Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Commoner, Warrior, Expert and Aristocrat

[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 and your votes still count.

Last, and least, we’ll tier Commoner, Warrior, Expert and Aristocrat.

These are all tiered at 6 in the informal thread.

So, the questions are: what should each of these be tiered at? Is there anything worth discussing about them? 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 Bard or Skald. 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 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.

[Bucky]

A few common issues apply to several or all of these NPC classes.

While Commoner and Expert don't get light armor proficiency from their classes, they do get it as a free bonus feat per the feat description. Same with commoners and simple weapon proficiency.

NPCs with NPC classes also have some additional perks. For example, they can grant boons. In effect, the GM has a license to replace those dead levels with unique benefits. However, these aren't benefits of the class, they're benefits of being an NPC.

Lack of class features beyond the chassis means that NPCs are entirely front-loaded. Class skills and proficiencies, once acquired, remain class skills and proficiencies even after multiclassing out. So a build can generally take one level of Expert or Aristocrat or Warrior or whatever and find another class that's itself low tier but has a better chassis with the same relative strengths and actual class features. These come out ahead (with the caveat that multiclassing at a bad breakpoint can lose a BAB, but you can wait three levels) of the straight NPC class even if the secondary's class features are poorly suited for the character's role, like an armored Aristocrat/Chained Monk, a 2HF Warrior/Swashbuckler, an Int-primary Expert/Chained Rogue or a farming Commoner/Kineticist (fire).

With the generalities out of the way, here are my comments on the individual classes.


Commoners are Tier 6. The Commoner class is a strict downgrade from Expert in a way few things are in Pathfinder. You can build a character with Commoner levels, then swap the Commoner levels with Expert levels that take all the Commoner class skills plus three while keeping all the other choices. The new character can do literally everything at least as well as the old character, but also has a better will save and three hobbies at max skill rank.

Commoners are also, uniquely, clearly worse than not having a class and advancing by humanoid HD instead. Don't take Commoner, even for NPCs.


Warriors are in Tier 6 for most of their careers. At level 1, maxing Strength and stomping around in heavy armor bashing things with a two-handed weapon is a fair way to contribute, because typical CR <2 enemies will often be removed from the board after a single charge connects and the survivors will have difficulty hitting back. But higher levels give them neither innate damage scaling nor improved options to deliver the attack nor defenses beyond the universal magic items. They can reasonably contribute to solving an appropriately challenging combat problem if only a teammate spends resources to enable them, whether by buffing or crowd control, in contrast to the swashbucklers and kineticists who at least get some innate defenses, scaling damage bonuses and mobility aids. And that's inside their specialty. Out of combat, they have 2+Int skills with an anemic class skill list and zero class features.

Since even some of the Tier 5s overshadow Warriors at Warriors' relative strengths, while also having their own specialties, Warriors are clearly in Tier 6. They're relatively high in their tier due to not being completely overshadowed for a few levels - call it Tier 5.8.


Experts specialize in class skills. Everyone gets some class skills, so Experts instead specialize in unusual combinations of class skills. Most skills are available as class skills via race or trait instead of class, so the Expert's niche shrinks further. And without fast qualification for PrCs, and without cross-class skills falling increasingly further behind at high levels, Experts' schtick doesn't matter as much as it did in 3.5 even when it does uniquely apply.

Experts' 6+Int skill points is above average but not particularly special. Chained Rogues get 8+Int, for example.

Experts also get hit relatively harder by the dip issue. Even those who really need particular class skills and can't spend a trait on it for some reason would typically be better off combining different classes that have those skills. For example, a Chained Rogue 1/Lore Warden Fighter 1 has everything but Heal and Fly as class skills, without losing any skill ranks compared to Expert 2. If you really want those last two without resorting to high tier casters, Kineticist (air) has you covered.

On their own merits, without trying to replace the class entirely, Experts only get the baseline power out of individual skills that other classes can easily also do. They don't get bonuses beyond their skill ranks, like a Rogue's ability to always take 10, a Swashbuckler's occasional Derring-Do to turn the impossible into the improbable, a Shifter's competence bonus from Aspects or a Skilled Kineticist's strongly scaling bonus. They can't even get Skill Focus as a bonus feat like a variety of archetypes do for their key skills and a few generally low tier ones (Insinuator antipaladin, Daring Infiltrator swashbuckler) do for anything. Nor do they get any class features that actively provide opportunities to use those skills, like for example a Swashbuckler using Menacing Swordplay or a Shifter or Aerokineticist in flight. In short, Experts are worse users of any given skill than a class with actual support for that skill, even where those other classes are not strong in general.

