Retiering the classes (PF): Sorcerer, Oracle, Shaman, Arcanist, Psychic

[Calthropstu]

Spoiler: L5 Sorcerer

Show

L5 Arcane Bloodline Sorcerer:
Feats: Spell Focus: Conjuration, Augment Summoning, Summon Good Monster,
L1: Identify (Bloodline), Summon Monster 1, Enlarge Person, Dazzling Blade, Snowball, Stumble Gap, Mage Armor
L2: Invisibility (Bloodline), Summon Monster II, Alter Self
(Spells embedded in Summon Monster:
Grig: Entangle, Pyrotechnics
Faun: Hideous Laughter, Sleep
Pseudodragon: not spells, but Blindsense 60 and telepathy)
(So, can use save or sucks against all 3 saves, depending on need. Nice AOE control in entangle and pyrotechnics. Alter self provides aquatic movement, dark or low light vision or scent, natural attacks in the unlikely event that you want one. And a Str or Dex buff. You get a familiar from Arcane Bond, which you can hit with enlarge or alter self if you need. An Invisible Pseudodragon is a fantastic scout).

Spoiler: L10 sorcerer

Show

L10 Arcane Bloodline Sorcerer:
Feats: Spell Focus: Conjuration, Augment Summoning, Summon Good Monster, Dazing Spell, Craft Wondrous
L1: Identify (Bloodline), Shield, Enlarge Person, Dazzling Blade, Snowball, Mount, Mage Armor, Magic Missile
L2: Invisibility (Bloodline), Summon Monster II, Scorching Ray, Resist Energy, Create Pit, Command undead, Burning Gaze, Mirror Image
L3: Dispel Magic (Bloodline), Summon Monster III, Haste, Slow, Shrink Item, Paragon Surge
L4: Dimension Door (Bloodline), Summon Monster IV, Monstrous Physique II, Emergency Force Sphere, Greater Invisibility, scrying (Dazing Magic Missile, Dazing Snowball) (Gets an extra spell from arcane bloodline)
L5: Summon monster V (Dazing Scorching Ray, Dazing Burning Gaze)
(Spells embedded in Summon Monster:
Grig: Entangle, Pyrotechnics
Faun: Hideous Laughter, Sleep
Pseudodragon: not spells, but Blindsense 60 and telepathy
Lantern Archon: Aid, Detect Evil (and Aura of Menace)
Lyrakien: Ventriloquism, Cure Light Wounds, Lesser Confusion, Silent Image
Silvanshee: Dancing Lights, know direction, Speak with Animals (lay on hands)
Dretch: Cause Fear, Stinking Cloud
Faerie Dragon: Grease, Silent Image, Greater Invisibility (Self only), (telepathy 100)
Hound Archon: Aid, Message, Magic Circle against Evil, Beast Shape (Self only)
Pixie: Dispel Magic, Detect Thoughts, Entangle, Permanent Image, shield, Detect (alignment), Constant Invisible
Bralani Azata: Blur, Charm Person, Gust of Wind, Mirror Image, Wind Wall, Lightning Bolt, Cure Serious Wounds
Djinni: Gaseous Form, Create Wine, Persistent Image, Wind Walk
Vulpinal: Cure Disease, Major Image, Flame Arrow, Holy Smite, Dispel Evil, Charm Monster, (Bardic Knowledge, Lay on Hands)
Babau: Darkness, Dispel Magic,
Mephits: Acid Arrow, Stinking Cloud, Blur, Glitterdust, pyrotechnics, shocking grasp, lightning bolt, chill metal, heat metal, soften earth and stone, wind wall)
(So, Disabling attacks on all 3 saves, Travel via Wind Walk, Gaseous Form and D door, Curing abilities likely significantly exceed the druid, including dispel evil, a fantastic cleric spell that wipes out enchantment effects from evil creatures without a check. Buffs include haste, aid, magic circle v. evil, blur, greater invisibility, enlarge person, mage armor, mirror image and others. Vouivre Form gives 10 minute Flight, swim speed/water breathing, cold/fire/sonic resist, a claw/claw/wing/wing/bite/grab attack routine with reach in a form that can speak and hold wands (we will need to retrain in a few levels to add the breath weapon). Emergency Force Sphere is an immediate action NO that is handy to have in a spammable form. Significant melee minion abilities. Significant Scouting abilities. Significant Blasting abilities. Scrying + D Door= scry, kill, DDoor out. Abilities a wizard can't easily duplicate at this level (aside from spamming useful spell 4 times) include Dispel Evil, Wind Walk and Persistent Image. At level 11 we pick up Lesser Planar Binding, Magic Circle V Evil (as a spell known, not from a summon), and Overland Flight). Paragon surge fills niche holes.

