 1, but it's also just weak compared to other wizards. The Returning Throwing Scimitar Druid might still technically be a tier 1, but is almost certainly weaker due to their wonky play style.

As for the 3.5 tier list, the standard I've seen only has a few alternates (spell to power, online vestige, imperious command, zhentarim fighter). This one has far more, and that clutters things and kinda defeats the purpose IMO.

[Maat Mons]

I really don’t feel I’d be up to running Pathfinder Tier-Voting Thing™. Not just because it would be a lot of work. But also because the decisions of how to structure things seem like they’d require careful consideration. I came to Pathfinder late, and have only played in a handful of campaigns. I think someone with a deeper understanding of the system, built from a large pool of experience, should be at the helm.

I too thought some of the distinctions being drawn on some of the lists were too fine-grained. But I was striving to preserve the intent behind the lists I used as the basis. In terms of classes that don’t need voting, I noticed that Adept, Alchemist, Arcanist, Aristocrat, Barbarian, Cleric, Commoner, Druid, Expert, Hunter, Investigator, Mesmerist, Occultist, Shifter, Spiritualist, Swashbuckler, Warpriest, Warrior, Witch, and Wizard all got very consistent ratings across all the Tier lists I looked at. So I have a feeling those won’t prove contentious. Antipaladin, Bard, Bloodrager, Brawler, Cavalier, Fighter, Gunslinger, Inquisitor, Kineticist, Magus, Medium, Monk, Ninja, Oracle, Paladin, Psychic, Ranger, Rogue, Samurai, Shaman, Skald, Slayer, Sorcerer, Summoner, and Vigilante all showed disagreement. Oddly, only one list ranked Omdura and Vigilante.

I feel a bit conflicted on whether a Pathfinder Tier-Voting Thing™ should list archetypes separately. I’d be really curious to see how people vote on Razmiran Priest, Sacred Servant, Martial Master, Mutation Warrior, Eldritch Scoundrel, and Halcyon Druid. And I’m 99% sure the two Vigilante spellcasting archetypes bump it to Tier 3. But too many archetypes does cause clutter. And I’m a little hesitant to have a whole extra Tier rating for a Sorcerer/Oracle who selected Paragon Surge as a spell known, or an Antipaladin who selected a Succubus/Shadow Demon as their Fiendish Servant.

I did find more Tier lists on these forums, but these were the newest ones I found. I was a little worried that older list might not account for whatever changes have taken place over the years that I don’t necessarily know about.

The things people say about Shamans (Shamen?) hurt because they’re true.

Anyway, thanks for all the interest everyone!

[Rynjin]

I do find it odd that master summoner is a step above standard, when wherever I have seen games popping up they call out sythesist as the "broken" archetype.

People who call Synthesist broken frankly either don't know what they're talking about or have a very specific definition of "broken" that doesn't gel with the normal one.

Synthesist is straight up WEAKER than a baseline Summoner. This is as close to an objective truth that you can get. Going from playing two full powered characters to one full powered character with action economy issues is a downgrade.


Shaman is one of several "schrödinger" builds, that in theory can access pretty much any spell, but in practice doesn't actually do that.

Essentially, you need a minimum int to pick a number of wizard spells based on your cha, but on a wis casting class. By a charitable interpretation, you pick different spells each day; by another interpretation, you switch only one spell each level. That is not such a great combo overall, and I do believe shaman belongs in tier 2 (due to overall poor spell list, and weaker hex list than the witch).

Honestly, I've never seen the stricter interpretation here, and hadn't even thought of it as a possibility. Because of how Wandering Hex works, you completely lose access to the Hex and then gain it again later. It's like casting Paragon Surge on a different day. You get to make the choices again.

Given that most Wandering Spirit options kinda suck anyway (because a lot of Spirit abilities and Hexes are only good on curve, if that), I don't see why you wouldn't choose to get a few Wizard spells changed out every day as the default.

[Seto]

I've read forums and tier lists more than I've played 3.5. By contrast, I have way more experience playing Pathfinder than reading build analysis about it.

