New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 126
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder999 View Post
    So, if noone has anything to add here, what classes should be next?
    We'll do some full casters this week - Arcanist, Oracle, Shaman and Witch.

    https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...aman-and-Witch

    I'll work on writing up some class summaries for last week's stuff to add to the tiering thread.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Summaries for Inquisitor, Occultist, Magus and Warpriest are up for critique.

    Magus (2.87)
    The Magus has a ridiculously long spell list, and has the ability to cast illusions, do battlefield control, debuff, teleport, dispel, use polymorph, defensive spells, and more. They have possibly the best action economy in the game, since you can attack, use spells, and have some swift-action abilities to boot, and can use all of them in the same turn. And you’ve got easy access to various movement-based spells that help you do full attacks each turn. All in all, Magus is a high-end Tier 3 class.

    Warpriest (3.30)
    The Warpriest gets the Cleric spell list and the ability to cast spells on themselves while being able to attack that turn. It’s some great action economy, you have access to great buffing spells, including the ability to use short duration spells other classes would struggle with. However, the Cleric spell list isn’t the strongest at lower levels, and being a sixth-level spellcaster exacerbates the issue. It earns a spot as a lower-end T3 class.

    Inquisitor (3.08)
    The inquisitor is yet another Pathfinder class to combine sixth-level spellcasting with melee combat, and this attempt lands solidly in the middle of Tier 3. Firstly, your spell list is based off the Cleric spell list, and while some of those spells are a level behind regular cleric, it also has a bunch of additional spells Cleric normally doesn’t get. However, you are a spontaneous spellcaster and need to be much more careful in selecting your spells than a prepared 6th-level spellcaster. On the melee side, your martial ability is boosted by teamwork feats that you don’t need other team members to have to use, and you have access to Bane and Judgement to boost your combat ability further. Outside of combat, your skill bonuses are pretty solid to help ensure you have plenty to do out-of-combat. Overall, Inquisitor is a definitive T3 class.

    Occultist (3.28)
    The Occultist is an extremely complex class, even by the standards of other sixth-level classes, but for all the effort required to play the class, you (only) end up with a class at the lower end of T3. Your spell list is decent, and you’ll get more spell slots than other 6th level classes, but your access to those spells is tightly limited by the amount of implements you have. You start with access to two schools at level 1, and while you’ll have access to seven schools by level 18, that’s a lot of spell schools you won’t have access to for most of your career. You can change which schools you have access to daily, but this just adds to the complex bookwork you’re required to do for the class. Lastly, as an intelligence-based caster, you’ll at least have plenty of skill points to be able to contribute outside of spellcasting. Still, you’re at the lower end of T3 in this class.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Looks good overall, but noting that a class has (e.g.) good fort and will saves is something you should mention for all the classes (including those of earlier threads), or for none of them. Having two good saves doesn't make any class stand out for a particular tier, since almost every class has two good saves. The same applies to hit points: almost every class has d8 or d10 hit points, so either of those is not a big deal.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Looks good overall, but noting that a class has (e.g.) good fort and will saves is something you should mention for all the classes (including those of earlier threads), or for none of them. Having two good saves doesn't make any class stand out for a particular tier, since almost every class has two good saves. The same applies to hit points: almost every class has d8 or d10 hit points, so either of those is not a big deal.
    Thanks for the suggestions, I've fixed it up and I'll add it to the main thread.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Nov 2022

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    Possibly the most buckwild take I've seen in any of these threads.
    What does inquisitor really do well, though? I can think of way more ways to optimize fighters and barbarians to be obnoxious and munchkin-y than inquisitors if I wanted to. You can make barbarians who never die except to one weird thing and fighters who have so many magic feats they can basically play the role of a controller or a buffer, or alternatively make them the skill monkey while still having full martial damage. Inquisitors seem fairly well-rounded for a 6th-level caster, they're very simple to build, and they have a certain style, but I wouldn't say they're that strong when they're really optimized since there's just not that much synergy to work with.

