Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Barbarian and Bloodrager

[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) (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!). This link is a collection of discussions about the power and versatility of all the base classes of 3.5 DnD, and it’s quite a useful resource. I think Pathfinder could do with a similar resource as a point of information and discussion.

There has been an informal attempt to do a tier list for Pathfinder, which I've also used as part of the reference to this thread: (link) (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?649283-%85-And-What-Is-the-*Deal*-with-Pathfinder-Tiers). But this lacks discussion on the classes and a shared consensus on how scoring works, both of which are as important as the tier number itself.

The current, work-in-progress thread for Pathfinder Tiers version of this thread is here (link) (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650140-Why-Each-Class-is-in-its-Tier-Pathfinder-Edition-(Work-in-Progress)). This thread has links to previous tiering threads and short summaries of thread discussions for those who missed them when they were posted. Contributions and votes for older threads are still welcome.

This thread, we’ll be taking on three Barbarian-themed classes: Barbarian (Chained), the Barbarian (Unchained), and Bloodrager.

For reference, in the informal thread:
Barbarian (Unchained) is tiered at 4
Barbarian (Chained) is tiered at 4
Bloodrager is tiered at 3.75

So, the questions are: what should each of these be tiered at? And are there any notable archetypes for these classes that deserve separate tiering? I guess a discussion thread is the way to find out.




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.

[zlefin]

Looking over all 3 classes, I feel quite confident that the relative rankings from the informal thread are correct; I don't have a strong sense as to whether the absolute rankings are correct.

By which I mean, if Barbarian is tier X, then unchained barb is also tier X, and bloodrager is about 0.25 better than X.

I'm not sure where exactly X is though.

unchained barb is very similar to barb; a lot of the powers are the same; and the changes don't have a net positive or negative effect, they mostly wash each other out.

Bloodrager seems slightly better than the barbs, not a lot better though. The spells open up some useful utility later on; and the bloodline powers are close enough to rage powers that they handle fighting well enough, with the spell pushing it to be slightly better. Though it does seem like bloodragers tend to do a bit better later on, with barbs being a bit better in the first few levels;

[Kurald Galain]

The main distinction between the 3E barbarian and the PF barbarian is that the latter gets rage powers, which are feat-equivalent options that give you more things to do during your rage; including my favorite, disrupting spells by hitting them really hard. There are also ways to get flight while raging, as well as pounce (albeit at rather high level).

What hasn't changed is that the barbarian smashes things good. It is one of the most beginner-friendly classes for a Leeroy Jenkins-styled frontliner who can kick ass with the best of them. They do struggle to contribute in situations where smashing things is not the best approach, though.

The class has an unchained variant which is largely the same, and it's a bit weird why this class was picked for unchaining in the first place. The main difference is that chained barb gets a bonus to strength and constitution (and has to do his own math) whereas unchained barb get a direct bonus to hit and damage. Apparently the devs thought the math was easier.

Finally, the bloodrager does the same thing, but with bloodline powers instead of rage powers. They get a bit of spellcasting later on, but their main appeal is growing claws or catching fire when raging, and so forth.

Overall, they all clearly belong in Tier Four.

[Drelua]

I don't have any experience with unchained barbarians or bloodragers, but I will say that barbarians do have some rage powers that can be useful out of combat. Strength surge will let a mid level barbarian go through pretty much any door, for one, just might take a couple tries. I've also never seen a PF barbarian run out of rage rounds I don't think, I'm sure it's happened in games that have more fights in a day but rounds/day is still a huge upgrade from 3.5.

They're also very effective in combat, low level barbarians can get 2 or 3 natural attacks that do d4 or d6+6ish, plus power attack, which is a lot when most characters just have one attack. Compared to 2d6+9 raging with a two-hander, 3 natural attacks are potentially doing like twice the damage. Then at level 10, they can get pounce.

I don't know if they have enough utility to approach tier 3, but I'm sure they're at least tier 4.

[AvatarVecna]

The changes from 3.5 to PF have temporarily taken away pounce in exchange for giving a greater breadth of options. Even if pounce was something you considered integral to barbarian achieving T4 in the first place (and therefore, if you were objectively wrong), the change from "one of the most consistent damage dealers in the game" to "fairly consistent DPR with some other fun stuff they can do too" still meets the T4 criteria. As far as archetypes go, no barbarian archetype is really doing enough to justify a tier change.

I've played one game that had a bloodrager, and I wasn't even the one playing them. Abstain from voting here.

[Gnaeus]

For reference, in the informal thread:
Barbarian (Unchained) is tiered at 4
Barbarian (Chained) is tiered at 4
Bloodrager is tiered at 3.75

That looks right to me.

[Thunder999]

I'd say top of tier 4, bloodrager>chained barb>unchained barb.

They can bring their own flight, buffs, sunder spells to dispel them etc. while also being very very good at killing things.
Bloodrager can do some neat tricks with rage cycling once they get greater bloodrage to cast as many personal range spells as they have slots in a single round, but the spell list just doesn't turn that into anything particularly useful out of combat.
Bloodrager can take Primalist (which stacks with ltierally everything) to take chained barbarian powers and is effectively just a better barbarian as a result.
Unchained barbarian has a slightly worse and smaller list of rage powers and a slightly worse rage, but is still good enough at killing to be a tier 4.

So, going off what's already in the tierlist.

Bloodrager is 3.6 (since that's where unchained rogue ended up and I think the spell list and rage powers/bloodlien powers are at least as good as what that class gets).
Chained Barbarian at 4.0
Unchained at 4.1

[Maat Mons]

I feel that Barbarian, whether Chained or Unchained, is pretty similar to Fighter Tier-wise. I’ll give a 4.0 rating to both of them. They’re not identical is strength, but I think they’re within the 0.2 I’ve been rounding to thus far.

I think I’ll give Bloodrager a 3.8 rating. As it happens, this is the same rating I gave to Unchained Rogue. There are some nice spells available to Bloodragers, though I think most of the spell list doesn’t do much for their Tiering. Lots of damage dealing spells on a class already good at dealing damage. Lots of numerical self-buffs on a class that already has some of the best numbers. And the offensive spells that allow saves probably aren’t going to have a great success rate against level-appropriate enemies.

Oh, and the compilation thread has "unchained" written after Brawler in the list. I assume that was a copy/paste error.

[pabelfly]

Oh, and the compilation thread has "unchained" written after Brawler in the list. I assume that was a copy/paste error.

Thanks for the fix.



Voting Update

Barbarian (Chained)

Kurald Galain, Drelua, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Thunder999, Maat Mons – 4

Average – 4


Barbarian (Unchained)

Kurald Galain, Drelua, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Maat Mons – 4
Thunder999 – 4.1

Average – 4.02



Bloodrager

Thunder999 – 3.6
Gnaeus – 3.75
Maat Mons – 3.8
Kurald Galain, Drelua – 4

Average – 3.83

[TotallyNotEvil]

I'm only passingly familiar with Barbs, but having played a Bloodrager, I have to say that it was somewhat disappointing.

It is a surprisingly self sufficient class when it comes to getting your own mobility, seeing in invisibility, etc. And it is fun.

But I thought it'd be like a different take on Magus, trading spells for BAB, but the 4/9 progression is painfully slow. You know very few spells, but the real crushing bit is the spell slot allotment. My 8th level Bloodrager had two slots each for first and second level spells and that's it.

I expected some room for utility, and didn't find much. Your bloodrage powers have to pretty much do the heavy lifting.

It's very effective at killing stuff, don't get me wrong, and noticeably more versatile than the Barbs, but it fell short of my expectations.

I'd say 3.75 for it, and 4s for the two Barbs.

[Thunder999]

Honestly the real problem with bloodrager casting isn't slots, it's the spell list, it just doesn't have enough utility to magic to make it out of tier 4.
I wonder if we'll find a 6/9 caster with a bad enough list to be stuck in tier 4, I can't think of one, but maybe I'm missing a random archetype or something?

