Pathfinder Tier System

[Big Fau]

+1 Dodge AC, against everyone. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but please try to inform yourself before argueing so vehemently, so we can have a better discussion.

They keep changing it. This was the version I had heard about most recently.

Regardless, the spell Gate now requires that you either call a specific creature (which would also be limited by the alignment of the candle, and be unlikely you even know any planar entities), and bargain with them. If you don't know a specific creature and cannot bargain, they immediately are called back to their plane. I assume any being worth calling also has a way to return to to their home plane, so unless you've got a really clueless DM, it's not really that gamebreaking.

You only have to bargain with them if you want extended services. This remains true even in the Pathfinder version.


The only thing they fixed about Gate was that you can't just call in a Titan and have them do your dirty work.

[Blisstake]

I don't see dodge listed in the official errata. I think it still gives a flat +1 to AC. Or is there errata beyond what's in the errata pdf file on Paizo's website?

As for the Candle, if it works as I now understand, I suppose it is quite broken, assuming someone can get access to one with no issues. It seems Paizo forgot to update the cost however, since Gate now has a material component for summoning creatures, which would put the candle at 18,400 gp (unavailable in most locations). Not sure if this is an oversight, or what. Perhaps it's been updated in errata?

It's a pretty stupid thing to keep, even if gate has been reduced in overall power.

Then again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the tier list, since anyone can light the candle.

[GoatBoy]

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.

This is somewhat mitigated by the "Vital Strike" line of feats, the new Cleave, and the fact that tripping/disarming/etc are more likely to work since size bonuses have been reduced. But, yes, otherwise melee types are still aching for things to do when they can't full attack.

Perhaps they could have taken a cue from 4th ed and made charging a standard action?

[Doug Lampert]

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

Druid was like a gesalt of a mildly weak tier one class + a tier three or four class, with a pet tier five character as a free bonus.

You can nerf the stuff other than full casting all you want, and it's still tier one.

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.

Note that the extra feats are negligable to a fighter.

A 3.x fighter gets 18 feats (+1 if human).
A Pathfinder fighter gets 21 feats (+1 if human).

You need two feats for the full trip bonus instead of one. Same for several other tricks....

A grand total of 3 extra feats on top of the 19 you already had as a human fighter just isn't that much.

The pathfinder and 3.x fighter are dead even on feats from level 1-4, and again at level 6.

A wizard never runs out of spells. Really, you should know that by now.

And how exactly? Cantrips?

That will actually do if the fighter is trying to wait out a fly spell, just reduce his mobility and cantrip him to death.

Or wand him to death.

Or echoing spell him to death.

Remember that at level 5 or so the Wizard started making his own wands at half cost. Most wizard's I've seen in play in 3.x are pretty unoptimized blasters, so they have a wand of magic missile at CL 3 or 5 so they'll always have SOMETHING to do that will do some damage.

Really? Because it's not like you aren't limited to class skills anymore. It's not like you can actually build an Item Creation character who isn't like five levels below everyone else.

Five levels? You CAN NOT manage to be even one level behind most of the time. You simply don't have enough cash to craft stuff with even if the entire party sells every ounce of loot and has one character craft with every GP.

You still can't fall significantly behind. If you seriously thought XP costs were a significant problem in 3.x then you have just failed math forever.

[McSmack]

I spent a good portion of this thread confused. Shadow Lord and Curious have the same Avatar, and I didn't even notice that the names were different. I just thought Curious was having a nervous breakdown and was arguing with himself.

On to the topic at hand. I'd say there wasn't a whole lot of movement on the list. One or two T5 classes might move up a bit, since the skill changes give them more versatility. The addition of traits/archetypes gives more flexibility as well and this translates to characters who can do a bit more than they could before. The increased feat progression doesn't hurt either.

Imtimidate got a nice boost, and can consistently be used to given multiple enemies the shaken condition. There's a feat or two that gives you bonues to this and to your attacks vs those foes.

A agree that witches should be T1. Summoners in at a solid T3. Oracle in at T2.

[MeeposFire]

This is somewhat mitigated by the "Vital Strike" line of feats, the new Cleave, and the fact that tripping/disarming/etc are more likely to work since size bonuses have been reduced. But, yes, otherwise melee types are still aching for things to do when they can't full attack.

Perhaps they could have taken a cue from 4th ed and made charging a standard action?