    They probably blow paladins out of the water, but single-class paladins don't seem like that good of a yardstick. Damage, AC, and those kinds of numbers are important, but not what makes a character. The best way to deal with problems is usually to just shut them down with something non-numeric, such as charming the orcs to join your side instead of killing them, or killing them with a trap and then raising them as undead if you're an evil necromancer aspiring for lichdom. Then the next time you try that and it doesn't work, your friends can help you fight. I only even rated Magus as 3 instead of 4 because they get some of the utility spells like illusions from the sorcerer/wizard list. Inquisitor mostly gets spells it doesn't seem like they have enough spell slots or good enough action economy to use.

    Inquisitor would really do well with more long-duration spells like most partial casters get, such as Deathwatch, Shadow Trap, Unbreakable Heart, or Touch of Blindness, but instead of those, they get things like Command and Ear-Piercing Scream that have a short duration, take at least a standard action (which they don't really have the higher-level slots to quicken,) they don't have the slots to use very often, and don't have the DCs to make hit all that often compared to full casters or even occultists who can at least buff the DCs with their implements. Inquisitors would've been the perfect chassis for all those "touch of X" spells that even clerics and oracles often forego for the ranged versions at higher levels, but they don't get them, and thematically it could've been like passing a judgement.

    Likewise, they get the "interrogator" theme, but despite most divinations having long durations and being useful, they still get rather few compared to many other classes and almost entirely have to rely on their Wisdom-to-skill bonuses. Sure, inquisitors get Detect Thoughts which is amazing on most classes... but this is terrible if you're not psychic or if you can't readily do Silent/Still spell, which inquisitor can't easily do. Inquisitor just kind of feels like a lot of things thrown together that barely stands up to, say, a fighter or barbarian with really optimized feats and archetypes, but is probably harder to mess up at least. I don't even see how an inquisitor is a "divine bard," since the main role of most bards is to buff their allies or to control enemies with their enchantments and inquisitors mostly seem focused on self-buffing that's not as good as other divine classes like clerics, oracles, or paladins or as good as other 6th-level casters like occultists, magi, or bards, and really limited debuffs that they seem unlikely to be able to get the DCs for. If you really want to be a divine half-caster, reliquarian occultist seems better than inquisitor, especially if you want to be a diviner. Get Mage's Paraphernalia and you can actually use metamagic in addition to improving your skill checks higher. Actually being able to use metamagic also more or less makes Warpriest kind of pointless, especially since your spell selection is much better. Magus is very good at what it does, I just don't think what it does is that useful. I'm not sure occultist is that useful either when you can just play a wizard, cleric, druid, or psychic, but occultist gets some really stupid things. For example, binding circles are basically a magic trap and I don't think even wizards get anything like that, though I don't tend to think it's worth the tradeoff of things like Create Demiplane/Lesser/Greater, Wish, Limited Wish, Miracle, Shapechange, Shadow Conjuration, Shades, and the like. Psychometry at-will, though not overly combat-y, can save you a lot of heartache, kind of beyond what Detect Magic can since magic auras are often hidden but virtually no one takes the effort to also hide the fact they cast a spell or what was going through their heads when they cast it. Aura Sight at-will is probably even more stupid since that's a higher-level spell. Some of the powers are stupid too... like getting a better version of a paladin steed while also being a 6th-level caster with probably full BAB and an actual ability to use metamagic. The powers are basically Paizo's version of 3.5e psionics anyway (which are literally called powers and manifested with power points,) kind of like the phrenic pool of psychics being manifested with points.

    Building occultists right tends to feel like more effort than it's worth, but I think they will probably just outperform sorcerers at least at low levels. Having a very limited selection 7th-9th spell-like abilities, things spells don't replicate, and rather high-level spells at-will plus functioning better than the vast majority of martials at being a martial is kind of silly, even though what 9th-level casters can do with those big spells like Wish, Miracle, Shapechange, and Demiplane is even sillier. Inquisitor is firmly behind magus in my book, and I'm not even sure inquisitor is ahead of a properly-built fighter, barbarian, or unchained rogue. In fact, I've considered unchained rogues pretty good, those skill unlocks are crazy good (though I tend to prefer just taking Signature Skill on other characters, like Sense Motive on a spellcaster or Intimidate on martials usually) and I'm not even sure inquisitor can compete with them with its oddly-selected, not-easily-metamagicable 6th-level spells, but it's at least close enough I have to think about it.


