I personally find tier disscussion pretty fun. Sadly, in regards to Pathfinder 2E, it is pretty much dead.
This happens because the old way of tier-ing classes just don't work here due to how skills are handled, how spellcasting is and the way pathfinder math works. All classes are between tier 3 and 4 of the old system. The end.
That's why I'm thinking, how should one do a proper tier classification criteria for this system? It is clear to me that problem solving capabilities is still the way to go, just measuring combat prowess would be pointless as roleplaying is far more than that. Should we re-define tiers? Or maybe make separate lists for combat, exploration, social aspects and so on?
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tiers were useful in PF1 because there was a very real, tangible gradient between different classes, and tiers gave us the language to discuss that lived experience.
Tiers in PF2 would only serve to generate arguments. The differences in strength and versatility between each class is of such less concern it doesn't really make sense to even try to build a tier system.
To illustrate this, the class that is most widely regarded as sub-par, the Alchemist, has builds that put its effectiveness right up with the rest. Why bother saying "low tier except if you do xyz...", it's always been understood that playstyle will trump 'tier' even in PF1.
If you really want to rank classes, you could rank them on separate categories like "build variety", "survivability", "independence", but no single tier system is going to provide much use.
Yeah I'm with Lethe on this. In 3.x/PF1 tier lists worked because they were true. Classes had fundamentally different levels of strength across the board, and when you had a handful of classes that could replace the effectiveness of an entire party of lower-tier classes, those were clearly the superior choice.
In PF2 that is no longer the case. The gap between classes is significantly smaller, and because of the implementation of the feat system in PF2, variation makes strictly defining a tier for a class very very difficult. Now I'm sure you could tier-list specific builds WITHIN a class, but on a class-by-class basis those types of direct comparisons are much more difficult.
Any type of ranking discussion would have to be broken into subcategories, like Lethe suggested. "Survivability" "Highest potential single-shot damage" "Highest sustained DPR" "Independence" things like that could be fun, but strict tiers as we knew them simply won't work.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tiers in PF2 would only serve to generate arguments. The differences in strength and versatility between each class is of such less concern it doesn't really make sense to even try to build a tier system.
Argument generation is the ultimate goal of tier classification and tier list creation. It is not a bad thing.
By that logic, no semi-balanced videogame or tabletop game ever needs a tier list, and still their communities put them together anyway.
Even if roleplaying is not a competitive hobby, the classes are indeed competing against themselves and thus having a criteria to study in which way a fighter, for example, is better than a let's say swashbuckler is something helpful in the long run.
Also, as I said at the beginning, I just find this type of discussion pretty fun and I'm sure lot's of other people feel the same.
But with the last thing you said, I agree. One sole list will be hard to justify.
Yeah I'm with Lethe on this. In 3.x/PF1 tier lists worked because they were true. Classes had fundamentally different levels of strength across the board, and when you had a handful of classes that could replace the effectiveness of an entire party of lower-tier classes, those were clearly the superior choice.
In PF2 that is no longer the case. The gap between classes is significantly smaller, and because of the implementation of the feat system in PF2, variation makes strictly defining a tier for a class very very difficult. Now I'm sure you could tier-list specific builds WITHIN a class, but on a class-by-class basis those types of direct comparisons are much more difficult.
Any type of ranking discussion would have to be broken into subcategories, like Lethe suggested. "Survivability" "Highest potential single-shot damage" "Highest sustained DPR" "Independence" things like that could be fun, but strict tiers as we knew them simply won't work.
That the old system don't work for classification is the premise of this post. By this point I think we all are aware of it.
Maybe a good start would be to define what a party needs: Healing, Single target and area capabilities, Social Skills, Exploring, Defensive Capabilities, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with categorical tier lists is that specialists are kinda, suboptimal, in PF2e. They work, but because you cannot pump the math to auto succeed levels it isn't good for the party to heavily rely on one character for a single task/role.
When it comes to versatility, you would have to lock out stuff like magic items and dedications to get anything close to a starting point, which would just be misrepresentative.
I would disagree that anything is T4 classification in PF2e by PF1e standards. Everything is T3 baseline with some edging on T2, all can reach T2 with good builds.
There is so much of PF2e that focuses on synergetic team based playstyle being optimal that the other thing tier lists would ideally have to take into consideration is how many other classes play into other builds other classes have. And really, you would probably want to have some way of averaging out adventures too?
I just can't see a tier list working, PF1e you could force your way through any encounter design regardless of intent. It didn't matter past a point if your specialty was being specifically countered or not you could generally overcome it. In PF2e this can't really be built for in the same way.
I was all excited to start building class guides for PF2e, before releasing that even constrained to the CRB it would have to be for specific builds rather than the classes themselves like it is in PF1e and various similar systems. There are too few always good or always bad options to make it an interesting read. The always bad options do exist in almost any list of course, but that isn't exactly compelling reading.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is built to make teamwork very important and very powerful. Tiers, historically, are about "how much can this character handle by themselves" which would undo one of the most fun thing about PF2.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to put tier as “how many party compositions of 3 will benefit a lot from having X class as their fourth”
And by that metric
Tier 1: Most party compositions will benefit greatly from having this class in their party, or the class is versatile enough to fit into any comp. Examples - Bard, Druid(Wild), Champion.
Tier 2: Most party compositions would be happy to have this as their 4th member, or the class is versatile enough to fit into most comps. Examples - Wizard, Cleric, Monk, Ranger (Precision)
Tier 3: There are a few party compositions this won’t mesh with at all. The class may require some support to truly shine. That’s not to say these classes are bad, supported they may be better than a higher tier class with the same support, just that without proper support they might not be able to leverage everything. Examples: Swashbuckler, Barbarian, Ranger (Outwit or Flurry)
Tier 4: In very few party compositions is this the best choice, and in most compositions a higher tier class would be better than this one. Examples - Alchemist, Witch (Divine or Occult)
Tier 5: This is never the best choice. You are playing this because you want to have fun. Examples - All 4 playtest classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tier 4: In very few party compositions is this the best choice, and in most compositions a higher tier class would be better than this one. Examples - Alchemist, Witch (Divine or Occult)
And yet nothing in the game provides the same level of flexible support as an alchemist at mid to high levels. Not to mention how incredibly effective it is now with dual thrower and bomber if you want to DPS high AC targets from level 7 onwards but specifically level 10+.
(Using this as an example of why the sheer flexibility of the system and focus on group synergy has a huge impact on tier perception).
