Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Cleric, Druid and Wizard

[pabelfly]

I'm interested in starting work on a tier list for Pathfinder, in the same way that we have a tier list for 3.5 (link for reference) (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!).

There has been an informal attempt to do a tier list for Pathfinder, which I've also used in reference for this thread (link) (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?649283-%85-And-What-Is-the-*Deal*-with-Pathfinder-Tiers). But a formal collection of threads, where everyone discusses and debates how classes should be tiered, is something I think would be useful for Pathfinder, in the same way the tier list for 3.5 is.

This thread is for Cleric, Druid, and Wizard. They're all Core classes with 9th-level prepared casting and expansive spell lists. I imagine these are all clear-cut cases for Tier 1, which leaves little for discussion (hence putting all three of these together) but let's do this anyway.

To generate further relevant discussion:
1) Are there any specific archetypes, feats and/or spells that are overpowered for these classes, and that potential DMs should look out for specifically?
2) What are the worst archetypes for these classes?



Current Vote Tallies:

Wizard
Rynjin, Kurald Galain, Thunder 999, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons, Gnaeus – 1

Average – 1.0

Druid
Rynjin, Kurald Galain, Thunder 999, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna – 1.0
Maat Mons – 1.2
Gnaeus – Druid 1.5

Average – 1.09

Cleric
Rynjin, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna – 1
Maat Mons, Thunder 999 – 1.3
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus – 1.5

Average – 1.2



What are the tiers?

The simple answer here is that tier one is the best, the home of things on the approximate problem solving scale of wizards, and tier six is the worst, land of commoners. And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high.

A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system. Thus, I will be uncharacteristically word light here. The original tier system's tier descriptions are still good guidelines here, but they shouldn't be assumed to be the end all and be all for how classes get ranked.

Consistent throughout these tiers is the notion of problems and the solving thereof. For the purposes of this tier system, the problem space can be said to be inclusive of combat, social interaction, and exploration, with the heaviest emphasis placed on combat. A problem could theoretically fall outside of that space, but things inside that space are definitely problems. Another way to view the idea of problem solving is through the lens of the niche ranking system. A niche filled tends to imply the capacity to solve a type of problem, whether it's a status condition in the case of healing, or an enemy that just has too many hit points in the case of melee combat. It's not a perfect measure, both because some niches have a lot of overlap in the kinds of problems they can solve and because, again, the niches aren't necessarily all inclusive, but they can act as a good tool for class evaluation.

Tier one: Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is the realm of clerics, druids, and wizards, classes that open up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then get massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with that core trio of tier one casters, then you probably don't belong here.

Tier two: We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

Tier three: Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two, here taking us to around the level of a vanilla Magus. The usual outcome is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems.

Tier four: Here we're in Fighter, Paladin and Barbarian territory. Starting from that standard tier three position, the usual sweet spots here are very good at solving a few problems, or alright at solving many problems.

Tier five: We're heading close to the dregs here. Tier five is the tier of chained Monk, classes that are as bad as you can be without being an aristocrat or a commoner. Classes here are sometimes very good at solving nearly no problems, or alright at solving a few, or some other function thereof. It's weak, is the point.

Tier six: And here we have commoner tier. Or, the bottom is commoner. The top is approximately aristocrat. You don't necessarily have nothing in this tier, but you have close enough to it.

[Rynjin]

This thread is for Cleric, Druid, and Wizard. They're all Core classes with 9th-level spontaneous casting and expansive spell lists. I imagine these are all clear-cut cases for Tier 1, which leaves little for discussion (hence putting all three of these together) but let's do this anyway.

To generate further relevant discussion:
1) Are there any specific archetypes, feats and/or spells that are overpowered for these classes, and that potential DMs should look out for specifically?

No sane GM should allow Sacred Geometry (Feat) or Blood Money (spell) without knowing exactly what they're inviting. These spells aren't necessarily as busted as the classic "Wish loops" and whatnot, but they do represent an unnecessary ability for casters to get more value for very little sacrifice.


2) What are the worst archetypes for these classes?

Cleric: I don't play enough Cleric.

Wizard: Spellslinger is notably bad. Like bad enough to drop the class to T2.

Druid: Most of the Animal Shamans are very meh. Just any of the "gimp your overall Wild Shape by 2 levels for a +2 level boost to a specific monster type" options.

[Kurald Galain]

Right. Yes, these are shoe-ins for Tier One, but I'd say that Wizard > Druid > Cleric, with the following notes:
(edit) actually, I'd put cleric at 1.5, as discussed below.

Wizard
PF's low-level wizards don't suffer from the "crossbow problem" (i.e. running out of spells and having to use a crossbow), because they get first-level school abilities and infinite-use cantrips.
The various schools get good powers, ranging from move-action teleportation, to on-the-fly swapping of energy types, to pre-rolling dice with foresight ability. There are also a number of wizard-only feats; fittingly, this includes literal immortality at level 20.
Thassilonian Specialist archetype gives you double the specialist's bonus slots, at the cost of hard-banning certain opposite schools. Conversely, Exploiter archetype gives strong abilities, but its tradeoff is markedly less spells per day. I'd say neither is higher tier.
Familiars get archetypes too, and familiars are strong in PF (even before they get the ability to cast their own spells).
But of course some of the strongest spells in 3E either don't exist or have been downgraded. Overall the wizard is not stronger than its 3E counterpart, but I'd still call it the strongest tier-1 class.
Worst archetypes: arcane bomber, familiar adept, fey caller, siege mage, spellslinger (except as a dip), sword binder, and scroll scholar (if you actually focus on its ability to hit people with a scroll).


Cleric
In-combat healing in PF is pretty effective with the cleric's Channel Energy (which heals the entire party for a decent amount, for a single action). To be fair this works much better with the Selective Channel feat.
On the other hand Divine Metamagic does not exist, and Persistent Spell can't be used to extend buff duration to a full day.
Over years of gameplay, I keep being sorely disappointed with what clerics do in terms of spells. I'd like some other opinions on this, but my impression is that PF's cleric list just pales in comparison to the druid and wizard lists (possibly except for 7th- through 9th-level spells, but you very rarely see those in play). That's not bad enough to drop it to tier 2; but I would call it the lowest of the tier 1s.
Worst archetypes: appeaser, cloistered cleric, divine scourge, and forgemaster.


Druid
Of all the high-tier casters, Druid is probably the easiest to build and play well. You just can't go wrong with a good druid. There's a lot of archetypes but nothing really overpowering and only one really stupid one; you have a versatile spell list that you can easily swap from, and there's always a companion character and shapeshift. Overall, it is one of the more forgiving classes for newbies, and a well-built druid is a serious powerhouse.
Worst archetype: survivor.


The feat to watch out for is Spell Perfection. Sure, it requires level 15 and up, but it gives one free metamagic and doubles all static bonuses on that spell. For instance, if your perfected spell is Cone of Cold, you can (in a single turn) do a Quickened Cone and a Maximized Cone from two fifth-level slots, and Spell Focus counts twice. Why yes, you can make some insane combos with this.
Other infamous feats include Authoritative Spell, Dazing Spell, and Sacred Geometry; and the traits Magical Lineage and Wayang Spell Hunter.

$.02

[pabelfly]

Right. Yes, these are shoe-ins for Tier One, but I'd say that Wizard > Druid > Cleric, with the following notes:

Wizard
PF's low-level wizards don't suffer from the "crossbow problem" (i.e. running out of spells and having to use a crossbow), because they get first-level school abilities and infinite-use cantrips.
The various schools get good powers, ranging from move-action teleportation, to on-the-fly swapping of energy types, to pre-rolling dice with foresight ability. There are also a number of wizard-only feats; fittingly, this includes literal immortality at level 20.
Thassilonian Specialist archetype gives you double the specialist's bonus slots, at the cost of hard-banning certain opposite schools. Conversely, Exploiter archetype gives strong abilities, but its tradeoff is markedly less spells per day. I'd say neither is higher tier.
Familiars get archetypes too, and familiars are strong in PF (even before they get the ability to cast their own spells).
But of course some of the strongest spells in 3E either don't exist or have been downgraded. Overall the wizard is not stronger than its 3E counterpart, but I'd still call it the strongest tier-1 class.
Worst archetypes: arcane bomber, familiar adept, fey caller, siege mage, spellslinger (except as a dip), sword binder, and scroll scholar (if you actually focus on its "hit people with a scroll" ability).


Cleric
In-combat healing in PF is pretty effective with the cleric's Channel Energy (which heals the entire party for a decent amount, for a single action). To be fair this works much better with the Selective Channel feat.
On the other hand Divine Metamagic does not exist, and because Persistent Spell can't be used to extend buff duration to a full day.
Over years of gameplay, I keep being sorely disappointed with what clerics do in terms of spells. I'd like some other opinions on this, but my impression is that PF's cleric list just pales in comparison to the druid and wizard lists (possibly except for 7th- through 9th-level spells, but you very rarely see those in play). That's not bad enough to drop it to tier 2; but I would call it the lowest of the tier 1s.
Worst archetypes: appeaser, cloistered cleric, divine scourge, and forgemaster.


Druid
Of all the high-tier casters, Druid is probably the easiest to build and play well. You just can't go wrong with a good druid. There's a lot of archetypes but nothing really overpowering and only one really stupid one; you have a versatile spell list that you can easily swap from, and there's always a companion character and shapeshift. Overall, it is one of the more forgiving classes for newbies, and a well-built druid is a serious powerhouse.
Worst archetype: survivor.


The feat to watch out for is Spell Perfection. Sure, it requires level 15 and up, but it gives one free metamagic and doubles all static bonuses on that spell. For instance, if your perfected spell is Cone of Cold, you can (in a single turn) do a Quickened Cone and a Maximized Cone from two fifth-level slots, and Spell Focus counts twice. Why yes, you can make some insane combos with this.
Other infamous feats include Authoritative Spell, Dazing Spell, and Sacred Geometry; and the traits Magical Lineage and Wayang Spell Hunter.

$.02

Great notes. Thanks for the post.

[Rynjin]

Cleric[list]
In-combat healing in PF is pretty effective with the cleric's Channel Energy (which heals the entire party for a decent amount, for a single action). To be fair this works much better with the Selective Channel feat.
On the other hand Divine Metamagic does not exist, and Persistent Spell can't be used to extend buff duration to a full day.
Over years of gameplay, I keep being sorely disappointed with what clerics do in terms of spells. I'd like some other opinions on this, but my impression is that PF's cleric list just pales in comparison to the druid and wizard lists (possibly except for 7th- through 9th-level spells, but you very rarely see those in play). That's not bad enough to drop it to tier 2; but I would call it the lowest of the tier 1s.

Overall I agree with Cleric being the weakest of the T1 options, but I will say I think the Cleric spell list gets good at 4th level spells, when stuff like Freedom of Movement, Blessing of Fervor, and Blood Crow Strike Fleshworm Infestation come online.

That's still a hell of a lot of game you've gotta play before you get spells that feel like they have a PUNCH, but it's earlier than 7th level spells for sure.


The feat to watch out for is Spell Perfection. Sure, it requires level 15 and up, but it gives one free metamagic and doubles all static bonuses on that spell. For instance, if your perfected spell is Cone of Cold, you can (in a single turn) do a Quickened Cone and a Maximized Cone from two fifth-level slots, and Spell Focus counts twice. Why yes, you can make some insane combos with this.
Other infamous feats include Authoritative Spell, Dazing Spell, and Sacred Geometry; and the traits Magical Lineage and Wayang Spell Hunter.

$.02

Ah yeah, I forgot about Dazing spell. One of the very few things on my actual banlist. I don't even actually ban Sacred Geometry, I just trust my players not to break it. Dazing is just INHERENTLY broken.

Spell Perfection is one of those things that's technically busted but I don't really feel like it's worth "watching out for" anything that comes online at 15+. The game in general falls apart at that point, and if you're running an AP there's like a session or two left in the campaign anyway. I just let the players go buckwild at that point.

[pabelfly]

So here's a question - does Cleric merit a rank somewhere between T1 and T2? I've had two people say it has weak points in its spell list.

[Thunder999]

So I think it goes without saying that these guys are all Tier 1, Wizards and Druids pretty much define the tier, clerics are a bit weaker, but not enough to drop them a tier lower.

1) Are there any specific archetypes, feats and/or spells that are overpowered for these classes, and that potential DMs should look out for specifically?

There's strong options: Exploiter wizard, Pact wizard (the one from Haunted Heroes Handbook, not the other one), Spell Sage, Blood Money, Dreamed Secrets, Sacred Geometry, Nature Fang etc. along with the usual Planar Binding, Simulacrum, Gate. Nothing that fundamentally changes the classes though.

2) What are the worst archetypes for these classes?
Crusader cleric trades 1 spell/level for mediocre combat feats, Spellslinger is just terrible single classed (4 opposition schools, no cantrips) though actually a nice dip for some other classes, Planar Extremist Druid loses a spell per level and either has a (generally weak) alignment domain or an unchained eidolon with no evolutions and trades wildshape for bloodrager bloodrage powers.

I agree with the sentiment that cleric is the weakest tier 1, but it's still definitely tier 1, it's more dull than actually weak.

[Rynjin]

So here's a question - does Cleric merit a rank somewhere between T1 and T2? I've had two people say it has weak points in its spell list.

Nah. The issue with Cleric's low level spells isn't one of power, per se, but...proactivity? They don't have a ton of direct impact on enemies, or direct utility out of combat. Instead you have some (mostly lackluster) buffs, healing, and condition removal. The condition removal and some of the standout buffs (eg. Prayer) are powerful and impactful, but are very passive and can make a lot of Cleric players get the feelbads because their role in combat is not very flashy and they contribute to the success of combat indirectly (even more so than eg. a "God Wizard" which has very visible, immediate effects).

There's a few proactive standouts like Hold Person for combat and Speak With Dead for utility, but they're few and far between.

And then you hit 4th level spells and it's kinda like somebody strapped a rocket to the Cleric's ass. There are so many good 4th level spells that I actually think it's reasonable to prepare some in 5th level slots once you unlock them because just having more casts is so good.