That looks pretty competitive to a wizard to me. I think a PF druid would have a hard time beating it at this level.

Nice compilation. Not to mention you could theoretically replace Summon 5 with lesser binding for an even greater variety. But Summons are much better on the fly, since it takes 10 minutes to draw the summoning circle. Yeah, PF sorcerers definitely break the t1 barrier in my book. They were borderline in 3.5, in PF they definitely get there.

[Bucky]

Gnaeus appears to be arguing that the Summoner class is tier 1... even if the Summoner never summons their eidolon and never casts any spells themselves. So Sorcerers are therefore also T1 since they can replicate what the Summoner's doing.

[Gnaeus]

Gnaeus appears to be arguing that the Summoner class is tier 1... even if the Summoner never summons their eidolon and never casts any spells themselves. So Sorcerers are therefore also T1 since they can replicate what the Summoner's doing.

I'd call summoner a high T2. Summoning is an incredibly varied and powerful caster route, but this sorcerer has tricks a summoner lacks. A summoner 10 can DDoor and summon V. But with his lower spells known and spells per day, he can't (to give only one example) scry the enemy boss at the bottom of a lake, turn into a giant invisible dragon monster, summon 3 creatures off the summon V list, DDoor to the bottom of a lake with his pets, gank the boss, and DDoor back out of the lair. Of course, neither can a Druid.

This isn't the only way sorcerers can work. I was asked to build a sorc and I did. I think it is realistic because it is loosely based on the sorc I am currently playing.

[Psyren]

Why I'm personally not changing my mind:

- Paragon Surge fills a hole if you are one of the four specific races out of dozens who can actually use it, and three of those need a feat.
- "Summon something" is easy to interfere with or counter (even taking spamming into account), at which point the T1 is still T1 but the sorcerer is either hosed or has to fall back on an inferior ability, if he even learned one that helps.
- Alter Self grants a swim speed but not amphibiousness. The T1 at a lower level can more easily get both without hurting his versatility elsewhere.

I just don't feel like a class with these limits should be T1. It reminds me of Xykon - if you have cosmic power that could be denied that easily, did you really have cosmic power?


As for the Druid above - they can scry on the boss and get down there easily. Maybe they can't port back out until a little later, but they can tunnel out through the bottom of the lake and be just as difficult to follow or trace if swimming out isn't an option.

[Gnaeus]

- Alter Self grants a swim speed but not amphibiousness.

It does tho. It's a Polymorph spell and the Polymorph spell rules say you get water breathing if you get a swim speed. It's cited exactly earlier in the thread.

[Bucky]

You still aren't able to buff other party members to accompany you underwater until level 8, when it probably costs your Paragon Surge for the day.

[Gnaeus]

You still aren't able to buff other party members to accompany you underwater until level 8, when it probably costs your Paragon Surge for the day.

I'm sure I made them hats by level 8. Unless I really didn't like them. They're awesome for anyone, but a level above for muggles since the 6k cost is the same as upgrading their dex or strength from +2-+4, leaving the sense modes, speed boosts, natural attacks, disguise opportunities and swim speed as essentially free.

