Retiering the Classes (PF): Barbarian, Bloodrager, Fighter, Cavalier, Samurai

[Eldonauran]

Not even close. They trade all of their potentially useful class features for delayed bloodrager casting with none of the bloodrager's useful class features. That archetype is basically making you Bloodrager---

Spellcasting delayed by a single level, at level 5 maybe. Since they use the ranger spell table, they still spells as long as they have a high enough casting stat. Their caster level is still equal to their class level.

But, yeah. Trading away weapon training and 6 bonus feats seems a bit much. Perhaps I put too much weight on spellcasting, even if it is 4th level casting.

[Vhaidara]

Spellcasting delayed by a single level, at level 5 maybe. Since they use the ranger spell table, they still spells as long as they have a high enough casting stat. Their caster level is still equal to their class level.

But, yeah. Trading away weapon training and 6 bonus feats seems a bit much. Perhaps I put too much weight on spellcasting, even if it is 4th level casting.

You also trade away proficiency with two handed martial weapons, and you need to spend a swift action to reduce (not remove) Arcane Spell Failure

[Eldonauran]

You also trade away proficiency with two handed martial weapons, and you need to spend a swift action to reduce (not remove) Arcane Spell Failure

I don't see those as problems, or a loss of power, but areas to make a build around. What I picture when I see that is a finesse fighter in mithril medium armor, using arcane strike to supplement his damage on turns he is not casting spells.

Look at it this way, you can still quicken a True Strike (no somatic components)

[Vhaidara]

Look at it this way, you can still quicken a True Strike (no somatic components)

You can? Last time I checked, Quicken was a +4 metamagic. Neat trick to apply that on a 4 spell slot class.

And even then, it just means your first attack, at your highest BAB, which should hit anyways unless you roll a 1, will hit unless you roll a 1.

[Bucky]

And even then, it just means your first attack, at your highest BAB, which should hit anyways unless you roll a 1, will hit unless you roll a 1.

I can take a swift action between hits in a full attack just fine, right?

[Psyren]

You can? Last time I checked, Quicken was a +4 metamagic. Neat trick to apply that on a 4 spell slot class.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but rods do exist. (And even if you're only applying it to your best attack, there's lots of ways to get mileage out of that - power attack, fighting defensively, combat expertise etc.)

I can take a swift action between hits in a full attack just fine, right?

Yes, you can do this

[Peat]

Spellcasting delayed by a single level, at level 5 maybe. Since they use the ranger spell table, they still spells as long as they have a high enough casting stat. Their caster level is still equal to their class level.

But, yeah. Trading away weapon training and 6 bonus feats seems a bit much. Perhaps I put too much weight on spellcasting, even if it is 4th level casting.

The general consensus seems to be that spellcasting topping out at level 4 doesn't get you Tier 3; if that holds, then the weakest lvl4 spellcaster doesn't make Tier 3.

Although I guess there are some pushing Bloodrager as a 3, and there might be some talk when the time comes of Paladin as T3 (or at least Sacred Servant Paladins). Bloodrager is just adding spellcasting with no complications to a fairly versatile T4 though; the Child Archetype takes some power and versatility away from a bordeline T4/5 in exchange for magic with complications.

[Bucky]

Are we taking variant multiclassing into account at all?

[Krazzman]

Are we taking variant multiclassing into account at all?

Why should we? Was Gestalt taken into consideration? Wounds and Vigor? Elemental Race Variants?

I think the only optional variant that should be taken into consideration for these threads is Unchained Classes.

Everything else in Pathfinder Unchained either changes everything for everyone (Stamina) with some that can benefit from it more than others or don't really have an effect on the Tiering.

[Psyren]

Are we taking variant multiclassing into account at all?

I would say nothing from Unchained except classes should be considered. As much as I badly, badly want Combat Stamina to be in the equation and its use throughout the playerbase to be widespread, Unchained content adds enough additional variables that if we evaluate it at all, it should be done separately.

Skill Unlocks should be evaluated as part of the Unchained Rogue however.

Everything else in Pathfinder Unchained either changes everything for everyone (Stamina) with some that can benefit from it more than others or don't really have an effect on the Tiering.

Just to play devil's advocate, you can limit Stamina to being a Fighter exclusive. (I would never do this personally but it is an option.)

[Krazzman]

Just to play devil's advocate, you can limit Stamina to being a Fighter exclusive. (I would never do this personally but it is an option.)

Yes and we just got the unchained book recently (last week) and haven't really gotten the time to read it... in the games I will run that rule will be in effect, don't know if it's going to be fighter specific though...

