# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 >  Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Omdura, Hunter, and Mesmerist

## pabelfly

I'm interested in starting work on a tier list for Pathfinder, in the same way that we have a tier list for 3.5 (link). This link is a collection of discussions about the power and versatility of all the base classes of 3.5 DnD, and its quite a useful resource. I think Pathfinder could do with a similar resource as a point of information and discussion.

There has been an informal attempt to do a tier list for Pathfinder, which I've also used as part of the reference to this thread: (link). But this lacks discussion on the classes and a shared consensus on how scoring works, both of which are as important as the tier number itself.

The current, work-in-progress thread for Pathfinder Tiers version of this thread is here (link). This thread has links to previous tiering threads and short summaries of thread discussions for those who missed them when they were posted. Contributions and votes for older threads are still welcome and your votes still count.

This time, well tier Omdura, Hunter, and Mesmerist. 

For reference, in the informal thread:
*Hunter* is tiered at *3* 
*Mesmerist* is tiered at *3* 
*Omdura* is tiered at *3* 

EDIT: Vigilante was originally included in this thread but by popular request I'll make a separate thread for it next week. I'll keep the current votes for it in this thread for next week though.

So, the questions are: what should each of these be tiered at? And are there any notable archetypes for these classes that deserve separate tiering? Vigilante has at least three archetypes that gain sixth-level spells spellcasting, including Cabalist (witch spell list), Magical Child (unchained summoner spell list), and Warlock (sorcerer spell list).

I guess a discussion thread is the way to find out.



*What are the tiers?*

The simple answer here is that tier one is the best, the home of things on the approximate problem solving scale of wizards, and tier six is the worst, land of commoners. And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high.

A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system. Thus, I will be uncharacteristically word light here. The original tier system's tier descriptions are still good guidelines here, but they shouldn't be assumed to be the end all and be all for how classes get ranked.

Consistent throughout these tiers is the notion of problems and the solving thereof. For the purposes of this tier system, the problem space can be said to be inclusive of combat, social interaction, and exploration, with the heaviest emphasis placed on combat. A problem could theoretically fall outside of that space, but things inside that space are definitely problems. Another way to view the idea of problem solving is through the lens of the niche ranking system. A niche filled tends to imply the capacity to solve a type of problem, whether it's a status condition in the case of healing, or an enemy that just has too many hit points in the case of melee combat. It's not a perfect measure, both because some niches have a lot of overlap in the kinds of problems they can solve and because, again, the niches aren't necessarily all inclusive, but they can act as a good tool for class evaluation.

*Tier one:* Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is the realm of clerics, druids, and wizards, classes that open up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then get massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with that core trio of tier one casters, then you probably don't belong here.

*Tier two:* We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

*Tier three:* Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two, here taking us to around the level of a Bard or Skald. The usual outcome is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems.

*Tier four:* Here we're in Fighter and Barbarian territory. Starting from that standard tier three position, the usual sweet spots here are very good at solving a few problems, or alright at solving many problems.

*Tier five:* We're heading close to the dregs here. Tier five is the tier of chained Monk, classes that are as bad as you can be without being an aristocrat or a commoner. Classes here are sometimes very good at solving nearly no problems, or alright at solving a few, or some other function thereof. It's weak, is the point.

*Tier six:* And here we have commoner tier. Or, the bottom is commoner. The top is approximately aristocrat. You don't necessarily have nothing in this tier, but you have close enough to it.

----------


## Rynjin

Omdura: Tier "This isn't even a real class". Literally just a remix of features from other classes. It's a Divine Godling but 1st party. I guess it technically qualifies for T3 since it is a smorgasbord of class features from other T3 classes and nothing else, but I don't acknowledge it as a valid class option.

Hunter: Strong T3. The Druid list is considered a slow starter, but Hunter actually gets to get around this by having spells come online at the same SPELL LEVEL Ranger gets them, while having more slots and a faster progression, which is very nice. Resist Energy at level 1 is quite strong for instance. That plus their Animal Companion and synergies with it make them a very solid class I feel most people overlook when looking to make a character.