They're definitely still Tier 1, they're just a slower starter than other classes. They make up for it at low levels by having decent basic combat ability with medium armor and sometimes very good weapon proficiencies, though this is hit or miss depending on the Favored Weapon of your deity.

[Thunder999]

I'd say favoured weapon isn't even that important, a longspear is usually good enough.
It's just that the cleric is casting Bless and swinging a spear while the druid is locking down a 40ft radius with entangle and the wizard is save or losing with sleep/colourspray. (And the other tier 1 casters not in this thread are similar, arcanist is literally just a wizard with 1 less spell and better DCs at level, witch has Slumber hex for at will save or lose, shaman gets entangle etc.)

[Endless Rain]

Tier five: We're heading close to the dregs here. Tier five is the tier of chained Monks and chained Rogue, classes that are as bad as you can be without being an aristocrat or a commoner. Classes here are sometimes very good at solving nearly no problems, or alright at solving a few, or some other function thereof. It's weak, is the point.

Given that Chained Rogue is almost certainly going to be placed in Tier 4 in the concurrent tiering thread, perhaps you should take it out of this description?

Anyway, all three classes in this thread are Tier 1.

[pabelfly]

Given that Chained Rogue is almost certainly going to be placed in Tier 4 in the concurrent tiering thread, perhaps you should take it out of this description?

Touché. I'll fix it, thanks.

[chaincomplex]

How do you guys feel about the Spell Sage archetype for the Wizard? I've been staring at it recently.

[Rynjin]

How do you guys feel about the Spell Sage archetype for the Wizard? I've been staring at it recently.

It's good! One of the better designed archetypes in that both of its abilities are strict sidegrades over what they replace. And Spell Study is very interesting overall.

[Darvin]

I wonder if anyone will play devil's advocate on any of these classes.

All three are obviously tier 1 in my view


Wizard: Spellslinger is notably bad. Like bad enough to drop the class to T2.
I did quite a bit of building with the Spellslinger for a little project I never ended up using in my games, and while it's definitely not a good archetype it's not nearly as bad as its reputation would have you believe. You can definitely make functional characters using Spellslinger without multiclassing into a different caster class, that actually benefit from the class features this archetype gives. With that said, you are probably going to prestige class out at a certain point if you're going this route. Since you don't have arcane school or familiars, you've got very little opportunity cost for going into a PrC and with prestigious spellcaster you can just buy back lost spellcasting levels on many of them.

The biggest problem I have with Spellslinger is not the heavy-handed tradeoffs (though it definitely gives up too much) but rather that its Mage Bullets and Arcane Gun class features are going in very different directions. Mage Bullets really is encouraging you to make regular firearm attacks part of your build, while Arcane Gun really wants you to focus on ray spells (cones also work, but the way Overloads work you really want single-target), and the only way to really use both effectively is to use Spellslinger as a 1-level dip for Eldritch Archer Magus. However, I did find that Eldritch Knight builds made great use of it. You're still ultimately a Wizard with access to all the normal Wizard spells, and while the tradeoff isn't worth the benefits there still are benefits there. It's definitely not as bad as Arcane Bomber or Siege Mage, which really don't get any compensation for their sacrifices.

[Rynjin]

I did quite a bit of building with the Spellslinger for a little project I never ended up using in my games, and while it's definitely not a good archetype it's not nearly as bad as its reputation would have you believe. You can definitely make functional characters using Spellslinger without multiclassing into a different caster class, that actually benefit from the class features this archetype gives. With that said, you are probably going to prestige class out at a certain point if you're going this route. Since you don't have arcane school or familiars, you've got very little opportunity cost for going into a PrC and with prestigious spellcaster you can just buy back lost spellcasting levels on many of them.

The biggest problem I have with Spellslinger is not the heavy-handed tradeoffs (though it definitely gives up too much) but rather that its Mage Bullets and Arcane Gun class features are going in very different directions. Mage Bullets really is encouraging you to make regular firearm attacks part of your build, while Arcane Gun really wants you to focus on ray spells (cones also work, but the way Overloads work you really want single-target), and the only way to really use both effectively is to use Spellslinger as a 1-level dip for Eldritch Archer Magus. However, I did find that Eldritch Knight builds made great use of it. You're still ultimately a Wizard with access to all the normal Wizard spells, and while the tradeoff isn't worth the benefits there still are benefits there. It's definitely not as bad as Arcane Bomber or Siege Mage, which really don't get any compensation for their sacrifices.

I mean, you can absolutely build a functional Spellslinger. I've built a few for fun, and a friend of mine played one in a game who was pretty strong. Remember that Tier 2 is still ENORMOUSLY strong. A Spellslinger can break the game over their knee...it's just way harder for them than a baseline Wizard due to the restrictions placed on them, to about the same degree as it is for a Sorcerer. They trade in power for class features, like most of the T2 casters (eg. Oracle over Cleric) and it's actually why I prefer to play the T2 classes. I'll take marginally reduced power for extra convenience and more build options any day.

The thing with Wizard is that it's SUCH a strong class that even its weaker options are more than viable. That's actually a conversation I had to have with my friend before he made his Spellslinger. He's a bit newer to the game and he'd heard me and another friend joking about how bad the Spellslinger is on multiple occasions.

When it came time that he REALLY wanted to make a gun caster, he wanted to shy away from the class because of that. basically had to hammer home that even a "bad" Wizard is still a ****ing WIZARD. It's stronger than almost any other class you've tried to play lol.

Siege Mage is just all around awful, yeah. EVERY archetype based around siege engines is terribad to a staggering degree.

Arcane Bomber I...kinda like? I actually think it's a smidge stronger than Spellslinger. Trading in cantrips for reliable almost at-will AoE damage isn't terrible honestly, it basically makes you a 5e Wizard in some ways.

[AvatarVecna]

Cleric/Appeaser is hot garbage. There's something theoretically interesting in there if you have a deity with a stupid number of domains, but the limited per-day usage of that ability (not to mention the ability damage it deals to you) means that it'll never even come close to paying off everything you gave up to gain it. 99% of the time, it's significantly worse than normal cleric; the other 1% of the time, it's merely "still significantly worse, but with one temporary cool upside".

Cleric/Cloistered gives up a domain and a slot per level for...knowledge skill bonuses. That's basically it.

Cleric/Crusader gives up a domain and a slot per level for...fighter bonus feats. In fairness, it also gains a neat ability to turn a low-level touch buff into an AoE buff...although this costs both a low level slot you prepared it in, and a higher level slot you're spontaneously consuming for this benefit. The only caveat here is that this is maybe supposed to mirror spontaneous cure casting, and this is just how the author thinks spontaneous cures work??? If this was changed to only cost the lower level slot, which is closer to spontaneous cure mechanics, that's arguably a sidegrade or a very very mild downgrade. But outside of a ruling like that, this is...really garbage.

Druid/Survivor looks pretty meh as well. You give up Wild Shape for trap skills, you have to take the animal companion instead of the domain (small downside, AC is still nice, but it's not casting versatility), and you lose a slot per spell level. Idk if this gives up enough to make a T2 druid, but it looks like this is giving up far more than basically any other druid archetype.

Wizard/Spellslinger looks incredibly painful. All the testimonials in the world saying "it's not as bad as it looks" doesn't change that (and, you'll notice, aren't even arguing it's not bad, just "not quite as bad as it looks"). Four restricted schools on a class that's basically built its upsides around the evocation school means you're in for some painful choices no matter what. It's not completely unavailable the way it was in 3.5 but costing two slots instead of one is still a major cost for basically any of these spells. About the least painful I can think of would be Abjuration/Enchantment/Illusion/Universal, which first off I'm not even sure you're allowed to ban Universal, and second off banning enchantment and illusion is basically all your social tricks gone. But what else are you gonna make super-expensive? Summoning and teleportation? Animate Dead? Shapeshifting? Scrying? It's all powerful tools. Only other option is evocation, which is what the archetype is built around.

EDIT: From the perspective of "a spellslinger is kinda like a wizard who only really has access to half their spell list", I feel like that's enough of a downgrade in their total number of options they realistically have available per day to be pretty comparable to sorcerer. Which is to say, "stupid strong because 9th lvl casting is OP", and...probably T2. I'm not sure any of the others are definitely enough to warrant a tier change, but the wizard one feels significant. You're still amazing, but the pool of broken BS you can bring out has been substantially limited.

[Darvin]

Remember that Tier 2 is still ENORMOUSLY strong.
The gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is less about strength, and more about your options and flexibility to solve any problems. Ultimately the Spellslinger still has Wizard spellcasting. They lose cantrips which is more annoying than harmful since cantrips in wand form are dirt cheap if you really want them, and they lose 1 spell per level from lack of arcane school. It's not nice, but these aren't the sort of downsides that move you down a tier. Maybe the extra opposition schools, but you can actually buy one back at higher levels with Opposition Research and you can still cast those spells if you really need them, just at double cost.


Arcane Bomber I...kinda like? I actually think it's a smidge stronger than Spellslinger. Trading in cantrips for reliable almost at-will AoE damage isn't terrible honestly, it basically makes you a 5e Wizard in some ways.
Keep in mind that you don't get Throw Anything, so you don't get to add your Intelligence modifier to bomb damage. Those are very weak bombs.


Four restricted schools on a class that's basically built its upsides around the evocation school means you're in for some painful choices no matter what.
Necromancy also has a great spell selection to work with Spellslinger. It definitely doesn't have to go the Evocation route. And when I built it, I found that just giving up on Arcane Gun to focus on the Mage Bullets feature also worked well. But yeah, it's definitely painful and you definitely want to buy one of those schools back with Opposition Research later.

[Rynjin]

The gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is less about strength, and more about your options and flexibility to solve any problems. Ultimately the Spellslinger still has Wizard spellcasting. They lose cantrips which is more annoying than harmful since cantrips in wand form are dirt cheap if you really want them, and they lose 1 spell per level from lack of arcane school. It's not nice, but these aren't the sort of downsides that move you down a tier. Maybe the extra opposition schools, but you can actually buy one back at higher levels with Opposition Research and you can still cast those spells if you really need them, just at double cost.

The doubled cost, in my eyes, represents a similar lack of flexibility as Sorc gets. More slots for less flex is the main tradeoff of Prepared vs Spontaneous, so a Wizard trading out even MORE spell slots hurts their flexibility a ton.

Given that Sorcs can torture themselves to get flex slots as well, via magic items and other features, it's a similar tradeoff in that regard as well. Being able to "buy off" some of the drawback doesn't fully negate the limitations brought on by taking those drawbacks to begin with.


Keep in mind that you don't get Throw Anything, so you don't get to add your Intelligence modifier to bomb damage. Those are very weak bombs.

Eh, about the same damage as a non-Metamagic'd Fireball at most levels. It's not a bad use of a standard in situations where you might normally just chill, and it's stronger than a lot of School Powers anyway.

It's...decent. Not great, not terrible. Certainly not bad enough I'd try very hard to dissaude someone form playing it. It is, (again) at the end of the day, still a Wizard.

[Darvin]

Eh, about the same damage as a non-Metamagic'd Fireball at most levels.
Fireball gets 1d6 per level, Bombs get 1d6 every other level and always deal minimum damage to splash targets.
Fireball has 20 ft radius, Bombs have 5 ft splash.
Fireball has 400+40/level ft range, Bombs are 20 ft range increment touch attack.

These are not in any way comparable.

[Rynjin]

Fireball gets 1d6 per level, Bombs get 1d6 every other level and always deal minimum damage to splash targets.
Fireball has 20 ft radius, Bombs have 5 ft splash.
Fireball has 400+40/level ft range, Bombs are 20 ft range increment touch attack.

These are not in any way comparable.

Fireball also caps, non-metamagic, at 10d6 so you're not too far off with your cantrip replacement a lot of the time. you could also dip one level of Alchemist for Throw Anything and make it a real party*.

All I'm saying is it's a hell of a lot better than Ray of Frost if you don't wanna spend spell slots in a round.

*Results may vary. Do not attempt unless you're a trained professional or seasoned memelord.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd call the Spellslinger still tier one, because you can just pick the four broadest schools and have plenty of selection, and you can still use scrolls or wands of your opposition schools, and you can even prepare opposition spells by spending two slots. The third point in particular means that Spellslingers can still do anything and everything to solve the problem at hand; and bear in mind that he adds his gun's enhancement bonus to spell DC.

Oh right, one thing to watch out for is Druid Herbalism (technically an ACF instead of an archetype). It gets to make a decent amount of potions for free, each day, and they can explicity be sold. A mid-level druid can make about 2000 gp per day this way, and this will likely break WBL expectations.


Druid: Most of the Animal Shamans are very meh. Just any of the "gimp your overall Wild Shape by 2 levels for a +2 level boost to a specific monster type" options.
They're pretty good actually. You get standard action summons, can shapeshift to huge size at level 6, get access to several extra domains, and several of them get climb or fly speed.


Cleric spell list gets good at 4th level spells, when stuff like Freedom of Movement, Blessing of Fervor, and Blood Crow Strike Fleshworm Infestation come online.Although Freedom is indeed one of the mandatory buffs (if you don't have it in item form), I don't really feel that Blessing of Fervor or Fleshworm pack much of a PUNCH compared to, say, Haste and Slow (both one level lower), or the druid's Slowing Mud.


I agree with the sentiment that cleric is the weakest tier 1, but it's still definitely tier 1, it's more dull than actually weak.
It's definitely dull, but it also has a lot of duds on its list, like single-target buffs that give a small numerical bonus. Or trying to be a blaster with channel energy. Or lot of the domain abilities, especially compared to wizard schools or sorcerer bloodlines.

Even if it's not downtiered, having lacklustre spells until spell level four seriously hampers the class in practice; and they're not particularly impressive in melee either. I'll tentatively say that Clerics are tier 1.5.

[Rynjin]

Oh right, one thing to watch out for is Druid Herbalism (technically an ACF instead of an archetype). It gets to make a decent amount of potions for free, each day, and they can explicity be sold. A mid-level druid can make about 2000 gp per day this way, and this will likely break WBL expectations.