Oh, and the skill uses (feint and demoralize) and simple weapons are their only combat contributions. Experts clearly belong in tier 6.

Aristocrats are Tier 6. They're generally the best at taking advantage of NPC dressing, but that's not part of the class itself. They have a pretty nice skill list with all the social and knowledge skills, they're not totally skill-point-starved, and they get full martial proficiency including tower shields. The class is thus a functional compromise between Expert and Warrior, still not competent at much if anything.

Note that in all of these comparisons, I've avoided anything the voting rated as high tier, peaking in mid tier 4 with Fighter. These NPC classes aren't getting outclassed by the power of spells, they're getting outclassed by a broad cross-section of other classes including the dregs.

[zlefin]

I'm gonna go with commoner - 6, commoner seems to be the defining 6, as classes really don't get weaker than that without negatraits; they also really don't solve level appropriat eproblems at all.

For the others, I'm going to say 5.7 each. Expert and Aristocrat are very similar stat-wise, aristocrat has a larger skill list so can get breadth a bit better plus better gear proficiencies, but expert gets more skills/level and can choose the ten skills they want most; both can clearly handle things somewhat better than commoner, and can at lesat do some moderate skill-monkeying even if little else. Warrior gets good bab, but without all the other boosts to really fight at a level appropriate level

[Kurald Galain]

I don't think I've ever seen any of these in play, nor in 3E either. Even named NPCs usually to have PC classes; frankly I think it was a design mistake to allow e.g. city guards to be a "high level warrior" when they could just have used low level fighters (and high level commoners just makes zero sense). Tier 6 to the lot of them.

[pabelfly]

VOTE UPDATE

Warrior
Zlefin – 5.7
Bucky – 5.8
Kurald Galain – 6

Average – 5.8



Aristocrat
Zlefin – 5.7
Bucky, Kurald Galain – 6

Average – 5.9



Expert
Zlefin – 5.7
Bucky, Kurald Galain – 6

Average – 5.9



Commoner
Bucky, Zlefin, Kurald Galain – 6

[Bucky]

I don't think I've ever seen any of these in play, nor in 3E either. Even named NPCs usually to have PC classes; frankly I think it was a design mistake to allow e.g. city guards to be a "high level warrior" when they could just have used low level fighters (and high level commoners just makes zero sense).

I've both seen and used NPC classes on the GM side of the screen - it's often a quick and dirty +2 HD for +1 CR adjustment. Although, as I mentioned, I don't use commoners.

[vasilidor]

The near complete lack of any class features on these characters puts them in at tier 6.
I can almost see an argument to put aristocrat or Expert into tier 5, going something along the lines of *Something Something* Skill points, but I do not think it would convince me really. Classes are not just rated by what they get at low levels, but along all levels. Past around level 5 just having a lot of skill points really is not good enough without some sort of class feature to back it up.

[Bucky]

All the other 6+int classes are in at least tier 4, except for the brute Vigilante who got dinged a tier and a half for often being an active liability in combat.

Mind you, these classes all have skill support beyond just class skills and ranks. Vigilantes, even the Brute, can take Ancestral Enlightenment for +4 on all trained knowledge checks. Vampire Hunters can take Vampiric Cunning. Rogues and Ninjas convert successful Stealth checks into Sneak Attack damage, several advanced Rogue tricks assist skill checks, and Rogues also get Trapfinding. Rangers get bonuses to skills related to their favored enemies and terrains, and Slayers get bonuses on skills related to their studied target. Hunters use Animal Focus for competence bonuses. Investigators get Inspiration. Bards and Skalds get Bardic Knowledge and Inquisitors get the narrower Monster Lore. Mesmerists get Consummate Liar and subtle debuffs for winning opposed skill checks. I believe that's every base class with 6+int other than Expert, not counting archetypes that either trade away these features or gain extra skill points.

[Rynjin]

Tier 6 across the board, if they should be tiered at all. I think the disconnect with me is that NPC classes are not supposed to be playable by PCs any more than monster races are. In the same way I wouldn't rate "Adult Red Dragon" on a "Pathfinder Race Tier List", I wouldn't really rate NPC classes either.