Mesmerist: Mid to weak T3, like a 3.2 or so. It has some very powerful and interesting tricks, but they're too few and far between from the looks I've taken at it to really match something like a Bard. But it's well within the range of classes that fall into the "I would gladly play this if I had a good character concept that this class fit best" category.

Vigilante: Highly underrated class IMO. Without casting is a strong T4, like a 3.8. It has more utility than people give it credit for, being a passable skillmonkey, decent combatant (especially as an Avenger), and having quite a few strong options in its Talents that people overlook (like being able to get Alchemist Bombs at full progression). The caster archetypes, particularly Zealot, take this up another notch, to a full T3. Imagine an Inquisitor with both Bane and a Paladin's Smite. Very killy.

I would also like to nominate the Brute archetype for Tier 5, as it's simply awful. Pre-errata it would be T6, as it used to be de facto incapable of using magic items occupying any slot besides "weapon" (if you're willing to eat the undersized weapons penalty), but they fixed that part at least. But it is still extraordinarily lackluster. Comparing Bloodrager to Brute for example is laughable.

Having to eat a talent tax just to be able to use armor and weapons is cringe.

----------


## exelsisxax

Omdura: T N/A
Seconding that this is not a real class and not a PF class. It's fan content that just happened to be made by paizo. It's too much of a mess anyway.

Hunter: T3
This is probably what most people think ranger is going to be from images and descriptions including animal companions. Druid+ranger casting with the lowest level of each is one of the best halfcaster lists with how many discounts you get, combined with full animal companion, teamwork feats, skirmisher tricks, and aspects - so many strong and flexible class features, hunter is one of the best T3 classes competing with magus.

Mesmerist: T3.4
Mesmerist really suffers from tier inflation. It would utterly blow core bard out of the water, except bard has gotten years of constant spell, feat, item, even ACF support along with most other classes warping tiers due to their relative ranking. Mesmerist is too new and niche, too reliant on mind-affecting effects and locked in to getting the talent to conditionally bypass specific immunity. It's still a solid spontaneous spellcaster but the repertoire is too limited compared to most other options and there hasn't been any support to improve it.

Vigilante: complicated
vigilante probably should have been its own thread. The subclass choice alone creates two distinctly different (though same-tiered) outcomes, but then archetypes increase that about fivefold. It may as well be 3-5 different classes with how much these choices matter.
Base: T4 (solid combatants, useful skills and social talents on the side)
Caster archetypes: T3-T3.5 (6/9 casting is good, but some of them only get meh wizard casting while trading out most talents rather than magus/wapriest+paladin casting with upside)
Special mention: brute is T7. Yes, T7. a brute is literally worse than a commoner, because commoners don't need to make will saves to not attack party members. A brute is a liability and not a valid character option, akin to a character that is permanently confused. Worse than that horrible garbage oracle thing that turns your class off if you leave your tiny hermit spot because at least it doesn't force you to attack allies! it only makes you an expert!

requesting vigilante get its own thread for organization. either way i'll give more archetype ratings as they become relevant.

----------


## Rynjin

> Special mention: brute is T7. Yes, T7. a brute is literally worse than a commoner, because commoners don't need to make will saves to not attack party members. A brute is a liability and not a valid character option, akin to a character that is permanently confused. Worse than that horrible garbage oracle thing that turns your class off if you leave your tiny hermit spot because at least it doesn't force you to attack allies! it only makes you an expert!


That's not really a valid rating logic (or rating in general IMO). I'm pretty sure in 3.5 the Frenzied Berserker isn't considered even T6, much less a theoretical T7.

----------


## exelsisxax

> That's not really a valid rating logic (or rating in general IMO). I'm pretty sure in 3.5 the Frenzied Berserker isn't considered even T6, much less a theoretical T7.


3.5 was a much different game and frenzied wasn't a base class. Franzy drawbacks were also much lesser, the benefits were dramatically higher, and it was easier to turn it off - and even then if it was a base class it should have had a special rating.

The tier list is about the ability to solve problems. Brute is a class that creates problems, and constitutes a direct problem and threat in a party. Having on the whole a negative ability to solve problems, being a fundamentally idiotic design inappropriate for the game in its entirety, means it should be rated either worse than commoner or a special rating that indicates it should never be played and should not be considered a valid class.