3 feats to get worse than a mid level strike in ToB is a bad trade. If the vital strike line was free then I would at least give them a pass. It would be weak but it would be something. Making it 3 feats is just indefensible. Feats like cleave start well but quickly lose their thunder as you level (which is the problem with standard actions for melee in general 2 conditional attacks with a penalty attached is good at level 1 but is terrible starting near level 10). Also I recall a thread here that went deep into the math and found CMD becomes a very bad mechanic at higher levels in addition to the fact that you are still limited by your size (which as you level is a very bad thing).

EDIT: I am developing a house rule that on your turn using an attack action you deal extra damage equal to 1d6 per point of BAB over 5. So at BAB 20 you would deal +15d6 damage which is not quite as high as a strike at that level but is far better damage than before (and you don't want it to be better than the strikes). I am still working on the exact amount and getting the wording just right.

[navar100]

I am not saying that Paizo is wrongbad for not having all those options. Fairness isn't really a consideration in a tier discussion. I am saying that the Tiers describe capabilities, not design intentions. Maybe the PF paladin will someday beat the 3.5 paladin. But I don't think it has happened yet.

Smite Evil no longer a one round/trick pony. It lasts until foe is dead or after you rest. At high level you can have your allies benefit.

Spellcasting based on Charisma, lessening MAD.

Can have a Bonded Weapon instead of a Mount so you don't lose a class feature if adventures take place in mountains, swamps, or a dungeon. It stacks if your weapon is already magical.

Able to remove a variety of bad conditions with Lay On Hands, such as sicken, nausea, poison, etc.

Eventually become immune to charm compulsions and provide bonus to save for allies.

Pathfinder Paladin is far superior than 3E Paladin.

[Shadow Lord]

3 feats to get worse than a mid level strike in ToB is a bad trade. If the vital strike line was free then I would at least give them a pass. It would be weak but it would be something. Making it 3 feats is just indefensible. Feats like cleave start well but quickly lose their thunder as you level (which is the problem with standard actions for melee in general 2 conditional attacks with a penalty attached is good at level 1 but is terrible starting near level 10). Also I recall a thread here that went deep into the math and found CMD becomes a very bad mechanic at higher levels in addition to the fact that you are still limited by your size (which as you level is a very bad thing).

EDIT: I am developing a house rule that on your turn using an attack action you deal extra damage equal to 1d6 per point of BAB over 5. So at BAB 20 you would deal +15d6 damage which is not quite as high as a strike at that level but is far better damage than before (and you don't want it to be better than the strikes). I am still working on the exact amount and getting the wording just right.

o.O You do realize that that ability just made it so that attacks get +60d6 damage at 20th level, right? Seriously 3 feats ain't that much when you've got 21 of them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

o.O You do realize that that ability just made it so that attacks get +60d6 damage at 20th level, right? Seriously 3 feats ain't that much when you've got 21 of them.

That's assuming the attack at a -15 penalty hits. And 45d6 damage averages out at 157 damage. Do you know how many hit points a dragon has at that CR? Seriously, a level 20 fighter should, at full hit points, be able to take down a CR 20 dragon, solo. Just like a wizard at full, no, above half, spells could.

[Shadow Lord]

That's assuming the attack at a -15 penalty hits. And 45d6 damage averages out at 157 damage. Do you know how many hit points a dragon has at that CR? Seriously, a level 20 fighter should, at full hit points, be able to take down a CR 20 dragon, solo. Just like a wizard at full, no, above half, spells could.

So a Fighter should be better at damage than everyone else, no matter what? What about the Blaster Casters? And the Barbarian? Seriously, bro, think stuff through.

[MeeposFire]

Just a quick question what are we using to do this?

[KingofMadCows]

I don't understand why they didn't implement different paths or specializations for fighters. It wouldn't be difficult to have protector, vanguard, skirmisher, bounty hunter, and commander paths.

[Reverent-One]

I don't understand why they didn't implement different paths or specializations for fighters. It wouldn't be difficult to have protector, vanguard, skirmisher, bounty hunter, and commander paths.

You mean like the archetypes they've had since the advanced players guide?

[Psyren]

I don't understand why they didn't implement different paths or specializations for fighters. It wouldn't be difficult to have protector, vanguard, skirmisher, bounty hunter, and commander paths.

Because you should be able to call your fighter those things without needing a preset kit of abilities first. Just take the necessary feats and roleplay it up.

(Though Ranger is generally a better fit for "bounty hunter" I'd say.)

[Eric Tolle]

Just a quick question what are we using to do this?

The interweb?

Which would make it a flame weapon, obviously.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So a Fighter should be better at damage than everyone else, no matter what? What about the Blaster Casters? And the Barbarian? Seriously, bro, think stuff through.

