pathfinder tiers

[arguskos]

We can do it in Legend, and it may show up, but it won't be first party. I'm not out to steal Paizo's lunch. :)

Well, I meant something more along the lines of a hardcore "animal companion" focused track or two. I know it can be done in Legend, I was just curious if you're going to.

Despite their somewhat curious treatment of certain elements of the optimization community, I'm not convinced they threw the first stone there. A lot of the people involved were pretty famously trolltastic, and could have handled the situation with wildly more aplomb. But then, they were denizens, and even I tend to regard that culture with the same dispassion you'd expect from someone vivisecting a snail. Paizo is mostly good people, who want desperately to make things that are good and fun.

Eh. Paizo are good people, and they do try to make goodfun stuff, but Jason Bulmahn seems pretty determined to ignore the op community when they point out flaws and design traps. I'm not saying he threw the first stone, I'm just thinking he threw the biggest, most dangerous stone, and that such was a bad decision.

Then again, when confronted with loltroll it's pretty easy to get tetchy, so perhaps he can't be blamed too much. Dunno. Complex situation.

There's plenty of wilds to explore, and so much to build. Room enough for us both.

Oh yes. There is at that.

[Doc Roc]

Eh. Paizo are good people, and they do try to make goodfun stuff, but Jason Bulmahn seems pretty determined to ignore the op community when they point out flaws and design traps. I'm not saying he threw the first stone, I'm just thinking he threw the biggest, most dangerous stone, and that such was a bad decision.

Then again, when confronted with loltroll it's pretty easy to get tetchy, so perhaps he can't be blamed too much. Dunno. Complex situation.

Depends on your mindset. The trolls were really tearing into the community as a whole, insisting that anyone who liked it was stupid. This is bad, and this is the part you don't hear about. As someone who now lives in fear of the same terrible fate, I'm starting to really empathize with Jason. It's hard to say what stone is the most dangerous when everyone is aiming for the head. All of this said, I am not on his side. I make a point, in general, of not siding.

Here's the part that matters: I think his response was wrong, was disproportionate. Most damningly, he chose the easy way out, the primrose path of ignoring fear.
It is the job of anyone who builds, anyone who loves what they make, to be prepared to be deeply wrong.

[Curious]

Actually, looking overthe APG options for the monk, I think you might be able to construct a pretty interesting character out of some of the abiities. You can steal extra Ki from dead oponents, or on a critical hit, slow time so that you gain an extra three standard actions, lots of goodies. And the best part is you can pick and choose abilties from all the archetypes, since they replace singular class features rather than all abilities.

[arguskos]

Depends on your mindset. The trolls were really tearing into the community as a whole, insisting that anyone who liked it was stupid. This is bad, and this is the part you don't hear about. As someone who now lives in fear of the same terrible fate, I'm starting to really empathize with Jason. It's hard to say what stone is the most dangerous when everyone is aiming for the head.

Not denying that. They were pretty awful (I read some of what happened there, not all of it though, since it made me angry on a few levels), but then again...

I think his response was wrong, was disproportionate. Most damningly, he chose the easy way out, the primrose path of ignoring fear. It is the job of anyone who builds, anyone who loves what they make, to be prepared to be deeply wrong.

...we get to this. You said it clearer than I did, and hit the nail on the head. Jason responded to trolls without a clear head, instead responding by just ignoring their salient points and reacting to the fire and brimstone they spewed. While that's a... method, it's a BAD one, and that's what's earned him my ire. You can't have a lead designer who is unprepared to admit faults and to work constructively to fix them.

It's hurt the PF community deeply, even to this day, as you can see by the fact that we're having this very conversation.

I do think however that they're taking a good stance going into the future. I feel like the APG was a really great book that showed them flexing some creative muscle, and that's good (if I could afford to buy a copy, I would, just to show some solidarity, something I feel is pretty important; I plan to do the same with Legend).

Also, the hell is with that (<---) anyways? You trollin?

[Doc Roc]

Not denying that. They were pretty awful (I read some of what happened there, not all of it though, since it made me angry on a few levels), but then again...


...we get to this. You said it clearer than I did, and hit the nail on the head. Jason responded to trolls without a clear head, instead responding by just ignoring their salient points and reacting to the fire and brimstone they spewed. While that's a... method, it's a BAD one, and that's what's earned him my ire. You can't have a lead designer who is unprepared to admit faults and to work constructively to fix them.

It's hurt the PF community deeply, even to this day, as you can see by the fact that we're having this very conversation.

