# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 >  Tiering the Pathfinder Classes - Sorcerer

## 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 for reference). 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). 

The current, work in progress thread for the Pathfinder version of this thread is here (link for reference). The latter thread also has links to previous tiering threads, for those who missed them when they were posted. Contributions for older threads are still welcome. 

This thread, well be tiering *Sorcerer*. Due to similarities between Sorcerer and other classes previously tiered, weve had speculation about the Sorcerers tier and I thought Id repost some of it here to help with discussion:




> PF's sorcerer is a fair amount stronger than 3E's, we'll have to see if it's tier 1 or 1.5 or high-2 or something.





> Honestly, if you asked me for where I think they belong in terms of tiering, Wizard is top of T1, Arcanist is mid-high T1, and Sorcerer is low T1.





> Sorcerer is T2, and they don't slip down to T3 just because Arcanist came into existence.


So where does Sorcerer end up in the Pathfinder tier list? Is it somewhere in Tier 2, or is the various upgrades it received in Pathfinder enough to boost it somewhere to Tier 1? I guess a discussion thread is the best way to find out.

*Current Votes*

Sorcerer
Gnaeus, Darvin  Tier 1
QuadraticGish  1.4
Zlefi, Battleship789  1.7
Thunder999, Maat Mons, Avatar Vecna  1.8
Kurald Galain, Rynjin  2

Average  1.62

Razmiran Priest

Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Darvin  1
QuadraticGish  1.4
Maat Mons, Battleship789  1.6
Zlefin  1.7
Thunder999  1.8
Kurald Galain, Rynjin  2

Average  1.51



*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 vanilla Magus. 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, Paladin 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.

----------


## pabelfly

I really should compile a "Ways to Expand a Spell List" thread for Pathfinder. As far as I'm aware none exists and I find the 3.5 version of the thread an incredibly useful resource. I'm sure the Pathfinder version would be appreciated too, especially when we're doing a tiering thread where spell access is part of how high the class will be tiered.

----------


## Maat Mons

To no ones surprise, Ill nominate Razmiran Priest for independent ranking from the base class.  I dont think any of the other archetypes warrant separate discussion.

----------


## Kurald Galain

Let's start with Tier 2, as sorcerers are pretty much the textbook definition of Tier 2. There are several arguments why a sorcerer might rank higher; let's see what we can do to analyse these.

PF sorcerers get one extra spell known at each spell level from their bloodline; some of these are even from other lists. However, it is fairly rare that a bloodline has a lot of good spells; often, it has several spells you wouldn't take normally. Then, the Page of Spell Knowledge is an item that costs (spell level squared) * 1000 gp, and gives an extra spell known; but I'm fairly sure this item also exists in 3E. Finally, a human (or half-human) sorcerer can learn an extra spell per class level from his favored class bonus, but not from their highest level (so the first three levels this is only a cantrip). Still, that's 50% more spells than he normally gets.
All of that is pretty cool, but does it change tiers? I'd say it does not, because the difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is qualitative, rather than quantitative; a sorcerer with almost twice the amount of spells still is limited in versatility in pretty much the same way.

Paragon Surge is a spell (for half-elves only) that temporarily gives you a feat, and there's a feat that gives you an extra spell known. So effectively this spell lets you cast any spell from your list, which _is_ a massive boost in versatility... except that it got errata'ed, and multiple castings of PS during the same day must give you the same spell each time (and due to the short duration on PS, the Emergency Attunement feat doesn't really help).
It's basically "once per day, cast any spell from your list, within level limits, and taking two rounds to do so". Wizard's spell sage archetype also gets that ability, and so does the Skald class (a variant bard); and those two can cast spells from outside their list, which Paragon Surge can't do. This trick doesn't boost Wizard and Skald up a tier, and neither does carrying a good amount of scrolls in your Handy Haversack; so it stands to reason that PS also doesn't improve the sorcerer's tier.

And finally, the Razmiran Priest. For those unfamiliar with Golarion lore, Razmir is a high-level wizard who claims to be a god, and so his followers are arcane casters who claim to be clerics. He took over a small country with arcane might, and in this country, you _will_ believe he's a god, on pain of _disintegration_.
Anyway, at fairly high level, this "priest" gets the ability to activate divine scrolls by burning a spell slot (of one level higher), leaving the scroll intact. This is an amazing ability... but it's much better on paper than in practice.
There are a few concerns, in that you have to spend actions drawing and storing these scrolls, it gets a 5% chance of "fail and come back tomorrow", and that scrolls by default come at minimum DC and CL. But the underlying issue here is: _what spells would you ACTUALLY use it with?_
And since the sorcerer starts with the best spell list in the game (by a pretty big margin), it turns out there's not a whole lot of those. E.g. what 5th-level cleric spell would you want to spend a 6th-level sorcerer slot on? We had a recent discussion about this on the Paizo forums, and really the best thing people could come up with is healing and raise dead. So in the event that you have a party without a divine caster (or bard), and you don't use cheap CLW wands for out-of-combat healing, then you have... a sorcerer who can heal. That's nice and all, but hardly earthshaking.

I'm sure this will produce a fair amount of discussion, but for now I stand by *Tier 2*, with the note that the sorcerer is _the_ strongest tier 2 class in the game (just as how the wizard is the strongest tier 1 class). But I find that all these tricks still don't stand up against changing your spell layout each day and leaving slot(s) open for immediate filling-in as needed. $.02

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I really should compile a "Ways to Expand a Spell List" thread for Pathfinder. As far as I'm aware none exists


My Magus guide (in my sig) contains this list, at least for the options that apply to a Magus.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> Finally, a human (or half-human) sorcerer can learn an extra spell per class level from his favored class bonus, but not from their highest level (so the first three levels this is only a cantrip). Still, that's 50% more spells than he normally gets.
> All of that is pretty cool, but does it change tiers? I'd say it does not, because the difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is qualitative, rather than quantitative; a sorcerer with twice the amount of spells still is limited in versatility in pretty much the same way.


I wanna delve into this point in particular for discussing generic sorcerer vs wizard in both 3.5 and PF. Suppose we gave points based on the level of a spell slot or spell known, ignoring 0th lvl. I'll even assume that FCB for the PF classes - not the bloodline though since those spell's are variably useful.

Class
Spell Slots
(Slots/Slot Worth)
Short Term Access
(Spells/Spell Worth)
Long Term Access
(Spells/Spell Worth)

3.5 Sorcerer 10
26/71
15/35
15/35

3.5 Wizard 10
16/43
16/43
24/64+






PF Sorcerer 10
26/71
22/51
22/51

PF Wizard 10
16/43
16/43
32/84+

PF Arcanist 10
18/50
15/35
31/80+


From this perspective, it's easier to see this issue, especially in PF. Sorcerer has more slots per day and instant-access spells than wizard or arcanist does. But the sorcerer's short term access and long term access are identical, while the wizard and arcanist can gain more long-term spells far more easily. Tons of spells are too circumstantial to waste a precious spell known on, so the sorcerer is limited to general use stuff that isn't so niche or combo-dependent, while the wizard and arcanist have the flexibility to grab the general purpose stuff, and the niche/combo stuff, and use whatever is most fitting for today. They can even use mechanics to access the niche stuff when necessary, and can access more than one per day!

Wizard and Arcanist pay [spell level] x [caster level] x [25] gp for a new long term spell option. Sorcerer pays [spell level] x [spell level] x [1000] gp for the same, although they at least get to add it to short-term as well. Sorcerer should technically have a + in their "long term access" column as well, but it's so much worse than wizard/arcanist that it feels disingenuous to include. Yeah if you gave all three arbitrary money they could have all spells, and sorcerer would be better. But that's not gonna happen.

If you gave each of them 55000 gold to spend on more spells, Sorcerer 10 could gain 1/1/1/1/1 new spells known per level. The wizard and arcanist, meanwhile, could gain 69/68/67/67/66 new spells in their spellbooks. The sorcerer got 5 new tricks. The wizard and arcanist each got 337 new tricks. Sure, the sorcerer can use their new 10 tricks every day if they want, while the others have to pick and choose. But when we're talking about "number of tricks available to a person"...it's not a contest. The wizard can't solve your problem...today. But he'll have the solution tomorrow. Worst-case scenario, he has to go to town and spend 375 gold on the perfect spell for solving this problem, while the sorcerer would have to spend 66 times as much to gain that new trick...and both of them have the new trick forever.

T2. Definitionally T2.

EDIT: There is a theoretical space where spells known have crept so high that sorcerer has access to basically any spell they want, constantly. This would probably cost at least a few million gold in that New Spell Known item, though, so it's not relevant to a general tier discussion. That there is a theoretical deep-epic PF sorcerer who is T2 despite outperforming wizard on every metric with no chance for catching up does not matter, because unless a low-level sorcerer gets a multi-million inheritance for no reason, that outcome is purely theoretical.

EDIT: It also doesn't help that the thing wizards need for a new trick (an arcane spell scroll) is literally the most common magic item in the game, in addition to being cheaper than the sorcerer option.

EDIT: Edited numbers to assume copying someone's spellbook instead of from a scroll. If it's copying from a scroll, wizard/arcanist get about 16 times as many new tricks as sorcerer does, and sorcerer is spending about 18 times as much per trick as wizard/arcanist do.

----------


## Maat Mons

Those are some good points.  I had been thinking that Razmiran Priest would be maybe a +0.5 Tier boost, but now Im reconsidering that.  The number of spells where you dont care about save DC, duration, or casting time is limited.  And compared to the baseline 60 non-cantrip spells a (demi-)human Sorcerer 20 gets, the extra versatility from scrolls might just not be a big enough boost to warrant a separate listing.  

I had been planning to rate Sorcerer Tier 2.0, since its kind of the _iconic_ Tier 2.  But if I dont give Sorcerer an above-average Tier 2 ranking, what _does_ get one?  I was going to give it to Razmiran Priest originally, but now instead of Razmiran Priest 1.5, Sorcerer 2.0, Im leaning more towards Razmiran Priest 1.6, Sorcerer 1.8.  Or maybe just Sorcerer 1.6.  Hmm.  

Nitpick: The cost a Wizard or Arcanist pays to gain a new spell may be much lower that the cost of buying a scroll.  The suggested price for permission to copy from the spellbook of a friendly Wizard is spell level squared * 5 gp.  Then theres the actual scribing costs of spell level squared * 10 gp unless you have a Blessed Book.  But in any case, way cheaper than a scroll, if the option is available.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> Those are some good points.  I had been thinking that Razmiran Priest would be maybe a +0.5 Tier boost, but now Im reconsidering that.  The number of spells where you dont care about save DC, duration, or casting time is limited.  And compared to the baseline 60 non-cantrip spells a (demi-)human Sorcerer 20 gets, the extra versatility from scrolls might just not be a big enough boost to warrant a separate listing.  
> 
> I had been planning to rate Sorcerer Tier 2.0, since its kind of the _iconic_ Tier 2.  But if I dont give Sorcerer an above-average Tier 2 ranking, what _does_ get one?  I was going to give it to Razmiran Priest originally, but now instead of Razmiran Priest 1.5, Sorcerer 2.0, Im leaning more towards Razmiran Priest 1.6, Sorcerer 1.8.  Or maybe just Sorcerer 1.6.  Hmm.  
> 
> Nitpick: The cost a Wizard or Arcanist pays to gain a new spell may be much lower that the cost of buying a scroll.  The suggested price for permission to copy from the spellbook of a friendly Wizard is spell level squared * 5 gp.  Then theres the actual scribing costs of spell level squared * 10 gp unless you have a Blessed Book.  But in any case, way cheaper than a scroll, if the option is available.


I might be misremembering 5e stuff for my calc. I'm gonna go check the SRD to be absolutely sure.

EDIT: Wooooow that's cheap okay.

----------


## AvatarVecna

The sor/wiz spell list has this many spells for each level: 30/179/279/234/201/169/126/107/67/58. The old guideline is "90% of everything is crap", but we wanna take some of the niche crap, so let's take 1/5th of those. That makes 6/34/54/46/40/32/24/20/12/10 spells worth taking.

Sorcerer 20 with human FCB and a super-lucky bloodline (or a custom bloodline where they pick all the spells) will have 12/8/8/7/7/7/6/6/7/4. Reaching the "best 20%" level requires 3,854,000 gp spent on Pages Of Spell Knowledge. Reaching 100% requires 27,935,000 gp...well, as long as you can accept not having 18 of the cantrips, because they don't make spell pages for 0th lvl spells.

Wizard 20 with nothing else boosting spellbook size is looking at 30/8/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/8. Reaching the "best 20%" level requires 60,870 gp. Reaching 100% requires 422,085 gp.

EDIT: Razmiran Priest changes the sorcerer numbers to 172,900 gp for 20% and 1,262,650 gp for 100%, and you can buy 0th lvl scrolls so true 100% is actually possible now. There's a 5% chance of spending a spell slot and accomplishing nothing because of how the UMD rules work, but still that's a serious upgrade to versatility, especially since you can find random scrolls everywhere while Pages Of Spell Knowledge are much more rare.

