Class / Ancestry Power / Enjoyment Poll


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone really believe the 1s for casters are people who are being honest?? IMO theres zero chance you enjoyed a class 1/10 even if it's your least favorite class. It just seems obvious its salty people who have been whining that their favourite class got nerfed


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You have no idea why people are giving those responses. For all you know they honestly tried to play casters and for one reason or another hated it. It specially true when an Iconic style of casting doesnt match the spectations.

Dont forget people tend to give 10s to things they like even if its abosolutely horrible. Which is why you need proper data analysis before saying and entire response is biased.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The current results for power seem to be close to what I have observed during our low level AoA campaign so far. Fighter top, followed by Cleric and Ranger in close proximity to each other and our Wizard finishing last.

In contrast to this I'd say Cleric, Ranger and Wizard are quite confident in their current character while our Fighter does not seem to overly enjoy his class / character / role selection (partly because he was "cast against type" this time).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with Temperans. Also, I see another person added a 1 power Wizard response. Still really hoping one of those people can post with an explanation of their thinking.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want to use this thread to thank all the people on this forum that are good at math and statistics, particularly for people like me who avoided math courses like the plague in school


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

You have no idea why people are giving those responses. For all you know they honestly tried to play casters and for one reason or another hated it. It specially true when an Iconic style of casting doesnt match the spectations.

Dont forget people tend to give 10s to things they like even if its abosolutely horrible. Which is why you need proper data analysis before saying and entire response is biased.

The problem is we know who is giving what type of scores based on threads on this forum. I'm not saying we take them out of the poll or ignore the data but we should also be honest about their reasoning. We had an entire thread where somebody complained that Wizards didn't have enough skills, for christ's sake-- Some people are going to whine that their favourite class needs to be buffed more than anyone will just blindly vote their favourite class because they like it-- that's where the enjoyment vs perceived power stats come into play. Votes like that are objectively less valuable than others, in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Collecting data on the levels played of this class would be very interesting as well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ExOichoThrow wrote:
The problem is we know who is giving what type of scores based on threads on this forum. I'm not saying we take them out of the poll or ignore the data but we should also be honest about their reasoning. We had an entire thread where somebody complained that Wizards didn't have enough skills, for christ's sake-- Some people are going to whine that their favourite class needs to be buffed more than anyone will just blindly vote their favourite class because they like it-- that's where the enjoyment vs perceived power stats come into play. Votes like that are objectively less valuable than others, in my opinion.

First of all, rude.

Second, I gave the Wizard class a 3 enjoyment and 4 power. So even though I have complaints about the class, I tried to be as honest a possible. I would have given wizard a lower score if I hadn't played Alchemist first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Donovan Du Bois wrote:

First of all, rude.

Second, I gave the Wizard class a 3 enjoyment and 4 power. So even though I have complaints about the class, I tried to be as honest a possible

No one is talking about you then


But ExO is talking about it as if everyone who gave a low score is just whining, when they have no idea why the gave that score.

Which is indeed rude. Its also potentially poisonous to a poll, when people cant say their true opinion cause: "it will just get deleted anyway" or "they wont care".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

But ExO is talking about it as if everyone who gave a low score is just whining, when they have no idea why the gave that score.

Which is indeed rude. Its also potentially poisonous to a poll, when people cant say their true opinion cause: "it will just get deleted anyway" or "they wont care".

I don't believe for a second that there's any class in this game that is so unenjoyable that it's a 1/10 for anyone. And there's nothing wrong with taking into context the nonsensical things some people have said about the classes which are objectively false.

If anyone who gave a class a 1/10 can provide a legitimate reason that it was so completely unredeemable I'd be happy to listen.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ExOichoThrow wrote:


If anyone who gave a class a 1/10 can provide a legitimate reason that it was so completely unredeemable I'd be happy to listen.

Prepare yourself. They are coming


2 people marked this as a favorite.

......
A person who wanted to make a blaster focusing on single target and every roll was a failure. Which is a lot more common than you thing.

A person who wanted to play as a necromancer and wasnt not expecting undead to be effectively non existent.

~60% of wizards playing in a party with a bard of any kind.

Any wizard killed because their action economy and bad chance of effect made them die.

Any wizard who was told to stop playing like they wanted after failing.

etc. etc. etc.