I'm not sure I would change the Tier without the changes in crafting rules. It's a big deal to me.

[Bucky]

In other words, Sorcerers can't do it until WBL lets anyone solve the problem.

[Gnaeus]

In other words, Sorcerers can't do it until WBL lets anyone solve the problem.

Any full caster, yes. In other words, if anyone can solve a problem with something they were going to do anyway, it's not a serious problem. In 3.5, crafting was really a T1 only trick. That was a huge blow.

It's actually better than that. It means I only really need the feat if we've got no more casters. When I list:craft wondrous it really means (craft wondrous or whichever craft feat we don't have). If the Magus got it for utility I might have taken rods or weapons or wands.

It's a team game. I like to be a team player. I think crafting is a near obligation to the party caster(s). It actually nerfs the sorcerer putting it alone like this, since I know my party when I build my character. If our sneak is a bard, I'll pass on blindness tricks and take spells that aren't sneak attack force multipliers. If we have a Magus I'll coordinate my spells with him and we'll likely consider cooperating on wands. I think I built a character that could solo effectively, but in play he will be stronger because he will dump generic tricks for things we need. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Calthropstu]

Any full caster, yes. In other words, if anyone can solve a problem with something they were going to do anyway, it's not a serious problem. In 3.5, crafting was really a T1 only trick. That was a huge blow.

It's actually better than that. It means I only really need the feat if we've got no more casters. When I list:craft wondrous it really means (craft wondrous or whichever craft feat we don't have). If the Magus got it for utility I might have taken rods or weapons or wands.

It's a team game. I like to be a team player. I think crafting is a near obligation to the party caster(s). It actually nerfs the sorcerer putting it alone like this, since I know my party when I build my character. If our sneak is a bard, I'll pass on blindness tricks and take spells that aren't sneak attack force multipliers. If we have a Magus I'll coordinate my spells with him and we'll likely consider cooperating on wands. I think I built a character that could solo effectively, but in play he will be stronger because he will dump generic tricks for things we need. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Exactly. If you want to be the solo hero, go play a video game. I'm playing a group game, tyvm.

[Peat]

Exactly. If you want to be the solo hero, go play a video game. I'm playing a group game, tyvm.

But that's what the Tier system is measuring, no? Individual prowess, with an eye to at what classes a player could use to take over a campaign if they felt like it and what classes can result in a player spending a lot of time looking at their phone? I don't think anyone is suggesting that's a good thing, there's a reason the Tier guide gives 3 as the sweet spot, but it is what's being measured.

[Calthropstu]

But that's what the Tier system is measuring, no? Individual prowess, with an eye to at what classes a player could use to take over a campaign if they felt like it and what classes can result in a player spending a lot of time looking at their phone? I don't think anyone is suggesting that's a good thing, there's a reason the Tier guide gives 3 as the sweet spot, but it is what's being measured.

Except that's not what is happening here. Nor would it be effective in its goal even if it was. Instead of trying to argue about what classes are better, why go through all that trouble? Why not say "Here are the spells and abilities that are potentially game breaking" and discuss those? Why go to the effort of arguing tiers when all characters potentially have access to all abilities?
Why not propose fixes for abilities that are supposedly broken?

Instead, we argue useless tiering which does nothing for anyone.

[Peat]

Except that's not what is happening here. Nor would it be effective in its goal even if it was. Instead of trying to argue about what classes are better, why go through all that trouble? Why not say "Here are the spells and abilities that are potentially game breaking" and discuss those? Why go to the effort of arguing tiers when all characters potentially have access to all abilities?
Why not propose fixes for abilities that are supposedly broken?

Instead, we argue useless tiering which does nothing for anyone.

The thread title says Retiering the classes. I'm not sure what you expected here other than a discussion about the tier system, which is what seems to be going on to me.

If you think talking about tiers is useless and want to talk about potentially game breaking spells and abilities, then cool why not, but I don't see why a thread about tiers is the place for that.