Since it can increase versatility for 1/22nd the normal price starting at lvl 5 using the most common item in the game, I'm willing to say that this archetype is definitely a significant upgrade. I'm not sure if it takes Sorcerer all the way to a low T1 but it's close, at least partly because sorcerer is a really good T2 already (mostly just because of list access).

----------


## Drelua

> ...But when we're talking about "number of tricks available to a person"...it's not a contest. The wizard can't solve your problem...today. But he'll have the solution tomorrow. Worst-case scenario, he has to go to town and spend 375 gold on the perfect spell for solving this problem, while the sorcerer would have to spend 66 times as much to gain that new trick...and both of them have the new trick forever...


Very good points, you've convinced me that sorcerers haven't gone up a tier. I just feel like it's worth mentioning, and this just adds to your point, that it may not even be tomorrow. If a wizard leaves a few spell slots open they just need 15 minutes to prepare anything in their spellbook. It won't help you in a fight, but if you get cursed or something that they can remove, or you're preparing for a fight you just learned is about to happen, I've seen it make a difference.

I haven't been voting because I haven't really played in a high-optimization environment and don't think about tiers too often, so I wasn't really confident in where exactly to place the other classes being discussed. Also I'm an extremely indecisive person. But I'm convinced Sorcerers aren't significantly more versatile than they were in 3.5, at least not enough to bring them anywhere near to a prepared caster.

So, I'll agree with putting them in the very top of tier 2, so 1.6.

----------


## Thunder999

I really can't see anything but tier 2, though fairly high tier 2, assuming we're defining 1.6-2.5 as tier 2 I'd probably say 1.8 or so for base sorcerer (it's definitely not tier 1, but it's also definitely the top of tier 2 for me).  

Razmiran Priest and Paragon Surge with Emergency Attunement (1 minute/level is more than adequate for this, you'll probably cast the new spell within a round or two) are both big boosts to the one thing sorcerer lacks.  

Notably Paragon Surge is actually a better version of Quick Study in many ways, it'll pull the perfect spell out of nowhere without you having to learn it in advance.  
Ignoring Material Components (perhaps closer to treating them as Foci really) is a big point for Razmiran Priest, though the real distinction between tier 1 and 2 is versatility more than power, so that problably doesn't do much for us.  

EDIT: Razmiran Priest is expensive (particularly when you remember the wizard is pasying a mere 15 x spell level^2 to copy spells from other wizards in town, and you can find up to 8th level spells for sale easily), but I still think they're probably enough since the limited spells known (or rather how hard it is to change them) is the only thing keeping sorcerer out of tier 1

If adding the best bits of the cleric list to your character isn't enough to change the sorcerer's rating I'm not sure we should have put cleric in tier 1.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> I really can't see anything but tier 2, though fairly high tier 2, assuming we're defining 1.6-2.5 as tier 2 I'd probably say 1.8 or so for base sorcerer (it's definitely not tier 1, but it's also definitely the top of tier 2 for me).  
> 
> Razmiran Priest and Paragon Surge with Emergency Attunement (1 minute/level is more than adequate for this, you'll probably cast the new spell within a round or two) are both big boosts to the one thing sorcerer lacks.  
> 
> Notably Paragon Surge is actually a better version of Quick Study in many ways, it'll pull the perfect spell out of nowhere without you having to learn it in advance.  
> Ignoring Material Components (perhaps closer to treating them as Foci really) is a big point for Razmiran Priest, though the real distinction between tier 1 and 2 is versatility more than power, so that problably doesn't do much for us.  
> 
> EDIT: Razmiran Priest is expensive (particularly when you remember the wizard is pasying a mere 15 x spell level^2 to copy spells from other wizards in town, and you can find up to 8th level spells for sale easily), but I still think they're probably enough since the limited spells known (or rather how hard it is to change them) is the only thing keeping sorcerer out of tier 1
> 
> If adding the best bits of the cleric list to your character isn't enough to change the sorcerer's rating I'm not sure we should have put cleric in tier 1.


For 5th lvl spells, Wizard pays 375, Sorcerer pays 25000, and R Priest pays 1125. R Priest is still definitely worse than wizard, but now it's just paying 300% instead of 6500%. Yeah it's kinda expensive but it's such an improvement over sorcerer that I think it's low T1, especially since I think sorcerer is high T2.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Razmiran Priest and Paragon Surge with Emergency Attunement (1 minute/level is more than adequate for this, you'll probably cast the new spell within a round or two)


Paragon Surge is adequate for this, albeit once per day. Emergency Attunement doesn't really add anything here.




> If adding the best bits of the cleric list to your character isn't enough to change the sorcerer's rating I'm not sure we should have put cleric in tier 1.


Well, it's the best bits _except_ you cast them at minimum CL and DC, and you have to spend move actions to draw/stow the scroll, and you pay a slot _one level higher_. There surely are 5th level cleric spells that can compete with 5th level wizard spells, but there aren't many that can compete with _6th level_ wizard spells.




> For 5th lvl spells, Wizard pays 375, Sorcerer pays 25000, and R Priest pays 1125.


He pays 1125 but gets a way lower CL/DC than the other two, and has to use 6th level slots on them.

----------


## Drelua

> If adding the best bits of the cleric list to your character isn't enough to change the sorcerer's rating I'm not sure we should have put cleric in tier 1.


I believe the reason for that is that you're using a higher level spell slot, so delayed by 2 character levels, to cast a cleric spell at minimum CL and DC. If they had an ability similar to the scrollmaster, thewizard archetype that hits people with scrolls, where they could use their own CL and stat to determine the DC, it would be a much stronger ability. Being able to resurrect people is nice if no one else in the party can, and not expending the very expensive scroll can save you a lot of money, but in combat it doesn't seem that good to me. There's just not that many spells outside of healing that are worth a higher level spell slot to cast the weakest possible version of them, if you make the UMD check. Regular sorcerers can already UMD scrolls, this just makes it so they don't get used up.

Although if it works with a staff that might be better, but staves are expensive.

Edit: double ninja'd, by 2 people that know what they're talking about much better than I

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I wanna delve into this point in particular for discussing generic sorcerer vs wizard in both 3.5 and PF. Suppose we gave points based on the level of a spell slot or spell known, ignoring 0th lvl.


Literally every PF wizard I've seen is a specialist, meaning that 16/43 becomes 21/58, and the Thassilonian archetype ups that to 26/73.

----------


## pabelfly

> My Magus guide (in my sig) contains this list, at least for the options that apply to a Magus.


Oh, cool. Two questions:

How much of the ways to gain spells for a Magus applies to Sorcerer?
How easy is it for a Sorcerer to expand their spells known and how much does it cost?

----------


## pabelfly

*Current Votes*

*Sorcerer
*Gnaeus, Darvin  Tier 1
Thunder999, Maat Mons, Avatar Vecna  1.8
Kurald Galain  2

Average  1.56

*Razmiran Priest
*
Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Darvin  1
Maat Mons  1.6
Thunder999  1.8
Kurald Galain  2

Average  1.4

----------


## Gnaeus

> Let's start with Tier 2, as sorcerers are pretty much the textbook definition of Tier 2. There are several arguments why a sorcerer might rank higher; let's see what we can do to analyse these.
> 
> PF sorcerers get one extra spell known at each spell level from their bloodline; some of these are even from other lists. However, it is fairly rare that a bloodline has a lot of good spells; often, it has several spells you wouldn't take normally. Then, the Page of Spell Knowledge is an item that costs (spell level squared) * 1000 gp, and gives an extra spell known; but I'm fairly sure this item also exists in 3E. Finally, a human (or half-human) sorcerer can learn an extra spell per class level from his favored class bonus, but not from their highest level (so the first three levels this is only a cantrip). Still, that's 50% more spells than he normally gets.
> All of that is pretty cool, but does it change tiers? I'd say it does not, because the difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is qualitative, rather than quantitative; a sorcerer with almost twice the amount of spells still is limited in versatility in pretty much the same way.


Some counter arguments.

1. Important things were missed here. The 2 that spring to mind are bonus feats, which the sorcerer now gets and didn't before, and Item Crafting, which can now be done with a spellcraft check for most items. The functional difference between wizard and sorcerer for crafting used to be huge. Now its effectively the difference between their spellcraft checks, and the sorcerer can usually do well enough.

2. You don't have to optimize very well to get bloodlines with very good spell selection. The default sorcerer, arcane, has 7 very good spells and 0 bad ones. Even in cases where those spells may not be optimal, they are very often good enough to serve their function. So in the case of a Celestial Bloodline sorcerer, for example, I'm not thrilled with Flame Strike. Its mostly an overleveled fireball. But it is still good enough that I can plan around it (like by taking non fire attack spells and pulling it out if I fight frost giants). 

3. The point of the tier system is not to stick to academic definitions. The tier one definition was written at a point when wizard was simply BETTER than sorcerer. I no longer think thats true. Because the vast majority of the time, the wizards spells are going to be the same daily, with only a few spells traded out. In most fights, the difference between the BEST spell and simply a VERY GOOD spell is trivial. I don't actually think that wizards HAVE a versatility advantage in pathfinder. The wizard is only able to leverage their strength in a situation in which they have good foreknowledge of the situation, which I have not found to be the case in the majority of environments. And even if you are in that optimum environment, like you know that you will be storming an evil crypt or a frost giant lair, you still have to pack those same generalist spells because there could be a demon or a golem among the undead. Or maybe the Frost giant shaman cast fire resistance and you don't want to use your fire spells. The sorcerer, with 7 top spells per level, has more options than the wizard has spells known. Except its more than that, because the sorcerer also has all of his lower level spells + metamagic. Except its more than that, because the sorcerer has all those options for every fight in the day, and the wizard is losing options in every fight as he expends spells. I think at 7 spells known per level, the difference between prepared and spontaneous casting isn't just negligible, it leans strongly in the direction of the spontaneous caster. 

The wizard does still retain one meaningful advantage. They have faster spell progression. Thats all. Nothing else. 

Tier 1

Edit:One other thing. A lot of your common combinations are going to be set by your build or party and are very rarely going to change. If your rogue or meatshield are depending on you for particular buffs, or you have focused on certain types of spells, you are going to slot those every day as a wizard. I don't actually care much how many good polymorph line spells you have. I'm going to pick the one that gives  me the best generic advantage and cast it before I open a door and see whats behind it. And the marginal difference between a slightly more situationaly optimized spell and the one I use every day at every door is less than the advantage of just casting it again if my timer runs out or it gets dispelled. Compare the days when you don't think having a D Door is worthwhile to the days when you might suddenly and unexpectedly need more than one.

----------


## pabelfly

> Tier 1


That's a pretty interesting counter-argument, and one I like, since I never could manage all the spells well for a prepared caster. Maybe that's just my bias for spontaneous casters speaking though.

Added your vote.

----------


## AvatarVecna

Clarifying that my votes are

Sorcerer T1.8
R Priest T1

----------


## pabelfly

> Clarifying that my votes are
> 
> Sorcerer T1.8
> R Priest T1


Okay, fixed.

----------


## Darvin

Okay, so these are the ways I'm aware of for a Sorcerer to diversify their spell availability _without_ using consumables. I would note that I don't consider owning a collection of scrolls to be a significant problem. All Wizards, Arcanists, and Sorcerers are going to want to carry around a lot of scrolls because they are very useful in their own right. If an item or feat requires you to own a scroll, but doesn't actually consume it, then I don't think that's a significant detriment:

*Excellent*
These are options that are really easy to obtain and offer a lot of flexibility. Every Sorcerer should at least consider these, if they aren't already getting them just as a matter of course:

*Bloodline Spells:* (+1 spell known per spell level) just built-in to the default unarchetyped Sorcerer. While you'd think this would be obvious, there is one important insight I have to add here: you can retrain these. No joke, the RAW retraining rules allow you to retrain bloodline spells into something else. If you've got the downtime to spend, this is essentially a free spell pick. Or you could just pick the Arcane bloodline, which gets nothing but great spells.

*Human Favored Class Bonus:* (+2 spells known from 1st-7th, +3 at 8th) Human Sorcerers have a favored class bonus that allows them to learn 1 extra spell that is 1 level below the maximum they can cast. It should be noted that racial prerequisites in Pathfinder can be satisfied by _sub-types_, which means any race with the human subtype can qualify for this bonus. This includes half-elves, half-orcs, and many races (most notably tiefling and aasimar) have alternative racial abilities that let them count as human. Typically a Sorcerer will just take hit points or skill points from 1st-3rd since more cantrips known really isn't helpful; Sorcerers already get enough cantrips known to know all the cantrips that matter. 