Thanks for compiling this. The first lesson I'm taking from it - I think the list shows that very clearly - is that theorycraft doesn't mean much in the context of "average", intended gameplay. A mid-op Gunslinger or Fighter can easily be the MVP in most standard Paizo APs ; of course, a well-built Wizard will outshine them by a lot, but it would just be overkill, and probably not worth slogging through the early hardships of being a low-level Wizard. That's kind of reassuring, in a way. Picking the class you want to play, regardless of tier ranking, is gonna be viable in any standard adventure if you know what you're doing. In practice, unless your GM is custom-building extremely challenging adventures, the playing field is much more equal than the Tier list would make it seem, and any choice can be good.

I know that's not the point of the tier list, but I just wanted to share that reflexion. Reading a tier list from Pathfinder made me realize it more clearly, whereas 3.5 tier lists, due to my lesser experience, tended to make me think that picking a low-tier class would be hamstringing myself.

[Rynjin]

I've read forums and tier lists more than I've played 3.5. By contrast, I have way more experience playing Pathfinder than reading build analysis about it.

Thanks for compiling this. The first lesson I'm taking from it - I think the list shows that very clearly - is that theorycraft doesn't mean much in the context of "average", intended gameplay. A mid-op Gunslinger or Fighter can easily be the MVP in most standard Paizo APs ; of course, a well-built Wizard will outshine them by a lot, but it would just be overkill, and probably not worth slogging through the early hardships of being a low-level Wizard. That's kind of reassuring, in a way. Picking the class you want to play, regardless of tier ranking, is gonna be viable in any standard adventure if you know what you're doing. In practice, unless your GM is custom-building extremely challenging adventures, the playing field is much more equal than the Tier list would make it seem, and any choice can be good.

I know that's not the point of the tier list, but I just wanted to share that reflexion. Reading a tier list from Pathfinder made me realize it more clearly, whereas 3.5 tier lists, due to my lesser experience, tended to make me think that picking a low-tier class would be hamstringing myself.

It's always good to remember the purpose of a tier list, at least as it's conceived in cooperative games. A higher tier essentially denotes more FLEXIBILITY and how much the class brings to the table.

A Fighter or Gunslinger brings exactly one thing: killing power. This is self-evidently useful in a combat-based game.

A Wizard, by contrast, brings an almost unlimited number of things. Combat, yes (though less effective at dealing damage than the above classes, they are competent in a different regard) but also transport, general problem solving, and overall just about everything else you can think of.

That is essentially what the tiers mean.

Tier 1: Can do anything and everything, with the only reasonable limit being time.
Tier 2: Can do ANYTHING, but can't do everything; have to be purpose-built but are still decently flexible.
Tier 3: Can do many things well, and usually one thing exceptionally.
Tier 4: Can do one thing really well.
Tier 5: Can't do anything well.
Tier 6: Is not even a real class; purposefully bad; NPC classes.

If what you want, as a player, is to do one thing really well thenTier 4 classes are just fine. Much more fine in Pathfinder than in 3.5 for that matter. But it does give you a general idea of what you're getting into. If you play a Fighter, you're going to be saying "I full attack" a whole hell of a lot, and you had better make peace with that. If you don't find that appealing, an Inquisitor for example may be more up your alley, as Tier 3 classes can wear many hats.

[Seto]

That's true, of course. Personally, I find that 3/4 BAB 6th level casters like Magus and Inquisitor strike the right balance for how I like to play. But I'd argue that even a tier 5 class, which is supposed to "not do anything well"... mostly still does well enough to meet the Adventure Path standards. The judgment that "it doesn't do anything well" says more about how it compares to the other classes than about its ability to rise to the challenges the game offers.
Again, that's a good thing in my opinion.

[Rynjin]

That's true, of course. Personally, I find that 3/4 BAB 6th level casters like Magus and Inquisitor strike the right balance for how I like to play. But I'd argue that even a tier 5 class, which is supposed to "not do anything well"... mostly still does well enough to meet the Adventure Path standards. The judgment that "it doesn't do anything well" says more about how it compares to the other classes than about its ability to rise to the challenges the game offers.
Again, that's a good thing in my opinion.

Core Monk and Rogue, for example, absolutely do struggle in Adventure Paths in my experience.

[Thunder999]

I do find it odd that master summoner is a step above standard, when wherever I have seen games popping up they call out sythesist as the "broken" archetype.

Master summoner is the undisputed master of Summon Monster spells, progression as fast as any full caster, more uses per day than those casters get (as in they have less max level slots than the master summoner does summon monster SLAs), standard action cast time and 1 minute/level duration.

