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.
Because a lot of the things you might want to counteractcan be done with medicine, it saves on two general feats and allows more diversity / survivability for the first 13 levels of the game. A champion dedication is two things, a dedication you might not want and a class feat you might not want to spend (sentinel might be more of what you want).
The whole point is tradeoffs. A build can benefit from warcleric, 10% isn't game breaking, counteract checks on a prepared caster are all about level anyway.
Honestly you read like someone with very little high level experience if you really feel strongly enough to say.
But I wouldn't want one in my party even facing an on level threat let alone anything highe
And because you hold that last view I will bid you farewell, we will never share a common ground.
Castilliano I think the idea of rating -/0/+ makes sense. But I think the categories you picked are flawed. Most of the categories are too subjective, while not enough value is given to the parts that matter most.
Here are some better categories: The basic combat stats (Attack, Damage, AC, etc), Utility, Range, Ease of use, Total number of roles, Number of effective roles, Healing, Obstacle avoidance that affect only you, Obstacle avoidance that affects the party, Combat support, Knowledge, and Skill usage.
Also instead of -/0/+ its better to go from -2 to +2. Using the null class as the basis and having all -2 for all categories. Having 5 values allows for it to mirror proficiency. Then as a weight, for every 2 points
Thank you.
Yes, quite flawed to fit the FAVE acronym which I'd bypassed on my first post, yet couldn't resist pursuing once I began. The FAVE system is definitely more meta for game & table than the white room or actual play.I think combat should likely be separate from FAVE stuff like number of roles. So for example:
Combat
Attack
Damage (while most base on DPR, I think it's important to separate them because an attack bonus's effect on a Barbarian's damage matters more than the same bonus for a Fighter (who would gain more from a damage bonus because they're more likely to land the hit)).
AC
Saves (lumped together so it balances w/ AC which comes up most rounds)
Mobility (speed, climb/fly/leap)
Healing
Reactions
Action Economy
Animal Companion (plus support for it!)
Buffs
Debuffs/Maneuvers
Crowd control (AoE, multiple enemy Strikes)
Boss (Magic Missile, less dependent on secondary Strikes, can skirmish)
Non-combat
Face
Obstacles (small-scale)
Obstacles (party-level) (not sure about split, running off your lead)
Healing/Condition Removal
Investigation
Infiltration
Meta
Number of roles available
Number of roles it can multitask
Variety of approaches to similar builds
Ease of play
I'd gone with the -/0/+ because I wanted to keep granularity low. We're often dealing with vague concepts here or clumps (like martial saves vs. caster saves). Though I could see giving an extra point for exceptional features, like a Shield Ally Champion's AC or a Monk's mobility.
Of course looking at that list I see we've moved the whole discussion past practicality! Who's going to adopt such ratings in their vernacular? Which brings me back to an earlier question:
What kind of discussions would this serve?
ETA: to add boss & crowd categories
And we've left out other factors that occurred to me later like how many of their weaknesses can be covered with outside investment, i.e. a Fighter's lack of noncombat contributions is simple to solve with skill selection or an MCD.. And ones occurring to me now re: teamwork & synergy, like how a Giant Barbarian benefits greatly from a Champion mitigating all that damage coming in, which patches one of their main weaknesses.
I'm reverting to my thinking that a role by role approximation might be more worthwhile, which may include ranking the roles sans classes, though that may dovetail into party builds! :P
The two main things the old tier list was concerned with was how good you were at solving problems and how much breadth you have when it came to solving different kinds of problems. That's what made prepared casters at the top (high problem solving and a lot of flexibility) and spontaneous casters usually a little lower (great problem solving but slightly less flexibility) and while a lot of 6th level casters tended to be in the middle (good at what they can and decent flexibility) while martials tended to be a step down (really good at one thing but that's about it).
From that perspective though, PF2 hasn't actually changed the dynamic that much. Casters are still a lot more flexible than martials and martials (especially the fighter and barbarian) are still primarily focused around one key thing.
The biggest change that makes tiering a lot harder is that there's less overlap between the two. Summoning replacement meatshields isn't really a thing and it's more difficult to completely shut down powerful enemies alone (though frankly, especially at higher levels, it's easier for a caster to infringe on martial territory than it is for a martial to do the same).
So I think it makes sense to try to break up roles a bit when making lists. Sort of like how 4e had different rankings for different game roles, because generally speaking a witch and a barbarian aren't really competing for the same slot in a team.
Non combat roles aside, I've only ever seen 3-4 roles in pf2e combat. Melee, physical damage, debuff magic and buff/heal magic.
The melee takes point, does physical damage, trips and/or shoves to weaken enemy action economy and can survive a round of enemy attacks before being healed.
The physical damage is any martial, melee or ranged.
Debuffer primarily does debuffing, buffing if the healer is tied up and AoE damage if needed.
Buffer/healing primarily does healing, buffing and AoE if needed.
Adjust for party comp ofc but generally I've found these to be the only 4 roles/niches that came up, with every class falling into one of them.
Have any of you experienced differently? Rather than trying to be overly granular, it'd be best to start with broad but still useful categories and then maybe drill down afterward if you really want to know who a good archer is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see those as niches when you then add on extra roles as part of their descriptions. If one wanted to use broad strokes one could simply say there are two roles: caster & martial. Which completely is an option!
Split them into two camps for comparison and a lot of the repetition of washes out. It'd help so that Giant Barbarians don't think they have good defense because they're in the middle, when only casters & the Alchemist have worse (and not always then).
But I prefer that list on Warhorn when signing up for a table.
