AlastarOG's page

Ok I'm going with 2, I'm at Barbarian for now.

For explanations, which format is best:

Ex 1:
Alchemist (total points: 15/25):
Reasoning: The alchemist is a poor damage dealer, either through bomber or mutagenist, the damage output is not there and you only scale to expert in attacks. With ultimately medium armor mastery and 2 saves at Master they are tankier than wizards, but still have 8 hp. Alchemists are great healers though, able to create healing potions on the fly, or in advance and distribute them. They have good debuff abilities through bombs and poisons, and great buffing. In exploration, they can whip out skill bonuses on the fly that are non negligible, and in downtime their heavy focus on the crafting skill will serve you well.

Or

Ex 2:
Combat:
Damage: 2 With proficiencies stopping at expert, damage alchemists struggle either through bombs or mutagens. Adding the fact that their key ability is not the main ability needed for their damage styles and that even if they manage an attack that has DC’s (like poisons or mutagenic breath) that DC does not go above Master. Overall, Alchemist are not a damage class.
Survivability: 1 Very late Master proficiency in armor, and 2 saves at Master, but 8hp per level. Better than mage, worst than tanks or semi/tanks.
Healing: 3 3 is for a chirurgeon alchemist, otherwise it’s a 1 or 2. Chirurgeon are first class healers though, and can give out a lot of healing in a turn.
Control: 2 Debilitating bombs, poisons, alchemical items and the such give alchemists a great many ways to debuff opponents.
OOC:
Exploration: 4 Alchemists can buff skills on the go, have the right tool for the job on a whim, recall knowledge like champs, and even be thievery or stealth focused.
Downtime: 3 Being heavily crafting focused helps alchemists perform well during downtime, no unique or auto scaling feature though.

I try to evaluate the class as a whole, into what it can potentially provide for your party.

As an exemple: Alchemist has potions which are abundant and heal for quite a lot (not as much as a heal spell though) but also has access to the chirurgeon field, even though not all alchemists will go that route. (2 or 3 in healing was a debate for Alchemist I'll grant, but in the end since I'd put investigator which has 2 paths that grant healing (tincture and forensic, the Alchemist can potentially have both at the same time, hence the 3).

I rated warpriest at 2 in healing because in my understanding most warpriests want to go for cast down+channel smite which means you either go versatile font or harmful font? That might be a mistake though.

For witches and other prepared casters, while in early levels they could struggle at having damage and control, eventually as prepared casters they can do both at whim, changing by what they want to be doing that day, the ability to pivot is key here. Yes some spell lists are better at it than others, but overall each spell list has an abundance of damage and control. The ability of witches to grab any one of those is core to their narrative power.

For downtime... Well it really depends on campaign ? Kingmaker is upcoming (and I'm running my own) and downtime has been quintessential, same thing in SoT where we are crafting our items at massive discounts. AoA has massive parts with downtime activities, specially in chapter 5, and ultimately, if you don't have a caster to teleport you to Absalom, crafting is literally the only way to get upper level items in mass.

Teleport and shadow walk are uncommon spells so if you're in a campaign within a set world with a max settlement level of 7-11, which is very probable, downtime is key to progression as otherwise your martials will be woefully undergeared and underperforming (this is currently happening in our EC siege of the dinosaur game despite us having access to Absalom! We got sieged in while being undergeared and are struggling) so while I agree that downtime takes MUCH less time than combat, it is proportionally just as important to determine how your character impacts the game.

I've had parties that shifted their entire class picks when an inventor got in the party because "f#!* yeah, we got a crafter dude!" And that's part of the perks of the inventor I'd say.

But definitely on downtime YMMV

Touché!

It's a nice overview, but to actually mean anything you should add why you come to these values, and also which variant of the class you're looking at for these values. Not all barbs do the same damage, same as rogues, same with rangers.

Edit: I missed your post where you mentioned to explain the ranking. Would be very useful indeed. I would love to see how a champion would do more damage than a two-weapon flurry ranger.

Edit 2: I agree with what I saw elsewhere about tiers also being defined by level. low level play can be a lot different than high level play, on all fronts.

I'll add a paragraph to each class definitely! And the values are up for debate anyhow.

I could also do further sub-divisions, such as healing font cleric vs harming font cleric.

For Good Champion damage vs Flurry Ranger I admit at the time I was thinking of Paladin, which has an easily triggerable actions per round that deal persistent good damage, which in turn triggers weaknesses very often. Levels 14+ it can do that reaction twice a round, on top of its actions, which can be incredibly damaging.

If I take the class as a whole with redeemer and liberator, a 4 would likely be more appropriate.

I would disagree.