It's definitely enough to elevate a solid tier 3 6/9 caster to tier 2 thanks to both combat effectiveness and the huge amount of utility summons bring.

Synthesist is honestly a downgrade, worse action economy. It's just very easy to make one into an effective martial, but being really good at killing things with melee attacks has never been enough to get higher than tier 4. (not saying it's tier 4, still got 6/9 casting after all, but the 'op' part is literally just being a beatstick)

[spectralphoenix]

Seems to work out pretty close to
1. Prep Casters
2. Spontaneous Casters
3. Partial Casters
4. Skill Monkeys/4 level casters
5. Pure Martials
6. NPCs

I think the only real exceptions there are chained rogues, barbarians, and adepts.

[Gnaeus]

Honestly, I've never seen the stricter interpretation here, and hadn't even thought of it as a possibility. Because of how Wandering Hex works, you completely lose access to the Hex and then gain it again later. It's like casting Paragon Surge on a different day. You get to make the choices again.

Given that most Wandering Spirit options kinda suck anyway (because a lot of Spirit abilities and Hexes are only good on curve, if that), I don't see why you wouldn't choose to get a few Wizard spells changed out every day as the default.

"Each time the shaman gains a level after taking this hex, she can choose to replace one of these spells for a new spell on the wizard/sorcerer spell list."

Nowhere, anywhere, does paragon surge suggest that you only get to make that choice once per level. I think the plain reading is you pick when you select the hex, and those are the spells you get whenever you select the hex. The other reading suggests that shamans who actually take the Lore spirit to get the lore spirit hexes are vastly worse than shamans who use wandering spirit to do the same thing. I think RAW, RAI and Rules as they should be all agree here that you can only change your wizard spells once per level. My reading, and more importantly for me my DMs, is that if I pick haste and slow I get haste and slow every time I take that hex until I level up, because you can only repick your choices on level up.

Curiously, the balance argument is used by both sides. The side advocating the strict reading point out the issue with lore shamans being worse at lore hexes and that it is as you suggest a broken choice (as in, the only worthwhile wandering spirit choice) under the loser interpretation. The side advocating your reading basically argue that the shaman list is so bad that it was clearly intended to give them open wizard casting to make them better, which I think gives the paizo devs altogether too much credit.

[Jack_Simth]

Master summoner is the undisputed master of Summon Monster spells, progression as fast as any full caster, more uses per day than those casters get (as in they have less max level slots than the master summoner does summon monster SLAs), standard action cast time and 1 minute/level duration.

It's definitely enough to elevate a solid tier 3 6/9 caster to tier 2 thanks to both combat effectiveness and the huge amount of utility summons bring.

Synthesist is honestly a downgrade, worse action economy. It's just very easy to make one into an effective martial, but being really good at killing things with melee attacks has never been enough to get higher than tier 4. (not saying it's tier 4, still got 6/9 casting after all, but the 'op' part is literally just being a beatstick)
non-Unchained Summoner gets an unusually large number of discounted spells (8ths or 9ths on the sor/wiz list at 5th or 6th). It's a very high tier 3, or a very low tier 2, as a result of the discounts.

Synthesist has an easy trick that's not inherently obvious: Lesser Evolution Surge (or better) grants points, which you can spend on a bonus feat, without the FAQ'd in limit that Paragon Surge has of the 1/day selection. There's a feat for more spells known. This lets a Synthesist nab the best spell for the situation off the class list many times per day.
Additionally, the Synthesist gains all the evolutions, which can include Abity Increase (Charisma), meaning spell DCs keep pace, too.

[Rynjin]

"Each time the shaman gains a level after taking this hex, she can choose to replace one of these spells for a new spell on the wizard/sorcerer spell list."

Nowhere, anywhere, does paragon surge suggest that you only get to make that choice once per level. I think the plain reading is you pick when you select the hex, and those are the spells you get whenever you select the hex. The other reading suggests that shamans who actually take the Lore spirit to get the lore spirit hexes are vastly worse than shamans who use wandering spirit to do the same thing. I think RAW, RAI and Rules as they should be all agree here that you can only change your wizard spells once per level. My reading, and more importantly for me my DMs, is that if I pick haste and slow I get haste and slow every time I take that hex until I level up, because you can only repick your choices on level up.

