Pathfinder Is Still Bad

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:26 pm

The Factotum... issue... is pretty core to the problem with the tiers as described. JaronK personally gets a stiffy that can go through sheetrock from the Factotum, so he lets it do all kinds of crazy bullshit that you obviously wouldn't be able to do in the vast majority of games even if you were playing the DM's favoritest class. It goes way beyond him taking a laughable and not supported by the author reading of an optional web enhancement feat to get very large numbers of inspiration points that the optional web enhancement feat very obviously doesn't give you even in games where people let you use optional web enhancement feats. He also lets them use shit like Item Familiars and Iajutsu Focus, which are not allowed in the vast majority of games and very importantly are not actually tied to the Factotum in any way. It's basically the argument "Monk is a very powerful class because my DM gave me an amulet that lets me turn into a dire tiger." No, it's exactly that argument. And it's stupid.

The Archivist is a simpler situation. Archivists don't have the power to cherry pick off any divine spell list. That is not an ability that they have. Like the Wizard, they have the ability to learn from any piece of magical writing that the DM gives them. The DM might give them access to a really awesome spell, but they might not. And in any case, the Archivist has no ability to make that happen. It's not actually different from the rule that Wizards can scribe any Shugenja or Paladin scroll they come across into their spellbook and then start casting it (yes really, that's what the rules say). It's just that JaronK and a bunch of other people think this is going to happen to Archivists because Archivists are so shitty if it doesn't.

Or to put it another way:

Barbarians are underpowered if they don't get an artifact ax.
Therefore the DM is going to give them an artifact ax.
Artifacts are really powerful.
Therefore Barbarians are powerful.

See, by the rules a Wizard can scribe any spell from any list - arcane or divine. It seriously does not specify that their scroll to spell book learning procedure requires a Wizard scroll or even an Arcane scroll. They can use fucking anything. But, JaronK argues, Wizards obviously won't be allowed to do anything with that fact because they are plenty good without it.

So the "tiers" are completely meaningless. It's not all "raw" and it's not all "sensible" and it's not even consistent. JaronK has a completely arbitrary list of tricks he will let each person get away with based on what class they are and throws in completely arbitrary handicapping based on what he thinks each class needs and/or deserves, and then he rates the classes after having made all those explicit and implicit ad hoc adjustments. It's completely meaningless.

Saying something is "tier 2" or "tier 4" imparts no information. Since you aren't JaronK's girlfriend, a measure of how likely JaronK is to personally give you a DM pity artifact at level 2 is not something that makes any difference lengthwise or sidehow.

-Username17

Reynard · Post by **Reynard** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:48 pm

That sounded like Archivist can't get any spells without GMs intervention, making him absolutely useless.

Except Archivist still gains cleric spells during level-up. He might not be as badass as real cleric (or druid), and unlike wizard he has to choose from the weaker spell list (making him weaker than wizard), and he gets MAD on top, but he is still a fucking caster.

I don't really get where did this "unable to function" came from. It's not like being weaker than druid, cleric and wizard means something besides "this is not the stronges class in the DnD".

Insomniac · Post by **Insomniac** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:06 pm

An Archivist is a d6 full caster with 2 good saves and 4 skill points a level casting off Intelligence with Scribe Scroll some fun and flavorful abilities and a couple of bonus feats. Is it optimal? Is it ideal? Nah, but you're still probably in the top 20 percent of classes power wise. I'd say you are at least where the sweet spot for power is in a game (specialized casters like Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, 3/4 casters, etc).

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:16 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:It's not actually different from the rule that Wizards can scribe any Shugenja or Paladin scroll they come across into their spellbook and then start casting it (yes really, that's what the rules say).

This was actually patched in the Rules Compendium by adding the stipulation that you could only copy/learn spells that were on your spell list. (This, of course, required that you (A) own the Rules Compendium, (B) read through all the relevant portions of the book to find where the stealth modifications were, and (C) believe that a secondary source can override a primary source. All of which I think is kinda BS.)

Reynard wrote:I don't really get where did this "unable to function" came from. It's not like being weaker than druid, cleric and wizard means something besides "this is not the stronges class in the DnD".

Le sigh. Not what I meant. The Archivist functions, but it doesn't do the thing that justifies its placement without a complicit DM. In the case of the Factotum, that problem is an order of magnitude worse.

It's like you're not familiar with hyperbole or something.