Aid is a circumstance bonus that scales up to +4. Circumstance means that it stacks with status such as inspire courage, heroism and marshal aura.

It's also at 30 ft. range, affects any of your ally within 30 ft (meaning you don't have to say ''I aid such'') and keys off your strongest skill.

Lower levels, it's useful, higher levels where a crit success is guaranteed? great value

Google doc is done, but will probably undergo several changes. I could also do a paragraph to explain the ranking of each class

I am still working on the google doc and excel, reason I posted here first is I had the whole forum coding done already and didn't want to lose it.

I'll post again to indicate when I'm done.

Through another thread, we have discussed much on what is power in pf2e, what is relevant, and which class is best at what.

Through that, I've devised a system of weighted ranking that I believe could be helpful to new players that are looking for an answer for the eternal ''which class to play'' question.

This guide has two goals

1 - To accurately represent the ability of each class to affect meaningful change to multiple areas of the narrative at broad, through only their core class kit, discounting archetypes, skill feats, general feats, items and ancestries as non-pertinent to the matter.

2 - In a broader sense, to accurately determine how these classes intermesh with each other in a party, so as to determine where a party, based on only their classes, might be weak or strong, and thus tailor further build options around that, if so desired.

To reach those objectives, I've devised a ranking system that will give a brief ranking to each class on scales described bellow. I will then aggregate those points for each class, but this is in no means a reflection of their power, merely of how varied and versatile a class can be. Every class performs differently based on campaign and classes that are weak in downtime could perform very well in a short timeline campaign, but less well in a multi-years campaign (such as AoA or SoT)

The rating system takes the class as a whole from level 1 to level 20.

The rating system is based on:

15 points for the combat rating:
Damage: 6 points
Survivability: 3 points
Healing: 3 points
Control 3 points

10 Points for the out-of-combat rating system
Exploration: 5 points
Downtime: 5 points

These premises stipulate a ratio of roughly 60% combat to 40% exploration in most campaigns.

These premises stipulate that damage is double the value of any other aspect of combat.

Overall I believe this to be a fairly reasonable rating system, not perfect, but not irrelevant as well.

I will post the rankings on this google doc, so I can keep it up to date as new classes come out

This calculator will enable people to come in and automatically get the stats for their party, to see where their party might be weak

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Rules to be ignored: Shadowrun

Shadowrun is pretty edition-dependent too. Like, it has seen some serious shifts back and forth over the years.

I think of it as "Shadowrun is a big system, and 80% of it works". It's just that the 20% of it that doesn't work changes dramatically from edition to edition.

And then there's the piss poor book editing and review.

I remember one of the 5e books had an endless reference loop for drones and just.... No rules for drones when you parsed it. Despite drones being actively a thing that was in the game !

Here is Ronald's Video

Perpdepog wrote:

Temperans wrote:

It makes it worse given that Clerics and Druids know all their spells (at least all the common ones). But then Wizard and Witch have to pay exorbitant amounts of gold for something that most of the time wont even be useful.

I shudder to imagine how tight your games have to be that half, or quarter, the price of a scroll of equivalent level to learn a spell is considered "exorbitant."

I am not calling a single spell exorbitant. I am calling the total sum of all those spells that people expect prepared casters to have exorbitant.

It really adds up! The level 9 witch in iron gods is easily 700-900 behind other PC's in gold because I've been generous on the spellbooks.

Thanks for the reference to my thread, love your channel keep up the great work ^^

AlastarOG wrote:

I have been running an undead game for a year now (kingmaker but with characters that are all dhampir and run a necromantic empire )

One of them is a cleric of Urgathoa and if you know kingmaker you know that there's undead in there (vordakai being the main one).

How I've presented it to my player is that... They don't know. Gods don't negotiate and deal with their followers, especially not goddesses like Urgathoa. You can get a phylactery of faithfulness to know when you'd violate anathema though !

That being said, Urgathoa is not the most merciful or understanding of deities, so I feel like players having "a logical and reasonable" reason as to why they're killing an undead would be lost on her. It doesn't matter to her, you devote yourself to her and in exchange she grants you power. Part of that devotion is the tenant that you will put undead life above all else's no matter the cost.

That being said, as mentionned above, if you're not DIRECTLY killing the undead but enhancing someone who is, well, Urgathoa also strikes me as a deity who enjoys a good loophole that craddles the line.

And if you're a GM and you think your players are playing loosey goosey with the Anathema, I'd like to remind you that Urgathoa's minor curse is HILARIOUS!