A functional build could be a caster with AoEs for groups and Magic Missiles for bosses, which would be neither debuffer nor buffer/healer.
They'd be the ol' school blaster.
Which is to say, there are builds that'd slip through the cracks.
A Shield Ally Champion usually does not require healing after a round of attacks except in extreme battles, and then they can often heal themselves (if the enemy has no Reactions to make matters worse). They also provide less damage than other martials so need a violent ally to support them.
I'd consider this on the extreme opposite side of how a Giant Barbarian operates (and who needs defensive/healing support).
Maybe...
Offensive, Defensive, or Utility (for those juggling)
+
Caster or Martial (+gish? or too untenable so far?)
I don't see those as niches when you then add on extra roles as part of their descriptions. If one wanted to use broad strokes one could simply say there are two roles: caster & martial. Which completely is an option!
Split them into two camps for comparison and a lot of the repetition of washes out. It'd help so that Giant Barbarians don't think they have good defense because they're in the middle, when only casters & the Alchemist have worse (and not always then).
But I prefer that list on Warhorn when signing up for a table.A functional build could be a caster with AoEs for groups and Magic Missiles for bosses, which would be neither debuffer nor buffer/healer.
They'd be the ol' school blaster.
Which is to say, there are builds that'd slip through the cracks.A Shield Ally Champion usually does not require healing after a round of attacks except in extreme battles, and then they can often heal themselves (if the enemy has no Reactions to make matters worse). They also provide less damage than other martials so need a violent ally to support them.
I'd consider this on the extreme opposite side of how a Giant Barbarian operates (and who needs defensive/healing support).Maybe...
Offensive, Defensive, or Utility (for those juggling)
+
Caster or Martial (+gish? or too untenable so far?)
Personally, I've only been considering extreme level combats from the start. Operating and excelling at the edge of tenable difficultly is much more enlightening than being able to function enough for common threats.
Martial and caster are the two main distinctions yeah, but I think it's fairly evident by their spell lists that, for example, a bard will outdo a druid at debuffing or a cleric will out-heal a wizard. I include AoE in both because it's expected that any caster will pack some AoE. I don't think a gish is it's own thing anymore honestly. It's just martial with dedication using non-dc based spells. Caster with dedication just doesn't have the attack bonus to work well at attacking.
For the classic blaster, in my mind they're just a buffer or debuffer. Damage and hp scaling discourage blasts outside the top slots with the exception, I think, of auto hit magic missile and spells with fantastic riders which are few enough. With this in mind, the lower slots can be filled with buffs and debuffs which aren't dependent on slot scaling.
Other than that, offensive/debuffing and defensive/buffing make sense as the dividing line.
In the case of making 3 different categories (martials, casters and an utility list for both) which things should be evaluated?
For martials I guess DPR, survibability and ability to keep enemies from going to the backline are the 3 main things.
For casters I guess how good they are at blasting, healing, buffing, debuffing and changing the battlefield.
Utility is pretty much Face, Exploring/scouting and problem solving as these are the only things that are altered by class.
Am I missing something?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thought I've been having for a while now, is to examine builds (qualitatively) against what their presence lends to encounters in experience points. In theory, a sufficiently bad build is making the encounter actively harder, since a party of four PCs has a larger budget for monsters than does a party of three. PF2E also features a much more accurate set of exp guidelines than most games. So in theory, you could rank them according to the ratio between what they add to the encounter vs. how much their worth. It's a holistic measure (for combat anyway) but it might be hard to evaluate.
_________________________________________
Another idea is to just create a number of areas grouped into categories reflecting different areas of the game. E.g.
Combat: Damage, Defense, Healing, Mobility, Support.
Exploration: Knowledge, Search, Negotiation,
Downtime: Moneymaking,
Then we'd use the color scale already popular in optimization guides. Ignoring 'mandatory' orange/yellow, since that makes no sense when discussing classes, and doesn't really make sense for PF2e's philosophy.
Sky Blue: 4 points, Excellent, top tier in this area. Lots of perks for this thing.
Blue: 3 points, Good at this area, has a few nice perks for this thing.
Black: 2 points, Average at this area, can invest well, but has no perks for this thing.
Purple: 1 points, Poor at this area, can't invest well.
Red: Can't perform this area at all.
So we'd have lists of ratings for what each class does well, with explanations. Then you could theoretically add the points within each category, or across the whole class together, to get a value that corresponds to its utility in each category/overall.
This would create a natural metric for Rankings or tier list, and different ones (here's the damage tier list!)
Players could also use this to exempt areas of the game that don't apply to them (our group doesn't interact with NPCs! We don't use downtime mode!) From the point totals.
That sounds as good a place as any to start while discussing how it plays in practice. Would it maybe be better to make a separate thread per class for better organization and more focused discussion? And with which class do we want to begin?
Not sure, I was spitballing the categories and areas, does anyone gave any thoughts on that? We should probably have one for reconnaissance under exploration in place of search, so it includes being a sneak?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My initial role classification for martials in combat was;
"Supported Striker" (Giant Barbarian would be the posterboy for this, and so would Rogue. This role focuses on dealing big damage, but usually needs help from the rest of the party to operate at max efficiency and also just to stay alive)
"Independent Striker" (Monk is the best example of this role. This role focuses on skirmishing, helping out with flanking, and generally being in the right place at the right time. Mobility and action economy is a big focus)
"Tank" (To tank, you need two things; bulk and tanking abilities. The tanking abilities usually come in the form of reactions like AoO. Generally wants to punish enemies if they decide to attack the frailer party members. Best example is obviously Champion)
"Support" (For a martial this mostly means buffs & debuffs, and to be honest it's a bit of a misc category mostly there for Alchemist. However, Rogue and Investigator would be two other classes that do some useful things in this regard.)