*Ring of Spell Knowledge*: This ring can "learn" one spell at a time, and allows you to cast that spell as if you know it yourself. This spell doesn't even need to be on your class list, although in that case it's treated as one level higher. However, the real power is what's involved in changing the spell the ring "knows": a DC 20 spellcraft check and owning the spell in scroll form. There is no daily limit on this, you can hot swap as often as you want. This is functionally Quick Study for Sorcerers up to 4th level spells, except a DC 20 spellcraft check instead of spending daily resources. 

*Mnemonic Vestments:* (once per day, cast any spell you own in scroll form). this is a relatively inexpensive body slot item, at 5k gp. Once per day, it allows you to use any scroll you own that contains a spell that's on your spell list and cast it as if you knew the spell. While this isn't as good as the Ring of Spell Knowledge, it is significantly cheaper and not limited to 4th level spells and there's no action economy overhead (free action activation, just go ahead and cast the spell). The bigger problem is that it faces stiff competition for the body equipment slot, as many Sorcerers are going to want Robes of Arcane Heritage.

*Arcane Bloodline New Arcana* (+1 at 4th, 6th, and 8th): at 9th, 13th, and 17th level the Arcane Bloodline grants you one additional spell known at a level you can cast. While not every Sorcerer will pick the Arcane Bloodline, it's a _really_ easy selection. It's a great default; if no other bloodline fits you build, this one is guaranteed to be useful. 

While typically the spells known are 4th, 6th, and 8th, if you are taking 3 levels of a prestige class that gives full casting progression then your spellcasting progression will get ahead of your bloodline progression, so you will have access to higher-level spells when you get this feature. This can potentially allow you to pick up spells at 6th, 8th, and 9th level with this feature. 

*Great*
These are options that are particularly potent, but may not be as easily accessible as the ones detailed earlier, or come with heftier costs.

*Razmiran Priest*: it's an archetype so it's not free, and as Kurald Galain mentions the spells cast from the scrolls don't use your caster level or DC. However, this still is letting you cast off of any divine spell list you like and ignore material costs. What pushes this archetype into broken territory is less the spell list access (which is _very good_, don't get me wrong) but more the ability to bypass material component costs.

*Paragon Surge*: cast a spell to gain add the Expanded Arcana feat, gaining additional spells known or two for a few minutes. While the errata does limit you to sticking with the same spell  on subsequent castings, that's still a spontaneous access to any spell on your class list which is very good. The only thing holding this back is that it's restricted to half-elves, which are fortunately a very sold Sorcerer race to begin with.

*Page of Spell Knowledge*: +1 spell known at any spell level... at a notoriously high price. It's important to note that the normal rules that you can bypass item creation prerequisites by adding +5 to the crafting DC still apply here, so you can craft your own Pages of Spell Knowledge just fine. Overall, I think the low-level pages are great investments, but the costs rise rapidly and at high spell levels it's not really tenable. Definitely something every Sorcerer should make use of, but perhaps not prodigiously.

*Expanded Arcana Feat*: (+2 or +1 spell known) pretty straightforward feat, you get either 1 spell known at the highest level you can cast, or 2 spells known at a lower level. Overall a little on the pricey side, but what puts it into the "great" category is when combined with the retraining rules. It's _much, much_ faster to retrain a feat than to retrain a spell known, and this allows you to relatively quickly retrain two spells by retraining Expanded Arcana into Expanded Arcana.

*Staves*: while a bit pricey, staves are a great option for expanding your list of available spells and are quite solid in Pathfinder. 

*Not-So-Great*
These options really aren't that impressive, but they do work

*Versatile Spontaneity Feat*: allows you to prepare a spell you don't know from scroll or spellbook, but you can only prepare it at start of day when you regain slots, it's at a 1-level penalty, you can only cast the spell once, and if you prepare from a scroll it consumes the scroll. Overall this just isn't a great use of a feat.

*Prestige Classes*: there are several full-casting prestige classes that give additional spells known. However, you're losing both the human favored class bonus plus bloodline spells by doing this so most Sorcerers will end up coming out behind in terms of spells known when going the PrC route. 

==========

*My thoughts:* where the 3.5 Sorcerer is practically the definition of a Tier 2 class, the Pathfinder Sorcerer is another matter entirely. At very worst, it's blurring the very boundary between Tier 1 and Tier 2. As Gnaeus pointed out before I could even write this, the Sorcerer's natural list of spells known is so expansive that (unlike its 3.5 counterpart) it actually gets to benefit from its spontaneity. It has enough options that it's almost always going to have a _good_ spell choice for any situation, as my list above details it has plenty of options to supplement its list of spells known and get more versatility on top of that. It doesn't have unfettered access to its spell list that a Wizard or Arcanist do, but it has enough access to keep up with them just fine in most situations and even outperform them in many practical circumstances.

I'm for Sorcerer Tier 1




> There are a few concerns, in that you have to spend actions drawing and storing these scrolls, it gets a 5% chance of "fail and come back tomorrow"


This is untrue, this only happens if you roll a natural 1 _and_ it causes you to fail the check. Natural 1 skill checks do not automatically fail, so if your UMD score is high enough to pass anyways then there is no 5% risk here. And Razmiran Priest should definitely be in auto-success territory by the time they get this feature.

----------


## pabelfly

Votes are at a pretty interesting stage right now:

*Current Votes*

*Sorcerer
*Gnaeus, Darvin  Tier 1
Thunder999, Maat Mons, Avatar Vecna  1.8
Kurald Galain, Rynjin  2

Average  1.62

*Razmiran Priest*
Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Darvin  1
Thunder999  1.5
Maat Mons  1.6
Kurald Galain  2

Average  1.44

----------


## AvatarVecna

Also I've not looked, but I'm gonna go ahead and assume there's no archetype that even comes close to taking sorcerer down a tier. The line between T1 and T2 can be pretty blurry, but the line between T2 and T3 is a pretty solid wall labeled "9ths only past this point", especially in PF where some of the "9ths, but with such a neutered list it only does one thing" classes gone (Warmage and Healer).

----------


## Thunder999

I'd like to put Razmiran Priest at 1.5 (that's the bottom of tier 1 right?)

----------


## pabelfly

> I'd like to put Razmiran Priest at 1.5 (that's the bottom of tier 1 right?)


Close enough. Changed your vote.

----------


## Darvin

> Also I've not looked, but I'm gonna go ahead and assume there's no archetype that even comes close to taking sorcerer down a tier. The line between T1 and T2 can be pretty blurry, but the line between T2 and T3 is a pretty solid wall labeled "9ths only past this point", especially in PF where some of the "9ths, but with such a neutered list it only does one thing" classes gone (Warmage and Healer).


Crossblooded is _maybe_ worth half a tier drop. Losing one spell at every spell level can _really_ hurt your options, especially at your highest spell level where there are very few options to get a spell back to compensate for that. Losing your highest level spell known is particularly painful when it's your _only one_.

There is actually one (technically two?) 6-level caster in Pathfinder that is a candidate for T2, and that's the Summoner. Both Chained and Unchained. Even the nerfed unchained version has an incredibly good 6-level list, gets Summon Monster and later Gate as a SLA, has an incredibly powerful and customizable companion in the eidolon, and needs very little in terms of feats or ability scores so you can do pretty much whatever you want with the rest of your build.

----------


## Rynjin

Pretty much the definition of Tier 2. The tippy top of Tier 2, even. Sorcerers are amazing, but they do lack that inherent flexibility that Wizards get, and more to the point ARCANISTS get without even the dubious drawbacks that Gnaeus mentioned Wizards have.

Sorcerers are excellent at a great many things, but they essentially have to specialize in one thing and then be adequate at a few others which is, again, close to the exact definition of T2.

Absolutely, Sorcs have advantages over Wizards in Pathfinder. Some Bloodline abilities (particular Arcana) are bonkers powerful for certain builds, and you get the added benefit of being "big strong for big long", not needing to ration resources as well as a Wizard. I overall consider them MUCH more fun to play than Wizards.

But, at the end of the day, Tiering is PRIMARILY a measure of flexibility and "ability to solve problems", which Spontaneous casters are in general less capable of doing than Prepared casters.

The mention of "builds" is particularly telling for Sorcerer, because in general you don't need to "build" a Wizard. You can literally change your entire focus from day to day, and even choosing to be a Specialist doesn't appreciably limit that flexibility.

But a Sorcerer does have to be, to an extent, purpose-built. Because they cannot as casually gain access to new spells. They can afford to spec out of their main focus (especially if that focus is blasting, where you only need like one spell of a given spell level, if that, to optimize) but if they end up not picking the right spell for the job, they simply do not have that spell.

Even Paragon Surge doesn't change this, given that it is also build-specific.

I also agree with Kurald Galain that Razmiran Priest is way overvalued by some people in this thread. In the grand scheme of things all the archetype does is save you a bit of gold over the course of a campaign. You're not going to need to use the ability much because as others have stated, things like Raise Dead are going to be the big deal here...and even then Raise Dead is quickly eclipsed in usefulness by Resurrection; and both are likely to be of rare use.

You're better off just speccing into UMD alone and just eating the gold cost.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> *Razman Priest*


That's "Razmiran" priest. Be careful, Razmir is just as likely as Xykon to blow up people who misspell his name  :Small Amused: 




> What pushes this archetype into broken territory is less the spell list access (which is _very good_, don't get me wrong) but more the ability to bypass material component costs.


That's an interesting point... but can you give examples of divine spells with major material costs, other than healing/Restoration/Raise Dead (because we've already covered "sorcerer who can heal")? Otherwise this is another ability that's much better on paper than in practice.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> The functional difference between wizard and sorcerer for crafting used to be huge.


I've been on this forum for a very long time, and I don't recall _crafting_ as ever coming up in a tier discussion to explain why wizards are tier 1.




> You don't have to optimize very well to get bloodlines with very good spell selection.


No, but if you want a bloodline for its _powers or arcana_ (which are their main attraction, after all) you're likely to end up with some poor spells - e.g. if you take Fey bloodline for its DC bonus, you get such "gems" as Deep Slumber, Poison, and Tree Stride.




> the vast majority of the time, the wizards spells are going to be the same daily, with only a few spells traded out. In most fights, the difference between the BEST spell and simply a VERY GOOD spell is trivial.


This is true in a campaign that's combat-focused and rather linear. And to be fair, such campaigns are quite common, but you're going to get very different outcomes in a more sandboxy / open world campaign, and those are the places where a prepared caster really shines.

Aside from that, it's clear that sorcerer is _easier to play_ than wizard, and that many wizard players just don't tailor their spell selection much. But that's a matter of player skill, not class tier.

----------


## Gnaeus

> I've been on this forum for a very long time, and I don't recall _crafting_ as ever coming up in a tier discussion to explain why wizards are tier 1.


Maybe you haven't, but it has always been part of the tier system from the beginning. Tiers do not and have never assumed full WBL spent as you desire. Classes that need specific gear have always been tiered lower, ESPECIALLY if they can't craft it themselves. If you can't cast false life but you can make a +4 con item, you have solved that problem. It's more of an issue in the lower tiers, but even at top tiersif it lets you cover a weakness or solve a problem you otherwise couldn't, it's a factor.

The point of tiers is they are applicable across the range of likely campaigns. Sandbox and linear. X2 WBL magic mart and 1/2 WBL random drop.

Re bloodlines. If a bloodline has such important abilities that it overcomes bad spell selection, it is either a low op mistake (I mean your wizard could ban conjunction and transmutation if he never played before) or the powers (we didn't actually mention bloodline powers as better than specialization powers but they commonly are) are actually good enough to make that worthwhile. I'm reasonably willing to say that some may be bad enough to fall into that (lowers the tier but by less than 1/2 tier archetype) category. It's not like wizard doesn't have those kinds of choices, or that you need to pick like one specific obscure archetype to be good. The most common and obvious ones are mostly pretty good.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Tiers do not and have never assumed full WBL spent as you desire.


That's a _big_ strike against the Razmiran Priest, then, as it relies on the assumption that you can buy any and all scrolls that you want.

----------


## Gnaeus

> That's a _big_ strike against the Razmiran Priest, then, as it relies on the assumption that you can buy any and all scrolls that you want.


Agreed. I don't think it is singularly good. (Or singularly bad). I do think that access to healing spells are beneficial, but I can get all I want with summon good monster or just plain old umd on a cha focused class.

Although if a class can use items better than anyone else, that doesn't mean that isn't a point in their favor. I wouldn't necessarily assume for tiering that razmirian priest can't get any priest scrolls, any more than I would assume a fighter can't find a magic weapon. I would assume that there isn't a guarantee that they can always find the exact ones they want. It's not a bad ability.

----------


## zlefin

I'm going to lean towards giving sorcerers a 1.7 based on the arguments I've seen here.  It does seem like some of the shifts from 3.5 shorten the distance between wizards and sorcerers.  though it does make me wonder whether sorcerers are truly further from the tier 3's than in 3.5, and to figure out how I'd measure that.