I do think however that they're taking a good stance going into the future. I feel like the APG was a really great book that showed them flexing some creative muscle, and that's good (if I could afford to buy a copy, I would, just to show some solidarity, something I feel is pretty important; I plan to do the same with Legend).

Also, the hell is with that (<---) anyways? You trollin?

If I plan to use a post as reference, I try to make it stick out from my normal posts. I've spent about four weeks thinking about that particular post, and this was just an opportune moment for it to hit deck. Hop in chat?

[Gnaeus]

Also, on the topic of PF, we should really be asking "where are the new classes on the Tier list?" To that end, here's my ballparks:
-Oracle and Witch are both Tier 1 or 2, easy. Full casters with abilities that matter. Go figure.

I think Oracle and Witch are both tier 2. Witch might move to tier 1 if their spell list gets more support, but when we had this discussion (In which I was arguing that they were T1) I think we reached the conclusion that it was a tier 2, but a disproportionately strong tier 2, in much the same way that a sorcerer using loredrake for free levels and wings of flurry might be stronger than a wizard, but less versatile.

-Summoner is probably Tier 3, for the same reason that a Druid sans Wild Shape would be Tier 3-ish and that the Wildshape Ranger is Tier 3.

I agree on summoner. Druid sans wild shape is still tier 1. Spirit Shaman, with weaker casting than Druid, and no animal companion, is on the border between T1& T2, and even without WS Druid is still stronger than SS.

-Alchemist is tough to classify. The extract list is pretty underwhelming, bombs are pretty meh, and mutagens are also kinda meh. The idea seems to be to make a gish out of the box, but I don't feel like it does a great job. Still, a reasonably deep skill list and lots of options likely put the Alchemist in Tier 3, though Tier 4 would be reasonable as well.

I feel strongly that it winds up in 3. The ability to make low level potions even for spells that aren't on your list, while adventuring, in 2 hours per day, is difficult to overlook at low levels. And a character who can melee, ranged, or use items for spell support should probably live in tier 3.

[Veyr]

Paizo's insistence that somehow Rogues don't need and shouldn't get Sneak Attack on every attack in a full-attack (i.e. changing the Balance rules, etc) is inane and basically wrong. Probably doesn't change its tier, though, especially considering the other (more favorable) changes to Sneak Attack.

The Paladin is the only class they changed sufficiently enough to even warrant considering whether or not its tier has changed.

I have not read their new classes. I may have to take a look at Summoner based on reviews, and Alchemist just because I like the concept and would like to see it done well (though it is my understanding that the Alchemist does not do it particularly well).

[true_shinken]

I have not read their new classes. I may have to take a look at Summoner based on reviews, and Alchemist just because I like the concept and would like to see it done well (though it is my understanding that the Alchemist does not do it particularly well).

Alchemist is a solid tier 3.

[Cartigan]

I have not read their new classes. I may have to take a look at Summoner based on reviews, and Alchemist just because I like the concept and would like to see it done well (though it is my understanding that the Alchemist does not do it particularly well).

Read "Alchemist" as "Scientist from Classical Literature."

[navar100]

Let's clarify something:
Being Tier One Is Not Necessarily Good.
Tier Two is a lot more fun, in my opinion and experience.

Being Tier One is not necessarily Bad either.

It's only a matter of one's personal tolerance level of how powerful a player character can be and the subjective nature of a particular campaign.

[navar100]

Read "Alchemist" as "Scientist from Classical Literature."

They can get into a prestige class that let's you play Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

[Cartigan]

They can get into a prestige class that let's you play Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

That's most of the base class as well. They are releasing an alternate class that is Dr Mureau

[true_shinken]

Being Tier One is not necessarily Bad either.

Except it is.
No tier ones were designed as such. They are the product of bad game design, plain and simple.

[Doc Roc]

Being Tier One is not necessarily Bad either.

It's only a matter of one's personal tolerance level of how powerful a player character can be and the subjective nature of a particular campaign.

Ever GM'd for a group of Tier ones played to about 60% potential?

[navar100]

Except it is.
No tier ones were designed as such. They are the product of bad game design, plain and simple.

Except it isn't. You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

[navar100]

Ever GM'd for a group of Tier ones played to about 60% potential?

Irrelevant.

You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

[Curious]

Irrelevant.

You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

Huh. Either the voice of ignorance or the voice of arrogance. If you can't contribute anything to the discussion that isn't an insult, or that implies that everyone else isn't as good as you are at playing the game, why do you bother posting?