This classification focuses less on abilities in a vacuum, which I think is important when rating classes from a combat role perspective. I also don't think casters and martials can be rated against each other in any meaningful way. They tend to occupy fairly discrete spaces within the party, and the fact that casters start out somewhat below curve but generally scale slightly ahead of martials complicates things further.
My initial role classification for martials in combat was;
"Supported Striker" (Giant Barbarian would be the posterboy for this, and so would Rogue. This role focuses on dealing big damage, but usually needs help from the rest of the party to operate at max efficiency and also just to stay alive)
"Independent Striker" (Monk is the best example of this role. This role focuses on skirmishing, helping out with flanking, and generally being in the right place at the right time. Mobility and action economy is a big focus)
"Tank" (To tank, you need two things; bulk and tanking abilities. The tanking abilities usually come in the form of reactions like AoO. Generally wants to punish enemies if they decide to attack the frailer party members. Best example is obviously Champion)
"Support" (For a martial this mostly means buffs & debuffs, and to be honest it's a bit of a misc category mostly there for Alchemist. However, Rogue and Investigator would be two other classes that do some useful things in this regard.)
This classification focuses less on abilities in a vacuum, which I think is important when rating classes from a combat role perspective. I also don't think casters and martials can be rated against each other in any meaningful way. They tend to occupy fairly discrete spaces within the party, and the fact that casters start out somewhat below curve but generally scale slightly ahead of martials complicates things further.
Quite like these categories as roles. Can you apply them to the classes with rankings?
Not sure, I was spitballing the categories and areas, does anyone gave any thoughts on that? We should probably have one for reconnaissance under exploration in place of search, so it includes being a sneak?
Categories are simple enough. DPR (damage per round), EHP (effective HP) and total save progression to start. The things that are largely self-evident or that have already been mathed out.
After that, we move onto combat options and utility discussion. We can do this however we want. Categorize based on offense, defense, etc or just pull out the options that have a major impact and talk about them.
Once we get started, maybe with barbarian if we want to do martials first, we can hammer out the process.
I actually did a rating using these roles in another thread previously. It’s a little outdated since I don’t feel quite the same way about all the classes I rated after getting even more experience with the game, but I’ll go dig it up tomorrow (it’s getting late).
Not sure, I was spitballing the categories and areas, does anyone gave any thoughts on that? We should probably have one for reconnaissance under exploration in place of search, so it includes being a sneak?Categories are simple enough. DPR (damage per round), EHP (effective HP) and total save progression to start. The things that are largely self-evident or that have already been mathed out.
After that, we move onto combat options and utility discussion. We can do this however we want. Categorize based on offense, defense, etc or just pull out the options that have a major impact and talk about them.
Once we get started, maybe with barbarian if we want to do martials first, we can hammer out the process.
I agree, easily measureable things should be evalued first.
Regardless of how the final classification ends up looking, evaluating the different classes under an unified criteria is a must before doing anything else.
I also agree after thinking about it that it is better to separate martials and casters as they are too different and both need the other (I'm in on lumping together the alchemist and the casters, btw).
I think martials are easier to look into. Maybe starting with fighter will be best as it is very simple number wise and can be used as a benchmark of sorts.
Seems DPR will vary a lot depending on who's standing toe-to-toe and who's skirmishing. Maybe a different, similar number, yet I find it hard to pin down, something like Attack bonus x Damage bonus. That feels incomplete without factoring in the weapons, since a Fighter gets more advantage out of a big weapon than a Barbarian (barring certain feats).
Such a mess.
Would also need to split into w/ or w/o a shield, since that impacts not just defense, but weapon size and actions available (though not always!).
And we wouldn't just want to compare proficiencies and numbers, since anybody could simply read those off w/o understanding their impact when tied to the class, i.e. big weapons matter more to a Fighter using AoOs more than to a Ranger.
Seems DPR will vary a lot depending on who's standing toe-to-toe and who's skirmishing. Maybe a different, similar number, yet I find it hard to pin down, something like Attack bonus x Damage bonus. That feels incomplete without factoring in the weapons, since a Fighter gets more advantage out of a big weapon than a Barbarian (barring certain feats).
Such a mess.Would also need to split into w/ or w/o a shield, since that impacts not just defense, but weapon size and actions available (though not always!).
And we wouldn't just want to compare proficiencies and numbers, since anybody could simply read those off w/o understanding their impact when tied to the class, i.e. big weapons matter more to a Fighter using AoOs more than to a Ranger.
DPR and combat effectiveness are two separate things, but before looking into the latter we need the former (or at least some numbers to look into as a reference).
Once we have the numbers we can discuss what those numbers mean for the class. It is obvious that 3 action DPR means something different for a fighter compared with a monk.
Seems DPR will vary a lot depending on who's standing toe-to-toe and who's skirmishing. Maybe a different, similar number, yet I find it hard to pin down, something like Attack bonus x Damage bonus. That feels incomplete without factoring in the weapons, since a Fighter gets more advantage out of a big weapon than a Barbarian (barring certain feats).
Such a mess.Would also need to split into w/ or w/o a shield, since that impacts not just defense, but weapon size and actions available (though not always!).
And we wouldn't just want to compare proficiencies and numbers, since anybody could simply read those off w/o understanding their impact when tied to the class, i.e. big weapons matter more to a Fighter using AoOs more than to a Ranger.