Reynard · Post by **Reynard** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:43 pm

> The Archivist functions, but it doesn't do the thing that justifies its placement without a complicit DM.
Case closed then.

> It's like you're not familiar with hyperbole or something.
It's the Internets. You should've tried sarcasm.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:17 pm

Archivist is more justifiable than Factotum. In a game that starts out at mid to high level, they can simply buy a bunch of divine scrolls with their starting gold and scribe them to their book. Even in-play, they can get quite a bit if the campaign has downtime.

Factotum really does seem to be a case of "allowed to use rules the other classes aren't ... for some reason" Like, I've seen people saying Factotum is good because they can use Diplomacy cheese.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:32 pm

Ice9 wrote:Archivist is more justifiable than Factotum. In a game that starts out at mid to high level, they can simply buy a bunch of divine scrolls with their starting gold and scribe them to their book. Even in-play, they can get quite a bit if the campaign has downtime.

Factotum really does seem to be a case of "allowed to use rules the other classes aren't ... for some reason" Like, I've seen people saying Factotum is good because they can use Diplomacy cheese.

I really don't get the Factotum at all. I've tried to like it, I really have. But every time I end up just feeling like it is a very limited rogue. Anytime I've asked about it, the answers I get for it being great generally boil down to its SLAs and taking Extra Inspiration with every feat (including multiple flaws), and using the weird interpretation that makes the gain of inspiration points exponential. So that at level 6 instead of having 4 inspiration points, you end up with 25 inspiration points.

I dunno, Factotum love just seems to rely on a bunch of strange and questionable rulings, and playing up having a handful of SLAs per day as being equivalent to having actual casting.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:14 pm

Dean wrote:Yeah there's no permutation of Archivist that isn't bananas. Archivists are probably the strongest class ever printed regardless of whatever oberoni you threw at them. The basic mechanic of being able to learn any spell that could be on any list means that the potential combos are limitless.

Couple of observations.

1.) Archivists run afoul of Rule Negative One pretty hard. They can only learn divine spells and the process of converting most arcane spells to divine spells is convoluted enough that a DM can cockblock you pretty easily without looking heavy-handed. It's not Pun-Pun levels of DM collaboration but assuming that you'll be getting what you want when the process depends on access to stuff like Artificer colleges and Wishing and custom magical items is suspect.

2.) More importantly, who cares that they can learn every trick in the book? For a sourcebook density needed to make the Archivist worthwhile you can plug in enough gaps so that any spellcaster is of equal or greater utility. The archivist has the greatest access to overpowered combinations, but the absolute power of archivist-exclusive combinations isn't that much higher than a cleric that just combed through Complete Divine/PHB2/Complete Champion, especially at the range of games that 99.9% of people actually play.

I'm pretty sure that a Wizard X / Psion 1 / Cerebremancer 10 that used difference engine shenanigans would be more powerful than an archivist. Because they have access to a couple of psion-only tricks while having a spellcasting combination only slightly weaker than the archivist.

Reynard · Post by **Reynard** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:23 pm

> process of converting most arcane spells to divine spells
What are you talking about?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:37 pm

At any time, an archivist can also add spells found on scrolls containing divine spells to his prayerbook, but he must make any rolls and spend the time required (see Adding Spells to a Wizard’s Spellbook on page 178 of the Player’s Handbook). The archivist can learn and thus prepare nonclerical divine spells in this fashion but the two free spells he gains for advancing in class level must be selected from the cleric spell list.

If you want an arcane spell that doesn't appear on any divine spell lists like, say, Heroics you need to go through a convoluted process that will let you either prepare an arcane spell as a divine one (whereupon it's copied to a scroll) or you copy down an arcane spells as a divine scroll. This is not impossible to do, but the process is convoluted to say the least. Convoluted enough so that unless you have access to the tools yourself the DM can just say 'no one in the campaign setting has access to that particular combination of crap' and that's that.

Reynard · Post by **Reynard** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:19 pm

Now I remember that delusional logic.

I believe Tome of Ancient Knowledge (provided you can get GMs approval) was used to save the day at 9th level.

Insomniac · Post by **Insomniac** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:01 am

For the Heroism example, there is a Divine Bard variant so you could pluck the Bard spells you wanted.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:37 am

Insomniac wrote:Am I really that wrong about the tier thing or is it verboten here or what?