[Kurald Galain]

It is probably fair to include a listing for Stamina Fighter (assuming stamina rules work only for fighter) and Unlock Rogue (assuming skill unlocks only work for rogues) and see if this makes a difference for their tier, because those combinations are explicitly suggested in the rules. Other than these two, I suggest that using these rules or not using them does affect all classes more-or-less equally (e.g. because one of the better stamina options is Improved Initiative).

[Firechanter]

On the other hand, Pathfinder seems to have fewer worthwhile PrCs. So the net effect is a gain for the tiered classes and a net loss for characters that wouldn't appear on the tier list.

I have very limited experience with PF-proprietary PrCs, but maybe they are indeed tailored towards specific campaigns / APs.
Of course, any class's mileage may vary according to the campaign played.

For example, a friend of mine claims that in Kingmaker (which he DMed twice), the Cavalier is an excellent base class, and particularly the Battle Herald PrC performs superbly in late-game. His reasoning being that you need characters that can do 20-30 encounters per day, which means the spellcasters may run dry while mundanes may keep going as long as the Healing lasts.

edit: on the whole, he classified only the Rogue and Alchemist as "Poor" for this AP, but some of the T1-T2 casters (like Wizard) only rank as "Good", while Fighters, Cavaliers and suchlike get a "Very Good" by him.

(I have only played KM in the very early stages so far, and during the Hexploration phase you generally don't have more than 1-2 encounters per day, but that seems to change drastically in later chapters of the AP.)

[Kurald Galain]

His reasoning being that you need characters that can do 20-30 encounters per day

The standard is 3 or 4 encounters per day. I'll grant that in some campaigns it's good to be able to do twice as many, but 20 encounters per day is utterly ridiculous (and completely not how kingmaker works, either).

It's funny how he simultaneously asserts infinite healing for the martials, while also claiming that the spellcasters (who perform this healing) will run out. Clearly that is self-contradictory.

[Firechanter]

Well, HP healing obviously doesn't come from precious spell slots. That's what you have CLW wands for. Or Infernal Healing wands. Or, ideally, a Life Oradin with Boots of the Earth or what they are called -- completely free healing, ever, for everybody.

In the past I've done something like 15 encounters per day. That's totally possible even with Core material only, but at the end of that, everyone was really completely dry.
He mentioned this 20-30 Enc gauntlet in context with "conquering a city", btw.

[Kurald Galain]

Life Oradin with Boots of the Earth or what they are called

Yeah, that one was errata'ed.

In the past I've done something like 15 encounters per day.

Oh, I'm sure that some people do that on occasion. But claiming that this is normal (or normal for Kingmaker) is really silly, as is claiming that fighters and cavaliers deal with a 15-encounter day better than wizards and alchemists do.

[Psyren]

It is probably fair to include a listing for Stamina Fighter (assuming stamina rules work only for fighter) and Unlock Rogue (assuming skill unlocks only work for rogues) and see if this makes a difference for their tier, because those combinations are explicitly suggested in the rules. Other than these two, I suggest that using these rules or not using them does affect all classes more-or-less equally (e.g. because one of the better stamina options is Improved Initiative).

There's a slight difference here though. Stamina is wholly optional, with the "Fighter-only" rule being another layer of optional beyond that. Skill Unlocks however are an expected part of the Unchained Rogue, whether you want the Unlock system to be available for other classes or not. Basically, they have a class feature that says "they always get to use this subsystem", much like the Artificer relies on Action Points existing.

[Peat]

I have very limited experience with PF-proprietary PrCs, but maybe they are indeed tailored towards specific campaigns / APs.
Of course, any class's mileage may vary according to the campaign played.

Possible I guess, but I don't think they've ever said anything to that effect. Certainly a lot of them are exchanging class qualities for rather niche and situational things.

I think even if you're regularly encountering the PrCs' strengths though, the exchange rate is poor a lot of the time. They give too little and mid-to-late Martial class abilities are too strong.

[Gnaeus]

I would say nothing from Unchained except classes should be considered. As much as I badly, badly want Combat Stamina to be in the equation and its use throughout the playerbase to be widespread, Unchained content adds enough additional variables that if we evaluate it at all, it should be done separately.

Skill Unlocks should be evaluated as part of the Unchained Rogue however.

Just to play devil's advocate, you can limit Stamina to being a Fighter exclusive. (I would never do this personally but it is an option.)

I agree w/ Psyren.