"You must overindulge or partake in forbidden feasts before you find yourself even remotely sated. You need to eat 20 times as much food as normal to avoid starvation, though you always feel hungry regardless of how much you eat. If you dine on the flesh and blood of sapient creatures, you need to eat only the normal amount of such meals and your hunger abates."

This would be my starting point to punish an anathema violator.

PS: cleric of anathema in Geb can be very potent because of anthemic reprisal. If everyone in your party is an undead, anyone attacking your party is committing anathema against your faith ;-)

I would not ask for the phylactery of faithfulness.

The PCs have been indoctrinated in...

**Gestures wildly at the entirety of catholic philosophy and ethics**

I have been running an undead game for a year now (kingmaker but with characters that are all dhampir and run a necromantic empire )

One of them is a cleric of Urgathoa and if you know kingmaker you know that there's undead in there (vordakai being the main one).

How I've presented it to my player is that... They don't know. Gods don't negotiate and deal with their followers, especially not goddesses like Urgathoa. You can get a phylactery of faithfulness to know when you'd violate anathema though !

That being said, Urgathoa is not the most merciful or understanding of deities, so I feel like players having "a logical and reasonable" reason as to why they're killing an undead would be lost on her. It doesn't matter to her, you devote yourself to her and in exchange she grants you power. Part of that devotion is the tenant that you will put undead life above all else's no matter the cost.

That being said, as mentionned above, if you're not DIRECTLY killing the undead but enhancing someone who is, well, Urgathoa also strikes me as a deity who enjoys a good loophole that craddles the line.

And if you're a GM and you think your players are playing loosey goosey with the Anathema, I'd like to remind you that Urgathoa's minor curse is HILARIOUS!

"You must overindulge or partake in forbidden feasts before you find yourself even remotely sated. You need to eat 20 times as much food as normal to avoid starvation, though you always feel hungry regardless of how much you eat. If you dine on the flesh and blood of sapient creatures, you need to eat only the normal amount of such meals and your hunger abates."

This would be my starting point to punish an anathema violator.

PS: cleric of anathema in Geb can be very potent because of anthemic reprisal. If everyone in your party is an undead, anyone attacking your party is committing anathema against your faith ;-)

With the new class coming out, I find myself looking back over my currently running games and thinking to myself "wouldn't this character be better as a psychic instead of an occult with?"

The three characters I have in mind are:

Occult patron tengu who's a paranormal detective in a legend of the 5 rings style game.

Haughty elf witch who's known as a darkmaster to her elf peers, currently a curse elf witch.

Upcoming night curse fetching shadow caster witch, but the player is considering not playing witch cause psychic is so interesting.

So in all of these cases the answer is that I do want to play the psychic for that character role more than the witch. I did not necessarily want a familiar with all of these and it's not like familiars are unique to the witch class anyways (fetchling shadow caster build wanted a shadow familiar but shadow caster provides it...)

And outside of the familiar the witch class provides.... Very little.

Aside from that it was very synergistic with its INT key ability and occultism synergy but now... Well two of the subconscious minds have int as key ability, and psychic casts occultism and has better skill synergy with occultism through class abilities.

So I'd say that the occult witch has very much been made irrelevant by the psychic, who delivers a weird, dark take on occult casting and reliable, repeatable powers and focus point usage that the witch just fails at delivering.

Which leaves the witch with 3 more familiar powers. Don't get me wrong, I like familiars...but they don't make a class by themselves.

Also 1 spell slot more per level, which isn't that bad since you can use class feats as a psychic to even out, and the class feats are overall better too, giving you near spell abilities.

Share your thoughts.

This is one of those few areas where I think 5e did it best with how they classify "monk weaponry"

It's simple, elegant, and you kinda make it work, and it unlocks exotic monk builds like bare chested samurai or exotically dressed fan girl monk fighter that are simply not viable in 2e.

I might actually homebrew that a bit in my Isekai game since one of the players wants to play a Monk.

Yes but my point was more along the lines of:

It's not a de facto bonus, it's a conditional one, even more so because brawling focus is in the same window as stunning fist.

For unicore, I edited this in:

Also I find item bonuses to skills to be much more practical, I rarely get weapons for this trait, cause armbands of athleticism give you +2 to maneuvers AND climbing/swimming/jumping.

Then the apex items just give you +3 across board and are am assumed item.

So AT BEST those traits are niche and situational. Stances are better all of the time.

Elven branched spear monk with an elven curve blade on their back looks amazing though, too bad it costs me 3 feats to match baseline stances and thus I'll never try it.

You know ... If I were to play a Monk one day.

Isn't the value of Monk weapons that they have lots of traits like disarm, trip, grapple, shove, etc? The value here is that 1 shifting rune pretty much gets you an item bonus to any combat maneuver you want to perform without spending feats on stances that have the matching trait.