Druidic Herbalism is busted in one of the more fun ways. I like to let newer players take it. it's the kind of WTF broken ability that lets thgem easily keep up in optimization strength with more experienced players. It is, at ABSOLUTE WORST just a dickload of extra spell slots per day. Wild.



They're pretty good actually. You get standard action summons, can shapeshift to huge size at level 6, get access to several extra domains, and several of them get climb or fly speed.

I actually forgot about the standard summons, I'll retract what I said. in my head they were just +2 focused Wild Shape/-2 general Wild Shape and nothing else.


Although Freedom is indeed one of the mandatory buffs (if you don't have it in item form), I don't really feel that Blessing of Fervor or Fleshworm pack much of a PUNCH compared to, say, Haste and Slow (both one level lower), or the druid's Slowing Mud.

Blessing of Fervor is a solid Haste equivalent, especially if you don't have Haste; plus I have a soft spot for the "get up as a Swift" option, it's actually saved my and other party members' bacon on multiple occasions. Fleshworm isn't the best spell, but it's a very solid single target debuff that can eventually "kill" the target over time, and lowers AC and whatnot.

But even if you're not impressed with those, there's a bajillion other greats at 4. Divination, Death Ward, Dimensional Anchor, Divine Power (for the "throwdown" Clerics), big Restoration , Planar Ally, Spell Immunity, etc., etc.

Even if you find these spells lacking compared to other lists (which I don't, on average), they nevertheless represent a HUGE jump for the Cleric list specifically.

[Maat Mons]

I’ve heard people say Exploiter is the strongest Wizard archetype. It doesn’t look to me like a substantial change, Tier-wise. I’ve heard people say bad things about Poleiheira Adherent (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/archetypes/paizo-wizard-archetypes/poleiheira-adherent-wizard-archetype/), but it doesn’t look bad to me. Yeah, in campaigns where you have downtime and friendly NPC Wizards, doubling your free level-up spells isn’t a big deal. But in some campaigns, it would be handy. And if you do have plenty of downtime and friendly NPC Wizards, I think it’s kind of neat that you can fit infinitely many spells into a single Blessed Book and add them in half the time. Overall, I’m not inclined to rate any Wizard archetypes separately.

While it’s a bit limiting on the role-play front, the Dreamed Secrets (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/dreamed-secrets/) feat can give some extra out-of-combat versatility to the Cleric or Druid. It’s also nice if you want to craft some wands or scrolls.

I don’t regard cleric as the weakest Tier-1 class, but only because I feel Shaman makes the cut off for being part of Tier 1.

For Druid, I think the most interesting archetype in terms of Tier discussions is Halcyon Druid (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo-druid-archetypes/halcyon-druid-druid-archetype). Wizard spells are cool, but I hate that it’s incompatible with Druid Herbalism. Still though, I think it winds up too close to warrant a separate entry.

I’m inclined to say:
Cleric: mid-low Tier 1 (1.2)
Druid: mid Tier 1 (1.0)
Wizard: high Tier 1 (0.6)


0.6High Tier 1Arcanist, Wizard
0.8Mid-high Tier 1Witch
1Mid Tier 1Druid
1.2Mid-low Tier 1Cleric
1.4Low Tier 1Shaman
1.6High Tier 2
1.8Mid-high Tier 2
2Mid Tier 2
2.2Mid-low Tier 2
2.4Low Tier 2
2.6High Tier 3
2.8Mid-high Tier 3
3Mid Tier 3
3.2Mid-low Tier 3
3.4Low Tier 3
3.6High Tier 4
3.8Mid-high Tier 4
4Mid Tier 4
4.2Mid-low Tier 4
4.4Low Tier 4
4.6High Tier 5
4.8Mid-high Tier 5
5Mid Tier 5
5.2Mid-low Tier 5
5.4Low Tier 5
5.6High Tier 6
5.8Mid-high Tier 6
6Mid Tier 6
6.2Mid-low Tier 6
6.4Low Tier 6

[pabelfly]

I’m inclined to say:
Cleric: mid-low Tier 1 (1.2)
Druid: mid Tier 1 (1.0)
Wizard: high Tier 1 (0.6)


0.6High Tier 1Arcanist, Wizard
0.8Mid-high Tier 1Witch
1Mid Tier 1Druid
1.2Mid-low Tier 1Cleric
1.4Low Tier 1Shaman
1.6High Tier 2
1.8Mid-high Tier 2
2Mid Tier 2
2.2Mid-low Tier 2
2.4Low Tier 2
2.6High Tier 3
2.8Mid-high Tier 3
3Mid Tier 3
3.2Mid-low Tier 3
3.4Low Tier 3
3.6High Tier 4
3.8Mid-high Tier 4
4Mid Tier 4
4.2Mid-low Tier 4
4.4Low Tier 4
4.6High Tier 5
4.8Mid-high Tier 5
5Mid Tier 5
5.2Mid-low Tier 5
5.4Low Tier 5
5.6High Tier 6
5.8Mid-high Tier 6
6Mid Tier 6
6.2Mid-low Tier 6
6.4Low Tier 6


I don't think the tiers go above 1, so I'll put everything between 0.6 and 1 as 1.

I've also assumed everyone discussing specific archetypes feels that the classes in question are all Tier 1, even if they didn't specifically say that all three were. Correct me if my assumption about your vote was mistaken please.

Current Vote Tallies:

Cleric
Rynjin, Thunder 999, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna – 1
Maat Mons – 1.2
Kurald Galain – 1.5

Average – 1.1

Druid
Rynjin, Kurald Galain, Thunder 999, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons – 1

Average – 1.0

Wizard
Rynjin, Kurald Galain, Thunder 999, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons – 1

Average – 1.0

[Kurald Galain]

I don't think the tiers go above 1, so I'll put everything between 0.6 and 1 as 1.
I concur.

That said, I've rated cleric at 1.5 in my last post.

[pabelfly]

I concur.

That said, I've rated cleric at 1.5 in my last post.

Whoops, missed the edit. Fixed now.

[Maat Mons]

@pabelfly: If you were going to take a stance on the range bounds of the Tiering system, why didn’t you do it the first time the issue came up? We literally spent a bunch of posts in the previous thread discussing exactly this. In fact, the reason I wrote out a whole chart in the previous thread was to make it clear that my ratings were based on a system that considers each Tier to extend from Tier-0.5 to Tier+0.5. I made sure to put that information out there so you would have a chance to object. I did this because my willingness to assign non-integer ratings was contingent on having a system for assigning those ratings that had desirable mathematical properties. You tacitly accepted my rating method by not objecting to it. And so, I allowed my non-integer ratings to stand, which I would not have done had you made it known then that would not accept the full range of values I proposed. If you had said anything then, I would have revised my ratings as follows.

Arcanist: Tier 1
Cleric: Tier 1
Druid: Tier 1
Fighter: Tier 4
Rogue (Chained): Tier 4
Rogue (Unchained) Tier 4
Rogue (Eldritch Scoundrel, Chained): Tier 3
Rogue (Eldritch Scoundrel, Unchained): Tier 3
Rogue (Phantom Thief, Chained): Tier 4
Rogue (Phantom Thief, Unchained): Tier 4
Shaman Tier 1
Wizard: Tier 1

Normally, I’d consider it an imposition to ask you to update my ratings after the thread has concluded and the results have been added to the compilation thread. But since this post-facto change is only necessary because you didn’t make the voting policies clear in a timely manner, I must insist you adjust all relevant listings with my updated ratings.

[AvatarVecna]

I don't think the tiers go above 1, so I'll put everything between 0.6 and 1 as 1.

There's a better argument for things like T0 in 3.5 where there's a number of BS things that can be argued to be so much better than the existing T1 classes that it really shouldn't be placed with them (e.g. spontaneous casting but your spells known list is "the whole cleric spell list, plus most of the enchantment/illusion spells on the wizard list"). Be it Rainbow Warsnakes, Beholder Mages, Hiveminds, Shadowcraft Mages fake-casting Miracles, Planar Shepherds from the Far Realm...I'm gonna go ahead and hazard a guess that there's nothing in PF that's even close to as busted as those. The closest thing I've seen to "broken" in PF is Sacred Geometry, which doesn't let you get a metamagic'd effect if it would take more than a 9th lvl slot to cast normally, so even that's got some limits that 3.5 metamagic nonsense didn't.


I've also assumed everyone discussing specific archetypes feels that the classes in question are all Tier 1, even if they didn't specifically say that all three were. Correct me if my assumption about your vote was mistaken please.

I know intellectually that the PF cleric and druid lists have to be a lot smaller and less diverse than the 3.5 lists for the same, and I'm pretty sure that Wild Shape is a good deal worse than it was in the previous game, but I don't really have enough experience playing either class in PF to know for sure how versatile their spell lists are. I'm assuming they're T1, and leaving any T2 advocation to people who have more experience playing them. I'm not sure if a straight cleric is so much worse off now that it's definitely T2, I just know that Appeaser looks like a really significant downgrade.

[pabelfly]

@pabelfly: If you were going to take a stance on the range bounds of the Tiering system, why didn’t you do it the first time the issue came up? We literally spent a bunch of posts in the previous thread discussing exactly this. In fact, the reason I wrote out a whole chart in the previous thread was to make it clear that my ratings were based on a system that considers each Tier to extend from Tier-0.5 to Tier+0.5. I made sure to put that information out there so you would have a chance to object. I did this because my willingness to assign non-integer ratings was contingent on having a system for assigning those ratings that had desirable mathematical properties. You tacitly accepted my rating method by not objecting to it. And so, I allowed my non-integer ratings to stand, which I would not have done had you made it known then that would not accept the full range of values I proposed. If you had said anything then, I would have revised my ratings as follows.

Arcanist: Tier 1
Cleric: Tier 1
Druid: Tier 1
Fighter: Tier 4
Rogue (Chained): Tier 4
Rogue (Unchained) Tier 4
Rogue (Eldritch Scoundrel, Chained): Tier 3
Rogue (Eldritch Scoundrel, Unchained): Tier 3
Rogue (Phantom Thief, Chained): Tier 4
Rogue (Phantom Thief, Unchained): Tier 4
Shaman Tier 1
Wizard: Tier 1

Normally, I’d consider it an imposition to ask you to update my ratings after the thread has concluded and the results have been added to the compilation thread. But since this post-facto change is only necessary because you didn’t make the voting policies clear in a timely manner, I must insist you adjust all relevant listings with my updated ratings.

I really liked your rating system, it's a really neat representation of the tiers. There's no problem with fractional ratings either. I just don't see how the tier goes under "1".

I'm happy to update your votes if that's what you want, that's not a problem. I'll go back and edit it all tomorrow.

[Kurald Galain]

@pabelfly: If you were going to take a stance on the range bounds of the Tiering system, why didn’t you do it the first time the issue came up?
That's only a few days ago, in a thread that's still open. I'm sure there is room for discussion if people want.

That said, I haven't seen anyone so far agree with your position that tiers extend above 1 or below 6 in Pathfinder (as opposed to 3.5, per AvatarVecna's point about Rainbow Warsnakes and such), and I personally disagree (although it's really not a big deal to me).

[AvatarVecna]

That's only a few days ago, in a thread that's still open. I'm sure there is room for discussion if people want.

That said, I haven't seen anyone so far agree with your position that tiers extend above 1 or below 6 in Pathfinder (as opposed to 3.5, per AvatarVecna's point about Rainbow Warsnakes and such), and I personally disagree (although it's really not a big deal to me).

The only thing that looks even remotely close is Arcanist, and I don't think that's quite there either. It's essentially a wizard with some scattered extra spell slots, who can spontaneously cast their "prepared" spells. They get exploits instead of wizard bonus feats or school specialization, which seems like a sidegrade at worst. That said, I don't think Arcanist is so much better than Wizard, Druid, and Cleric, that they don't deserve to be in the same tier as it. My experience playing a mid-level Arcanist was that splitting between two stats relevant to all my casting stuff made my slots suffer a bit compared to normal wizard; I probably could've just ignored exploits and gone full Int, but exploits are pretty freaking good.

EDIT: That said, I'm not as well versed in PF as I am with 3.5 so if an argument can be made for something being T0, I'll at least hear it out?

[pabelfly]

That's only a few days ago, in a thread that's still open. I'm sure there is room for discussion if people want.

That said, I haven't seen anyone so far agree with your position that tiers extend above 1 or below 6 in Pathfinder (as opposed to 3.5, per AvatarVecna's point about Rainbow Warsnakes and such), and I personally disagree (although it's really not a big deal to me).

If they feel the need to change their vote, I'm happy to do it tomorrow. I thought the deeper granularity for votes was much better though, but I'd prefer to get the vote down that they want.


That said, I'm not as well versed in PF as I am with 3.5 so if an argument can be made for something being T0, I'll at least hear it out?

This is pretty reasonable, I'm happy to go with this. If we say Wizard and Druid are Tier 1, if something is more powerful than that, I could be persuaded to go above Tier 1.

[Kurald Galain]

The only thing that looks even remotely close is Arcanist, and I don't think that's quite there either.
I'd agree with that. The general feeling among PF players (in my area and forums) is that Arcanist makes the Sorcerer obsolete, but not the wizard. Exploits are certainly nice (my personal faves being Counterspell and Dimensional Slide), but so are school powers, arcane discoveries, and getting one or two extra spells per spell level :smallcool:

(edit) I definitely agree that the argument can be made (about particular classes or archetypes) and we should discuss that if and when it comes up. That said, I consider myself fairly experienced with PF, and I cannot off-hand think of anything that would actually deserve the "tier zero" label, even if we look into things often considered cheese or banworthy.

[Maat Mons]

I, too, like the increased granularity of decimal ratings. Considering the limited number of voters, I think non-integer individual ratings are necessary to have any meaningful intra-Tier information present in the final list. But I’m personally only going to give non-integer ratings if I have a good, solid notion of what those intermediate values correspond to. And I feel I’ve had the rug pulled out from beneath me on that issue. I’m willing to try to come up with a new method of casting my votes in non-integer values. But it would be nice if people would give constructive feedback, like suggesting what numerical values high, mid, and low Tier 1 should correspond to.

