| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also: What kind of scale are we talking about here?
A lot of the PF1/3.x tier discussions involved relative usefulness in broad situations between classes.
Example: Wizard/Cleric/Druid were often at/near the top because they could obsolete entire classes at the things those classes were supposed to be good at for minimal cost.
Things to establish before having a tier discussion:
* Are the classes broadly tier-able in the first place?
* Are they being compared to one another or only classes that share a thematic/mechanical niche?
* As Gorbacz indicated: What does "job" even mean here?
* To reiterate my first question: what is the scale? Numeric? How granular is it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes are much more balanced with each other than previous editions of the game. There really isn't that kind of a "tier list" anymore. Though if you're looking at performing very specific tasks some will pull ahead more than others such as a Rogue being the best at the Stealth skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters and Barbarians can be decent tanks, depending on what they're doing. Fighter can get a TON of reactions for free usage of shields and attacks of opportunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters can gain a bonus reaction for Attack of Opportunity, Shield Block, and their normal reaction. They can also use things like Shield Warden and Improved Reflexive Shield to block damage to allies with the Shield Block reaction.
Reactive Shield + Quick Shield Block gives a bonus reaction that can only be used to Shield Block.
Combat Reflexes gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Attack of Opportunity.
Dueling Riposte + Improved Dueling Riposte gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Dueling Riposte.
Twin Riposte + Improved Twin Riposte gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Twin Riposte.
Boundless Reprisals gives you an additional reaction for each of your enemies turns.
Paragon's Guard allows you to enter a stance as a fighter that pretty much means you ALWAYS have your shield raised so long as you meet the requirements to do so. It's a great source of bonus action efficiency.
Fighters can use their shield or a secondary weapon to great bonus efficiency to allow them to take advantage of the combat and defend both themselves and their allies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters and Barbarians can be decent tanks, depending on what they're doing. Fighter can get a TON of reactions for free usage of shields and attacks of opportunity.A tank is meant to both take hit and protect allies.
A barbarian is not meant to protect allies, and given the armor lack because of rage, it is not suit able as tank.
Barbarians get to tremendous amount of hit points + damage reduction which compensate the lack of armor while raging.
Also, you only consider hits against AC. There are many melee spell attacks targeting Fortitude (Harm for example). Also, against poisoned attacks, the Barbarian will tank better than both Fighters and Champions.And Barbarians can get attacks of opportunity to block enemies.
Barbarians can tank. They are not as good as Champions, but they can do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters can gain a bonus reaction for Attack of Opportunity, Shield Block, and their normal reaction. They can also use things like Shield Warden and Improved Reflexive Shield to block damage to allies with the Shield Block reaction.
Reactive Shield + Quick Shield Block gives a bonus reaction that can only be used to Shield Block.
Combat Reflexes gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Attack of Opportunity.
Dueling Riposte + Improved Dueling Riposte gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Dueling Riposte.
Twin Riposte + Improved Twin Riposte gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Twin Riposte.
Boundless Reprisals gives you an additional reaction for each of your enemies turns.
Paragon's Guard allows you to enter a stance as a fighter that pretty much means you ALWAYS have your shield raised so long as you meet the requirements to do so. It's a great source of bonus action efficiency.
Fighters can use their shield or a secondary weapon to great bonus efficiency to allow them to take advantage of the combat and defend both themselves and their allies.
Looking at all this, it almost feels like the Devs decided to design the action economy in a way that maximizes the Fighter. They seem to be the most adept at maximizing their actions and still being the most effective in combat. Don't get me wrong, I see this a a very good decision. In P1, there was almost no reason to play a fighter, because everyone else could do your job better. In P2, there are a ton of reasons.
Looking at all this, it almost feels like the Devs decided to design the action economy in a way that maximizes the Fighter. They seem to be the most adept at maximizing their actions and still being the most effective in combat. Don't get me wrong, I see this a a very good decision. In P1, there was almost no reason to play a fighter, because everyone else could do your job better. In P2, there are a ton of reasons.Fighters can gain a bonus reaction for Attack of Opportunity, Shield Block, and their normal reaction. They can also use things like Shield Warden and Improved Reflexive Shield to block damage to allies with the Shield Block reaction.