Curiously, the balance argument is used by both sides. The side advocating the strict reading point out the issue with lore shamans being worse at lore hexes and that it is as you suggest a broken choice (as in, the only worthwhile wandering spirit choice) under the loser interpretation. The side advocating your reading basically argue that the shaman list is so bad that it was clearly intended to give them open wizard casting to make them better, which I think gives the paizo devs altogether too much credit.

It seems like a reasonable read, for sure. I just have genuinely never seen that argument before. When Shaman first came out people seemed to just kind of accept the Wandering Lore thing as canon and intended and then never really talked about it again. It doesn't really seem out of whack with what other full casters can do (*cough*Spell Sage Wizard*cough*), ultimately, so I never really batted an eye at it.

[Cortillaen]

Shaman is one of several "schrödinger" builds, that in theory can access pretty much any spell, but in practice doesn't actually do that.

Essentially, you need a minimum int to pick a number of wizard spells based on your cha, but on a wis casting class. By a charitable interpretation, you pick different spells each day; by another interpretation, you switch only one spell each level. That is not such a great combo overall, and I do believe shaman belongs in tier 2 (due to overall poor spell list, and weaker hex list than the witch).
This is exactly my perception from recently trying to make a Shaman. Even assuming the Lore hex (and it says something that "that Lore hex" is always understood) allows reselection each time you gain the hex via Wandering or the two temporary hex feats, the ability score requirements are so bad even Paladins are cringing.

Another big factor that isn't readily apparent is how bad their spell list is, as you noted. It's a mashup of Cleric, Witch, and Druid, but it's much smaller than any of those and lacks both many of their better spells and any good unique spells of its own. If you are the party support / divine caster, you also end up almost forced to depend on the handful of racial FCBs that let you add spells off the Cleric or Druid lists in order to patch holes. The complete absence of all Communal spells (even when the base spell is on Shaman's list) is particularly bizarre.

Significantly weaker Hex options at later levels is a given, but one more thing I found really frustrating is how little most of the Spirit options (spells, hexes, and abilities) seem to matter. Many of the spell lists have only a couple good spells, and not being able to spontaneously convert like Clerics can often leaves you stuck with useless slots the Cleric could at least burn off as heals. Spirit abilities mostly strike me as middling rather than focus-defining, and most spirit hexes are outclassed by the generic options with only a few standouts.

Overall, I get the impression Paizo was worried the ability to change a hex and secondary spirit each day would make the class too powerful, so they nerfed everything to compensate. And way overshot the target in the process. Why anyone is worried about versatility when Wizards and Clerics exist is beyond me to begin with.


Curiously, the balance argument is used by both sides. The side advocating the strict reading point out the issue with lore shamans being worse at lore hexes and that it is as you suggest a broken choice (as in, the only worthwhile wandering spirit choice) under the loser interpretation. The side advocating your reading basically argue that the shaman list is so bad that it was clearly intended to give them open wizard casting to make them better, which I think gives the paizo devs altogether too much credit.
While I think the strict reading is the intended one, it's telling that "Shamans need the loose reading to offset their poor spell list" is even a viable argument. And the FCBs suggest Paizo was aware of how weak the Shaman list is. It's just kind of disappointing how the class works out since I really like the flavor of it.

[Kurald Galain]

I really don’t feel I’d be up to running Pathfinder Tier-Voting Thing™.Surely you don't have to; but also your google sheet uses only a handful of Playgrounders when more have spoken up about tiers. For instance, my views (that you could copy/paste to said sheet) are:

Arcanist, Cleric, Druid, Wizard
Oracle, Psychic, Shaman, Sorceror, Summoner base, Witch
Alchemist, Bard, Hunter, Inquisitor, Investigator, Magus, Mesmerist, Ninja, Occultist, Paladin, Rogue Unchained, Skald, Spiritualist, Summoner Unchained, Warpriest
Barbarian, Bloodrager, Brawler, Fighter, Medium, Monk Unchained, Ranger, Rogue base, Shifter
Cavalier, Gunslinger, Kineticist, Monk base, Samurai, Slayer, Swashbuckler



I feel a bit conflicted on whether a Pathfinder Tier-Voting Thing™ should list archetypes separately.To save yourself a lot of work, establish tiers for base classes first. Then after that, consider if the literally hundreds of archetypes are worth a separate discussion (because most of them aren't; and also, some archetypes are arguably lower tier than the base class).