----------


## Gnaeus

Omdura: OK, I see no reason for this class. It seems like a better archetype for warpriest or inquisitor. But its first party, without terribly wonky rules that I see. I see no reason it isn't T3. 

Hunter and Mesmerist T3. 
Vigilante (Casting types) T3
Vigilante (non Casting types) T4. They feel like they could shine in a particular type of campaign, but that campaign (a very social sandbox maybe, with a lot of intrigue plots) doesn't seem common, isn't really something 3.PF is great at, and I can't really see them outshining something like a mesmerist even there.

----------


## ciopo

hunter *t3*

I'm wavering about vigilante, I've abused hard the always prepared social talent in the past, it's very strong as an enabler if you're in a campaign with any kind of downtime that allows it use, and I feel it's a fair assumption that if you're allowed to take an ultimate intrigue class, then downtime and "somewhat urban" are a fair assumption.

And... always prepared really shine in that. The brilliant plan is basically shrodinger scroll, it's 1/day "I have a spell for that" but with wbl-omancy instead. even better money-to problem ratio if your GM allows partially charged wands, and if he allows you to have more than one pneding plan, you now have ((carrying capacity-gear weight)/20)/day uses of "I have a spell for that" for out of combat solutions

And the stash is shrodinger magic item, it's "t1" level of problem solving if you got the downtime to set them up. 

So, on that social talent alone I feel the class is *t3*, too. 

no comment on mesmerist and omdura

----------


## Bucky

I'm not going to be rating most of these, for very different reasons.

Omdura and Hunter I have a hard time seeing as very low or very high, but I haven't tried builds and have zero table experience with either. 

Mesmerist, I've built but not played. I'm a sucker for Swift action crowd control on paper, though, so while I think it's very good, I'm second-guessing myself too much for a confident rating.

Vigilante, I do have "table" experience with, but it's absolutely useless for tiering. For that segment of the campaign, I was co-GMing in an adversarial role, assisting with encounter creation and making major decisions for some of the villains. I wasn't present during the sessions but got reports afterwards, plus any extra information from divinations. This allowed us to treat the Vigilante's dual identity and Everyman talent properly - the villain plotted as though the party had a member who was completely useless! To this day I'm not sure whether the Vigilante actually was useless, or whether the Vigilante won the information duel hard enough to swing the actual encounters.

----------


## pabelfly

> requesting vigilante get its own thread for organization. either way i'll give more archetype ratings as they become relevant.


I'm happy to make Vigilante it's own thread if I get a few other people that want it.




> Caster archetypes [for Vigilante]: T3-T3.5 (6/9 casting is good, but some of them only get meh wizard casting while trading out most talents rather than magus/wapriest+paladin casting with upside)


I'll call this 3.25 unless you want to get more specific and rate each one individually.




> Special mention: brute is T7. Yes, T7. a brute is literally worse than a commoner, because commoners don't need to make will saves to not attack party members. A brute is a liability and not a valid character option, akin to a character that is permanently confused.


I'll put this to the side for now and see what other people think of the idea of Tier 7.



*VOTE UPDATE
*
Omdura
Rynjin, Gnaeus  3

_Average  3
_


*Hunter*
Rynjin, Exelsisxax, Gnaeus, Ciopo  3

Average  3



*Mesmerist*
Gnaeus  3
Rynjin  3.2
Exelsisxax  3.5

_Average  3.23_

EDIT: Vigilante votes have been removed, we'll tier it next week in a separate thread.

----------


## Rynjin

> I'm happy to make Vigilante it's own thread if I get a few other people that want it.


I'm not against it. If any class wee to get its own thread it should be Vigilante. It's just too complicated. And if we're rating archetypes separately for every class, that's a whole other can of worms. Warlock and Zealot, for example, may as well be their own class for how different they are.

----------


## Bucky

I'd prefer sticking with the existing first post guidelines as written: there is no category for tier 0, and there is no category for tier 7. A class that's significantly better than Wizard stays in tier 1, and a class that's significantly worse than Commoner stays in tier 6. But you may need to alter the description for tier 6 to reflect that the commoner isn't actually the bottom.