It is not hard to see reasons to give bad scores. Which is why you cant discount them until all the data is in and properly analyzed.

************
In other words you are too biased.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

......

A person who wanted to make a blaster focusing on single target and every roll was a failure. Which is a lot more common than you thing.

A person who wanted to play as a necromancer and wasnt not expecting undead to be effectively non existent.

~60% of wizards playing in a party with a bard of any kind.

Any wizard killed because their action economy and bad chance of effect made them die.

Any wizard who was told to stop playing like they wanted after failing.

etc. etc. etc.

It is not hard to see reasons to give bad scores. Which is why you cant discount them until all the data is in and properly analyzed.

************
In other words you are too biased.

If you missed every single spell attack roll you had monumentally bad luck. Even if you somehow built a low int wizard you shouldn't be doing that.

>told to stop playing like they wanted after failing
If you're playing with people who are complete a*~&@&%s, that's an issue with the table rather than the class.

>played with a bard

Wizards can do lots of things that bards can't and the meme that they're completely outshined is objectively incorrect.

>killed because of their action economy and bad chance of effect

Cite some examples where this happened to a wizard but wouldnt to a sorcerer, and it wasn't just bad play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

this is not the thread for arguing that. At least not while the poll is still active.

I gave quick examples I thought of in like 5 minutes, they weren't meant to be holistic or perfect, just "hey this can happen, so dont judge until you learn more".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

this is not the thread for arguing that. At least not while the poll is still active.

I gave quick examples I thought of in like 5 minutes, they weren't meant to be holistic or perfect, just "hey this can happen, so dont judge until you learn more".

Missing every single roll can happen with any class. If you legitimately blame the class for that scenario you should play a game without any dice rolls. Crazy how you make examples and call me biased and then immediately walk it back.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not walking it back, just said this is not the thread for it.

And again the point is that you cant know what someone else is thinking when they answer the poll. So you cant just decide to throw out the data before its analyzed.

Those 1 responses may in fact be people being salty and wanting broken martials. Or they might be right and caster are really that bad. Without the full data is impossible to know for certain.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm with Temperans on this one. Even if I clearly disagree with a 1 in power for any class, you can't remove them from the poll. The people who voted that low are a bit extreme, but they are still not liking the class at all, which is an important piece of data that must not be discarded.

Right now, there's some kind of "meta", to take a video game word, which is heavy on martials (with bards helping them). But it may change, especially when people will reach higher levels, as casters are better at high level than at low level. Also, the APG may change the meta, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe the problem was the scale of 10: more granularity can be good, but in this context it gives too much weight to polemical votes.
In hindsight, maybe a scale of 5, where 1 is 'I really don't like the class' and 5 is 'I like the class very much', would have been more appropriate.

That said, data is interesting regardless: good job OP!


SuperBidi wrote:

I'm with Temperans on this one. Even if I clearly disagree with a 1 in power for any class, you can't remove them from the poll. The people who voted that low are a bit extreme, but they are still not liking the class at all, which is an important piece of data that must not be discarded.

Right now, there's some kind of "meta", to take a video game word, which is heavy on martials (with bards helping them). But it may change, especially when people will reach higher levels, as casters are better at high level than at low level. Also, the APG may change the meta, too.

Agreed data might be biased but even removing the extremes as it should be done as extremes tend to be a bad thing. Alchemists, wizards are still at a really low point what means they both feel not as enjoyable and not as strong as the rest by a fair bit. Wizards with a 5.8 are somewhere decent as just a bit lower than 6 and 6 being average but alchemists... Well those are at the bottom of a pit without new toys.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I keep expecting Alchemists to turn out to be like Envoys, where everyone said they were terrible at first and then they actually turned out to be a great class.

But it seems less likely at the moment...

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I keep expecting Alchemists to turn out to be like Envoys, where everyone said they were terrible at first and then they actually turned out to be a great class.

But it seems less likely at the moment...

Bomber Alchemist actually isn't terrible, going by the standards of lots of other RPGs. It's far better as compared to other PF2 Class than PF1 Rogue is compared to PF1 Wizard, for example.

The problem is twofold, really:

Firstly, the power differentials between Classes in PF2 are so much narrower, and the Alchemist is basically the only one below the rest by more than a little bit, that it stands out.

