Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 158
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Pathfinder Tier System

    Here is what I think it is:

    Tier 1: Druid, Wizard, Cleric, Witch,

    Tier 2: Sorcerer, Oracle,

    Tier 3: Bard, Summoner, Magus, Alchemist, Inquisitor,

    Tier 4: Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Adept,

    Tier 5: Fighter, Cavalier, Monk, Expert,

    Tier 6: Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner,
    We're all in the Monster Manual somewhere. My entry is between Howler and Hydra.

    Unresolved Plot Point Collection Thread- For OOTS
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by MoonCat View Post
    It's nice to see someone saying it isn't for once, the forum IQ did just go up. Please have a cookie Sunken Valley.
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry576 View Post
    I thought Sunken Valley eloquently covered the points I wanted to make.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    Yes, exactly.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Didn't Druids get wailed on with the nerfbat? Though they're probably still T1 even so.

    I would add Psion and Student Wilder at T2, Wilder (other) and Psywar at T3, and Soulknife at T4. Artificer Wilder may also be T2.

    Generalist Psion is pretty close to T1.
    Last edited by Psyren; 2011-07-13 at 02:10 PM.
    Sandharrow by Chris the Pontifex
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    First, please don't start threads with ideas you don't support just to see what reactions you get. That's almost the definition of trolling.

    Second, the whole "blue text" thing is not a forum rule or even a recommended procedure. If someone wants to do it in their own posts, fine, but everyone should stop telling people that they "need to" or "should have" posted in blue just because they're being sarcastic/ironic/whatever.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    I would put fighter in T4.

    Fighters can normally do well with Melee damage and/or one to two combat maneuvers (assuming people actually read the rules). They certainly handle that better than a monk. They don't handle social scenarios well, and are generally outshone by other classes.

    It's close, but I might move Rangers into T3. They can do one thing quite well, but due to limited casting, class features, and high skill points, they can still be not-useless if their specialization is neutralized. Some spells will allow them to end encounters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Popertop View Post
    Congratulations sir, only a proud, great and terrible few have managed to produce an epic frown from me.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Woodland, California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Didn't Druids get wailed on with the nerfbat? Though they're probably still T1 even so.

    I would add Psion and Student Wilder at T2, Wilder (other) and Psywar at T3, and Soulknife at T4. Artificer Wilder may also be T2.

    Generalist Psion is pretty close to T1.
    The only big thing I remember of druids getting nerfed was wildshape, and only because you now keep your base physical stats when you wildshape rather than gain the animal's physical stats.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Euphonistan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by subject42 View Post
    I would put fighter in T4.

    Fighters can normally do well with Melee damage and/or one to two combat maneuvers (assuming people actually read the rules). They certainly handle that better than a monk. They don't handle social scenarios well, and are generally outshone by other classes.

    It's close, but I might move Rangers into T3. They can do one thing quite well, but due to limited casting, class features, and high skill points, they can still be not-useless if their specialization is neutralized. Some spells will allow them to end encounters.
    The fighter is really not any different from before. They do a little bit more damage and have slightly better AC but essentially their problems are unchanged. All the things you mention about rangers are still about the same as it was in 3.5 with slightly higher numbers. That is the problem with PF "fixes". They give classes slightly higher numbers but do not deal with the actual problems in the system.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Big Fau's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by subject42 View Post
    I would put fighter in T4.

    Fighters can normally do well with Melee damage and/or one to two combat maneuvers (assuming people actually read the rules). They certainly handle that better than a monk. They don't handle social scenarios well, and are generally outshone by other classes.
    The thing is, the Combat Feats are their only class feature (everything else may as well be a racial trait; seriously it's all just minor numerical bonuses), and the Combat Feats SUCK.

    The "damage output" you speak of is considerably weaker than what the class was capable of in 3.5, tripping is still limited by size category (can't go over one size above you), tripping now requires Combat Reflexes to even function (since it costs you AoOs now, something it never did before), any of the other combat options will eat your feats dry (even with the PF feat increase), and the class is still irrelevant outside of combat.

