|
So I haven't been keeping track of whether fighter legendary proficiency is still on greatest mechanic argument of our time after alignment arguments, but I do certainly have to hear opinions from my players how they are mildly(I think) annoyed by it whenever one of my players comments about their short mini module experiences with barbarians. My main view is that while math is really balanced, there are still some design stuff I think lot of people notice and then debate with me about that probably get addressed by next edition x'D So might as well ask people if they have similar experiences or have tried house rules to experiment with this. Anyway, have my ramble I wrote after 10 pm (yeah its massive, sorry, hope ye like reading someone's tiredom commentary after having extended side tangent debate with players)
Let's start with fighter weapon profiency. I kinda feel like main reason why people feel like barbarians get short end of stick compared to fighters is just because of the whole "fighter is expert at level 1, master at 5, legendary at 13" <_< Aaand that is pretty much it. Like all classes are relatively equal at level 20(though granted, the martial with only legendary proficiency is still logically best at melee attacks by definition), but problem with fighter isn't really that "they are only one with legendary profiency", its that that they by one step always ahead other classes.
Like... When facing mooks, all martials are pretty much equals. When fighting vs severe solo bosses, fighter outshines other ones. +2 bonus is massive amount of increased damage and crit chance, so its kinda like what if wizards got expert dcs and spell attack rolls on level 1 and legendary by level 13? It'd mean that they feel like they out perform all other classes of same type for entire game. Even champion doesn't get expert armor profiency at level 1 and legendary by 13.
So if fighter got expert at like.. level 5, master at 13 and legendary by 17, they would still be best at highest levels, but players of other martials wouldn't feel like fighters outperforms them for entire game. So players wouldn't be like "man if we had fighter, this solo boss would be much more manageable just because we could actually hit it". (granted solobosses have their own issues, but I think paizo adventure design is in general leaning towards players fighting more mini bosses than mooks)
Anyway, I don't actually have that strong feelings on fighters, but more I hear people debating this, less I really see need for why would fighters need to always be one step higher than other martials in this front. Like if this game didn't have crit system(which I do love btw even if I don't fully agree with "melee monster has both high ac, high strike bonus and high damage even before it crits at once" design), maybe then it would make sense, but since +2 means higher chance of crit, it also means that while barbarians have role of "high hp tank, high damage", fighters also out damage the barbarians.
And then the barbarian AC thing ;P I kinda get feeling that barbarians have bit of unclear role compared to other core martials. Fighters are best at hitting things(and thus damage). Champions are support tanks that protect party members. Monk compensates for lack of armor by having better unarmored defense and is worse at punching than fighter, but at least they have action economy of "two punches with one action" and speed on their side. Ranger has gimmicks based on focusing on single prey they hunt and nice utility. Rogue is skill monkey that is only dexterity melee damage and has team work related damage and debuff options.
Barbarians on theory are HP tanks that deal extra damage but umm... Main issue I see is that 1) fighters critting more often also means they are best damage dealers among martials so barbarian extra damage doesn't feel really enough. 2) their main game mechanic of raging lowers their AC which means enemies are more likely to not just hit them but also crit them and thus deal way more damage than the temp ac they lost. Add to that that they have only medium armor profiency and any class with heavy armor or shield profiency is better at tanking as result.
Like I get the flavor and tradition with rage lowering the ac, but it does kinda feel like mechanically it just worse trade off for extra temporary hp on level 1. I kinda wonder if there could be another way to compensate it. Like what if barbarians instead started with expert medium armor proficiency or was able to reach legendary in medium armor? It still wouldn't be as good as champion's legendary heavy armor with shield and all, but it would compensate for lowering ac from rage and help barbarians be tankier in system where tanking with hp is kinda hard. That and just having higher ac means less crits so hp tanking works better overall.
Thing with barbarians is that even if fighters started with trained proficiency as all other martials and only got legendary way later... Well while fighter would be about on same balance with other core martials, barbarian would still feel bit off to me I think based on what people debate about. Tanking with hp alone in 2e really only works if someone is constantly healing you. Though granted, they would actually deal most damage of martials for early levels. That said, I think most people wouldn't notice the difference between barbarian and fighter as heavily, fighter would at low levels be better tank than barbarian and it'd take until end game when fighter would outshine barbarian. Its kinda why I feel like barbarian should be better at tanking, either by just having better AC or having some sort of gimmick that makes them better at HP tanking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Fighter starting with Trained would suck. All the other martials would match that AND get a damage bonus (or Lay on Hands for Champion). That higher proficiency is the Fighter's damage bonus, so you can't take that away. Fighters would be forced into Reach weapons to hold even (via AoOs).
And IMO at 5th it's pretty limiting to lose one's damage bonus in all weapons outside one's chosen Weapon Group. This makes all the other martials better at switch-hitting, using a boss's cool weapon, or swapping to focus on a Weakness/get around a Resistance. And if the enemy's immune to crits, the Barbarian (& Champion I suppose) shine (not so much Ranger/Rogue because the monster likely is immune to Precision damage too.)
And with the biggest damage base, Barbarians profit more from attack bonuses/enemy AC penalties from teamwork. Plus those Rage abilities really broaden the Barbarian's options in ways a basic Fighter cannot match, i.e. AoEs.
Though yes, a Barbarian (other than Animal) cannot tank w/o using an Archetype (as if one is burning another PC's healing, that's not a tank IMO; it's a parasite). But they can take an Archetype and once tanked up those bonus hit points become significant. And I'd put in that I much prefer a Barbarian's better Will to a Fighter's Reflex, especially when Will saves become game-changing.
Of course the comparison's far messier! There are still all those feats, Reactions, and interactions with Archetypes, spells, terrain, & one's team to consider.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Changing their prof to be expert @5, master @13, legendary @17 would just be a horrible idea. There would literally be no reason to pick a fighter unless you were starting at 17+. That extra accuracy is their damage booster, as a martial master weapon proficiency alone doesn’t cut it for a striker - you need an extra damage booster like rage, hunter’s edge, etc. on top of that, or you have better defense like champion/monk.