[Darvin]

I’ve heard people say Exploiter is the strongest Wizard archetype. It doesn’t look to me like a substantial change, Tier-wise.
It's more that it's one of the only good Universalist archetypes that actually gets something valuable enough to compensate for the loss of arcane school bonuses. I'd agree it's a side-grade on unarchetyped Wizard.


I’ve heard people say bad things about Poleiheira Adherent (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/archetypes/paizo-wizard-archetypes/poleiheira-adherent-wizard-archetype/), but it doesn’t look bad to me.
The bonded book is actually really cool, and a lot of people (myself included) really like that part of the archetype. It's the rest of the archetype that's the disappointment, and the good part of that book bond does not make up for the bad. You're trading away arcane school in order to get abilities that duplicate the effects of spells that are already on the Wizard spell list. Mount is already a 1st level spell, and Skeleton Crew is a 7th level spell that basically replicates Master Mariner (not that you even need to go there, since you're one level away from Teleport anyways).

It's far from the worst Wizard archetype, just one that is giving up way too much for what it's getting.

[stack]

Paragon surge sorcerer would probably be the closest to tier 0 PF comes (unless that got FAQratta'd, which it probably did but I haven't kept track for a long time).

[Thunder999]

Paragon surge still works, you just need Emergency Attunement feat now.

I'm not sure what's actually going to go in tier 5 if we've decided core rogue is too good for it, NPC classes? Either way there's probably not much reason to keep it at tier 6 seperate.

[Kurald Galain]

Paragon surge still works, you just need Emergency Attunement feat now.
That's a good trick, but that's not tier zero. It's basically "once per day, cast any spell you want, within level limits, and taking two rounds to do so". Wizard's spell sage archetype also gets that ability, and so does the Skald class; and those two can cast spells from outside their list, which Paragon Surge can't do. Wizard and Skald aren't tier zero, and neither is carrying a good amount of scrolls in your Handy Haversack.

Anyway, we'll get to that in the sorcerer thread eventually. PF's sorcerer is a fair amount stronger than 3E's, we'll have to see if it's tier 1 or 1.5 or high-2 or something.

[pabelfly]

I, too, like the increased granularity of decimal ratings. Considering the limited number of voters, I think non-integer individual ratings are necessary to have any meaningful intra-Tier information present in the final list. But I’m personally only going to give non-integer ratings if I have a good, solid notion of what those intermediate values correspond to. And I feel I’ve had the rug pulled out from beneath me on that issue. I’m willing to try to come up with a new method of casting my votes in non-integer values. But it would be nice if people would give constructive feedback, like suggesting what numerical values high, mid, and low Tier 1 should correspond to.

Well, my question would start with Druid, since you've established them as Tier 1, and Tier 1 is "Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems". Druid definitely fits that bill. If we're talking above Tier 1, what does that look like?

The only difference I would change with your numbers is a hard cap at 1, everything else looks great and makes sense to me. A tier of 0.6 and 0.8 feels like the exception to that for me.

[AvatarVecna]

Well, my question would start with Druid, since you've established them as Tier 1, and Tier 1 is "Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems". Druid definitely fits that bill. If we're talking above Tier 1, what does that look like?

The only difference I would change with your numbers is a hard cap at 1, everything else looks great and makes sense to me. A tier of 0.6 and 0.8 feels like the exception to that for me.

I think there is value in saying that a class is a "high T1" vs a "low T1", the same way there is value in saying a class is a "high T3" vs a "low T3".

[Darvin]

If we want to talk about T0 in Pathfinder we're talking mythic, specifically Archmage or Hierophant with Wild Surge or Inspired Spell respectively. Cast any spell on your spell list on demand, no questions asked. Anything that wants to claim T0 status needs to at least be comparable to that in my view, and almost nothing in non-mythic is even arguably in the same league. The only candidate I think is even worth talking about is Razmiran Priest Sorcerer. Just by owning the appropriate scroll, the Razmiran Priest Sorcerer can cast any divine spell from his own spell slots at a 1 level penalty while ignoring material costs requirements. However, this feature only comes online at 9th level so it's very delayed.

As to the Arcanist, I feel it relies too heavily on Quick Study. The baseline spells prepared per day are really limited so the Arcanist has to lean on Quick Study pretty liberally to actually deliver at a T1 level, and this has both action economy and resource management implications. Still a solid T1, but more mid-high rather than top. I'd also disagree with the notion that it invalidates or completely outclasses the Sorcerer. A Sorcerer can easily have twice as many spells known as an Arcanist has spells prepared, and has lots of ways to increase spell flexibility that don't eat into daily resources or his bloodline features.

[pabelfly]

I think there is value in saying that a class is a "high T1" vs a "low T1", the same way there is value in saying a class is a "high T3" vs a "low T3".

Definitely. I just feel that the scale is 1-6. So a low T1 is somewhere like 1.3, 1.4, while high T1 is 1.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd also disagree with the notion that it invalidates or completely outclasses the Sorcerer. A Sorcerer can easily have twice as many spells known as an Arcanist has spells preparedAn arcanist has exactly as many spells prepared each day as a sorcerer has spells known (it's literally the same table), not counting bloodline spells or pages of spell knowledge. As not all bloodlines have good spells, and higher-level spell pages are prohibitively expensive, I find it hard to believe that a sorc can have twice as many spells known.

[Drelua]

Definitely. I just feel that the scale is 1-6. So a low T1 is somewhere like 1.3, 1.4, while high T1 is 1.

I think the problem Maat Mons is having is that if you cut it off at 1 and 6, then tiers 2-5 have a wider range. If 0.8 is out of the range, then tier 1 is what, 1-1.5? Or would it be .4 since .5 rounds up? And then tier 2 is 1.5 to 2.4. I agree with them that each tier should have the same range, otherwise I think it's easier for T2 votes to drag a class out of the T1 range. Their system of having each tier be +/-0.5 works, or you could have T1 be anything from 1.0 to 1.9, T2 be 2.0 to 2.9, and so on, if that's more intuitive. That way no one mistakes a 0.7 for T0 when it's just meant to say high T1.

[AvatarVecna]

If we want to talk about T0 in Pathfinder we're talking mythic, specifically Archmage or Hierophant with Wild Surge or Inspired Spell respectively. Cast any spell on your spell list on demand, no questions asked. Anything that wants to claim T0 status needs to at least be comparable to that in my view, and almost nothing in non-mythic is even arguably in the same league. The only candidate I think is even worth talking about is Razmiran Priest Sorcerer. Just by owning the appropriate scroll, the Razmiran Priest Sorcerer can cast any divine spell from his own spell slots at a 1 level penalty while ignoring material costs requirements. However, this feature only comes online at 9th level so it's very delayed.

Seconded. Doesn't necessarily have to go all the way, but that's the right direction to go in. As a 3.5 example, I think a good ScM build is getting into T0. Not like, miracle cheese nonsense, but...Gnome Illusionist 7/ScM 3 with Heighten Spell, Earth Spell, Spell Mastery, and Signature Spell. You can prepare utility/buff/debuff in most of your slots, but if you ever need a summon or blasting spell, you can spontaneously cast (Heightened) Silent Image, which then duplicates a summon or blast spell of the same level, none of which have to be in your spellbook even. It's not quite "cast any spell on your spell list", but it's like 1.5 schools worth that you just have available as spontaneous conversions. That's probably about the floor for T0 IMO: when you've bootstrapped wizard into being a better spontaneous caster than a sorcerer while still having all the wizard goodies.

Like, T0 isn't just about being better than default cleric/druid/wizard. I'm sure there's some archetypes that are broadly considered upgrades. This is more about...something that upgrades the casting in such an obvious, unavoidable way, that's it disingenuous to just stick it in the same tier as the normal big casters. It's not fair to take a cleric (who can spontaneously convert spell slots into any one of one possible spells) and ScM (who can spontaneously convert spell slots into any one of dozens of possible spells) in the same tier. It's not honest to say a druid, and a druid with arbitrary action economy (Planar Shepherd) are in the same tier. Stuff that is technically an upgrade but doesn't really fundamentally change the class is probably a lot more common in PF than things that actually take a T1 class and turn them up to 11.

In fact, I can think of a specific Mythic thing that I think is easy T0 material: Mythic Time Stop. Get a Time Stop that lasts 24 hours, that's some pretty arbitrary action economy. You could get a good night's rest, heal up, get all your slots back, spend 8 hours strategizing, re-prepare all your spells, spend 6 hours setting up the perfect death for all your enemies, and that still gives you an hour to find a nice safe vantage spot for in case things go off the rails. It's an amazing tool to have in your back pocket.


As to the Arcanist, I feel it relies too heavily on Quick Study. The baseline spells prepared per day are really limited so the Arcanist has to lean on Quick Study pretty liberally to actually deliver at a T1 level, and this has both action economy and resource management implications. Still a solid T1, but more mid-high rather than top. I'd also disagree with the notion that it invalidates or completely outclasses the Sorcerer. A Sorcerer can easily have twice as many spells known as an Arcanist has spells prepared, and has lots of ways to increase spell flexibility that don't eat into daily resources or his bloodline features.

Mmmmm. Between the lower Int than Sorcerer has Cha, and having prepared caster levels of slots per day in the first place, Arcanist is kind of like a sorcerer who traded half their spells per day for the ability to re-select spells known each day. On any given day, an Arcanist will always lag behind a theoretical sorcerer build, who has the same "spells known" but twice as many slots, but that sorcerer won't have different spells on different days the way Arcanist will. It's a rough trade to make and I think long-term Arcanist comes out ahead, but exploits are definitely pulling their weight.

EDIT: And maybe half is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's still painful to be behind. The versatility is still great though.

[Darvin]

An arcanist has exactly as many spells prepared each day as a sorcerer has spells known (it's literally the same table), not counting bloodline spells or pages of spell knowledge. As not all bloodlines have good spells, and higher-level spell pages are prohibitively expensive, I find it hard to believe that a sorc can have twice as many spells known.
Bloodline spells and human favored class bonus on their own are almost enough to get you there. A 10th level Sorcerer who uses human FCB is at 26 spells known to an Arcanist's 15 prepared.


It's a rough trade to make and I think long-term Arcanist comes out ahead, but exploits are definitely pulling their weight.
Honestly, if you asked me for where I think they belong in terms of tiering, Wizard is top of T1, Arcanist is mid-high T1, and Sorcerer is low T1. We're nitpicking some of the best classes in the game who happen to have a lot of overlap due to sharing the same spell list.

[Gnaeus]

Wizard 1
Cleric 1.5
Druid 1.5

There are essentially 2 druids in PF (unlike 3.5). A druid built around casting is T1. A druid built around wildshape is probably T2, or even top T3. They aren't bad. Certainly still functional. And it isn't like an optimization difference, it is the same class built in different ways for different function. And it isn't like a weird niche, they are pretty common in play and in archetype selection. I loved my goliath druid, don't get me wrong. It did its job amazingly well. But its job was hitting things with an axe and it wasn't significantly more flexible than the T3 gishes. Better? Yes. 2 full tiers better? Not IMO.

[Jack_Simth]

Seconded. Doesn't necessarily have to go all the way, but that's the right direction to go in. As a 3.5 example, I think a good ScM build is getting into T0. Not like, miracle cheese nonsense, but...Gnome Illusionist 7/ScM 3 with Heighten Spell, Earth Spell, Spell Mastery, and Signature Spell. You can prepare utility/buff/debuff in most of your slots, but if you ever need a summon or blasting spell, you can spontaneously cast (Heightened) Silent Image, which then duplicates a summon or blast spell of the same level, none of which have to be in your spellbook even. It's not quite "cast any spell on your spell list", but it's like 1.5 schools worth that you just have available as spontaneous conversions. That's probably about the floor for T0 IMO: when you've bootstrapped wizard into being a better spontaneous caster than a sorcerer while still having all the wizard goodies.

Like, T0 isn't just about being better than default cleric/druid/wizard. I'm sure there's some archetypes that are broadly considered upgrades. This is more about...something that upgrades the casting in such an obvious, unavoidable way, that's it disingenuous to just stick it in the same tier as the normal big casters. It's not fair to take a cleric (who can spontaneously convert spell slots into any one of one possible spells) and ScM (who can spontaneously convert spell slots into any one of dozens of possible spells) in the same tier. It's not honest to say a druid, and a druid with arbitrary action economy (Planar Shepherd) are in the same tier. Stuff that is technically an upgrade but doesn't really fundamentally change the class is probably a lot more common in PF than things that actually take a T1 class and turn them up to 11.

In fact, I can think of a specific Mythic thing that I think is easy T0 material: Mythic Time Stop. Get a Time Stop that lasts 24 hours, that's some pretty arbitrary action economy. You could get a good night's rest, heal up, get all your slots back, spend 8 hours strategizing, re-prepare all your spells, spend 6 hours setting up the perfect death for all your enemies, and that still gives you an hour to find a nice safe vantage spot for in case things go off the rails. It's an amazing tool to have in your back pocket.



Mmmmm. Between the lower Int than Sorcerer has Cha, and having prepared caster levels of slots per day in the first place, Arcanist is kind of like a sorcerer who traded half their spells per day for the ability to re-select spells known each day. On any given day, an Arcanist will always lag behind a theoretical sorcerer build, who has the same "spells known" but twice as many slots, but that sorcerer won't have different spells on different days the way Arcanist will. It's a rough trade to make and I think long-term Arcanist comes out ahead, but exploits are definitely pulling their weight.

EDIT: And maybe half is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's still painful to be behind. The versatility is still great though.

Mythic Time Stop specifically excludes resting from what you can do.

[Rynjin]

Mythic Time Stop specifically excludes resting from what you can do.

Yeah. Mythic Time Stop, weirdly, isn't all that better than regular Time Stop in a practical sense. You have more time to prep, sure, but the difference between ~10 rounds and 24 hours to prep is surprisingly small with the restrictions set. The main thing I can think of that's kinda busted is you could do weird timing shenanigans on very long duration + long cast time spells, like casting Geas and timing it to come out as soon as the Time Stop drops.