    They fixed NOTHING about the Fighter. NOTHING!


    It's like they went onto WotC, found one of the Fighter "fixes" that just added numbers, and then copy-pasta'ed it. They then took an axe to every single feat the Fighter actually used, and expected it to be balanced out.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by MeeposFire View Post
    The fighter is really not any different from before. They do a little bit more damage and have slightly better AC but essentially their problems are unchanged. All the things you mention about rangers are still about the same as it was in 3.5 with slightly higher numbers. That is the problem with PF "fixes". They give classes slightly higher numbers but do not deal with the actual problems in the system.
    What are the problems that weren't corrected, exactly? By what I've seen in-game, and based on the class feature lists, it seems that they fit the molds of "T4 == One Trick Pony" and "T3 == Good at one thing, not terrible at others" fairly nicely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Popertop View Post
    Congratulations sir, only a proud, great and terrible few have managed to produce an epic frown from me.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Big Fau's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by subject42 View Post
    What are the problems that weren't corrected, exactly? By what I've seen in-game, and based on the class feature lists, it seems that they fit the molds of "T4 == One Trick Pony" and "T3 == Good at one thing, not terrible at others" fairly nicely.
    Tier 5 is a One Trick Pony. Tier 4 is a One Trick Pony with options outside of that One Trick (such as the Ranger's ability to contribute outside of combat situations by acting as a Scout, medic, or trapfinder with an ACF). Tier 3 is Good In Every Situation That Doesn't Require 9th Level Spells.


    As for what's wrong with the fighter, this post on BG is a nice summary of it. The whole thread is a good explanation, but that one post summarizes it.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Euphonistan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by subject42 View Post
    What are the problems that weren't corrected, exactly? By what I've seen in-game, and based on the class feature lists, it seems that they fit the molds of "T4 == One Trick Pony" and "T3 == Good at one thing, not terrible at others" fairly nicely.
    Just read the fighter description for 3.5 tiers and realize that the only changes that PF did to the base class was to add a few points of damage and attack, slightly better mobility (that you won't want to use because your standard action attacks still suck), slightly better AC (that doesn't matter), and worse of all they still have no non-combat ability because they still have crap skills and skill points. The class is essentially unchanged. They mostly eliminated some silly and annoying problems the fighter had but all the real problems are still there.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Hiro Protagonest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by MeeposFire View Post
    Just read the fighter description for 3.5 tiers and realize that the only changes that PF did to the base class was to add a few points of damage and attack, slightly better mobility (that you won't want to use because your standard action attacks still suck), slightly better AC (that doesn't matter), and worse of all they still have no non-combat ability because they still have crap skills and skill points. The class is essentially unchanged. They mostly eliminated some silly and annoying problems the fighter had but all the real problems are still there.
    Yep. Sure, a PF fighter can be tier 4 if you build and play it smart. So can a 3.5 fighter.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by MeeposFire View Post
    Just read the fighter description for 3.5 tiers and realize that the only changes that PF did to the base class was to add a few points of damage and attack, slightly better mobility (that you won't want to use because your standard action attacks still suck), slightly better AC (that doesn't matter), and worse of all they still have no non-combat ability because they still have crap skills and skill points. The class is essentially unchanged. They mostly eliminated some silly and annoying problems the fighter had but all the real problems are still there.
    Let's go through the description of T4 and T3.

    Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining.
    Unless you're still raging about Power Attack, Fighters can do damage. In fact, they're fairly good at it. That meets the first criteria. With their limited skill points and marginal class features, that meets the second criteria.

    Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless.
    Rarely does "I hit it really hard" outright end an encounter. This also meets the criteria.


    Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.
    This sounds about right. They won't blow a Barbarian out of the water, but they'll outdo a warrior.





    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.
    Tracking: Ranger does this quite well.
    Killing something specific: Ranger does this quite well.

    The first half of the criterion is met. The second half is met by half casting, favored terrain, animal companion, and 6 skill ranks per level, which means a lot more in Pathfinder than it did in 3.5. I'd argue that the second half of the criterion is met as well.