To give you an example, the alchemist (level 12) in my last session
- Provided full day darkvision to the two party members who required it.
- Provided Juggernaught mutagen, greater two three melee characters with one left over for the final fight. Granting 3 fights worth of 30temp HP and providing some quick recoveries from poison effects in one fight (that is a total of 300temporary hp granted)
- Provided eagle eye elixir, greater to two characters granting a +3 to initiative rolls for them
- Provided 4x mist form elixirs and prevented 3 crits (and a few hits) via them allowing other characters to focus on damage.
- Handed out 2x cat's eye elixirs just incase the party healer needed to target an ally.
- Provided 4x skinstich salves for battle medicine maximisation from the character with the medic dedication and battle medicine.
During the four combats it also managed to contribute quite a lot to damage. Dual thrower was a big part of this, but as was being able to flexibly shift damage types to something that wasn't resisted.
But seriously, dual thrower / double slice combining all damage is a lot of fun when it comes to splash, resistances and having really high persistent damage effects. I have seen 14 acid splash + 8d6+14 persistent acid has come up often enough now for me to not disregard it.
Tier 4: In very few party compositions is this the best choice, and in most compositions a higher tier class would be better than this one. Examples - Alchemist, Witch (Divine or Occult)And yet nothing in the game provides the same level of flexible support as an alchemist at mid to high levels. Not to mention how incredibly effective it is now with dual thrower and bomber if you want to DPS high AC targets from level 7 onwards but specifically level 10+.
(Using this as an example of why the sheer flexibility of the system and focus on group synergy has a huge impact on tier perception).
To give you an example, the alchemist (level 12) in my last session
- Provided full day darkvision to the two party members who required it.
- Provided Juggernaught mutagen, greater two three melee characters with one left over for the final fight. Granting 3 fights worth of 30temp HP and providing some quick recoveries from poison effects in one fight (that is a total of 300temporary hp granted)
- Provided eagle eye elixir, greater to two characters granting a +3 to initiative rolls for them
- Provided 4x mist form elixirs and prevented 3 crits (and a few hits) via them allowing other characters to focus on damage.
- Handed out 2x cat's eye elixirs just incase the party healer needed to target an ally.
- Provided 4x skinstich salves for battle medicine maximisation from the character with the medic dedication and battle medicine.During the four combats it also managed to contribute quite a lot to damage. Dual thrower was a big part of this, but as was being able to flexibly shift damage types to something that wasn't resisted.
But seriously, dual thrower / double slice combining all damage is a lot of fun when it comes to splash, resistances and having really high persistent damage effects. I have seen 14 acid splash + 8d6+14 persistent acid has come up often enough now for me to not disregard it.
Double slice works on bombs? I thought it stipulated melee weapons
I'm more interested in good builds than tiers.
New and unusual things you can do with a class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use the same metric as Exo for some things (role classification), and while I think that metric would be the place to start for proper tiers, I also think actually doing tiers like this becomes too complex to actually go anywhere.
I tend to put tier as “how many party compositions of 3 will benefit a lot from having X class as their fourth”
And by that metric
Tier 1: Most party compositions will benefit greatly from having this class in their party, or the class is versatile enough to fit into any comp. Examples - Bard, Druid(Wild), Champion.
Tier 2: Most party compositions would be happy to have this as their 4th member, or the class is versatile enough to fit into most comps. Examples - Wizard, Cleric, Monk, Ranger (Precision)
Tier 3: There are a few party compositions this won’t mesh with at all. The class may require some support to truly shine. That’s not to say these classes are bad, supported they may be better than a higher tier class with the same support, just that without proper support they might not be able to leverage everything. Examples: Swashbuckler, Barbarian, Ranger (Outwit or Flurry)
Tier 4: In very few party compositions is this the best choice, and in most compositions a higher tier class would be better than this one. Examples - Alchemist, Witch (Divine or Occult)
Tier 5: This is never the best choice. You are playing this because you want to have fun. Examples - All 4 playtest classes.
I like this as an end goal, but for this to actually work we should define first what are the measurable things classes offers to the table.
If this is the end goal, things like being a party face, scouting, and such become less relevant as anyone can cover it with skills (it is true that a Sorcerer will always be a better face than a Champion due to max charisma and spells, but the fact that with both the need of a face is covered is also true).
We can divide utility in 2 types then: Class dependent and non-class dependent. Then weight all of them an decide how helpful they are in party composition.
I'm more interested in good builds than tiers.
New and unusual things you can do with a class.
I think both things complement each other. Having a general idea of how useful a class is helps putting into perspective how the outliners are actually doing.
...Tier 4: In very few party compositions is this the best choice, and in most compositions a higher tier class would be better than this one. Examples - Alchemist, Witch (Divine or Occult)And yet nothing in the game provides the same level of flexible support as an alchemist at mid to high levels. Not to mention how incredibly effective it is now with dual thrower and bomber if you want to DPS high AC targets from level 7 onwards but specifically level 10+.
(Using this as an example of why the sheer flexibility of the system and focus on group synergy has a huge impact on tier perception).
To give you an example, the alchemist (level 12) in my last session
- Provided full day darkvision to the two party members who required it.
- Provided Juggernaught mutagen, greater two three melee characters with one left over for the final fight. Granting 3 fights worth of 30temp HP and providing some quick recoveries from poison effects in one fight (that is a total of 300temporary hp granted)
- Provided eagle eye elixir, greater to two characters granting a +3 to initiative rolls for them
- Provided 4x mist form elixirs and prevented 3 crits (and a few hits) via them allowing other characters to focus on damage.
- Handed out 2x cat's eye elixirs just incase the party healer needed to target an ally.
- Provided 4x skinstich salves for battle medicine maximisation from the character with the medic dedication and battle medicine.During the four combats it also managed to contribute quite a lot to damage. Dual thrower was a big part of this, but as was being able to flexibly shift damage types to something that wasn't resisted.
But seriously, dual thrower / double slice combining all damage is a lot of fun when it comes to splash, resistances and having really high persistent damage effects. I have seen 14 acid splash + 8d6+14 persistent acid has come up often enough now for me to not disregard it.
Damn! Just looked it up on archives of nethys. That does seem pretty great. Granted, I'd wanna be mid game before I lobbed bombs so liberally. Still a good archetype for bombers. Nice
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP is correct: tier discussion is dead.