  6. - Top - End - #66
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    They do a lot well, you can look over my previous posts on the subject in this thread.

    The fact that you think a single-classed Paladin is nothing special (while single-classed Fighter apparently is?) is further indicator that we are not operating in anywhere near the same headspace; I'd suggest reading over the thread tiering Paladin as well.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum View Post
    What does inquisitor really do well, though? I can think of way more ways to optimize fighters and barbarians to be obnoxious and munchkin-y than inquisitors if I wanted to. You can make barbarians who never die except to one weird thing and fighters who have so many magic feats they can basically play the role of a controller or a buffer, or alternatively make them the skill monkey while still having full martial damage.
    I'd appreciate it if you would post these fighter and barbarian builds you're thinking of in their respective threads. I worry they rely on abilities only available at level 15 and up, meaning well above where the average campaign ends; please do show me counterexamples.

    And to answer your question of what does inquisitor really do well: an obvious answer is damage, via swift-action bane. Another one is being SAD, via wisdom mod to numerous skills as well as initiative. Another one is detecting alignments. This is not an exclusive list, but these are all things that an inquisitor does really well.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Nov 2022

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    And to answer your question of what does inquisitor really do well: an obvious answer is damage, via swift-action bane. Another one is being SAD, via wisdom mod to numerous skills as well as initiative. Another one is detecting alignments. This is not an exclusive list, but these are all things that an inquisitor does really well.
    I don't think the damage inquisitors do is that useful, since magi do that a lot better when they load their spells into their weapons and even barbarians and other full martials tend to do that better just with their rages, sneak attacks, and feats. Being SAD is also not that important if your attribute isn't giving you anything that useful. I'm sure commoners are SAD constitution builds and aristocrats are SAD charisma builds, but that's not a point in favor of commoners or aristocrats since they just don't have much to do with their single attribute even if it's ridiculously high. Occultists are also much better at detecting alignments if that matters as well as detecting everything else like class levels, personal histories, locations, and private thoughts. I'm not just trying to insult inquisitors or anything, but unless someone can seriously reshape the battlefield I can't even see them in tier 3. Bards can do stupid things with piling buffs on people and taking control of enemies. Inquisitors seem to be using all those buffs on themselves to keep up with an unchained rogue who isn't limited by resources unless they take really specific archetypes.

    The problem with skill monkeys is you don't take skills to make checks to perceive things or lie to people, you generally take skills to power feats, class features, and spells you might want to use, because once you're to the point where the bard is charming people with songs so you don't have to roll as high on diplomacy, the lore oracle is doing knowledge checks with charisma and retrying them with ancestral communion, and the barbarian is using Signature Skill: Intimidate with a feat that lets them do it as a move action to an AoE, your straight numbers just won't matter. That's the whole problem with skill monkeys, that your sense motive check has never mattered when the telepath is reading minds and your trapfinding doesn't matter when the wizard is detecting all the concealed runes and pits and then mage handing them away. I see bards as actually bringing a lot to the table that isn't just dependent on skills with their performances and the fact they can actually use certain spells really well despite only being a 6th-level caster, but inquisitors seem to really lack anything like that. Inquisitors are probably much easier to use out of the box than most classes, but the ceiling seems lower than most classes that aren't considered awful by everyone such as the shifter and chained rogue. I'm definitely just judging classes by the minmaxxed ceiling versions though.


  9. - Top - End - #69
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Wisdom is just about the best attribute to be SAD on. And I think you're underestimating the level of consistent damage Inquisitor puts out.