    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.
    I know for a fact that some Ranger spells can solve an encounter. I've seen it done more than once.


    Is there an updated tier guide somewhere that includes criteria that I'm missing?
    Quote Originally Posted by Popertop View Post
    Congratulations sir, only a proud, great and terrible few have managed to produce an epic frown from me.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Big Fau's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Subject 42, the fact remains that the only things changed by Pathfinder's Fighter are as follows:


    • Damage Output.
    • The target numbers for special combat maneuvers.
    • How cross-class skills work.
    • How high the Fighter can get his Attack Rolls.
    • How high the Fighter can get his AC.
    • How many feats the Fighter has to take to do his job.
    • How fast the Fighter acquires feats.



    They did not change how the class plays, nor did they change what he is capable of. Note that the Ranger is capable of doing two things reasonably well: Combat and Scouting. The Fighter has only one job: Combat. He may be a freaking house when it comes to dealing damage, but he has only one trick: DAMAGE.

    The Fighter is not capable of mechanically contributing out of combat (Intimidate really doesn't matter that much, since he is not Party Face Material).


    The Tiers are not just a measurement of Combat Ability, something JaronK has said many times over. They are a measurement of how a class can react to certain common situations, one of which is combat.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Euphonistan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Here is a question for you what did PF change about the fighter that changes its tier? Remember these few facts

    1. Fighter do not actually have a problem hitting or dealing damage in 3.5. They do have a problem with getting to use their damage since they are dependent on dull attacks (mobile fighter is the exception and it may be tier 4 but it is the corner case just like the dungeon crasher fighter was in 3.5).

    2) AC was not the issue since a couple of extra points at mid to high levels are not enough to solve the math gap for AC.

    3) Mobility was an issue but more because if the fighter is mobile then it loses production as in he is about 1/3 as effective on the move as he is standing still did PF change this outside of mobile fighter?

    Look at the problems the old fighter had and describe what has been fixed to an adequate degree.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Fau View Post
    They did not change how the class plays, nor did they change what he is capable of. Note that the Ranger is capable of doing two things reasonably well: Combat and Scouting. The Fighter has only one job: Combat. He may be a freaking house when it comes to dealing damage, but he has only one trick: DAMAGE.

    The Fighter is not capable of mechanically contributing out of combat (Intimidate really doesn't matter that much, since he is not Party Face Material).
    My argument is that Fighters should be in T4 because they have moved from "Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well", to "able to do one thing competently". If you've played PF, Fighters are roughly on par with Barbarians now, if only in that one sphere.

    Given that T4 specifically mentions one thing in its rubric, it seems to qualify.

    The fighter can do the following things now:

    1) Invest skill ranks in any skill on a 1:1 basis. You're underestimating the utility of that benefit, especially when you factor in PF traits that let you add skills as class skills. This has a significant impact on out-of-combat activity that goes above and beyond simple numbers.

    2) Retrain feats. The fighter is the only class in PF that can explicitly do so. That means that feats that are useful up front but underwhelming later on can be swapped out.

    3) While not specifically a facet of the Fighter, the Fighter can gain access to magic item crafting feats with an entry feat. 3.5 fighter couldn't do that before. That's definitely a boost in utility as well as out of combat flexibility.



    As for the Ranger, they can handle the role of Party Face if they put the skill ranks into it. I have a Ranger in one of my games doing that, along with Knowledge duty, right now. Those Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of the selected type really stack up after a while, provided you are interacting with your favored enemies, rather than just shooting them in the face.

    For spells, Residual tracking can rapidly solve any murder mystery where footprints are visible. Hide From Animals is useful for infiltration (of the non-combat variety). Dream feast means you never have to eat again. That's moderately versatile.


    The Tiers are not just a measurement of Combat Ability, something JaronK has said many times over. They are a measurement of how a class can react to certain common situations, one of which is combat.
    BOLDRAGE, wow.