[AvatarVecna]

The only one of these four that could every arguably punch up in 3.5 was Expert, and that was for a few reasons. Firstly, in 3.5, cross-class skills cost double, and capped at half as many ranks, so being able to pick your class skills was surprisingly powerful. In PF, a skill being cross-class just means you don't get an extra +3 if you train in it. Secondly, in 3.5, there were some skills that had some ridiculous niche nonsense they could pull off. If you were good enough at Diplomacy, you could turn a hated foe into someone willing to die for you with but a single sentence. Use Magic Device was a skill very few people could be good at, but it would open up the whole casting system to those who invested in it. Lucid Dreaming let you grapple someone into another dimension. Autohypnosis could help set up one of the simplest methods of being immune to death by HP damage. Knowledge (Religion) could be used to do ritual murder to grant yourself wishes. But in PF, half of the really abusable skills are gone, and the others are nerfed to have their most problematic aspects minimized. Magic abilities are assumed to be more accessible to all PCs both via class features or UMD, so now instead of being something extra a few select noncasters can do, it's kind of standard. Diplomacy can only change somebody's attitude so far in one go. Sacrifice rules aren't canon. As it stands, skill access is still decent for solving problems, but when it's all you've got, and you can't even snipe some weird niche skills nobody else has, it gets a lot worse. GTH I'd probably put Expert at the very bottom of T5 just because skills are cool and skill versatility is cool but I have zero argument with people who just wanna declare it T6 and move on.

Aristocrat: T5.7
Commoner: T6
Expert: T5.4
Warrior: T5.7

[pabelfly]

VOTE UPDATE

Warrior
Zlefin, AvatarVecna – 5.7
Bucky – 5.8
Kurald Galain, Vasilidor, Rynjin – 6

Average – 5.87



Aristocrat
Zlefin, AvatarVecna – 5.7
Bucky, Kurald Galain, Vasilidor, Rynjin – 6

Average – 5.9



Expert
AvatarVecna – 5.4
Zlefin– 5.7
Bucky, Kurald Galain, Vasilidor, Rynjin – 6

Average – 5.85



Commoner
Bucky, Zlefin, Kurald Galain, Vasilidor, Rynjin, AvatarVecna – 6

[pabelfly]

Okay, class writeups.

Aristocrat
This class is slightly better than a Commoner, but the difference between the two is academic at best. Aristocrat is still a T6 class.

Expert
The ability to pick your own class skills is far is less valuable in Pathfinder than in 3.5 - a class skill is only worth an extra +3 to a skill, you keep your class skills when you multiclass, and there are plenty of ways to pick up extra class skills, making unique skill combinations generally easy to come up with. Class skills are less overpowered than in 3.5 too. You have access to Use Magic Device at least, but this is yet another T6 class.

Warrior
Another NPC class that's slightly nicer than Commoner, with slightly better stats, but only barely. This is another T6 class.

[Bucky]

Okay, class writeups.

Aristocrat
This class is slightly better than a Commoner, but the difference between the two is academic at best. Aristocrat is still a T6 class.

(snip)

Warrior
Another NPC class that's slightly nicer than Commoner, with slightly better stats, but only barely. This is another T6 class.

"Academic at best" is a bit of a disservice to the Aristocrat. At level 1, an Aristocrat can handily defend herself from a variety of fractional-CR threats that would eat a Commoner alive, and do a better job of protecting that commoner than a few low tiers (Shifter, Monk, most Kineticists) whose combat (due to terrible proficiencies) relies on class features that haven't scaled up to match mundane weapons and armor yet.

The militant Aristocrat falls off quickly, though. Flurrying monks start punching harder than a sword, kinetic blasts start hitting harder than thrown weapons, and the armor-restricted laggards pick up defensive class features. At least good will saves (compared to the commoner) never lose their usefulness.

Same with Warrior, except with +1 BAB they last a bit longer and they have good fortitude saves instead of will saves.

[Gnaeus]

Expert 5.4. Others T6.

[Rynjin]

"Academic at best" is a bit of a disservice to the Aristocrat. At level 1, an Aristocrat can handily defend herself from a variety of fractional-CR threats that would eat a Commoner alive, and do a better job of protecting that commoner than a few low tiers (Shifter, Monk, most Kineticists) whose combat (due to terrible proficiencies) relies on class features that haven't scaled up to match mundane weapons and armor yet.

The militant Aristocrat falls off quickly, though. Flurrying monks start punching harder than a sword, kinetic blasts start hitting harder than thrown weapons, and the armor-restricted laggards pick up defensive class features. At least good will saves (compared to the commoner) never lose their usefulness.

Same with Warrior, except with +1 BAB they last a bit longer and they have good fortitude saves instead of will saves.

Even in this context, any of those classes could simply pick up a sword and start using it if they wanted. That's not exactly a niche.

[AvatarVecna]

Even in this context, any of those classes could simply pick up a sword and start using it if they wanted. That's not exactly a niche.