----------


## AvatarVecna

Mesmerist *T3*. Put together a character as a bard, but respec'd to Mesmerist when I learned of its existence. Played that character in about a half-dozen campaigns, usually for 4 or 5 levels, and almost always had a better time than when I'm playing bard. Bard has more support throughout the edition, but the base class features and the spellcasting are competitive enough that I have no issue putting Mesmerist as a solid T3.

Vigilante...I think needs its own thread. This is mostly because Vigilante is "Build-A-Superhero". Even the base vigilante with no archetypes is still looking at making a big class choice every single level. The number of different builds is utterly overwhelming to consider, and that's before getting into archetypes that drastically change how it performs. If I had to give base Vigilante a rating, I'd probably put it at *T3.6*. T4, in the sense that it is bare minimum a Rogue or Fighter with extra bells and whistles...but also it's got so many choices to make, so many bells and whistles, that it might have enough tools to just punch into T3 outright. I'd have to look at it deeper. Casting archetypes definitely get there.

*Spoiler: Ugh, Brute Vigilante*
Show

I can kinda see T7 from the "how does it solve problems" point of view I have of tiers. If T6 is "doesn't solve problems", T7 would be "creates problems". That said, "worse than commoner" is an over exaggeration. The problem it creates is trivial to defeat - bonuses to Will saves, mind controlling the Brute, or even just a single Grease spell will perfectly shut down the issue. Of course, these are also methods of shutting them down from the enemy's point of view. And brute has enough other issues that I'm actually debating T6. Let's tackle this one point at a time.




> A brutes base Fortitude save bonus from his vigilante levels is equal to 2 + half his vigilante level, and his base Reflex and Will save bonuses are equal to 1/3 his vigilante level.
> 
> This ability alters the vigilantes base saving throws.


We've gone from Good Ref/Will to good Fort. 2 good saves to 1. That's...not great. It could've been worse (going from Good Fort/Will to good Ref), but still.




> A brute isnt proficient with medium armor or martial weapons. However, he gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.
> 
> This alters the vigilantes armor and weapon proficiencies.


Limited to light armor and simple weapons. That's...not great. At least unarmed was made viable? Theoretically?




> While in his vigilante identity, a brute becomes one size category larger, gaining no ability score adjustments but otherwise gaining all adjustments for his new size, including additional reach, if appropriate.


If it's not affecting attributes, the changes of being one size larger are:

Pros
Weapon damage +1 step (minimum +1 damage, maximum +1d6, for most weapons you'd consider using)
Reach +5 ft (or more with reach weapons)

Cons
Attack -1
AC -1
Fly -2
Stealth -4
Take up more space (easier to be flanked, harder to maneuver, harder to use cover)

Conclusion: being one size bigger in combat is generally a major downside except in the specific instance where you're hitting someone.




> A brutes vigilante identity is savage and dangerous. While in his vigilante identity, the brute takes a 2 penalty to AC, as well as to all ability checks and skill checks that rely on Charisma, Dexterity, or Intelligence. Furthermore, the brute cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skill (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration (such as spellcasting).


AC -2
Dex/Int/Cha ability checks -2
Cannot even attempt Dex-/Int-/Cha-based skill checks
Cannot attempt any ability requiring patience/concentration, like spellcasting

An additional -2 to AC on top of your size penalty, and also Init -2, punishing you for starting the combat in your Vigilante Identity..




> When a brute is in mortal peril, such as when combat starts, if he is in his social identity, he must succeed at a Will save (DC = 20 + 1/2 his vigilante level) or enter his vigilante identity. Entering his vigilante identity in this way is a horrifying and painful process that takes 1 full round, during which he is flatfooted, and it typically allows his enemies to see his transformation and learn his identity. The brutes vigilante identity cant always tell friend from foe.


Normally, entering your vigilante identity takes 1 minute spent outside the sightline of others. This can be shortened to a full round action at lvl 7, or to a move action at 13th (although neither is guaranteed). Regardless though, the game punishes you (with at least a move action and at most a minute of) action economy disadvantage for the crime of not starting combat in your Vigilante Identity. Brute tacks on an additional penalty, where not starting combat in your VI means you have to make a will save vs losing a turn as you're forcibly transformed. You are bad at Will saves, and if people witness this forcible transformation, your secret identity is revealed. This is primarily social repercussions, although it also removes your scry protection.