    I've mentioned out of combat now. Most of those issues are handled through the skill system.
    Quote Originally Posted by Popertop View Post
    Congratulations sir, only a proud, great and terrible few have managed to produce an epic frown from me.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Dragonsoul's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Is Human Sorcerer still Tier 2 Dispite having an extra 20 spells?

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by MeeposFire View Post
    Here is a question for you what did PF change about the fighter that changes its tier? Remember these few facts

    1. Fighter do not actually have a problem hitting or dealing damage in 3.5. They do have a problem with getting to use their damage since they are dependent on dull attacks (mobile fighter is the exception and it may be tier 4 but it is the corner case just like the dungeon crasher fighter was in 3.5).

    2) AC was not the issue since a couple of extra points at mid to high levels are not enough to solve the math gap for AC.

    3) Mobility was an issue but more because if the fighter is mobile then it loses production as in he is about 1/3 as effective on the move as he is standing still did PF change this outside of mobile fighter?

    Look at the problems the old fighter had and describe what has been fixed to an adequate degree.

    1) Things such as step up, step up and strike, and following step help mitigate the mobility disadvantage. You could also use mounted skirmisher, but that's a little late in the game.

    2) Access to fighter-only feats like Ray Shield make AC less of in issue, due to the fact that they're a binary proposition. Since the feat is fighter-only, I'm almost willing to call it a hidden class feature.

    3) I'll admit this is still a problem. However, given the benefits of weapon training and the Deadly Aim feat (PF for bows), ranged fighters get more viable now due to the bonus to damage, which helps limit the impact of DR. Also, there is vital strike if you hate yourself.


    Out of curiosity, what made you change your mind about the Fighter, Meepos? The last time this came up you put forth the argument that the fighter had improved enough to reclassify as T4.

    Beyond that, JaronK states that "Fighter is high in Tier 5". Given that they get more feats, (minor) class features, and more effective skill ranks, I question how far they have to go before they're considered T4.
    Last edited by subject42; 2011-07-13 at 04:12 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Popertop View Post
    Congratulations sir, only a proud, great and terrible few have managed to produce an epic frown from me.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Hiro Protagonest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Fighter is still tier 5. It can be tier 4, but you have to optimize to make it tier 4, something you could do in 3.5.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    More accurately, specific variants of Fighter can be made T4.

    The system is flexible enough that specific variants can be classified differently from their fellows. Mystic Ranger is the most common example from the 3.5 tier system, being a cut above the normal Ranger. Similarly, Arcane Swordsage and StP Erudite blow away their mainstream cousins (provided you decide how they work.) Dominant Ideal Ardents are a cut above the regular kind. And so on.
    Sandharrow by Chris the Pontifex
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    First, please don't start threads with ideas you don't support just to see what reactions you get. That's almost the definition of trolling.

    Second, the whole "blue text" thing is not a forum rule or even a recommended procedure. If someone wants to do it in their own posts, fine, but everyone should stop telling people that they "need to" or "should have" posted in blue just because they're being sarcastic/ironic/whatever.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Big Fau's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by subject42 View Post
    My argument is that Fighters should be in T4 because they have moved from "Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well", to "able to do one thing competently". If you've played PF, Fighters are roughly on par with Barbarians now, if only in that one sphere.

    Given that T4 specifically mentions one thing in its rubric, it seems to qualify.
    What you are describing is optimizing the class. Tiers do not take optimization into account specifically because it causes variance in the tiers.

    The tiers are not a range, they are an average. The average fighter falls into Tier 5. An optimized fighter ranges from Tier 5 up to Tier 2 (gish only).

    I would elaborate but posting from a 3ds is slow.
    Last edited by Big Fau; 2011-07-13 at 04:43 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Fau View Post
    What you are describing is optimizing the class. Tiers do not take optimization into account specifically because it causes variance in the tiers.

    The tiers are not a range, they are an average. The average fighter falls into Tier 5. An optimized fighter ranges from Tier 5 up to Tier 2 (gish only).
    I understand the concept of an average for tiers, but I think the average has gone up.