[AvatarVecna]

Honestly the real problem with bloodrager casting isn't slots, it's the spell list, it just doesn't have enough utility to magic to make it out of tier 4.
I wonder if we'll find a 6/9 caster with a bad enough list to be stuck in tier 4, I can't think of one, but maybe I'm missing a random archetype or something?

It's theoretically possible. 3.5 had the warmage, who was a full 9th caster, but needed 1.5 attributes to cast properly, and most of their list was so badly typecast into blasting that they basically couldn't do much else, despite theoretical access to a small handful of sor/wiz spells of their choice?

[Rynjin]

Yeah, the funny thing about Bloodrager is that the casting it receives doesn't necessarily make it better than the spell-less Barbarian. They're about the same power, but different.

Barbarian and Bloodrager are both Tier 4, or perhapos more accurately something like a Tier 3.75 as people put Bloodrager in the informal thread. They're stronger than a Fighter by a fair margin in both utility and combat ability, even with the end-of-life care Fighters received.

Unchained Barbarian I'd say is a solid T4. They are simply weaker across the board than Core Barbarian, and were designed to be; they're made to simplify the math involved with playing a Barbarian and not much else. As a result their numbers are simply lower. But they're not THAT much weaker in the grand scheme and did accomplish the goal of making Barb even more new player friendly.

[Arkain]

It has already been alluded to, but what about the Primalist archetype? It is a bit like Qinggong Monk in that you can basically choose to apply it without blocking off other archetypes, so maybe it's not too worthwhile discussing it on its own as such a non-brainer option, however, as one difference between Bloodrager and Barbarian is that the latter gets rage powers, gaining access to them seems interesting at least. The biggest issue is of course that not only do you trade out bloodline abilities, but you also cannot gain additional rage powers outside of those 4 level intervals, like a Barbarian could through feats. Still, most every bloodline has somewhat lackluster abilities down the line, so going for something like superstition is sensible. With a bit more investment you can go down along some chains and even get rage powers like spell sunder. Somewhat late no doubt, but it's certainly an option.

Question is, does all this affect power and versatility to such a degree that it might warrant a higher rating?

[Rynjin]

Primalist is not like Qinggong in that it explicitly alters the Bloodline feature, meaning it is not compatible with any other archetype that alters the Bloodline class feature.

[Thunder999]

Primalist means Bloodrager will always be a better Barbarian, since it basically has everytihng barbarian does with casting on top.

It really doesn't change the tiers though, Bloodrager just doesn't get enough extra to hit tier 3 versatility.

[Rynjin]

Primalist means Bloodrager will always be a better Barbarian, since it basically has everytihng barbarian does with casting on top.

No? Primalists get a max of 5 Rage Powers at 20 and have to trade ALL of their bloodline features to get them. So they're a Barbarian with half the Rage powers, no ability to take more via Feats, and 4 levels of spellcasting.

Considering the Bloodline abilities are the real meat and potatoes of the class, a Primalist that doe sthis will usually end up WEAKER than a Barbarian.

The main benefit of Primalist is that if you take a Bloodline with a meh ability (eg. the Arcane Bloodline's Caster's Scourge ability at 12) you can trade it for a good one-off Rage Power that actually does something useful.

No sane Bloodrager would trade off the Arcane Bloodline's 4th, 8th, or 16th level powers, so you get a max of two to work with at 12 and 20. Not enough to get the really meaty Rage Powers like Greater Beast Totem or Greater Elemental Blood. Plus in most campaigns you really only get the one at 12.

[Kurald Galain]

Question is, does all this affect power and versatility to such a degree that it might warrant a higher rating?
No, because I'd find it highly unlikely that a mix of two tier-4 classes would somehow end at tier-3. Even if such a combination might hypothetically exist, barb/bloodrager isn't it.

[Thunder999]

No? Primalists get a max of 5 Rage Powers at 20 and have to trade ALL of their bloodline features to get them. So they're a Barbarian with half the Rage powers, no ability to take more via Feats, and 4 levels of spellcasting.

Primalist gets 2 rage powers for every bloodline power they trade out, so they get 10 by 20, same as a Barbarian, on top of that they get their usual Greater Bloodrage (i.e. free action casting of personal spells, which is mostly buffs but also includes the odd offensive option like Bladed Dash, which is amusing to rage cycle and repeatedly cast) and casting, and if they have a good Bloodline Power at that level, they don't have to trade it.

10 Rage powers is plenty for most characters.

[Darvin]

The class has an unchained variant which is largely the same, and it's a bit weird why this class was picked for unchaining in the first place.
The main reason was so you wouldn't die when Rage ended and you lost the Con bonus. They sort of patched it over with the Raging Vitality feat in APG, but I think they really hated this from a design perspective and were itching to fix it.

Anyways, I think both Bloodrager and Barbarian are pretty clear Tier 4 material.

[Arkain]

Primalist is not like Qinggong in that it explicitly alters the Bloodline feature, meaning it is not compatible with any other archetype that alters the Bloodline class feature.

Damn, you're right. Now, I don't know if there even are such archetypes, but a technical incompatiblity is possible.


Primalist gets 2 rage powers for every bloodline power they trade out, so they get 10 by 20, same as a Barbarian, on top of that they get their usual Greater Bloodrage (i.e. free action casting of personal spells, which is mostly buffs but also includes the odd offensive option like Bladed Dash, which is amusing to rage cycle and repeatedly cast) and casting, and if they have a good Bloodline Power at that level, they don't have to trade it.

10 Rage powers is plenty for most characters.

Barbarian is pretty unrestricted in power access, even if some are gated by level or power chains, but a new one every two levels and via feats means there is technically always some access. A Primalist would only gain powers every 4 levels and if they don't fulfill the requirements for what you want (e.g. level), then see in you 4 levels or whenever you want to trade for another set of powers. If you wanted the beast totem line, one trade would have to be taken at 12+ due to the level requirements of the greater totem. As Rynjin says, you do give up a lot by swapping out every bloodline power, some of which are really good, the arcane bloodline being a prime example. Even if you were to trade out all bloodline powers for rage powers, you still get them every 4 levels, whereas a Barbarian probably has the same powers a bit earlier. This is all somewhat limiting, even if you could technically say that you can also get 10 rage powers from class progression as a Primalist.

[AvatarVecna]

No, because I'd find it highly unlikely that a mix of two tier-4 classes would somehow end at tier-3. Even if such a combination might hypothetically exist, barb/bloodrager isn't it.

Yeah. Such a thing would likely be a couple classes that are already at least mid-T4 (ideally high-T4), but complement each other very well. Unchained Rogue//Paladin gets there I think - paladin gains a good Ref save, evasion, Sneak Attack progression, Dex to damage, some at-will debuffing options, unchained skill access, and the best skill setup in the game. There's a solid lightly-armored Dex/Cha swashbuckler build hiding in such a pair that I think ekes out a T3 even though people find rogue kinda lackluster.

[pabelfly]

Voting Update

Barbarian (Chained)

Rynjin – 3.75
Kurald Galain, Drelua, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Thunder999, Maat Mons, TotallyNotEvil – 4

Average – 3.97


Barbarian (Unchained)

Kurald Galain, Drelua, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Maat Mons, TotallyNotEvil – 4
Thunder999 – 4.1

Average – 4.01



Bloodrager

Thunder999 – 3.6
Gnaeus, TotallyNotEvil, Rynjin – 3.75
Maat Mons – 3.8
Kurald Galain, Drelua – 4

Average – 3.80

[pabelfly]

Okay, wrote up some class summaries based off the discussions on here. Notes and edit suggestions welcome.



Barbarian (Chained)

Barbarian is a martial class that uses Rage to get stat bonuses to boost attack and damage in combat. Pathfinder introduces rage powers, which give you more options during your Rage, including Flight and Pounce at high levels. While a Chained Barbarian does well in combat, it has little to contribute to the party outside of it, with a very limited skill list and few skill points to spare. A definitive T4 class.