Stuff like Mythic Holy Word is more directly powerful combined with other options, because it actually lets you straight up oneshot CROWDS of CR appropriate enemies with no save if you optimize for it.

[pabelfly]

Seconded. Doesn't necessarily have to go all the way, but that's the right direction to go in. As a 3.5 example, I think a good ScM build is getting into T0. Not like, miracle cheese nonsense, but...Gnome Illusionist 7/ScM 3 with Heighten Spell, Earth Spell, Spell Mastery, and Signature Spell. You can prepare utility/buff/debuff in most of your slots, but if you ever need a summon or blasting spell, you can spontaneously cast (Heightened) Silent Image, which then duplicates a summon or blast spell of the same level, none of which have to be in your spellbook even. It's not quite "cast any spell on your spell list", but it's like 1.5 schools worth that you just have available as spontaneous conversions. That's probably about the floor for T0 IMO: when you've bootstrapped wizard into being a better spontaneous caster than a sorcerer while still having all the wizard goodies.

Like, T0 isn't just about being better than default cleric/druid/wizard. I'm sure there's some archetypes that are broadly considered upgrades. This is more about...something that upgrades the casting in such an obvious, unavoidable way, that's it disingenuous to just stick it in the same tier as the normal big casters. It's not fair to take a cleric (who can spontaneously convert spell slots into any one of one possible spells) and ScM (who can spontaneously convert spell slots into any one of dozens of possible spells) in the same tier. It's not honest to say a druid, and a druid with arbitrary action economy (Planar Shepherd) are in the same tier. Stuff that is technically an upgrade but doesn't really fundamentally change the class is probably a lot more common in PF than things that actually take a T1 class and turn them up to 11.

I think this sums up my feelings on Tier 0. Tier 0 should be Pun-Pun. The territory between Tier 0 and Tier 1 should be past ninth-level prepared spellcasting and great class features to highly abusive cheese. In 3.5 terms, I want to see stuff like like Initiate of Sevenfold Veil, Planar Shepherd, Incantatrix, stacking multiple turning and rebuking pools to abuse Divine Metamagic, gaining infinite wishes, and so forth. The sort of character you'd build if you had to 1v1 a Tier 1 class like Wizard and wanted to completely guarantee victory.

I'm open to being convinced that some of the various 9th-level casters can, with moderate optimization, go beyond a flat T1.0 and are a fundamental upgrade. I'll want something more than being slightly more powerful than Wizard though.


I think the problem Maat Mons is having is that if you cut it off at 1 and 6, then tiers 2-5 have a wider range. If 0.8 is out of the range, then tier 1 is what, 1-1.5? Or would it be .4 since .5 rounds up? And then tier 2 is 1.5 to 2.4. I agree with them that each tier should have the same range, otherwise I think it's easier for T2 votes to drag a class out of the T1 range. Their system of having each tier be +/-0.5 works, or you could have T1 be anything from 1.0 to 1.9, T2 be 2.0 to 2.9, and so on, if that's more intuitive. That way no one mistakes a 0.7 for T0 when it's just meant to say high T1.

I think it would be better to have the same scoring system as 3.5 tiers, which was scores a flat 1-6 and had decimal places in between the two. It makes comparing tiers between PF and 3.5 easier, since we're using the same scoring scale with the same scoring criteria. People are also quite familiar with 3.5 tiers so there's minimal confusion with tiering for Pathfinder classes.

However, if a lot of people really want a scoring system of 0.5 to 6.5 then we can go to that.

[Maat Mons]

If there was any confusion, my rating of Wizard as Tier 0.6 was not intended to place it above Tier 1. In the same vein, my ratings of various flavors of Rogue as non-integer values was not intended to place them between Tiers.

I think I could maybe work with a system where high Tier 1 is 1.0 and low tier 1 is 1.4. It seems a little weird to me. Partly because having only 0.4 between high Tier 1 and low Tier 1 instead of the 0.8 difference in other Tiers makes it more susceptible to the fluctuations caused by outliers. Partly because it’s counter-intuitive that N.0 means the middle of its Tier when N is in the range 2-5, but top of its Tier when N=1 and, I guess, bottom of its Tier when N=6. But it’s your polling thread.

I’m still going to have to think if I’m going to keep all my ratings in increments of 0.2, or if I’ll increase the granularity to 0.1 for Tiers 1 and 6. But I think I might tentatively reinstate my non-integer ratings from previous threads, assuming, of course, that I can figure out a satisfactory way of assigning all classes decimal ratings going forward.


1High Tier 1Arcanist, Wizard
1.2Mid Tier 1Druid, Witch
1.4Low Tier 1Cleric, Shaman
1.6High Tier 2
1.8Mid-high Tier 2
2Mid Tier 2
2.2Mid-low Tier 2
2.4Low Tier 2
2.6High Tier 3
2.8Mid-high Tier 3
3Mid Tier 3
3.2Mid-low Tier 3
3.4Low Tier 3
3.6High Tier 4
3.8Mid-high Tier 4
4Mid Tier 4
4.2Mid-low Tier 4
4.4Low Tier 4
4.6High Tier 5
4.8Mid-high Tier 5
5Mid Tier 5
5.2Mid-low Tier 5
5.4Low Tier 5
5.6High Tier 6
5.8Mid Tier 6
6Low Tier 6


or


1.08High Tier 1Arcanist, Wizard
1.25Mid Tier 1Druid, Witch
1.42Low Tier 1Cleric, Shaman
1.6High Tier 2
1.8Mid-high Tier 2
2Mid Tier 2
2.2Mid-low Tier 2
2.4Low Tier 2
2.6High Tier 3
2.8Mid-high Tier 3
3Mid Tier 3
3.2Mid-low Tier 3
3.4Low Tier 3
3.6High Tier 4
3.8Mid-high Tier 4
4Mid Tier 4
4.2Mid-low Tier 4
4.4Low Tier 4
4.6High Tier 5
4.8Mid-high Tier 5
5Mid Tier 5
5.2Mid-low Tier 5
5.4Low Tier 5
5.58High Tier 6
5.75Mid Tier 6
5.92Low Tier 6


or


1High Tier 1Arcanist, Wizard
1.1Mid-high Tier 1Witch
1.2Mid Tier 1Druid
1.3Mid-low Tier 1Cleric
1.4Low Tier 1Shaman
1.6High Tier 2
1.8Mid-high Tier 2
2Mid Tier 2
2.2Mid-low Tier 2
2.4Low Tier 2
2.6High Tier 3
2.8Mid-high Tier 3
3Mid Tier 3
3.2Mid-low Tier 3
3.4Low Tier 3
3.6High Tier 4
3.8Mid-high Tier 4
4Mid Tier 4
4.2Mid-low Tier 4
4.4Low Tier 4
4.6High Tier 5
4.8Mid-high Tier 5
5Mid Tier 5
5.2Mid-low Tier 5
5.4Low Tier 5
5.6High Tier 6
5.7Mid-high Tier 6
5.8Mid Tier 6
5.9Mid-low Tier 6
6Low Tier 6


or


1.05High Tier 1Arcanist, Wizard
1.15Mid-high Tier 1Witch
1.25Mid Tier 1Druid
1.35Mid-low Tier 1Cleric
1.45Low Tier 1Shaman
1.6High Tier 2
1.8Mid-high Tier 2
2Mid Tier 2
2.2Mid-low Tier 2
2.4Low Tier 2
2.6High Tier 3
2.8Mid-high Tier 3
3Mid Tier 3
3.2Mid-low Tier 3
3.4Low Tier 3
3.6High Tier 4
3.8Mid-high Tier 4
4Mid Tier 4
4.2Mid-low Tier 4
4.4Low Tier 4
4.6High Tier 5
4.8Mid-high Tier 5
5Mid Tier 5
5.2Mid-low Tier 5
5.4Low Tier 5
5.55High Tier 6
5.65Mid-high Tier 6
5.75Mid Tier 6
5.85Mid-low Tier 6
5.95Low Tier 6


Each of the above options has some merits. I'm going to sleep on it and post more tomorrow.

[pabelfly]

Each of the above options has some merits. I'm going to sleep on it and post more tomorrow.

Sure, that's fair. If you're not happy with what you've come up with I'm happy to go back and change all your votes like I said I would.

[pabelfly]

Current Vote Tallies:

Wizard
Rynjin, Kurald Galain, Thunder 999, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons, Gnaeus – 1

Average – 1.0

Druid
Rynjin, Kurald Galain, Thunder 999, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons – 1
Gnaeus - Druid 1.5

Average – 1.06

Cleric
Rynjin, Thunder 999, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna – 1
Maat Mons – 1.2
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus – 1.5

Average – 1.15

[Kurald Galain]

Ah yeah, I forgot about Dazing spell. One of the very few things on my actual banlist.
I'm curious what your banlist looks like?


I don't even actually ban Sacred Geometry, I just trust my players not to break it. Dazing is just INHERENTLY broken.

Spell Perfection is one of those things that's technically busted but I don't really feel like it's worth "watching out for" anything that comes online at 15+.
I agree Spell Perfection comes online too late to actually worry about it. I ban Sacred Geometry mainly because it's time consuming at the game table.

[Rynjin]

I'm curious what your banlist looks like?

It's pretty small. Basically just:

Dazing Spell
Blood Money
Wraithform (really...spells from 3.5 in general. Backwards compatibility my ass; but this was the instigator)
Godlings (a 3rd party class set I disallow preemptively, where other 3pp stuff is on an "ask me and I'll probably allow it" basis)
Mixing Path of War and Spheres of Might class options
Master Summoner (just too much of a pain to deal with at the table)

I play with the same group in general that I trust to not TRY to break the game, so I really only ban things I know are default broken or annoying to deal with.


I agree Spell Perfection comes online too late to actually worry about it. I ban Sacred Geometry mainly because it's time consuming at the game table.

I found a Sacred Geometry calculator app I tell everyone who wants to take the Feat to use. I've only had one person take me up on it actually.

[pabelfly]

Okay, wrote up the class summaries for Cleric, Druid and Wizard. Critiques are appreciated, especially since everyone who posted in this thread understands the three better than I, I'm sure.

There's a lot of things to like about Cleric. Clerics can heal the entire party, regardless of formation, multiple times a day. They have access to a huge list of spells that support a wide variety of playstyles. However, at low levels, the areas that Cleric is best at - buffing - is something that Druid and Wizard just do better, and Wizard and Druid can fill other roles like battlefield control, summoning or direct blasting better too. However, the spellcasting ability of Clerics greatly improve and are arguably equal to Druid and Wizard at higher levels. The slight deficiency in spells at lower level are enough to argue that Cleric is slightly weaker than Druid and Wizard, although it's still an incredibly powerful class that readily earns a position in Tier 1.

Druid has a lot of potent spell options, which are best used with crowd control and scouting, but they can also can take the role of melee fighter or healer as required. They also choose between having a Cleric domain, which comes with extra spells and extra spell slots, or an animal companion who has all the utility of a party member, be it helping with flanking, keeping enemies distracted, or just adding to the party damage output each round. A druid that invests resources in improving Wildshape capability and combat ability is (slightly) weaker than a Druid investing in spellcasting, but being weaker is relative when you are still more effective than most class options.

Wizard has access to many top-tier spells that give them the option to take whatever role suits the party and challenges they expect to face, be it blasting, buffing, debuffing, summoning or crowd control. If that wasn't enough, Wizard gets bonus feats to further improve spellcasting or delve into item creation, a Wizard familiar can give their Wizard some great buffs, and since they're investing in Intelligence, they'll have a lot of skill points to throw around. Wizard is definitely at the top of Tier 1.

[Rynjin]

Druids don't have to "invest" in Wildshape, unless you're referring to needing at least half-decent physical stats to use it in combat. They just...get it. The only choice they make in terms of class features is whether to get a Domain or an Animal Companion (...even then the Animal/Feather Domains give them both lol).

I guess you sort of have to make the choice if you want to take Nature Fang to increase your spell DCs in exchange for Wildshape, but that's not a core, necessary choice.

[pabelfly]

Druids don't have to "invest" in Wildshape, unless you're referring to needing at least half-decent physical stats to use it in combat. They just...get it. The only choice they make in terms of class features is whether to get a Domain or an Animal Companion (...even then the Animal/Feather Domains give them both lol).

I guess you sort of have to make the choice if you want to take Nature Fang to increase your spell DCs in exchange for Wildshape, but that's not a core, necessary choice.

Okay, slightly reworded the text to make my intent more clear: "A druid that invests resources in improving Wildshape capability and combat ability is (slightly) weaker than a Druid investing in spellcasting".

Do you think this is better?

[Kurald Galain]

Looks good overall, although I'd suggest not using acronyms (like DPS) because not everybody knows what that means.

The description for cleric suggests that "buffs" are not as obviously powerful as "battlefield control and direct blasting"; whereas the problem is that wizard and druid are simply better at buffing than the cleric. I'd simply remove the word "buffs" from that sentence about clerics.

I'm not sure why "a Wizard familiar is the equivalent of two feats"; I haven't seen familiars measured in feats exactly (unless you mean "free alertness and improved initiative"), but take a look at the list of familiar archetypes (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/familiar/familiar-archetypes) for an idea of the strong and diverse benefits you can get from one.

The wizard can "take whatever role suits the party and challenges they expect to face"; maybe end that sentence with a few suggested roles, like blaster or buffer or summoner or whatnot.

[Kurald Galain]

I play with the same group in general that I trust to not TRY to break the game, so I really only ban things I know are default broken or annoying to deal with.
Fair enough. My own banlist is more academic (in the sense of "stuff that I'd advice forum users to watch out for"), and the only things I recall actually banning in play have been for setting reasons (e.g. Eberron dragonmarks don't exist in the Forgotten Realms, thank you very much).

[pabelfly]

Looks good overall, although I'd suggest not using acronyms (like DPS) because not everybody knows what that means.