If Stamina was fighter exclusive, do we have many people for whom it is a Tier shift? Is there a strong argument that it pushes into T3 or (among the T5 voters) across a barrier into T4?

[Psyren]

If Stamina was fighter exclusive, do we have many people for whom it is a Tier shift? Is there a strong argument that it pushes into T3 or (among the T5 voters) across a barrier into T4?

With archetypes (particularly Martial Master) I think it can get the Fighter to T3 territory. With the basic fighter (even with AWT and AAT) I'm not so sure, but it would definitely be pretty high in T4. Stamina + AWT + AAT would allow a Fighter to rival Rage Powers.

[Tuvarkz]

I agree w/ Psyren.

If Stamina was fighter exclusive, do we have many people for whom it is a Tier shift? Is there a strong argument that it pushes into T3 or (among the T5 voters) across a barrier into T4?

Not really. I don't see many particularly game-changing tricks from Stamina, even if Fighter-exclusive, that would merit the shift to T3. And Barrom Brawler+Abundant Tactics+Item Mastery combo isn't enough to merit it either imo.

[Kurald Galain]

Not really. I don't see many particularly game-changing tricks from Stamina, even if Fighter-exclusive, that would merit the shift to T3. And Barrom Brawler+Abundant Tactics+Item Mastery combo isn't enough to merit it either imo.

I agree. It strikes me that the stamina system as a whole is fairly underwhelming, and that few people actually use it precisely for that reason. If it was powerful or exciting, people would be pushing for its usage more, even though it's optional.

[Gnaeus]

Not really. I don't see many particularly game-changing tricks from Stamina, even if Fighter-exclusive, that would merit the shift to T3. And Barrom Brawler+Abundant Tactics+Item Mastery combo isn't enough to merit it either imo.

Even if it were, that seems to be getting specific enough to not change class Tier as a whole.

[EldritchWeaver]

Yeah, that one was errata'ed.

I've been trying to find the errata for the boots of earth, but I found only a PDF for PFS, which I presume isn't applicable as a general errata. Can someone please point me to right link?

[Bucky]

I took this discussion to some offline friends. They put together a good case that vanilla Barbarian is T5 by virtue of being completely overshadowed by Bloodrager.

Thoughts?

[Krazzman]

I took this discussion to some offline friends. They put together a good case that vanilla Barbarian is T5 by virtue of being completely overshadowed by Bloodrager.

Thoughts?

So the Sorcerer is T5 because wizard does it better?

The vanilla Barbarian by definition of the system in place is 4. He can do one thing really well but often useless when that thing is not available. Even without any other book than core a barbarian has everything he needs: Rage Power's, the availability of rage cycling, power attack and big weapons.

He can branch out of offensive feats and get something else and still manages to do melee quite well.

[Bucky]

One of the defining features of tier 5 is that it's easily outclassed in its own area of expertise even by mid-tier characters who focus less on it. So either Barbarian isn't T4 or Bloodrager isn't.

[Sayt]

One of the defining features of tier 5 is that it's easily outclassed in its own area of expertise even by mid-tier characters who focus less on it. So either Barbarian isn't T4 or Bloodrager isn't.

Thats a possible trait that T5, but it isn't sufficient or necessary to qualify a class as T5.

T5 is, to quote JaronK, "Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute.

Barbarians are straightforwardly designed for combat, but they are pretty damn good at it: d12 HD, full BAB, rage, rage powers, DR.

To put it another way: the tiers are benchmarks, vague ones, but still not a sliding, relative scale. If you made a Barbarian+ that was the same except it got +20 to hit and +20 damage from being cool, it would still be T4, and the normal barbarian would still T4.

[Psyren]

One of the defining features of tier 5 is that it's easily outclassed in its own area of expertise even by mid-tier characters who focus less on it. So either Barbarian isn't T4 or Bloodrager isn't.

This logic is based on a faulty premise; it asks us to believe that every time two classes are in the same tier but one is stronger than the other, it must be because they don't actually belong in the same tier. But that's not how tiers work - tiers are based on ability to clear objective challenges, not some PvP standard where you're comparing the performance of one class to another.

A Barbarian is T4 because it is capable of doing one thing very well (melee, due to high strength and multiple attacks) but struggles when that one thing isn't important - that's the definition, and it doesn't depend on a Bloodrager's performance. For it to be T5, its one thing would also have to be weak, but nobody I've seen has ever complained about a Barbarian's melee output.

Ninja'd

[Bucky]

I think that puts Bloodrager into T3, since they can do everything the barbarian's doing, while also getting utility spells and bloodline feats.