----------


## pabelfly

> I'm going to lean towards giving sorcerers a 1.7 based on the arguments I've seen here.  It does seem like some of the shifts from 3.5 shorten the distance between wizards and sorcerers.  though it does make me wonder whether sorcerers are truly further from the tier 3's than in 3.5, and to figure out how I'd measure that.


Well, without a single bit of optimization, Pathfinder Sorcerers get unlimited cantrips, more spells known, extra abilities from their Bloodline, bonus feats, a favored class bonus, and a slightly larger hit dice, all of which 3.5 sorcerer don't get. So I'd say from that, you are going to be better at problem-solving than a 3.5 Sorcerer. 

Just my two cents.



*Current Votes*

*Sorcerer
*Gnaeus, Darvin  Tier 1
Zlefin - 1.7
Thunder999, Maat Mons, Avatar Vecna  1.8
Kurald Galain  2

Average  1.59

*Razmiran Priest
*
Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Darvin  1
Maat Mons  1.6
Zlefin - 1.7
Thunder999  1.8
Kurald Galain  2

Average  1.44

----------


## Gnaeus

> I'm going to lean towards giving sorcerers a 1.7 based on the arguments I've seen here.  It does seem like some of the shifts from 3.5 shorten the distance between wizards and sorcerers.  though it does make me wonder whether sorcerers are truly further from the tier 3's than in 3.5, and to figure out how I'd measure that.


Not specifically responding to this, but it leans into something I was already thinking about.

What are the purposes of tiering? Why do we do it? Its a tool.

If Wally Wizard and Steve Sorcerer are playing in my games, what considerations do I need?

If I am thinking of banning the most powerful classes, is there a reason to ban Wally but not Steve?
If I am buffing weaker classes, does Steve need more spells or extra feats or partial gestalt or tailored drops to play at Wally's level? (and if I give those buffs, is it going to be fair to Wally)?
Is Wally more likely to make Bert Barbarian feel bad than Steve?
Is Wally more likely to accidentally destroy my game than Steve? Do I need to design encounters to challenge Wally more than Steve? Do I need to design campaign arcs to not make Steve irrelevant? Do I need to carefully consider my world assumptions (like wbl, or ability point buy) with an eye to whether they will disproportionately impact Steve?

I think the answer to all those questions is no.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> If Wally Wizard and Steve Sorcerer are playing in my games, what considerations do I need?


Assuming a skilled player, Wally is more likely to pull a new trick out of his hat to completely surprise the GM, to easily pull the party out of a difficult situation, or to twist the plot in a wholly new direction. Spont casters can do this to some extent, but prep casters excel at it; and that's what Tier One is all about.

For instance, in one adventure we inadvertently set free some kind of evil spirit, _but_ the party wizard turned out to have a rarely-used warding circle spell to trap this kind of spirit. Or, last month our party was going to travel across a lake, so the next day our party caster had Suspend Drowning and Control Water available (which was used to beach a kraken, no less). That's the kind of surprise you can pull as a prep caster.

----------


## Gnaeus

> Assuming a skilled player, Wally is more likely to pull a new trick out of his hat to completely surprise the GM, to easily pull the party out of a difficult situation, or to twist the plot in a wholly new direction. Spont casters can do this to some extent, but prep casters excel at it; and that's what Tier One is all about.
> 
> For instance, in one adventure we inadvertently set free some kind of evil spirit, _but_ the party wizard turned out to have a rarely-used warding circle spell to trap this kind of spirit. Or, last month our party was going to travel across a lake, so the next day our party caster had Suspend Drowning and Control Water available (which was used to beach a kraken, no less). That's the kind of surprise you can pull as a prep caster.


Thats true enough, but you didn't take Suspend Drowning and Control Water as your free spells on level up. You spent time and money on it. The one time you need it in a campaign, the sorcerer may as well have a scroll for it. Compare the relative utility of that to: "Wow, I needed this spell 6 times today." or "Hey, looks like we are camping. I'm going to turn my remaining level 2 slots to extended mage armors for everyone in case we fight shadows tomorrow. Oh, and I burn my 3s to summon some lyrakien to reduce our consumable use. Oh, bring me that Ogre body I have a level 4 left. My remaining level 5s are for planar binding".

----------


## pabelfly

> Not specifically responding to this, but it leans into something I was already thinking about.
> 
> What are the purposes of tiering? Why do we do it? Its a tool.
> 
> If Wally Wizard and Steve Sorcerer are playing in my games, what considerations do I need?
> 
> If I am thinking of banning the most powerful classes, is there a reason to ban Wally but not Steve?
> If I am buffing weaker classes, does Steve need more spells or extra feats or partial gestalt or tailored drops to play at Wally's level? (and if I give those buffs, is it going to be fair to Wally)?
> Is Wally more likely to make Bert Barbarian feel bad than Steve?
> ...


I've been thinking about your post about how there's no real difference between Sorcerer and Wizard, and I largely agree with you. 

The Wizard only straight-up trounces a Sorcerer when the Wizard has the opportunity to prepare for a non-standard situation by knowing about it in advance. The Sorcerer has much more tools in their toolbag than they did in 3.5, so they are fundamentally better, but in the end, they're still applying a limited toolbag to solve any situation while a Wizard has all the tools but needs to manage their carry weight.

The Wizard loses out to Sorcerer if a non-standard situation pops up or changes without notice, and toolset a Wizard has prepared for the day is suddenly inadequate. However a decently-built Sorcerer should have the in-built flexibility to at least do okay even with a drastically different situation.

I'd say the first situation is more likely than the second. Wizards are definitely Tier 1, but with the increase of the quality of the tools available to a Sorcerer, I can definitely understand rating them much higher than a flat Tier 2 they got in 3.5 DnD. And I'm definitely more partial to the flexibility of a Sorcerer than trying to be Nostradamus and deciding a spell list as a Wizard every day.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Thats true enough, but you didn't take Suspend Drowning and Control Water as your free spells on level up. You spent time and money on it.


A very negligible amount of time and money.




> The one time you need it in a campaign, the sorcerer may as well have a scroll for it.


No, because Suspend Drowning is an immediate-action spell (which doesn't work from a scroll that you need to draw first), and for Control Water the caster level is relevant (and the default scroll wouldn't have been enough).




> Oh, bring me that Ogre body I have a level 4 left. My remaining level 5s are for planar binding".


That right there is precisely the difference between Tier One and Tier Two: the sorcerer does more of the same thing (which is _quantitative_) and the wizard pulls something unexpected (which is _qualitative_). And that's also why Tier-Two-but-with-more-spells-known is still not Tier One.

----------


## pabelfly

> That right there is precisely the difference between Tier One and Tier Two: the sorcerer does more of the same thing (which is _quantitative_) and the wizard pulls something unexpected (which is _qualitative_). And that's also why Tier-Two-but-with-more-spells-known is still not Tier One.


So Sorcerer in 3.5 was a flat Tier 2. Without a single bit of optimization, Pathfinder Sorcerers get unlimited cantrips, more spells known, extra abilities from their Bloodline, bonus feats, a favored class bonus, and a slightly larger hit dice, all of which 3.5 sorcerer don't get. Does that raise the Tier of Sorcerer at all for Pathfinder?

----------


## Gnaeus

> That right there is precisely the difference between Tier One and Tier Two: the sorcerer does more of the same thing (which is _quantitative_) and the wizard pulls something unexpected (which is _qualitative_). And that's also why Tier-Two-but-with-more-spells-known is still not Tier One.


That right there is a distinction without a difference. The meaningful standard isn't whether the wizard can maybe pull a unique trick once per campaign that maybe somehow the sorcerer can't match just by having some scrolls and also assuming that the wizard found someone to scribe some rare spell from. The meaningful standard is whether that will make a difference more often than suddenly realizing at 1 in the afternoon that all your slots on a particular day should really be spent on spells X and Y, factoring in the days when the wizard prepared the wrong spell, or used a spell in the wrong fight. I can think of an encounter where a tarrasque was chasing a party down a very long corridor, eating the slower PCs, where multiple D Doors in a row was a win to an over CRed encounter. Is that common? No. But it is more common in my experience than your scenario.

----------


## Drelua

> That right there is a distinction without a difference. The meaningful standard isn't whether the wizard can maybe pull a unique trick once per campaign that maybe somehow the sorcerer can't match just by having some scrolls and also assuming that the wizard found someone to scribe some rare spell from. The meaningful standard is whether that will make a difference more often than suddenly realizing at 1 in the afternoon that all your slots on a particular day should really be spent on spells X and Y, factoring in the days when the wizard prepared the wrong spell, or used a spell in the wrong fight. I can think of an encounter where a tarrasque was chasing a party down a very long corridor, eating the slower PCs, where multiple D Doors in a row was a win to an over CRed encounter. Is that common? No. But it is more common in my experience than your scenario.


I definitely agree that wizards aren't really better than sorcerers in most games, but if we're talking about their optimization ceiling, then there's more of a difference. I've seen the ability to prepare a spell in an empty slot in 15 minutes come in very handy in PFS games though, especially for divine casters that don't have to spend money on scrolls to be able to prepare any spell on their list. But that's just a difference of not having to make the investment, which makes it a more noticeable advantage for divine casters in low-op games. 

But if you're in the sort of high-op game where jumping to a fast time pocket dimension is the sort of thing you might do, it's even more useful. Or you can just teleport the party away, prepare a spell or two, and port back. A wizard's versatility can absolutely be an advantage in a fight you didn't see coming, provided you're not too proud to run away.

----------


## pabelfly

> But if you're in the sort of high-op game where jumping to a fast time pocket dimension is the sort of thing you might do, it's even more useful. Or you can just teleport the party away, prepare a spell or two, and port back. A wizard's versatility can absolutely be an advantage in a fight you didn't see coming, provided you're not too proud to run away.


Side topic: I never understood why, at this level of optimization, why wizards would teleport away to special dimensions to prepare spells to deal with a problem, but your enemies would not do the same.

----------


## Drelua

> Side topic: I never understood why, at this level of optimization, why wizards would teleport away to special dimensions to prepare spells to deal with a problem, but your enemies would not do the same.


There's lots of possible explanations, like they have stuff to do or they're guarding a place that you're attacking/trying to take stuff from, or they don't have a spell for that, but basically, because that might take the fun out of things for certain groups. But I'm sure some people on here have played games where that does happen, and you need a dimensional anchor, or forbiddance or something, to prevent it. I've also had GMs say "I won't if you won't" about certain things, like abusing permanency, and scry and die tactics.

Usually though, the antagonists are trying to do something bad, so making them run away might, at least temporarily, prevent that. The protagonists are trying to stop them, which can usually wait 15 minutes.

----------


## QuadraticGish

After reviewing all the statements made, I think the Sorcerer just edges into tier 1 at a 1.9 with all the new tools it has available. I haven't seen it mentioned, but I feel it should be said that as a Cha focused class Sorcerer does qualify for the Eldritch Heritage line of feats which can be used to gain some specific powers from an entire second bloodline of your choice which can open up some interesting combinations. If you're willing to take Crossblooded, you can add on a third list of bloodline abilities you can pick up on top of that. Granted, Eldritch Heritage does come online late.

----------


## Gnaeus

> I definitely agree that wizards aren't really better than sorcerers in most games, but if we're talking about their optimization ceiling, then there's more of a difference.


Tiers also aren't about the optimization ceiling. They are equally about the optimization floor. They are equally about mid-op. If wizards aren't better than sorcerers in most games, wizards aren't higher tier than sorcerers. The only optimization assumption inherent in tiers is equivalent optimization. (and not aggressive anti-optimization. Like we aren't really comparing wizards with 8 int and sorcs with 8 cha having staff battles. But thats not an issue here.) 

So in this context, I would be thinking that the wiz and sorc would be mostly regarding the same top spells (with the sorc weighing generalist spells like polymorph and summon line slightly heavier and wiz doing the same with specialist spells). Similar quality archetypes where available. Similar strategies for crafting where available. etc. But the sorcerer and wizard who take all evocation spells because Fireball and Lightning Bolt sound cool are equally relevant as the high op ones, and are compared with the fighter who split his feats between archery and TWF. I personally don't regard sources as quite as important in a world with the PFSRD, but ease of build is still very much alive.

----------


## pabelfly

> After reviewing all the statements made, I think the Sorcerer just edges into tier 1 at a 1.9 with all the new tools it has available. I haven't seen it mentioned, but I feel it should be said that as a Cha focused class Sorcerer does qualify for the Eldritch Heritage line of feats which can be used to gain some specific powers from an entire second bloodline of your choice which can open up some interesting combinations. If you're willing to take Crossblooded, you can add on a third list of bloodline abilities you can pick up on top of that. Granted, Eldritch Heritage does come online late.