I disagree that tiers measured success, but rather power. With the balance of classes and diversity of enemies (et al) in PF2, power becomes a more situational metric than in PF1. Add in the Dedication options and the somewhat required teamwork of PF2 and these generic ranking systems wither when faced with the abundant exceptions.
Because of this thread, I was thinking about a new generic system based around agency, effectiveness, fun, versatility, and other metrics a player would want out of their PC, yet that too would have so many exceptions.
Ex. Though many have been disappointed by Alchemists, lots of others have built Alchemists which flourish by each of those metrics.
Then there are roles, like tank, blaster, healer, etc.
Or tactics, like debuffer, AoE-er, skirmisher, etc.
Yet most classes can do a majority of these with the right equipment, feats, stat allotment, and/or Dedication(s). Yet most classes also have roles they can never flourish at, and only get to functional levels.
And trying to cover too many roles with one build is one of the few ways to fail at making an effective PC in PF2 (as opposed to 3.X/PF1 where a powerful build could carry a game for an inept party). Melee gish are difficult to build well for example unless one calibrates their expectations.
And I'm fine with discussions that use generic metrics dying. Then we can get to the essence of each role, theme, etc. without the crutch.
---
Separately I'd like to note that part of the reason tiers aren't so necessary in PF2 is that the answers are obvious.
You want a powerful spellcaster? Take a class that gets Legendary spellcasting and casts the spells you like. As important as the specifics of a class are, the numbers themselves change little, hence the power varies little. Numbers are hard-baked into the class system & proficiencies, so it becomes pretty basic when "18 in your offensive stat" + "class that gets proficiency in what you want to do" gets you to about 90% effectiveness already, with teamwork making a more significant difference than the other build choices (IMO). Specific Dedications for specific roles muddies some of that last assertion. :)
Damn! Just looked it up on archives of nethys. That does seem pretty great. Granted, I'd wanna be mid game before I lobbed bombs so liberally. Still a good archetype for bombers. Nice
While it is best with double brew you can get it going earlier by having a familiar with independent or valet (on that note, fitting a familiar into an alchemist build is fantastic, sadly taking familiar master tends to be a bit of a stretch class feat wise).
I cannot state enough how effective Dual-Weapon blitz is as a level 15 feat. Specifically for harder to hit targets like level +3 or level +4. High level stuff, but hey sometimes the wait is worth it.
Something else worth mentioning, as double brew and even infusions can be used on non perpetual bombs. At later levels it is worth saving up a couple infused reagents for situations where the enemy is flat footed, their AC is debuffed, you might have an ATK bonus and the target crit failed a check that leaved them frightened 4. Because when you are crit fishing, why not go big :). Heck burn that heropoint on a that one you accidentally rolled despite all your advantages, oh bugger got a one on that reroll ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think discussion is dead (here at least) because almost nobody wants to talk about it or else wants to write it off entirely if this thread is any evidence.
It's also not too hard to hash out a rough list.
1: Bard, C. Cleric (heal), Druid, Fighter
2: Every other CRB martial, Every other CRB caster except WP clerics
3: Non-CRB classes
4: Alchemist, warpriests
Bard is the best buffer, debuffer and face and has decent blasting
Cleric is the best heal support and a decent buffer
Druid can switch hit between blasting, buffing healing and martialing as needed. The good kind of average.
Fighter is both the best martial by itself and can use dedications to steal the niches of other martials
Non-crb classes are worse but more flavored versions of crb classes.
Alchemists can do everything and fill every role but aren't as good at any of them as a class dedicated to it. Their primary benefit is saving the party money on permanent magic items. The bad kind of average.
For out of combat stuff, the answer is also pretty obvious. Did you max a skill that also uses your primary stat? Then you are best at it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would disagree that anything is T4 classification in PF2e by PF1e standards. Everything is T3 baseline with some edging on T2, all can reach T2 with good builds.
I find the need to clarify a little bit what I tried to said. Most classes are tier 3 with some classes or subclasses being between tier 3 and tier 4.
Luckily no class is tier 2 (fortunately). If there were a tier 2 class we would see casters filling martial roles with no problem or viceversa, and that's not the case.
I think discussion is dead (here at least) because almost nobody wants to talk about it or else wants to write it off entirely if this thread is any evidence.
It's also not too hard to hash out a rough list.
1: Bard, C. Cleric (heal), Druid, Fighter
2: Every other CRB martial, Every other CRB caster except WP clerics
3: Non-CRB classes
4: Alchemist, warpriestsBard is the best buffer, debuffer and face and has decent blasting
Cleric is the best heal support and a decent buffer
Druid can switch hit between blasting, buffing healing and martialing as needed. The good kind of average.
Fighter is both the best martial by itself and can use dedications to steal the niches of other martialsNon-crb classes are worse but more flavored versions of crb classes.
Alchemists can do everything and fill every role but aren't as good at any of them as a class dedicated to it. Their primary benefit is saving the party money on permanent magic items. The bad kind of average.
For out of combat stuff, the answer is also pretty obvious. Did you max a skill that also uses your primary stat? Then you are best at it.
I also have my personal list going by feeling, but that doesn't mean it would be proper as it lacks any pre-stablished criteria, so it can't be compared with others.
My question is not "how does a pathfinder 2E tierlist look like?" I ask how we can make a useful one in the first place.
Note that a Rogue can be fundamentally better at stealth than any other class. Reducing everything to "max skills" goes nowhere.
A little bit off-topic but the Double Slice Alchemist thing is actually genius.
I also have my personal list going by feeling, but that doesn't mean it would be proper as it lacks any pre-stablished criteria, so it can't be compared with others.
Isn't it simple enough? If you're the best at a niche you're tier 1. If you fulfill your niche, you're tier 2. If you fulfill your niche poorly, you're tier 3. If you have no niche, you're tier 4.
And then you have druid and alch who have no specific niche but fulfill (almost) every niche and do it well (druid) or do it poorly (alch).
Good point with skills. I was being overly reductionist/dismissive there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roquepo, useful tier lists would be those that answer the question at hand (whatever that may be). In PF1 it was dominance over enemies & obstacles, often framed as PvP battles!
What would a similar question look like in PF2 where dominance is elusive?
Soloing a boss or shutting down a horde with one spell is no longer normal, even with luck.
If the tier system is meant as shorthand in a discussion, what kind of discussion would one be aiming to have?
How would one factor in synergy & teamwork? (i.e. buffs/debuffs that do little unless capitalized on by other PCs).
