Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Cleric, Druid and Wizard

[Bucky]

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

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

Druids are slightly behind both. Tier 1.1.

[Aquillion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rynjin]

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

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

[Aquillion]

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

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

But the meaning of an eg. 0.9 rating for a wizard archetype is unambiguous and clear to everyone - it's someone saying that that archetype is stronger or more versatile than the base wizard.

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

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

[Rynjin]

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

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

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

[pabelfly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rynjin]

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

[Kurald Galain]

But the meaning of an eg. 0.9 rating for a wizard archetype is unambiguous and clear to everyone - it's someone saying that that archetype is stronger or more versatile than the base wizard.

The catch is that the tier list is not ranking all classes from top to bottom, but instead dividing the classes into six specifically defined categories.

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

[AvatarVecna]

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

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

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

[pabelfly]

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

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

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

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

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

[Thunder999]

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

[spectralphoenix]

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

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

[AvatarVecna]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AvatarVecna]

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

[pabelfly]

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

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

[Maat Mons]

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

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

[pabelfly]

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

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

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

[Maat Mons]

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

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

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



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

[AnonymousPepper]

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

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

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

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

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

[Aquillion]

I would define T0 as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any class can punch above its tier if it is well-optimized and played extremely effectively; that footnote has been part of the tier list since the beginning. So saying "well, a wizard can fit your definition of T0 if they always select the right spells anyway and are perfect at using magic to create opportunities to rest so they never run out of slots" is no different than saying "well, a Sorcerer can effectively be T1 if their spell selections are good enough and they exploit all the various ways of getting access to floating slots."

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

[zlefin]

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

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

[Thunder999]

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

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

[AnonymousPepper]

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

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

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

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

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

[Bucky]

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

[Beni-Kujaku]

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