The description for cleric suggests that "buffs" are not as obviously powerful as "battlefield control and direct blasting"; whereas the problem is that wizard and druid are simply better at buffing than the cleric. I'd simply remove the word "buffs" from that sentence about clerics.

I'm not sure why "a Wizard familiar is the equivalent of two feats"; I haven't seen familiars measured in feats exactly (unless you mean "free alertness and improved initiative"), but take a look at the list of familiar archetypes (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/familiar/familiar-archetypes) for an idea of the strong and diverse benefits you can get from one.

The wizard can "take whatever role suits the party and challenges they expect to face"; maybe end that sentence with a few suggested roles, like blaster or buffer or summoner or whatnot.

Thanks for the edits, Kurald Galain. The text flows a lot better now, IMO.

[Kurald Galain]

Looks good.

I'd like to suggest that in the central thread, you post the summaries in order of rating, not in alphabetical order (so wiz, drd, cle; instead of cle, drd, wiz).

[pabelfly]

Looks good.

I'd like to suggest that in the central thread, you post the summaries in order of rating, not in alphabetical order (so wiz, drd, cle; instead of cle, drd, wiz).

Sure, fixed the ordering.

[Thunder999]

Okay, wrote up the class summaries for Cleric, Druid and Wizard. Critiques are appreciated, especially since everyone who posted in this thread understands the three better than I, I'm sure.

There's a lot of things to like about Cleric. Clerics can heal the entire party, regardless of formation, multiple times a day. They have access to a huge list of spells that support a wide variety of playstyles. However, at low levels, the areas that Cleric is best at - buffing - is something that Druid and Wizard just do better, and Wizard and Druid can fill other roles like battlefield control, summoning or direct blasting better too. However, the spellcasting ability of Clerics greatly improve and are arguably equal to Druid and Wizard at higher levels. The slight deficiency in spells at lower level are enough to argue that Cleric is slightly weaker than Druid and Wizard, although it's still an incredibly powerful class that readily earns a position in Tier 1.

Druid has a lot of potent spell options, which are best used with crowd control and scouting, but they can also can take the role of melee fighter or healer as required. They also choose between having a Cleric domain, which comes with extra spells and extra spell slots, or an animal companion who has all the utility of a party member, be it helping with flanking, keeping enemies distracted, or just adding to the party damage output each round. A druid that invests resources in improving Wildshape capability and combat ability is (slightly) weaker than a Druid investing in spellcasting, but being weaker is relative when you are still more effective than most class options.

Wizard has access to many top-tier spells that give them the option to take whatever role suits the party and challenges they expect to face, be it blasting, buffing, debuffing, summoning or crowd control. If that wasn't enough, Wizard gets bonus feats to further improve spellcasting or delve into item creation, a Wizard familiar can give their Wizard some great buffs, and since they're investing in Intelligence, they'll have a lot of skill points to throw around. Wizard is definitely at the top of Tier 1.

I wouldn't call clerics worse at summoning, the Sacred Summons feat actually makes them pretty good at it.

[Kurald Galain]

I wouldn't call clerics worse at summoning, the Sacred Summons feat actually makes them pretty good at it.
Clerics, druids, and wizards can all summon as a standard action if they put their mind to it. Wizard has the most goodies for summoned monsters and druids have spontaneous summoning; so clerics are indeed the worst of the three at summons. (edit) mind you, the "worst" of these three is still pretty darn good at it.

[Gnaeus]

Clerics, druids, and wizards can all summon as a standard action if they put their mind to it. Wizard has the most goodies for summoned monsters and druids have spontaneous summoning; so clerics are indeed the worst of the three at summons. (edit) mind you, the "worst" of these three is still pretty darn good at it.

Druids have spontaneous summoning from a much worse list. Druids are the worst by a fair margin. Especially at 4+, Druids get summon beatstick and Cleric/Sor/Wiz get summon outsider casters. The days of unicorns are sadly gone

[Kurald Galain]

Druids get summon beatstick and Cleric/Sor/Wiz get summon outsider casters.
Druids still have some fey on their list, and can wear a Ring of Natural Attunement to broaden their options to, say, Kami; so I don't think that's as clear-cut as you state. Besides, summoning beatsticks with pounce or trample can do quite good amounts of damage.

[Gnaeus]

Druids still have some fey on their list, and can wear a Ring of Natural Attunement to broaden their options to, say, Kami; so I don't think that's as clear-cut as you state. Besides, summoning beatsticks with pounce or trample can do quite good amounts of damage.

I didn't write it in bold all caps so I pretty significantly understated it. The rings don't suck, but the summon monster crowd still gets the better Rings of Summoning Affinity. Druids also lose out on the summon (alignment) monster feats which are all generally upgrades with large casting options.
Summon 3 Druid: (none) SM: Dretch, Lantern Archon
Summon 4 Mephit (both) Druid: Satyr SM Hound Archon (Almost a wash, I still give it to the SM crowd given the difficulty of using enchantments from a summoned satyr)
Summon 5 Druid (none) SM Bralani Azata, Babau Demon
Summon 6 Druid (None) SM Lillend Azata, Shadow Mastiff, Erynes
Summon 7 Druid (None) SM Bone Devil, Vrock
Summon 8 Druid (None) SM Barbed Devil, Hezrou
Summon 9 Druid Pixie, Storm Giant SM 6 different casting outsiders.

Yes, summoning beatsticks can do damage. But the beatsticks are equivalent, virtually identical on both lists, except that the SM side get free templates on theirs, providing darkvision, ER and DR to the otherwise identical Roc or T-Rex. Its not like 3.5 where the druid actually got better beatsticks.

[AvatarVecna]

mind you, the "worst" of these three is still pretty darn good at it.

[/thread] :smalltongue:

[Darvin]

I'm not sure why "a Wizard familiar is the equivalent of two feats"
Because Familiar Bond and Improved Familiar bond are two feats that give you a familiar as a wizard with class level equal to your character level. Technically it's 3 feats, since you do need Iron Will as a prerequisite, but that's not exactly a dead feat and depending on what you want you may be able to stop with just the first Familiar Bond feat.

[pabelfly]

Because Familiar Bond and Improved Familiar bond are two feats that give you a familiar as a wizard with class level equal to your character level. Technically it's 3 feats, since you do need Iron Will as a prerequisite, but that's not exactly a dead feat and depending on what you want you may be able to stop with just the first Familiar Bond feat.

I edited it to just say that a Familiar was a powerful addition. Seemed to convey the same information without misunderstandings

[Kurald Galain]

Because Familiar Bond and Improved Familiar bond are two feats that give you a familiar as a wizard with class level equal to your character level.[
Good catch. I note that Familiar Bond specifies that "you do not gain the special ability the familiar normally grants its master, and the familiar does not gain the deliver touch spells, scry on familiar, share spells, speak with animals of its kind, or spell resistance special abilities.".

Notably, that means you cannot take most familiar archetypes, either.


Technically it's 3 feats, since you do need Iron Will as a prerequisite
That's not "technically"; that's a feat that most characters wouldn't normally take, so yes, that is a cost.

[Darvin]

Good catch. I note that Familiar Bond specifies that "you do not gain the special ability the familiar normally grants its master, and the familiar does not gain the deliver touch spells, scry on familiar, share spells, speak with animals of its kind, or spell resistance special abilities.".
That's what Improved Familiar Bond is for, it lifts all those restrictions. I see no reason why you couldn't take a familiar archetype after you got Improved.


That's not "technically"; that's a feat that most characters wouldn't normally take, so yes, that is a cost.
Again, it's not like Iron Will is a dead feat. It may not have been a feat you would have otherwise taken, but it's still a useful feat in its own right. The overall value is not clear-cut and will depend heavily on the build.

There is also the alternative route of the Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) route, which gives you a familiar but with a 2 level delay on its abilities, but that does require a dead feat prerequisite in Skill Focus (Knowledge Arcana) so I will absolutely agree that one is two feats. The bigger impediment for a lot of builds will be the 13 Cha prerequisite, however, which is quite expensive for non-Cha classes outside of the most generous point buys.

[Aquillion]

I’ve heard people say Exploiter is the strongest Wizard archetype. It doesn’t look to me like a substantial change, Tier-wise.
I mean, wizards are already so powerful that any wizard archetype is only going to be a marginal gain over the ridiculous amounts you get from the base class. That said, Exploiters are clearly really really strong. Consider: The few weak points of wizards as a class are that sometimes you'll prepare the wrong spell, and some of your strongest spells require saves. (There's ways around both of these but they're still a major limiting factor.)

Exploiter wizards basically fix both problems.

Quick Study means you have access to your entire spellbook as a full-round action, which means it's basically impossible to stump an exploiter wizard outside of combat (and even in combat they just need a round to prepare.)

Potent Magic means you can utterly crush someone's save when you really have to, and also lets you dramatically increase CL-related stuff when needed.

Those are the main reason you become an Exploiter Wizard, but you get other exploits on top of that, most of them useful. Spell Tinkerer is amazing for extending buffs and has other uses too; immediate action counterspells are also incredibly useful. And you can regain the familiar and school abilities you traded away if you want them, or turn unneeded exploit choices into metamagic feats or arcane discoveries.

The only thing you really give up is the school specialization bonus slots, but you also avoid having any opposition schools; and Quick Study + Potent Magic generally makes up for that by letting you use your slots more efficiently.

[Maat Mons]

Four days ago, I said I'd update my ratings "tomorrow." I've been putting it off because I was figuring I'd also do a detailed write up of my thoughts on ratings and numbers and things. I don't really want to write all that though. So I'll just say that I went with option #3 from my spoiler.

Wizard: Tier 1.0
Druid: Tier 1.2
Cleric: Tier 1.3

[pabelfly]

Current Vote Tallies:

Wizard
Rynjin, Kurald Galain, Thunder 999, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna, Maat Mons, Gnaeus, Bucky – 1

Average – 1.0

Druid
Rynjin, Kurald Galain, Thunder 999, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna – 1.0
Bucky - 1.1
Maat Mons – 1.2
Gnaeus – Druid 1.5

Average – 1.09

Cleric
Rynjin, Endless Rain, Darvin, Avatar Vecna, Bucky – 1
Thunder 999, Maat Mons – 1.3
Kurald Galain, Gnaeus – 1.5

Average – 1.18

Tomorrow we'll start tiering the Sorcerer.

[Thunder999]

Can I change my cleric vote to 1.3, wasn't thinking about the decimals originally.
It's definitely in tier 1, but there's a noticeable gap between it and a wizard.

[pabelfly]

Can I change my cleric vote to 1.3, wasn't thinking about the decimals originally.
It's definitely in tier 1, but there's a noticeable gap between it and a wizard.

Sure, fixed.

[vasilidor]

I played a cleric, got more mileage out of doing damage prevention then healing for the most part.
Command, Greater Command, Cause fear, wall spells, summon monster, etc. made up most of my damage prevention. A summoned monster that gets in the way of a group of attackers, even if they beat it to death in one round, can mean a huge difference a lot of the time. Getting diplomacy and sense motive is pretty neat too. there are some decent attack spells, but attack spells have never really been my thing when considering castors in 3.X stuff.
Got a lot of use out of the Reach Spell metamagic feat.
Tier 1 for cleric, not taking into account archetypes.

Wizards are pretty good to. Lots of ways to get information, boost the party, do damage prevention etc. As always summon monster is never a mistake. casting the right spell in the right moment can end encounters before they start.
Also Tier 1.

Druids get crowd control, a beat stick if they take that option or more spells if they don't. along with the ability to summon more beat sticks/damage sponges. Maybe not as good as summon monster, maybe better - depending on what you are trying to accomplish. The wild shape ability took a hard nerf though, along with most other polymorph abilities/spells.
Tier 1, maybe 1.5.

[Firechanter]

Just as a little sidenote, my impression of the PF classes is that while they have a stronger chassis than the 3.5 ones, the T1s don't seem to be as capable at outshining T4 classes at the T4s' own shticks.

For instance, once I tried to build a Cleric Archer out of habit, but wasn't happy with the result. Mostly bc it isn't as trivial to get Wis to Attack, also the nerf of Divine Power, the lack of Knowledge Devotion, and the sheer feat intensity.

Likewise, Wizards can do a lot of things, but I'm not sure they can replace a PF Fighter so willy-nilly. Or at the very least, if they do that, it's just not an efficient use of their abilities.

All that doesn't change their Tier rating; just saying I haven't seen T1s stealing the other classes' thunder so often in PF (unless the other classes were woefully anti-optimized), and I appreciate that.

[Rynjin]

For instance, once I tried to build a Cleric Archer out of habit, but wasn't happy with the result. Mostly bc it isn't as trivial to get Wis to Attack, also the nerf of Divine Power, the lack of Knowledge Devotion, and the sheer feat intensity.

The Guided property still exists, so it's still pretty trivial.


Likewise, Wizards can do a lot of things, but I'm not sure they can replace a PF Fighter so willy-nilly. Or at the very least, if they do that, it's just not an efficient use of their abilities.

Sort of; Eldritch Knights are still "Fighter that gets 9s" so it's still pretty good.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but figured I'd pick some nits real quick.

[pabelfly]

Druids get crowd control, a beat stick if they take that option or more spells if they don't. along with the ability to summon more beat sticks/damage sponges. Maybe not as good as summon monster, maybe better - depending on what you are trying to accomplish. The wild shape ability took a hard nerf though, along with most other polymorph abilities/spells.
Tier 1, maybe 1.5.

Just to prevent any confusion:

Tier 1: 1-1.5
Tier 2: 1.5-2.5
Tier 3: 2.5-3.5
Tier 4: 3.5-4.5
Tier 5: 4.5-5.5
Tier 6: 5.5-6

Are you happy with 1.5 for Druid?

[vasilidor]

I think the nerf to polymorph effects (Including wild shape) really helps with the not overshadowing fighters and etc. in their own fields. Yes, they can become fighters temporarily, but the actual fighter is going to be better and last longer.

where I think blasting magic and shapeshifting really shines is against a large number of enemies that make up a CR appropriate encounter instead of a single big monster.