[Gnaeus]

I don't think that assuming classes live in a vacuum is a precondition to tiering. It neither has to, nor should it, weigh solo play heavily.

When I look at a Tier 1, the factors I'm assessing are things like, can it casually outperform weak classes in their specialties. Can it with trivial effort choose between multiple methods (like melee, blasting, buffing, control) to dominate encounters. Can it likely dominate a wide range of encounters and also have significant downtime power across most of the things that T1s do. How extreme do DM targeted nerfs need to be to keep it from dominating play? I think PF sorcs perform very well by those measurements

[Calthropstu]

I don't think that assuming classes live in a vacuum is a precondition to tiering. It neither has to, nor should it, weigh solo play heavily.

When I look at a Tier 1, the factors I'm assessing are things like, can it casually outperform weak classes in their specialties. Can it with trivial effort choose between multiple methods (like melee, blasting, buffing, control) to dominate encounters. Can it likely dominate a wide range of encounters and also have significant downtime power across most of the things that T1s do. How extreme do DM targeted nerfs need to be to keep it from dominating play? I think PF sorcs perform very well by those measurements

Indeed. 3.5 Sorcs were borderline... easily the absolute top of t2. Adding to them the way paizo did easily pushed them past the threshold.

The thread title says Retiering the classes. I'm not sure what you expected here other than a discussion about the tier system, which is what seems to be going on to me.

If you think talking about tiers is useless and want to talk about potentially game breaking spells and abilities, then cool why not, but I don't see why a thread about tiers is the place for that.

I think the tiers should go away. As has been argued repeatedly, ultimately any class can get any ability.

But, since everything on this forum is tier this or tier that, I am kind of obligated to do as the Romans do while in Rome. Doesn't mean I can't tell the Romans they are doing it wrong though. So I participate.

I am quite fond of the Sorcerer class, and both of my most ridiculously powerful characters have been Sorcerers. As a GM, I will often use those characters as a gauge of how powerful my group will become, and use that to determine how powerful my endgame should be. But I digress.

My point here is that while I think the tiers should go away, I am more than capable of participating in it's discussion. And if they must exist, then I will argue for the characters I think should be in what tiers.

But I still disagree with the tier concept as a whole. There's a solid reason that adventuring parties generally consist of healer/arcane caster/meat shield/rogue type.

[Tuvarkz]

There's a solid reason that adventuring parties generally consist of healer/arcane caster/meat shield/rogue type.

It's fairly obvious, actually. Considering the tuning level of APs and PFS, it can be easily assumed that the majority of pathfinder players are bad at the game/optimization aspect of it. And imo, compared to other games with a similar skill vs power curve, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

[Calthropstu]

It's fairly obvious, actually. Considering the tuning level of APs and PFS, it can be easily assumed that the majority of pathfinder players are bad at the game/optimization aspect of it. And imo, compared to other games with a similar skill vs power curve, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

Wow... so you just insulted the entire player base of Pathfinder. Awesome.

Actually, the reason is the fact that the game started (original D&D) with the 4 major classes of thief, fighter, wizard, cleric. And, to this day, it is still one of the best well rounded parties around generally covering an answer for 90%+ of all scenarios. If the wizard can't magic it, the rogue can trap it. If the rogue can't trap it, the fighter can stab it. If the fighter gets hurt stabbing it, the cleric can fix that.

I actually find it funny that everyone here considers the cleric a top tier class because at most tables I play in, no one wants to play the cleric because, invariably people begin demanding spell sacrifices to cover healing so they don't use gold costing resources... turning the cleric into little more than a heal bot.

[Bucky]

...which is why you should play an evil cleric.

[Calthropstu]

...which is why you should play an evil cleric.

This made me lol... probably more than it should. Of course the party paladin might have something to say about that.

[Coretron03]

Wow... so you just insulted the entire player base of Pathfinder. Awesome.