The problem with Fighter is that it equals or beats the other classes in their niche while also beating them outside their niche. As the generalist of the group, the fighter shouldn’t be beating the other classes in their niche.
Ranger should be doing more in low enemy combats where they can keep a single prey for multiple turns. Barbarian should be doing more against mooks. Etc.
The other problem, I feel, is not enough role diversity in the martial category - we have monk and champion being different, then every other martial competes for the Striker role. Can we just have less strikers and more other sorts of martials?
|
|
Changing their prof to be expert @5, master @13, legendary @17 would just be a horrible idea. There would literally be no reason to pick a fighter unless you were starting at 17+. That extra accuracy is their damage booster, as a martial master weapon proficiency alone doesn’t cut it for a striker - you need an extra damage booster like rage, hunter’s edge, etc. on top of that, or you have better defense like champion/monk.
The problem with Fighter is that it equals or beats the other classes in their niche while also beating them outside their niche. As the generalist of the group, the fighter shouldn’t be beating the other classes in their niche.
Ranger should be doing more in low enemy combats where they can keep a single prey for multiple turns. Barbarian should be doing more against mooks. Etc.
The other problem, I feel, is not enough role diversity in the martial category - we have monk and champion being different, then every other martial competes for the Striker role. Can we just have less strikers and more other sorts of martials?
I mean, I'd argue that fighters to have plenty of good feats, but I do agree from base class perspective alone that maybe its bit too harsh. Still though, maybe something like "expert early, but master and legendary at normal time" would work slightly better? Like making it bit of curve where in beginning at end it peaks and dips in middle?
(if I do continue from that argument though, fighter is only class besides paladin that gets heavy armor profiency for free and champions works better as support while fighters even with lowered profiency have good feats for heavy damage dealing and tanking
I'm not heavily invested in this particular idea, I'm just not sure that fighter is THAT meh early levels without it besides flavorwise which it arguably is already as the general 'good at fighting class'. Personally I'm more in favor of buffing other classes, but I'm genuinely curious if anybody ever tried this and how it worked for them)
There is also that main reason why fighter beats other classes at their niche IS because their profiency level means you can do pretty much anything with them and it works out because they crit and hit that often. Like I do personally like idea behind fighter having higher weapon profiency, but its just kinda hard to find way to not make it over shadow other martials since okay they do get nice damage boosts, and in theory deal more damage when they crit, but fighter just plain crits so much more often than the other classes so they deal consistently double damage in comparison.
Sidenote, I'm probably at some point gonna create thread for "so how come on martials don't have higher armor profiency" at some point since its one of those things I think would make other martials feel bit better than fighter if fighter was "offense at exchange of defense" one instead :p
But yeah, barbarian does have some mook grinding abilities, its just that well, best mook grinder is fireball and all martials can grind mooks, including fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, yeah, fighters hit and crit often but that's their mechanic. Barbarians instead get a fat pile of static damage on their strikes, like the rogue. Swashbucklers get finishers. Magi get Spellstrike. Rangers get Hunt. Investigators get DaS/Studied Strike... fighters have better accuracy.
Arguably fighters are slightly too strong right now in general, they're very much at the top of the totem pole, but taking away their main mechanic would be terrible for the same reason never raging as a Barbarian is terrible.
So if fighter got expert at like.. level 5, master at 13 and legendary by 17, they would still be best at highest levels
This is also the worst possible solution, because it creates a weird spike at level 17 that doesn't exist anywhere else. The current system instead has a steady curve where the Fighter mechanic functions across all levels in a relatively consistent way.
Inconsistent proficiency bumps is one of the areas PF2 stumbles the most, we don't need more of those. Emphatic no to anything like this.
|
|
I do think probably easiest way to balance fighter without changing anything of the class(note: I don't think making fighter class feats less good because profiency is great would work, that'd just make fighter the archetype feat class :p) would be to remove "+10 over dc to crit" rule, but I honestly really like that rule even if it makes combat scary. Do wonder if "expert at level 1, mastery at 13 legendary at 17" would work better than my first suggestion though it still doesn't change the "but that is their main gimmick" problemo since it'd mean fighter would lose their gimmicks for certain level range
I think only other real alternative to changing crit rules would be to buff other martials somehow. I still vote for increasing some of their armor proficiency x'D
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this idea is going awry in one major way. You're looking at the way that fighters feel stronger than other martials (their accuracy and crit rate which actually comes out pretty balanced with others, and MUCH too close for the kind of change you're talking about) instead of the way that martials really do sort into those that are stronger and those that get left behind (access to extra Reactions per turn at higher levels).
|
|
You're looking at the way that fighters feel stronger than other martials
I mean... Yes? That is why I went on this tangent x'D My players who haven't yet gotten chance of playing full 2e campaign(though we have played modules of various levels) already complaining about how they feel about barbarian vs fighter
This is literally about "how to get rid of that feeling so they would feel more satisfied about this without making things less balanced"(that and barbarians really could use bit of buff)
Like yeah, by level 20 classes are basically equals (I'm sure someone will say that fighters still feel strongest, but I haven't seen level 20 play so I'm bit skeptical there), but there is big difference in feeling in the levels where supposedly most people play their campaigns.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're looking at the way that fighters feel stronger than other martialsI mean... Yes? That is why I went on this tangent x'D My players who haven't yet gotten chance of playing full 2e campaign(though we have played modules of various levels) already complaining about how they feel about barbarian vs fighter
This is literally about "how to get rid of that feeling so they would feel more satisfied about this without making things less balanced"(that and barbarians really could use bit of buff)
Like yeah, by level 20 classes are basically equals (I'm sure someone will say that fighters still feel strongest, but I haven't seen level 20 play so I'm bit skeptical there), but there is big difference in feeling in the levels where supposedly most people play their campaigns.