Barbarian (Unchained)

The Unchained Barbarian is slightly weaker than its Chained version, but trades this off by being easier to work with, giving direct bonuses to attack and damage rolls rather than stat boosts. If you want to ease a new player into 1e Pathfinder with a melee combat class, you could do a lot worse than Unchained Barbarian. Unchained Barbarian gets Rage powers which are slightly changed from Chained Barbarian, but nothing that really changes power or flexibility. A slight reduction in damage output doesn’t really change Unchained Barbarian’s tiering, as it has the same out-of-combat issues Chained Barbarian has. A solid T4 class.



Bloodrager

Bloodrager is a combat-oriented class that combines a Barbarian’s Rage powers with limited Sorcerer spellcasting. Bloodline powers grant extra abilities, change how Rage powers work, and give a limited selection of bonus feats. Bloodrager spellcasting has a small spell list and few spell slots, making it difficult to cast outside of combat. Bloodrager does extremely well in combat and is an upper-T4 class.

[Gnaeus]

No, because I'd find it highly unlikely that a mix of two tier-4 classes would somehow end at tier-3. Even if such a combination might hypothetically exist, barb/bloodrager isn't it.

I find it highly likely that 2 complementary T4 classes would be tier 3. Almost to the point of being axiomatic. But Barb/bloodrager don't give each other much and so wouldn't. Making T3s out of T5 Tristalts is mental math I do when stressed to distract myself. Double T4 gestalt isn't difficult at all.

[Kurald Galain]

The Primalist archetype works with all other Bloodrager archetypes and makes you a better Barbarian than Barbarian
It does not in fact stack with all other bloodrager archetypes, and I don't agree that "it's a better barbarian than the barbarian" in all cases (because barb also gets archetypes). I'd leave this part out, really. Primalist is not so special that it warrants being called out separately.


Double T4 gestalt isn't difficult at all.But we weren't talking about gestalt in the first place.

[Rynjin]

Archetypes are one of the big things. Bloodrager doesn't get to go Invulnerable Rager.

[pabelfly]

It does not in fact stack with all other bloodrager archetypes, and I don't agree that "it's a better barbarian than the barbarian" in all cases (because barb also gets archetypes). I'd leave this part out, really. Primalist is not so special that it warrants being called out separately.

Fixed this. Thanks.

[Thunder999]

I'd maybe mention Spell sunder among the rage powers for chained barbarian, it's one of the big differences compared to unchained.

Also it's less the quantity of spell slots (though they are a bit limited) and more the spell list itself that's holding Bloodrager back out of combat, they just don't get many problem solving spells.

[Arkain]

Minor, but still interesting about the unchained Barbarian may be that due to the changed rage, it's slightly more friendly towards somewhat unorthodox builds, like dexterity focused ones. Two-handed weapons, natural weapons, two-weapon fighting and whatever else you could come up with profit all the same from unchained rage. Admittedly, Urban Barbarian is an option, but precludes many other archetypes and is yet another hoop to jump through. Even if unchained is a bit "easier", in the end it's probably a wash, though.

[Rynjin]

Minor, but still interesting about the unchained Barbarian may be that due to the changed rage, it's slightly more friendly towards somewhat unorthodox builds, like dexterity focused ones. Two-handed weapons, natural weapons, two-weapon fighting and whatever else you could come up with profit all the same from unchained rage. Admittedly, Urban Barbarian is an option, but precludes many other archetypes and is yet another hoop to jump through. Even if unchained is a bit "easier", in the end it's probably a wash, though.

Most Dex focused builds aren't really worth mentioning because, as you said, Urban Barbarian and (even better) Savage Technologist covers that.

However, UnBarb DOES have a slight niche in that it's better with ranged builds since it just gets a flat damage bonus to all attacks instead of a Str or Dex boost.

[Maat Mons]

Unchained Barbarian’s damage bonus from Rage only applies to melee attacks. The attack roll bonus also only applies to melee attacks. So it’s no good to ranged builds at all.

While I’m listing things that bug me about Unchained Barbarian, one of the nice things about the Con bonus the regular Barbarian gets is the bonus to Fort saves. Don’t know why the designers of the Unchained version didn’t think that was worth preserving.

[paladinn]

Why do classes need to be "tiered"? It's all really subjective anyway. Different people like different things. It just seems like an attempt to impose some people's preferences on others.

[Bucky]

The main purpose of tier lists in a cooperative D&D game is to keep people from showing up at the table with a character who turns out to be redundant.

A secondary purpose is from the DM side, a guide to what sorts of challenges a thrown-together party can handle before knowing the fine details of their builds.

[AvatarVecna]

Why do classes need to be "tiered"? It's all really subjective anyway. Different people like different things. It just seems like an attempt to impose some people's preferences on others.

"What class do you like playing" is a subjective question, and one that tiers have no bearing on. "What class is better" is an objective question, albeit one with an answer so complicated that it's a very debatable answer. The broad answer that's borne out over two decades of people playing around with stuff is that there's a lot of differences between every class in both 3.5 and PF, but while you can quibble over the fine details, it all essentially boils down to a few categories:

"capable of solving every problem"

"capable of solving any problem"

"capable of majorly contributing to solving multiple problems"

"capable of majorly contributing to solving one problem, or minorly contributing to solving multiple problems"

"capable of minorly contributing to solving one problem"

"incapable of solving problems"

There's nothing wrong with saying that you like this class or that class. Nobody is shaming you for thinking monks are cool. I think monks are cool! Conceptually, anyway. A lot of people think monks are cool, conceptually. But in practice, when it comes to the business of Solving Problems, monks tend to struggle keeping up with the competition.

And that's nothing to do with preference. Nobody is saying that granola bars are objectively tastier than ice cream, we're just discussing which is better at delivering calories and nutrients.

EDIT: And to the ninja's point, the point of a tier system isn't sitting around saying "haha wizards are better than fighters", it's figuring out what to do with that information. Players need an idea of how to fit into the party, and knowing the power potential the party has is one step in that. DMs want to make sure they're delivering the intended experience, and that's hard to do when you don't know how strong/versatile the party is.

[Kurald Galain]

Why do classes need to be "tiered"?
These two responses from last month may be relevant,



Why is there a need for a class "tier" system? It seems artificial and entirely opinion-based. And everyone's got an opinionI don't understand the question. Tiers are a straightforward, well-recognized way to express those opinions. That is, in and of itself, useful.



Why is there a need for a class "tier" system? It seems artificial and entirely opinion-based. And everyone's got an opinionTiers and discussions about why classes are in their tiers don't change how Pathfinder (and 3.5) work as a game. It helps you understand why some classes are much more powerful than others. It's also really helpful if there's an issue with balance between characters at the table and why it might be happening.

[Arkain]

Unchained Barbarian’s damage bonus from Rage only applies to melee attacks. The attack roll bonus also only applies to melee attacks. So it’s no good to ranged builds at all.

While I’m listing things that bug me about Unchained Barbarian, one of the nice things about the Con bonus the regular Barbarian gets is the bonus to Fort saves. Don’t know why the designers of the Unchained version didn’t think that was worth preserving.

Actually not quite that, either. The bonus to attack rolls doesn't apply, the damage does, but only for thrown weapons.


While in a rage, a barbarian gains a +2 bonus on melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, thrown weapon damage rolls, and Will saving throws.

Oddly enough, this means the unchained variant is arguably worse at doing ranged combat, as a flat increase to strength would not only cover weapons like javelins, but also apply to composite bows, for instance. In fact, that's the entire point of the Primal Hunter archetype, which is also technically incompatible with unchained, as it alters rage. Funny, that.

[Bucky]

For all of you putting Bloodrager into tier 4 because its casting doesn't provide enough utility for tier 3, what sorts of things are its spell list missing that the tier 3 casting cluster can generally cover?

[Kurald Galain]

For all of you putting Bloodrager into tier 4 because its casting doesn't provide enough utility for tier 3, what sorts of things are its spell list missing that the tier 3 casting cluster can generally cover?
I'd say quantity is a large part of it. At 9th-level bloodrager has like five spells per day, this is something a bard or magus would do at level 4, or even level 1 if we count cantrips. There's a huge difference there.