Secondly, non-Bomber Alchemists are basically just bad. I was really hoping they weren't but as the math has become more and more clear, well, they are.

So there's only one really viable build, and even that is pretty mediocre. Not bad or unusable, but just generally worse than if it was basically any other Class.

The right Feats and other stuff could actually fix Alchemist fairly readily, and I sincerely hope that the APG does exactly that...but a fix remains very necessary.


MaxAstro wrote:

I keep expecting Alchemists to turn out to be like Envoys, where everyone said they were terrible at first and then they actually turned out to be a great class.

But it seems less likely at the moment...

They're probably going to be the class that benefits most from more books. New feats and alchemical items will do then a lot of good. Doesn't really help their not so great proficiency, but they will get better.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

I keep expecting Alchemists to turn out to be like Envoys, where everyone said they were terrible at first and then they actually turned out to be a great class.

But it seems less likely at the moment...

They do make really powerful boss NPC villains that are only expected to participate in one nova fight a day, because they are pretty decent against large numbers of lower level enemies. Not a great equalizer for a PC class, but a fact proven in the Fall of Plaguestone Module.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I keep expecting Alchemists to turn out to be like Envoys, where everyone said they were terrible at first and then they actually turned out to be a great class.

But it seems less likely at the moment...

They're probably going to be the class that benefits most from more books. New feats and alchemical items will do then a lot of good. Doesn't really help their not so great proficiency, but they will get better.

Really, even Proficiency could be easily fixed if they want to do it. Adding Master in weapons at 15th seems pretty doable as an errata if they feel like it. I mean, they're already adding in Master in Will Saves to high level Sorcerers as an errata...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Salamileg wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I keep expecting Alchemists to turn out to be like Envoys, where everyone said they were terrible at first and then they actually turned out to be a great class.

But it seems less likely at the moment...

They're probably going to be the class that benefits most from more books. New feats and alchemical items will do then a lot of good. Doesn't really help their not so great proficiency, but they will get better.
Really, even Proficiency could be easily fixed if they want to do it. Adding Master in weapons at 15th seems pretty doable as an errata if they feel like it. I mean, they're already adding in Master in Will Saves to high level Sorcerers as an errata...

I suppose that is one really nice thing about 2nd edition. If a class is out of balance, instead of a fundamental redesign you probably just need to adjust proficiencies a bit...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
but a fact proven in the Fall of Plaguestone Module.

**** that entire fight. Not the one with the cauldron, that one was pretty normal. No, **** the one in the next room with the one alchemist and his summon.

Their stats are equivalent to level 5 creatures (when the summon hit with a +15--we were on roll20 because of the virus) I pulled up the bestiary and compared it to the other creatures of its type. It was right in line with a level 5. The alchemist himself was also probably a level 5, though with lower to-hit and higher AC. PCs were level 2 (and having just come out of another fight).

The first (significant) damage he took during the fight was from his own failed save against his summon's ability. First 2 points was from splash on either our alchemist's throw or one the NPC threw and said "the heck with it." I don't remember.

Three PCs (of six, GM has not been scaling encounters ever since the three bush monsters outside the tree) went to zero, one other was brought to single digits (two needed to spend hero points).

Sure, there were some really mediocre rolls being made, but that alchemist's AC required the barbarian to roll a nat-15 or better to hit after the bard's song. In comparison, the alchemist's first attack needed to roll a 5 (maybe a 7) to crit. Barb couldn't take advantage of flanking very often as the alchemist kept trying to disengage and move away (Barbarian would use his reaction to follow).

The only reason it wasn't a complete slaughter was that the alchemist flubbed a save against Color Spray and critically failed. The full 1 minute of blindness was what did it (though the free round from stun was appreciated, but ultimately just a delay, as we landed no hits on him in that time).

Group is about ready to go back to PF1.


If you don't wanna count the 1s for Wizard but also do not want to discard their data, you can just count them as like 3 o 4, which may be more appropriate to convey "Bad class, but better an Alchemist", if you figure that's what theyw ant to convey. But this kind of assumptions could easily poison the entire thing.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Those creatures are well within the appropriate range for their level. A fight with two Barghests, or Daeodons, or some other level 4 foes, would be similarly difficult.