Yah but the stances do too.

Also I find item bonuses to skills to be much more practical, I rarely get weapons for this trait, cause armbands of athleticism give you +2 to maneuvers AND climbing/swimming/jumping.

Then the apex items just give you +3 across board and are am assumed item.

So AT BEST those traits are niche and situational. Stances are better all of the time.

@mathmuse:

I think my favorite Oracle NPC was Cassandalee.

Ancestor Oracle that lived all her past android lives? So flavorful!

Before guns and gears came out I was kind of expecting the guns to have a high damage high risk reward, a bit like what the inventor gave us.

Something like an overturned damage option, I'm talking d10/d12 ranged weapons with the deadly trait and maybe backstabber for the big ones, and some d8 options with reload 0 and maybe agile. Something that's overtuned vs bows/crossbows.

But then you balance that out with misfires on a critical miss, making the weapon jam, taking 2 or 3 actions to unclog (less if gunslinger) and dealing minor damage to you.

I was a bit disappointed, but I can understand why it swung that way.

here is the breakdown, with the fighter assuming they have point blank shot and start it round 1. When greater striking runes come into play and longbow overtakes shortbow as best candidate for point blank shot, fighter switches to a longbow.

The gunslinger is better at outputting damage in the mid level ranges with the fatal trait, but that tappers off as the fighter styles just explode in the higher levels.

Overall though I'd say it's pros and cons

@aobst128: I agree about combination weapons, right now they just kinda make me sad.

On the iron gods campaign, one of my players actually fell in love with the idea of a gunsword, but then upon learning it was 2handed and didn't work with quick draw dropped it cause just having a bastard sword was better for her flurry ranger build.

So as a gm I modded it, I made gunsword 1 handed (for melee) and allowed the switch to work with quick draw, and she really likes the feel.

I understand why the balance point came down that way, but sometimes as Gm's we have to allow our players to go SWOOSH SLASH CLICK CLACK PEW PEW PEW without too much hassle.

Sorry for faulty math, i did indeed forget that the increased dice get doubled which means that fatal slightly outperforms deadly, in the case of d8/fatal d12 weapons vs d8/deadly d10 weapons.

Sniper duo is pretty good, but once again you suffer the <<having to take a shot on a reaction>> problem because you either

A: Shot, reload, shot on your turn, meaning you're out of bullets for a reaction shot.

B: Shot reload... held (or third action) and then shot, leaving you starting empty, then reload shot, reload.

Risky reload helps on this but it can very well cost you another action.

Meanwhile, with sniper duo, the archer can

Shoot, shoot, move (utility) then still have a reaction available for all the awesome sniper duo reactions.

And yes stabilizers can eventually make guns with kickback equivalent to bows in damage but it takes up a slot, has you jump through hoops for it, and costs 120gp.

Meanwhile Archer fighter/ranger over there's been plugging away with his bow since level 1 in the straightest manner possible.

Shit in my SoT game the precision ranger often has the problem of having TOO MANY actions and doesn't know what to do after she's used hunted shot (precision ranger with gravity bow). As a gunslinger the same equivalent (shooting twice) takes all 3 of your actions and maybe allows you to do an extra utility one? Ranger can shoot twice for 1 action, then do literally anything else AND still have a shot loaded for reactions (like the awesome sniper duo ones)

Overall guns feel underwhelming to me. We needed an air repeater style reload 0 weapon with d8 and maybe fatal d12 and the volley trait.

Yes this looks very similar to a longbow but honestly right now the arquebus/jezail is just a terrible longbow.

Yes it has fatal d12 but fatal actually tapers off behind deadly d10 eventually, they even out around greater striking and at major striking deadly is better.

Major striking arquebus Crit: 5d12 (32.5)
Major striking longbow Crit: 4d8+3d10 (34.5)

Greater striking arquebus Crit: 4d12 (26)
Greater striking longbow Crit: 3d8+2d10 (24.5)

Given that, as shown, longbow Crits are eventually better with the deadly d10 trait than the fatal d12 trait, guns are just behind vs the bows in every single situation.

Adding insult to injury, the gunslinger has a Bunch of cool support feats that could make them a really good ranged support/damage character, filling a similar niche to ranger and inventor, but right now with the reload mechanics using reactions that cost a shot is very penalizing, so the build only works with either a repeating crossbow (advanced, need a level 6 class feat or the archer archetype level 6 feat) or air repeater dealing d4.

In both those cases youre either A: dealing d8 with reload 0 but don't have the deadly d10 or fatal d12 traits or B: dealing d4.

Both cases just make me wish I'd have a bow instead, so I'd get one.