But regarding utility, a bloodrager doesn't get Silent Image, Invisibility, Dispel Magic, or Stone Shape; just to give a few examples.

[Thunder999]

For all of you putting Bloodrager into tier 4 because its casting doesn't provide enough utility for tier 3, what sorts of things are its spell list missing that the tier 3 casting cluster can generally cover?

It really only gets combat spells, whether they be offensive or buffs.
It can't use invisibility to sneak around. It can't divine anything, it's not got detect spells (not even detect magic), no locate creature or locate object, no commune, divination, ears of the city. It can't teleport. It can't charm or dominate. It can't dispel (well not with spells, it can get Spell Sunder via Primalist). I can't summon. It can't Fabricate. It can't do much with illusions. It can't make safe resting spots with Rope Trick.

The only real utility it gets is good movement options (flight, climb speed, earth glide, swim), mount/phantom steed, and a very late Blood Biography.

[Bucky]

It has limited access to about half that, late, mostly by diving bloodlines.
Invisibility - Arcane bloodline
Sneaking Around - Beast Shape
Divinations - Find Fault, Sense Fear
Charm Monster - Hag bloodline
Summoning - Ancestral Harbinger archetype, Shadow bloodline via Shadow Conjuration

(E) Not counting the Urban Bloodrager archetype, which lets the Bloodrager borrow from the bard and magus lists.

[AvatarVecna]

For all of you putting Bloodrager into tier 4 because its casting doesn't provide enough utility for tier 3, what sorts of things are its spell list missing that the tier 3 casting cluster can generally cover?

It's more about how the spell list complements what the rest of the class is doing. A tier 3 class should generally have something to do unless they're completely out of their wheelhouse; whether they're getting there by spells or not, they should arrive at a point where they can pull their weight in a variety of situations. Bard is the classic T3: in combat, they're generally applying big buffs to the whole party and spitting out enchantment/illusion spells to cause trouble for the enemies; out of combat, they're a top-notch face and either know some weird fact relevant to the situation, or they know a guy who knows a guy who can help the party; if it's not a social issue, they can at least Inspire Competence to help whoever is doing the primary skill thing. Compare that with Bloodrager, who gets...damage.

A character with NI combat stats and literally nothing else (https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*2bjwCLaA8TfH40OXcyLNvA.png) is a T4 character. Congratulations, you solved the combat encounter! Problem is, gunslinger or barbarian could've solved the combat encounter too; maybe not quite as efficiently, but they still would've solved it, because the game is rocket tag anyway. If you fight stuff with 100 HP, the difference between 100 DPR and 1000 DPR and 1 million DPR and NI DPR is largely irrelevant.

Bloodrager is better at Solving The Combat Problem than barbarian is, I think. This is partly because as others have mentioned, barbarian self-buffs with rage and rage powers, but bloodrager adds spell buffs to that (at least, I believe they get to keep rage powers if they have the right archetype?). Additionally, bloodrager has a number of attack/debuff spells that can Solve The Problem in alternative ways, ensuring that if the bloodrager comes across an enemy who is more resistant to Axe To Face method, they can bust out Fireball method (as an example).

So bloodrager is definitely better at Solving Combat. The problem is, being better at solving combat doesn't take you out of T4; if you're already doing a big contribution to solving one problem, solving it harder doesn't change your tier. You need to be able to help solve other problems. And this spell list just does not have utility. 95% of it is blasting spells and combat buffs. Some of the bloodlines help solve this issue a tiny bit, but for the most part you're dying of thirst in the utility desert.

A Human Bard 20 with the Human Bard FCB would know 9/9/9/9/9/10/5 spells of each respective level. Here's a hypothetical bard spells known list that's basically pure noncombat and includes zero spells on the base bloodrager list:

0th (9): Dancing Lights, Detect Magic, Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Prestidigitation, Read Magic

1st (9): Alarm, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Identify, Nature's Paths, Restful Sleep, Silent Image, Unseen Servant

2nd (9): Acute Senses, Bestow Insight, Detect Thoughts, Hidden Presence, Invisibility, Locate Object, Misdirection, Suggestion, Tongues

3rd (9): Aura Of The Unremarkable, Charm Monster, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Dispel Magic, Glibness, Hypercognition, Invisibility Sphere, Major Image, Scrying

4th (9): Break Enchantment, Detect Scrying, Dimension Door, Dominate Person, Insect Scouts, Locate Creature, Modify Memory, Secure Shelter, Zone Of Silence

5th (10): Greater Dispel Magic, Dream, False Vision, Mage's Decree, Mirage Arcana, Persistent Image, Repress Memory, Seeming, Shadow Walk, Mass Suggestion,

6th (5): Mass Charm Monster, Find The Path, Geas/Quest, Impenetrable Veil, Permanent Image

Bard list is chock-full of utility to back up their combat schtick: you've got skill buffing (especially for stealth or face skills), a litany of divination/enchantment/illusion utility spells that reward creative use, even some healing and teleportation. In a pinch, there's a handful of "Shadow X" spells that can mimic a bunch of lower level spells from a given school, that could be used for greatly expanding your low-level options in exchange for limiting your higher-level ones. I left off basically all the healing stuff and quite a bit of skill-boosting stuff, and even some weird non-core utility that I thought looked pretty interesting just because core bard utility already hit the spell limit.

Meanwhile, bloodrager is looking at basically nothing. Endure Elements, Feather Fall...Reduce Person if you squint at it? Cat's Grace and Eagle's Splendor aren't nothing, although you don't have the Int/Wis ones, and Spider Climb can be useful for scouting? Phantom Steed is a good mobility boosts out of combat, and you've got Water Breathing at least? Greater Celestial Blood is worse than Cure Critical until lvl 20 (assuming no healing buffs on either), but GCB is still more healing than you can normally give people, so that's technically not nothing?

Even if we're imagining a hypothetical Bloodrager bloodline that has the four coolest utility spells you could possibly ask for, and even if we pretended bloodrager had enough utility spells on its base list to get all utility and just trust their rage/rage powers to handle combat (which, they do not have that many utility spells), and even if we pretended that the bloodrager's utility spells were about as useful and versatile as the bard's utility spells (which, they are not), bloodrager would have 27 utility spells max, compared with the bard's 40-60.

You would have to go out of your way to build a bard who doesn't have a litany of things to do outside of combat. Similarly, you would be hard-pressed to build a bloodrager who has things to do outside of combat. The spell list just isn't built for that.

[pabelfly]

Why do classes need to be "tiered"? It's all really subjective anyway. Different people like different things. It just seems like an attempt to impose some people's preferences on others.

If you feel like people are trying to impose a preference on you with these threads, that's not the intention. This is all just information about the capabilities of various classes in solving problems compared to other classes, expressed in numeric form for ease of analysis. What you or anyone else decides to do with this information is an individual's choice.

[Gnaeus]

It really only gets combat spells, whether they be offensive or buffs.
It can't use invisibility to sneak around. It can't divine anything, it's not got detect spells (not even detect magic), no locate creature or locate object, no commune, divination, ears of the city. It can't teleport. It can't charm or dominate. It can't dispel (well not with spells, it can get Spell Sunder via Primalist). I can't summon. It can't Fabricate. It can't do much with illusions. It can't make safe resting spots with Rope Trick.

The only real utility it gets is good movement options (flight, climb speed, earth glide, swim), mount/phantom steed, and a very late Blood Biography.

Actually I think thats understating its list. Consider in 3.5 the Duskblade. T3. Its utility spells are Resist Energy, See Invisibility, and Dispelling Touch. The Bloodrager actually has quite a bit more in terms of utility spells than the Duskblade, and while fewer spells/day, has as many spells known by level 10 and more by level 12. Or ToB classes, which typically have even fewer of those. It has vastly more non-combat utility than a Crusader or Warblade.