[Thunder999]

Cleric can theoretically match a fighter with enough buff time, particularly if you go for a less feat intensive combat style, a nice 2-handed reach weapon doesn't need bonus feats to be very effective, but without 3.5e Persist there's no getting around the fact that most of your best buffs only last a single fight.
Druid can manage it too, mostly because wildshape is still really good, natural attacks not having iterative penalties generally makes up for that 3/4 BAB.
Biggest difference IMHO is that both of them need to actually build for melee now, with a solid strength score and a few feats invested, so their offensive casting won't be as strong.

Wizards have a harder time of it, eventually it's possible to do something like Giant Form+Emblem of Greed to be huge sized with BAB=CL and your casting intact, but before that you really feel that 1/2 BAB when polymorph spells are only a moderate strength boost, the cleric and druid are really leaning on the fact that medium armour, a d8 and 3/4 BAB is already almost passable, so they just need a couple of buffs.

Of course there's always the other ways of replacing the fighter, summoning is very powerful, Summ Nature's Ally is largely worse than 3.5, but Summon Monster is somewhat better with a plenty of ways to expand the already good list. And that's without getting into higher-op stuff like Alter Summon Monster+Heightened mount, there's ways both a cleric and a wizard can drop the cast time to a standard action too.

And then there's the ever broken Planar Binding and Simulacrum spells, a bit high level of course.

[Rynjin]

Druid can manage it too, mostly because wildshape is still really good, natural attacks not having iterative penalties generally makes up for that 3/4 BAB.
Biggest difference IMHO is that both of them need to actually build for melee now, with a solid strength score and a few feats invested, so their offensive casting won't be as strong.


If you want to be a proper Druid gish or archer a good bet is to actually drop Wild Shape and go Nature Fang (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid/archetypes/paizo-druid-archetypes/nature-fang/).

You lose Wild Shape and a few ribbons in exchange for the Slayer's Studied Target and a few Slayer Talents. It's not an awful trade, actually, once you notice that Studied Target specifies that not only does it boost attack, damage, and a few skill rolls...it boosts DCs.

[Drelua]

Clerics are kind of alone among full casters in how MAD they are. Not sure how that effects their ranking, if at all. I can't think of any others that use multiple mental scores, and with medium armor and a good selection of combat buffs they benefit from every mental score, so INT is their least valuable attribute, which kinda stings with 2+INT skills. Interesting that they made Paladin no longer dependent and WIS at all, but didn't change that about cleric. I guess they figured the 3.5 Paladin needs the help, while Cleric really doesn't.

Of course, you can just ignore channel entirely and still be a T1 caster, it's not that great. Or just use it for healing and accept that you won't have many uses/day, or I'm sure there's an archetype that trades it away.

Still not going to vote on this one, because I've never played a full caster past like level 4 and that was in 3.5.

[Kurald Galain]

Druids get crowd control, a beat stick if they take that option or more spells if they don't. along with the ability to summon more beat sticks/damage sponges. Maybe not as good as summon monster, maybe better - depending on what you are trying to accomplish. The wild shape ability took a hard nerf though, along with most other polymorph abilities/spells.
Note that just because a class is weaker than its 3E equivalent doesn't mean it's lower tier than its 3E equivalent. Druids don't need full casting and wildshaped melee and a beatstick companion to be Tier One.

[Aquillion]

Just as a little sidenote, my impression of the PF classes is that while they have a stronger chassis than the 3.5 ones, the T1s don't seem to be as capable at outshining T4 classes at the T4s' own shticks.This is definitely true. Most of PF's changes have focused more on buffing weak classes rather than nerfing high-powered ones (which makes sense given that it was a reaction to 4e, where one of the big complaints was its changes to T1 classes. Few people are going to object to eg. Fighters getting access to better unique Fighter feats.)

But since tiers notionally represent something absolute rather than just relative, that probably means there are fewer T4s and T5s, and more T3s. We'll see that when tiering the other classes.

[Thunder999]

It's already shown up with people arguing for tier 3 rogues and paladins, I even think ranger gets close (though others feel the issues with favoured enemy are enough to put it a lot lower). Even the chained rogue isn't tier 5, and that's one of the least functional classes.

[Ramza00]

If we want to talk about T0 in Pathfinder we're talking mythic, specifically Archmage or Hierophant with Wild Surge or Inspired Spell respectively. Cast any spell on your spell list on demand, no questions asked. Anything that wants to claim T0 status needs to at least be comparable to that in my view, and almost nothing in non-mythic is even arguably in the same league. The only candidate I think is even worth talking about is Razmiran Priest Sorcerer. Just by owning the appropriate scroll, the Razmiran Priest Sorcerer can cast any divine spell from his own spell slots at a 1 level penalty while ignoring material costs requirements. However, this feature only comes online at 9th level so it's very delayed.

As to the Arcanist, I feel it relies too heavily on Quick Study. The baseline spells prepared per day are really limited so the Arcanist has to lean on Quick Study pretty liberally to actually deliver at a T1 level, and this has both action economy and resource management implications. Still a solid T1, but more mid-high rather than top. I'd also disagree with the notion that it invalidates or completely outclasses the Sorcerer. A Sorcerer can easily have twice as many spells known as an Arcanist has spells prepared, and has lots of ways to increase spell flexibility that don't eat into daily resources or his bloodline features.

Not available till level 9 due to the price tag, but I argue Amulet of Magecraft and the 3 similar items gets a wizard close to tier 0. Not Pun Pun but something more versatile with no needed prep time with the power of the Wizard.

Spontaneously cast any spell from 1 of the schools several times per day. Likewise you still have the normal any spell of ANY school once a day due to your general bonded object.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/a-b/amulet-of-magecraft/

[Bucky]

In my experience, of any class, Wizards have the highest rate of flipping the entire campaign scenario on the GM. Clear Tier 1.

On the other hand, Clerics have the highest rate of casually neutralizing a challenge. This isn't just a function of high level spells - it starts with things like Create Water and Purify Food and Drink out of the orison slots. Also clear Tier 1.

Druids are slightly behind both. Tier 1.1.

[Aquillion]

I don't think the tiers go above 1, so I'll put everything between 0.6 and 1 as 1.
Strenuously disagree with this. What's the point of even attempting to rate the stronger Wizard archetypes under that rule?

Wizard is basically the definition of the default T1 - they define the tier. Obviously the default Wizard is always going to be 1 and nobody is going to seriously suggest otherwise.

This means that if you forbid any rating above 1, you are saying that there is axiomatically no wizard subclass that improves on the base wizard to the point where it would warrant a better rating, that we're not even allowed to suggest that fact and will be ignored if we do - ie. given that Wizards are what defines T1, that means you will not accept or allow anyone trying to rate a wizard subclass separately if they're arguing that doing so makes the wizard stronger.

What's the point of saying that? Of course it's at least notionally possible for something to be above T1 - you might disagree on whether any such class actually exists, but a hypothetical Wizard subclass that eg. traded away their ability to use cantrips in exchange for the ability to cast any spell in their spellbook spontaneously and which added every spell in the game to their list at the lowest level it has ever been printed would obviously make them both more powerful and more versatile and would therefore move them above T1.

Obviously such a class would never be printed, but if your argument rests on that, you're basically saying "well, I personally believe no published Wizard subclass is substantially stronger or more versatile than the wizard, at least not sufficiently for it to be reflected in numerical tiers, so I'm just going to ignore anyone who argues otherwise." And if you're going to take that position, why ask anyone else to weigh in on tiers in the first place?

I'm not sure if any archetype actually warrants a rating above 1, but clearly the option should be there for people who feel they do - otherwise the ratings at the top (and bottom) of the scale won't reflect what people actually think, since they'll be affected by what's effectively a fiat declaration that eg. no classes or archetypes can be rated stronger than the wizard.

[Rynjin]

A rating above 1 is essentially meaningless. There is no Tier 0, and the closest things that do exist are TO builds that would never see actual play.

There is no archetype, or class, in Pathfinder that approaches a theoretical Tier 0 status. T1 is the top.

[Aquillion]

A rating above 1 is essentially meaningless. There is no Tier 0, and the closest things that do exist are TO builds that would never see actual play.

There is no archetype, or class, in Pathfinder that approaches a theoretical Tier 0 status. T1 is the top.But the meaning of an eg. 0.9 rating for a wizard archetype is unambiguous and clear to everyone - it's someone saying that that archetype is stronger or more versatile than the base wizard.

We're allowed to do that for eg. Sorcerer archetypes. Why wouldn't we be allowed to do that for Wizard archetypes? If someone later comes across this list, sees a bunch of archetypes rated, and says "ah, nobody thinks that any archetypes improve on the base wizard", what would you tell them? "Ah no, we forbade anyone from rating anything above 1, so any archetypes that were stronger than base wizard were axiomatically ignored."

How does that make the list more useful or representative of people's opinions?

[Rynjin]

Whether they're better than base Wizard or not isn't really relevant, because it doesn't make Wizard higher than T1.

At T1 you did it. You won the game. You're the peak.

You may as well argue why we don't have tiers below 6. It's because 6 is the bottom. On a scale of 1 to 6 you can fall anywhere between 1 and 6. Neither above 1 or below 6 exists.

[pabelfly]

Strenuously disagree with this. What's the point of even attempting to rate the stronger Wizard archetypes under that rule?

Wizard is basically the definition of the default T1 - they define the tier. Obviously the default Wizard is always going to be 1 and nobody is going to seriously suggest otherwise.

This means that if you forbid any rating above 1, you are saying that there is axiomatically no wizard subclass that improves on the base wizard to the point where it would warrant a better rating, that we're not even allowed to suggest that fact and will be ignored if we do - ie. given that Wizards are what defines T1, that means you will not accept or allow anyone trying to rate a wizard subclass separately if they're arguing that doing so makes the wizard stronger.

What's the point of saying that? Of course it's at least notionally possible for something to be above T1 - you might disagree on whether any such class actually exists, but a hypothetical Wizard subclass that eg. traded away their ability to use cantrips in exchange for the ability to cast any spell in their spellbook spontaneously and which added every spell in the game to their list at the lowest level it has ever been printed would obviously make them both more powerful and more versatile and would therefore move them above T1.

Obviously such a class would never be printed, but if your argument rests on that, you're basically saying "well, I personally believe no published Wizard subclass is substantially stronger or more versatile than the wizard, at least not sufficiently for it to be reflected in numerical tiers, so I'm just going to ignore anyone who argues otherwise." And if you're going to take that position, why ask anyone else to weigh in on tiers in the first place?

I'm not sure if any archetype actually warrants a rating above 1, but clearly the option should be there for people who feel they do - otherwise the ratings at the top (and bottom) of the scale won't reflect what people actually think, since they'll be affected by what's effectively a fiat declaration that eg. no classes or archetypes can be rated stronger than the wizard.

Two points:
First, the scale from the 3.5 edition was from 1-6. It's a system that seems to be accepted online for discussion about 3.5 dnd, so for ease of rating and comparison, we went with the same scale for Pathfinder.

Second, let's have a look at the definition of T1:

"Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is the realm of clerics, druids, and wizards, classes that open up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then get massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with that core trio of tier one casters, then you probably don't belong here."

Even if there were archetypes stronger than vanilla Wizard, and I'm sure there are, it doesn't fundamentally change their tier. They'd still be incredibly good at solving nearly all problems, especially presuming average levels of optimization, and that's still Tier 1.

[Rynjin]

Precisely. "Can do anything" is the bar for pure T1, essentially. Even if there were a Wizard that could "do anythinger" it wouldn't matter. The power level is largely indistinguishable.

[Kurald Galain]

But the meaning of an eg. 0.9 rating for a wizard archetype is unambiguous and clear to everyone - it's someone saying that that archetype is stronger or more versatile than the base wizard.
The catch is that the tier list is not ranking all classes from top to bottom, but instead dividing the classes into six specifically defined categories.

Otherwise, you get wonky questions like "if class A is in tier X and we increase its damage by 25%, how many fractional tiers does it increase". Clearly, class A-but-with-25%-more-damage is strictly better than class A, but that does not mean it's in the next tier.

[AvatarVecna]

There are arguments for tiers going as high as -2, but it's largely irrelevant because -2 to 0 is almost purely the domain of theorycrafting and will never see a real table.

I think there is value is having ratings under 1 for particularly good T1 archetypes, but I also think that most archetypes don't change enough about the base class to warrant such a tier change - going from "average T1" to "almost-but-not-quite T0" is harder than you think.

EDIT: Like, some people think that one Sorcerer archetype is good enough to make Sorcerer T1. To get from T2 to T1, that archetype had to give sorcerers the ability to purchase extra spells known with cash, as well as giving them theoretical access to the whole cleric spell list. That's how much it took to raise the tier of a full caster, and that wasn't even one of the best full casters.

[pabelfly]

There are arguments for tiers going as high as -2, but it's largely irrelevant because -2 to 0 is almost purely the domain of theorycrafting and will never see a real table.

I think there is value is having ratings under 1 for particularly good T1 archetypes, but I also think that most archetypes don't change enough about the base class to warrant such a tier change - going from "average T1" to "almost-but-not-quite T0" is harder than you think.

EDIT: Like, some people think that one Sorcerer archetype is good enough to make Sorcerer T1. To get from T2 to T1, that archetype had to give sorcerers the ability to purchase extra spells known with cash, as well as giving them theoretical access to the whole cleric spell list. That's how much it took to raise the tier of a full caster, and that wasn't even one of the best full casters.

If T1 is "incredibly good at solving nearly all problems" then it seems to follow, at least to me, that T0 would be "incredibly good at solving all problems", (so, Pun-Pun).

I'm open to the argument that some builds could be between T1 and T0, but above T1, I'd hope to see stuff like stats with an infinity symbol next to them or how you cast free Wish, stuff obviously and utterly broken and trivializes all encounters and problems.

