Brilliant Gameologists Forum
Play Like You Have To! => D&D Deliberations => Pathfinder + 3.P => : ImperatorK October 15, 2011, 06:09:16 AM
-
Note: The following tier placements aren't complete. They're based on what I read (and still somewhat remember) here at BG and other boards, and also on my own estimates after just skimming the class descriptions, but aren't supported by any actual experience, playtesting or analysis on my part. I'm more of a chronicler, something like Gr1lledcheese's "Why each class is in its tier". Any suggestions, opinions or comments are absolutely welcome.
I hope that this PF tier system will grow and become at least half as widely know and respected as JaronK's work.
(Classes in italics are non-converted 3.5 classes evaluated under PF rules.
Classes in blue are high in their tier. Classes in red are low in their tier.)
P.S. I'm working under the assumption that 3.5 material is allowed and converted, so it's more a 3.P tier system, then just PF.
Tier 1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch; Archivist, Erudite (Spell to Power Variant)
Tier 2: Sorcerer, Psion, Summoner, Oracle; Favored Soul, Binder (with access to online vestiges), Eurdite (No Spell to Power)
Tier 3: Bard, Rogue, Psychic Warrior, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Wilder; Swordsage, Warblade, Crusader, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Variant Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum
Tier 4: Gunslinger, Ninja, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Soulknife; Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Zhentarim Variant)
Tier 5: Fighter, Monk, Expert, Cavalier, Samurai; CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, OA Samurai, Knight, CW Samurai (with Imperious Command available)
Tier 6: Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner; CW Samurai (without Imperious Command available)
-
Theres a PF psionics conversion by Dreamscarred Press that might as well be official.
-
I know. It is included, if you didn't notice.
-
Should Non-Pathfinder options really be included in a Pathfinder Tiers system? I know a lot of players don't include standard 3.5 material with PF. I don't think stuff like Favored Soul, Binder, Tome of Battle, Dread Necro, Duskblade, Hexblade, etc should be included.
I think the really useful thing that should be done with a Pathfinder Tiers system would be to rank the Class Archetypes. Many of the Archetypes drastically change the overall power and utility of a class.
Regarding the Fighter, well, I was going to say that I didn't think he was Tier 5 anymore. That's before I looked at Pathfinder feats and how completely god awful they are. Holy shit they are so much worse than 3.5 feats. [/headdesk]
-
Summoner is at least tier 2. They may only have 6 levels of spellcasting, but they get 1, 2, even 3 level discounts on most of their spells so it comes out the same except metamagic rods become cheaper. Their eidolons are much, MUCH stronger than animal copanions or the Fighter class. And they can drop a ton of summons each day with 10x duration as a standard action. All with better HD and BAB than wiz/sorc. They're kings of the action economy.
-
Should Non-Pathfinder options really be included in a Pathfinder Tiers system? I know a lot of players don't include standard 3.5 material with PF. I don't think stuff like Favored Soul, Binder, Tome of Battle, Dread Necro, Duskblade, Hexblade, etc should be included.
I think the really useful thing that should be done with a Pathfinder Tiers system would be to rank the Class Archetypes. Many of the Archetypes drastically change the overall power and utility of a class.
Regarding the Fighter, well, I was going to say that I didn't think he was Tier 5 anymore. That's before I looked at Pathfinder feats and how completely god awful they are. Holy shit they are so much worse than 3.5 feats. [/headdesk]
By this point in the game's evolution, you can disregard 3.5 material already, since PF now has enough material to stand on its own.
Plus, the newer spell lists are kinda screwed when they're competing with the old lists, and using the 3.5 spells gets around a number of the stealth nerfs. Take a look at save or dies, any kind of shapechanging, etc.
-
Yeah, I'd say drop the 3.5e classes. There's already a place to look those up, and it will cause confusion when a class is more obscure in one edition than the other.
-
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214108 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214108) Here's my take on PF class tiers, maybe this'll help a little.
-
I'm including non-PF classes for people who DO use them in PF. If you don't then just ignore them. note that using PF rules, some of them can maybe be ranked higher or lower.
I'm not ranking class archetypes because I treat them as ACFs. BUT, if an ACF/archetype does change the rank of his class then please tell me and I include it.
-
Classes are fine, I'm talking more of non-PF feats and spells being considered.
-
PF is backwards compatible. Anyone who is playing PF-only is just losing on good stuff and wasting all the work that was put into making 3.5 handbooks (not to mention all the money invested into buying them).
-
However, spells and feats are designed on a different basis, which means that judging casters based on their 3.5 spell availability is going to leave your tiers inherently worthless to a pure PF play, particularly for T2s(T1s probably won't even notice). Spells just plain don't work the same way and feats have a different centering.
-
I'm not playing PF-only, so I'm not making a PF-only tier system.
Also it should be quite obvious that any non-PF material will be converted to PF standards, which means that spells without saves will have saves and SoDs will deal damage like PF spells, etc.
-
I'm not playing PF-only, so I'm not making a PF-only tier system.
Also it should be quite obvious that any non-PF material will be converted to PF standards, which means that spells without saves will have saves and SoDs will deal damage like PF spells, etc.
So this system ranks the houserules of individual DMs as a whole? ???
And that's far from obvious, especially for inexperienced DMs, which this is presumably aimed at.
Also, which knight (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/knight) and warlock (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/warlock) did you mean?
-
Hey. I was waiting for someone competent to make a PF tier system, but no one did, so I made it myself, on my terms. If you can make a better one, go ahead, no one is stopping you and I would be glad to delete this one.
So this system ranks the houserules of individual DMs as a whole?
no. This system ranks the classes with all that can be used with them.
And that's far from obvious, especially for inexperienced DMs, which this is presumably aimed at.
If this would be a completely new concept then maybe, but there is already a tier system and it is very popular.
Also, which knight and warlock did you mean?
It is stated that classes in italics are from 3.5.
-
And that's far from obvious, especially for inexperienced DMs, which this is presumably aimed at.
If this would be a completely new concept then maybe, but there is already a tier system and it is very popular.
That's not what I was referring to.
Also it should be quite obvious that any non-PF material will be converted to PF standards, which means that spells without saves will have saves and SoDs will deal damage like PF spells, etc.
-
Then I will write a disclaimer that this tier system is made under the assumption that you convert the 3.5 material to PF (which for me is obvious).
Happy now? :P
-
What makes the Inquisitor so good? When I first read the class a long time ago I came away with the impression that it was complete garbage. Maybe things have changed since then (I think I only read the alpha), but can you give examples of why it's better than the PF Paladin?
-
It's similar to the Bard. At least that's what I read somewhere.
-
It actually has a pretty good spell list. Which I think actually makes it tier 3. Its class features are less then inspiring though.
-
Like a Bard.