Seems to work out pretty close to
Yes, but it's more like 4 = pure martials, and 5 = a small amount of unfixed mistakes.

[Thunder999]

Why do you put Slayer in tier 5? I've always got the impression it's a perfectly competent martial and adequate enough skill monkey.

[Gnaeus]

Why do you put Slayer in tier 5? I've always got the impression it's a perfectly competent martial and adequate enough skill monkey.

It usually gets referred to in top 4 or bottom 3. Along with Unchained Rogue and Brawler as one of the best PF muggles.

[Kurald Galain]

Why do you put Slayer in tier 5? I've always got the impression it's a perfectly competent martial and adequate enough skill monkey.
It's one of those cases where theory doesn't match practice: literally every slayer I've seen in gameplay deals decent but unimpressive amounts of damage and does nothing else. The slayer doesn't have a large amount of skill points because it likely dumps intelligence; doesn't have traditional "skill monkey" skills like diplomacy, disable device, or UMD; and brings no unique abilities to the table.

Or to put it differently, if you want to build a competent martial and adequate skill monkey, there's no particular reason to take the slayer class for that.

[Gnaeus]

It's one of those cases where theory doesn't match practice: literally every slayer I've seen in gameplay deals decent but unimpressive amounts of damage and does nothing else. The slayer doesn't have a large amount of skill points because it likely dumps intelligence; doesn't have traditional "skill monkey" skills like diplomacy, disable device, or UMD; and brings no unique abilities to the table.

Or to put it differently, if you want to build a competent martial and adequate skill monkey, there's no particular reason to take the slayer class for that.

That seems a bit harsh. Trapfinding is easily available at level 2 as one of your 10 slayer talents and comes with Disable. UMD or Diplomacy is a trait away? It can take int as easily as anyone else, it doesn't have any particular stat requirements a rogue doesn't have. Arguably less since it has better BAB, hp, and saves. I would call it more combat capable than Brawler and vastly more out of combat capable.

[Endless Rain]

It's one of those cases where theory doesn't match practice: literally every slayer I've seen in gameplay deals decent but unimpressive amounts of damage and does nothing else. The slayer doesn't have a large amount of skill points because it likely dumps intelligence; doesn't have traditional "skill monkey" skills like diplomacy, disable device, or UMD; and brings no unique abilities to the table.

Or to put it differently, if you want to build a competent martial and adequate skill monkey, there's no particular reason to take the slayer class for that.

This seems more like a problem with your players' builds than a problem with the class. Most classes can be optimized poorly and the Tier system assumes some degree of Practical Optimization to establish a baseline.

[Rynjin]

It's one of those cases where theory doesn't match practice: literally every slayer I've seen in gameplay deals decent but unimpressive amounts of damage and does nothing else. The slayer doesn't have a large amount of skill points because it likely dumps intelligence; doesn't have traditional "skill monkey" skills like diplomacy, disable device, or UMD; and brings no unique abilities to the table.

Or to put it differently, if you want to build a competent martial and adequate skill monkey, there's no particular reason to take the slayer class for that.

Not sure why you're dumping Int instead of Cha on Slayer but...okay.

But it's true that Slayer is one of those classes that is only good up until like...level 8 anyway.

If you want a skill monkey, Investigator comes online at level 4, and only scales up from there.

[Kurald Galain]

Trapfinding is easily available at level 2 as one of your 10 slayer talents and comes with Disable. UMD or Diplomacy is a trait away?
That's precisely it. A player who wants trapfinding/diplo/UMD could take a slayer and spend resources to get those skills, but why would he considering slayer doesn't bring anything unique to the table? After all, there's classes who get all of this natively, such as rogue or investigator.

The theoretical question is "if I play a slayer, what can it do", but the practical question is "if I want ability X, which class does it well?" (and the answer to that one is probably not 'slayer').

Case in point,

If you want a skill monkey, Investigator comes online at level 4, and only scales up from there.

[Gnaeus]

That's precisely it. A player who wants trapfinding/diplo/UMD could take a slayer and spend resources to get those skills, but why would he considering slayer doesn't bring anything unique to the table? After all, there's classes who get all of this natively, such as rogue or investigator.