As far as existing math (that I'm aware of) goes, if you attack 2+ times a turn, fighter has the highest dpr followed by barbarian. If you attack once a turn, dragon stance monk has the highest DPR (flurry is great) followed by fighter and tiger monk. The rest is kind of a wash though rogue without flat-footed is as bad as you'd expect. All that math does assume reach weapons where possible though and in all cases the numbers are fairly close until fighter picks up certain strike and/or combat relexes which renders them untouchable as far as DPR goes.
I'm not sure we need to account too hard for shields though. Outside of paragon guard fighter (level 12+) and level 20 shield champion they're always EHP or saves up (sturdy or spellguard) and DPR down (both through the lost action and potentially lost reaction)
Those might be a little too mechanically noodle for this classification system though-- at least things like prof progression, it would be better to talk about Offense and Defense as a sum of those elements with features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know what classes I think are more powerful if you want to build an optimal group. I know what classes optimizers avoid. There is no god mode any longer. But there are definitely classes and builds that are a great deal better than others in most situations. It would also depend at what level too as some classes have optimal feats at different levels. Some start out the gate faster, but some eventually catch up and surpass. Tier lists would probably have to have level ranges as no class is really consistent across all levels save perhaps the fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite like these categories as roles. Can you apply them to the classes with rankings?
Here's a ranking I did in the past. These are entirely based on limited personal experience with the classes, and I don't feel the same way about all of them anymore. Hopefully the conversation in this thread is of some use.
EDIT: Also, I should note that these ratings only really apply to base-class only with no Archetyping. I think ratings like these start to break down completely when you try and take archetypes into account.
EDIT the second: I will also note, having a perfect 5 in this rating is not the same as being Tier 1. In most games, many martial PCs tend to need to play at least 2 of these roles, switching between them as needed.
You know this is all very much like fighting game tier lists.
Yeah there are some characters rated higher, some have a better match up against certain other ones, and others are good if you have a specific skill. But the largest difference is player skill and reflexes. So thinking about the previoust discussion, we should make a matchup chart and use that as the basis for the tier list.
Maybe also have a solo, team, and overall chart. Of course we could also think about the level.
This is sounding more and more like a 4d matrix.
This only works if you structure it to be a PvP tier list, which really isn't all that helpful for PvE content. Monsters aren't built to the same standards as a character. So the class that can trounce every other class for whatever reason may not be as good at combating monsters as well as those other classes.
I'd imagine, without doing any math or test builds or white room comparisons, that Ranger would stack up quite high in a PvP environment. Flurry against a single target gives them the most accurate attacks per turn, so their dps will stay high throughout a turn. Then again a crit fishing pick fighter has the ability to one shot his opponent at many levels. But there are situations that both of those classes will struggle against monsters. Oozes shut down crit fishing entirely, and facing a large group of monsters deprives the flurry ranger from a lot of their accuracy, unless they spend a lot of actions hunting prey.
PvP isn't the best metric I guess is what I'm saying. Against monsters there are too many X factors that can dictate what will and won't be effective.
I mean if we're doing PvP, then Evil Champion is probably the best martial class, and then casters mostly win if they can use 4th level invisibility. Such a tier list would be completely useless, however.
I think that applies to most kinds of 2E tier lists actually. There is no established baseline for what kind of environment these classes are judged against, unlike a fighting game. That was true for 1E as well, but in that game certain classes eclipsed other ones in nearly every conceivable area, making it possible to say one class was better than another.
Even the things that probably seem like the most "duh" baseline of making a 2E tier list to some people are things I have a hard time taking seriously. For example, "Fighter is in a tier which is higher than Alchemist" is not a statement I think really has legs. Not when so much of that depends on party comp, table style, campaign, etc etc etc.
Rather than a fighting game tier list, this is probably closer to rating classes in an mmo in their various specs/roles.
I would prefer rating based on consistency if possible. Rogue being competitive with flat-footed or flurry ranger being competitive with single target is a detriment when even in both of these situations neither outperforms others. Similarly, being great everywhere except one particular creature/creature type shouldn't be a concern either unless it's particularly excessive.
I'm also in favor of keeping things simple rather than trying to define and classify for every possible situation. A 4th fighter in a party of 3 other fighters isn't going to be nearly as useful overall as a bard or a cleric but that doesn't take away from the fighter's general value.
I do think though that we should start a new thread specifically discussing fighter and start going through our thoughts on it. Otherwise we'll be here forever trying to find the perfect way to evaluate things. Maybe when we have some concrete options and more focused discussion to work with we'll have a better idea as to how we want to evaluate things as a whole.
Rather than a fighting game tier list, this is probably closer to rating classes in an mmo in their various specs/roles.
I would prefer rating based on consistency if possible. Rogue being competitive with flat-footed or flurry ranger being competitive with single target is a detriment when even in both of these situations neither outperforms others. Similarly, being great everywhere except one particular creature/creature type shouldn't be a concern either unless it's particularly excessive.
I'm also in favor of keeping things simple rather than trying to define and classify for every possible situation. A 4th fighter in a party of 3 other fighters isn't going to be nearly as useful overall as a bard or a cleric but that doesn't take away from the fighter's general value.
I do think though that we should start a new thread specifically discussing fighter and start going through our thoughts on it. Otherwise we'll be here forever trying to find the perfect way to evaluate things. Maybe when we have some concrete options and more focused discussion to work with we'll have a better idea as to how we want to evaluate things as a whole.
That might not be a bad 8dea, we could use that to prototype different systems.