Reactive Shield + Quick Shield Block gives a bonus reaction that can only be used to Shield Block.
Combat Reflexes gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Attack of Opportunity.
Dueling Riposte + Improved Dueling Riposte gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Dueling Riposte.
Twin Riposte + Improved Twin Riposte gives a bonus reaction that can only be used for Twin Riposte.
Boundless Reprisals gives you an additional reaction for each of your enemies turns.
Paragon's Guard allows you to enter a stance as a fighter that pretty much means you ALWAYS have your shield raised so long as you meet the requirements to do so. It's a great source of bonus action efficiency.
Fighters can use their shield or a secondary weapon to great bonus efficiency to allow them to take advantage of the combat and defend both themselves and their allies.
Yeah, also great that if you really wanted to you could go down the Fighter MC Champion path and pick up the Champion Reaction too. Can make for some really interesting combats if you're trying to be as "tank" as possible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A giant instinct barbarian covers a huge area of the battlefield with their threatened area. Their form of tanking is to stand in the way, and the cost for enemies to get to and attack your allies becomes high enough that they attack you instead (of course, they also have lowest AC of tanks, so it's a little riskier than champion).
In other words, the champion mitigates damage to allies through their reaction. The Barbarian mitigates damage to allies by preventing the attacks in the first place.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That entirely depends on what you mean by "their job", which you didn't outline.What do you think?
Killing monsters while not getting killed in return. Obviously.
(Sorry to be blunt. But while you can argue the game is about other things than combat, it's only when your life is on the line a discussion like this really matters. That is, in any other situation, just about any character can get the job done eventually)
So a bard and a fighter do the same job in combat then, and it isn't useful to distinguish between different roles or jobs that contribute towards killing monsters and not getting killed in return?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
That entirely depends on what you mean by "their job", which you didn't outline.What do you think?
Killing monsters while not getting killed in return. Obviously.
(Sorry to be blunt. But while you can argue the game is about other things than combat, it's only when your life is on the line a discussion like this really matters. That is, in any other situation, just about any character can get the job done eventually)
Sorry to be blunt, but i don’t think you know how tier lists are actually designed.
In terms of tiers do you mean something like this:
Tier 1 (S Tier): Can shine in almost any role and can often do two roles at once. Change the world at high levels.
Tier 2 (A Tier): Can shine in multiple roles but not at the same time. More restricted world changing capabilities
Tier 3: Shine in one role and pretty darn good to one/two other roles
Tier 4: Shine in one niche role and okay in one or two other roles
Tier 5: Not good
In this example, pretty much every class right now is in Tier 2 & 3. They're really not that far apart from each other anymore.
Well s tier doesn't exist in this edition and you could argue that A doesn't either, so it comes down to most tier 3 - 5 for pathinder 2e so it comes down to how well you do at the one or two things your good at.In terms of tiers do you mean something like this:
Tier 1 (S Tier): Can shine in almost any role and can often do two roles at once. Change the world at high levels.
Tier 2 (A Tier): Can shine in multiple roles but not at the same time. More restricted world changing capabilities
Tier 3: Shine in one role and pretty darn good to one/two other roles
Tier 4: Shine in one niche role and okay in one or two other roles
Tier 5: Not good
Fortunately.
Tier 3 is the best we can afford, and it is gold.
Tier 1 and 2 is something I don't really like, because it tends to kill diversity by giving extreme diversity, even if this could seem nuts.
I only really list the casting classes as Tier 2 because when they get to 19th level and pick up their 10th level spell slot they've pretty much got Wish/Miracle/Etc. You can do some pretty crazy world changing things with that.
Though it's definitely nowhere near as busted as classes used to be in PF1e.