So, a lot has been said about this, but I will weigh in, since I got to it first and hate it the most. This is what I have said about it in the past that probably best summarizes my main issue with the idea of ranking with tiers:

As I have said many times about tiers.

There are three completely different factors that make something more or less powerful and one thing that doesn't matter at all:

Actual Maximum power in the rules: This doesn't matter, because it is actually wish loops times infinity.

1) Having a wide range of "powerful" things that hit different balance points.
2) Easy to build powerfully.
3) Easy to play the build powerfully.

So you have Artificers, who are hard to play, hellish to build, and only have shitty and too broken and your DM will ban it. So they actually aren't that powerful at all unless your DM accepts a high range of power, and still you have to do a good job building them, and you have to play them well.

Wizards are in the same place, except of course, that they have tricks at every possible power level, so no matter what your DM does or does not ban, they will be capable of being built and played at the highest level your DM will accept.

Druids are the easy to build powerfully in existence, but they are often hard to play, and they are like Wizards in having lots of tricks at lots of levels.

Clerics have fewer tricks, so at certain power levels they come off much weaker than the Druid and Wizard, while at others they are in the same place.

Rogues are hard to build, but really easy to play, but they only really have the one power level: So much damage shit instantly dies, so your DM will either be okay with that (and probably levels of Wizard that are better than you) or he won't be and he will houserule SA damage once per round, and you will go cry. Or he will golem you to death.

Sorcerers are hard to build and easy to play. Power levels are almost all the same places as Wizards.

Beguilers are hella easy to build and play with very few power levels. But they are "lucky" in that their default fallback power level if their most broken stuff is banned is actually towards the high end of what most people accept in all their games.

Dread Necros are the opposite. If you aren't a permissive DM, they actually lose all the main sticks that are their fucking class (OP demon summoning, OP spontaneous casting from spells not on your list like 8 domains into cleric list, OP infinite undead army) and their fallback point is much lower than others, so some asshole can just make a sorcerer who makes you look like shit.

Those are all different kinds of strengths and weaknesses. Trying to create a single tier system that measures all of them is impossible or worthless. Trying to make a tier system that only measures one of them is mostly worthless. Like for example, measuring one is actually a lie, because even though the Dread Necro actually has more power levels that he clocks in at then the Beguiler, more of them are "usually" considered too powerful and either banned or gentleman's agreemented. So even having more options isn't actually indicative of anything, because your DM could be anywhere, and if you have less than "all the power levels" your class could fall at the top of what he allows, or be too high, and therefore instantly shit, like the Artificer.

With respect to the specific Tier system that most everyone refers to, JaronK's the comments above apply. JaronK likes some stuff and not others. So for example, no one can ever make a Sorcerer that is as strong as a Dread Necro who Planar Binds to Wish for items that have absurd epic values. And all Dread Necros can do that in addition to having an infinite shadow army. But Dread Necros are Tier 3 because theoretically some sorcerers can Planar Bind, and some Sorcerers can do some other stuff that isn't as good but that no Dread Necro can do. So while all Dread Necros are more powerful than all Sorcerers, for some reason the fact that there exist completely different characters that all together have access to more shit than Dread Necros (except they don't because you can get all the spells that are domain spells, or the entire CLeric spell list as as Dread Necro) therefore sorcerer is a stronger class. I mean, if you are a Sorcerer, you will be weaker than a Dread Necro, but that's okay because in theory the fact that you could have been weaker in a different way makes you stronger.

But of course, what JaronK really means is that he personally would not allow infinite shadow armies, or spontaneous casting from the Cleric list, or Planar Binding to wish for a Belt of Magnificence +99999999, so therefore Sorcerers are stronger.

But even then, even on top of all being based on JaronK's stupid personal ban list, it infects other people, because for example, I have had to argue multiple times with people that versatility is not power, power is power, and power can come in the form of versatility or just bigger goddam numbers.

Even you specifically said in your post something about the Barbarian being "Tier 4" because it just "does one thing really well." So fucking what? If I told you your character could do one thing really fucking well but no other things, but that one thing is "do 3 billion damage split any way you choose among any targets you can see" that would be a hugely powerful character. Saying that character is 1 step above the Monk, and one step below the Warblade is literally the dumbest thing you could say. Sure your character could be boring, and your character could be so powerful it was boring. And your character would have nothing to do outside of combat, and some things could momentarily not die, but that doesn't mean your character is a step below garbage like the warblade. That shit is straight up Super Way Better Than A Wizard (In Combat) Level.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:31 am

See, that's the thing that pisses me most off about the Tier list. As Kaelik pointed out, it's inconsistent and arbitrary. I could understand a tier list that was based on theoretical CharOp -- it'd be mostly useless, but it wouldn't make my brain explode.