Spoiler:
The Sculptor has a +12 to-hit (Medium attack for a level 4...most creatures have high), AC 21 (High for a level 4), and 54 HP (Low to middling for a level 4). His damage is mediocre for that level as well. That's all entirely within the level 4 tolerances.

The Ooze, does indeed have a very high to-hit of +15, does respectable damage, and has a full 90 HP (very high for level 4). However its AC is 12, and its Reflex and Will Saves are +6. Those are Terrible Saves, and an AC so low it's only listed on the chart as a low AC for level -1 monsters. Plus it has a movement speed of 10 feet. If it's alone you can do a lot of stuff to kite it and limit its attacks significantly...that's a little harder with the Sculptor around, but not impossible.

Which is not to diminish how tough a fight it is. It's clearly brutal, and everyone agrees as much, but it's not because the numbers are wrong, it's because fights with two different level +2 creatures in PF2 are brutal. That is, by the rules, an Extreme Encounter, ie one the PCs have a 50% chance of losing entirely. For six PCs, it's still well into the realm of Severe encounters, and thus very dangerous indeed.

This has nothing to do with the monsters being overtuned for their level, and everything to do with just about any fight between level 2 PCs and two level 4 enemies being serious s&*!.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
The only reason it wasn't a complete slaughter was that the alchemist flubbed a save against Color Spray and critically failed. The full 1 minute of blindness was what did it (though the free round from stun was appreciated, but ultimately just a delay, as we landed no hits on him in that time).

Not wanting to dimnish your victory but hasn't Color Spray the incap trait, i.e. his save should have improved by one step if the difference in level was what you say?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
This has nothing to do with the monsters being overtuned for their level, and everything to do with just about any fight between level 2 PCs and two level 4 enemies being serious s&$*.

Compare to:

Spoiler:
Ochre Jelly Creature 5
AC 12
For +15
Ref +4
Will +7
HP 150
Melee: pseudopod +15, 1d8+7 plus 2d4 acid plus grab
Constrict: DC 23

The defenses (AC, saves) are all comparable (a +1 or -2 at those levels is pretty much irrelevant). The damage output is similar. HP is higher, but lacks a healing ability.

I'll also remind you that according to the encounter guidelines:

Quote:
Extreme threat: 160 exp
Quote:
Party Level +2: 80 exp

The book says that its a pair of Level +2s, even though I disagree.

Quote:
Extreme-threat encounters are so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters, particularly if the characters are low on resources. This makes them too challenging for most uses. An extreme-threat encounter might be appropriate for a fully rested group of characters that can go all-out

They literally dropped one in right after another fight with the NPC getting a free attack before initiative is rolled (readied action). With his attack bonus so high its a guaranteed crit on whoever walks through the door.

Roughly trying to run the character adjustments in reverse, the numbers say it should have been an "easy severe" (severe for 6 characters is 180 exp compared to the actual 160) and yet it was enough to make the group get up and leave the table (metaphorically speaking). We're only finishing the chapter because we want to see what else is left, not because we're having fun. This is the least amount of fun my college friends have had around the gaming table (not counting the playtest) since Joe* ran his underdark campaign and dropped a bridge on me (two players walked out of that game after the first session, me and another friend who got spider-bite-strength-damaged to 0).

*For context, Joe was the guy who would bully his way to victory in board games. By doing things like embargoing other players in Settlers of Catan: anyone who traded with an embargo'd player would also be embargoed (and the one time the table collectively went "meh, fine, I guess we're all embargoed" and Joe lost, he was livid). And similar such tactics. He also had preternatural luck. He rolled stats on 3d6 for D&D characters and regularly rolled at least one 17+. He rolled stats for every character in his campaign and everyone had at least two 17+ and no stat below 13. You could watch him do it. You could watch him do it with YOUR dice. You could watch him do it with YOUR CURSED DICE.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

This explains why I keep hearing that Fall of Plaguestone is a rough module. Someone mentioned that the devs themselves admitted the module was overtuned and more difficult than intended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It would be cool if one of you stats/survey people created more polls related to the ways people interpret rules that are currently waiting for official errata. It would probably be useful to everyone, players, GMs and Developers to see how people are interpreting/using rules like:

The manipulate trait (does it assume the requirement of a free hand, see the battle medicine threads)

Acid Splash (how does the splash damage on this spell work? Does it relate to the splash trait or not?)

Leshy seed pods?