It's based on BAB, I'm pretty sure it's not only for fighters. And blaster casters aren't optimized, but they can do the same damage with a meteor swarm, plus they get time stop+delayed blast fireball, and shapechange, and can do all their damage with extended greater invisibility and overland flight, from far away due to spell range, without ever being in danger because it's actually the caster's astral projection.

[KingofMadCows]

You mean like the archetypes they've had since the advanced players guide?

I mean something more in-depth and includes benefits beyond combat.

For example, a protector would get disguise, heal, perception, and sense motive as class skills. They would get +X to their disguise skill when disguising as the person they're protecting. They share buffs with the person they protect. They can choose to be affected by negative effects targeted towards their ward to reduce the effect's duration. A vanguard would get bluff, diplomacy, stealth, and tumble as class skills. They would get +X to their social skills when interacting with someone for the first time. They would give a bonus to characters that follow behind when going through obstacles. And so on and so forth.

Also, considering how all the other classes got a bunch of different character options in the core rulebook, the fighter should have more options too.

[Curious]

Also, considering how all the other classes got a bunch of different character options in the core rulebook, the fighter should have more options too.

But the fighter does get options; his feats!

[/troll]

[MeeposFire]

o.O You do realize that that ability just made it so that attacks get +60d6 damage at 20th level, right? Seriously 3 feats ain't that much when you've got 21 of them.

What ability in PF gets you +60d6 damage. Unless you mean taking my houserule with the vital strike line. If thats what you meant I was using that instead of the vital strike line (it is a generic 3.5 houserule not a PF specific one) though combining them would make single attacks fairly nice and it would be nice to not have to full attack all the time (and that would certainly make vital strike worth it even if it isn't really now)...

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You could also just rule that anyone with BaB 6 or higher treats full attacks as standard actions. Nullifies the Vital Strike line, but it had basically nullified itself.

[MeeposFire]

You could also just rule that anyone with BaB 6 or higher treats full attacks as standard actions. Nullifies the Vital Strike line, but it had basically nullified itself.

Really at that point you might as well eliminate full attack actions and just make what used to be a full attack an attack action.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Really at that point you might as well eliminate full attack actions and just make what used to be a full attack an attack action.

I don't see the reason for me to do more work calibrating the effects of bonus damage on various classes' new "standard action attacks" when I could just make that house rule in one second. Sure, full attacks slow the game down a little bit, but force the slow math people to use calculators and that's not a big issue. Also, it gives the full attacker a little more versatility as far as targets go.

[MeeposFire]

I don't see the reason for me to do more work calibrating the effects of bonus damage on various classes' new "standard action attacks" when I could just make that house rule in one second. Sure, full attacks slow the game down a little bit, but force the slow math people to use calculators and that's not a big issue. Also, it gives the full attacker a little more versatility as far as targets go.

I am not saying you shouldn't do what you said, I am saying you might as well eliminate the "full attack action" from the game and make the attack action act like a full attack action rather than saying it kicks in after level 5 which is a stranger way of doing it. By going this way you then make options like spring attack better since in 3.5 spring attack involves an attack action. Of course doing this has a ripple effect on the game since now everybody can full attack and move. This is probably deadliest in the middle levels as low levels have few attacks and high levels involve more spell casting creatures (or larger creatures that were probably going to get full attacks anyway).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I am not saying you shouldn't do what you said, I am saying you might as well eliminate the "full attack action" from the game and make the attack action act like a full attack action rather than saying it kicks in after level 5 which is a stranger way of doing it. By going this way you then make options like spring attack better since in 3.5 spring attack involves an attack action. Of course doing this has a ripple effect on the game since now everybody can full attack and move. This is probably deadliest in the middle levels as low levels have few attacks and high levels involve more spell casting creatures (or larger creatures that were probably going to get full attacks anyway).

The reason I did it like so was to prevent some lowish level monster encounters such as a pair of dire wolverines from being too deadly for low op groups to handle.

[Big Fau]

o.O You do realize that that ability just made it so that attacks get +60d6 damage at 20th level, right? Seriously 3 feats ain't that much when you've got 21 of them.

1. That +60d6 damage averages out to two Disentigrate spells cast at CL 15th, plus whatever the Fighter's extra damage is. That isn't impressive unless you put it on the World Record for attacks/round.
2. The Devs thought the exact same thing. Here's a hint: Most optimizers do not stay singled-classed Fighters for 20 levels, specifically because those 21 feats are "not enough" (in that actual class features are better than them). Ever wonder why people were told that 2nd level was the cutoff for Fighter levels (6th for Dungeoncrasher, 10th for Intimidate builds)? Its because those bonus feats do not hold a candle to actual class features.