Hence: we need a gun that's a bow equivalent, and we ain't got one.

AlastarOG wrote:

Look I'm not getting dragged into this debate, your table your rules, you do what you want, but if you think asking any of the devs what they think on this would result in them saying yes you can use materials such as silver and cold iron with it, you're dellusional.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Logan Bonner might.

For whatever that is worth.

That's for improvised thrown weapons of a legit spécial material melee weapon thrown though, not using TKP to chuck a silver piece at a devil.

On those in the camp of ''TKP can trigger weaknesses and aversions''

I'd like to remind you that the new class, the Thaumaturge, has it's core class damage power being ''learn an opponent's weakness and then deal damage of that type of weakness''

This is then showcased through the class kit that this option is considered to the option of ''the opponent has weakness to your attacks equal to 2 plus half your level''.

Therefore, TKP triggering weaknesses (Because on top of materials, there's ice cubes, holy water, etc. etc.) is a massive break in the power system. It's already a good cantrip, let's not make it silly.

Not to mention that reverse engineer allows you to use Crafting instead of Thievery to disable a device or Open a lock, making you incredibly skill efficient...

... As long as someone else is searching for traps.

Damn you spell check, say supervisor superbidi's name right !

ikarinokami wrote:

the game can be 90% combat or it can be 90% out of combat, i have played in games that were either and neither, so you need to rate how classes function in both situations.

of course, before you start your campaign you should ask the GM what style of campaign they are going to running, so you can choose and plan your class.

A home game in ANY system can be ANY thing. I have played board race games which we made into conquer the world of the game. That ability is not reflection of the actual games focuses.

What is a reflection is the granularity of each game phase (e.g. combat vs exploration) and the published adventure components. By these standards, the comments are pretty accurate that the game is 90% combat (esp. in PFS scenarios and APs where exploration etc is pretty much handled by a quick couple of arbitrary die rolls)

I would dispute that, while combat takes up more of the time, I feel like a lot of AP have very long scenes that don't involve combat.

Aoe, Aoa, SoT have a lot of subsystem scenes where you must do heists, chases, research, tell tales, help poor laborers, investigate clubs, ingratiate yourself with local guilds, hunt down a camel. In SOT so far there have been several games without a single combat.

I'm taking some notes from this.

I think my second city will be the trade metropolis, so a high level settlement with a complex political system nicknamed "the city of intrigue"

It'll go from the happy go lucky beginner's city that's very adventurer geared to a sprawling city where adventurers have to negotiate patron relations and court intrigue to even get jobs.

The demon kings general introduced in this one will be the lowest ranking of the generals, but the most devious one. A succubus pretending to be a half elf who holds high office and several committee positions that grind government to a halt over most issues.

On top of that, she'll have a pact with a troll king who is gathering troops and monsters in the sewers to raze the city, but the council can't agree on what to do about him. I'm hoping she can get in the party's good graces and really backstab them good.

3rd chapter will be in the technological city and will involve two twin onis who have redirected a gigantic walking fortress that is slowly gearing towards the city and must be stopped. The party will have to infiltrate the giant fortress by entering it through a door under one of its foots, and then do a race agaisnt the clock to make it to the center of the megadungeon inside to confront the two Oni twins that are controlling it. I will have a teleport puzzle in there using monks active tiles in foundry VTT.

4-5 are still open, 6 is gonna involve massive army combat to reach the demon king.

For chapter 1 I added an obstacle course that will be the new players "tutorial" moment and also serve as a way to introduce the adventurers guild.

Feel free to pitch me more ideas I'm loving it :-)

My flag waving regalia thaumaturge can't wait to be unleashed in the world !

Thaumaturge has made me want to redirect my 1e gnome flag waving bard concept, but as a regalia thaumaturge (the flag being the regalia) with the marshal archetype.

" You might be a 30 foot tall dragon that can disintegrate with a breath.... But I have a flag !!"

**Waves flag agressively!!**

Gortle wrote:

roquepo wrote:

Nah, my guess is that Eoran point is that there is no unified direction for this discussion so we keep going in circles.

Yep. We are about 90% agreed that there is no useful solution in the original tier framework.

What could be a new useful framework? Perhaps that is worth debating.

Since direct, individual power seems to be to samey and hard to compare between classes, I would go for how valuable a class is for any given party of other 3 classes.