    I posit that you can't screw up the fighter in PF any harder than you did in 3.5. If that assumption is true, the floor of the sample range is exactly what it was before.

    I would also state as a premise that you can't get the hilariously high levels of optimization in PF that you could get in 3.5, simply because of a smaller set of source material. Therefore the ceiling of the sample range is slightly lower.

    It's the in-between areas where the values have gone up marginally. Characters are normally taking the same feats, and outside of high optimization, the various changes to the class and the system offset and improve the Fighter.

    If the low-op to mid-op range has improved, the average should rise. Given that "Fighter is high in Tier 5" in 3.5, has it become "Fighter is low Tier 4", or has it become "Fighter is really high in Tier 5"?
    Last edited by subject42; 2011-07-13 at 04:54 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Popertop View Post
    Congratulations sir, only a proud, great and terrible few have managed to produce an epic frown from me.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Big Fau's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by subject42 View Post
    I understand the concept of an average for tiers, but I think the average has gone up.

    I posit that you can't screw up the fighter in PF any harder than you did in 3.5. If that assumption is true, the floor of the sample range is exactly what it was before.

    I would also state as a premise that you can't get the hilariously high levels of optimization in PF that you could get in 3.5, simply because of a smaller set of source material. Therefore the ceiling of the sample range is slightly lower.

    It's the in-between areas where the values have gone up marginally. Characters are normally taking the same feats, and outside of high optimization, the various changes to the class and the system offset and improve the Fighter.

    If the low-op to mid-op range has improved, the average should rise. Given that "Fighter is high in Tier 5" in 3.5, has it become "Fighter is low Tier 4", or has it become "Fighter is really high in Tier 5"?
    The PF Fighter is actually easier to screw up because they gave you more options to pick from.

    Look at how many feats the fighter can pick from. For every one, there is an opportunity to mess up and take a bad feat. Its no different from selecting spells for a Sorcerer.

    Even worse, the ACFs. Thats even more chances to screw up.

    The proverbial floor fell out back when Paizo made the major changes to the fighter's bonus feat list.


    I will reiterate myself: Paizo does not know how to create balanced classes.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Hiro Protagonest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by subject42 View Post
    I understand the concept of an average for tiers, but I think the average has gone up.

    I posit that you can't screw up the fighter in PF any harder than you did in 3.5. If that assumption is true, the floor of the sample range is exactly what it was before.

    I would also state as a premise that you can't get the hilariously high levels of optimization in PF that you could get in 3.5, simply because of a smaller set of source material. Therefore the ceiling of the sample range is slightly lower.

    It's the in-between areas where the values have gone up marginally. Characters are normally taking the same feats, and outside of high optimization, the various changes to the class and the system offset and improve the Fighter.

    If the low-op to mid-op range has improved, the average should rise. Given that "Fighter is high in Tier 5" in 3.5, has it become "Fighter is low Tier 4", or has it become "Fighter is really high in Tier 5"?
    I don't think fighter was in high tier 5 before. Now it is, but it wasn't before.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    I do not have (or want to have) an opinion of what tier the PF fighter should be, but I will point out an omission in the post quoted below, to the point of disagreeing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Fau View Post
    the fact remains that the only things changed by Pathfinder's Fighter are as follows:


    • Damage Output.
    • The target numbers for special combat maneuvers.
    • How cross-class skills work.
    • How high the Fighter can get his Attack Rolls.
    • How high the Fighter can get his AC.
    • How many feats the Fighter has to take to do his job.
    • How fast the Fighter acquires feats.
    Two things should be added to this list of changes:
    1. The feats in Pathfinder are different than in D&D 3.5. Specifically, fighter bonus feats have been added that do not exist in D&D 3.5.
    2. There are more varied Fighter-only feats in Pathfinder than in 3.5, which adds further versatility to fighter feat options.