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
That entirely depends on what you mean by "their job", which you didn't outline.What do you think?
Killing monsters while not getting killed in return. Obviously.
(Sorry to be blunt. But while you can argue the game is about other things than combat, it's only when your life is on the line a discussion like this really matters. That is, in any other situation, just about any character can get the job done eventually)
Not sorry to be blunt, but you seem to have no idea how the original tier list was designed, and why did it rank Druids as tier 1 and Fighters as tier 4/5, despite the fact that Fighters were great at killing things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sorry to be blunt, but you seem to have no idea how the original tier list was designed, and why did it rank Druids as tier 1 and Fighters as tier 4/5, despite the fact that Fighters were great at killing things.That entirely depends on what you mean by "their job", which you didn't outline.What do you think?
Killing monsters while not getting killed in return. Obviously.
(Sorry to be blunt. But while you can argue the game is about other things than combat, it's only when your life is on the line a discussion like this really matters. That is, in any other situation, just about any character can get the job done eventually)
Savage.
Killing monsters while not getting killed in return. Obviously.
(Sorry to be blunt. But while you can argue the game is about other things than combat, it's only when your life is on the line a discussion like this really matters. That is, in any other situation, just about any character can get the job done eventually)
First, the game is about other things than combat. If you fail all skill checks before combat, you may end up never seeing combat at all as you'll never be able to start the adventure.
Also, having a class that shines outside combat and considering that "it has no importance" is crazy. I prefer to play a character who shines all the time than just half the time.So, classes have to be considered for all their abilities. The fact that you don't care about non-combat abilities doesn't mean that others won't.
It may be interesting to separate combat and out of combat abilities as they tend to have no overlap. So, as Laran suggested, having 2 lists (or more).
Also, you have to take into account the party and the synergy inside it. Saying that a Fighter has better survival ability than a Wizard is true if they are alone, but no more true when there's a whole party and if the Wizard can just stay behind the frontliners.
What they do in video games is to separate different roles (tanks, damage dealer, support) and compare classes inside their own category as comparing a Cleric and a Fighter is kind of impossible.
The issue with PF2 is that a same classe can specialize in different roles. There's a difference between saying that a sword and boar Fighter can be a good tank and that any Fighter will tank a bit. So, we should also separate between builds.
It will be a very big list...
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, a Fighter that can't do anything against a flying enemy if they aren't laser-focused bow specialists was a classic reason for 3.5/PF1 Fighters being so crap.
It's much better in PF2, between Felling Strike and the fact that you don't need a million feats to be a solid ranged combatant.
Apart from this, tiers usually ranked out-of-combat problem-solving, which again is better in PF2 across the board, because you get more skills and they no longer are limited to "peak normal human capability" which led to them being quickly taken over by magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, if I base myself on video games tier list, which is roughly:
Tier S: Overpowered, even if it's just a bit.
Tier A: Perfect embodiment of a game role. A class which works wonder.
Tier B: Well balanced class, able to fill its role, but without being especially impressive.
Tier C: Niche class. Mostly played because there is no other class to provide a specific ability or combination of abilities.
Tier D: Weak class. Isn't able to fulfill its role properly.
Tier E: Non functional class. Either by its mechanics or due to a glaring flaw, the class is not working as intended or way too clumsy/situational to be considered functional.
I would rate the classes:
Tier S: Fighter. Maybe some specific builds, like Dragon or Giant Barbarian.
Tier A: Most classes. Cleric is the perfect healer, Bard the perfect buffer, Champion is the tank, Barbarian for melee damage dealer and so on. The game is properly balanced as most classes are tier A in my opinion.
Tier B: Wizard, Wisdom-based Warpriest, some Sorcerer bloodlines. And many non-classical builds, like two-handed weapon Ranger.
Tier C: Bomber and generalist Alchemist, Scoundrel Rogue.
Tier D: Strength-based Warpriest. Strength-based gishes in general (I haven't seen an impressive Strength-based gish build right now, but it may exist).