    They also have A LOT of information gathering utility. As well as quite a few good save or lose effects, albeit some of the best only at high levels (eg. Overwhelming Presence).

    Take a close look at their spell list; it's a lot better than just being a truncated Cleric list.

    I'll also say that just because Magus is a better damage dealer (...which is arguable in any case), does not mean Inquisitor gets bumped down to T4. That ain't how that works.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum View Post
    I don't think the damage inquisitors do is that useful, since magi do that a lot better
    You don't have to be the best to be useful.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    I should add in being Wisdom SAD and high Will saves for the Inquisitor class to its summary. Thanks for the discussion.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by pabelfly View Post
    I should add in being Wisdom SAD and high Will saves for the Inquisitor class to its summary. Thanks for the discussion.
    It isn't automatically wisdom SAD though; to do that, it basically needs some way to get wis-to-AC and wis-to-hit. It can be built in that way but it's not the default.

    Fair point about having high will saves. Likewise, the rogue/urogue should mention having high reflex saves; nothing really comes to mind that has high fort saves (as in, a special reason to invest in con plus fast-growing fort).
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    It isn't automatically wisdom SAD though; to do that, it basically needs some way to get wis-to-AC and wis-to-hit. It can be built in that way but it's not the default.

    Fair point about having high will saves. Likewise, the rogue/urogue should mention having high reflex saves; nothing really comes to mind that has high fort saves (as in, a special reason to invest in con plus fast-growing fort).
    Added notes for the Inquisitor's will saves and the Rogue's reflex saves (also noted that both Rogues had evasion as well).

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    You don't have to be the best to be useful.
    And I'll reiterate that it's very arguable that a Magus is a better damage dealer in any case. Oh certainly Magus has a much higher PER HIT damage, but over the course of a full combat the Inquisitor is probably packing more DPR, and can do it in more encounters per day.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    I wouldn't give inquisitor a per day advantage actually, Bane is very limited use, certainly more limited than Shocking Grasp or Frostbite, which are 1st level spells you'll have in abundance and can cheaply replenish with Pearls of Power or Arcane Pool points.

    And Bane is definitely the biggest damage boost of inquisitor, Judgement is good, but relatively low numbers, spells take too many actions to really stack up (particularly since the best ones are 1 round/level or fixed 1 minute duration, fine for a warpriest, but you'd need an expensive quicken metamagic rod on an Inquisitor).

    And honestly, Bane isn't even better than Frostbite, Frostbite is 1d6+level damage, so better than bane at level 6+ in terms of damage, though the attack bonus is obviously important and not in Frostbite, and Frostbite is 1 attack/CL per casting, rather than 1 round/level total.

    Even Shocking Grasp stacks up relatively well, though not as well as Frostbite (10d6 shocking grasp is 35 average damage, 3 hits from Frostbite at the same CL is 3d6+30=40.5, 5.5 more damage in the first round), but it still beats bane for single round DPS until you have 5 attacks per round.

    But Inquisitor doesn't need to beat magus to be an excellent tier 3 class.


    Inquisitors have more than adequate damage, good skill points, class features that actually boost skill bonuses and a very solid spell list, which importantly is different to the magus, due to having all those useful divine spells.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder999 View Post
    I wouldn't give inquisitor a per day advantage actually, Bane is very limited use, certainly more limited than Shocking Grasp or Frostbite, which are 1st level spells you'll have in abundance and can cheaply replenish with Pearls of Power or Arcane Pool points.
    Rounds/level is not a bad resource pool at all, especially with the investment of a single Feat (either Extended Bane or Extra Bane depending on how high you plan to pump your Wis).

    Considering you'll probably be ending most combats in 2 rounds or less with a high op party, even by level 8 you're good for the whole day.

    You're also missing that Bane jumps to being 4d6+2 damage at 12, so 12d6+6 across 3 hits (average 48 damage) beats out Frostbite on average.