[MeeposFire]

I don't think it was that arrogant. I think he is just saying that playing in the sort of high powered campaign that uses tier 1s to their full capacity may not be to your liking but his group like those high powered things. Hence his tolerance of high power comment. I don't think he was trying to say that you are bad just that saying that tier 1 is a bad level is not universal as hs group likes it. Personally my favorite is around the tier 3-4 range.

[Akal Saris]

Eh, I'd say that if you-re going core-only PF, then the witch and a well-built summoner are so high on the T2 chart that they're nearly on par with the druid, who seems to be the worst of the T1's in PF.

Otherwise, I'd put paladins and rogues solidly in T3, and maybe rangers and bards as well. The changes to the skills system had a huge impact on the 6+ skills characters IMO - all of them gained a lot of versatility by losing 2-4 redundant skills.

[Doc Roc]

Irrelevant.

You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

I helped write most of the modern optimization guides, which might suggest I have pretty high tolerance levels. What I am saying is that encounter design becomes extremely difficult at T1+ Levels, which is not irrelevant. More work means less content, and T1 game play lends itself to extremely swingy combat, with players potentially dying prior to taking actions or even becoming aware of the threat.

If you want to make bold claims then the burden of proof, or at least amusing anecdote, lies with you.

[Darth Stabber]

The main reason tier ones are problem is "easy access to entire spell list" with druids and clerics having the easiest access, and wizards having the biggest list. Archivists are wizards with class features, and a theoretically larger list, and artificers, are more time intensive, but can pull ANY thing out. Look at tier 2 - sorcerers, psions, and all the other good spont casters can still destroy the world on a whim, they just have to comit to only a few doomday devices, instead of all. Tier 2s are still playing a diffent game than even tier 3s, and they sit with tier 1 as evidence of bad game design. The problem isn't raw power, the problem is that reasonable spell/power selection enables them to perform at a level that you need an ivy league masters degree in practical optimization to get out of tier 3.

Paradoxically, spont casters are sooooooo much easier to play than than their higher tieerd bretheren.

[Veyr]

Except it isn't. You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

Actually, he was making a factual statement: None of the Tier 1's were supposed to be that powerful. That was a mistake on WotC's part. That is bad design by definition.

Irrelevant.

You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

This... this is hysterical. Really. Do you have any idea who you're talking to?

[DeltaEmil]

Wizards and clerics were meant to be powerful. However, I do agree that they weren't meant to be that powerful as we know about it today. Wizards for example were meant to be powerful as in, they can throw a fireball that hits multiple enemies, deals like 10d6 damage, and do this only a few times per day, while they would be guarded by the party beatstick.
Not divining their sorry butts, having their own impenetrable demiplane-fortresses from which they send their astral copies surrounded by legions of solar bodyguards while the astral form has shapechanged itself into an invisible dragon with 100 heads that shoot disintegrating laserbeams and stuff.

[Tael]

Irrelevant.

You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

You said... but...
*Collapses on the floor laughing*
*Wipes tears out of eyes*

Alright, good one! Now what's your real position?

[Provengreil]

I don't think it was that arrogant. I think he is just saying that playing in the sort of high powered campaign that uses tier 1s to their full capacity may not be to your liking but his group like those high powered things. Hence his tolerance of high power comment. I don't think he was trying to say that you are bad just that saying that tier 1 is a bad level is not universal as hs group likes it. Personally my favorite is around the tier 3-4 range.

it really kinda was arrogant, actually. regardless of meaning or intent, he just walked in and said "you must not be as good as me."

and yes, tier 1 is a bad level because nobody that exists there is supposed to. played intelligently, you don't have to try to break it, you just do. unless you relentlessly choose damage only reflex for half type spells and no special functions, you can shatter encounters. and if you do pick those spells, you're a heavy artillery with more shots than you need anyway. either way, something is wrong with the tier. this can be extended to tier 2 as well, because the only thing separating them from T1 is how many game breaking tricks they have.

[Provengreil]

[snips post]

Sorry for double post, something about a server error, idk. internet's not the best in my apt.

[Curious]

it really kinda was arrogant, actually. regardless of meaning or intent, he just walked in and said "you must not be as good as me."

and yes, tier 1 is a bad level because nobody that exists there is supposed to. played intelligently, you don't have to try to break it, you just do. unless you relentlessly choose damage only reflex for half type spells and no special functions, you can shatter encounters. and if you do pick those spells, you're a heavy artillery with more shots than you need anyway. either way, something is wrong with the tier. this can be extended to tier 2 as well, because the only thing separating them from T1 is how many game breaking tricks they have.