Tier 1: The class usually fits in most parties, being a valuable asset for the group. It has many party compositions where it is the best option and even in their worse case composition they can still perform well. Examples: Bard, Champion

Tier 2: The class fits in most parties. It has party compositions where it is the best option and can still function to a satisfactory degree in its worst party composition. Examples: Barbarian, Sorcerer

Tier 3: The class is average. There are a few party compositions where it is the best option, but it is subpar when the party composition is not adequate for it. Examples: Monk, Ranger

Tier 4: The class is below average. There are no party compositions where it is the best option, but it can be really close to other better options when they fit in. The class feels weak when it does not fit the rest of the party. Examples: Warpriest, Alchemist

Tier 5: The class is bad. There are no party compositions where it feels like a strong option and it will drag the party when it fits particularly badly with the composition. Examples: None so far, but I can see specific builds being here

Class placement is just my opinion and the tiering is just a preliminary framework of something that could work. For making this for real there is a need for discussion about the individual classes and how good or bad and why they are good or bad in several party compositions. Lots of work, but definitely something doable.

If this is the best option for a PF2 class tier list, I...

I kinda like that, its elegant

I think the main issue we face here is the Nirvana Fallacy not the wicked problem.

It's not gonna be perfect, no objective attempt at measuring a multi-subjective perceptoral concept is, but we've made some decent headway from the Original Post, that should be called ''the draft'' from now on.

A Pf2e class tier compilation should have 2 stated goals

1 - To accurately represent the ability of each class to affect meaningful change to multiple areas of the narrative at broad, through only their core class kit, discounting archetypes, skill feats, general feats, items and ancestries as non-pertinent to the matter.

2 - In a broader sense, to accurately determine how these classes intermesh with each other in a party, so as to determine where a party, based on only their classes, might be weak or strong, and thus tailor further build options around that, if so desired.

To which, we have a multi-field rating system that at the end will aggregate into a single ranking on a tier ladder, under the assumption that classes that can enact change in multiple fields in a competent matter should be, on a blank canvas and without further information, considered first, if one discounts other factors such as ease of use or fun.

The rating system takes the class as a whole from level 1 to level 20.

The rating system is based on:

15 points for the combat rating:
Damage: 6 points
Survivability: 3 points
Healing: 3 points
Control 3 points

10 Points for the out-of-combat rating system
Exploration: 5 points
Downtime: 5 points

These premises stipulate a ratio of roughly 60% combat to 40% exploration in most campaigns.

These premises stipulate that damage is double the value of any other aspect of combat.

Damage takes into consideration the ability to inflict damage, either to single targets or to multiple targets, in a roughly 50/50 split if pertinent.
Damage shall be rated as follow:
1: Low to non-existent damage
2: Average damage (think basic strike without class features)
3: Slightly above average Damage
4: Clearly above average damage, but conditional
5: Very High above average damage, but conditional, or clearly above average damage
6: Overwhelming damage

Survivability takes into account saving throws, HP pool and AC
Survivability shall be rated as follow:
0: Below average survivability
1: Average survivability (one save at Master+ only, 8 or 6 hp per level, unarmored or light armor)
2: Above average survivability (two saves at Master, 10+hp per level, access to medium + armor)
3: Great survivability (Anything above 2)

Healing takes into account ease of access to the medicine skill, as well as spells, features and items that come from the class.
Healing shall be rated as follow:
0: No healing ability
1: Some healing ability, or good medicine skill synergy
2: Repeatable, high healing ability or Great medicine skill synergy
3: Repeatable AND high healing ability.

Control takes into account the ability to inflict penalties to opposing parties, either to one or to several opponents. ''The basics'' shall be composed of the demoralize action as well as the athletics suite of skill, synergy with these skills through key ability or spellcasting ability shall be considered.
Control shall be rated as follows:
0: No ability to inflict penalties other than the basics, low synergy with the basics.
1: No or little ability to inflict penalties other than the basics, but good synergy with the basics (think basics+ critical specialisation)
2: Good ability to inflict penalties outside of the basics and good synergy with the basics
3: Great ability to inflict penalties outside of the basics as well as ability to inflict multiple penalties with one action/turn efficiently or the ability to inflict the same penalty to multiple opponents reliably.

Exploration is the ability to enact change on the narrative in roleplay/exploration mode. Key ability synergy with charisma skills, high proficiency in perception, narrative changing abilities, the ability to generate items spontaneously, and the ability to pivot quickly from one configuration to another are rated here. Quickly means a day or under.
Exploration shall be rated as follows:
0: No or little ability or synergy to influence the narrative through class features.
1: Little ability to impose change on the narrative (ex: Master Perception but not much else)
2: Moderate ability to impose change on the narrative (ex: flex abilities, ability to quickly buff skills, access to utility spells)
3: Moderate ability to impose change on the narrative, but with ease of pivot between those abilities, or great ability to change the narrative.
4: Great ability to impose change on the narrative, but with ease of pivot between those abilities, or scenario changing ability to affect the narrative
5: Scenario changing ability to affect the narrative, with great pivot time.