It doesn't seem there's a data point that people constantly reference when comparing classes, but rather many depending on intent. A lot of the "build me a better X" threads begin with questions by advisors since there's more than one "best" and often several routes there. Compare how in PF1 Power Attack & two-handed weapons were default (w/ exceptions of course) while in PF2 there's no default combat style, not even standing toe-to-toe or doing max damage (because dropping a Condition on a boss matters a lot to your friends, leading to even more damage or a safer situation).
Maybe a more important question might be, if there are multiple tier lists, how would the parlance spread? It seems the "empty tier system" might be interesting to discuss how to fill, but those would cause debate so it would be difficult to use as premises in later discussion.
Ex. There's going to be disagreement with Gesalt's rough list above. Once agreement was hashed out, how much explanatory power would referencing that list have in future conversations?
So maybe what we need is a tool for making tier lists, so when I say "Fighters and Rangers are the tier one archers" it carries a meaning even if the other person hasn't pondered archery. Okay, tier one might be too easy. What's it mean to be tier three??
A rubric would be necessary (and for those who aren't familiar with that concept:
"A rubric is a tool that teachers use to assess many different types of assignments including written work, projects, speeches, and more. Every rubric is divided into a set of criteria (ex: organization, evidence, conclusion) with descriptors or markers of quality to explain each criterion."
So tier one: Exemplary, top of the balance curve in this area. Stat bonus, feats, and innate class abilities align with role. Little to no investment needed from outside the class.
Tier two: Competitive
Tier three: Functional
Tier four: Insufficient, class does not progress in the ability, needs outside investment to become functional
Tier five: Hindered, multiple areas require shoring up, practically irredeemable in this. Ex. Wizard as front line defender.
With the caveat that an Archetype might move one up a notch, i.e. the Archer Dedication might move a Barbarian from Functional to Competitive (yet w/o 18 Dex and with its martial bonuses tied to melee, it never becomes Exemplary). For a caster, they might reach functional.
Heavy stat, feat, and other investment might be worth another notch, though some of that's implied already (i.e. the Fighter Archer should be taking Dex & archery feats, not just have the Bow Weapon Group)
And we might want to switch to One Punch Man's/Tier Zoo's format if we're reinventing the system. :)
For clarity:
Tier One: Exemplary
Tier Two: Competitive
Tier Three: Functional
Tier Four: Insufficient
Tier Five: Hindered
Archetypes: +1 possible
Abnormal Investment: +1 possible
Archery (CRB):
Tier One: Fighter & Ranger (Precision or Flurry)
Tier Two: Ranger (Outwit) or Rogue (any) (Monk w/ M. Archer Stance)
Tier Three: Other martials except Monk
Tier Four: Monk (other), Cleric (w/ archery god)
Tier Five: Other casters
ETA: I went to five tiers to make it clear that even with abnormal investment and an archetype, some builds really can't get past functional in an area not supported by their class (despite often seeing advice to the contrary). As opposed to PF1 where one could Frankenstein a PC out of most any chassis.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
This 2e is excellent because you don't have to care at all about the party composition.
It has been a very long time since I've heard an opinion on any subject with which I disagree more.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I also don't consider tier lists to have any real value, jumping into declaring that they are "perpetrated by BAD people" is not in any way called for and is absolutely not going to help with preventing board toxicity.
Please don't be part of the problem. Especially while complaining about the problem. Especially before anyone else has become a problem.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are going to absolutely want to rate classes, and they are going to totally disagree. But for the most part that is fun.
The old tier system worked mostly because it had a good set of definitions.
PF2 is too well balanced for such a system to make any sense.
Happy to discuss new systems.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tier 4: In very few party compositions is this the best choice, and in most compositions a higher tier class would be better than this one. Examples - Alchemist, Witch (Divine or Occult)And yet nothing in the game provides the same level of flexible support as an alchemist at mid to high levels. Not to mention how incredibly effective it is now with dual thrower and bomber if you want to DPS high AC targets from level 7 onwards but specifically level 10+.
(Using this as an example of why the sheer flexibility of the system and focus on group synergy has a huge impact on tier perception).
To give you an example, the alchemist (level 12) in my last session
- Provided full day darkvision to the two party members who required it.
- Provided Juggernaught mutagen, greater two three melee characters with one left over for the final fight. Granting 3 fights worth of 30temp HP and providing some quick recoveries from poison effects in one fight (that is a total of 300temporary hp granted)
- Provided eagle eye elixir, greater to two characters granting a +3 to initiative rolls for them
- Provided 4x mist form elixirs and prevented 3 crits (and a few hits) via them allowing other characters to focus on damage.
- Handed out 2x cat's eye elixirs just incase the party healer needed to target an ally.
- Provided 4x skinstich salves for battle medicine maximisation from the character with the medic dedication and battle medicine.During the four combats it also managed to contribute quite a lot to damage. Dual thrower was a big part of this, but as was being able to flexibly shift damage types to something that wasn't resisted.
But seriously, dual thrower / double slice combining all damage is a lot of fun when it comes to splash, resistances and having really high persistent damage effects. I have seen 14 acid splash + 8d6+14 persistent acid has come up often enough now for me to not disregard it.
I’m not saying alchemist is bad (well, at the higher levels at least) it’s just very specific in the problems it wants to solve
It’s a secondary everything, so its best suited for a party that wants a backup for everything (either because the primary is weak, or because there’s no primary). If you pick 3 random classes, chances are you’re going to end up with a large mechanical gap somewhere rather than all the mechanics being filled, but not adequately. There are very few party comps that an alchemist would be the best fourth member for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roquepo, useful tier lists would be those that answer the question at hand (whatever that may be). In PF1 it was dominance over enemies & obstacles, often framed as PvP battles!
What would a similar question look like in PF2 where dominance is elusive?
Soloing a boss or shutting down a horde with one spell is no longer normal, even with luck.If the tier system is meant as shorthand in a discussion, what kind of discussion would one be aiming to have?
How would one factor in synergy & teamwork? (i.e. buffs/debuffs that do little unless capitalized on by other PCs).It doesn't seem there's a data point that people constantly reference when comparing classes, but rather many depending on intent. A lot of the "build me a better X" threads begin with questions by advisors since there's more than one "best" and often several routes there. Compare how in PF1 Power Attack & two-handed weapons were default (w/ exceptions of course) while in PF2 there's no default combat style, not even standing toe-to-toe or doing max damage (because dropping a Condition on a boss matters a lot to your friends, leading to even more damage or a safer situation).