You may notice, this means you are punished regardless of if you started the combat in Vigilante Identity or not.




> While he still attacks enemies preferentially during a battle, when there are no more enemies around, each round he must succeed at a Will save (DC = 20 + 1/2 his vigilante level) or continue fighting against his allies or bystanders.


The DC improves faster than your base Will save, but with save-boosting items, the mid-game should see you generally able to keep up with this. That just means it's not getting harder, but it's still not getting easy: early game you're probably looking at no more than +5 vs DC 20, and it never really gets easier. You're more likely looking at +1 than +5, too. But also this isn't a huge issue: gifting you big save bonuses, using mind control spells on you, or just shutting you down with a Grease spell will prevent you from attacking allies. That said, that's basically guaranteeing the party has to spend resources to keep you from attacking them. It also showcases how vulnerable you are to these tactics to the DM, who can use them against you: a Brute Vigilante 20 who can't fly is just as helpless if caught by a Grease spell as when he was lvl 1, because it's literally illegal for him to attempt Dex-based skill checks.




> A brutes mundane clothes and armor do not increase in size with him, and any such items he wears while changing into his vigilante identity lose one-quarter of their hit points. Magical clothes and accessories increase in size with the vigilante, however (though his magical armor and weapons initially do not, as normal).


Can't really use magic armor/weapons unless it has a property letting it change sizes. Clothes get ripped, mundane armor gets cracked and is too small to use anyway. At least you aren't barred from using all magic items, that would be utterly awful.

...

For all of the above issues...you get "Full BAB" and "slightly worse Weapon Training". That sucks.


A brute who gives up on having a separate social identity can still use vigilante talents in their social identity without any fear of discovery (since they're already outed regardless), and it's not illegal to use your "big man punchy" powers when you're not a big punchy man, apparently. You give up the full BAB and Weapon Training and size increase, but you also give up on all the penalties that come with your Vigilante Identity. You end up as a "d8 HD, medium BAB, good Fort, 6+Int skill points with tons of class skills" chassis, with a bunch of utility social talents and combat vigilante talents, any of which you can use just fine in your social identity. So long as you make sure to boost your Will save such that you aren't forced into Vig ID, that's...not the worst setup. It's not _great_ by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a far cry from "worse than commoner". That's "Expert sidegrade". That's "3.5 monk with better utility options". That's low tier 5 on its own. Granted, because you can be forced into Vig ID by failing a save, and because Vig ID can be rendered helpless by a single 1st lvl spell (among many many other things), and can potentially be a threat to the team even as it improves your combat prowess a bit, I'd probably only leave it at low T5 if it could find a way to be immune to getting forced into Vig ID. Otherwise, high T6. It's too competent at too many things for me to agree that it's worse than commoner, although I'll admit that the shifter thing at least looks like silly fun, so I'll probably declare *T5.8* for brute.

----------


## Thunder999

Hunter is a solid tier 3, it's got the ever useful animal companion with solid class features to support it and a pretty great spell list, the druid list is obviously nice and the ranger list is better than most people think.

Mesmerist is in there too, it's got an awkard but functional damage boost in Painful Stare, a solid spell list along the lines of the bard (i.e. mostly mind affecting save or suck, but also some decent utility, buffs and illusions) the implanted tricks are pretty nice for action economy and there's some solid options.

Omdura is some weird not-quite 1st party thing, but is basically just most of the divine partial casters shoved in a blender so is probably a tier 3.

Vigilante by default is a tier 4, it's got decent class features, regardless of which specialisation you take, but it's basically either very similar ot a rogue or very similar to a fighter in function. The whole super hard to detect identity thing is mostly wasted, but the talents are usually better than feats.

The casting archetypes mostly hit tier 3, though I think we should exclude Magical Child.
Magical Child is like an Unchained Summoner, except you get a Familiar instead of an Eidolon and can't even go mauler archetype.