Downtime is the ability to generate economical gain and growth during allotted downtime days during campaigns, as well as perform special campaign specific actions that have the downtime trait. Takes into consideration class features but also key ability synergy with the 3 main downtime skills (crafting, lore, performance)
Downtime shall be rated as follows:
0: No class ability to downtime, no key ability synergy with a downtime skill.
1: No class ability to downtime, low ability synergy with a downtime skill (Ex: Champion is incentivized for charisma, but not for performance)
2: Class ability to downtime, key ability synergy with a downtime skill, access to features that are best performed in downtime (things that are best done when not adventuring, trapping, reinforcing, locking, moving fast, etc.) ''Must have any of 1''
3: Class ability to downtime, key ability synergy with a downtime skill, EASY access to features that are best performed in downtime (things that are best done when not adventuring, trapping, reinforcing, locking, moving fast, etc.) ''Must have 2''
4: Class ability to downtime, key ability synergy with a downtime skill, EASY access to features that are best performed in downtime (things that are best done when not adventuring, trapping, reinforcing, locking, moving fast, etc.) ''Must have 3''
5: 4, but with extra features like auto scaling skills or special downtime powers.

Overall I believe this to be a fairly reasonable rating system, not perfect, but not irrelevant as well.

I'll leave it to take in comments and tweaks before I repost another thread and start to take a crack at another tier list.

As an exemple:

Fighter:
Control: 4 out of 5, fighters have class feats that inflict debuff and restraint effects, and their critical specialisation can be very prevalent, effectively inflicting debuffs for free. On top of that, attack of opportunity, potentially multiple itterations of it, is great area denial.

Healing: 1 out of 5. Not great, but the fighter has some synergy with the battle medicine skill feat line because wisdom is often a very desired stat for fighters and they have several feat lines that leave a hand free.

Damage: 5 out of 5, the fighter does a lot of damage!

Exploration: 3 out of 5, fighters can retrain one flex feat every day to potentially aid niche situations (blind fight and such) and adapt to the environment. They get poor exploration support, but are Master in perception, which means that searching is always a good idea.

Downtime: 1 out of 5, fighters are not particularly better at downtime activites than any other class. They do have some room in their build for charisma or Int though.

This would put the fighter at Combat 10 out of 15, Narrative 4 out of 10, aggregate 14 out of 25, or Tier 4.

Maybe the Tier points system is too harsh and I need to start Tier 1 at 20+ and move down ?

The idea that Wizard focus spells are even arguably as good as Sorcerer focus spells is not one I ever thought I’d see.

Sorcerers have an additional ''tier'' of bloodline spells which makes them overall better, and a lot of them are much better than what wizards have.

But if we compare, let's say, nymph's token to physical boost, physical boost is better. Same thing with, let's say, spirit veil vs dimensional steps or dread aura.

But if we compare blinding beauty or dragon's breath to (looks at level 4 focus spells for wizards....) ok no they're kinda all solid ! There is less of them though, and sorcerers do have that level 6 focus spell that is overall much better than any wizard focus spells.

But at level 1, some sorcerer focus spells are MUCH better than some wizard focus spells, but the inverse is also true.

Well the Wizards thing is that they are the best at casting.

They have the same number of spell slots as sorcerer's (and arguably just as good focus spells aside from the occasional outlier like dragon/elemental bloodlines) but on top of that have the added versatility of their thesis and of being prepared casters.

I would say their shtick is as well defined as fighters, whereas fighters Crit more often, Wizards have more spell slots and are thus the best at outputting arcane magic.

Yes I'm aware arcane bloodline sorcerers can have a small spellbook but it's definitely not the same as a wizard with spell blending or spell substitution, although they will both perform very well at what they do.

Unicore wrote:

When/if they do, they will have to be careful to make sure that even in a nova capacity the wizard is not capable of just doing any other class' thing better then they do with a top level spell and a first level spell.

It would be nice though if the Wizard actually had its own, dedicated, "thing" to begin with.

I'd argue their thesis is their own thing ?

I know I always agonize over which I'll take and each of my wizards feels different because of that !

No definitely not.

Ranged attack spells have their use but they definitely do not compete with ranged builds. (My exemple above was just for funsies, not aiming to be that factual)

I usually save them for when I've adequately debuffed the ennemy (something like FF+frightened/sickened/clumsy 1-3)

That's when they hit the most and make the most sense, because FF is a penalty that you can't put on saves, and true strike is a bonus that saving throw spells don't have.