    Edit: Though TBF, Inquisitor has a harder time getting to 3 hits per round sometimes.
    Last edited by Rynjin; 2022-12-05 at 06:27 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Nov 2022

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    You don't have to be the best to be useful.
    True, but I never placed inquisitor in tier 5 with chained monks, chained rogues, and shifters. I just think it somehow seems notably less good than magus. Yes, people do keep hyping the Inquisitor spell list, but I think both their number of slots and their DCs are too low for their spell list to be notably more useful in practice than unrogue's skill unlocks, even with some spells like Wrath clearly being quite good. I am just having a hard time seeing inquisitor as being all that much better than unrogue or a really optimized barbarian or fighter. It just seems like it looks better on paper, mostly. I'm not saying it's useless at all. For what it's worth, magus seems like a worse eldritch knight and I would recommend anyone wanting to melee and deal damage as a divine caster to just one of the tier 1/"1.5" classes (I don't like the rounding system) in melee like you already pretty much easily can with all of them while using quickened metamagic and other features to improve your action economy beyond warpriest while also getting full casting and other cool features such as domain, revelations, hexes, or wildshape. I consider the damage from things like judgments and smites to not be very good even if it's big numbers because a magus can do more with their spells and a magus just seems like a worse eldritch knight to me. A lot of these classes seem like worse versions of other classes just to try to get a novelty factor to keep old players playing the game plus to try to make the game seem easier for newbies. Occult adventures classes, witch, shaman, alchemist, and some other classes and archetypes are genuinely new for Pathfinder when they come out, but they're also just attempts to port over popular 3.5e content while making it copyrightable by Paizo. A lot of archetypes also end up filling the role of prestige classes and even less-common but highly-demanded niche subclasses in Pathfinder, but also railroading people into certain builds and even races more than PrCs in 3.5e did, which seems like another problem with the design of Pathfinder vs. 3.5e.
    Last edited by Coeruleum; 2022-12-06 at 08:37 AM.


  18. - Top - End - #78
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    I'm wondering what it is that makes you think the Magus has higher save DCs than the Inquisitor? Or more spell slots, for that matter.
    Last edited by Rynjin; 2022-12-06 at 09:47 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    I genuinely don't get how anyone can compare Skill Unlocks to avtual casting.

    Skill unlocks for most skills are pretty bad, Intimidate is nice, but real spells can do so much more than just frighten people with a failed will save and it's mostly carried by how easy it is to get free action demoralise. Heal is also decent, but that's just healing hp, something that a wand is generally adequate to cover out of combat and which is almost never actually optimal mid-fight.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Drelua's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    A Magus is not just a worse Eldritch Knight, yes at high levels an EK may be better, but it's not just the same but better. There's things a Magus does that an EK can't, like cast freely in Medium armor at 7, the lowest level you're likely to be able to even start taking EK levels. Lets compare the 2 classes at different levels and see how they measure up. I'll assume an entry into EK of Wizard 5/Fighter 1. Let's start at level 7. A Magus 7 has 7d8 HD (average 31.5), 5 BAB, saves of 5/2/5, and 5/4/3/1 spells per day. A Wizard 5/Fighter 1/EK 1 has 5d6+2d10 HD (average 28.5), 4 BAB, saves of 4/1/4, and 4/3/2/1 spells per day. So, even before counting all of the Magus' class features, which give them way better action economy and medium armor with no ASF, EK is a bit worse all around. It'll catch up on HP and spells, but that's a clear advantage for Magus at level 7, after 6 levels of EK just not being a thing. I guess you can just be a regular wizard up to level 5, then dip Fighter and suddenly try to frontline without armor, but that doesn't sound like a great plan.

    By level 12, a Magus has 12d8, (average 54) 9 BAB, saves of 8/4/8, and 5/5/5/4/3 spells per day. A Wizard 5/Fighter 1/EK 6 has 5d6+7d10 HD, 9 BAB, (average 56) saves 6/3/6, and 4/4/4/3/3/2 spells per day. Wizard is now one spell level ahead, but has one less spell per day (16 not counting cantrips vs Magus' 17) even before spell recall. And a Magus is one level away from trading up to heavy armor, so 2 less HP, better saves, and better AC. BAB is now equal, with the EK pulling ahead by 1 at 13 and staying there until 16. So, I'm still giving this one to the Magus, though the EK does cast 5th level spells 2 levels sooner, and 6th level spells 3 levels sooner. Then EK gets 7s at the same time as Magus gets 6s.