For me its almost all about the spells/day. Crusader, Warblade and Duskblade hit T3 because they can solve combats 3.5 Barbarians can't solve. Barbarians can do damage. They have virtually no innate solutions to basic melee problems. They have 1. Charge/pounce, which fixes move + full attack problem, which Crusader, Warblade and Duskblade can also fix with move + strike or move + channel spell. Barbarian can't natively hit something outside its range. Can't nope hostile effects. Lacks tactical teleportation. No native fixes to invisibility. To incorporeal. To Flight. To "What if it just has really high AC"? To groups. The combat T3s can do all those things. And Bloodragers can do them too. But like 6 times per day at level 10 with a passable cha.



Bloodrager is better at Solving The Combat Problem than barbarian is, I think. This is partly because as others have mentioned, barbarian self-buffs with rage and rage powers, but bloodrager adds spell buffs to that (at least, I believe they get to keep rage powers if they have the right archetype?). Additionally, bloodrager has a number of attack/debuff spells that can Solve The Problem in alternative ways, ensuring that if the bloodrager comes across an enemy who is more resistant to Axe To Face method, they can bust out Fireball method (as an example).

So bloodrager is definitely better at Solving Combat. The problem is, being better at solving combat doesn't take you out of T4; if you're already doing a big contribution to solving one problem, solving it harder doesn't change your tier. You need to be able to help solve other problems. And this spell list just does not have utility. 95% of it is blasting spells and combat buffs. Some of the bloodlines help solve this issue a tiny bit, but for the most part you're dying of thirst in the utility desert.

This is so wrong it has convinced me to change my vote. Bloodrager is T3. Solving combat is a T3 power, (See ToB, Duskblade) if you have solutions to the combat problems and can solve it in a different way if your basic solution is inappropriate.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually I think thats understating its list. Consider in 3.5 the Duskblade.
Frankly, Duskblade has no call to be T3 at all. Whenever it's discussed, people rate it highly for its ability (at level 13) to repeatedly hit one creature with the same touch spell; or come with arguments like "is still going to end up with different kinds of damaging spells", and "there's no denying that duskblade does [damage] way better than [lower tiers] do" (that's straight from the 3.5 retiering thread).

So the main argument for dusky being T3 is "it only deals damage, but it's a lot of damage". And that's completely not what T3 means; as AvatarVecna points out, "a character with NI combat stats and literally nothing else is a T4 character".

[Gnaeus]

Frankly, Duskblade has no call to be T3 at all. Whenever it's discussed, people rate it highly for its ability (at level 13) to repeatedly hit one creature with the same touch spell; or come with arguments like "is still going to end up with different kinds of damaging spells", and "there's no denying that duskblade does [damage] way better than [lower tiers] do" (that's straight from the 3.5 retiering thread).

So the main argument for dusky being T3 is "it only deals damage, but it's a lot of damage". And that's completely not what T3 means; as AvatarVecna points out, "a character with NI combat stats and literally nothing else is a T4 character".

Well, most of the community disagrees with you. Duskblade (and Warblade, and Crusader, which functionally are similar) ARE T3. The difference isn't the amount of damage. Its the ability to solve combat problems where "I charge at it and hit it for 200 damage" is not valid. If that fails, the ability to INSTEAD say "OK, I target its reflex save since it has AC 60" or "I fly over the wall of force and hit it with an attached spell" are definitionally sufficient. Not even the bottom of T3. Warblade and Crusader are well in the middle, and they have LESS out of combat utility than duskblade (which at least has a couple of buffs, and an arcane caster level so it could get a familiar or craft items). They are ranked higher on the basis of abilities like "I autosave" or "I give the wizard an extra turn"

[Thunder999]

I don't think Duskblade is Tier 3.
If a class doesn't have options other than hitting things then it's in tier 4, the fact that it hits things really well or consistently doesn't change that.

Most of the currently tier 4 pathfinder classes can handle these problems, as can barbarian/bloodrager.

Barbarian can't natively hit something outside its range: Just fly, there's multiple rage powers for it, or the Flight Mastery feat.

Can't nope hostile effects: If you mean outright preventing them, then that's pretty much just Arcanist, Wizard, Sorcerer with Emergency Force Sphere, or to a lesser degree, anyone with weapon training and Smash From the Air against projectile spells. If you just mean defences then there's plenty of gain a second save/reroll effects.

Lacks tactical teleportation.: Just take Flickering Step.

No native fixes to invisibility.: Bloodrager does get See Invsibility, barbarians are mostly limited to scent, though Spell Sunder actually ignore the miss chance if you do find them.

To incorporeal.: Literally jsut halves damage in pathfinder, no 50% miss chance, it's annoying but you can usually just do more damage.

To Flight. See first point, flight is trivial.

To "What if it just has really high AC"?: Sure, but Attack bonus way outscales enemy AC

To groups.: Finally a good one, not much here. A few AoE blasty options, but nothing great.

[Gnaeus]

I don't think Duskblade is Tier 3.
If a class doesn't have options other than hitting things then it's in tier 4, the fact that it hits things really well or consistently doesn't change that.

Then go back in time and convince people in the retiering thread. Because as it is, you are wrong. If it has as much versatility as a Duskblade, Crusader or Warblade, T3.

[Kurald Galain]

According to the retiering discussion, duskblade is not "3" but "somewhere between 3 and 4".

Bear in mind that dusky has about four times as many spells per day as bloodrager (depending on level), in addition to getting new spell levels earlier. All in all, that clearly does not add up to bloodrager being a "3".

More to the point, tiers have an actual definition and are not a popularity vote. "Very good at solving a few problems, or alright at solving many problems" is the definition of tier 4, and this label fits both dusky and bloodrager fairly well.

[pabelfly]

This is so wrong it has convinced me to change my vote. Bloodrager is T3. Solving combat is a T3 power, (See ToB, Duskblade) if you have solutions to the combat problems and can solve it in a different way if your basic solution is inappropriate.

Okay, changed.

Voting Update

Barbarian (Chained)

Rynjin – 3.75
Kurald Galain, Drelua, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Thunder999, Maat Mons, TotallyNotEvil – 4

Average – 3.97


Barbarian (Unchained)

Kurald Galain, Drelua, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Maat Mons, TotallyNotEvil – 4
Thunder999 – 4.1

Average – 4.01



Bloodrager

Gnaeus – 3
Thunder999, AvatarVecna – 3.6
TotallyNotEvil, Rynjin – 3.75
Maat Mons – 3.8
Kurald Galain, Drelua – 4

Average – 3.68

[AvatarVecna]

This is so wrong it has convinced me to change my vote. Bloodrager is T3. Solving combat is a T3 power, (See ToB, Duskblade) if you have solutions to the combat problems and can solve it in a different way if your basic solution is inappropriate.

No, it's really not. If you reread through that thread, you see a whole lot of "well it's better than barbarian or rogue, but worse than sorcerer, so T3", and then the people who actually delve into mechanics trying to justify their vote with something more than gut feelings come up with conclusions of "T4" or "low T3, I could be convinced for T4".

EDIT: Also, "other people disagree with you because they rate stuff on how fun it is to play instead of how good it is" doesn't mean I have to just follow the crowd and be wrong too.

EDIT 2: Duskblade has more right to T3 than the ToBers or Bloodrager, IMO. It's native spell list isn't great, but 3.5 is flush with options for expanding it however you like, even if we're discounting the interpretation of Extra Spell that lets them pick from whatever list. Arcane Disciple, bloodline feats, PrC dips, runestaffs...it's a whole lot easier to go off-list for Duskblade than it is for Bloodrager.

[RandomPeasant]

There is a clear qualitative difference between the Duskblade or Crusader and the Barbarian or Fighter. It is not simply that the former has larger numbers, they have a broader variety of combat strategies that allow them to solve problems the others cannot at comparable levels of optimization. If your system does not recognize that because you have decided that all combat power can get you is T4, it is simply less useful than one that is willing to acknowledge that, yes, being able to no-sell DR or saves is useful in a way that simply having a slightly bigger (or even significantly bigger) number on your uber charge is not. The distinction here, I would say, is basically between "I have big enough numbers to beat combat encounters" (T4) and "I have enough options to not be locked out of combat encounters" (T3).