[MeeposFire]

1. That +60d6 damage averages out to two Disentigrate spells cast at CL 15th, plus whatever the Fighter's extra damage is. That isn't impressive unless you put it on the World Record for attacks/round.
2. The Devs thought the exact same thing. Here's a hint: Most optimizers do not stay singled-classed Fighters for 20 levels, specifically because those 21 feats are "not enough" (in that actual class features are better than them). Ever wonder why people were told that 2nd level was the cutoff for Fighter levels (6th for Dungeoncrasher, 10th for Intimidate builds)? Its because those bonus feats do not hold a candle to actual class features.

It wouldn't be +60d6 anyway as vital strike doesn't multiply bonus damage. So it is really 4W+15d6 damage.

[stainboy]

You still can't fall significantly behind. If you seriously thought XP costs were a significant problem in 3.x then you have just failed math forever.

They were a problem, just not for the reason you're thinking. People in Living Greyhawk used to deliberately dump XP just so they could be a level 8 character with level 10 treasure or whatever. (Living Greyhawk removed crafting costs before Paizo did.)

[Gnaeus]

Smite Evil no longer a one round/trick pony. It lasts until foe is dead or after you rest. At high level you can have your allies benefit.

I can have shock trooper and the other components for 3.5 mounted charge builds. One round kills any foes that I can hit. And since I can fly and you can't, I can hit a lot more stuff.

Spellcasting based on Charisma, lessening MAD.

Oh? Wow! I only need a 14 wisdom. But you are casting spells as a standard action from a crummy list. I am casting spells as a swift action from a much better list. Per rules compendium, I can use swift action wands as a swift action (without spending an action to draw, because they are in my wand chamber). Per Pathfinder SRD, you can't. Given that my spells are things like Lion's Pounce, that is HUGE.

Can have a Bonded Weapon instead of a Mount so you don't lose a class feature if adventures take place in mountains, swamps, or a dungeon. It stacks if your weapon is already magical.

You are obviously unfamiliar with Underdark knight. Also, my 3.5 paladin can get a dragon mount, which is perfectly happy in swamps or mountains, and vastly useful in other locations.

Able to remove a variety of bad conditions with Lay On Hands, such as sicken, nausea, poison, etc.

But you don't get to use turn undead attempts to do anything but heals. 3.5 paladin can use Travel or Law devotion to dominate the battlefield with them, or animal devotion for flight and other benefits. With Mystic Fire Knight, I can do a targeted greater dispel magic 1/day, which is far superior to removing minor status conditions (both more flexible and able to be used offensively).

Eventually become immune to charm compulsions and provide bonus to save for allies.

Thats nice. you can become immune to things that probably won't hurt you anyway because paladins have awesome saving throws. I can use sacred vitality to burn a turn attempt to become immune to ability damage, ability drain and energy drain for a minute at a time. Some of those get no saving throws.

Pathfinder Paladin is far superior than 3E Paladin.

No, Pathfinder Paladin has better numbers than 3.e paladin. 3.e paladin has a meaningful spell list, better magic items available, better feats available, better alternate class features, better mounts available, better PRC's available (except for Dragon Disciple, that is a point for PF paladin)

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

*snip*

All of these things are wonderful applications of practical optimization. If I wanted to play a 3.5 Paladin that was actually the Paladin class (off chance), I would do as much of this as my hypothetical DM would allow. That said... all of these build choices are at a decent optimization level. At that bar, basically every class in 3.5 is going to be more powerful and versatile than its PF counterpart simply due to the large pool of material to draw from. Even monks have Tashalatora.

The point is while the 3.5 Paladin has a higher ceiling, the PF Paladin has a higher floor. Which is more important depends on the group.

[Gnaeus]

All of these things are wonderful applications of practical optimization. If I wanted to play a 3.5 Paladin that was actually the Paladin class (off chance), I would do as much of this as my hypothetical DM would allow. That said... all of these build choices are at a decent optimization level. At that bar, basically every class in 3.5 is going to be more powerful and versatile than its PF counterpart simply due to the large pool of material to draw from. Even monks have Tashalatora.

The point is while the 3.5 Paladin has a higher ceiling, the PF Paladin has a higher floor. Which is more important depends on the group.

I agree. And I like pathfinder. And I like what they did with the base paladin. But I am also pretty sure that I can build a 3.5 paladin that would be more powerful and more versatile than the PF paladin. So did pathfinder raise the paladin's tier? No, not in my opinion. It is ultimately, at this moment, less flexible and therefore farther from T3.