    I am not saying these are major points, but if you want to claim your overview is complete, you need to at least mention them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Fau View Post
    They did not change how the class plays, nor did they change what he is capable of. Note that the Ranger is capable of doing two things reasonably well: Combat and Scouting. The Fighter has only one job: Combat. He may be a freaking house when it comes to dealing damage, but he has only one trick: DAMAGE.
    I do not disagree with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Fau View Post
    The Fighter is not capable of mechanically contributing out of combat (Intimidate really doesn't matter that much, since he is not Party Face Material).
    However, here you are wrong. The Intimidate skill has been rewritten in Pathfinder to be actually useful both inside and outside of combat. Since it is a Fighter class skill, they can max this skill relatively easily. Even though they somewhat lag behind "party face" classes who prioritize Charisma, Fighters can still boss around NPCs by barking orders or threats rather effectively.

    And add to this a few Intimidate-based feats, one of which eliminates Charisma-dependency while Intimidating (and uses Strength instead), making the Fighter able to be a "bad cop" in social situations (along with the Barbarian and Ranger), on par with the Bard and Rogue (who also have more social options), and complementary to the Paladin and Cleric (who only have Diplomacy and are limited to being "good cop").
    Last edited by Jornophelanthas; 2011-07-13 at 05:47 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by subject42 View Post
    I would put fighter in T4.

    Fighters can normally do well with Melee damage and/or one to two combat maneuvers (assuming people actually read the rules). They certainly handle that better than a monk. They don't handle social scenarios well, and are generally outshone by other classes.

    It's close, but I might move Rangers into T3. They can do one thing quite well, but due to limited casting, class features, and high skill points, they can still be not-useless if their specialization is neutralized. Some spells will allow them to end encounters.
    You forget the change in Skills. Anyone can be good at any skill if they choose to be so. Class skill gives +3 bonus, yes, but there's no extraneous cost if it's not a class skill. The Fighter, or anyone, can have 10 ranks in Diplomacy at level 10 if he wants. Same thing with Bluff, Sense Motive, Intimidate, or any skill whatsoever.

    Fighter starts with 2 skill points per level. Play human. That's another skill point per level. Favored class bonus, that's another skill point per level. Some feats require Intelligence 13, so that's another skill point per level. We're now at 5 skill points per level. At level 10 that's 50 skill points the Fighter has to play around with. That is a lot. He could specialize a bit and have 5 skills at 10 ranks. He may diversify and be happy with just 6 or 7 ranks to have some 3's or 4's elsewhere, especially in class skills where the +3 bonus makes up for the lack of ranks. He has so many feats he can afford a feat on Skill Focus if a particular skill is really important. With 10 ranks, the feat gives him a +6 bonus, so that's already +16 modifier to a skill before accounting for ability score.

    No Pathfinder class is below Tier 3, not just because of skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Fau View Post
    The thing is, the Combat Feats are their only class feature (everything else may as well be a racial trait; seriously it's all just minor numerical bonuses), and the Combat Feats SUCK.

    The "damage output" you speak of is considerably weaker than what the class was capable of in 3.5, tripping is still limited by size category (can't go over one size above you), tripping now requires Combat Reflexes to even function (since it costs you AoOs now, something it never did before), any of the other combat options will eat your feats dry (even with the PF feat increase), and the class is still irrelevant outside of combat.

    They fixed NOTHING about the Fighter. NOTHING!


    It's like they went onto WotC, found one of the Fighter "fixes" that just added numbers, and then copy-pasta'ed it. They then took an axe to every single feat the Fighter actually used, and expected it to be balanced out.
    Minotaur feces.

    They don't suck for wearing heavy armor.
    They aren't affected by fear as easily anymore.
    They can change an obsolete feat.
    More feats allow versatility in combat options or affordability into non-combat options or defenses.
    They can use any skill they want to choose to invest ranks in.

    No, the Fighter is not going to Gate in a Solar, wildshape into a bear, or spend an action to get +6 to hit and damage for 1 round per level. Get over it.