Tier E: Non-Bomber specialized Alchemist.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that this thread can't readily agree on a tier list, or to an answer to the OP's question, is the mark of a huge success for PF2 design, imo. Congrats to the Paizo team for sending the concept of class tiers to the dustbin of history.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that this thread can't readily agree on a tier list, or to an answer to the OP's question, is the mark of a huge success for PF2 design, imo. Congrats to the Paizo team for sending the concept of class tiers to the dustbin of history.
While for the most part I agree, it took a long time for the meta to emerge for 3.5-Pathfinder.
It only seemed like less time for PF1 because they didn’t really change enough that the meta became different (basically same meta as 3.5).
I do think it’s relatively balanced but IMO the snow globe of the meta still hasn’t settled enough for us to even come close to defining tiers. Some things have to be tried before they can be judged, and despite seeing 10 different PCs play and about 20 NPCs built with PC rules, I’m still not sure what comes out ahead.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that if we want to discuss Tier lists in PF2, we're better off discussing in terms of specific roles.
Where this gets trickier is in defining roles. At a first pass, I'd consider the following, drawn helpfully from 4E:
**Defender:** Able to take a lot of beating, draw aggression towards themselves, and limit opponent's abilities to attack their squishies.
**Striker:** Makes enemies dead.
**Leader:** Positive friendly force multiplier, boosting the parties abilities, and keeping them in the fight.
**Controller:** Negative unfriendly force multiplier, weakening foes offenses and defenses, and restricting their action economy.
This gets a little hazier in a few regards. 4E was built around defenders, while PF2 doesn't have a lot of dedicated tanking tools. Equally importantly, through the skills system (Athletics, Intimidation and Medicine all being potentially very valuable in combat), everyone can Lead or Control to some degree. That being said, classes which want to focus on WIS or CHA do pull ahead a bit here.
The 4E system also doesn't factor an important fifth consideration: utility, which covers a huge pile of problem solving tools (which again, the skill system does a lot to cover).
Anyhow, using this undoubtedly controversial system, we could grade classes on each of these categories. Grades are not relative to other lists (so an S-tiered Defender isn't being compared to an S-tiered Leader), rather internally relative.
Note that Sorcerers are awkward to rate, since their choice of spell list has a big impact on the role they can excel in.
**Defenders:**
S- Champions
A- Fighters
B- Barbarians, Monks
C- Rangers
D- Alchemists, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Rogues
F- Wizards, Sorcerers
**Strikers:**
S- Barbarians/Fighters (Barbarian damage means they will kill on-level and weaker foes faster, while Fighter accuracy gives an edge against bosses)
A- Barbarians/Fighters, Rangers, Rogues
B- Monks
C- Champions, Druids, Sorcerers
D- Alchemists, Wizards
F- Bards, Clerics
**Leaders:**
S- Bards
A- Clerics
B- Alchemists, Druids, Sorcerers
C- Champions
D- Barbarians, Rangers, Rogues, Wizards
F- Fighters, Monks
**Controllers:**
S- Wizards, Sorcerers
A- Bards
B- Alchemists, Clerics
C- Druids, Rogues
D- Barbarians, Champions, Fighters, Monks
F- Rangers
**Utility:**
S- Wizards
A- Alchemists, Rogues
B- Bards, Rangers, Sorcerers
C- Clerics, Druids, Monks
D- Barbarians, Fighters
F- Champions
As a final note, I'll assume that at least a third of this is at least moderately wrong.
Have fun ripping it apart!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going off of your list GentlemanDM we can then see how many classes get to be good at different roles to see if there are any that don't shine in their niche. Then give each a score with S equating to 6 and F being a 1 to measure versatility and look at the max to see if their niche.
Stats based on stats!
Advanced stats!