[AvatarVecna]

There is a clear qualitative difference between the Duskblade or Crusader and the Barbarian or Fighter. It is not simply that the former has larger numbers, they have a broader variety of combat strategies that allow them to solve problems the others cannot at comparable levels of optimization. If your system does not recognize that because you have decided that all combat power can get you is T4, it is simply less useful than one that is willing to acknowledge that, yes, being able to no-sell DR or saves is useful in a way that simply having a slightly bigger (or even significantly bigger) number on your uber charge is not. The distinction here, I would say, is basically between "I have big enough numbers to beat combat encounters" (T4) and "I have enough options to not be locked out of combat encounters" (T3).

This is kind of a consequence of trying to map a four-axis issue onto a one-axis measurement. We've got how good they are at solving problems (no, a little, a lot, yes), how many options they have for solving a given problem (zero, one, a few, a lot), how many different problems they have solutions to at one time (none, one, a few, a lot, all), and how easy it is to switch from one set of problem solving tools to another (impossible, difficult, tedious, easy, effortless).

The argument isn't about the first access, but the second and third - specifically, whether the a lower score in the third but a high score in the second is sufficient for T3 (y'all's opinion), or if you need at least a decent score in both (my opinion). I absolutely 100% agree that duskblade and ToB classes and bloodrager are less punishing to play than barbarian specifically because they have more methods of solving combat than barbarian does. They are undeniably an upgrade over barbarian on the second axis. But with the exception of the duskblade who has ways of expanding their spell list, none of them really touch on the third in any significant way. Bloodrager spells, and ToB maneuvers, are generally lacking in noncombat stuff to do. It's great that it's hard to shut them down in combat, for sure! It is valuable to inform people that they are a superior option to barbarian due to their options when it comes to Solving Combat.

But just as you feel it's dishonest to put them in the same tier as barbarian and fighter and rogue, I feel it's dishonest to put them in the same tier as bard and warlock and wilder. These classes contribute to solving combats about as much as barbarian or bloodrager does, but they also have significant contribution to solving other problems. Bloodrager is undeniably better than barbarian, but in a way that makes me say "high T4" rather than "low T3". I just have a different standard for what crosses that line than you do.

To that end, I'm willing to cast a vote for Bloodrager: 3.6

[spectralphoenix]

Would it be too far off-topic to ask about the implications for Paladin and Ranger? They have four levels of casting, some other handy abilities, and probably outdo the fighter in raw combat. I'll admit I don't have a lot of experience with Bloodrager in practice, but they seem roughly comparable on paper. They were both voted as T4 on the original thread, and I'm not sure any of the three really compares to Magus or the other six-level classes that make up the bulk of T3 in terms of problem-solving.

[Kurald Galain]

Another thing to consider is the six-level casters: Bard, Magus, Warpriest, Hunter, Mesmerist, Chained Summoner, Inquisitor. These are usually all ranked as Tier 3, and they're clearly a mile ahead of the bloodrager in terms of versatility and problem solving. That's another reason why bloodrager shouldn't be inflated to tier 3.

[Rynjin]

Would it be too far off-topic to ask about the implications for Paladin and Ranger? They have four levels of casting, some other handy abilities, and probably outdo the fighter in raw combat. I'll admit I don't have a lot of experience with Bloodrager in practice, but they seem roughly comparable on paper. They were both voted as T4 on the original thread, and I'm not sure any of the three really compares to Magus or the other six-level classes that make up the bulk of T3 in terms of problem-solving.

They are, similar to Barbarian and Bloodrager, very high T4 for much the same reasons.

Paladin in particular I clock as significantly more powerful than Bloodrager in a lot of ways, primarily because their spell list is better even if their caster level is worse (Bloodrager does NOT suffer the -3 CL that Pally and Ranger deal with) and Paladin gets the ability to mimic spell effects like Remove Disease, Lesser Restoration, Dispel Magic, Regenerate, and even Raise Dead on a per-day basis with no costly spell components.

If any of the three 4-casters were to scrape into T3, Paladin would be the one, not Bloodrager by any stretch of the imagination.

[AvatarVecna]

Would it be too far off-topic to ask about the implications for Paladin and Ranger? They have four levels of casting, some other handy abilities, and probably outdo the fighter in raw combat. I'll admit I don't have a lot of experience with Bloodrager in practice, but they seem roughly comparable on paper. They were both voted as T4 on the original thread, and I'm not sure any of the three really compares to Magus or the other six-level classes that make up the bulk of T3 in terms of problem-solving.


They are, similar to Barbarian and Bloodrager, very high T4 for much the same reasons.

Paladin in particular I clock as significantly more powerful than Bloodrager in a lot of ways, primarily because their spell list is better even if their caster level is worse (Bloodrager does NOT suffer the -3 CL that Pally and Ranger deal with) and Paladin gets the ability to mimic spell effects like Remove Disease, Lesser Restoration, Dispel Magic, Regenerate, and even Raise Dead on a per-day basis with no costly spell components.

If any of the three 4-casters were to scrape into T3, Paladin would be the one, not Bloodrager by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed with Rynjin. If I'm talking about combat prowess, it probably goes something like Paladin>Bloodrager>Barbarian>Ranger>Fighter>UMonk? But then in terms of noncombat utility stuff, it goes like Paladin>Ranger>UMonk>Bloodrager>Barbarian>Fighter. Could probably quibble about the exact placement of paladin/ranger/umonk in that last list, but those are the three best for noncombat utility stuff, in various ways. Of the six classes I've mentioned here, the ones threatening to break into T3 are Paladin and maybe Ranger? One thing that's helping is that they're prepared divine instead of spontaneous arcane: it's not just that paladin and ranger spell lists have more utility, but they're only stuck with a bad choice for one day, as opposed to forever.


Another thing to consider is the six-level casters: Bard, Magus, Warpriest, Hunter, Mesmerist, Chained Summoner, Inquisitor. These are usually all ranked as Tier 3, and they're clearly a mile ahead of the bloodrager in terms of versatility and problem solving. That's another reason why bloodrager shouldn't be inflated to tier 3.

*nods*

I'd argue less if somebody wanted to make an argument that paladin was badass enough as a combatant/healer/buffer to be low T3. Bloodrager is really badass in combat, moreso than barbarian for sure. But it's too typecast for me.

[Gnaeus]

No, it's really not. If you reread through that thread, you see a whole lot of "well it's better than barbarian or rogue, but worse than sorcerer, so T3", and then the people who actually delve into mechanics trying to justify their vote with something more than gut feelings come up with conclusions of "T4" or "low T3, I could be convinced for T4".

EDIT: Also, "other people disagree with you because they rate stuff on how fun it is to play instead of how good it is" doesn't mean I have to just follow the crowd and be wrong too.

EDIT 2: Duskblade has more right to T3 than the ToBers or Bloodrager, IMO. It's native spell list isn't great, but 3.5 is flush with options for expanding it however you like, even if we're discounting the interpretation of Extra Spell that lets them pick from whatever list. Arcane Disciple, bloodline feats, PrC dips, runestaffs...it's a whole lot easier to go off-list for Duskblade than it is for Bloodrager.

Yes, it really is. Either the process of tiering by votes is valid, in which case your opinion is contrary to fact and means about as much as if you said that fireballs do 2d8 cold damage in your opinion. Flat out provably wrong. Or the process of tiering by votes is invalid, in which case what are you doing on this thread about tiering by votes? If this entire conversation/thread/group of threads means anything at all, Duskblade is T3. There is no combination of circumstances in which your opinion about Duskblade tier is both true and meaningful.


There is a clear qualitative difference between the Duskblade or Crusader and the Barbarian or Fighter. It is not simply that the former has larger numbers, they have a broader variety of combat strategies that allow them to solve problems the others cannot at comparable levels of optimization. If your system does not recognize that because you have decided that all combat power can get you is T4, it is simply less useful than one that is willing to acknowledge that, yes, being able to no-sell DR or saves is useful in a way that simply having a slightly bigger (or even significantly bigger) number on your uber charge is not. The distinction here, I would say, is basically between "I have big enough numbers to beat combat encounters" (T4) and "I have enough options to not be locked out of combat encounters" (T3).