The tiers are like they are in 3.5:

Tier 1 is 1 to 1.49
Tier 2 is 1.5 to 2.49
Tier 3 is 2.5 to 3.49
Tier 4 is 3.5 to 4.49
Tier 5 is 4.5 to 5.49
Tier 6 is 5.5 to 6

The 2019 version has stuff like Deathmaster at the top of Tier 2 with a rating of 1.55, for example, while Spontaneous Druid is in Tier 1 at 1.31.

Do you want to be put down for 1.9 or 1.4?

----------


## Thunder999

So for material components stuff, you can get Permanency on a Divine Scroll thanks to it being in the Rite Subdomain and plenty of Symbol Spells are available to clerics.  
There's actually not that many good spells with material components as the main limiter.  
Still Permanent Symbols are actually quite decent once they don't cost you a fortune, plenty of solid save or suck and even some buffs.  

I'd actually say a Paragon Surge sorcerer is more likely to surprise a GM than a wizard (or really anyone else), since you usually know what spells the wizard has in his book, but I don't think that's actually meaningful.  

Crossblooded definitely isn't a tier down, it's actually pretty strong used right, it's one of the few reasons to ever play Sorcerer over Blood Arcanist

Also I really don't think you can count needing to buy scrolls against Razmiran Priest while also assuming wizards, arcanists etc. can just go buy more spells known, particularly not when the rules on buying items make it pretty clear you can just go buy whatever scroll you want.

----------


## Rynjin

> Crossblooded definitely isn't a tier down, it's actually pretty strong used right, it's one of the few reasons to ever play Sorcerer over Blood Arcanist


It's at least fun for blasters. Crossblooded Orc/Draconic with Blood Havoc gets you +3 damage per die to an element of your choice, and +2 to everything else.




> Also I really don't think you can count needing to buy scrolls against Razmiran Priest while also assuming wizards, arcanists etc. can just go buy more spells known, particularly not when the rules on buying items make it pretty clear you can just go buy whatever scroll you want.


Scrolls are exponentially more expensive than spells, pretty much literally. You can buy a new 3rd level spell as a Wizard/Arcanist for 90 gp. A 3rd level scroll costs 375.

@Pabelfly: I didn't see my vote for Tier 2 recorded.

----------


## QuadraticGish

> The tiers are like they are in 3.5:
> 
> Tier 1 is 1 to 1.49
> Tier 2 is 1.5 to 2.49
> Tier 3 is 2.5 to 3.49
> Tier 4 is 3.5 to 4.49
> Tier 5 is 4.5 to 5.49
> Tier 6 is 5.5 to 6
> 
> ...


Put me down for 1.4.

----------


## Darvin

> Sorcerers are excellent at a great many things, but they essentially have to specialize in one thing and then be adequate at a few others which is, again, close to the exact definition of T2.


I would disagree with this assessment. When Sorcerers are getting 7 or 8 spells known at every spell level that's not specializing in "one thing" or even a couple of things, but rather _a lot_ of things. But it's more than just quantity of spells, but also quality. The Sorcerer/Wizard list is _so good_ that you don't need very many spells in order to have excellent options for almost every conceivable situation. Moreover, there are affordable items like the Ring of Spell Knowledge and Mnemonic Vestments that let you bypass those limitations in the situations where you want something else.

Other spontaneous casters probably won't be able to meet this standard, because part of what gets the Sorcerer here is the excellent of the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. Sorcerers get far more flexibility from each additional spell known than a class like the Oracle does (which has a great spell list, but individual spells tends to be a bit more specialized so knowing fewer is a bigger problem). 




> PRIMARILY a measure of flexibility and "ability to solve problems", which Spontaneous casters are in general less capable of doing than Prepared casters.


Even the proponents of Sorcerers for T1 agree that there is a gap, but that the Sorcerer is closer to the Wizard than to the other spontaneous casters. Our view is that the gap between Wizard and Sorcerer is not that wide when played at their highest potential, such that Sorcerer is actually closer to the Wizard than he is to something like the Psychic (which on paper gets very similar spellcasting to a Sorcerer, but in practice its significantly worse spell list means it can't perform at the same level with the same number of spells known)




> That's an interesting point... but can you give examples of divine spells with major material costs, other than healing/Restoration/Raise Dead (because we've already covered "sorcerer who can heal")? Otherwise this is another ability that's much better on paper than in practice.


The simplest is Masterwork Transformation spell, which functionally becomes a money printer. Animate Dead without Material components on a class that gets Command Undead to handle HD overflow can get rather silly rather fast. There's all the "Symbol of X" spells with permanent duration that are only limited by material component costs. But the grand-daddy of them all is Permanency, which _can_ technically exist as a Divine Scroll since it appears on the Time Oracle mystery spell list (Domain spells don't work, since those aren't technically added as spells known so a Cleric can't scribe them as scrolls). 

And Raise Dead without material components starts getting weird, since you can now afford to cast it on NPC's on a whim. I had a Paladin with Ultimate Mercy in one of my games, and despite never actually using it on another PC he got _a lot_ of use out of it on NPC's. 




> No, but if you want a bloodline for its powers or arcana (which are their main attraction, after all) you're likely to end up with some poor spells - e.g. if you take Fey bloodline for its DC bonus, you get such "gems" as Deep Slumber, Poison, and Tree Stride.


As I pointed out earlier, by RAW Sorcerer Bloodline spells are eligible for retraining. Fixing this is a nominal gold cost, about the same as the cost a Wizard faces to add that spell to their spellbook.




> This is true in a campaign that's combat-focused and rather linear. And to be fair, such campaigns are quite common, but you're going to get very different outcomes in a more sandboxy / open world campaign, and those are the places where a prepared caster really shines.


I don't think this changes much. The Pathfinder Sorcerer has enough spells known to have _a lot_ of room left over for utility spells and can easily have a broad range of options for out-of-combat situations. They will almost always have a great option for any given situation. And due to the nature of spontaneous casting, if he occasionally needs a solution that requires casting 3 or 4 spells where a Wizard could get away with 1 it really doesn't change things from a tiering perspective. If the Sorcerer _occasionally_ needs to spend a few extra daily resources to handle an unusual problem, they're still handling that problem. In practice you're much more likely to get into situations where Wizards run out of daily resources than Sorcerers. It certainly is possible for situations to come up where Sorcerers just don't have spells available to solve the problem at hand, where a Wizard does, but if that Sorcerer is well-built, well-equipped, and well-played such situations are so incredibly rare that they are unlikely to ever come up. 

The Wizard is basically T1 without even trying, while a Sorcerer needs to be well-built, well-equipped, and well-played to function at a T1 level, but it definitely has the tools to do so.




> A very negligible amount of time and money.


It depends on the availability of other Wizards or second-have spellbooks to learn from. The cost difference between learning from a scroll versus from a borrowed or second-hand spellbook is _quite_ large, and it's not negligible if you need to expend scrolls to learn spells. While the standard rules for item availability make scrolls fairly easy to come by at magical markets, spellbooks are _specific_ custom items and thus fall into GM discretion. So you're going to get a lot of table variance here in terms of cost. In practice, most Wizards are probably going to have a mix, using spellbooks where they can and biting the bullet and buying scrolls where they can't. This will lead to costs that are not negligible, but are quite low, and with item crafting (even just the default Scribe Scroll you get for free) you can get that money back.




> Crossblooded definitely isn't a tier down, it's actually pretty strong used right, it's one of the few reasons to ever play Sorcerer over Blood Arcanist


Crossblooded is _powerful_, sure, about a 20% increase in damage on your blast spells compared with a similar Sorcerer, but being powerful only gets you up to T4. The higher tiers require flexibility to handle a wider range of situations, something Crossblooded actively hurts you on.

It's also worth noting that Crossblooded is incompatible with Blood Havoc until 7th level, so it has no damage advantage from 1st-6th which is a pretty large chunk of your career with the archetype is just hurting you.

----------


## pabelfly

*Current Votes*

*Sorcerer
*Gnaeus, Darvin  Tier 1
QuadraticGish  1.4
Zlefi, Battleship789  1.7
Thunder999, Maat Mons, Avatar Vecna  1.8
Kurald Galain, Rynjin  2

Average  1.62

*Razmiran Priest
*
Gnaeus, Avatar Vecna, Darvin  1
QuadraticGish  1.4
Maat Mons, Battleship789  1.6
Zlefin  1.7
Thunder999  1.8
Kurald Galain, Rynjin  2

Average  1.51

----------


## Thunder999

> Crossblooded is _powerful_, sure, about a 20% increase in damage on your blast spells compared with a similar Sorcerer, but being powerful only gets you up to T4. The higher tiers require flexibility to handle a wider range of situations, something Crossblooded actively hurts you on.
> 
> It's also worth noting that Crossblooded is incompatible with Blood Havoc until 7th level, so it has no damage advantage from 1st-6th which is a pretty large chunk of your career with the archetype is just hurting you.


It's not just damage, you can get multiple of the Arcanas that let you cast enchantment spells on normally immune creatures too, which makes them a lot more broadly useful, or you can turn your sorcerer casting Psychic while still having another good arcana. Arcanas are the one sorcerer class feature other people don't get.

----------


## Battleship789

> *snip*
> 
> All of that is pretty cool, but does it change tiers? I'd say it does not, because the difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is qualitative, rather than quantitative; a sorcerer with almost twice the amount of spells still is limited in versatility in pretty much the same way.
> 
> *snip*





> *snip*
> 
> That right there is precisely the difference between Tier One and Tier Two: the sorcerer does more of the same thing (which is _quantitative_) and the wizard pulls something unexpected (which is _qualitative_). And that's also why Tier-Two-but-with-more-spells-known is still not Tier One.


The first statement given in the first quote is backwards; the difference between tiers 1 and 2 is entirely quantitative, but it is hidden under a qualitative difference because the designers attempted to balance the two types of spellcasting. The second quote shows this by peeling away this qualitative difference; the wizard can only pull something new out because it has a quantitative advantage over the sorcerer - namely, more spells known.
*Spoiler: Cleric/Druid Aside*
Show

While clerics/druids have a massive advantage in spells known between themselves and wizards (being able to prepare any spell from their respective class lists,) there are diminishing returns to adding spells known beyond the first 10-20% of the total spell list (as mentioned by AvatarVecna.) Adding spells beyond these yield substantially less haymakers as many spells are redundant, extremely situational, or just bad. Additionally, the Sorc/Wiz list is of higher quality than the divine lists, so the (relatively) limited number of spells known by the wizard is strong enough to overpower full list access because one can only prepare and cast a limited number of spells per day.

The main qualitative difference between a wizard and sorcerer is their casting type. With all else held equal, spontaneous casting is objectively better than prepared casting in Pathfinder.
*Spoiler: Backing up this claim*
Show

With identical spells known and spell slots available between the two types, a prepared caster must choose a single selection of spells and, if any versatility is desired, must leave a number of spell slots open relative to the amount of versatility desired. This can be mitigated somewhat by exchanging quantity for quality, e.g. leaving a higher level slot open and replacing it with a lower level spell if needed, but this can leave situations where not enough slots were left open. On the other hand, leaving too many slots open drastically reduces the impact the caster can have on an encounter; if you did not prepare the correct spell for an encounter, you may be incapacitated before getting the time required to prepare it from an open slot.

The spontaneous caster has ALL of the prepared caster's spell selections available and simply "chooses" the one that fits the day best (up to player skill, of course.) The prepared caster has to not only choose which spell to cast in each encounter wisely but must have the forethought to even prepare said spell in the first place. For the spontaneous caster there is no guesswork, no divinations about the day's encounters required, they simply have every tool a prepared caster with prior knowledge of each encounter would have. The ability to prepare a different set of spells each day is only seen as a boon for prepared casters because they know more spells than the corresponding spontaneous casters.

If a sorcerer could add spells known for as cheap as a wizard, they would be better. Full stop. (Ignoring the level progression problem of course...) If they knew every spell on the Sorc/Wiz list as soon as they became available they would be the best class by a wide margin and this thread would instead be asking if sorcerers deserved their own tier above the wizard/druid/cleric because they don't need to spend any time to adjust their prepared spells in response to an encounter.

Now, returning to the statement above, if spontaneous casting is so strong, why are wizards higher tier than sorcerers? It is simply quantitative: wizards get more spells known. Wizards know a similar amount of spells at base but have a substantially cheaper route to increasing the number of spells known, with the net result that most wizards will have more spells known than a sorcerer of similar level (and the sorcerer has their highest level spells delayed by a level for some random reason...) A sorcerer whose spell selection is tailored for a specific situation is roughly on par with a perfectly prepared wizard. For spellcasters, versatility correlates strongly with the number of spells known as each additional spell learned adds to the number of situations that can be solved or simplified (obviously the quality of said spells matters, see the druid/cleric vs wizard aside above, as does the number of times said spells can be cast.)