Oh and the Brute is a solid tier 6, it breaks its own gear and will probably attack the party. The benefits aren't remotely worth it (so the party will probably be willing and able to kill it so whoever decided to try it can go make a less terrible character)

----------


## Rynjin

Just a quick reminder that the Brute no longer breaks magical gear; otherwise I'd agree that it belongs in T6. They errata'd that pretty quickly.

----------


## pabelfly

Okay, I'll make a separate thread for Vigilante next week.

----------


## pabelfly

Okay, this week's thread is up for Vigilante:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...pecial-Edition

If you've already voted for Vigilante in this thread, I've added your votes over in the new thread.

----------


## pabelfly

Attempted to do class writeups. Difficult with minimal generated discussion, but I'd appreciate any comments and critiques.



Omdura (3.0)

Omdura was a class made by Paizo to promote a non-Pathfinder setting and comic, so depending on who you ask, may or may not be first-party Pathfinder. Well tier it anyway. Its something of a hybrid of Paladin and Inquisitor, with access to both the Inquisitor spell list and sixth-level Cleric spells, which are two pretty decent lists to draw from, although slowed-progression Cleric spells arent the greatest. Their signature mechanic are Invocations, which have some really nice bonuses you can give yourself and the entire party. Besides that, you get a bunch of T3 abilities from Inquisitor and Paladin (or Antipaladin, if you hate yourself), which means the class can benefit from any feats or items that would specifically target those class features. All in all, a straight T3 class. 



Hunter (3.0)

Hunter is Paizos attempt to combine Druid and Ranger, and its created a pretty solid T3 class. Firstly, we have sixth-level spellcasting, drawn from both Ranger and Druid spell lists. While the Druid spell list isnt great, especially slowed by sixth-level casting, fast-progression Ranger spellcasting and extra spell slots are both really nice. Animal companions are always helpful, and Hunter probably does it best. They get bonus Teamwork feats to share with their animal companion, get to teach their animal companion both animal companion tricks and skirmisher tricks, and have a bunch of other unique abilities so their animal can help both you and the party. Animal Focus is also a variety of nice bonuses that you can apply to both yourself and your teammate. All in all, a straight T3 class.



Mesmerist (3.23)

Another sixth-level caster from Occult Adventures	thats on the weaker side of T3. Being so strictly segregated from other spell lists has done it no favours. Classes with access to the spell lists of core classes like, say, Cleric or Wizard, constantly benefited from new materials being released throughout Pathfinders life, giving them extra spell options, but unfortunately Mesmerist and other Occult classes with only access to their specific spell lists received very little of that love. Still, it has some powerful Tricks that can be picked up, and can be good at crowd control, buffing and debuffing, leaving it a lower-end T3 class.

----------


## exelsisxax

Hunter has so many great class features you didn't even notice that they can teach their AC skirmisher tricks instead of normal animal tricks. Some solid beatstick options include rerolling a missed attack, attacking as a swift action, immediate action AC boost and half damage, no-save Ex entangle or shaken, and swift action 5' step that doesn't count as one. they are hilariously better than everyone else at having an animal pet.

----------


## PoeticallyPsyco

Was looking at the Totem-Bound archetype, and it seems quite good, trading the Animal Focus class feature for the ability to borrow traits from your AC, notably including movement modes and natural attacks. Your animal companion loses the passive Animal Focuses, but the ability for you to fly and bite in combat is probably more than enough to make up for that.

Probably not worth a separate rating. But none of the Hunter guides I've looked at so far have mentioned archetypes, so since I was looking through them I thought I'd bring up the one that looked best.

----------


## pabelfly

> Hunter has so many great class features you didn't even notice that they can teach their AC skirmisher tricks instead of normal animal tricks. Some solid beatstick options include rerolling a missed attack, attacking as a swift action, immediate action AC boost and half damage, no-save Ex entangle or shaken, and swift action 5' step that doesn't count as one. they are hilariously better than everyone else at having an animal pet.


Okay, fixed up the Hunter entry, let me know what you think. Sorry for missing it, there wasn't too much discussion on this thread so I had limited information here to work with.