Level 20 play all casters (except maybe primal ones - but even primal has enough encounter solvers, just not a huge variety) are at the top and all the martials are underneath them. Fighter is probably the best of the martials due to boundless reprisals, but nothing comes close to the encounter solving capability of spellcasting at that level. Mooks at level 20 take forever to die, and everything is loaded with so much b!$&~#%$ in terms of abilities that you need counter-b#+!*&+# and support to fight back. Martials don’t get that. They get more damage. More damage doesn’t help when you literally cannot act.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're looking at the way that fighters feel stronger than other martialsI mean... Yes? That is why I went on this tangent x'D My players who haven't yet gotten chance of playing full 2e campaign(though we have played modules of various levels) already complaining about how they feel about barbarian vs fighter
This is literally about "how to get rid of that feeling so they would feel more satisfied about this without making things less balanced"(that and barbarians really could use bit of buff)
Like yeah, by level 20 classes are basically equals (I'm sure someone will say that fighters still feel strongest, but I haven't seen level 20 play so I'm bit skeptical there), but there is big difference in feeling in the levels where supposedly most people play their campaigns.
I think there's a bit of a miscommunication. I'm not saying that by level 20 they're equal. Up at the high levels fighters actually are stronger. At lower levels, before the extra reactions change things, fighters feeling stronger is much more of a thing than fighters actually being stronger. So if the fighter stayed at Expert proficiency at 5, you'd actually be getting less balanced, not more.
Fighters are like the Heal spell. Genuinely excellent, but still constantly overrated anyway.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level 20 play all casters (except maybe primal ones - but even primal has enough encounter solvers, just not a huge variety) are at the top and all the martials are underneath them. Fighter is probably the best of the martials due to boundless reprisals, but nothing comes close to the encounter solving capability of spellcasting at that level. Mooks at level 20 take forever to die, and everything is loaded with so much b##$@~~% in terms of abilities that you need counter-b!#@$&%* and support to fight back. Martials don’t get that. They get more damage. More damage doesn’t help when you literally cannot act.How do casters solve the encounter then if they can't act?
Interestingly, casters are so delayed in their development that they still get 2 proficiency increases after fighter hits legendary.
By making the enemy unable to act before they make you unable to act. Something like a Banishment 9 or Prismatic Sphere or Confusion 8 or Paralyze 7 that just straight up stops them playing the game.
And the reason caster development is delayed is because enemy saves scale slower than enemy AC - and caster accuracy is primarily balanced around saves. You could split it to give their spell attack accuracy earlier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are casters doing this when their saves are worse than martials? You have a higher chance of a martial acting before an enemy than a caster doing the same.
Level 20 play all casters (except maybe primal ones - but even primal has enough encounter solvers, just not a huge variety) are at the top and all the martials are underneath them. Fighter is probably the best of the martials due to boundless reprisals, but nothing comes close to the encounter solving capability of spellcasting at that level. Mooks at level 20 take forever to die, and everything is loaded with so much b##$@~~% in terms of abilities that you need counter-b!#@$&%* and support to fight back. Martials don’t get that. They get more damage. More damage doesn’t help when you literally cannot act.How do casters solve the encounter then if they can't act?
Interestingly, casters are so delayed in their development that they still get 2 proficiency increases after fighter hits legendary.
By making the enemy unable to act before they make you unable to act. Something like a Banishment 9 or Prismatic Sphere or Confusion 8 or Paralyze 7 that just straight up stops them playing the game.
And the reason caster development is delayed is because enemy saves scale slower than enemy AC - and caster accuracy is primarily balanced around saves. You could split it to give their spell attack accuracy earlier.
Why would a caster be in range to make a save? Most things are like 30 feet. Most casters are staying out of the fray. There is also pre-buffing as most casters in decent groups are getting advanced information before engaging the battle.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Fighters are the kings of accuracy" is a holdover from PF1 where weapon training, greater weapon focus, and the like gave the fighter accuracy bonuses other people didn't get. It's just that accuracy is more valuable now with the +10 crits.
But even if fighters are the very top of the totem pole, somebody has to be, and fighter was one of the weakest classes in the previous edition so I'm not really annoyed if they're the best at what they want to do.
But the fantasy of the barbarian tank is not about "people don't hit you" it's about "when people hit you, you just shrug it off and laugh" which the barbarian tries to do with things like resistance and temp HP.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Fighters are the kings of accuracy" is a holdover from PF1 where weapon training, greater weapon focus, and the like gave the fighter accuracy bonuses other people didn't get. It's just that accuracy is more valuable now with the +10 crits.
But even if fighters are the very top of the totem pole, somebody has to be, and fighter was one of the weakest classes in the previous edition so I'm not really annoyed if they're the best at what they want to do.
But the fantasy of the barbarian tank is not about "people don't hit you" it's about "when people hit you, you just shrug it off and laugh" which the barbarian tries to do with things like resistance and temp HP.
I do agree there, it just that I'm not sure hp tanking works in 2e unless they are willing to give level 1 barbarian resistances/fast heal <_<
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The low level barbarian has a tough time staying up. At higher level they seem to become pretty brutal in their ability to deal damage and can take quite a bit of damage. Their average hits and critical hits are much bigger than a fighter's critical hits. The Giant Instinct barbarian with reach can rip apart groups of creatures.
The fighter is more consistent, which in the long run does more damage. On single target bosses that debuffed, the barbarian is a brutal damage dealer.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How are casters doing this when their saves are worse than martials? You have a higher chance of a martial acting before an enemy than a caster doing the same.
Level 20 play all casters (except maybe primal ones - but even primal has enough encounter solvers, just not a huge variety) are at the top and all the martials are underneath them. Fighter is probably the best of the martials due to boundless reprisals, but nothing comes close to the encounter solving capability of spellcasting at that level. Mooks at level 20 take forever to die, and everything is loaded with so much b##$@~~% in terms of abilities that you need counter-b!#@$&%* and support to fight back. Martials don’t get that. They get more damage. More damage doesn’t help when you literally cannot act.How do casters solve the encounter then if they can't act?
Interestingly, casters are so delayed in their development that they still get 2 proficiency increases after fighter hits legendary.