But no. This one special snowflake build gets to abuse RAW/RAI but other ones... don't. And JasonK didn't even make a 'Red Wizard of Thay isn't that good because most groups won't let you build/have a circle of apprentices' or even a 'I assume that wizards can't copy scrolls from other class lists into their spellbook because even if the RAW is there there's no way in hell most DMs are going to let you get away with that'' argument. Archivist gets access to whatever scrolls they want despite this kind of thing immediately pegging most DM's bullshit meters because... reasons.

If I was going to redo tier lists, here are the assumptions I would make:

A.) Classes are ranked according to the SGT, unless they're an unusual build like the bard in which case we'll just go with our gut call. None of this crap about vague versatility or winning their one task super-hard.
B.) For core classes, they get to to use two additional books in addition to the core three books. For non-core classes, they only get the book that they appeared in, the core rulebooks, and one other splat.
C.) Level breakpoints. The bear bare minimum you'd need are for level 1, 5, 9, and 12 though I could see an argument for levels 3 and 18.
D.) I'd allow a little leeway for DM pity. If you need a dire tiger amulet, you can go fuck yourself. But if you need a +X flaming glaive, a scroll of Limited Wish, a year's downtime, or a convenient pile of corpses then fine.
E.) How about some fucking common builds instead of classes? No one goes twenty levels of wizard unless the DM explicitly forbids PrCs. And while Loremasters and Mages of the Arcane Order are both recognizably 'wizard' they have wildly differing power levels. PrC-less games happen, sure, but I'd say that at least 90% of games after the second year of 3E allowed PCs to take at least one PrC.

I feel that this would be much more useful than the tier system we actually got. It'd require some actual fucking thought, of course, but it'd be more useful.

MfA · Post by **MfA** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:17 am

What use is scribing/preparing spells for a wizard if they can't cast them? They can only cast "arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list".

Magic item shoppes and magic item creation(rarely an option due to cost/time, but obviously not a problem for scrolls) are relatively common. A Warlock or Artificer in the party makes availability of scrolls for sale entirely moot.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:07 am

MfA wrote: What use is scribing/preparing spells for a wizard if they can't cast them? They can only cast "arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list".

Spells scribed into a wizard's spellbook are added to the wizard spell list. Otherwise it would make no sense that you can create your own spells, and all the spells named after a wizard who created them likewise would make no sense.

Even sorcerers are suggested that beyond just learning spells from their normal list, "With permission, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of".

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:28 am

That seems pretty specious. The book makes extremely vague and minor statements about getting newly invented spells and they come packaged by saying your DM is involved in adding them to the rules. Given that it's completely out of the rules as is I don't think it's far to say that the new spell invented by you and the DM that you've been allowed to learn has also been added to the spell list by the DM.

I don't think a vague statement that with your DM's permission you can get new spells your DM makes up counts as a PHB rule that wizards can cast off their list.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:37 am

The vague statement about permission is about Sorcerers, not Wizards.

Wizards have a separate statement indicating they can add spells to their wizard spellbook.
Trying to argue that spells in your wizard spellbook are not... wizard spells- that seems pretty fuckin specious.

[edit: to further clarify-

"I don't think a vague statement [...] counts as a PHB rule that wizards can cast off their list."
The point is that they aren't casting off their list. It is that they are able to add things to their list.

MfA · Post by **MfA** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:38 am

erik wrote:Spells scribed into a wizard's spellbook are added to the wizard spell list. Otherwise it would make no sense that you can create your own spells, and all the spells named after a wizard who created them likewise would make no sense.

Or you could say the process of spell research adds it to the list and not the process of scribing.

It would be a very thin reason to overturn an explicit PHB rule for a variant rule from the DMG even if it wasn't unnecessary. A little more rigour please.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:06 am

MfA wrote:
erik wrote:Spells scribed into a wizard's spellbook are added to the wizard spell list. Otherwise it would make no sense that you can create your own spells, and all the spells named after a wizard who created them likewise would make no sense.
Or you could say the process of spell research adds it to the list and not the process of scribing.