Going by alphabet
Alchemist: DDBBA, Good at Utility, Decent at Leading and Controlling. Total 17, Max A in Utility
Barbarian: BSDDD, Best at Striking Decent at Defending. Total 16, Max S in striking,
Bard: DFSAB, Best at Leading, Good at controllig, Decent at utility, Total 18, Max S in leadership
Champion: SCCCDF, Best at defending, Total 15, Max S in Defending
Cleric:DFABC, Good at leading, Decent at Controlling, Total 15 Max A in Leading
Druid: DCBCD, Good at leading, Total 14, Max B in Leading.
Fighter: ASFDD, Best at striking, good at defending, Total 16 max S in Striking
Monk: BBFDC, Decent at defending and striking, Total 14 Max B in 2
Ranger: CADFB, Good striking, decent at Utility, Total 15 Max A in Striking
Rogue:DADCA, Good at Striking and Utility, Total 17, Max A in 2
Sorcerer: FCBSB, Best at controlling, decent at leading and utility, Total 18, Max S in controlling
wizard: FDDSS, Best at Controlling and Utility, Total 17 Max S in 2.
This is all just for fun of course and would change depending on how you do the rankings there :). I do think you're underrating Monk and Druid especially!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a very important classification missing from GentlemanDM's list is "Healer/Medic", which I think is distinctly different than "Leader". Now that any Class can effectively fill that role technically:
- Clerics S tier
- Rogue Alchemist Sorcerer-Angelic Bloodline A tier
- Champion Druid Bard Sorcerer-Divine B tier
- Monk Sorcerer-Primarl/Occult C tier
- Wizard Sorcerer-Arcane D Tier
- Fighter Ranger Barbarian F tier
But that's my take. Might be forgetting specific builds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that if we want to discuss Tier lists in PF2, we're better off discussing in terms of specific roles.
Where this gets trickier is in defining roles. At a first pass, I'd consider the following, drawn helpfully from 4E:
**Defender:** Able to take a lot of beating, draw aggression towards themselves, and limit opponent's abilities to attack their squishies.
**Striker:** Makes enemies dead.
**Leader:** Positive friendly force multiplier, boosting the parties abilities, and keeping them in the fight.
**Controller:** Negative unfriendly force multiplier, weakening foes offenses and defenses, and restricting their action economy.
This gets a little hazier in a few regards. 4E was built around defenders, while PF2 doesn't have a lot of dedicated tanking tools. Equally importantly, through the skills system (Athletics, Intimidation and Medicine all being potentially very valuable in combat), everyone can Lead or Control to some degree. That being said, classes which want to focus on WIS or CHA do pull ahead a bit here.
The 4E system also doesn't factor an important fifth consideration: utility, which covers a huge pile of problem solving tools (which again, the skill system does a lot to cover).
Anyhow, using this undoubtedly controversial system, we could grade classes on each of these categories. Grades are not relative to other lists (so an S-tiered Defender isn't being compared to an S-tiered Leader), rather internally relative.
Note that Sorcerers are awkward to rate, since their choice of spell list has a big impact on the role they can excel in.
**Defenders:**
S- Champions
A- Fighters
B- Barbarians, Monks
C- Rangers
D- Alchemists, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Rogues
F- Wizards, Sorcerers**Strikers:**
S- Barbarians/Fighters (Barbarian damage means they will kill on-level and weaker foes faster, while Fighter accuracy gives an edge against bosses)
A- Barbarians/Fighters, Rangers, Rogues
B- Monks
C- Champions, Druids, Sorcerers
D- Alchemists, Wizards
F- Bards,...
My only issue with these rankings is that the seem incredibly unfavorable towards Monks.
My only issue with these rankings is that the seem incredibly unfavorable towards Monks.
I think they deserve to be A rank as a Striker, IMO, and Champion needs to be moved to B rank as a striker.