Actually, the reason is the fact that the game started (original D&D) with the 4 major classes of thief, fighter, wizard, cleric. And, to this day, it is still one of the best well rounded parties around generally covering an answer for 90%+ of all scenarios. If the wizard can't magic it, the rogue can trap it. If the rogue can't trap it, the fighter can stab it. If the fighter gets hurt stabbing it, the cleric can fix that.

I actually find it funny that everyone here considers the cleric a top tier class because at most tables I play in, no one wants to play the cleric because, invariably people begin demanding spell sacrifices to cover healing so they don't use gold costing resources... turning the cleric into little more than a heal bot.

He didn't insult the entire playerbase he just said that they play on a different level of optimisation. It not inherently insulting because it's like saying most people play on easy on X game when the forumn plays on hard doesn't mean he just insulted everyone, it's acknowledging that pother eople play differently. This forumn is not a very very accurate representation of the player base because quite often someone makes a account and makes a thread about the "most broken wizard ever" that has 10% asf in fullplate. Anyway, the playerbase didn't build Harsk, the iconic whose average damage per round is 12. At level 12.

Clerics are depicted as healbots and most people find healbots boring so they don't play clerics. In my experience people play clerics and focus on buffing and people buy there own wands of cure light wounds and have the cleric use them for them, with the cleric popping some channels out of combat to save on money. Expecting the cleric to use his own cash comes off a bit rude to me.

On a different note (one that's relevant to the thread) the level 5 spell list looks pretty weak. The Spells you get from summons are basically irrelevant as sleep is past its hitdie limit, hideous laughter gives the opponent a +4 on saves if their not fey, entangle has a dc of 13 and at best is gonna waste a move action as anyone who will fail the reflex save will probably succsceed on a escape artist/strength check and pyrotechnics is dc 14. The sorcerers actual spells are ok, with some crowd control and some decent save or sucks but I don't think alter self is a good choice considering how weak your summons are. I don't think its that powerful, although it is a tough level for sorcerers as 3rd level spells are a big power up.

Level 10 looks much better, although that may be because its on a even level and summon monster is much better at that point because its way more versatile. Seems pretty good.

[Calthropstu]

He didn't insult the entire playerbase he just said that they play on a different level of optimisation. It not inherently insulting because it's like saying most people play on easy on X game when the forumn plays on hard doesn't mean he just insulted everyone, it's acknowledging that pother eople play differently. This forumn is not a very very accurate representation of the player base because quite often someone makes a account and makes a thread about the "most broken wizard ever" that has 10% asf in fullplate. Anyway, the playerbase didn't build Harsk, the iconic whose average damage per round is 12. At level 12.

Clerics are depicted as healbots and most people find healbots boring so they don't play clerics. In my experience people play clerics and focus on buffing and people buy there own wands of cure light wounds and have the cleric use them for them, with the cleric popping some channels out of combat to save on money. Expecting the cleric to use his own cash comes off a bit rude to me.

On a different note (one that's relevant to the thread) the level 5 spell list looks pretty weak. The Spells you get from summons are basically irrelevant as sleep is past its hitdie limit, hideous laughter gives the opponent a +4 on saves if their not fey, entangle has a dc of 13 and at best is gonna waste a move action as anyone who will fail the reflex save will probably succsceed on a escape artist/strength check and pyrotechnics is dc 14. The sorcerers actual spells are ok, with some crowd control and some decent save or sucks but I don't think alter self is a good choice considering how weak your summons are. I don't think its that powerful, although it is a tough level for sorcerers as 3rd level spells are a big power up.

Level 10 looks much better, although that may be because its on a even level and summon monster is much better at that point because its way more versatile. Seems pretty good.

Saying the majority of players of a game are bad at something is kind of insulting, no matter how you slice it... and it simply isn't true.

I see skill rolls in the 40+ range quite frequently, infinite free healing builds, powerful spell casters, huge damage output builds and many others.