Now, I am of the opinion that there exists a number of spells known such that the sorcerer would be T1. The highest this number gets is 1450, i.e. every spell on the Sorc/Wiz list is known as soon as it becomes available, but I think the threshold to T1 is crossed well below this number. Wizards are not T1 because they know every Sorc/Wiz spell, it's because they know enough spells to get out of most situations and have the capability to add additional spells for a relatively cheap cost (removing the ability to learn spells for cheaper than (spell level)2 x 1000 gp drops wizard to T2, imo.) As such, I think the answer is either to keep the current number of known spells but with the ability to gain spells known for comparable monetary cost to the wizard or by multiplying the number of spells known by some moderate factor (somewhere between x2 and x5 the largest number of spells known by a sorcerer archetype + FCB...I know it's a big range.)

For the first, sorcerers and wizards have a similar number of spells known before monetary investments are made, so being able to keep up with the wizard in spells would easily make sorcerers T1 (even with delayed spell access they might be better than wizards.) Spontaneous casting is probably good enough to keep sorcerers T1 even if they had to spend more, though obviously not with the current x65 markup (from AvatarVecna's numbers. If sorcerers could add to their spells known from a scroll like a wizard, would they be T1?) For the second, picking the top 10-20% of spells off the Sorc/Wiz from each spell level should give you enough versatility that the inability to change the spells prepared each day is rarely relevant (these numbers might be lower but it's hard to pin down exactly how many of the Sorc/Wiz staples are needed to cover everything but the most niche of situations.) Then again, I feel that if sorcerers got 200 spells known per sorcerer level that some people would still put them in T2.

TL;DR - A sorcerer with "Spells Known = Yes" is T1. But sorcerers have substantially less than "Yes" for spells known, so they are (a very strong) T2.

Put me down for sorcerer at 1.7 and Razmiran priest at 1.6. Razmiran priest is a nice versatility boost but the Sorc/Wiz list is so good that 9 times out of 10 I'd rather just cast one of the spells known than replace it with a divine spell one level lower (the material cost negation is nice, but I don't think spells with meaningful material components are cast frequently enough for this to matter.)

----------


## Drelua

> Tiers also aren't about the optimization ceiling. They are equally about the optimization floor. They are equally about mid-op. If wizards aren't better than sorcerers in most games, wizards aren't higher tier than sorcerers.


I have to disagree with this, if wizards are as good in most games and better in some, then I would think that would put them at least a bit ahead. They're also better at any optimization level at odd levels from 3-17, which is 40% of (non-epic) levels.

My understanding is that tiers are about potential, which would mean more of a focus on higher optimization levels, since talking about potential and focusing on what someone unfamiliar with the class/system would do is kinda like judging the effectiveness of a bow and arrow by giving one to someone that's never held one before and seeing how accurate they are. Even if that understanding is entirely wrong, which I'm not ruling out, it kinda sounds like you're saying wizards are as good most of the time, but better in a high-op game, (except at levels 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17, when they're just plain better no matter who's playing them) so they aren't really any better. 

If you were buying a car, and two options were the same price, just as good at most speeds, but one handled better at highway speeds, you would say that one was a better car. Even if you never drive on highways, you'd probably take that one. Being just as good most of the time but better sometimes, even in a situation you'll likely never be in, means it's better overall.

----------


## Thunder999

The ceiling for both classes is absurd gamebreaking power, it's Planar Binding, Gate, Simulacrum, Craft Construct (Trompe l'oeil or homunculus specifically, the first is pet demigods, the second is a loyal minion with hundreds of HD that probably has bigger numbers than said demigod)  
Sure that's the extreme, but I think it illustrates the point that tiers are meant to reflect actual play.

----------


## Drelua

> The ceiling for both classes is absurd gamebreaking power, it's Planar Binding, Gate, Simulacrum, Craft Construct (Trompe l'oeil or homunculus specifically, the first is pet demigods, the second is a loyal minion with hundreds of HD that probably has bigger numbers than said demigod)  
> Sure that's the extreme, but I think it illustrates the point that tiers are meant to reflect actual play.


Absolutely, and in some levels of actual play wizards come out ahead. In most, they're equal. So on average, they're a little ahead.

There is a level of system mastery at which it becomes almost impossible to play a full caster without some sort of gentleman's agreement, as in deliberately avoiding breaking the game. But you can make good use of a wizard's versatility without making full use of their potential power. And if we're talking about just power, tiers 1 and 2 are pretty much the same. But in terms of versatility, wizards come out ahead. Plus, at the 40% levels when they have 1 more spell level, they're also more powerful.

----------


## Gnaeus

> I
> My understanding is that tiers are about potential, which would mean more of a focus on higher optimization levels, since talking about potential and focusing on what someone unfamiliar with the class/system would do is kinda like judging the effectiveness of a bow and arrow by giving one to someone that's never held one before and seeing how accurate they are. Even if that understanding is entirely wrong, which I'm not ruling out, it kinda sounds like you're saying wizards are as good most of the time, but better in a high-op game, (except at levels 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17, when they're just plain better no matter who's playing them) so they aren't really any better. 
> 
> If you were buying a car, and two options were the same price, just as good at most speeds, but one handled better at highway speeds, you would say that one was a better car. Even if you never drive on highways, you'd probably take that one. Being just as good most of the time but better sometimes, even in a situation you'll likely never be in, means it's better overall.


First, you are absolutely wrong. Tiers have never and are still not about high op play any more than low op play. They are about practical play across the range of widely encountered conditions. Including low op.

Second I never stated that wizards are better at high op play and sorcerer's are equal in most games. I responded to a post that said that. I find that in high op play the game really goes full circle. The wizard has a marginal advantage in circumstances in which he has overwhelming knowledge of his environment. This is the only time he can really work his smaller versatility of spells to an advantage, by having what he needs. I see this as less relevant in a high op game. Yes, the wizard has the tools he needs, but in a high opp game with a low op GM this pales in comparison with the fact that any high tier can cakewalk. And in a high op game with a high op GM your scrying didn't pick up the mind blanked threat, or the fact that the BBEG is actually an outsider (also using mind blank). Or the relevant information is on a demiplane or some other mechanism that high powered bosses with a high op DM can use to prevent that total wizard knowledge. I still think having more and more flexible spells from the top few every level is just better.

And even if I did concede that wizards are better at high op play, it could be just as easily argued that sorcerers are better at low op play, in which the wizard is less likely to be swapping spells on the regular and both are more likely to be playing in a style that tends to favor sorcerers. Specifically blasting.

----------


## pabelfly

Tiering is across all optimization levels. "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*."

I'd opine that Sorcerer is easier to optimize for a low-level optimizer, where a player just picks the best spells and uses them as they want, while a Wizard has to not only pick spells but work out how many times he wants to use each spell per day. It's a lot easier to mess the Wizard spell selection for the day. Wizard comes out better at higher optimization with their larger spell list though.

----------


## Drelua

> First, you are absolutely wrong. Tiers have never and are still not about high op play any more than low op play. They are about practical play across the range of widely encountered conditions. Including low op.
> 
> Second I never stated that wizards are better at high op play and sorcerer's are equal in most games.


No, but you did say, paraphrasing, that "if wizards aren't better in most games, they aren't higher tier." That I disagree with. Because if they aren't better in most games, but are better in some, I think they are higher tier. Maybe that's not true either, they aren't better in some games, but that doesn't make the if/then statement you made true. Sorry if I wasn't clear about exactly what point I was disagreeing with.

I also think having higher level spells at 2 levels in 5 is a significant advantage. I feel like most games occur in that level range, 3-17, so that's approaching half of actual play time.

----------


## pabelfly

Okay, finished writing the Sorcerer overview for the overall Tier thread. Critiques appreciated since you're all much more knowledgeable about PF Sorcerer than I.



Pathfinder gave Sorcerer a lot of upgrades. Bloodlines grant extra spells known, more abilities and bonus feats. There are plenty of races that grant extra spells as a favored class bonus. With extra feats to pick up more metamagic options, a Sorcerer can make their limited spell list stronger and more versatile.

Sorcerer has two drawbacks over a Wizard: slower spell progression and a smaller list of known spells. A Wizard can prep their spell list to deal with specific situations (presuming some preparation time), while a Sorcerer has to deal with the same situation with a comparatively limited spell list. But Sorcerers can pick their best spell option on the fly without worrying about what spells they have remaining or their upcoming challenges, and can use metamagic to make each of their spells that much more versatile. Theyre slightly less flexible than a Wizard, hence the lower tier rating, but a lack of prepared spellcasting and a limited spell list is not that much of a drawback. They might even be equal in a lot of situations.

Lastly, Razmiran Priest is a great archetype, granting divine magic access and cheaper access to extra spells. Its not so powerful that it greatly outclasses Sorcerer though, particularly since divine magic access can largely be replicated through items, Use Magic Device, and Sorcerer spells.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Okay, finished writing the Sorcerer overview for the overall Tier thread. Critiques appreciated since you're all much more knowledgeable about PF Sorcerer than I.


I'd reword the third sentence as "multiple races give extra spells as favored class bonus" (because there aren't really any other FCBs that matter here).
I don't get the statement about "less multiclassing"; what are you trying to say here? And sorcerers can certainly "make their limited spell list stronger and more versatile" but they generally don't use feats to do that.




> Lastly, Razmiran Priest is a great archetype


Browsing the Paizo forums shows me that the bit about "free material costs" is _controversial_. It's similar to healing-by-drowning in that it's _technically_ RAW but such an obvious loophole that many GMs won't let you do that. My point is, it's fine to discuss it in a thread like this, but I would leave it out of the summary.

----------


## pabelfly

> I'd reword the third sentence as "multiple races give extra spells as favored class bonus" (because there aren't really any other FCBs that matter here).
> I don't get the statement about "less multiclassing"; what are you trying to say here? And sorcerers can certainly "make their limited spell list stronger and more versatile" but they generally don't use feats to do that.
> 
> 
> Browsing the Paizo forums shows me that the bit about "free material costs" is _controversial_. It's similar to healing-by-drowning in that it's _technically_ RAW but such an obvious loophole that many GMs won't let you do that. My point is, it's fine to discuss it in a thread like this, but I would leave it out of the summary.


Okay, edited it. Thanks for the comments, hopefully it reads better now.

----------


## Kurald Galain

Looks good to me  :Small Cool:  what classes are next?

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I would disagree with this assessment. When Sorcerers are getting 7 or 8 spells known at every spell level that's not specializing in "one thing"


I see this thread has inflated to calling 7 or 8 spells per level the default for sorcerers. But that's a substantial exaggeration; the actual default is four or five (depending on whether your bloodline has a useful spell at that level). Yes, you can _optimize_ to get more, but that's not the _default_; and as Pabelfly points out, tiers aren't solely about the topmost optimization level.




> As I pointed out earlier, by RAW Sorcerer Bloodline spells are eligible for retraining.


Also, this is contradicted by the retraining rules, that spell out that "the new spell must be one you could place in the old spells spell slot". You can only put bloodline spells in the bloodline slot.

----------


## pabelfly

> Looks good to me  what classes are next?


Out of Core, we have Barbarian (and Unchained Barbarian), Monk (and Unchained Monk), Ranger, Paladin, and Bard. Any you're interested in seeing next week?

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Out of Core, we have Barbarian (and Unchained Barbarian), Monk (and Unchained Monk), Ranger, Paladin, and Bard. Any you're interested in seeing next week?


I suppose one thread for barb/ranger/paladin, and one for monk and bard? I suggest throwing the Skald in with the latter, as it's effectively a variant bard.

(edit) if you want to go out of core,
Arcanist + Oracle + Shaman + Witch + Psychic
Magus + Warpriest + Inquisitor + Bloodrager + Occultist
Summoner + Unchained Summoner + Hunter + Spiritualist
Alchemist + Investigator + Mesmerist + Kinny
Gunslinger + Swashbuckler + Cavalier/Samurai + Medium
Brawler + Slayer + Vigilante + Ninja + Shifter
 ... or something like that, anyway. Is five too much for one thread?

----------


## pabelfly

> I suppose one thread for barb/ranger/paladin, and one for monk and bard? I suggest throwing the Skald in with the latter, as it's effectively a variant bard.
> 
> (edit) if you want to go out of core,
> Arcanist + Oracle + Shaman + Witch
> Magus + Warpriest + Inquisitor + Bloodrager
> Summoner + Unchained Summoner + Hunter
> Alchemist + Investigator + Shifter
> Gunslinger + Swashbuckler + Cavalier + Samurai
> Brawler + Slayer + Vigilante + Ninja
>  ... or something like that, anyway


I'd try to throw directly comparable classes together with threads. Like Monk and Unchained Monk would be a good thread, in my opinion. Barbarian and Unchained Barbarian would be another good thread. Not sure if I'd do Ranger and Paladin in their own threads or together, but since they're both Core classes with full BAB and 4th level spells, they're pretty comparable. I could throw Bard and Skald together in a thread though.

After Core, I'll move to the Advanced Player's Guide and see what classes are most comparable there.