By making the enemy unable to act before they make you unable to act. Something like a Banishment 9 or Prismatic Sphere or Confusion 8 or Paralyze 7 that just straight up stops them playing the game.
And the reason caster development is delayed is because enemy saves scale slower than enemy AC - and caster accuracy is primarily balanced around saves. You could split it to give their spell attack accuracy earlier.
Yes but if the martial acts first, they smack up the monster for about 25% of its HP (on a good day) and then get hit with the CC that prevents them from acting.
When the caster acts first they get to use their CC before the enemy does. The CC isn’t always an AoE that hits the whole party (although it can be in the case of something like a Kamenhul), but usually a single target F You with something like Consume Knowledge. In this case, if you have multiple casters yes - one will be disabled and be unable to act - but the rest can pick up the slack.
At level 20, caster saves really aren’t meaningfully lower than martial saves. Casters will be looking at M/E/M with Canny Acumen. Martials will be looking at probably M/M/M or that but with a legendary. Reflex is the least important save at 20 anyway (although you can get nuked by enemies spamming AoEs and evasion is useful there). Initiative should be the same - legendary stealth with legendary sneak (something I recommend having - combos well with disappearance) lets you roll +38 to init with incredible init - equal to what a legendary perception martial would be doing with incredible init (although dex based ones with legendary sneak will be at +40).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Fighters are the kings of accuracy" is a holdover from PF1 where weapon training, greater weapon focus, and the like gave the fighter accuracy bonuses other people didn't get. It's just that accuracy is more valuable now with the +10 crits.
But even if fighters are the very top of the totem pole, somebody has to be, and fighter was one of the weakest classes in the previous edition so I'm not really annoyed if they're the best at what they want to do.
But the fantasy of the barbarian tank is not about "people don't hit you" it's about "when people hit you, you just shrug it off and laugh" which the barbarian tries to do with things like resistance and temp HP.
Fighter isn’t even one of the top 3 classes - I rate it number 4. People overrate the ability to deal damage as a deciding outcome in fights. Fighter can somewhat spec for utility with AoO flickmace for some control and champion reaction for some defense, but for most parties I’d say a Bard, Champion or Cleric (my top 3 classes in that order) are more likely to result in them feeling encounters are “easier” than a fighter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What all the people complaining about Fighter being bad if Fighter's dont get faster proficiency is that there is no reasons why Fighter/Gunslinger should be the only classes to get faster of any proficiency. Monks dont get faster saves and armor. Champions don't get faster armor. Casters actually get delayed proficiencies.
If "Legendary" really meant that you "need" faster progression then all full casters would be getting Legendary by level 13. But do you see that happening? Of course no you would say it's broken for casters to get that. But why is it you all defend Fighters doing that?
Why don't fighters have to spend an action to get their accuracy booster like everyone else? Why don't they require being in the right position? Getting a penalty to another stat? Item usage restriction?
But no instead they have the most action efficient feats. Making them even better than other classes.
Champions get faster armour, though admittedly it’s a bit janky. They get expert at 7, master at 13 (when most others get expert) and legendary at 17 (before most others get master). Ranger, Fighter and now Magus/Summoner getting expert armor at 11 instead of 13 is kind of a weird case.
Monks definitely get faster armour - expert at 1, master at 13, legendary at 17.
Why don’t fighters have to spend actions turning on their damage booster like everyone else is a valid complaint - other classes should be rewarded more when their damage booster is active. For some reason they only equal fighter under optimal conditions for their booster and are worse elsewise. But, IMO, martials needing 2 actions to do damage is a bit sucky - things feel much more freeing when you only need to commit 1a to damage and can use the 2a however you feel. 2a to deal damage, especially as a melee, feels very locked action wise.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like most of the martials that need an action to "switch on" are fine, except the ones that have to switch on for each new enemy (ranger, investigator, thaumaturge). In cases like PFS that often scale for larger parties by adding monsters, that tends to drain a lot of actions. Because focus-firing down the same enemy with the whole party is usually a strong and intuitive tactic, but it sabotages the "invest in one of the enemies" theme of Hunt Prey etc.
Monk, switching on a stance is a thing but it's not really all that bad, and in longer combats the higher speed and flurry's action economy really start to count. And this scales well enough with extra enemies/players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the investigator is more or less expecting to spend that action every round anyways (at least from what I've seen, pursue a lead's free DaS comes online pretty rarely).
The thaumaturge I thought was really the worst of all worlds. You have a conditional ability that costs actions to activate like a ranger and you need to make a skill check to turn on your combat mechanic like an inventor or swashbuckler and you don't have any way to play around with action economy either. Hoping that mechanic gets a lot less clunky in the final version.
That said, while I think the overall balance isn't that bad, it can definitely feel like the Ranger and the Barbarian are paying a price compared to the Fighter that doesn't really get made up anywhere. Hunt Prey makes you struggle at fighting mooks and suggests you want to turret tough enemies, but you're not actually really any better at killing bosses than the Fighter. Rage and a lack of innate heavy armor makes you feel kinda vulnerable as a Barbarian, which suggests you should have some big offensive advantage as a result but that doesn't really exist either.
But even if fighters are the very top of the totem pole, somebody has to be, and fighter was one of the weakest classes in the previous edition so I'm not really annoyed if they're the best at what they want to do.
I mean, monks were often called one of the worst classes (if not the worst, depending on who you ask) in PF1 and the PF2 monk is... I mean not bad but mostly just kind of there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It all depends on what you build for too. If you build to the strengths of a class, you can be far more effective than building to mindlessly swing over and over again. I have a rogue player who wants to roll three times to swing to hit and then complains about getting dropped in battle when they have the option of moving out of the attackers range with mobility. It is a very underrated tactic to move in and out of battle, especially if you're a class like a monk with built in action economy and high mobility to move in and out of battle.
There's a lot of ways to build PF2 characters. A fighter should build to take advantage of their improve accuracy, but a ranger, rogue, or monk might be better off building to take advantage of mobility and stealth.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, monks were often called one of the worst classes (if not the worst, depending on who you ask) in PF1 and the PF2 monk is... I mean not bad but mostly just kind of there.