Before jumping in and making a Fighter post we should set how we are going to go over it beforehand, at least in a very general way, so everyone is in the same page. Do we agree that looking into DPR, basic defenses and basic skill usage comes first, then comes more in-depth analysis of combat prowess, survivability and such?
We also need a way to compile all of this somehow.
Before jumping in and making a Fighter post we should set how we are going to go over it beforehand, at least in a very general way, so everyone is in the same page. Do we agree that looking into DPR, basic defenses and basic skill usage comes first, then comes more in-depth analysis of combat prowess, survivability and such?
We also need a way to compile all of this somehow.
I think for discussion, we need to talk about those elements, but I think that's primarily to try and settle on a ranking for each area, e.g. Champion has Sky Blue Survivability because it has legendary defenses, good HP, and access to shield block. But the categories aren't HP, LD, or SB individually. I think if something is especially good when supported (as opposed to good on its own) we focus on it without the support, and then qualify it within the description- you might have a blue Offense rating, that notes its excellent (Sky Blue), with support.
I'll try and follow up with categories.
Before jumping in and making a Fighter post we should set how we are going to go over it beforehand, at least in a very general way, so everyone is in the same page. Do we agree that looking into DPR, basic defenses and basic skill usage comes first, then comes more in-depth analysis of combat prowess, survivability and such?
We also need a way to compile all of this somehow.
I think for discussion, we need to talk about those elements, but I think that's primarily to try and settle on a ranking for each area, e.g. Champion has Sky Blue Survivability because it has legendary defenses, good HP, and access to shield block. But the categories aren't HP, LD, or SB individually. I think if something is especially good when supported (as opposed to good on its own) we focus on it without the support, and then qualify it within the description- you might have a blue Offense rating, that notes its excellent (Sky Blue), with support.
I'll try and follow up with categories.
I know, I know, just asking what should come first. If everyone starts doing the analysis their way it's going to go nowhere.
These are entirely based on limited personal experience with the classes, and I don't feel the same way about all of them anymore. Hopefully the conversation in this thread is of some use.
It's the most compelling but understandable ranking I've seen in the broader discussion.
I'd be curious what has changed in your estimation since that post.
I'd also be interested what the equivalent ratings are for spell casters.
I suspect spellcasters are two fold, spell lists would have ratings in a few categories, and then classes/class features would have ratings in different categories based on how they change or enhance how a spell list plays. Which let's you accomodate pick-a-list characters, etc. By combining the two appropriate ratings.
It might be worthwhile to point out when a class is naturally superior because of its chassis, or when it needs to invest feats.
For example, a Champion needs little to become a tremendous Defender.
A shield Fighter on the other hand needs to spend several feats (and probably their Stance) to become comparable.
Also maybe have a general "archetypes can move you up a notch or two" instead of dealing with each variant.
--
Still not sure why you'd start with a class, Fighter, rather than a role.
For example: Defender (or Protector)
The (F) marks feat investment, with more Fs for more required)
The (R) means they have Reactions which help the role.
Assuming 14 Con & that martials have their max AC (which is easy for them, though difficult for unarmored casters)
Elite
-Shield Ally Champion (R)
-Shield-focused Fighter (FF, R), Other Champions (R), Defensive build Monk (F)
Solid
-Defensive-feats Fighter (FF, R) (i.e. parry or stances), Other Monks,
-non-raging martials, Animal Barbarians (F), other Fighters (R)
Functional
-non-Giant raging Barbarians, 8 h.p. class at max AC w/ Shield or shield
-Giant Barbarians during Rage, 8 h.p. class at max AC w/o Shield or shield, (Yes, Rogues are often down this low)
Dubious
-8 h.p. class not at max AC
-6 h.p. class at max AC
Fragile
-6 h.p. casters after Shield spent or w/ sub-max AC
---
Maybe I lean this way because I build around roles and most of my discussions of builds revolve around that too. Somebody telling me they want to build a Fighter or Cleric, etc. tells me little unless I assume they want a generic one, which often is not the case.
In PF1 I used to ask when helping players build was what other role do you want to be able to do? Ex. If they wanted to be a Cleric, I'd tell them they can perform the Healer role automatically, now what other role do you want (including upgrading to Uber-Healer), but there's also blaster, buffer, etc.
In PF2, with archetypes, this becomes even more true though the caster-roles/martial-roles divide has widened.
Your Rogue is a Skirmisher-Skill Monkey.
You want to tank? Ruffian-Sentinel
Or did you want to emphasize those strengths?
And so on.
So you might have:
Default role(s):
Possible roles:
Difficult roles:
Antithetical roles:
Again, I'm overthinking, but having fun doing so. :)
I'd be curious what has changed in your estimation since that post.
A few noteworthy things;
-Barb should have gotten a higher Tank score, probably 3* (or at the very least 2*). Barbs are pretty likely tanks if you invest in the right feats and subclass. I talk about what criteria I use when rating a tank in the linked thread (this is probably the most straightforward rating out of all the roles).-I'd probably give Investigator a 4 in support. That doesn't mean Investigator is 80% the support Alchemist is, but after playing around with it some more I think it does more in this role than Rogue.
-Ranger gets a 5 in Independent Striker, which I still stand by. However, this is one of those things that break down nearly completely when you factor in Archetyping - a lot of that 5 comes from Animal Companions which is a huge boost to that particular role. When you factor in Beastmaster, this niche is almost entirely eradicated. Put Beastmaster on a Monk (especially with Free Archetype), and watch my rating system crumble.
I'd also be interested what the equivalent ratings are for spell casters.