100% correct Random. Could not state it better.



Most of the currently tier 4 pathfinder classes can handle these problems, as can barbarian/bloodrager.

Barbarian can't natively hit something outside its range: Just fly, there's multiple rage powers for it, or the Flight Mastery feat.

Can't nope hostile effects: If you mean outright preventing them, then that's pretty much just Arcanist, Wizard, Sorcerer with Emergency Force Sphere, or to a lesser degree, anyone with weapon training and Smash From the Air against projectile spells. If you just mean defences then there's plenty of gain a second save/reroll effects.

Lacks tactical teleportation.: Just take Flickering Step.

No native fixes to invisibility.: Bloodrager does get See Invsibility, barbarians are mostly limited to scent, though Spell Sunder actually ignore the miss chance if you do find them.

To incorporeal.: Literally jsut halves damage in pathfinder, no 50% miss chance, it's annoying but you can usually just do more damage.

To Flight. See first point, flight is trivial.

To "What if it just has really high AC"?: Sure, but Attack bonus way outscales enemy AC

To groups.: Finally a good one, not much here. A few AoE blasty options, but nothing great.

This is the point this argument is lacking. Solving almost any problem in 3.PF is modularly interchangable. The question is how many problems your class innately solves. Which is linked with optimization level and opportunity cost. It isn't WRONG when you say that you can get tactical teleport from flickering step or flight from Flight Mastery. You can also get them from a flight item, at a range of values and price points. or you could be a Kitsune and spend those feats on spells that solve social problems. If you solve a problem with class abilities, you don't need to solve it with feats and GP. A tier 5 can solve any problem in the game with the right gear. But every problem your class solves is a problem you don't need an item or a feat or feat chain to solve. Flickering Step requires a feat and 9+ ranks in Know planes. If you have 9+ ranks in diplomacy and a feat supporting it you can probably solve a social problem. Certainly you can if you are a bloodrager and already have a decent Cha. Having a way to solve the combat problem leaves resources to solve the social one.

I'm glad for them the muggles in your games don't ever encounter enemies with high AC. Its nice that the DM treats them gently. I have certainly encountered high ac enemies. My DM seems to feel that monsters optimize comparatively to characters.



Barbarian can't natively hit something outside its range: Just fly, there's multiple rage powers for it, or the Flight Mastery feat..

This is a really good example of why having multiple solutions makes you T3 not 4. Just fly + damage is a subset of solutions for "enemy far". Some reasons it might not work might include
You are in a narrow or hazardous corridor and flying to the enemy you want to hit is dangerous or impossible
Flying up to the enemy could force you to leave other party members exposed
Flying up to the enemy could take you out of range of friendly buffs from allies
Flying up to the enemy could expose you to counter attacks by them or others, or environmental effects
There may be a good reason not to hit the enemy, like a damage shield or weapon damaging effect
You have been facing projected illusions and other tricks and you are worried that its a trap

So yeah, fly up and hit it is a solution which sometimes works. But other times, shoot a spell at it is better. Other times, cast a buff spell is what you want. Maybe you want something to do with your action while you wait for the T1 to cast the FoM or Death Ward or Haste. Thats the difference between T3 and 4 combatants. What do you do if your basic trick is inappropriate/dangerous etc.

So, last week in my game, we hit a common melee problem. Swarms.

The T1 wizard was poorly prepared (the party had been warned about "a cloud" and prepped for poison gas.). But as a wizard, he spammed his summons, which had AOE elemental attacks. Did good damage. If he left and came back, he would have better spells prepared to deal. He could also maybe buy solutions which would forever be added to his list.

The T2 Favored Soul had no hard counters. But his default healing loadout let him contribute during and after the combat. If he left he could maybe buy scrolls.

The 3 Alchemist was fine. He had an innate low op solution to the problem. MVP

The T3 Warpriest had no hard counters. He helped a little with some marginally useful buffs, mostly on the alchemist. He could solve the problem next day.

The Tx Barbarian had no solution at all. If we were higher level she would have had an elemental damage component on her weapon, so maybe she could have helped a little then. Her most relevant class abilities were HP and fort save, because all she could do was stand in a swarm so it didn't chase someone. If we went back to town, she would be little better. Her best solution is probably to spend 3kgp for a swarmbane clasp. Because most problems can be solved by throwing enough gold at them in magic mart games. Maybe there is a rage power that solves swarms. She probably won't get it.

I would have expected a bloodrager to have a solution from his list. They have a number of AOE spells starting with the humble burning hands which would have allowed them to contribute meaningfully. If he didn't, he could easily get one at level up. If he went back to town, he could get scrolls or a wand to solve the problem. Like the Favored Soul, he also has a number of PF options for adding spells known or spells per day. (I would similarly expect a duskblade to have been able to solve the encounter with blasty.).

[Thunder999]

Oh I think Bloodrager and Barbarian are tier 4, I just wanted to point out that tier 4 includes being good enough at one specific thing, combat, to reliably contribute to every fight.

[Drelua]

They are, similar to Barbarian and Bloodrager, very high T4 for much the same reasons.

Paladin in particular I clock as significantly more powerful than Bloodrager in a lot of ways, primarily because their spell list is better even if their caster level is worse (Bloodrager does NOT suffer the -3 CL that Pally and Ranger deal with) and Paladin gets the ability to mimic spell effects like Remove Disease, Lesser Restoration, Dispel Magic, Regenerate, and even Raise Dead on a per-day basis with no costly spell components.

If any of the three 4-casters were to scrape into T3, Paladin would be the one, not Bloodrager by any stretch of the imagination.

Might be worth mentioning that there's a trait for +2 CL, so with that Paladin and Ranger are at a mere -1 CL. It'll come up in their thread, anyway.


Agreed with Rynjin. If I'm talking about combat prowess, it probably goes something like Paladin>Bloodrager>Barbarian>Ranger>Fighter>UMonk? But then in terms of noncombat utility stuff, it goes like Paladin>Ranger>UMonk>Bloodrager>Barbarian>Fighter. Could probably quibble about the exact placement of paladin/ranger/umonk in that last list, but those are the three best for noncombat utility stuff, in various ways. Of the six classes I've mentioned here, the ones threatening to break into T3 are Paladin and maybe Ranger? One thing that's helping is that they're prepared divine instead of spontaneous arcane: it's not just that paladin and ranger spell lists have more utility, but they're only stuck with a bad choice for one day, as opposed to forever.

It's hard to say where Paladin and Ranger rank in combat prowess, (for me at least) they're both very situational in different ways. I'd say favoured enemy is generally more limiting than bonuses against evil creatures, but instant enemy lets you get around that limitation, which I don't think a Paladin can do. There's nothing better than a Paladin against a demon or evil dragon, though a Ranger with the right favoured enemy might be more accurate at higher levels, and they're more encouraged to go for combat styles that get extra attacks to get the most out of their bonuses. At higher levels a Ranger does more damage against their main favoured enemy than a Barbarian, (+6 attack and damage at level 10 is way better than +6 strength at level 11) but expending a 3rd level spell slot to get that bonus is something you'll likely only do against the occasional, extra scary enemy. I wonder if Craft Wand would be a worthwhile feat for a Ranger, just for that? Well, that and lead blades/gravity bow, resist energy as a 1st level spell, and a few others I'm sure.

Which limitation is more of a problem is very campaign dependent, I could definitely see a Ranger being more effective in a campaign with a lot of the same enemy type, but Paladins have the advantage if you rarely fight non-evil opponents and don't do a tonne of fights in a day. But we're going off-topic, maybe Rangers and Paladins should share the next thread?

[Thunder999]

We haven't really got there yet, but it's safe to say Ranger is worse than Fighter when it comes to combat, Favoured Enemy isn't reliable, Instant Enemy is a 3rd level spell so you'll never have many and it's too expensive to be a practical wand (plus wands lose the swift action cast time), and there's just not enough good buffs on the ranger list to push it ahead (as opposed to Paladin and Bloodrager who have better buff spells along with the ever powerful Smite and Rage)

[pabelfly]

But we're going off-topic, maybe Rangers and Paladins should share the next thread?