    Edit: Anyone can track. Rangers just get a class bonus. Legacy has them be better at it than anyone else, but anyone can use Survival skill to track. Same holds true with finding traps and Rogues using Perception.
    Last edited by navar100; 2011-07-13 at 06:21 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Fau View Post
    I will reiterate myself: Paizo does not know how to create balanced classes.
    Paizo wasn't trying to make balanced classes, they were trying to make classes without dead levels. Which they did very well. The issue with the fighter is that he cannot be balanced and Still Be A Fighter.

    The only way to balance out the class would be to give him a whole list of SLAs and SAs, in which case he stops being a fighter and becomes another class entirely.

    The other way to balance out the classes would be to strip all casters of every spell that didn't cause direct damage or a minor disabling effect. I think someone tried that and called it 4.0, though I can't be totally certain.

    That rant aside, I am fairly comfortable saying that the PF Bard is T2, due to the sheer number of options available to him, and the fact that he can be good at nearly all of them simultaniously.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Quote Originally Posted by Darcand View Post
    Paizo wasn't trying to make balanced classes, they were trying to make classes without dead levels. Which they did very well. The issue with the fighter is that he cannot be balanced and Still Be A Fighter.

    The only way to balance out the class would be to give him a whole list of SLAs and SAs, in which case he stops being a fighter and becomes another class entirely.

    The other way to balance out the classes would be to strip all casters of every spell that didn't cause direct damage or a minor disabling effect. I think someone tried that and called it 4.0, though I can't be totally certain.

    That rant aside, I am fairly comfortable saying that the PF Bard is T2, due to the sheer number of options available to him, and the fact that he can be good at nearly all of them simultaniously.
    I basically agree with this. Paizo wasn't trying to totally re-balance the game; they were trying to make it so that taking a straight class was more fun and had less dead levels. I would say they succeeded at this, providing you aren't playing a very high-op game.

    EDIT: Navar. You are wrong. Skill points do not equal tier 3, especially since most skills aren't worth much. The only class that might be able to claim a hold on tier 3 with nothing but skills would be the rogue, and that's because it has faaaaar more than 5 ranks a level.
    Last edited by Curious; 2011-07-13 at 07:31 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    I keep seeing this claim that the Fighter can do all these wonderful things with his skills due to amalgamation and cross class ranks (not just here), but he still only gets 2+int per level. What, exactly, is your stat priority on this skill monkey intimidating fighter? You're pumping what are normally the two lowest priority stats for a fighter*, making him more MAD than a monk.

    Rangers can do more things, yes. But notice how T3 is entirely composed of 2/3 casters. Their utility is going to trump a Ranger's utility every time**. I'd say the ranger is high T4, but he doesn't go above that until he starts sniffing 6th level spells or similar abilities.

    Bards are farther from T2 than they were before. Diplomancy and mass suggestion with ridiculous perform-based DCs and various out of core uber-buffer tricks are gone, replaced by a class which is essentially a wizard/rogue in a can. Replacing overpowered tricks with a touch more versatility is fine by me, of course, but it doesn't make the class T2.

    *Int as Wis mayyyybe swap, but that will save is pretty low, even against fear.

    **I'd have to read over the Magus' spell list again to see how much utility he really has. I could definitely see him falling to T4.
    Hello milky way...

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Euphonistan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    One thing that I think PF misses with a lot of its classes are effective standard actions for warrior type classes. One big advantage ToB type classes have are effective standard actions which means they are not forced to try to make full attack actions. Effective standard actions are a big part of tier 3 or better.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    The Magus at least is an extremely solid tier 3. 6th level spells, good combat ability, okay skill points due to being an Int-based caster. Their spell list is pretty good too, so all around, high tier 3 I'd say.

    EDIT: Question; how would people rank the Inquisitor? It has 6th level spells and some combat ability, so my gut reaction is to call it a tier 3, but I'd like a second opinion. Link: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor
    Last edited by Curious; 2011-07-13 at 07:50 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder Tier System

    Oh, forgot to mention: I would demote the Barbarian to T5, since its charger tricks are mostly gone and using its main class feature makes it much more likely to insta-die.
    Hello milky way...

Posting Permissions

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