Honestly, I'm not sure I could make equivalent ratings for casters. If I were to do something like this for casters, I think my gut instinct would be to rate the spell lists instead of the casters themselves - rating a Sorcerer like this doesn't make a whole lot of sense when their choice of list matters much more for their role than the class itself. Some casters affect the role more via their class kit (Bard and Cleric come to mind) but even then much of their role is determined by their list (and snagging spells from other lists tends to be the key to working roles outside of your purview).
It might be worthwhile to point out when a class is naturally superior because of its chassis, or when it needs to invest feats.
For example, a Champion needs little to become a tremendous Defender.
A shield Fighter on the other hand needs to spend several feats (and probably their Stance) to become comparable.Also maybe have a general "archetypes can move you up a notch or two" instead of dealing with each variant.
--
Still not sure why you'd start with a class, Fighter, rather than a role.
For example: Defender (or Protector)
The (F) marks feat investment, with more Fs for more required)
The (R) means they have Reactions which help the role.
Assuming 14 Con & that martials have their max AC (which is easy for them, though difficult for unarmored casters)Elite
-Shield Ally Champion (R)
-Shield-focused Fighter (FF, R), Other Champions (R), Defensive build Monk (F)Solid
-Defensive-feats Fighter (FF, R) (i.e. parry or stances), Other Monks,
-non-raging martials, Animal Barbarians (F), other Fighters (R)Functional
-non-Giant raging Barbarians, 8 h.p. class at max AC w/ Shield or shield
-Giant Barbarians during Rage, 8 h.p. class at max AC w/o Shield or shield, (Yes, Rogues are often down this low)Dubious
-8 h.p. class not at max AC
-6 h.p. class at max ACFragile
-6 h.p. casters after Shield spent or w/ sub-max AC---
Maybe I lean this way because I build around roles and most of my discussions of builds revolve around that too. Somebody telling me they want to build a Fighter or Cleric, etc. tells me little unless I assume they want a generic one, which often is not the case.In PF1 I used to ask when helping players build was what other role do you want to be able to do? Ex. If they wanted to be a Cleric, I'd tell them they can perform the Healer role automatically, now what other role do you want (including upgrading to Uber-Healer), but there's also blaster, buffer, etc.
In PF2, with archetypes, this becomes even more true though the...
Probably because classes can fulfill multiple roles depending on feat selection and spell selection, so it makes more sense to discuss the class in terms of the different
I'm also trying to avoid specific party roles, since none of us really agree that a specific set exist, and its not hard to build characters that are hybrids of multiple roles, the game's optimization doesn't support specializing into a single role. I would rather focus on different facets of the character's performance holistically.
________________________________________________________________
Here's my take on categories and areas:
Combat:
- Offense: Hit progression, Damage Boosting Class Features/Feats, Burst/Sustain all fit into this area, all forms of PERSONAL damage dealing.
- Defense: HP, Saving Throw Prof, AC Prof, Defense boosting feats and class features, all forms of PERSONAL defense.
- Support: Buffing and Debuffing, like the bard's inspire courage or access to spells like Fear or intimidation support for demoralize, things like champion reaction, kept separate from offense and defense because it relies on the presence of other party members who can capitalize.
- Healing: Support for the Medicine Skill, Healing Magic access, focus powers and class features that boost healing, in and out of combat. Kept separate from support because as far as I can tell, you can't effectively replace a need for healing with alpha striking or active defense, they aren't consistent enough to be interchangeable with it.
- Control : Abilities that remove actions, create difficult terrain, or block off areas of the map whether a hard block or by creating a punishment, like Hideous Laughter or Wall spells.
- Mobility: Ability to get places in an encounter, combat relevant movement modes, total speed, movement enhancers, even range arguably.
Exploration
- Knowledge: Covering different knowledge skills, features that supply additional information about the world, divination magic that lets you find out the answers to certain questions, feats like hyper-cognition that let you 'scan' an enemy by recalling parts of its statblock.
- Reconnaissance: Stealth, Perception, Thievery for disabling traps and such, and features like 'that's odd' that help you notice things in the environment, or uncover hidden information in your environment. Also divination magic that lets you reveal information about areas or circumstances.
- Traversal: Access to new modes of movement like flight, aquatic features, higher movement speeds, built in mounts, faster travel over long distances.
-Negotiation: Face Character stuff, like diplomacy and intimidation, spotting lies, this is an interesting one because of feats like lie to me, or courtly graces, or the the investigator's pointed question. Technically even features that let you cover up social mishaps as well.
Downtime
- Crafting: It plays a unique role in campaigns depending on magic item access so I want it to be its own thing, some campaigns won't find it useful, others will find it as one of the only ways to reliably get magic items or get that higher task level effectively earning income by working towards an item.
- Earning Income: Your ability to make money, whether through lore skills or whatever.
I feel like there should be more for downtime
Then we would rate every classes's basic chassis and feat selection in regard to these areas, eventually this would also see us rate archetypes based off what they add to a class that it didn't have. Class is also useful because the system is so modular, a lot of classes can just do things like grab Dual Wield Warrior to increase their offense, so starting with the base class and rating it as a PLATFORM, for those modular modifications, in terms of base proficienicy is useful. E.g. we can always talk about specific builds separately, but I'm interested in answering the question of 'which of these classes provide me more defense, or more offense, to build off of'
Incidentally for something like Champion, Retributive Strike isn't something all Champions have, so we would rate champion's as like, Black or something for offense, but then mention it in the description, with the text itself being blue or sky blue to note that's an exception to the rating.