As for summon monster 2, I use it well past 5th level. I drop it when I hit 10th lvl. 1d3 +1 celestial eagles with 3 attacks at +5 to hit and 1d4+ 1 damage that bypasses dr is viable for a long time. And the low cost open flanking buddies provide much needed assistance to party rogues, and even the melee chars such as fighters and paladins love the boost... all for a 2nd lvl spell. The reality of the versatility of summons isn't just spell availibility in the summons you can pick, it's also battlefield control, straight damage output and a wall of hitpoints. If you can get the enemy to attack a summons, that's an attack not going to your party.

[Bucky]

This made me lol... probably more than it should. Of course the party paladin might have something to say about that.

Something like "Don't worry, I know Lay On Hands" maybe?

[Tuvarkz]

Wow... so you just insulted the entire player base of Pathfinder. Awesome.

Calling someone bad at something isn't an insult. (And then I said majority, not everyone) Of course, unless their state of mind needs their skill at the game being considered decent by others, in which case there's other issues to adress.
To bring a similar example, I'll use the DotA2 MMR distribution.
You will find very bad players quite often up until the 3k MMR mark. Less than half of the ranked playerbase is at that level. You can still here and then find bad players until you reach 4k MMR, which only 14% or something of players play above of. 5k is considered 'getting good' at the game, and that's limited to less than 2% of the ranked playerbase.
So yes, in fact, more than half of the playerbase of a high learning curve game (Particularly considering the power level difference between chained, unarchetyped monk; and God Wizard) can be considered bad at the game.
EDIT: And while you may argue that the ranked playerbase of DotA2 is only one in three players, I cannot really consider that those that always play unranked must be honing their skills, particularly when unranked is naturally considered the more casual approach to the game.

I actually find it funny that everyone here considers the cleric a top tier class because at most tables I play in, no one wants to play the cleric because, invariably people begin demanding spell sacrifices to cover healing so they don't use gold costing resources... turning the cleric into little more than a heal bot.

And this only further proves my point.

[EldritchWeaver]

Calling someone bad at something isn't an insult. (And then I said majority, not everyone) Of course, unless their state of mind needs their skill at the game being considered decent by others, in which case there's other issues to adress.
To bring a similar example, I'll use the DotA2 MMR distribution.
You will find very bad players quite often up until the 3k MMR mark. Less than half of the ranked playerbase is at that level. You can still here and then find bad players until you reach 4k MMR, which only 14% or something of players play above of. 5k is considered 'getting good' at the game, and that's limited to less than 2% of the ranked playerbase.
So yes, in fact, more than half of the playerbase of a high learning curve game (Particularly considering the power level difference between chained, unarchetyped monk; and God Wizard) can be considered bad at the game.
EDIT: And while you may argue that the ranked playerbase of DotA2 is only one in three players, I cannot really consider that those that always play unranked must be honing their skills, particularly when unranked is naturally considered the more casual approach to the game.

I would have expected the curve to be more like a pyramid, but a bellcurve works also nicely. But that may be only due the inherent bias that unranking is done by the players with less skill overall. Still it provides an argument that top tier playing happens relatively seldomly, even when using classes with that potential.

[Calthropstu]

Calling someone bad at something isn't an insult. (And then I said majority, not everyone) Of course, unless their state of mind needs their skill at the game being considered decent by others, in which case there's other issues to adress.
To bring a similar example, I'll use the DotA2 MMR distribution.
You will find very bad players quite often up until the 3k MMR mark. Less than half of the ranked playerbase is at that level. You can still here and then find bad players until you reach 4k MMR, which only 14% or something of players play above of. 5k is considered 'getting good' at the game, and that's limited to less than 2% of the ranked playerbase.
So yes, in fact, more than half of the playerbase of a high learning curve game (Particularly considering the power level difference between chained, unarchetyped monk; and God Wizard) can be considered bad at the game.
EDIT: And while you may argue that the ranked playerbase of DotA2 is only one in three players, I cannot really consider that those that always play unranked must be honing their skills, particularly when unranked is naturally considered the more casual approach to the game.