Yeah, this isn't complicated. If we're comparing chassis, Aristocrat and Chained Monk have the same HD, the same BAB, the same number of skill points, and the same base Will save...and with how skills work in PF, the difference in class skills barely matters, especially when traits and races can grant additional class skills. Monk can wield a monk weapon and flurry with it, getting an extra attack in exchange for -1 to both, while aristocrat has access to (very slightly) better weapons. At worst, monk offense is going to be comparable to aristocrat offense, instead of just objectively outpacing it even from lvl 1. Defensively, monk has a good Fort and Ref save, and while Monk Unarmored AC probably isn't as good as full plate and a good shield, aristocrat can't afford those things for a few levels anyway; more likely, aristocrat is going to have AC on par with the monk - maybe better if they get a shield, but then they're sacrificing damage. And no matter what armor the aristocrat goes with, the monk is gonna have better touch AC. The monk also gets three bonus feats at lvl 1, including one he gets to choose. That one will probably be either Combat Reflexes (extra attacks per round to make his damage skyrocket), Dodge (extra +1 AC that also applies to Touch), or Deflect Arrows (an extra defense against ranged attackers).

Chained Monk is garbage, but it's still waaaaaaaay better than aristocrat, even at lvl 1. This is before we have evasion, or fast movement, or ki magic.

[Rynjin]

Yeah, I feel like a lot of people don't understand that using unarmed strikes for a Monk is already suboptimal anyway, especially at low levels before Style Feats can bridge the gap. A Temple Sword is a (very slightly) upgraded longsword, and objectively the best weapon to Flurry with baseline (without getting extra proficiencies for something like the Waveblade). You get an extra attack with full Str bonus, a good crit rate, and solid baseline damage.

[pabelfly]

VOTE UPDATE

Warrior
Zlefin, AvatarVecna – 5.7
Bucky – 5.8
Kurald Galain, Vasilidor, Rynjin, Gnaeus – 6

Average – 5.89



Aristocrat
Zlefin, AvatarVecna – 5.7
Bucky, Kurald Galain, Vasilidor, Rynjin, Gnaeus – 6

Average – 5.91



Expert
AvatarVecna, Gnaeus – 5.4
Zlefin– 5.7
Bucky, Kurald Galain, Vasilidor, Rynjin – 6

Average – 5.79



Commoner
Bucky, Zlefin, Kurald Galain, Vasilidor, Rynjin, AvatarVecna, Gnaeus – 6

[Bucky]

I made a basic error and misread the table as not giving monks wis-to-AC until level 2. Oops.

The PFSRD is also missing the starting wealth for a PC aristocrat, and I don't have the book handy. However, it's probably higher than a monk's - one in three first-level monks cannot afford a temple sword even if they put all their money towards it. In any event, even a fluff-friendly and affordable choice of parade armor matches the monk's highest likely armor bonus from wisdom.

The final element of my assessment, which I didn't mention explicitly, is reach. AFAICT there are no monk weapons with reach.

(Shifter is in a similar situation to Monk, but with more money and even worse proficiencies. Kineticists have full simple weapon proficiency but weapons are incompatible with all their level 1 class features barring a single rare infusion choice they need to burn themselves to use.)

[Rynjin]

The PFSRD is also missing the starting wealth for a PC aristocrat

That is because, as I stated in the other thread, there is no such thing as a PC Aristocrat.



The final element of my assessment, which I didn't mention explicitly, is reach. AFAICT there are no monk weapons with reach.


There are like 3-4 Monk weapons with Reach, but they're all Exotic and relatively meh, so not worth investing a Feat into IMO.

[Kurald Galain]

There are like 3-4 Monk weapons with Reach, but they're all Exotic and relatively meh, so not worth investing a Feat into IMO.
True, but you can get proficiency from a trait or from several racial abilities, or from a 1500-gp ioun stone. Any of that is probably worth it for flurrying at reach.

[bekeleven]

I always ask myself, why would anybody take this class? Now, sometimes the answer is "this class is strictly worse than class X" but usually there's some obscure redeeming feature.

This obviously isn't the only tiering criteria. A strictly worse wizard isn't automatically tier 6, for example.

Nonetheless, for all of these classes, the answer is, they have no redeeming features. Chicken-infested wasn't OGL and didn't make the edition jump. I think that, combined with their lack of other class features, relegates them all to tier 6 (you can say 5.X if you want to get fancy, but I don't). For each of them, you can point to a tier 5 class that's better for every character you'd want to play. 6 for all.