----------


## QuadraticGish

I think Monk and Unchained should be next, if only because of I think we'll get good mileage out of how different one is to the other.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I'd try to throw directly comparable classes together with threads.


I find we get better discussion by throwing a number of different classes together (as with the recent wizard/cleric/druid) than by splitting them. For instance, we probably need to revisit the rogue thread if and when we get to the ninja and vigilante; or for that matter when we get to a set of tier-3 classes. This is more effective than splitting by book (because pretty much nobody plays with "book X but not book Y", except maybe for "core only").

Monk/umonk compares decently well with brawler, slayer, and maybe shifter.

----------


## pabelfly

> I find we get better discussion by throwing a number of different classes together (as with the recent wizard/cleric/druid) than by splitting them. For instance, we probably need to revisit the rogue thread if and when we get to the ninja and vigilante; or for that matter when we get to a set of tier-3 classes. This is more effective than splitting by book (because pretty much nobody plays with "book X but not book Y", except maybe for "core only").
> 
> Monk/umonk compares decently well with brawler, slayer, and maybe shifter.


The old threads are still open. If people add or change their vote, I can fix them up. Might try a larger thread and see if that works.




> I think Monk and Unchained should be next, if only because of I think we'll get good mileage out of how different one is to the other.


I'm keen to see how that one turns out, if only because Monk is the only Tier 5 class left now.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I'm keen to see how that one turns out, if only because Monk is the only Tier 5 class left now.


Other classes that may attract tier-5 votes include cavalier, shifter, gunslinger, kinny, and possibly a few others.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> Other classes that may attract tier-5 votes include cavalier, shifter, gunslinger, kinny, and possibly a few others.


Gunslinger is one of those things that baffles me when i see it in T5, and yet I know it'll attract T5 votes for the same reason chained rogue does: people think it's among the worst, and don't want to acknowledge that PF's worst is 3.5's average for whatever reason. But I can save that rant for the actual thread.

----------


## Thunder999

Monk, Brawler and Unchained Monk could probably all be one thread.

I'd put Barbarian, Bloodrager and Unchained Barbarian together, Bloodrager is very similar to barbarian, particularly with the Primalist archetype (that archetype isn't going to change tiers, but might be worth discussing just because of how similar it amkes Bloodrager and Barbarian).

----------


## Darvin

> I see this thread has inflated to calling 7 or 8 spells per level the default for sorcerers. But that's a substantial exaggeration; the actual default is four or five (depending on whether your bloodline has a useful spell at that level). Yes, you can _optimize_ to get more, but that's not the _default_; and as Pabelfly points out, tiers aren't solely about the topmost optimization level.


This is _really_ low-hanging fruit. Human FCB is very accessible, about half of all core and featured races can qualify for it. Are we going to reduce the tiering of Arcanists because Quick Study isn't built in and you have to actively pick it? Or Druids because Natural Spell isn't built in? Some options are just _so good_ as to be obvious picks.




> Also, this is contradicted by the retraining rules, that spell out that "the new spell must be one you could place in the old spells spell slot". You can only put bloodline spells in the bloodline slot.


The term "spell slot" refers to daily spellcasting resources, not spells known. Spell slots do not make any distinction between bloodline spells and regular spells known, so this causes no restriction in this case. What this clause means is that if the bloodline spell is cast using a 3rd level spell slot, then you must replace it with a spell that uses a 3rd level spell slot.

I'd agree with you from a RAI perspective, but as written none of the restrictions actually prefer you from retraining bloodline spells.




> Out of Core, we have Barbarian (and Unchained Barbarian), Monk (and Unchained Monk), Ranger, Paladin, and Bard. Any you're interested in seeing next week?


Probably the only one of those that will have any serious question on its tiering placement is Chained Monk, which has a _really low_ optimization floor. On the other hand, anyone who isn't optimizing it really should be using Unchained. It'll be an interesting discussion.

For the others, I suspect it will mostly be a debate over where in their tiers they will fit. All of them got _great_ content in Pathfinder that has helped them out, but nothing that would really push them up an entire tier. Bard Masterpieces are probably the closest thing to pushing it up a tier, but I don't see any of them getting the Bard to T2.

In terms of other classes that will have interesting discussions:
*Summoner*: probably the only 6-level caster that is a serious contender for T2 status. Unchained Summoner was nerfed, but not enough to bring it down to T3 in my view since they left its SLA's alone and its eidolon is still basically a wholly customizable character in its own right. 
*Kineticist*: easily the _weirdest_ class in Pathfinder. This one defies conventional classification. Should be a fun discussion.
*Vigilante*: this is going to require a jumbo-sized thread. This is late-Pathfinder martials at their finest, crammed full of amazing class features that are especially useful in free-form sandbox campaigns. It also has _multiple_ 6-level spellcasting archetypes that will further complicate the tiering discussion.

----------


## pabelfly

> This is _really_ low-hanging fruit. Human FCB is very accessible, about half of all core and featured races can qualify for it. Are we going to reduce the tiering of Arcanists because Quick Study isn't built in and you have to actively pick it? Or Druids because Natural Spell isn't built in? Some options are just _so good_ as to be obvious picks.


Well the only time I played Sorcerer in Pathfinder I went with Crossblooded Half-Orc and took favored class bonuses to improve my fire blasting damage dice. Fun build though.

I don't think it's a good idea to assume that everyone is going to make particular build choices for a class. Especially if the choice is between more damage and more spells, it's easy to underestimate the importance of extra versatility when a lot of DnD requires solving problems by lethal force.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I don't think it's a good idea to assume that everyone is going to make particular build choices for a class.


Yes, that. An extra hit point remains a decently viable FCB for any class with d6 hit dice, and there are plenty of reasons why a player may want a particular race for flavor reasons that _lacks_ the much-vaunted extra spell.




> Are we going to reduce the tiering of Arcanists because Quick Study isn't built in and you have to actively pick it? Or Druids because Natural Spell isn't built in?


Those aren't automatic picks. Maybe they are _to you_, but I've seen numerous arcanists and druids played without those particular options, and they remain very potent. And you'll have a far easier time convincing players to spend one feat out of many, than to lock in their singular race choice.

----------


## Thunder999

There's a difference between spending a feat and picking your race, people definitely play non-human (or half-human) sorcerers simply because they want to play other races. Race is the one choice that people actually tend to tie into RP/fluff rather than picking purely for the mechanical benefits.

----------


## Rynjin

> *Kineticist*: easily the _weirdest_ class in Pathfinder. This one defies conventional classification. Should be a fun discussion.
> *Vigilante*: this is going to require a jumbo-sized thread. This is late-Pathfinder martials at their finest, crammed full of amazing class features that are especially useful in free-form sandbox campaigns. It also has _multiple_ 6-level spellcasting archetypes that will further complicate the tiering discussion.


Both of these are definitely fascinating because both can be categorized VERY differently, especially Kineticist.

I'm not necessarily a huge fan of tiering archetypes, but Kineticist, even without archetypes, has wildly varying tier potential based on your ELEMENT choices in the base class.

That's not even really an optimization issue, it's just practically 3-5 different classes in 1.

----------


## Gnaeus

> Well the only time I played Sorcerer in Pathfinder I went with Crossblooded Half-Orc and took favored class bonuses to improve my fire blasting damage dice. Fun build though.
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to assume that everyone is going to make particular build choices for a class. Especially if the choice is between more damage and more spells, it's easy to underestimate the importance of extra versatility when a lot of DnD requires solving problems by lethal force.


Ok, but one of 2 things is happening when you are looking at a sorcerer like that.
1. Its a low op game. In which everyone expects the arcane caster to be blasting. In which case, the wizard is also probably blasting, but doing a worse job of it, and you are both showing up the badly built fighter.
2. It isn't being done by accident, you just decided to play a blaster, and for that build, that was an optimized choice, which was preferable to your build than extra spells. In which case you get compared to an evocation wizard optimized for blasting. (Or more likely, an arcanist, which makes more sense as the flexible caster in that role).

----------


## pabelfly

Okay, new thread is up for Monk (Chained), Monk (Unchained) and Brawler: 

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...nk-and-Brawler

Thanks for everyone's thoughts and opinions on Pathfinder Sorcerer, I thought it was an interesting thread and good information.

----------


## ciopo

I'm throwing my hat for T1 too

Yesterday I've got yet another level on my (3.5) shair, and got one yummy extra spell known from 1st to 6th level...

And I realized I didn't even finish picking the new spell known from the previous level,due to decision paralysis!

Because I already cherry picked the "best" ones, and what was left was chaff and/or niche/situational and exactly once between last level and this level I thought "I wish I had this spell known"

Granted, 3.5 shair has a bunch more spell known per level than 3.5 sorcerer has, but so does the pathfinder sorcerer and core gameplay is covered by 2 to 3 spells per level anyway.

----------


## Bucky

Based on play experience, I'd rate the Sorcerer as a solid *Tier 2*. The sorcerers were quite strong in general, but the lack of day-to-day flex was clearly felt at times compared to the Tier 1s casters. They didn't end up breaking the GM's fun toys nearly as often as the Wizards, Clerics, Druids or even the one Oracle.




> Wizard's spell sage archetype also gets that ability, and so does the Skald class (a variant bard); and those two can cast spells from outside their list, which Paragon Surge can't do. This trick doesn't boost Wizard and Skald up a tier,


FWIW I disagree for Skald, but that's not relevant here because Skald uses it to aim for a lower tier than Sorcerer. A Commoner who could cast one kind of spell per day via Paragon Surge as though they had a Sorcerer's slots would definitely exit tier 6 but would also definitely not hit tier 1.

----------


## pabelfly

New procedure update: archetypes are tiered separately from classes. At least three votes are required for an archetype for it to make it to the master list, and the archetype needs to be more than half a tier stronger or weaker than the base class to be added to the list.

*Current Votes*

*Sorcerer
*Gnaeus, Darvin, Ciopo  1
QuadraticGish  1.4
PoeticallyPsycho  1.5
Zlefin, Battleship789  1.7
Thunder999, Maat Mons, Avatar Vecna, Drelua  1.8
Kurald Galain, Rynjin, Bucky  2

Average  1.61



*Razmiran Priest
*
Avatar Vecna  1
Thunder999  1.5
Maat Mons, Battleship789  1.6
Drelua  1.8
Kurald Galain  2

Average  1.58

----------


## Kurald Galain

2.0 for Razmiran Priest, because practically speaking, the only (e.g.) 5th-level cleric spells that are worth spending a 6th-level sorcerer slot on (and with an action to draw the scroll, and at minimum DC/CL) are the curing and raise dead lines of spells. And given how strong the sorcerer's list already is, adding healing and resurrection to it is just not a tier increase.

----------


## pabelfly

> 2.0 for Razmiran Priest


Added your vote.

----------


## Drelua

Can I change mine to 1.8? Same for Razmiran Priest. As Kurald Galain says, the main benefit is healing and raising the dead, both mainly out of combat magic apart from Breath of Life, meaning you can probably find a way to get those spells cast regardless, and the cost for spellcasting services isn't much higher for raise/resurrection, since the main cost is the material component. If you want to use the Cleric's buffs in combat, you'd be better off just playing a Cleric or Oracle to cast them at a lower level, with better HP and BAB.

Thank you for updating all of these threads btw, that looks like quite a bit of clerical work. (pun intended)

----------


## pabelfly

> Can I change mine to 1.8? Same for Razmiran Priest. As Kurald Galain says, the main benefit is healing and raising the dead, both mainly out of combat magic apart from Breath of Life, meaning you can probably find a way to get those spells cast regardless, and the cost for spellcasting services isn't much higher for raise/resurrection, since the main cost is the material component. If you want to use the Cleric's buffs in combat, you'd be better off just playing a Cleric or Oracle to cast them at a lower level, with better HP and BAB.
> 
> Thank you for updating all of these threads btw, that looks like quite a bit of clerical work. (pun intended)


Changed it, thanks for the votes.

Happy to do the threads, it's something I'd find useful and would reference if I ever get to play Pathfinder again.

----------


## PoeticallyPsyco

I've been convinced, and I'll throw in a vote for *1.5* for Sorcerer. The increased spells known makes them far less specialized than in 3.5, probably even enough to compete with Wizards in the T1 zone of having answers to any problem presented, but being half a spell level behind noticeably hurts their power (and thus the effectiveness of those answers). No vote on Razimiran Priest.

----------


## thompur

All sorcerers -2.