And this only further proves my point.

Fair enough, but then the correct assessment should have been "Most people in role playing games are bad at optimization," rather than calling out pathfinder players in particular. It seems to me it was a jab at pathfinder players when, by the info you posted, it is hardley limited to pathfinder.

And I can agree to that. Many characters I have seen flat out suck (though some suck deliberately... whee, a ranged fighter who specializes in ranged disarm.... with a heavy crossbow)

[Felyndiira]

In summary, while a sorcerer does indeed gain a pile of flexible ways to overcome this particular challenge, he only does so 3+ levels after it could be solved by preparing niche spells. Even then, it requires spending his only highest level spell known on flexibly emulating lower level effects or waiting an additional level.

This is cherry-picking a single spell that the druid happens to get, however, and using to argue something as wide-open as flexibility. If a problem can be solved with some application of Grease or Silent Image, the druid simply doesn't get to do it either.

The question is whether the Druid list as a whole is equivalent to ~7 spells per level from the wizard list. Given that the Wizard list contains standouts of versatility like Summon Monster, the Shadow spells, and the spell versions of Wild Shape, I'd say that there's a good argument that at mid levels where tiering is considered the two can solve similar numbers of problems.

The T1/T2 line isn't, after all, whether you can solve a specific problem with a third vs. a first level spell.

EDIT:

As for the cleric list, there are definitely some really flexible spells there like shatter. Clerics get SM as well. Still, there's only so much you can get from your domain lists, and much of it (even things like Zone of Truth) is very, very situational. While you can argue that the situational spells are the boundary between T1 and T2, you then have to account for the sorcerer using, say, Shadow spells to simply solve something the cleric list isn't able to at comparable levels.

[Gnaeus]

On a different note (one that's relevant to the thread) the level 5 spell list looks pretty weak. The Spells you get from summons are basically irrelevant as sleep is past its hitdie limit, hideous laughter gives the opponent a +4 on saves if their not fey, entangle has a dc of 13 and at best is gonna waste a move action as anyone who will fail the reflex save will probably succsceed on a escape artist/strength check and pyrotechnics is dc 14. The sorcerers actual spells are ok, with some crowd control and some decent save or sucks but I don't think alter self is a good choice considering how weak your summons are. I don't think its that powerful, although it is a tough level for sorcerers as 3rd level spells are a big power up..

Fair. Still, pyrotechnics is a situational vision blocking spell. Putting a guard to sleep 100 feet away isn't bad, nor is disabling part of a larger encounter. Entangle is very useful even on a successful save (drop it on a group of archers and they can't escape a 40 radius effect of difficult terrain even on a double move. Can't run or charge through it. That's handy, and you are going to get at least 2 chances on most enemies if you can center it.) Telepathy even for a few rounds can be useful. Blindsense is autodetect sneak at that level.

And I don't think the faun or the wolf are terrible. Faun has 19 hp, diehard, good saves. He's a disposable flanker, or wall. Wolf has 19 hp, diehard, free trips. But we also have the general summons list. Giant spider is 22hp, mind affecting immune, poison, web, handy for getting over a wall. Air and earth elemental are generally handy.

Alter self is one of several things.
1. A good disguise
2. Tabaxi form. That's a claw claw bite attack. +2 strength. Base 40 movement. Dark vision. Scent.
3. Charau-ka form. +1 AC/to hit size, +2 dex, darkvision, low light vision, scent, 30 move as a small creature. Bite attack
4. Swim 30+ water breathing +2 strength for 5 minutes.