The theoretical question is "if I play a slayer, what can it do", but the practical question is "if I want ability X, which class does it well?" (and the answer to that one is probably not 'slayer').

Case in point,
How is using one of the class talents not something a class brings to the table? Investigators don't get slayer talents. And spending a trait for a skill is not a big deal. certainly not a reason for a class choice. I've never seen anyone's game at an optimization level like "Steve wasted one of his traits, maybe his character shouldn't get a full cut of the loot"

I want a sneaky fighter type assassin. Slayer absolutely best in game. Ranger doesn't get sneak.investigator or rogue don't get good bab or hp or fort save or martial weapons. If you want to murder someone with a greatsword or longbow, maybe both on same day, slayer ftw. I mean Brawler is listed at T4, and on any given combat they are probably spending their 2 first flexible feats just breaking even with martial weapons proficiency and studied target, which slayer gets all day at level 1.

[Rynjin]

I will say this, I wouldn't be too disappointed in a specific class being listed as tier 5 in Pathfinder. Those Tier 5 classes are nowhere NEAR as miserable to play as 3.5's Tier 5 was.

Slayer is perfectly fine as a class, and before the Weapon/Armor Master's Handbook(s) came out was a superior Fighter. Kineticist likewise is more fun to play and generally useful than you might expect from the designation (which I do agree with).

The general power floor of Pathfinder is leagues above the power floor of 3.5, so even the worst classes are pretty good actually.

Except Core Rogue. Holy ****, what an unsalvageable experience. I'm not sure why it's listed in T4 instead of a hypothetical T6. It does absolutely nothing that another available class doesn't do better and more of. It was miserable in Core and only go more miserable from there until Paizo literally just released a class that says "Rogue, but better, please replace Rogue with this" on it.




I want a sneaky fighter type assassin. Slayer absolutely best in game. Ranger doesn't get sneak.

Errr...yes, they do.

[Gnaeus]

Show me where ranger gets sneak attack. Cite please

[Rynjin]

You didn't say Sneak Attack, just Sneak. I assumed you meant Stealth.

That said, behold! (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo-ranger-archetypes/poison-darter-ranger/)

[Jack_Simth]

Show me where ranger gets sneak attack. Cite please

You said "sneak" not "sneak attack". I (and apparently Rynjin) read that as "stealth" until this latest clarification post of yours. Rangers get the Stealth skill, and support for it (Favored Terrain bonuses, Camouflage, Hide in Plain Sight).

[Gnaeus]

Your apology for misreading is accepted. Rangers still do not get sneak. (And slayers get their own bonuses to stealth).



That said, behold! (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo-ranger-archetypes/poison-darter-ranger/)

Does that say with a blowgun?

[Rynjin]

Does that say with a blowgun?

Yes indeed! The most noble and practical of all weaponry!

And full progession, too. Can't beat that value.

[Kurald Galain]

I want a sneaky fighter type assassin. Slayer absolutely best in game. Ranger doesn't get sneak.investigator or rogue don't get good bab or hp or fort save or martial weapons.
That's not "best in game", that's the the same numbers in a different arrangement. Rogue gets lower BAB but higher sneak attack. Investigator doesn't have good fort but does have good will save.

That doesn't change the underlying problem, that the slayer just doesn't bring anything new to the table. There don't seem to be any character types or mechanical abilities that the game would lack if this class didn't exist: "character with greatsword and sneak attack" is not exactly hard to cover by other classes.

[Rynjin]

That doesn't change the underlying problem, that the slayer just doesn't bring anything new to the table. There don't seem to be any character types or mechanical abilities that the game would lack if this class didn't exist: "character with greatsword and sneak attack" is not exactly hard to cover by other classes.

I mean, it was made to fill a specific and very popular class request: Spell-Less Ranger (but this time it's 1st party). It fills that niche very well, and it's not the class's fault that after like 10 years of the game being out they finally decided to give the Fighter a boost that made it better than Slayer all of a sudden.

Its whole package is appealing, and one of the ones I'd definitely recommend to new players as an easy to build character. Having a built-in, generic attack/damage boost and the ability to skip Feat chains is very nice.

This was what I was getting at before, tier 5 is not anywhere near as miserable in Pathfinder as 3.5. Slayer is still a perfectly playable class. You're not like gimping yourself playing one any more than playing a non-caster in the first place is.