Not that a general survey would tell anyone how things were supposed to work, or how they work according to the rules as written, but how the rules are actually being used at tables. If everyone is house ruling aspects of the game that feel off, it might help people on the fence, or wanting to run the game in the most fun way possible, find out how others are accomplishing it.

Maybe even some surveys about things people generally houserule would also help break down where some discrepancies in classes sit now?

If one table has house ruled casters to ignore the incapacitate trait, their feel of the class is going to be very different than someone elses.


MaxAstro wrote:
This explains why I keep hearing that Fall of Plaguestone is a rough module. Someone mentioned that the devs themselves admitted the module was overtuned and more difficult than intended.

Yeah, I've heard this too. But I try not to poke my nose into threads about the specific modules in order to avoid spoilers.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Draco18s wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
This explains why I keep hearing that Fall of Plaguestone is a rough module. Someone mentioned that the devs themselves admitted the module was overtuned and more difficult than intended.
Yeah, I've heard this too. But I try not to poke my nose into threads about the specific modules in order to avoid spoilers.

If it makes you feel any better, Age of Ashes seems to be much better about that.

The first book has one or two rough encounters - one in particular that is an infamous TPK machine if handled poorly (APL+3 encounters are scary!) - but for the most part the very-not-optimized party I've been running through it has been doing well. Playing smart makes up for a lot.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:

Compare to:

** spoiler omitted **

The defenses (AC, saves) are all comparable (a +1 or -2 at those levels is pretty much irrelevant). The damage output is similar. HP is higher, but lacks a healing ability.

The Ochre Jelly has 150 HP to the Blood Ooze's 90, so more than a bit higher, and more importantly it will almost always wind up splitting into multiple creatures, which will double or triple its offense (which is already higher due to Grab and Constrict). It also has a Speed of 15 rather than 10, which is a big difference.

Draco18s wrote:

I'll also remind you that according to the encounter guidelines:

Quote:
Extreme threat: 160 exp
Quote:
Party Level +2: 80 exp

The book says that its a pair of Level +2s, even though I disagree.

Quote:
Extreme-threat encounters are so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters, particularly if the characters are low on resources. This makes them too challenging for most uses. An extreme-threat encounter might be appropriate for a fully rested group of characters that can go all-out
They literally dropped one in right after another fight with the NPC getting a free attack before initiative is rolled (readied action). With his attack bonus so high its a guaranteed crit on whoever walks through the door.

I actually specifically already agreed with this. I do think that encounter is ridiculous and a brutal player killer if you actually wind up fighting both those creatures together (they're actually listed as two encounters, and much more reasonable if you can manage to fight them that way...a big if).

My disagreement with you is not that I think the encounter is easy or even reasonable, it's that the individual creatures in it are fine for their level. Two level 4 creatures is just serious overkill for a level 2 party to fight. Almost any two level 4 creatures. Two Barghests or Daeodons would be just as bad (or at least very close to just as bad).

Draco18s wrote:
Roughly trying to run the character adjustments in reverse, the numbers say it should have been an "easy severe" (severe for 6 characters is 180 exp compared to the actual 160) and yet it was enough to make the group get up and leave the table (metaphorically speaking). We're only finishing the chapter because we want to see what else is left, not because we're having fun. This is the least amount of fun my college friends have had around the gaming table (not counting the playtest) since Joe* ran his underdark campaign and dropped a bridge on me (two players walked out of that game after the first session, me and another friend who got spider-bite-strength-damaged to 0).

As others have noted, Fall of Plaguestone is overtuned. It's too hard a module in several different ways. My point is that that's basically down to the encounter design (ie: fighting two level 4s as a level 2 group is generally a bad encounter to put in a dungeon) rather than the monster design (ie: the monsters in question are both perfectly reasonable level 4s).

And as MaxAstro notes, AoA and Extinction Curse are both quite a bit less inclined to encounter design that's quite that brutal, though they do both have occasional pretty vicious encounters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Nice to see that responses are still coming in to the poll. It's interesting that dwarves and halflings continue to have noticeably fewer players than the other ancestries.