    EK might pull ahead around level 14 or 15, then you run out of levels to take and have to find another prestige class, or just go back to Wizard and fall behind on BAB. And I don't think there's a full casting, full BAB prestige class you could take, so at the very least you're losing one or the other. So no, a Magus is objectively not a worse Eldritch Knight. Except maybe at like 2 or 3 levels out of 20.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronikoce View Post
    If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to hold it for me you wouldn't say they were wielding the candlestick. If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to club an intruder to death you would say they were wielding the candlestick. The act of using the held item for a purpose such as intruder clubbing changes the word that ought to be used.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    It's literally like this.

    Eldritch Knight pros:

    -Gets 9s

    Magus pros:
    -Better action economy
    -Superior combat ability
    -Superior defenses

    Now "gets 9s" is a HUGE pro, but EK is objectively worse at being a gish than Magus, and objectively worse at being a Wizard than...Wizard. Like it's strong in the same way Spellslinger is strong. It sucks compared to a regular Wizard but it's still technically a Wizard so cool?

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Drelua's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    It's literally like this.

    Eldritch Knight pros:

    -Gets 9s

    Magus pros:
    -Better action economy
    -Superior combat ability
    -Superior defenses

    Now "gets 9s" is a HUGE pro, but EK is objectively worse at being a gish than Magus, and objectively worse at being a Wizard than...Wizard. Like it's strong in the same way Spellslinger is strong. It sucks compared to a regular Wizard but it's still technically a Wizard so cool?
    Exactly, EK pulls ahead at very high levels but at most levels Magus is one spell level behind, if that, but EK barely has any class features other than a few bonus feats and probably arcane bond while Magus has tonnes. Spell combat, spell strike, spell recall, all great abilities below level 10 while EK is waiting until level 16 to maybe get swift action casting, if they can land a crit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronikoce View Post
    If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to hold it for me you wouldn't say they were wielding the candlestick. If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to club an intruder to death you would say they were wielding the candlestick. The act of using the held item for a purpose such as intruder clubbing changes the word that ought to be used.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Eldritch Knight doesn't actually pull ahead at high levels, those 9ths don't really make you a better Gish.
    In fact at really high level, a pure wizard beats and Eldritch Knight since you just cast Emblem of Greed and have better BAB for far lower cost.
    Even then every round you spend casting spells is a round you spend not actually hitting things and vice versa.

    The only way an eldrtich knight is ahead of a magus is if you don't even bother with the martial stuff and just play like a wizard, but that's barely an eldritch knight, it's a wizard with a few dead levels.
    Last edited by Thunder999; 2022-12-07 at 05:59 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Drelua's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder999 View Post
    Eldritch Knight doesn't actually pull ahead at high levels, those 9ths don't really make you a better Gish.
    In fact at really high level, a pure wizard beats and Eldritch Knight since you just cast Emblem of Greed and have better BAB for far lower cost.
    Even then every round you spend casting spells is a round you spend not actually hitting things and vice versa.

    The only way an eldrtich knight is ahead of a magus is if you don't even bother with the martial stuff and just play like a wizard, but that's barely an eldritch knight, it's a wizard with a few dead levels.
    True, I meant that it pulls ahead in power, but that's only if you're not doing the thing you're built to do. Magus kinda makes Eldritch Knight pointless, which I'm fine with considering it's a full BAB 9/10 casting PrC that gives a few bonus feats and one actual class feature. Oh, and you can count it as fighter levels on the off chance there's a feat you want. You can take Disruptive and Spellbreaker I guess, so that's one thing Magus can't do. They can get Disruptive, but they only have the Fighter level for Spellbreaker as of level 20.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronikoce View Post
    If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to hold it for me you wouldn't say they were wielding the candlestick. If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to club an intruder to death you would say they were wielding the candlestick. The act of using the held item for a purpose such as intruder clubbing changes the word that ought to be used.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Singapore