Maybe a more important question might be, if there are multiple tier lists, how would the parlance spread? It seems the "empty tier system" might be interesting to discuss how to fill, but those would cause debate so it would be difficult to use as premises in later discussion.
Ex. There's going to be disagreement with Gesalt's rough list above. Once agreement was hashed out, how much explanatory power would referencing that list have in future conversations?So maybe what we need is a tool for making tier lists, so when I say "Fighters and Rangers are the tier one archers" it carries a meaning even if the other person hasn't pondered archery. Okay, tier one might be too easy. What's it mean to be tier three??
A rubric would be necessary (and for those who aren't familiar with that concept:
"A rubric is a tool that teachers use to assess many different types...
I think the key is what Exocist mentioned before, how well a class hits different parties and how well it synergizes with them. Most people already do that I think when they put things like Bard, Druid or Champion near the top.
I agree that rating classes alone might not be the best idea. A polearm fighter has a completely different role than an archer fighter and has different strengths and weaknesses. Maybe the right thing would be to rate classes + feat path/subclass in a very generalized way.
So maybe something like:
Tier 1: Will make the party work better regardless of party composition. Can cover multiple needs the party may have and covers them well. Example: Any Druid
Tier 2: Will at least be power neutral in the worst party composition for it. Can cover multiple needs the party may have or covers just some but very well. Example: Precision Archer Ranger
Tier 3: There will be better options if the party is not fit for it but its inclussion will hit some parties. Can cover some needs a party may have or can cover multiple but worse than other options. Example: Bomber Alchemist
Tier 4: Needs a especific party to work and would hinder any other party. Example: Chirurgeon Alchemist
Tier 5: Would hinder any party. Example: Frontliner Wizard, Barbarian caster.
As I said before, now we need to define those needs. Some obvious ones are: Mid combat healing, Out of combat healing, Single target damage, area damage, frontlining, buffs, debuffs, problem solving (spellcasting, skills like thievery), social aspects and exploring and scouting. I'm sure I'm forgetting a ton of them.
Also separate those that are tied to the class and those that are not is important too. If it is not tied to the class then we have to evaluate wich classes do it better or which cost them the least to be proficient in it (a fighter has to invest more than a rogue to get healing and a rogue has to invest more than a champion).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
warpriests
Just a note, warpriests are great on anything that is focusing on healing / support. The free/early feat benefits are useful and the divine list struggles to find real use for proficiency bumps imo.
The focus spell and point is hit or miss depending on your diety.
So it is a problem for the war priest only if someone goes into it expecting benefits that aren't represented in the mechanics.
So given how highly people rate the cloistered cleric and why they rate it highly, I cannot in good faith get behind warpriest malignment. It won't turn you into a holy gish but it has solid purpose in any more support orientated build.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriests only have issues at 15+, because their armor prof is now meaningless (as cloistered will have 20 dex) so they trade the lower spell prof for... master fort, fort evasion and shield block. Cleric also does start getting decent offensive spells at spell level 6+ so the lowered prof is impactful.
That being said, I would still put warpriest at tier 2 along with cloistered, because the difference isn’t that big, and simply the power for buffs and healing is enough to make the class valuable to most party comps (I can think of a few where a cleric wouldn’t be the optimal pick - mostly because those comps would badly want some damage).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd think part of the goal would be establishing what roles are wanted. They'd probably need to be broken down further because there's multiple ways to reach an end, in the majority of cases. Reducing damage and healing it back ultimately have the same function of keeping people in the fight.
D&D 4E was very obvious about roles with its Leader, Striker, Defender, Controller, Blaster framing, and though I don't think the same categories should be used for Pathfinder 2E ("Leader" was always weird to me for one), it can be helpful to say something like "Paladin's an exemplary defender and can also be a competitive leader or competent striker", as I vaguely remember the 4E guide suggesting.
Details can vary on which roles need to be covered for a party to be most effective, but it might also be good to differentiate by level. There's no official differentiation like in D&D 4E and 5E (other than the note on scope of adventuring early in the CRB), but it's plainly obvious that classes are all much closer to one another (and have a harder time) at lower levels than higher ones. That's how you can say that most Alchemists will depend on backup weapons and potentially have less of an effect than other classes early on, but be a competitive all-around support later in the game. I think the breakpoints do tend to start at Lv 1, 5, 10, and maybe 15 and 20.
Tier discussions can be fun, as long as no one gets nasty while making their cases. Not something you can depend on, admittedly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
warpriestsJust a note, warpriests are great on anything that is focusing on healing / support. The free/early feat benefits are useful and the divine list struggles to find real use for proficiency bumps imo.
The focus spell and point is hit or miss depending on your diety.
So it is a problem for the war priest only if someone goes into it expecting benefits that aren't represented in the mechanics.
So given how highly people rate the cloistered cleric and why they rate it highly, I cannot in good faith get behind warpriest malignment. It won't turn you into a holy gish but it has solid purpose in any more support orientated build.
Well your few DC spells become even less reliable, your counteract checks on the various condition healing spells and dispel magic is worse, you never progress past expert with your weapon so you can't hit anything. In return you get a couple of feats that the intended shield martials either get for free (shield block) or have no need for (deadly simplicity) and a level 15 ability that other martials get as early as 7-9. So no, I don't think warpriests have a niche since they do nothing well.
Edit: and cloistered clerics get that weapon proficiency at 11 anyway if that matters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
warpriestsJust a note, warpriests are great on anything that is focusing on healing / support. The free/early feat benefits are useful and the divine list struggles to find real use for proficiency bumps imo.
The focus spell and point is hit or miss depending on your diety.
So it is a problem for the war priest only if someone goes into it expecting benefits that aren't represented in the mechanics.
So given how highly people rate the cloistered cleric and why they rate it highly, I cannot in good faith get behind warpriest malignment. It won't turn you into a holy gish but it has solid purpose in any more support orientated build.
Well your few DC spells become even less reliable, your counteract checks on the various condition healing spells and dispel magic is worse, you never progress past expert with your weapon so you can't hit anything. In return you get a couple of feats that the intended shield martials either get for free (shield block) or have no need for (deadly simplicity) and a level 15 ability that other martials get as early as 7-9. So no, I don't think warpriests have a niche since they do nothing well.
Edit: and cloistered clerics get that weapon proficiency at 11 anyway if that matters.