----------


## Coeruleum

Sorcerer is officially tier 2 and that's never going to change. Also, those tier lists don't matter. I can make a super optimized sorcerer that's stronger than wizards or clerics or I can make an awful one that's worse than a commoner. The tier list, however, is only judging the super stereotypical sorcerer: "I'm an arcane bloodline, I got fireballs and burning hands, I drop the boom-boom-boom to the boom-boom-pow and when I'm out I'm done for the day and must dance away from the mighty muscly burly martials." It's very easy to make a sorcerer better than that and also very easy to make a worse one. You just think about what makes sense for the story your character is in. You can make a sorcerer based around shadows or shapeshifting or melee or psychic magic quite easily and these are all very viable and will perform very differently from the boom-boom-pow fireball mage. A lot of these will do their roles better than an equivalent wizard, but no one's judging a shadow sorcerer vs. an illusionist wizard or a psychic sorcerer vs. an enchantment wizard here because that's not the stereotypical version and tiers only judge the stereotypical version. The stereotypical version is also... boring. If I wanted the same story everyone else has with their characters, I'd just have picked up some kind of poorly-written dime fantasy novel where the elves and the dwarves fight the evil god for the ring of magic yadda yadda, not taken the time to make my own character, even if it might be similar to some other characters.

----------


## AvatarVecna

> Sorcerer is officially tier 2 and that's never going to change. Also, those tier lists don't matter. I can make a super optimized sorcerer that's stronger than wizards or clerics or I can make an awful one that's worse than a commoner. The tier list, however, is only judging the super stereotypical sorcerer: "I'm an arcane bloodline, I got fireballs and burning hands, I drop the boom-boom-boom to the boom-boom-pow and when I'm out I'm done for the day and must dance away from the mighty muscly burly martials." It's very easy to make a sorcerer better than that and also very easy to make a worse one. You just think about what makes sense for the story your character is in. You can make a sorcerer based around shadows or shapeshifting or melee or psychic magic quite easily and these are all very viable and will perform very differently from the boom-boom-pow fireball mage. A lot of these will do their roles better than an equivalent wizard, but no one's judging a shadow sorcerer vs. an illusionist wizard or a psychic sorcerer vs. an enchantment wizard here because that's not the stereotypical version and tiers only judge the stereotypical version. The stereotypical version is also... boring. If I wanted the same story everyone else has with their characters, I'd just have picked up some kind of poorly-written dime fantasy novel where the elves and the dwarves fight the evil god for the ring of magic yadda yadda, not taken the time to make my own character, even if it might be similar to some other characters.


Lol. Lmao.

----------


## pabelfly

> Sorcerer is officially tier 2 and that's never going to change. Also, those tier lists don't matter. I can make a super optimized sorcerer that's stronger than wizards or clerics or I can make an awful one that's worse than a commoner. The tier list, however, is only judging the super stereotypical sorcerer: "I'm an arcane bloodline, I got fireballs and burning hands, I drop the boom-boom-boom to the boom-boom-pow and when I'm out I'm done for the day and must dance away from the mighty muscly burly martials." It's very easy to make a sorcerer better than that and also very easy to make a worse one. You just think about what makes sense for the story your character is in. You can make a sorcerer based around shadows or shapeshifting or melee or psychic magic quite easily and these are all very viable and will perform very differently from the boom-boom-pow fireball mage. A lot of these will do their roles better than an equivalent wizard, but no one's judging a shadow sorcerer vs. an illusionist wizard or a psychic sorcerer vs. an enchantment wizard here because that's not the stereotypical version and tiers only judge the stereotypical version. The stereotypical version is also... boring. If I wanted the same story everyone else has with their characters, I'd just have picked up some kind of poorly-written dime fantasy novel where the elves and the dwarves fight the evil god for the ring of magic yadda yadda, not taken the time to make my own character, even if it might be similar to some other characters.


I couldn't resist, and I don't apologise.

Fighter is officially tier 4 and that's never going to change. Also, those tier lists don't matter. I can make a super optimized fighter that's stronger than wizards or clerics or I can make an awful one that's worse than a commoner. The tier list, however, is only judging the super stereotypical fighter: "I have a big weapon, I got my advanced weapon and armor training, I drop the boom-boom-boom to the boom-boom-pow and when I lose my weapon I'm done for the day and must dance away from the other mighty muscly burly martials." It's very easy to make a fighter better than that and also very easy to make a worse one. You just think about what makes sense for the story your character is in. You can make a fighter based around shadows or shapeshifting or melee or psychic magic quite easily and these are all very viable and will perform very differently from the boom-boom-pow greatsword fighter. A lot of these will do their roles better than an equivalent fighter, but no one's judging a shadow fighter vs. an illusionist fighter or a psychic fighter vs. an enchantment fighter here because that's not the stereotypical version and tiers only judge the stereotypical version. The stereotypical version is also... boring. If I wanted the same story everyone else has with their characters, I'd just have picked up some kind of poorly-written dime fantasy novel where the elves and the dwarves fight the evil god for the ring of magic yadda yadda, not taken the time to make my own character, even if it might be similar to some other characters.

----------


## AnonymousPepper

I sense a new copypasta being born from that fabulously dumb post. Lol. Lmao, even.

Anyway, I actually think Bloodlines (which are usually good and can be exceptional), the ability to buy spells (even if hideously expensive), and human FCB (which is accessible by races other than human with a single feat, thereby trading one feat for 20 spells, and can be accessed out of the box by Tieflings and Aasimar with the correct alternate racial traits) have generally conspired to make Sorcerer a much, much better class than it was. As was frequently pointed out in my response to giving Arcanist a 0.6 - something I stick by - just having a close enough spell is often good enough, and PF Sorcerer has enough spells known to make that a reality. You're not going to have every spell you want, but you'll have enough of them, off an always fantastic list. If Arcanist can make a 0.6 I'm tossing Sorc a *1.0.* Yes, you can get around the limitations of prepared casters without too much effort, but that's the sort of optimization that pulls wizards up above 1.0 anyway.

Mostly, I just don't value the addition of the next level of spells a level earlier _that_ highly, when you're still almost always going to have a tool that's good enough and you'll have it available on demand. It's a wash, to me, as long as you're still eventually getting them and not delayed by two levels such that you're always behind (read: PRCs).

----------


## pabelfly

This is going to be a first, but I refuse to add Coeruleums vote to the tier list. Anyway, they shouldnt mind, because they themselves said: those tier lists dont matter.



*Current Votes*

*Sorcerer
*Gnaeus, Darvin, Ciopo, AnonymousPepper  1
QuadraticGish  1.4
PoeticallyPsycho  1.5
Zlefin, Battleship789  1.7
Thunder999, Maat Mons, Avatar Vecna, Drelua  1.8
Kurald Galain, Rynjin, Bucky, Thompur  2

Average  1.59



*Razmiran Priest
*
Avatar Vecna  1
Thunder999  1.5
Maat Mons, Battleship789  1.6
Drelua  1.8
Kurald Galain  2

Average  1.58

----------


## AnonymousPepper

> This is going to be a first, but I refuse to add Coeruleums vote to the tier list. Anyway, they shouldnt mind, because they themselves said: those tier lists dont matter.


Absolutely incredible.  :Belkar:

----------


## gregorys

> a lack of prepared spellcasting.


The lack of prepared casting is an advantage (rather than a drawback) of Sorcerer. It's the fewer spells known & delayed progression that are the disadvantages.

Having said that here's my take on Sorcerer (and Full Casters in general).

*Tier 0* (Kinda broken) 
-> Spontaneous casting (ie. any spell you know without preparing ahead of time) + Huge # spells known + Rapid progression

*Tier 1* 
-> Huge # spells known + Rapid progression, OR
-> Spontaneous casting + Medium # spells known + Rapid progression

*Tier 2*
-> Huge # spells known + Delayed progression
-> Spontaneous casting + Medium # spells known + Delayed progression (high tier 2)
-> Spontaneous casting + Small # spells known + Delayed progression (low tier 2, but still 9th level spells even delayed are just that good. And the spontaneity makes them never caught with their pants down preparing the wrong spell known.)

So sorcerer, despite having less spells known & slower spell progression, gets bumped up a bit by their spontaneity that they still make Tier 2.

----------


## pabelfly

> The lack of prepared casting is an advantage (rather than a drawback) of Sorcerer. It's the fewer spells known & delayed progression that are the disadvantages.


This seems like pointless hair-splitting to me. Spontaneous spellcasting and a limited spell list are always linked.

----------


## Thunder999

Prepared spellcasting is definitely better than spontaneous, it's that flexibility to just change all your most important class features every day that makes the real difference between tiers 1 and 2.

----------


## gregorys

> This seems like pointless hair-splitting to me. Spontaneous spellcasting and a limited spell list are always linked.


I didn't want to sound like a lawyer, but I do like highlighting laws of diminishing returns and discuss equilibrium points.

I don't view the quantitative value of spells known is not binary though (limited vs unlimited). It's a continuum - e.g. some game editions there may be distinct "tier thresholds" of 5 vs 20 vs 100 vs unlimited. (In the majority of games systems 100 spells known is roughly equal to infinity - due to the laws of diminishing returns)

There's always going to be an equilibrium point where:

a) A finite number of known spells  +  flexible spontaneity is roughly equal to 
b) Unlimited spells known              +  strict requirement to foresee challenges/prepare ahead of time

Obviously, This number will be scientifically difficult to determine and subject to opinion. However, I feel it's an interesting topic of game theory which could be important when trying to home-brewing balanced classes.

What about 30 spells known + Spontaneous casting + rapid spell progression. (30 is a pretty large number - is this enough to equate with Tier 1? Is it 50 spells known.)

It would be interesting to home brew variants with 10, 20, 30, 40 spells known (at the highest level) and see which of the above, if any, are better than Wizard. (Or even go up to 100 spells known to be safe. But again, don't forget to discount spontaneity.)

Edit: This may be controversial, but I think the "equilibrium number" is lower than we think.

----------


## pabelfly

We're tiering the sorcerer we have in Pathfinder, though, not a homebrew version with x amount of extra spells though.

----------


## gregorys

> Prepared spellcasting is definitely better than spontaneous, it's that flexibility to just change all your most important class features every day that makes the real difference between tiers 1 and 2.


I was more referring to (all things being equal):
a) Changing out class features each day, vs
b) Having all your class features each day.


There's going to be some equilibrium point where given 2 casters 
a) spontaneous + limited number of spells
b) prepared + unlimited number of spells

They'll both be equal. E.g. Let's say 500 spells known. Given the laws of diminishing returns, 500 is going to be worth on average about the same as an unlimited set of known spells. Well, what if we go lower, say 250 known spells. Are they equal? What about 100? Or 50? 

There's always going to be some finite threshold where the median performance of a) and b) will be equal. (Some quests a) will be better; other quests b) will be better.)

----------


## gregorys

> We're tiering the sorcerer we have in Pathfinder, though, not a homebrew version with x amount of extra spells though.


I thought we were analytically comparing different characteristics to achieve a ranking.

Characteristics being 
a) Spontaneous vs prepared
b) Unlimited list vs very small number of spells known
c) Rapid vs delayed spell progression

This is why I ended up voting Tier 2 for Sorcerer. Though it's great to have spontaneity, it's not enough to counter balance b) & c). Just imo though.

Edit: Obviously, game design can go into even more nuanced areas and question our analysis of class balance/relative power. (It's super interesting how the arcanist was designed; e.g. has an additional characteristic/dimension for evaluation that may not fit into the above.)

----------


## vasilidor

Tier 2.
Yes it performs a bit better than it did in 3.5, but so does everything else.

----------


## Gnaeus

> .
> 
> What about 30 spells known + Spontaneous casting + rapid spell progression. (30 is a pretty large number - is this enough to equate with Tier 1? Is it 50 spells known.)
> 
> It would be interesting to home brew variants with 10, 20, 30, 40 spells known (at the highest level) and see which of the above, if any, are better than Wizard. (Or even go up to 100 spells known to be safe. But again, don't forget to discount spontaneity.)
> 
> Edit: This may be controversial, but I think the "equilibrium number" is lower than we think.


I think it is far lower than that, because that giant pool of spells are hardly equal. At most levels there are a couple of must haves, a larger number of competitive spells, and a bunch of trash. A wizard with 50 spells is roughly as strong as a wizard with all the spells, because the bottom 50 spells at every level are mostly such comparative trash that there probably aren't more than 10 spells at most levels that you would ever actually bother to memorize even if you knew all the spells. Or at best they are functional duplicates of what something else does about as well. Functionally, a wizard will usually have maybe 4 spell lists, something like expected downtime, urban, outside, dungeon, and even those will have a lot of overlap. Once you are at or near those the sorcerer has a clear advantage, because the circumstances in which you really need to pull out the most useful spell that isn't normally worth memorizing are quite a bit rarer than circumstances where you will need one of the top 3 spells several times. This is even more true when you factor in optimization and specialization. If you have 5 feats invested in Summoning, those are spells you will learn into. You won't carry as many spells from opposing schools. Your buffs will usually be planned around your party and will be standard based on what they tend to need.

And that doesn't even take into account the days the wizard picks wrong. Had bad Intel or made a mistake. 

I'm honestly not sure if PF sorcerer crosses that line. I have a feeling it is pretty optimization dependent. And table culture dependent. But I'm quite sure 20 spells known per level has blown way past it. I'd guess somewhere in the 7-15 spells known/level range

----------

