Updated Tier List for Pathfinder?

[Gnaeus]

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

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

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

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

[Palanan]

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

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

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

[GrayDeath]

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

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

You... still haven't told us what your mysterious purpose is. You'll plausibly get a better answer from us when you do.

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

[Gnaeus]

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

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

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

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

[zook1shoe]

this one is very up-to-date, and pretty in depth

[Kurald Galain]

this one is very up-to-date, and pretty in depth

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

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

[NigelWalmsley]

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

[Kurald Galain]

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

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

[Dmitriy]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

*snip*

This list is pretty close to mine and I agree with the reasoning. I also really like their "optimal kineticist" that avoids blasting, which linked to another SE post on the kinny's tier I was just looking at for my own research.

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

[Palanan]

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

[Palanan]

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[GrayDeath]

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[GrayDeath]

@ 2nd Edition: Oh, I totally agree.

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

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

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

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