Having only expert in weapons isn’t great but it’s not terrible considering most martials only get up to master anyway. As a war priest, you probably won’t be striking twice, but your first strike is somewhere between a regular martial’s first and second strike, which isn’t bad. It also makes sense because a war priest probably has better things to do with their actions (spells) then spamming strikes. A single strike is probably the most you can afford anyway as a war priest.
Perhaps instead of tiers to figure out what's "Better" since that's much more difficult with the way the game is set up, it may be better to rate them by how they fill different aspects/roles of the game. Possible examples would be Healing, Buffer, Debuffer, Benefits from Buffing (ie who do i put haste on?), Tank, Battlefield Control, and things like that. Then, if you must tier rank the classes themselves, give the best scoring ones Tier Rankings from there. For example:
Fighter
-Battlefield Control: **(2) Fighters, with their Attack of Opportunity, have some decent battlefield control, though can only do so much with it.
-Buffer: * (1) Unless they take the Martial Archetype, they dont have buffs, though can provide flanking
-Debuffer: ** (2) Surprisingly fighters are capable of debuffing. They make good use of weapons that allow them to trip and such. Prone is such a good one, and the knockdown line is solid, and their other feats help with similar things. Frost weapons can also provide a slow debuff, and Fighters are the king of the crit. That said, their debuffs end with what combat maneuvers provide
-Benefits from Buffing: **** (4) with their to-hit being high, they benefit the most from things like haste and such.
-Healer: *(1) Fighters get nothing to make them into better healers.
-Tank: ***(3) The way fighters are built with their free shield blocks and have their high HD, they are better at tanking than most other classes.
-Single-Target Damage: ****(4) No one is better due to their legendary to-hit.
-Multi-Target Damage: **(2) Not capable of dealing high damage to multiple targets in a single activity (like, say, a fireball) though do have some things like Whirlwind Attack.
-Skills: **(2) They don't have the best skill numbers or support.
Just an example, and I didn't really look into it beyond helping my friend build a fighter. My breakdown wasn't at all based on any research beyond that! Still, the fighter has 21 stars, which may be something? Only way to know would be to study the other classes on a similar scale, then rate them from there. If we're going to make tier lists for classes, it should be based on specific criteria due to the balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tiers have definitely narrowed, as few classes eclipse others. But to me the tiers still exist as long as martials are barely getting any utility compared to spellcasters.
Roquepo,
That layout has the elite tiers for those classes capable of filling the most party roles, yet that becomes a question of:
-Which build would they use?
Are Druids better because in a party of other blasters they can choose not be a blaster when any non-blaster class would do as well?
-How many roles can they effectively fill with one build?
Likely not much more than other classes.
-It implies that doing one thing very well weakens a class.
IMO, not iff that thing is important enough to have a devoted PC.And what conversation would you be having where you would reference this?
(BTW these aren't rhetorical questions, though they may sound like it.)One can't say "Druid makes an excellent fourth PC" without clarifying which kind of Druid which would depend on which kind of party.
Added to a party with a Heal Cleric and Arcane or Primal blaster, that Druid won't add much (and woe if they they volunteer to take the martial role via Wild Shape because that's only Functional level IMO).
Much like Bards become lessened by not having martials to buff (or made greater if there are Animal Companions, etc. added to the mix).Which is to say I don't think any class automatically adds its normal value to any party mix, i.e. multiple Wizards (maybe even multiple casters off the same list), unless they intentionally build away from what the other player's playing...which then goes back to roles more than classes.
And it's roles that you address at the bottom of the list.
So for example, a Druid might have several roles where it's effective, but every non-Alchemist CRB class has some role where they're tier 1, so would be an excellent fit for a party needing that role.ETA: I have no idea why this posted under the name of a PC I haven't played in many years. ???
Some good points.
I don't think we should center too much in builds, but see the kit as a whole. Druids in specific can grab any order through Order Explorer, so separating them makes little sense. I see reasons to separate let's say, Champions by Cause or Fighters by Fighting style but not Bards by muse or Druids by Order.
Probably both full caster parties and full martial parties should be left out of the ecuation, that's true. In defense of the Druid though, if a party made of 4 different casters fail it would be probably due to other casters. I can see a party made of 4 Druids working. Can't say the same for a party of 4 Cloistered clerics or 4 Arcane Blasters.
About roles it covers, it has access to healing through spellcasting, can grab focus spell healing, can frontlane (not amazingly well but it can) if it grabs Wild Order, can add an extra body to the party if it grabs animal order, blasts very well, can have good single target damage if it grabs Storm order, Primal list has (albeit limited) utility, has OK defenses (not stellar but it is not a glass cannon) and uses wisdom as the main stat with all the benefits it entails. It is a very good list very few classes can match.
But enough with the Druid, it was just an example.
In general, for the criteria I posted before the theoretical party would have to be made of 4 different classes and maybe include at least 1 martial and one caster, which makes things complicated.
Doing one thing very well is not a weakness, JUST doing one thing very well kind of is. As other user posted before, overspecialization era is gone.
About the Alchemist, it doesn't matter if they fit like a glove in 1 out of 10 parties if they are subpar in the other 9. But again, let's try to keep this away of becoming yet another Alchemist post.
For a base line, consider this crippled class concept. Anything this this Null class can do is defined as 1 star:
All the hitpoints and weapon abilities of a wizard but:
No prime attribute (so can only start with a 16)
No spell casting form their base class
No class feats, so has to multiclass to get any.
Human ancestry
No class features except for the defaults: being skill increase, skill feats, general feats, armour and weapon proficiency increases of a wizard, saving throw and perception increase of a wizard.
Is that a suitable default?
I think I could still build a surprisingly useful character with this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having only expert in weapons isn’t great but it’s not terrible considering most martials only get up to master anyway. As a war priest, you probably won’t be striking twice, but your first strike is somewhere between a regular martial’s first and second strike, which isn’t bad. It also makes sense because a war priest probably has better things to do with their actions (spells) then spamming strikes. A single strike is probably the most you can afford anyway as a war priest.warpriestsJust a note, warpriests are great on anything that is focusing on healing / support. The free/early feat benefits are useful and the divine list struggles to find real use for proficiency bumps imo.
The focus spell and point is hit or miss depending on your diety.
So it is a problem for the war priest only if someone goes into it expecting benefits that aren't represented in the mechanics.