PF2e monk is actually quite good if you play into its advantage - action economy. The fact that it only ever needs to spend 1 action dealing damage means you have always have 2 actions spare for other stuff - mobility, defense, utility. Some of the Ki Powers are actually quite good this time around as well.
I rate monk as an A tier class, it's very good when played well. Playing it well can be difficult though - Summoner is a little more obvious on what "good play" looks like and operates in the same axis.
My class rating looks like
S - Bard, Champion, Cleric
A - Fighter, Monk, Summoner, Wizard, Sorcerer (Arcane/Occult)
B - Ranger, Barbarian, Oracle (Life/Battle/Cosmos), Sorcerer (Primal/Divine), Witch (Arcane/Occult), Druid, Rogue, Swashbuckler
C - Oracle (All Other), Witch (Primal/Divine), Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Investigator (with archetypes)
D - Investigator (No archetypes), Alchemist
How are casters doing this when their saves are worse than martials? You have a higher chance of a martial acting before an enemy than a caster doing the same.
Level 20 play all casters (except maybe primal ones - but even primal has enough encounter solvers, just not a huge variety) are at the top and all the martials are underneath them. Fighter is probably the best of the martials due to boundless reprisals, but nothing comes close to the encounter solving capability of spellcasting at that level. Mooks at level 20 take forever to die, and everything is loaded with so much b##$@~~% in terms of abilities that you need counter-b!#@$&%* and support to fight back. Martials don’t get that. They get more damage. More damage doesn’t help when you literally cannot act.How do casters solve the encounter then if they can't act?
Interestingly, casters are so delayed in their development that they still get 2 proficiency increases after fighter hits legendary.
By making the enemy unable to act before they make you unable to act. Something like a Banishment 9 or Prismatic Sphere or Confusion 8 or Paralyze 7 that just straight up stops them playing the game.
And the reason caster development is delayed is because enemy saves scale slower than enemy AC - and caster accuracy is primarily balanced around saves. You could split it to give their spell attack accuracy earlier.
Yes but if the martial acts first, they smack up the monster for about 25% of its HP (on a good day) and then get hit with the CC that prevents them from acting.
When the caster acts first they get to use their CC before the enemy does. The CC isn’t always an AoE that hits the whole party (although it can be in the case of something like a Kamenhul), but usually a single target F You with something like Consume Knowledge. In this case, if you have multiple casters yes - one will be disabled and be unable to act - but...
Save value depends on the class in my experience. Reflex saves are more valuable to casters because they get Master Will and Resolve, but have smaller hit point pools and energy resistance is not real strong.
Will saves are more valuable to a martial who might get taken out of action by a will save or turned against the party. Whereas they can take the damage easier from a Reflex save spell.
It depends on what saves the class builds up, size of their hit point pool, and how well they can mitigate the effect. A barbarian might not value Fortitude saves as much because they get Legendary Fort save and even if they fail, they don't take the worst effect.
I tend to build up the save that is weakest and most likely to hit me. Enemy casters love dropping AoE on parties to soften them up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...How are casters doing this when their saves are worse than martials? You have a higher chance of a martial acting before an enemy than a caster doing the same.
Level 20 play all casters (except maybe primal ones - but even primal has enough encounter solvers, just not a huge variety) are at the top and all the martials are underneath them. Fighter is probably the best of the martials due to boundless reprisals, but nothing comes close to the encounter solving capability of spellcasting at that level. Mooks at level 20 take forever to die, and everything is loaded with so much b##$@~~% in terms of abilities that you need counter-b!#@$&%* and support to fight back. Martials don’t get that. They get more damage. More damage doesn’t help when you literally cannot act.How do casters solve the encounter then if they can't act?
Interestingly, casters are so delayed in their development that they still get 2 proficiency increases after fighter hits legendary.
By making the enemy unable to act before they make you unable to act. Something like a Banishment 9 or Prismatic Sphere or Confusion 8 or Paralyze 7 that just straight up stops them playing the game.
And the reason caster development is delayed is because enemy saves scale slower than enemy AC - and caster accuracy is primarily balanced around saves. You could split it to give their spell attack accuracy earlier.
Yes but if the martial acts first, they smack up the monster for about 25% of its HP (on a good day) and then get hit with the CC that prevents them from acting.
When the caster acts first they get to use their CC before the enemy does. The CC isn’t always an AoE that hits the whole party (although it can be in the case of something like a Kamenhul), but usually a single target F You with something like Consume Knowledge. In this case, if you have multiple casters yes - one will be disabled
Without evasion, if you get spammed by AoEs, pass or fail as a caster you will die. But that's only if you get spammed.
Failing (or crit failing) a single fort save at that level can lead to far more disastrous results. An enemy you fight at level 14 in Ruby Phoenix can make you do a DC7 flat check for all of your spells for a whole minute if you fail a fort save. The Grim Reaper can straight up kill you if you fail the save (which has disadvantage) after it crits. There are quite a number of stunning, blinding and paralyzing effects that hit fort, in addition to damage.
Reflex is just damage usually, the worst common thing that targets Reflex is Swallow/Engulf, which you hopefully had freedom of movement for.
I mean, monks were often called one of the worst classes (if not the worst, depending on who you ask) in PF1 and the PF2 monk is... I mean not bad but mostly just kind of there.PF2e monk is actually quite good if you play into its advantage - action economy. The fact that it only ever needs to spend 1 action dealing damage means you have always have 2 actions spare for other stuff - mobility, defense, utility. Some of the Ki Powers are actually quite good this time around as well.
I rate monk as an A tier class, it's very good when played well. Playing it well can be difficult though - Summoner is a little more obvious on what "good play" looks like and operates in the same axis.
My class rating looks like
S - Bard, Champion, Cleric
A - Fighter, Monk, Summoner, Wizard, Sorcerer (Arcane/Occult)
B - Ranger, Barbarian, Oracle (Life/Battle/Cosmos), Sorcerer (Primal/Divine), Witch (Arcane/Occult), Druid, Rogue, Swashbuckler
C - Oracle (All Other), Witch (Primal/Divine), Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Investigator (with archetypes)
D - Investigator (No archetypes), Alchemist
Interesting? What do you like about the summoner? I'm started running one. It's been a little rough to start, but it is kind of interesting to build.
I've been pleasantly surprised by the Cosmos Oracle. They are a pretty effective class.
I do think you underrate the druid. I think they are very potent.
...How are casters doing this when their saves are worse than martials? You have a higher chance of a martial acting before an enemy than a caster doing the same.
Level 20 play all casters (except maybe primal ones - but even primal has enough encounter solvers, just not a huge variety) are at the top and all the martials are underneath them. Fighter is probably the best of the martials due to boundless reprisals, but nothing comes close to the encounter solving capability of spellcasting at that level. Mooks at level 20 take forever to die, and everything is loaded with so much b##$@~~% in terms of abilities that you need counter-b!#@$&%* and support to fight back. Martials don’t get that. They get more damage. More damage doesn’t help when you literally cannot act.How do casters solve the encounter then if they can't act?
Interestingly, casters are so delayed in their development that they still get 2 proficiency increases after fighter hits legendary.
By making the enemy unable to act before they make you unable to act. Something like a Banishment 9 or Prismatic Sphere or Confusion 8 or Paralyze 7 that just straight up stops them playing the game.
And the reason caster development is delayed is because enemy saves scale slower than enemy AC - and caster accuracy is primarily balanced around saves. You could split it to give their spell attack accuracy earlier.
Yes but if the martial acts first, they smack up the monster for about 25% of its HP (on a good day) and then get hit with the CC that prevents them from acting.
When the caster acts first they get to use their CC before the enemy does. The CC isn’t always an AoE that hits the whole party (although it can be in the case of something like a Kamenhul), but usually a single target F You with something like Consume Knowledge. In this case, if you have multiple
I do agree that fort is the most dangerous. I tend to avoid staying in range as a caster to avoid Fort saves. If you get hit by one, it can be quite nasty.
My problem is that reflex save spells tend to have really long range and hit a big area. So it's much easier for an enemy caster to deluge a party with AoE reflex save spells if the party is tactically trying to keep them at range. Even a strafing dragon can fly in and blast you all with breath while staying a good distance in the air. It just sucks to think you're at a safe distance, then some enemy caster starts dropping Reflex save spells on the party.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, monks were often called one of the worst classes (if not the worst, depending on who you ask) in PF1 and the PF2 monk is... I mean not bad but mostly just kind of there.PF2e monk is actually quite good if you play into its advantage - action economy. The fact that it only ever needs to spend 1 action dealing damage means you have always have 2 actions spare for other stuff - mobility, defense, utility. Some of the Ki Powers are actually quite good this time around as well.
I rate monk as an A tier class, it's very good when played well. Playing it well can be difficult though - Summoner is a little more obvious on what "good play" looks like and operates in the same axis.
My class rating looks like
S - Bard, Champion, Cleric
A - Fighter, Monk, Summoner, Wizard, Sorcerer (Arcane/Occult)
B - Ranger, Barbarian, Oracle (Life/Battle/Cosmos), Sorcerer (Primal/Divine), Witch (Arcane/Occult), Druid, Rogue, Swashbuckler
C - Oracle (All Other), Witch (Primal/Divine), Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Investigator (with archetypes)
D - Investigator (No archetypes), Alchemist
Interesting? What do you like about the summoner? I'm started running one. It's been a little rough to start, but it is kind of interesting to build.
I've been pleasantly surprised by the Cosmos Oracle. They are a pretty effective class.
I do think you underrate the druid. I think they are very potent.
Summoner - Action economy, in two words. The summoner has four actions relative to the three of everyone else (with some restrictions). If you take actions that other people already want to take (such as Trip) with your eidolon or yourself, you are ahead. With 10 hp a level, even if the main summoner gets hit you won't really go down easily.
I do think there is some jank to Summoner - notably the sharing MAP means that you must take Spout, Electric Arc or Scatter Scree to keep up your damage. Fortunately, Scree is just a level 3 item away, but it's probably better to grab electric arc from your ancestry.
Standardly I might do Act Together (Trip + Electric Arc) - becomes better once you get Eidolon's Opportunity (and the rest of your martials get AoO).
Druid is... it's okay. Mostly what holds it back, in my view, is the Primal list. In the games I've run and played (mostly modules and APs) blasting has always been a highly inefficient use of slots, in lower encounter/day games it might be fine but even then I'm really not a fan of blasting. It takes too long to generate value - you can count up the damage and say it's a lot, but not much of the damage is actually meaningful. That's most of the problem I have with blasting past level 5-7 or so - on the turn you cast it, it usually doesn't have an impact, it takes 2-3 turns to start "killing" enemies any faster. I much prefer control spells where I can start reducing the threat of the enemy side on the same round I cast it, and I've found these types of spells lead to encounters being far easier most of the time. On the contrast, I've found that blasting usually doesn't lead to an easier encounter once you've cast a blast spell.
I mean, monks were often called one of the worst classes (if not the worst, depending on who you ask) in PF1 and the PF2 monk is... I mean not bad but mostly just kind of there.PF2e monk is actually quite good if you play into its advantage - action economy. The fact that it only ever needs to spend 1 action dealing damage means you have always have 2 actions spare for other stuff - mobility, defense, utility. Some of the Ki Powers are actually quite good this time around as well.
I rate monk as an A tier class, it's very good when played well. Playing it well can be difficult though - Summoner is a little more obvious on what "good play" looks like and operates in the same axis.
My class rating looks like
S - Bard, Champion, Cleric
A - Fighter, Monk, Summoner, Wizard, Sorcerer (Arcane/Occult)
B - Ranger, Barbarian, Oracle (Life/Battle/Cosmos), Sorcerer (Primal/Divine), Witch (Arcane/Occult), Druid, Rogue, Swashbuckler
C - Oracle (All Other), Witch (Primal/Divine), Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Investigator (with archetypes)
D - Investigator (No archetypes), Alchemist
Interesting? What do you like about the summoner? I'm started running one. It's been a little rough to start, but it is kind of interesting to build.
I've been pleasantly surprised by the Cosmos Oracle. They are a pretty effective class.
I do think you underrate the druid. I think they are very potent.
Summoner - Action economy, in two words. The summoner has four actions relative to the three of everyone else (with some restrictions). If you take actions that other people already want to take (such as Trip) with your eidolon or yourself, you are ahead. With 10 hp a level, even if the main summoner gets hit you won't really go down easily.
I do think there is some jank to Summoner - notably the sharing MAP means that you must take Spout, Electric Arc or Scatter Scree to keep up your damage. Fortunately, Scree...
I found the druid is nice because they have so many damage options. At low level you can get an Animal Companion, weapon, and work in electric arc or a spell which tends to add up for damage.
Then later on you can train out of AC and take wild shape with dragon form which allows you to do decent melee damage while blasting with the breath weapon.
Couple this with spells that have immense range and battlefield control with walls or good sustained damage spells like control sand, you can really become this accretive force on the battlefield.
They also have some nice feats like Primal Aegis. You can build a really interesting and effective druid.
If all the druid or primal caster is doing is blasting, then I agree that it isn't maximizing their capability. But the druid has a lot of good feat options and can mix things up nicely depending on the situation.
When I played my druid I was rarely relying on one type of attack or damage. When I had my animal companion, I could usually send the companion in to set up, then in subsequent rounds electric arc, animal companion independent action strike or something else, and shoot the bow. That damage really added up over time.
I found the druid real versatile with blasting and healing as one of many options they have.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarians on theory are HP tanks that deal extra damage but umm... Main issue I see is that 1) fighters critting more often also means they are best damage dealers among martials so barbarian extra damage doesn't feel really enough. 2) their main game mechanic of raging lowers their AC which means enemies are more likely to not just hit them but also crit them and thus deal way more damage than the temp ac they lost. Add to that that they have only medium armor profiency and any class with heavy armor or shield profiency is better at tanking as result.
Barbarians (at least the two most common types of Draconic and Giant) are martials that specialise in area of effect attacks. With high damage, powers like Swipe, Whirlwind Strike, a breath weapon and so much reach. Their other key ability is to be the best class against damage resistance.
For sure a Fighter can do some of these things reasonably too but the Barbarian is just better in these areas.Animal Barbarin is more of a control option and is a bit of a compromise. I'm not sure the other types of Barbariam are played much at all.
However Barbarian AC is too low all they are really getting for it are 2 extra hit points per level. At higher levels they get some resistance but the Fighter AC pulls ahead again. They can get back the 1 point of AC from heavy arnour easy enough. A shield is possible but most Barbarians decline it for more offense. While AC is your most important defense, those extra hitpoints still help against everything else - miscellaneus and hazard damage, damage from poison and spells.
While a Barbarian can use a healer. The fact of the matter is healing is almost free out of combat, so I don't think it is that big a deal unless the enemy gets the drop on the party.
The accuracy boost of the Fighter is good. But it just catches them up to the Barbarian in damage. If the party is helping the Barbarians accuracy they can get by just fine. If you have good net modifiers then the relative benefit of +2 to hit is less. But if you are a Barbarian that is facing up and just doing 3 attack actions - then you are really going to feel that +2. Its not till higher level when the extra reactions a Fighter gets come on line that Fighters really pull ahead.
So in conclusion I think Barbarians fade a fraction in absolute power compared to a Fighter at higher level, but I am just having so much fun with the obscenity that is a high level Barbarian at that point I just don't care. Their powers are just too cool.
I do think you underrate the druid. I think they are very potent.
No he is underating the Primal spell list.
It is very good.|
|
I do think I want to clarify again that I personally don't think that fighters overshadow barbarians so much that they need to be nerfed(though barbarians still could use early level buff, but my real overall bias is that major differences in effectiveness is mainly on lower levels and not that big deal later on), this is mostly because my five year long group has one player with bad barbarian vs fighter experience and one player who I don't know if they have played either of them, but has come to same conclusion and has extremely strong opinion on it x'D As said this is all about feeling of the class to me.
I am curious to see if one of my other groups comes to same conclusion since my abomination vaults group is going to have fighter and barbarian in same party :O Though barbarian is considering retraining to gunslinger(we started campaign not that long before guns & gears or secrets of magics got released so I did promise players if they want to switch classes we can work it through) if it seems there isn't much party synergy going on.
(but yeah I do hope they have more of balanced experience rather than my other player having "barbarian feels useless in party compared to fighter" experience x'D I wasn't running or playing in game where they had barbarian and fighter I same party, so I don't really have any data on what happened)
(my society experiences is that I've seen both fighter and barbarian deal impressive amount of damage so I haven't personally had experience yet that barbarians are inherently that much worse off)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tier lists in a TTRPG are not valid if you don't precise what you are playing. The tier list of a social heavy campaign will clearly not be the same than a combat heavy campaign, the tier list of APs, with their bunch of fights per day, won't be the same than the tier list of PFS, with the average of 2 fights per day. The tier list at low level is not the same than the tier list at high level. And so on, and so on.
And there's also the question of average VS optimized. As Fighters can be either Strength or Dexterity based, and Dexterity based Fighters are quite bad, do you consider the class strong because of its best builds or average because it has both good and bad builds?
I'm surprised to see Cleric in tier S in Exocist list, still. They are really nice at low levels, but my experience is that players struggle to get anything out of the class and become dead weights once they reach mid levels. After level 7, in PFS, I put Cleric at tier D as they are among the worst classes to see in the party.
Also, I think people overvalues a -1 to AC. The Barbarian sheer amount of HPs largely compensate the AC loss, and now that Sentinel is easy to get, Barbarians are more tough than Fighters, even at low level. My level 2 Barbarian has 19-20 AC and reach 48 hit points (considering Rage hit points) at level 2. It has 50% more hp than other martials and the same AC, so I clearly take crazy punishments without being dropped (it's a Superstition Barbarian, so I built it to take quite a punishment as he can't be healed by spells).
|
|
I'm surprised to see Cleric in tier S in Exocist list, still. They are really nice at low levels, but my experience is that players struggle to get anything out of the class and become dead weights once they reach mid levels. After level 7, in PFS, I put Cleric at tier D as they are among the worst classes to see in the party.