----------


## vasilidor

These really feel like tier 3 classes to me.
Hunter tier 3 - decent overall spells and a good companion. Animal Focus has enough flexibility to be useful regardless.
Mesmerist tier 3 - powerful in the ability to affect the mind, but the number of enemies that just nope out of that makes it lackluster, or potentially lackluster.
Omdura Reads like a tier 3. like a good party enhancing tier 3. Like a solid replacement for the bard with the Invocation ability it has. Getting spells from clerics and Inquisitors, even with a limited number known, give them some solid options there.

----------


## Bucky

> Mesmerist tier 3 - powerful in the ability to affect the mind, but the number of enemies that just nope out of that makes it lackluster, or potentially lackluster.


A Mesmerist with a well-rounded spell selection will have a few buff spells that only affect the ally's mind (e.g. Rage), or spells that are not mind affecting but combat relevant (e.g. Glitterdust), or have Psychic Inception to attack the minds of mindless things.

----------


## Kurald Galain

*Hunter* is basically the Unchained Ranger, and it's everything the ranger should have been. Better spellcasting, fully leveled animal companion, synergistic feats between character and animal, and added swift-action abilities in the form of animal focus. Hunters have solid action economy, powerful damage output, and a lot of options and versatility out of combat. I'll put them at a high three, or *tier 2.5*.

*Mesmerist* is a highly flexible class that can be built for party buffing, enemy debuffs, melee damage, and a variety of other things. It's also a solid one-level dip for a variety of other builds. Basically, whatever you care to name, a mesmerist can be created that's good or pretty good at that. They're practically the definition of a *tier 3.0* class.

*Omdura* is one of those weird classes from a specific setting that almost nobody has heard of, and that are usually disallowed in any other game. But even if they are allowed, I'm not sure why anyone would want to play this when Warpriest and Inquisitor are available; the whole class reads like a weaker version of those two in particular. Power-wise I'd put them at *tier 4* but it's tempting to throw them into the bottom bin of "why does this even exist?"

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Attempted to do class writeups. Difficult with minimal generated discussion, but I'd appreciate any comments and critiques.


For the hunter, I'd remove the line that "the Druid spell list isnt great" because yes it is.

For the mesmerist, I'd focus less on its spell list and more on its abilities. You can trigger free-action Tricks (twice, with the Bouncing Trick feat), a swift-action Stare followed by free-action Painful Stare, and _then_ you have your move and standard (or full attack). It takes some player skill to pull off, but you can do some seriously impressive combos with this.




> Omdura: Tier "This isn't even a real class".


I second that we should just omit this. But if we want it listed anyway, I'd like to note that its archetype Exemplar of War is a major downgrade (since it doesn't get spellcasting) and should be considered *Tier 5*.

----------


## thompur

Hunter is the only one of the three I have played. Definitely tier 3.
As a note, as much as I dislike "dipping", the Feral Hunter Archetype is a great candidate.
You get the Animal Focus ability to use on yourself (unlimited), a few cantrips, and a couple of spells.
Unless your character is a serious X-mas tree, you'll get a lot of useful buff possibilities from it.

----------


## Thunder999

The Druid spell list isn't great at higher levels (not terrible, but there's not much a cleric doesn't do better at 7-9), but the 1-6 that the Hunter gets is the good bit, it's where you're using Wall of Thorns, Entangle (and the many variants thereof), all the good buffs for you animal companion.

----------


## Rynjin

> The Druid spell list isn't great at higher levels (not terrible, but there's not much a cleric doesn't do better at 7-9), but the 1-6 that the Hunter gets is the good bit, it's where you're using Wall of Thorns, Entangle (and the many variants thereof), all the good buffs for you animal companion.


There are quite a few great high level Druid spells. One of the big things Druids are great at is being long lasting annoyances. A combination of Wall of Thorns and Sirocco nearly TPK'd one of my parties, as an example. Sunbeam is a dope spell. Fairy Ring Retreat is a slightly better Mage's Magnificent Mansion equivalent. Repel Metal is solid (though admittedly level 8 IS pretty lackluster for the most part), and several of the 9s are very good.

But really even if the 7-9 lists aren't stellar, all that means is Druid is one of the best classes at using Heighten Spell!

----------