Quoted for truth.

[navar100]

I don't think it was that arrogant. I think he is just saying that playing in the sort of high powered campaign that uses tier 1s to their full capacity may not be to your liking but his group like those high powered things. Hence his tolerance of high power comment. I don't think he was trying to say that you are bad just that saying that tier 1 is a bad level is not universal as hs group likes it. Personally my favorite is around the tier 3-4 range.

Exactly. I commented that Tier 1 is not necessarily bad based upon one's tolerance level of power, and two people say I'm wrong as if Tier 1 is definitive of broken game design.

Me, personally, and people I've played with really don't give a rat's posterior that a spellcaster can cast Gate, we don't cry out in rage a wizard casted Rope Trick, we don't run away in horror the druid has Natural Spell, and we don't want to commit hari kari just because the cleric has Divine Metamagic.

I can still appreciate the power level of 3E magic. I'm glad Pathfinder improved the warrior's lot. I'm fine with the druid's wild shape nerf because it still works well, letting the druid do it without punishing for doing it with some penalty. Individual particular spells I didn't think needed to be nerfed, but even then the spells aren't now worthless. Pathfinder did lower the power a bit of spellcasters, and I'm ok with that. They don't punish spellcasters with penalties for the audacity of casting a spell.

[satorian]

In my experience (just 2 pathfinder campaigns, one of which went from level 1-15), SOME Oracles are tier 2. This certainly applies to Heavens. Many of the others, such as battle and the elementals, are strong tier 3s, mostly because they severely lack flexibility. In an undead-heavy world, Heavens would kinda suck, too. Remember that the cleric list, especially if not bolstered by WoTC sources, is not very good for a spontaneous caster. So much of it is situational.

Witches? Seriously? Have you looked at their spell list? My feeling is that witches with slumber are strong tier 2s, and without are tier 3s. Interesting concept, but poor design to have such a disparity within the class.

Paladins are tier 3. Smite is just so good now, and the weapon sub for mount can be a tasty way to free up WBL.

Fighters who take step-up are solidly tier 4.

I haven't playtested anything else, but it seems the summoner is kinda wonky, what with the pet v summons thing. Not bad or good broken, but just doesn't work right. The alchemist is too complicated for me to speak to without having seen it in action. Sorcs are still tier 2. Really, I don't think their power has increased that much. Rather, their fun quotient and verisimilitude has. Rogues, bards and barbs seem, at least, to be tier 3 now, but I haven't seen them in play. Wizards are wizards and druids are druids and clerics are clerics. However, the change to polymorph rules really has gimped both wizard and druid. Down a tier? Maybe not. But one tool in the box is now made of cardboard, so much so that I'd rather not use it at all.

That said, I have never seen a tier 2 break the game. My groups usually play with a mix of tiers 2-4. There are situational outshines, but nothing serious. I guess a sorcerer could find a way to optimize in such a way as to make it doable, but why? Truly, I feel the same is true of wizards. RAW, taking into account solid optimizing, wizards can break the game. But if they hold back a bit with builds and if divination isn't overused (in my groups, this is usually taken care of by a gentleman's agreement), schroedinger's wizard doesn't exist. A wizard who doesn't always know what is coming is not omnipotent. Still usually stronger than a sorcerer, but in PF, remember the spells were significantly altered.

[Doc Roc]

Exactly. I commented that Tier 1 is not necessarily bad based upon one's tolerance level of power, and two people say I'm wrong as if Tier 1 is definitive of broken game design.

Me, personally, and people I've played with really don't give a rat's posterior that a spellcaster can cast Gate, we don't cry out in rage a wizard casted Rope Trick, we don't run away in horror the druid has Natural Spell, and we don't want to commit hari kari just because the cleric has Divine Metamagic.

I can still appreciate the power level of 3E magic. I'm glad Pathfinder improved the warrior's lot. I'm fine with the druid's wild shape nerf because it still works well, letting the druid do it without punishing for doing it with some penalty. Individual particular spells I didn't think needed to be nerfed, but even then the spells aren't now worthless. Pathfinder did lower the power a bit of spellcasters, and I'm ok with that. They don't punish spellcasters with penalties for the audacity of casting a spell.

Dunno how precisely to respond to this, so I'm just gonna let it sit. Like I said, the burden of proof is with you. If you can show me how to reliably design interesting and challenging encounters with a consistent difficulty for parties heavy in T1 builds, I'd be delighted.

I out.