[Thunder999]

Free Wish is already a thing most tier 1 classes can pull off though, as are functionally limitless armies of minions (just cast Gate to call a Gate Archon, tell it to use its Gate SLA and repeat forever, there's also the classic trick of having anything with wish wish up a Simulacrum of itself and repeating infinitely)

[spectralphoenix]

Free Wish is already a thing most tier 1 classes can pull off though, as are functionally limitless armies of minions (just cast Gate to call a Gate Archon, tell it to use its Gate SLA and repeat forever, there's also the classic trick of having anything with wish wish up a Simulacrum of itself and repeating infinitely)

That's pretty much it. If a table is playing with that level of TO, they don't need three more tiers above T1, they just need "god-casters" and "collateral damage."

[AvatarVecna]

If T1 is "incredibly good at solving nearly all problems" then it seems to follow, at least to me, that T0 would be "incredibly good at solving all problems", (so, Pun-Pun).

I'm open to the argument that some builds could be better than T1, but above T1, I'd hope to see stuff like stats with an infinity symbol next to them or how you cast free Wish.

Generally it comes down to "is it reasonable to put these in the same tier as each other" - not really based on how many problems they solve or how well they're solved, but just the layers of bull****. What I've generally seen, as far as people talking about "tiers above 1":

T0: T1, but something has been turned up to 11 (power, versatility, action economy), or with the ability to significantly improve themselves by means other than leveling up. Artificers leaning hard into economancy and metamagic reduction (commonly called "Zeroficers"), circle mages cheesing their way into CL 40 and a pile of free metamagic pre-epic, Elans pretending to be Beholder Mages and getting 10 spells per round, shadowcraft mages who can turn any spell slot into any evocation/conjuration spell on a whim, spontaneously casting from the whole cleric, the more limited readings of Illithid Savant...things like that.

T-1: This is the tier where mechanics are explicitly getting NI or infinite regularly, or if your build can be shifted basically on a whim, or what you're doing is just basically impossible to deal with. Chaining Planar Binding for arbitrary genie wishes, Druids with arbitrary action economy, combining the Hivemind rules with the Swarm rules to get a friend that casts as a Sorcerer 3000 with Cha "3 Million", characters who use NI Str for every roll involving an attribute all day every day, exponential uncapped economancy, the more open-ended readings of Illithid Savant, mages who are truly abusing Teleport Through Time to its fullest potential...things like that.

T-2: Pun-Pun, or something so similar it's functionally indistinguishable. Infinite everything, immune to everything, retconning that you've always had abilities you just made up.

But again...the difference between all of these and T1 is largely immaterial to this particular discussion. PF doesn't really have mechanics that take builds into T0 territory, let alone the rest. For all that it's reviled and almost universally banned, Sacred Geometry has a lower ceiling than the various combinable metamagic reduction techniques 3.5 had. Mythic Time Stop gives you a 24 hour window to plan things out or escape, but it can't let you re-prepare spells, which it would need to in order to warrant changing your tier. Spheres Of Power's most game-breaking talents tend to just look like high-level spells being given to people who don't normally get them, but you don't really get enough of those that it breaks through the T1 ceiling.

The difference between T1 and T0 is surprisingly big. Thus, the difference between T1 and high T1 is also gonna be surprisingly big. I am 100% in favor of allowing people to rate things as Tier 0.6 for the same reasons that I was in favor of things being rated 3.6 (some things are clearly T4, but also clearly a much better T4 than other T4s). I'm just skeptical that anything is actually doing so much that it takes a T1 class and actually turns them up to 11 in any respect.

[AvatarVecna]

I'll also clarify that those "above T1" tiers are basically arbitrary. It's all arguably falling into T1, just higher parts of T1, but they tend to get lumped into higher tiers just because "it doesn't feel honest to put them in the same tier as normal wizards".

[pabelfly]

Free Wish is already a thing most tier 1 classes can pull off though, as are functionally limitless armies of minions (just cast Gate to call a Gate Archon, tell it to use its Gate SLA and repeat forever, there's also the classic trick of having anything with wish wish up a Simulacrum of itself and repeating infinitely)

I don't know, summoning a powerful monster against it's will and trying to make it cast the spells you want it without it conspiring against you, refusing you or even attacking you doesn't seem like "above T1" territory to me.

[Maat Mons]

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. If Wizard, Arcanist, Druid, Witch, Cleric, and Shaman were removed from the game, would Sorcerer’s Tier rating need to be reduced from 1.62 to 2?

With Wizard, Arcanist, Druid, Witch, Cleric, and Shaman gone, there would be no Tier 1. That is to say, nothing would be higher than Tier 2. If nothing is higher than Tier 2, than how can Sorcerer be Tier 1.62? Tier 1.62 is higher than Tier 2, but with Wizard, Arcanist, Druid, Witch, Cleric, and Shaman stricken from the game, nothing is higher than Tier 2, so Sorcerer can at most be Tier 2.0.

[pabelfly]

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. If Wizard, Arcanist, Druid, Witch, Cleric, and Shaman were removed from the game, would Sorcerer’s Tier rating need to be reduced from 1.62 to 2?

With Wizard, Arcanist, Druid, Witch, Cleric, and Shaman gone, there would be no Tier 1. That is to say, nothing would be higher than Tier 2. If nothing is higher than Tier 2, than how can Sorcerer be Tier 1.62? Tier 1.62 is higher than Tier 2, but with Wizard, Arcanist, Druid, Witch, Cleric, and Shaman stricken from the game, nothing is higher than Tier 2, so Sorcerer can at most be Tier 2.0.

The tiers are still a description of how well a class can deal with the challenges it's given, regardless of what classes are present or not. The absence of T1 classes doesn't mean that T2 stops being T2.

[Maat Mons]

Okay, so we can have a Tier rating of 1.62 without a Tier 1 to compare to. Shouldn't it also follow that we can have a Tier rating of 0.62 without a Tier 0 to compare to?

I don't see why we need to even talk about "Tier 0" when the only numbers anyone has put forward as votes are, according to numerical patterns, within Tier 1. Tiers are N +/- 0.5. So 1.62 in within Tier 2. and 0.62 is within Tier 1. Why is anyone talking about "between Tiers" and "above Tier 1?" It's a bizarre response to a post that didn't have the slightest thing to do with either of those notions.

"Between Tiers" definitely isn't a thing. There's nothing between 1.5 (the bottom of Tier 1) and 1.5 (the top of Tier 2). And even if Tier 0 exists, no proposed vote would be inside of it, since Tier 0 would extend from -0.5 to 0.5. Since no one's voted at value in Tier-0 range for anything, why are we having this big discussion about the validity of Tier 0?



Anyway, while ratings better than 1 and worse than 6 make perfect sense, without needing to appeal to any hypothetical additional Tiers, if you suddenly decide to allow votes outside the 1 to 6 range, I will be so, so mad. I'd have to go and revise all my previous Tier 1 votes. Don't do that to me.

[AnonymousPepper]

I think clamping the tiers of specific archetypes at 0.51* while doing so for Wizard at 1 would be completely fair. 0.50 is the threshold to be tier zero, which we're basically saying is either actually (the rules do not allow for it) or practically (there are such builds possible, but they rely on such a pants-on-head stupid level of RAW fanaticism as to be irrelevant) nonexistent, as the worst generically available abusive methods (save Wish abuse, which really doesn't count because you're handing your GM a "screw you" button) are gone.

And on a practical level, a lot of the specific Wizard/Druid/Cleric tools that allowed them to crack T0 are gone, so I really don't see how it'd be possible. You can't WBLmancy nearly as hard without super-fast demiplanes or the huge (and now gone) array of stacking time/cost reducers, Circle Magic is gone, Craft Contingent Spell is gone, metamagic reduction and cheating through feats and class features has been heavily nerfed (farewell, Divine Metamagic, you will not be missed), the worst offenders on the spell lists have been smashed into the ground or gone the way of the dodo like the Celerity line and Polymorph, and prestige classes with absurdly powerful abilities like Rashemi Spirit Magic (Hathran, abused using Acorn of Far Travel) or Sevenfold Veils (IotSV natch) or Cooperative Metamagic (Incantatrix) not only do not exist but flat out could not exist with the way that archetypes work.

This does not mean, however, that archetypes cannot make a wizard using one comparatively stronger than a baseline wizard. And you can absolutely rate them as being above tier 1.0 - which is practically what Wizard is defined as - without making them tier 0.

*Or 0.5 for prettier numbers even if it's not strictly accurate.

[Kurald Galain]

I'll also clarify that those "above T1" tiers are basically arbitrary. It's all arguably falling into T1, just higher parts of T1, but they tend to get lumped into higher tiers just because "it doesn't feel honest to put them in the same tier as normal wizards".

I agree. Almost universally when I see people talk about T0, they mean something like "T1 or T2 but I really like it", or they're unfamiliar with the shenanigans a high-level wizard can pull and just assume that the trick they've found is better than that.

[Aquillion]

I would define T0 as follows:

"Able to immediately accomplish literally anything that can be accomplished by any class, with no relevant chance of failure, regardless of whether they anticipated it or prepared for it; and capable of doing so indefinitely without need for rest or recuperation."

That is clearly beyond the capabilities of T1 classes. I don't think any published classes or options outside of extreme theoretical optimization are going to be at T0, but it establishes a clear explanation of what would eg. raise the wizard to tier 0.9 (by bringing it closer to perpetual motion without the need to rest, or by significantly expanding its ability to deal with problems that it hadn't prepared for.)

This also fits into the arc of the existing high-tier classes:

T2 can deal with anything they're built to prepare for, but can only be built to prepare for a limited list of things.

T1 can deal with anything they have prepared for, and can prepare for many things every day, changing their choices each day (which means they can do anything with a day to prepare.)

T0 is always prepared for everything at all times (which also implies never running out of spell slots or whatever other resource fuels their capabilities, if there is one.) They are the literal implementation of the "Schrödinger wizard" we sometimes discuss here, who always has the correct spell no matter what. It's the logical step beyond T1, and even though no class completely reflects it, there are clearly going to be options and archetypes that push you closer to or further from it.

eg. you can clearly, in this framework, argue that an Exploiter Pact Wizard pushes the wizard closer to T0 (always having the right spell without exception), though some people might argue that the trade-off of losing specialization spell slots (pushing you further away from "never runs out of gas") keeps its rating from changing.


I agree. Almost universally when I see people talk about T0, they mean something like "T1 or T2 but I really like it", or they're unfamiliar with the shenanigans a high-level wizard can pull and just assume that the trick they've found is better than that.
Any class can punch above its tier if it is well-optimized and played extremely effectively; that footnote has been part of the tier list since the beginning. So saying "well, a wizard can fit your definition of T0 if they always select the right spells anyway and are perfect at using magic to create opportunities to rest so they never run out of slots" is no different than saying "well, a Sorcerer can effectively be T1 if their spell selections are good enough and they exploit all the various ways of getting access to floating slots."

It doesn't change the rating of the base class, which assumes they are being played "normally."

[zlefin]

I'm not sure how I'd define tier 0 or tier -1;
but I'd say one could trivially create a homebrew class which is so clearly above the power of a standard wizard that they should qualify as tier 0 or better.
Since the tier list has to cover a range of optimization levels, part of what can help make something tier 0 is if the optimization floor is ridiculously high; such that it has default and explicit access to things that would otherwise only be available to high-op builds.

To my mind, the tiers as is are a result of patterns of error: the designers made some mistakes in estimating the power levels of classes/abilities, and there are consistent patterns in those mistakes. The result of those patterns is the tier list, which is an assessment of how classes compare in practice, on average.
Some things are theoretically possible, but didn't happen in practice, because while the designers were imperfect, they're not totally stupid, and thus some problems they could see to avoid.

[Thunder999]

I don't know, summoning a powerful monster against it's will and trying to make it cast the spells you want it without it conspiring against you, refusing you or even attacking you doesn't seem like "above T1" territory to me.

You're missing the bit where the spells don't let it refuse, disobey or attack. Outsiders have basically no defence against just getitng temporarily enslaved by a high level caster.

[AnonymousPepper]

You're missing the bit where the spells don't let it refuse, disobey or attack. Outsiders have basically no defence against just getitng temporarily enslaved by a high level caster.

Other than then turning around as soon as the effect is over and killing the crap out of you, or waiting a little bit, doing some planning, and then coming for you - "The creature might later seek revenge" in the text of Lesser Planar Binding (and generalized to stronger versions).

And also, no, they absolutely can refuse. You literally have to haggle with the things, and if you're not a sorcerer, against many outsiders it's not a trivial check at all, and even if you are, commands that it deems impossible or "unreasonable" can always be refused. And you better be quick about it, because they can try and SR their way out of it or Charisma check break the circle each once per day, which means they have twice as many chances to break out as you do to haggle them into things. Gate is mind control for twenty rounds or so, and then they get to absolutely destroy you if they dislike what you just made them do; getting any longer services while not concentrating requires Planar Ally-esque negotiations.

There are a lot of supposedly godlike wizard tools in Third Edition that in actuality are strongly and explicitly limited by the GM's willingness to force you to be a decent person, and cannot be presumed to be limitless in a vacuum when all the spells in question specifically say that the creature can destroy you later if you weren't being nice about it.

Saying that outsiders have no defense against getting enslaved by a caster is akin to saying that the President has no defense against you mooning him on live television. It's true, he can't immediately stop you, and it will be humiliating, but you'll find that your life will be packed full of serious emotional events not long afterward if you don't have a very good lawyer.

[Bucky]

My philosophy on the matter is that Tier 0 and above is for rating specific characters, builds or encounters, not classes. For characters and builds, it necessarily involves some heavy cheese that takes a character's power beyond the scope of normal gameplay. For encounters, it could instead involve the sort of homebrew or fiat that's valid when the GM does it, leading to a no-win encounter.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I agree that there shouldn't be a tier above 1, but the tier list has to account for granularity between subclasses. If There are a lot of votes above 1, then everything should go down to reflect the fact that they are weaker. Having "base wizard at 1" is easier and reflects better the original description of tiers. Having a wizard subclass with significantly higher versatility in choosing their available spells would maybe be 0.9 or 0.8. I doubt there would be anything as much stronger than a base wizard that it requires a significantly higher tier, but shutting down the possibility altogether seems like it does a disservice to the tier list.