It would be a very thin reason to overturn an explicit PHB rule for a variant rule from the DMG even if it wasn't unnecessary. A little more rigour please.

I genuinely don't even know what the hell explicit rule you're talking about. There is no explicit rule that Wizards can't cast spells off their spell list. The only rule is an implied one where their automatic spell learning only comes from the Wizard spell list. But guess what? Archivists only get automatic spell learning from the Cleric list! If you're going to take the Archivist's ability to learn spells from off their list and then cast them seriously, you have to give the same consideration to Wizards. Because it's the same fucking ability and written the same. The only difference is that the Archivist has an additional limitation where they can only do it to divine scrolls, while the Wizard can do it to any scroll they have "deciphered" (note: Wizards can explicitly decipher scrolls that are of spells from other spell lists).

The only arguments are:

The Rules Compendium version of Wizard spell learning is written differently from the PHB and doesn't let you learn spells from other caster classes. If you're using the Rules Compendium instead of the core rules, then Wizards can't do that.
Archivists are shitty while Wizards are very powerful. So Archivists deserve to be able to plunder Paladin spells through scrolls, while Wizards don't.

That's fucking it. Those could both be very compelling arguments. But fucking neither of them is meaningfully backed up by what the rules actually say.

-Username17

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:16 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote: A.) Classes are ranked according to the SGT, unless they're an unusual build like the bard in which case we'll just go with our gut call. None of this crap about vague versatility or winning their one task super-hard.

The Same Game Test is arbitrary in exactly the same way that Kaelik is complaining about. Saying that a rogue passed the SGT and a fighter failed it is just claiming "once I built an awesome rogue" and "once I built a shitty fighter".

MfA · Post by **MfA** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:46 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:I genuinely don't even know what the hell explicit rule you're talking about. There is no explicit rule that Wizards can't cast spells off their spell list.

There is just a rule what their spell list from which they cast is, for the PHB it's the one on "(page 192)".

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:02 pm

Dammit, Frank, I don't care how much of a slam-dunk case you've made using actual rules and logic. The vast and I mean vast majority of tables will freak out and shriek like castrated apes if you even merely attempt to reasonably suggest that wizards should copy and cast cleric spells. It's interesting from a metafictional standpoint and makes a great shibboleth for TGDians, but it won't matter in an actual game because most people strongly feel that the lists should be segregated and it doesn't matter what RAW says because shut up you fucking munchkin that's it rocks fall everyone dies.

hogarth wrote:The Same Game Test is arbitrary in exactly the same way that Kaelik is complaining about. Saying that a rogue passed the SGT and a fighter failed it is just claiming "once I built an awesome rogue" and "once I built a shitty fighter".

Any kind of class ranking system for a TTRPG is going to be arbitrary. What we want is a system that at least imparts useful information and predictions for games that people actually play. The Goat Pasture With No Chekov's Guns/DM Pity style of encounter design with the SGT is indeed arbitrary, but it's reasonably close enough to how games actually go.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:08 pm

MfA wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:I genuinely don't even know what the hell explicit rule you're talking about. There is no explicit rule that Wizards can't cast spells off their spell list.
There is just a rule what their spell list from which they cast is, for the PHB it's the one on "(page 192)".

Uh... no. There is a rule that says they can cast spells from that list. There is no rule that they can't cast anything else. There is a rule on the next page that they can prepare and cast spells from their spellbook (see page 177). The rules on page 177 run over onto 178 and tell you what the process is in more detail for preparing spells from and adding spells to your personal spellbook. And those rules unambiguously tell you what circumstances you are restricted to choosing spells off the Wizard list (generally, whenever you get to make a "free" choice) and what circumstances you are not (generally, whenever you have the magical wiritings of the spell in question already deciphered and in hand).

You get zero points for noticing that there is a page citation to page 192 when the same section also has a page citation to 177. Fuck.

-Username17

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:57 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Any kind of class ranking system for a TTRPG is going to be arbitrary. What we want is a system that at least imparts useful information and predictions for games that people actually play. The Goat Pasture With No Chekov's Guns/DM Pity style of encounter design with the SGT is indeed arbitrary, but it's reasonably close enough to how games actually go.

SGT does not rate whole classes. It rates specific characters. If you want to try to rate a class using a SGT, you need some methodology for building a "representative" set of characters using that class. There's lots of ways you could do this, but none of them are good.