Here you go:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650956-Tiering-the-Pathfinder-Classes-Ranger-and-Paladin

Everyone feel free to continue with this thread, though. The thread isn't off-limits just because the new one is up.

[Drelua]

We haven't really got there yet, but it's safe to say Ranger is worse than Fighter when it comes to combat, Favoured Enemy isn't reliable, Instant Enemy is a 3rd level spell so you'll never have many and it's too expensive to be a practical wand (plus wands lose the swift action cast time), and there's just not enough good buffs on the ranger list to push it ahead (as opposed to Paladin and Bloodrager who have better buff spells along with the ever powerful Smite and Rage)

Losing the swift action casting time isn't necessarily a big problem, if you make use of stealth. The spell lasts a minimum of 7 minutes and has a minimum range of 40', so if you know a fight's coming it's not too hard to cast it from the wand, and save your spell slots for when you want to cast it in combat, or at least cast it in a surprise round if you don't have much else to do as a TWFer or Archer. I don't think just under 8k to craft it is impractical, that's a bit cheaper than a pearl of power. At level 10 that's about 1/8 of standard WBL, and by 13 it's less than 1/16. Whether or not it's worth a feat is another question.

Rage is versatile because it works in any fight, but it's not more powerful. +6 str is +3 to hit and 4 or 5 damage, so at level 11-19 it's comparable to a Ranger 5's FE. Smite Evil does about twice the damage and a similar attack bonus against a larger category than FE, but only against a few opponents a day. I've played high level Rangers in high- and low-op environments, once I had 2 or 3 instant enemies a day I don't really remember running out. As I said, very campaign dependent, we didn't really do long dungeon crawls in that game.

The annoying thing is when you're fighting a favoured enemy you only have at +2, but because they're a FE already you can't target them. Might be worth being a corpse hunter just to avoid that.

[RandomPeasant]

This is kind of a consequence of trying to map a four-axis issue onto a one-axis measurement. We've got how good they are at solving problems (no, a little, a lot, yes), how many options they have for solving a given problem (zero, one, a few, a lot), how many different problems they have solutions to at one time (none, one, a few, a lot, all), and how easy it is to switch from one set of problem solving tools to another (impossible, difficult, tedious, easy, effortless).

That's a bunch of distinctions without differences. You don't need separate rankings for "can switch between tools easily" and "has a lot of tools at once", because those are simply different ways of achieving the goal of "have access to a bunch of tools". It's like saying you can't have one system that ranks both the Healer and the Warmage because the former contributes by healing their allies and the latter by damaging their enemies. Of course you can! You just need a system that ranks "contributing to combat" rather than "healing allies" or "damaging enemies". Similarly, "I can swap my abilities around", "my abilities are inherently versatile", "I have access to a lot of abilities at once", and "I have abilities that are simply powerful enough to overcome typical defenses" are all strategies for improving the range of problems you can solve, not distinct axes that need to be assessed separately.

[Kurald Galain]

For the barbarian's descriptive text, it may be worth pointing out the Flesheater archetype, which can gain useful abilities like early flight and pounce for the price of... eating animal flesh. Yeah, that's pretty good as barbarians go.

[Firechanter]

Oh, totally missed this thread and now late to the party. Well I guess you guys got the rating nailed pretty good anyway.

One thing I mentioned in the Pal/Rgr thread and would like to reiterate here:
imho one thing that holds the Bloodrager back is that it's so MAD.
It attacks / damages with STR, needs solid DEX bc of Light or Med armour, CON goes without saying, and then also CHA for spells. And you probably don't want to dump WIS either (but may have to). I have found even PB25 to be frustrating trying to build a BR.

Sure, it's better than a Barb but not by that much.
All of the Hulk Smash classes suffer from low defense in combination with a total absence of self-healing.
The BR can learn to use Wands, okay, but that's about it. The saving grace may be the ability to cast defensive spells like Mirror Image, granted.

Unpopular opinion puffin: Barbs are a liability for the rest of the group, and therefore on the lower end of T4. UnBarbs are simpler bookkeeping but otherwise even worse.

Note also how Barbs/BRs have to bookkeep their primary class feature on a round by round basis. Compare how for instance the Inquisitor gets his Judgments simply "for the duration of the encounter", even if that lasts an entire day.

My verdict:
Barb 4.1
UnBarb 4.2
BR 3.9

[Thunder999]

Bloodrager doesn't really need much charisma, you don't really care about save DCs so just the 14 for 4th level spells is enough.

As for dex, medium armour doesn't need a lot of dex and it's really no worse off than a normal barbarian there (or really any of the many medium armour wearing classes)

[pabelfly]

Oh, totally missed this thread and now late to the party.

Don't worry, your vote still counts.



Voting Update

Barbarian (Chained)

Rynjin – 3.75
Kurald Galain, Drelua, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Thunder999, Maat Mons, TotallyNotEvil – 4
Firechanter – 4.1

Average – 3.98



Barbarian (Unchained)

Kurald Galain, Drelua, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Maat Mons, TotallyNotEvil – 4
Thunder999 – 4.1
Firechanter – 4.2

Average – 4.04



Bloodrager

Gnaeus – 3
Thunder999, AvatarVecna – 3.6
TotallyNotEvil, Rynjin – 3.75
Maat Mons – 3.8
Firechanter – 3.9
Kurald Galain, Drelua – 4

Average – 3.71

[vasilidor]

I would say that the Barbarian is well within the tier 4 range. maybe a bit better in a wilderness campaign, but not by much. Especially since Tracking in Pathfinder is just a survival skill check. Rangers are better at tracking though.
Blood Rager, might hit tier 3 in my eyes. I would have to double check the spell selection they have. They are better off ignoring spells with saving throws though.
And Archetype can shift this up or down, generally within about half a tier from what I can tell.

[Bucky]

Barbarian (Chained) at Tier 4. A fairly cheap Shawl of Lifekeeping solves the derage into instant death problem, if you're worried about that.

I have no experience with Unchained Barbarian.

Bloodrager, I've tried to build a few times for different reasons and always ended up disappointed by the spell list. For example, I considered using it as a quick entry to Arcane Archer at level 7 but there's not much to put into the imbued arrows. I'd say it's also Tier 4 but with a bit less focus than Barbarian.

[exelsisxax]

Barbarians(both) T4
What are barbarians? really good at killing things. Rage powers are genuinely good at making it work on top of large bonuses from rage. What is the definition of T4? Good at one important thing. Killing things is important, barbarians are great at it, they're T4.

Bloodrager: T3.8
Barbarian, but terrible spellcasting and a fighty bloodline on the side instead of rage powers. Kind of a janky MAD mess but once it comes online you're basically just a barbarian running with an extra buff or two cast via free-action rage, and out of combat you've got a handful of spells in a pinch. There's just far more spells than a barb can get rage powers and dipping into caster supporting items and bloodline tricks can get you fun stuff like "barb but with 30' reach" so it's distinctly better overall.

[pabelfly]

Voting Update

New procedural update:
Archetypes are tiered separately from classes. Three votes are required for an archetype for it to make it to the master list, and the archetype needs to be more than half a tier stronger or weaker than the base class to be added to the list.

Barbarian (Chained)

Rynjin – 3.75
Kurald Galain, Drelua, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Thunder999, Maat Mons, TotallyNotEvil, Bucky, Exelsisxax – 4
Firechanter – 4.1

Average – 3.99



Barbarian (Unchained)

Kurald Galain, Drelua, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus, Maat Mons, TotallyNotEvil, Exelsisxax – 4
Thunder999 – 4.1
Firechanter – 4.2

Average – 4.03



Bloodrager

Gnaeus – 3
Thunder999, AvatarVecna – 3.6
TotallyNotEvil, Rynjin – 3.75
Maat Mons, Exelsisxax – 3.8
Firechanter – 3.9
Kurald Galain, Drelua, Bucky – 4

Average – 3.75