For anyone curious what the ancestry response spread is, here you go:

Blank 12
Dwarf 16
Elf 47
Gnome 25
Goblin 35
Half-Elf 30
Halfling 12
Half-Orc 20
Hobgoblin 2
Human 109
Leshy 7
Lizardfolk 5

Hmm...I cannot seem to get any kind of helpful spacing to work on this site, but yeah, you still get the picture. I'm not worried about the three newer ancestries not having as much representation. I'm more looking at the core ancestries for this. I'm also curious about how people feel seeing a variant of the results where half-elf and half-orc are grouped under human, since those are "just" human heritages.

....oh man, that brings up an interesting question about how a future poll like this will need to look with the upcoming universal heritages.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
(they're actually listed as two encounters, and much more reasonable if you can manage to fight them that way...a big if).

I'm aware. I'm also aware that the alchemist's tactics are "run into the next room." The only way to take the two fights as two fights is to somehow (???) not alert him when fighting the other fight where the tactics involve toppling a cauldron over.


Temperans wrote:

I am not walking it back, just said this is not the thread for it.

And again the point is that you cant know what someone else is thinking when they answer the poll. So you cant just decide to throw out the data before its analyzed.

Those 1 responses may in fact be people being salty and wanting broken martials. Or they might be right and caster are really that bad. Without the full data is impossible to know for certain.

You're the one who brings it up, and then when you got called out for it being illogical you go "oh well this thread isn't meant for that argument anyways."

Then you continue to strawman me by claiming im saying we should be removing data from the poll, which I clearly said I didn't believe we should do. I said we should be mindful and honest about what those votes may represent, as we've seen specific attitudes on the forum already.

Shame on you.


VestOfHolding wrote:
...

I too noticed that we have twice as much Goblins than there are Dwarves or Halflings, and that even Gnomes are ahead of this classical RPG ancestries and by are large margin. The question being if this is the case because of certain disliked stereotypes like always having to play the grumpy Dwarf or happy-go-lucky Halfling, or in any way related to the in-game power of said ancestries respectively the suitability of certain ancestries for certain classes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:
VestOfHolding wrote:
...
I too noticed that we have twice as much Goblins than there are Dwarves or Halflings, and that even Gnomes are ahead of this classical RPG ancestries and by are large margin. The question being if this is the case because of certain disliked stereotypes like always having to play the grumpy Dwarf or happy-go-lucky Halfling, or in any way related to the in-game power of said ancestries respectively the suitability of certain ancestries for certain classes?

I suspect this has to do with the later, with what people perceive as the best fit for their class as a holdover from 1E. I base this theory on the fact that gnomes are disproportionately wizards in the responses so far. Though they for sure do make solid wizards, we know that 2E makes choosing the "optimal" ancestry for a class not nearly as cut and dry, and what would be a middle-tier choice in 1E is still a really solid mechanical choice in this edition. People just aren't necessarily doing it yet. At least as a whole. You see the same trend with half-orcs very, very largely being martial classes.

So there's our challenge, folks. Let's make more characters from ancestry-class combos that we'd be way less likely to see in 1E and see how we can still have fun with them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Since VestofHolding and I posted our original quartile assessments a number of new responses have come in, so I thought it would be interesting to tabulate the updated results. I also thought it would be interesting to provide a bit more granularity by summing the lower, median and higher quartile values to determine the overall ranking:

Quartile Rankings by Power (lower, median, higher, and total values):

Fighter: 8,8,9 = 25
Barbarian: 7,8,8 = 23
Bard: 7,8,8 = 23
Champion: 7,7,8 = 22
Monk: 7,7,8 = 22
Ranger: 6.5,7,8 = 21.5
Cleric: 6,7,8 = 21
Druid: 6,7,8 = 21
Rogue: 6,7,8 = 21
Sorcerer: 5,6,7.5 = 18.5
Wizard: 4,5,7 = 16
Alchemist: 2,3,5 = 10

Quartile Rankings by Enjoyability (lower, median, higher, and total values):

Fighter: 8,9,10 = 27
Barbarian: 8,9,9.5 = 26.5
Monk: 8,8.5,10 = 26.5
Bard: 8,8.5,9 = 25.5
Rogue: 8,8.5,9 = 25.5
Champion: 8,8,9 = 25
Druid: 7.5,8,9 = 24.5
Cleric: 7,8,9 = 24
Ranger: 7,8,9 = 24
Sorcerer: 5.5,8,9.5 = 23
Wizard: 3,7,8 = 18
Alchemist: 3,4,8 = 15

Unsurprisingly, the enjoyability rankings are strongly correlated with power rankings, though there are some interesting deviations. The Monk and Rogue are a bit more enjoyable than you'd expect given their power ranking. And the Sorcerer does much better than you'd expect given its relatively low power ranking -- its enjoyability is almost on a par with the Ranger and Cleric, even though it's taken to be significantly less powerful.