I'd thought the whole point of having tiers was to provide an objective touchstone for other discussions?
These approaches sound like a discussion that simply ends, especially because the rankings are so holistic. Does one measure only the chassis? Or the feats too? If feats too, is that to the exclusion of their other feat-reliant roles, or do they complement? How much room is there for an archetype?
I think it's an important distinction that a Champion is the top defender w/o any investment because that leaves room for other roles vs. rival classes which have to spend feats, maybe their Dedication, to perform that role at top-tier.
--
Say for example somebody wants to build a guy w/ PF1 style Spring Attack, moving in, hitting, and moving out.
If they looked at classes it'd be hard to determine (unless already familiar w/ Monks from other systems!).
A skirmisher list would help more.
A "mobility" list + "one-action offense" list would make a Monk the obvious choice w/o even needing extra feats (with a few other good choices competing depending how 'springy' they want their playstyle).
I'd thought the whole point of having tiers was to provide an objective touchstone for other discussions?
These approaches sound like a discussion that simply ends, especially because the rankings are so holistic. Does one measure only the chassis? Or the feats too? If feats too, is that to the exclusion of their other feat-reliant roles, or do they complement? How much room is there for an archetype?I think it's an important distinction that a Champion is the top defender w/o any investment because that leaves room for other roles vs. rival classes which have to spend feats, maybe their Dedication, to perform that role at top-tier.
--
Say for example somebody wants to build a guy w/ PF1 style Spring Attack, moving in, hitting, and moving out.
If they looked at classes it'd be hard to determine (unless already familiar w/ Monks from other systems!).
A skirmisher list would help more.
A "mobility" list + "one-action offense" list would make a Monk the obvious choice w/o even needing extra feats (with a few other good choices competing depending how 'springy' they want their playstyle).
To my mind, the point should be to function as an aid to character building, We can absolutely mention in the review of the champion that they're the kings of defense and defensive party support, but on a basic level, I want to focus on the classes so that if someone is sitting down to build a character, and they want to see at a glance "who has top tier healing and knowledge" or whatever categories, this can tell them.
A particular build is a particular build, it has a different place in the discussion than the basic construction of the classes. The reality is that its meaningless to talk about maximum DPR when the classes will be so close, any tier list we create that emphasizes those differences will make the differences between builds seem wider than they really are. In that context "Fighters are a tier 1 class, while Rogues are a tier 2 class" is meaningless, by breaking it down like this, and then ranking them by point totals, you get something similar, but it acknowledges that its both qualitative and holistic in these areas.
its a starting point to building characters, in other words, we're encompassing feat selection as component, but it needs to be weighted like this, because of dedications being what they are.
Built In Capability > Native Feat Selection > External Feats
So by discussing the first two categories in the class rating, we provide the starting point, if you want a highly mobile character, it makes sense to start with the classes that have built in mobility, or at least native feat selection that supports it.
I'd thought the whole point of having tiers was to provide an objective touchstone for other discussions?
These approaches sound like a discussion that simply ends, especially because the rankings are so holistic. Does one measure only the chassis? Or the feats too? If feats too, is that to the exclusion of their other feat-reliant roles, or do they complement? How much room is there for an archetype?I think it's an important distinction that a Champion is the top defender w/o any investment because that leaves room for other roles vs. rival classes which have to spend feats, maybe their Dedication, to perform that role at top-tier.
--
Say for example somebody wants to build a guy w/ PF1 style Spring Attack, moving in, hitting, and moving out.
If they looked at classes it'd be hard to determine (unless already familiar w/ Monks from other systems!).
A skirmisher list would help more.
A "mobility" list + "one-action offense" list would make a Monk the obvious choice w/o even needing extra feats (with a few other good choices competing depending how 'springy' they want their playstyle).To my mind, the point should be to function as an aid to character building, We can absolutely mention in the review of the champion that they're the kings of defense and defensive party support, but on a basic level, I want to focus on the classes so that if someone is sitting down to build a character, and they want to see at a glance "who has top tier healing and knowledge" or whatever categories, this can tell them.
A particular build is a particular build, it has a different place in the discussion than the basic construction of the classes. The reality is that its meaningless to talk about maximum DPR when the classes will be so close, any tier list we create that emphasizes those differences will make the differences between builds seem wider than they really are. In that context "Fighters are a tier 1 class, while Rogues are a tier 2 class" is meaningless, by breaking it...
There are some exceptions to be made. Good an evil champions, for example, are so fundamentally different that they should be rated separately IMO. Same for multi-tradition casters when we get to them.
I personally like your list, it is a good starting point (still think we need different criteria for casters and martials though). I would be down to start with Fighter if everyone here still discussing feels like it.
About what Castilliano said, I think what you exemplified with the monk is something more in the realm of guides. Monks are indeed skirmishers, meaning they are more fit when that is also the prefered tactic of the rest of the party (let's say you have a Monk and a Barbarian and 2 other casters centered on sealing the enemies actions and altering the battlefield). But ratings should also reflect when the prefered tactic of a class or a build can't be applied (Same monk in a party with a shield Champion and a Opportune Backstab Rogue).
"but on a basic level, I want to focus on the classes so that if someone is sitting down to build a character, and they want to see at a glance "who has top tier healing and knowledge" or whatever categories, this can tell them."
I don't think that supports your point.
The best way to find out who has top tier healing and knowledge would be to have lists for Healer and Knowledge, not to have to go through every class then compare afterward.