Otherwise if they're just frightened 1-2 and no FF you're better off casting saving throw spells like slow or hideous laughter.

If they're not debuffed in any way you have no business making a ranged attack spell really, depending on situation.

Also some ranged attack spells double as utility, like disintegrate.

I'll back what Breit is saying that you should grab the viking archetype.

On top of that shield divine ally champion means you can't get critical specialisation, and viking dedication unlocks that for you for the hatchet, longsword, battle axe, shortsword, rapier and Bastard sword.

Bastard Sword would be my go to .

Real fast build would be:

Must have feats from champion:
Attack of Opportunity
Shield warden
Shield of Reckoning
Blade of Justice
Divine reflexes

Suggested feats from viking:
Reactive shield
Quick Shield block
Shielded stride
(these would be if you don't take second blade ally and still want critical specialisation)
Viking weapon proficiency
Viking weapon expertise
Viking weapon specialist

Suggested feats from sentinel (which I would suggest getting 3 feats from if you have the room)
Armored Rebuffed
Mighty Bulwark (allows you to leave dex at 10 without remorse)

Suggested items:
Titan's Grasp
+3 Major striking holy weapon (my suggestion would be bastard sword, but if you want axes go dwarven war axe ?)
+3 Greater resilient Full plate
Supreme sturdy shield.

The rest is flex, pick what you like.

What this does:

You have 3 reactions per turn:
-1 for shield blocking
-1 for champion reaction
-1 at your leisure.

When you engage with an opponent while adjacent to an ally (Like the monk or rogue, the rogue should have gangup btw) what this does is that the opponent has what I like to call ''the triangle of failure'' as options:

-1 They attack you, you shield block... if they manage to hit you cause you're a champion with raised shield, your AC is literally 4 above the benchmark used for the game.
-2 They attack an ally, you use shield of reckoning, your ally takes no damage (substract your 19 Hardness fromy our shield as well as your 21 damage from the damage they take, which is essentially almost always no damage since the champion's reaction is resistance to ALL damage, therefore if a demon hits them with 4d8+20 slashing+2d6 evil+2d6 fire, well your resistance applies once to slashing, once to evil, once to fire) and on top of that they step.
3- They attempt to move away from you, you whack them with AoO.

You're potentially able to do these more than once depending on what they do. It's very possible they'll try to hit you, fail abjectly, try to hit an ally and then get shield of reckoninged.

Most of your turns are then:
Stride
Hit
Raise shield.

If you don't need to stride, use blade of justice.

Well as a comparison, agaisnt a level 20 enemy, polar ray does 85 damage if you include the drained value and leaves them with a -2 to fort DC and saves.

Sure, it's not as potent as 3 attacks criting but it opens up the creature to grabs and shoves, as well as further fort targeting spells.

Like a 10th level true strike searing light with a shadow signet to target the fort dc, giving you good odds of a Crit on your 38d6 of damage.

AlastarOG wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

AlastarOG wrote:

such lively debate in the pf1e days

You have an interesting definition of "lively".

It was a deliberate euphemism :-p

So, you knew how this would go down but went ahead anyway, likely out of some deeply mistaken assumption that this will end any different because it's you who started the thread or because you made a "please be civil" disclaimer? Well, you're the definition of high Int and low Wis, then.

I dare to hope the best from my peers, and am often disappointed. I fail to see how that's a failure on my part though.

I honestly believe the Tiers' contents reveal much about what the OP values highly. Not about the relative worth of the Classes.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Narrative power has always been the metric in tier lists, as far as I can understand, and that's what I intend to objectively rate here.

You're free to object to my points rather than to my perceived intent though.

I think attack rolls for a spellcaster have to be considered in the same way as saving throws.

It's an additional defense to target if you think you have good odds of affecting it more positively.

Some monsters have very low AC and high saves or straight up immunities in a lot of other defenses (oozes for exemple) and in those cases it's better to target AC. But if you're playing a spellcaster that only does spell attack rolls all of the time you fail to play to the strength of your class (versatility in defense targeting) and thus your odds of failure are overall stronger.

True strike is just a cherry on top of that core truth.

This is also an argument against item bonuses to spell attack rolls.

@Captain Morgan,

We'll put, I'm just chiming in cause the plus sign wasn't enough against such bad faith arguments as were levied.

Small correction: Monks don't get legendary in unarmed attacks.

As well, as discussed in this thread, you CAN effectively hit in melee or ranged with a caster, just... Manage your expectations.

I've seen the full plate + bastard sword wearing bard in my agents of edgewatch campaign ravage stuff with heroism+true strike + power attack when he was mopping up stuff and wanted to preserver spell slots.