__________

Megistone wrote:
Maybe the problem was the scale of 10: more granularity can be good, but in this context it gives too much weight to polemical votes.
ChibiNyan wrote:
If you don't wanna count the 1s for Wizard but also do not want to discard their data, you can just count them as like 3 o 4, which may be more appropriate to convey "Bad class, but better an Alchemist", if you figure that's what theyw ant to convey. But this kind of assumptions could easily poison the entire thing.

These are, of course, completely reasonable worries if we're ranking classes by mean values.

But I want to just reiterate that if we're using quartile rankings (as VestofHolding and I did) then one entirely avoids worries about people "poisoning" the results by assigning unreasonably low values (assuming the number of people trying to skew the results is less than a quarter of the respondents). For example, in the case of the Wizard power assessment (Wizard: 4,5,7 = 16), you'd get precisely the same quartile ranking if you replaced every assignment below 4 with a 4.

So there's no need for to worry! We can still get a reasonable assessment of people's general feelings regarding these classes without having to manipulate the data.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Thats is great data Porridge.

I do find it interesting that at this stage, even after using quartile distribution, Wizard is consistently below other classes (obviously not counting Alchemist).

Thank you for the great work.

***********************

I was not arguing or claiming they were logical or right. Just that there are many reason a Human (which are know for being illogical and harsh to things they dislike) might give a review of 1.

Again the point is not to say they are justified in their review. But that they may have a reason, that is legitimate to them, even if you dont like it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VestOfHolding wrote:


Blank 12
Dwarf 16
Elf 47
Gnome 25
Goblin 35
Half-Elf 30
Halfling 12
Half-Orc 20
Hobgoblin 2
Human 109
Leshy 7
Lizardfolk 5

In relation to this I thought it would be interesting to see which Heritage and Class comboes seem to be most popular, (excl. non-core Ancestries and classes)

TOP 2 ANCESTRY PER CLASS
Count Ancestry Class Count
16 Dwarf: Druid 4
Champion 4

47 Elf: Rogue 12
Wizard 10

25 Gnome: Cleric 6
Wizard 5

35 Goblin: Sorcerer 5
Alchemist 5

32 Half-Elf: Rogue 8
Wizard 5

13 Halfling: Wizard 4
Druid 2
Rogue 2

19 Half-Orc: Barbarian 4
Fighter 4
Champion 4

112 Human: Wizard 17
Fighter 17

So half of Dwarfs are Clerics or Druids and almost half of Elves are Rogues or Wizards


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Funny that dwarven druids are so popular...


MaxAstro wrote:
Funny that dwarven druids are so popular...

Apart from the fact that Dwarves are a good choice for a Wisdom based, not Charisma dependant class, they can be immensly popular in other settings. Perhaps some of this carries over.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

@Porridge: I'm not entirely certain what the total values gives, but I'd still advocate that the averages be included, not just the median/Q2. Otherwise, thanks for posting updated info.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
VestOfHolding wrote:
Hmm...I cannot seem to get any kind of helpful spacing to work on this site...

Easiest way is to write the numbers first, with each value having the same number of digits, like so:

012 Blank
016 Dwarf
047 Elf
025 Gnome
035 Goblin
030 Half-Elf
012 Halfling
020 Half-Orc
002 Hobgoblin
109 Human
007 Leshy
005 Lizardfolk


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I put 1 for wizard. Here is why.

There are too many graduations (What does 10 levels mean?) so I simplify it as "terrible, poor, OK, good, amazing". I felt it was worse than poor. It isn't utterly terrible but it certainly requires developer tuning.

The numeric values I could handle would be 1-5 which directly correspond to the 5 grades (terrible, poor, ok, good, amazing). Or I could use 2-4-6-8-10 or 1-3-5-7-9. My response therefore must be 1 or 2 and the GUI layout of this form made 1 easier.


?????

51 to 100 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Class / Ancestry Power / Enjoyment Poll All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.