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Coeruleum View Post
    I'm not just trying to insult inquisitors or anything, but unless someone can seriously reshape the battlefield I can't even see them in tier 3.
    Wait, hold on. Maybe we should go back to the tier definitions again:

    Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.
    "Seriously reshaping the battlefield" more than occasionally is usually something above Tier 3. And Inquisitors do get a few spells to let resolve encounters occasionally (eg. Silence, Inflict Pain, Terrible Remorse, Darkness.)

    They're decent combatants and are still useful when fighting is inappropriate, and they're decent jack-of-all-trades.

    Yes, Bards are a bit better, but that's not really a fair comparison (Bards are probably 2.5 due to the significant number of powerful spells that they get at a lower-than-normal level, like Hideous Laughter and Confusion; they can resolve encounters with a spell like that more than "occasionally", which puts them above 3.) But Inquisitors are almost textbook T3. Yes, they're not the absolute best option, but the absolute best options are going to be T2.5 or even higher.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    It's literally like this.

    Eldritch Knight pros:

    -Gets 9s

    Magus pros:
    -Better action economy
    -Superior combat ability
    -Superior defenses

    Now "gets 9s" is a HUGE pro, but EK is objectively worse at being a gish than Magus, and objectively worse at being a Wizard than...Wizard. Like it's strong in the same way Spellslinger is strong. It sucks compared to a regular Wizard but it's still technically a Wizard so cool?
    I mean, getting 9s covers a ton of other stuff, too. Like, an EK who rolls into combat with a ton of buffs up is going to have better combat ability and defenses, aren't they?

    That said, I don't think the classes are comparable. At the end of the day the EK is still T1 (on the lower end due to sacrificing a caster level plus some features and getting little of value in return, but that's not enough to bump them from T1), while a Magus definitely isn't anywhere close to that. The fact that the EK is more of a wizard who moonlights as a fighter occasionally doesn't change that - we're rating classes based on their overall effectiveness, not how good they are at filling any one specific role or goal.

    I also think that we should generally avoid thinking in terms of "X is generally better" (which I noticed for both the EK / Magus discussion and the Bard / Inquisitor discussion.) I mean, if a class isn't T1, there's generally going to be another class who is roughly better than them, or at least could be if they focused on it - that's what the tiers mean. Classes should be evaluated based on how they fit the tier descriptions themselves and not based on whether there are better options.

    (Belatedly, I also think this affected the Occultist discussions - eg. Silksworn Occultists are very strong casters for a non-fullcaster, perhaps the strongest non-fullcasters in the game. If you ask the question "can a Silksworn Occultist regularly cast spells that resolve an encounter", the answer is yes - they get a ton of spell slots and spells known, they get bonuses to their save DCs, and they have a spell list that has a bunch of spells that can take advantage of that. But it's hard for people to rate them with that caveat because the immediate instinct is to compare them to full casters; at the end of the day the Silksworn uses a ton of abilities to be not quite as good as a Sorcerer.)