I also think they've been under rated on the Utility and Control side as well, given that Monks have a lot of affinity for Utility and Control through movement, athletics, and Ki. They are at least as good as Rogues in terms of Control, especially with Stunning Fist, and their ability to move through team AoE's gives them an edge on Utility as well IMO (since this allows others more freedom to operate, thus expanding overall team utility by not being inhibited).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Monks are the martial jack-of-all-trades of 2E. It's very easy to make a monk who fills every martial role competently at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a very important classification missing from GentlemanDM's list is "Healer/Medic", which I think is distinctly different than "Leader". Now that any Class can effectively fill that role technically:
- Clerics S tier
- Rogue Alchemist Sorcerer-Angelic Bloodline A tier
- Champion Druid Bard Sorcerer-Divine B tier
- Monk Sorcerer-Primarl/Occult C tier
- Wizard Sorcerer-Arcane D Tier
- Fighter Ranger Barbarian F tier
But that's my take. Might be forgetting specific builds.
I’d consider Cleric and Angelic-Sorc both S tier. Cleric definitely has more options, but most if not all are pretty specific options or feel like must haves as well as fight for the already limited pool of Class Feats. Cleric also has a stronger start, but once they both get a Staff of Healing it’s pretty much a toss up with the Prepared/Spontaneous differences.
Primal-Sorc i’d probably couple with Druid as well. Unless Goodberry and a +1 to Wis makes that much of a difference they pretty much do the same thing; Druid’s Healing Transformation is kind of a weaker Heal.
Rogue i’d also couple with Monk personally.
But that's my take. Might be forgetting specific builds.
I’d consider Cleric and Angelic-Sorc both S tier. Cleric definitely has more options, but most if not all are pretty specific options or feel like must haves as well as fight for the already limited pool of Class Feats. Cleric also has a stronger start, but once they both get a Staff of Healing it’s pretty much a toss up with the Prepared/Spontaneous differences.Primal-Sorc i’d probably couple with Druid as well. Unless Goodberry and a +1 to Wis makes that much of a difference they pretty much do the same thing; Druid’s Healing Transformation is kind of a weaker Heal.
Rogue i’d also couple with Monk personally.
I think I agree on the first two, but in regards to Rogue, I would respectfully disagree due to Expert Assurance Medicine + Battle Medicine.
But that's more specific than a general Rogue I suppose.
The mobility of the monk is important too for it as a defender as that allows it to come to the rescue of an ally in a spread out battlefield better than a champion can. And they have really great maneuver focused feats and stances if you want to go in the direction of control. There's an argument that they are at least a B in defending, striking, and control, and maybe an A in some of those.
Is the issue with Alchemist more that it's a trickster/support class in 2e which is very different to from the mid range splash touch death dealer or roided up melee monster that we remember from 1e?
Yeah, but Monk can grab those as well and be just as good. Rogue just loses less resources and may be a bit quicker at getting them; but isn’t exactly better at it.
It is just my take on it though. Once we get towards the bottom of the list, for now at least, it’s pretty much anyone’s guess.
Yeah, but Monk can grab those as well and be just as good. Rogue just loses less resources and may be a bit quicker at getting them; but isn’t exactly better at it.
It is just my take on it though. Once we get towards the bottom of the list, for now at least, it’s pretty much anyone’s guess.
Rogue can have Expert Assurance Medicine, Battle Medicine and Continual Recovery all by level 2 if they take the right background.
At level 3, they can add Ward Medic/Robust Recovery/Godless Healing with their additional Skill Feat and two with their General Feat.
I think you're underselling how rapidly they can acquire Skill Feats related to Medicine and how effective a healer they can become.
But again, we're speaking about a specialist Rogue for Healing specifically, but realistically they at least deserve to be B Tier, the investment cost is also much lower than Monk. The only advantage a Monk may have over a Rogue would potentially be Mobility, but that mobility really only outpaces the Rogue when it comes to attacks, not in terms of other actions.
Most Rogues won't be specialized in Medicine. Rogues don't have bonuses in Wisdom so they are not good at Battle Medicine. And Medicine is just out of combat healing, so it should not be counted in this list (also, Medicine is overrated, it is useful only for a bunch of levels before being replaced around level 10 by wands of Heal).
I would put them F tier as there is nothing related to healing in their class features.