So given how highly people rate the cloistered cleric and why they rate it highly, I cannot in good faith get behind warpriest malignment. It won't turn you into a holy gish but it has solid purpose in any more support orientated build.
Well your few DC spells become even less reliable, your counteract checks on the various condition healing spells and dispel magic is worse, you never progress past expert with your weapon so you can't hit anything. In return you get a couple of feats that the intended shield martials either get for free (shield block) or have no need for (deadly simplicity) and a level 15 ability that other martials get as early as 7-9. So no, I don't think warpriests have a niche since they do nothing well.
Edit: and cloistered clerics get that weapon proficiency at 11 anyway if that matters.
Expert is literally the minimum every class gets as they progress. The job of the warpriest is to somehow sell to the player the idea that getting expert 4 levels earlier is worth all the tradeoffs. Trying to say that it's not so bad because at least you're better than regular casters for 4 levels is silly when you sit at that level for the first 6 and then the latter 10 levels. So you wind up being better than other casters at swinging a weapon for 4 levels (7-10), and worse at casting for 10 (7-10, 15-20).
As a side note, a martial going for a dedication will get expert casting one level later (12 vs 11) and master casting before the warpriest (18 vs 19).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you value the support-casting side, note that a martial with a dedication will also get almost no spells (and even worse proficiency) until Lv 12. 4-6 spells of 1-2 spell levels lower just doesn't seem like it would compare to 18 + up to 4 top-level Heal/Harms.
At any rate, let's please not make this yet another Warpriest/Alchemist/Wizard Is Bad thread. There's enough of those and it's not really the point of this one.
Expert is literally the minimum every class gets as they progress. The job of the warpriest is to somehow sell to the player the idea that getting expert 4 levels earlier is worth all the tradeoffs. Trying to say that it's not so bad because at least you're better than regular casters for 4 levels is silly when you sit at that level for the first 6 and then the latter 10 levels. So you wind up being better than other casters at swinging a weapon for 4 levels (7-10), and worse at casting for 10 (7-10, 15-20).
As a side note, a martial going for a dedication will get expert casting one level later (12 vs 11) and master casting before the warpriest (18 vs 19).
See, thing is, not every cleric cares about attacking things. Being 2 lower than other martials also doesn't mean you "won't hit anything" that is hyperbole to an extreme.
What you do get from being a warpriest is training in medium armour, easy path to heavy armour, shield block and equiv to juggernaut for fort saves.
At levels 7-11 being -2 lower also matters more as you are going to have less consistent buffs, debuffs and the like. But as I said originally, warcleric is fine if you are playing a primarily supportive cleric. It is NOT some massively hamstrung option and there are clear build paths that do support it even if that build path doesn't include the holy warrior paladin spellcaster archetype that people want (and it perhaps should have been given, with a name like warcleric).
The base of the cleric class is useful, the warcleric leans into that and retrains purpose.
|
|
I wouldn't agree that fighter is at the top of the tier list. Tier 2, maybe, it works well without support. But a fighter does a couple of very specific things well - it definitely isn't the right choice for every party composition.
Seems like almost everyone here can consistently agree that Druid, Bard and Champion are at the top though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because of this thread, I was thinking about a new generic system based around agency, effectiveness, fun, versatility, and other metrics a player would want out of their PC, yet that too would have so many exceptions.
Ex. Though many have been disappointed by Alchemists, lots of others have built Alchemists which flourish by each of those metrics.Hey, there you go. Ask questions like which class gives the most Fun, Agency, Versatility, and Effectiveness for whatever it is you're trying to do.
Down with tiers, up with FAVEs!
I'd looked for an acronym for my other suggestion and missed this one!
Taking this for a spin: (Note that a zero means average, not nil)
There's a lot of overlap of the concepts, so I broke them down for clarity.
Fun is a bit meta, tied to one's expectations
Agency is comfort levels, i.e. 6 h.p. classes are uncomfortable alone in combat, while a Champions are not and can go where they please.
Versatility could cover tons of things, so I gave it what the others did not covers: how versatile in roles & how many builds (which ties somewhat to replay value in how many different paths could one take, even if one's role(s) remained the same.
Fighter: ++ (so above average, not sure what others will score yet)
-Fun: 0
Does what the package says? +
Surprises you too? -
-Agency: 0
In combat? +
Non-combat? -
-Versatility: +
Many roles? 0
Many builds? +
-Effectiveness: +
Combat? +
Obstacles? 0
Bard +++
-Fun: +
Does what the package says? +
Surprises you too? 0
-Agency: +
In combat? 0
Non-combat? +
-Versatility: 0
Many roles? 0
Many builds? 0
-Effectiveness: +
Combat? +
Obstacles? 0
(Okay, now I'm a bit addicted...)
Druid ++
-Fun: 0
Does what the package says? +
Surprises you too? -
-Agency: 0
In combat? 0
Non-combat? -
-Versatility: +
Many roles? +
Many builds? 0
-Effectiveness: +
Combat? 0
Obstacles? +
Barbarian +
-Fun: +
Does what the package says? +
Surprises you too? 0
-Agency: -
In combat? 0
Non-combat? -
-Versatility: 0
Many roles? -
Many builds? +
-Effectiveness: +
Combat? +
Obstacles? 0
Cleric (Cloistered) +
-Fun: 0
Does what the package says? +
Surprises you too? -
-Agency: -
In combat? -
Non-combat? 0
-Versatility: 0
Many roles? 0
Many builds? 0
-Effectiveness: ++
Combat? +
Obstacles? +
Cleric (Warpriest) 0
-Fun: -
Does what the package says? -
Surprises you too? 0
-Agency: 0
In combat? 0
Non-combat? 0
-Versatility: 0
Many roles? 0
Many builds? 0
-Effectiveness: +
Combat? 0
Obstacles? +
Rogue ++++ (!!! might I be biased?)
-Fun: +
Does what the package says? +
Surprises you too? 0
-Agency: +
In combat? 0
Non-combat? +
-Versatility: +
Many roles? +
Many builds? 0
-Effectiveness: +
Combat? 0
Obstacles? +
Monk ++
-Fun: +
Does what the package says? +
Surprises you too? 0
-Agency: 0
In combat? +
Non-combat? -
-Versatility: +
Many roles? 0
Many builds? +
-Effectiveness: 0
Combat? 0
Obstacles? 0
Sorcerer ++
-Fun: +
Does what the package says? +
Surprises you too? 0
-Agency: 0
In combat? -
Non-combat? +
-Versatility: -
Many roles? 0
Many builds? -
-Effectiveness: ++
Combat? +
Obstacles? +
Alchemist 0
-Fun: -
Does what the package says? -
Surprises you too? 0
-Agency: +
In combat? 0
Non-combat? +
-Versatility: 0
Many roles? 0
Many builds? 0
-Effectiveness: 0
Combat? -
Obstacles? +
So yeah, some of these (like effectiveness in combat) should weigh more than others (like whether a class surprises you in play) and some can be patched up easily (like a Fighter's lack of noncombat options).