PFS is a different game - I primarily base my expectations around approximately 4 encounters per day (which seem to be the suggested number as per adventure building guidelines). Divine has gotten some good spells since the CRB - especially in SoM, and choice of deity can add some more good spells to the cleric list. The primary strength of the cleric, however, is the fact that it makes everyone far less likely to lose combat - even at higher levels. There’s less of a decision of “how much do I want to use” - the primary cause of TPKs aside from level 1-3 jank, ime, is players greeding too hard for resource saving. PFS, though, Life Oracle is probably better - your resources aren’t getting stretched enough to make full use of those bonus slots + your main slots.
PFS is a different game - I primarily base my expectations around approximately 4 encounters per day (which seem to be the suggested number as per adventure building guidelines). Divine has gotten some good spells since the CRB - especially in SoM, and choice of deity can add some more good spells to the cleric list. The primary strength of the cleric, however, is the fact that it makes everyone far less likely to lose combat - even at higher levels. There’s less of a decision of “how much do I want to use” - the primary cause of TPKs aside from level 1-3 jank, ime, is players greeding too hard for resource saving. PFS, though, Life Oracle is probably better - your resources aren’t getting stretched enough to make full use of those bonus slots + your main slots.
The thing I've seen is that healing becomes less desirable after the first levels. Characters are able to take more punishment before going down and secondary healing starts to shine more than focused healing like the Cleric and Life Oracle provide.
And the Cleric spellcasting (outside font) is really lackluster. 3 prepared slots, no strong focus spells. So, very often, I see Clerics doing nothing (as in delaying) or healing the smallest bit of damage just to feel useful. Becoming actual dead weights and greatly improving the chances for the things to go south.I far prefer characters like Sorcerers, Oracles or Druids with strong healing capabilities but also non healing abilities.
|
|
My AoA cleric experience that it was a bit slow until level 7 when I got Divine Wrath. The sicken/slow debuff proved to be at least as good as the damage. When tossing it on a crowd of four mooks it usually neuters at least one.
But my style of play is very much, use roughly one big spell per fight to shift the situation, and then plink away with bow/demoralize/cantrips as appropriate. I don't resort to Heal spells unless someone is down below 40% or so. I'm definitely not a major damage contributor, but I provide stability if an enemy suddenly gets hot dice.
I think the issue with Cleric spellcasting was definitely aided by Secrets of Magic. They got a couple of fun toys, but what especially helped is the addition of Roaring Applause, one of the contenders for best spell in the game, to the Divine list.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roaring Applause is far too GM dependent to be a contender for best spell in the game. Around some tables it will just be unusable as the GM will enforce both the need for hands and the need for understanding.
If one of my players decides to use it, I'll have to spend some time speaking with them to determine what should be a proper reading of the spell.
And my critics about the Cleric is not about the Divine list per se, but about their subpar spellcasting abilities outside their Font.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarians on theory are HP tanks that deal extra damage but umm... Main issue I see is that 1) fighters critting more often also means they are best damage dealers among martials so barbarian extra damage doesn't feel really enough. 2) their main game mechanic of raging lowers their AC which means enemies are more likely to not just hit them but also crit them and thus deal way more damage than the temp ac they lost. Add to that that they have only medium armor profiency and any class with heavy armor or shield profiency is better at tanking as result.Barbarians (at least the two most common types of Draconic and Giant) are martials that specialise in area of effect attacks. With high damage, powers like Swipe, Whirlwind Strike, a breath weapon and so much reach. Their other key ability is to be the best class against damage resistance.
For sure a Fighter can do some of these things reasonably too but the Barbarian is just better in these areas.
Animal Barbarin is more of a control option and is a bit of a compromise. I'm not sure the other types of Barbariam are played much at all.However Barbarian AC is too low all they are really getting for it are 2 extra hit points per level. At higher levels they get some resistance but the Fighter AC pulls ahead again. They can get back the 1 point of AC from heavy arnour easy enough. A shield is possible but most Barbarians decline it for more offense. While AC is your most important defense, those extra hitpoints still help against everything else - miscellaneus and hazard damage, damage from poison and spells.
While a Barbarian can use a healer. The fact of the matter is healing is almost free out of combat, so I don't think it is that big a deal unless the enemy gets the drop on the party.
The accuracy boost of the Fighter is good. But it just catches them up to the Barbarian in damage. If the party is helping the Barbarians accuracy they can get by just fine. If you have good net modifiers then the relative benefit of +2...
I agree with this, though I'll point out it is more like 3 per level plus CON extra HP in practice. On barbarian tanking, I've found they do quite well against APL+3 bosses who are probably gonna crit the whole party no matter how high your AC is, and who even the fighter probably needs a 20 to crit. And against mooks, that damage resistance and Uncanny Dodge begins to shine. And the higher HP and saves means you take spells and stuff better as well.
The fighter mostly handles damage against equal level enemies that target AC, which is kind of interesting. That also happens to be the easiest to calculate DPR scenario, so people might over focus on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are Dexterity Fighers bad in PF2e? Just unable to take account of the correct feats etc? Could they not be great archers?
And there's also the question of average VS optimized. As Fighters can be either Strength or Dexterity based, and Dexterity based Fighters are quite bad, do you consider the class strong because of its best builds or average because it has both good and bad builds?
Like Temperans said, if you want a melee Dexterity-based character, you need the damage bonuses from Sneak Attack and such.
And for archers, Ranger is just so much better that there's not much point to go Fighter (mostly because you don't care of having Heavy Armor proficiency and specialization and tons of extra feat because there's not much you can take on a ranged Fighter).Overall, it's not abysmal, but compared to Strength-based Fighters, there's no competition.