As a suite of utility, movement, senses, defenses and attacks, I think it's tough to beat at this level. Does it make you a fighter? No. But I have stabbed things with my shortspear in a pinch, and if you get there, 2 extra natural attacks aren't bad, if only to teach things the error of grappling you. To put it a different way, it's pretty comparable utility to the Druid's wildshape at this level without needing a feat to cast. Coupled with invisibility, you could just move around the battlefield as a flanker for your teammates or summons while aiding another if you wanted a low risk way to help. 5 minutes might get you through 2 fights in a small dungeon.

Oh. Duh. I forgot the other reason. Arcane bloodline gives you a familiar. Alter self turns your familiar into a humanoid for 5 minutes, if you like.

[Tuvarkz]

Fair enough, but then the correct assessment should have been "Most people in role playing games are bad at optimization," rather than calling out pathfinder players in particular. It seems to me it was a jab at pathfinder players when, by the info you posted, it is hardley limited to pathfinder.

And I can agree to that. Many characters I have seen flat out suck (though some suck deliberately... whee, a ranged fighter who specializes in ranged disarm.... with a heavy crossbow)

...Not exactly. I specifically mentioned high-learning curve, skill-to-power games. In a relatively simpler game, higher floor and lower ceiling, I wouldn't make that argument with that much security. I should have added 3.5 and others to the list, but I'd need more research on more casual-friendly systems and their overall popularities to make a statement regarding roleplaying games in general, particularly because someone good at optimizing in one system could not be as good at optimizing in another one (As an example, I can do very well with Pathfinder and 3.5, but wouldn't be able to optimize since I've got little to no experience in Savage Worlds or GURPS).

EDIT: Lest we derail the thread, Calthropstu, if you willing to take this conversation further, want to go into PMs or open another thread where it may belong?

[Coretron03]

I'd call summoner a high T2. Summoning is an incredibly varied and powerful caster route, but this sorcerer has tricks a summoner lacks. A summoner 10 can DDoor and summon V. But with his lower spells known and spells per day, he can't (to give only one example) scry the enemy boss at the bottom of a lake, turn into a giant invisible dragon monster, summon 3 creatures off the summon V list, DDoor to the bottom of a lake with his pets, gank the boss, and DDoor back out of the lair. Of course, neither can a Druid.

This isn't the only way sorcerers can work. I was asked to build a sorc and I did. I think it is realistic because it is loosely based on the sorc I am currently playing.

Fisrt, since I missed this post, how are you summoning 3 monsters off the summon monster V list? At level 10? At level 5 I'd say the summoner can do what your sorcerer can do but better. If a summoner took the master summoner archtype they would have 2 more feats then you and better spell casting as they would have only 2 less level 1 spells known if you include summon monster spell like ability which lasts 10 times longer with many more uses per day and summon monster 3 access. Instead of invisbility they could take haste for something much more powerful. They lose a bit of power the higher level you get but level 10 they are still powerful. You could probably make a case for them that they hit tier 1 if sorcerers do.

Edit: And they can use alter self better then sorcerers because they are better in melee with a d8 hitdie and 3/4 bab.

[Calthropstu]

...Not exactly. I specifically mentioned high-learning curve, skill-to-power games. In a relatively simpler game, higher floor and lower ceiling, I wouldn't make that argument with that much security. I should have added 3.5 and others to the list, but I'd need more research on more casual-friendly systems and their overall popularities to make a statement regarding roleplaying games in general, particularly because someone good at optimizing in one system could not be as good at optimizing in another one (As an example, I can do very well with Pathfinder and 3.5, but wouldn't be able to optimize since I've got little to no experience in Savage Worlds or GURPS).

EDIT: Lest we derail the thread, Calthropstu, if you willing to take this conversation further, want to go into PMs or open another thread where it may belong?

Eh, I'm over it. Water under the bridge and all that.

You seem reasonable enough.

As for tiering the PF classes goes, yes... the better and more experienced players can break most systems. Let's assume, as in 3.5 versions of these threads, that we are dealing with practical optimization rather than tricks to get more powerful than we should be eh?