What may need to be done (even if the metrics are changed) is to actually make a list for each and place about 1/3 into the +/0/- categories so they're not on the fly like above (though 1/4, 1/2, 1/4 might work even better). I do think some of the non-CRB classes would score lower though I didn't tackle them.
Fun, it seems most meet expectations and few will surprise you (by which I mean myself), so this might need tweaking for better delineation. It's based a bit on RPG tropes as well as the fantasy genre as a whole.
Agency
In-combat I tended to lean toward AC/mobility/defensive options, as in can they go where they want to go (be less risk averse), as opposed to what they can do to alter the playing field (which is under effectiveness)
Non-combat I leaned toward face & investigation abilities, though spellcasting helps here too
Versatility
Roles is not how many at once, simply how many the class naturally supports
Builds is how many variants within those roles, i.e. an offensive Fighter has many weapon styles to choose from which play differently
Effectiveness I went with the more offensive side of what could have been called agency, so it may be the most important metric
And the choices assumed one's primary stat was at max; so an Int or Cha class would do well in noncombat, even if the class itself doesn't lend direct support to such affairs.
And yes, I overthought this, but it was recreational. :)
ETA: Adjusted some rankings :)
Expert is literally the minimum every class gets as they progress. The job of the warpriest is to somehow sell to the player the idea that getting expert 4 levels earlier is worth all the tradeoffs. Trying to say that it's not so bad because at least you're better than regular casters for 4 levels is silly when you sit at that level for the first 6 and then the latter 10 levels. So you wind up being better than other casters at swinging a weapon for 4 levels (7-10), and worse at casting for 10 (7-10, 15-20).
As a side note, a martial going for a dedication will get expert casting one level later (12 vs 11) and master casting before the warpriest (18 vs 19).
See, thing is, not every cleric cares about attacking things. Being 2 lower than other martials also doesn't mean you "won't hit anything" that is hyperbole to an extreme.
What you do get from being a warpriest is training in medium armour, easy path to heavy armour, shield block and equiv to juggernaut for fort saves.
At levels 7-11 being -2 lower also matters more as you are going to have less consistent buffs, debuffs and the like. But as I said originally, warcleric is fine if you are playing a primarily supportive cleric. It is NOT some massively hamstrung option and there are clear build paths that do support it even if that build path doesn't include the holy warrior paladin spellcaster archetype that people want (and it perhaps should have been given, with a name like warcleric).
The base of the cleric class is useful, the warcleric leans into that and retrains purpose.
How is being less able to counteract conditions, dispel magic, remove curse, etc for half the game ok for someone looking to primarily support? Or are you seriously hoping to convince someone that the ability to shield block and medium/heavy armor is worth it then? Though if you're spending an extra feat on heavy armor, literally anyone can take champion dedication for the same or they can take one of half a dozen others to expand their support versatility which would be better for a primary support no? The warcleric is, as far as I can see, directly inferior to every other option in the game as a "support" as they lag behind in numbers in a game where numbers are tight, and get nothing of value in return. They can't strike better than a cloistered cleric, they cast worse than any divine caster and heal font is the only thing they have going for them.
Now, they're not unplayable. Nothing in the game is. But I wouldn't want one in my party even facing an on level threat let alone anything higher since the game math dictates that they have at least a 10% lower success chance on everything contesting a dc for half the game. This is in a game where people worship fighter for having a 10% better chance at doing their thing.
I think war cleric is a choice based on what level range you're playing. If I'm in a published adventure that's going lvls 1-5/7 I'ma go with war cleric. If it's an adventure or adventure path that's starting or I'm subbing in at 10+ then I'll go cloistered multiclassed champion. Or.....you wanna use your feats for cleric feats or a character relevant archetype..in which case you don't wanna waste/be locked into the champion feats. It has its uses
Some of the posts here inspired me to look into probably the easiest thing to measure, defensive capabilities. These are directly tied with ability to frontline and survivability.
If something is incorrect let me know. The ratings are a little bit rushed and I think I will need to have all the class sorted before giving accurate ratings. I used Alchemist, Ranger and Cloistered Cleric as examples for this.
Lowest
HP: 6 per level
AC: Trained to Expert in no armor (at 13)
Fortitude: Trained to Expert (Level 9)
Reflex: Trained to Expert (Level 11)
Will: Trained to Expert (Level 7)
Perception: Trained to Expert (Level 11)
Highest
HP: 12 per level
AC: Expert to Legendary in heavy armor (at 17)
Fortitude: Expert to Legendary (at 13)
Reflex: Expert to Legendary (at 13)
Will: Expert to Legendary (at 15)
Perception: Expert to Legendary (at 13)
For reference
-2: The lowest or near the lowest possible.
-1: Below average.
0: Around average.
+1: Above average.
+2: The highest or near the highest possible.
Alchemist
HP: 8 per level: -1
AC: Trained to Master in medium armor (at 19): 0
Fortitude: Expert to Master (at 13): 0
Reflex: Expert to Master (at 15): 0
Will: Trained to Expert (at 7): -2
Perception: Trained to Expert (at 9): -1
Total: -4
Cloistered Cleric
HP: 8 per level: -1
AC: Trained to Expert in no armor (at 13): -2
Fortitude: Trained to Expert (at 3): -1
Reflex: Trained to Expert (at 11): -2
Will: Expert to Master (at 9): +1
Perception: Trained to Expert (at 5): -1
Total: -6
Ranger
HP: 10 per level: +1
AC: Trained to master in medium armor (at 19): 0
Fortitude: Expert to Master (at 11): 0
Reflex: Expert to Legendary (at 15): +2
Will: Trained to Expert (at 3): -1
Perception: Expert to Legendary (at 15): +2
Total: +4
Note that overall survibability and the ability to frontlane are not only dependent on this, but are also afected by other class features, feats and spells. This is just for reference.
I will link to a Doc when I finish all the classes.