Healer (in-combat):
-Top: Heal Font Cleric (and Divine/Primal Sorcerer lategame according to some)
-2nd: Other Divine/Primal casters
-3rd: Occult casters
-4th: Chirurgeon Alchemists, Focus Spell Healers (i.e. Champion)
(For such a narrow focus adding archetypes might be warranted.)
---
As for skirmishers not fitting in with some parties, that's exactly right. There are arguably no roles which are always necessary if the other members can adjust to the lack.
But that seems a separate conversation about party composition. PF2 allows for a lot more variety on that front, i.e. many parties have no in-combat support role and make due with out-of-combat Medicine w/ Battlefield Medicine & consumables for emergencies. Others diversify their skills so no skill monkey is needed, and so on.
So while I'm advocating for tiers for roles, I'm not saying "THE roles", but rather those we generally imagine when visualizing our PCs.
"but on a basic level, I want to focus on the classes so that if someone is sitting down to build a character, and they want to see at a glance "who has top tier healing and knowledge" or whatever categories, this can tell them."
I don't think that supports your point.
The best way to find out who has top tier healing and knowledge would be to have lists for Healer and Knowledge, not to have to go through every class then compare afterward.Healer (in-combat):
-Top: Heal Font Cleric (and Divine/Primal Sorcerer lategame according to some)
-2nd: Other Divine/Primal casters
-3rd: Occult casters
-4th: Chirurgeon Alchemists, Focus Spell Healers (i.e. Champion)(For such a narrow focus adding archetypes might be warranted.)
---
As for skirmishers not fitting in with some parties, that's exactly right. There are arguably no roles which are always necessary if the other members can adjust to the lack.
But that seems a separate conversation about party composition. PF2 allows for a lot more variety on that front, i.e. many parties have no in-combat support role and make due with out-of-combat Medicine w/ Battlefield Medicine & consumables for emergencies. Others diversify their skills so no skill monkey is needed, and so on.So while I'm advocating for tiers for roles, I'm not saying "THE roles", but rather those we generally imagine when visualizing our PCs.
I think thats too narrow for what we're discussing here, those are sort of done builds, I think that has a place, but I think it should be separate. Kind of like an awards thread rather than a tier thread, like the old DPR kings thread on the 4e forums.
When people look into meta info like tier lists and such they usually want to know what works best and why, not who is best at what. How the little pieces interact is more important that individual aspects of a class being the best or the worst.
Back to the monk, by your metric we could easily say it has the best mobility, mediocre damage or high survivability but that doesn't translate into what makes monk better or worse than other similar classes.
When people look into meta info like tier lists and such they usually want to know what works best and why, not who is best at what. How the little pieces interact is more important that individual aspects of a class being the best or the worst.
Back to the monk, by your metric we could easily say it has the best mobility, mediocre damage or high survivability but that doesn't translate into what makes monk better or worse than other similar classes.
Every tier list I've seen (outside RPGs too) has specifically addressed who (or what) is best at what, so I'm not sure I understand.
How are the "little pieces" that interact different from the "individual aspects"?
How are "best mobility, mediocre damage, or high survivability" not what makes a Monk better or worse than similar classes?
Those seem pertinent (plus other things).
The class-focused approach seems more like a summary of the CRB entries (et al) than a list of tier rankings.
If the lists are too granular, then minor differences seem more important than they are (or makes big differences comparable to minor ones). If less granular, the balance in PF2 will make a lot of choices wash together.
I'm actually more okay with the latter, since so much is subjective, both in opinion, context, and non-class build options.
There are some really interesting ways to build characters in PF2 as well that change things. I'm playing an archer rogue that is using skills to flat-foot his opponents at range. He will eventually be able to maintain an opponent flat-footed at range throughout a fight without the need of magic or help. This will allow him to kite enemies at long range using stealth and deception with certain skills like Parting Shot to really maintain that stealthy, mobile archer archetype that destroys something as he moves.
The more books that come out, the more tiers can change. Every class is a few good feats and class abilities away from being on par with everyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighting game tier lists are very dependent on realities such as matchup spreads (the reason grapplers/true zoners tend to be stuck in the mid tiers unless they're visibly overturned is because players get frustrated in polarized matchups) and ease of execution (some powerful characters don't get as much play because it's too hard for an actual human to use all of their tools), as an example Ryu in SFV was just as popular when he was at the lower tiers of play as he is now after substantial buffs, people play Ryu for the familiarity and mostly balanced matchups, not simply for power levels.
In the context of a TTRPG "Party Role" is a much more important aspect, because this is a cooperative game, not a competitive one. Unless you're running a meatgrinder with competitive players and a savvy GM, you're usually having the experience tailored to your group's level of expertise. So let's say you make a list with a list of Competences, such as "(Single Target) Striker, Bombardier/Area Damage Dealer, Healer, Skill Monkey, Buffer/Debuffer, Defender, etc." and then classify the existing classes as "Premier, Strong, Unorthodox or Unsupported", then you can have a useful degree of reference for newer players that are simply looking to close a gap in their party composition "oh, we need a face? Let me see what that looks like", and then this hypothetical list could offer options such as Bards and Scoundrel Rogues as "Premier" for their plethora of useful skill synergies, Sorcerers and Swashbucklers as classes with strong incentive to invest in CHA and some face feats would fit the "Strong" threshold, while classes with interesting tools but harsher stat restrictions such as the Investigator or a Cleric favoring their divine font over WIS fit well in the Unorthodox category, the last "Unsupported" category would encompass classes that have no supporting features for the niche at hand (A Wizard face, or a Barbarian Skillmonkey for example), and would need help from archetyping or other such means to fulfill their role.