    To get back on track - basically, it doesn't matter how good the Bard or the EK are; that doesn't affect the rating for Inquisitor or Magus at all. We're rating classes based on how good that class is at resolving problems, not about whether some other class could theoretically do it better. Otherwise we'd just rate the full-casters as 1 and everyone else as 5.
    Last edited by Aquillion; 2022-12-07 at 09:14 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquillion View Post
    (Belatedly, I also think this affected the Occultist discussions - eg. Silksworn Occultists are very strong casters for a non-fullcaster, perhaps the strongest non-fullcasters in the game. If you ask the question "can a Silksworn Occultist regularly cast spells that resolve an encounter", the answer is yes - they get a ton of spell slots and spells known, they get bonuses to their save DCs, and they have a spell list that has a bunch of spells that can take advantage of that. But it's hard for people to rate them with that caveat because the immediate instinct is to compare them to full casters; at the end of the day the Silksworn uses a ton of abilities to be not quite as good as a Sorcerer.)
    I think even that is an understatement of the Occultist. I'd rather have a Silksworn for the first half of the game, a Sorcerer in the back half. The Silksworn can use level appropriate spells and powers a lot longer than the sorcerer can, with more long duration buffs and a better chassis to boot. Whether the sorcerer really takes the lead at 10 or closer to 12 for me depends on table assumptions (like how is Planar Binding used). But in a game I didn't expect to see level 14+ I'd absolutely rather have a Silksworn on my team. He will be better for more of the expected play time.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquillion View Post

    I mean, getting 9s covers a ton of other stuff, too. Like, an EK who rolls into combat with a ton of buffs up is going to have better combat ability and defenses, aren't they?
    Not really, no. The Sor/Wiz list isn't exactly jam packed with combat buffs, and most of the great one sthey do have are level 6 or below anyway. Magus gets all of those and more.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Drelua's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquillion View Post
    That said, I don't think the classes are comparable. At the end of the day the EK is still T1 (on the lower end due to sacrificing a caster level plus some features and getting little of value in return, but that's not enough to bump them from T1), while a Magus definitely isn't anywhere close to that. The fact that the EK is more of a wizard who moonlights as a fighter occasionally doesn't change that - we're rating classes based on their overall effectiveness, not how good they are at filling any one specific role or goal.

    I also think that we should generally avoid thinking in terms of "X is generally better" (which I noticed for both the EK / Magus discussion and the Bard / Inquisitor discussion.) I mean, if a class isn't T1, there's generally going to be another class who is roughly better than them, or at least could be if they focused on it - that's what the tiers mean. Classes should be evaluated based on how they fit the tier descriptions themselves and not based on whether there are better options.
    Oh, I definitely agree that EK is more powerful, because it's just a somewhat self-nerfed Wizard, at certain levels at least. But the claim was made that Magus is just a worse EK, which isn't true. It may be stronger, but it is not the same but stronger. I don't think an EK can pump out as much damage, at least not without a high amount of optimization. They have more options, but one of those options is not to be a more effective gish than Magus. I'm not sure the EK is more powerful though, at least at certain, low to mid levels. Delaying Wizard casting by 2 levels puts them fairly close to a Magus' progression at some points, with a lower CL. At level 7, a Magus has the same level spells. At 12, they have 1 level lower spells but more per day. Is a Magus really weaker than an EK that has higher level spells by 1, when you consider their action economy?

    But yes, it's important to judge a class when tiering, not whether or not another class does their main shtick better. Even if there are better gishes, a Magus is still extremely effective in combat with enough spells and skill points to give them ways to contribute out of combat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronikoce View Post
    If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to hold it for me you wouldn't say they were wielding the candlestick. If I handed someone a candlestick and asked them to club an intruder to death you would say they were wielding the candlestick. The act of using the held item for a purpose such as intruder clubbing changes the word that ought to be used.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    TotallyNotEvil's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    And I wouldn't even consider them better gishes.

    Better casters, yeah, but not having to choose between attacking and casting, and being pretty good at both, makes them kind of unbeatable at that.

    As I see it, that's the biggest point gishes have to deal with- you are never both caster and fighter at once, generally you just have flexibility.
    Last edited by TotallyNotEvil; 2022-12-08 at 05:52 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bear mountains! (Alps)
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Inquisitor, Magus, Occultist, Warpriest

    I don't understand this comparison to the EK at all. What self nerfed wizard? Why the assumption of a wizard entry at all? It's an apples to oranges comparison, who's to say the hypothetical EK isn't doing a.. a... a silly bloodrager entry because of ??? Reasons

    The existence of this or that PrC shouldn't weight on tier discussions, or everybody without good BAB and/or amazing favored class bonuses is going to be an evangelist

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •