|
Out of curiosity, with no opinion of my own presently. What is the balance between classes looking like in PF2?
For instance: With two primarily high damage output classes, How does the Wizard scale with the Barbarian in damage output? Is it a fair balance?
Or
How does the Bard, Rogue & Investigator scale for utility and skill monkeying?
Thought?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure I don't understand the question. It might be possible to rank all of the classes based on one or two particular traits that you find valuable. Such as ranking them based on weapon damage per round, or number of trained skills. But that would only be a very small aspect of any particular character.
And anything more complex than that is going to become a completely unwieldy ranking and rating system rather quickly. In addition to being either completely subjective, or based on a particular adventuring style.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And even something like ranking classes on expected damage per round would be a problem because that depends a lot on what else you have to do in a practical round. A theoretical maximum is only a good measurement if you are attacking inanimate target dummies.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The balance is pretty tight with a few outliers.
Fighter and Bard are too strong, not by a LOT but I think the vast majority of the community would agree that they're a bit overturned for what they do and focus on.
Witch is notoriously panned as being bad, and I agree with that, but it's not actually THAT far behind. It relates mainly to the fact that they have the kind of Feat Taxes we haven't seen since the PF1 Point-Blank, Precise, Multi, Rapid Shot era of 3.X/PF1.
Pretty much everything else falls somewhere in the middle and honestly, the variance isn't that far off, at worst the difference is usually something to the tune of one PC having +2 to their roll/DC/Saves over what others of their same "role" can achieve or having access to fewer Spell Slots and less sustain through the day than alternatives.
It's honestly so close that even the whiteroom theorists, whose DPR numbers are next to meaningless anyway, don't really have anything in their pocket that can bring their BIG NUMBER BETTER PERSON stats they put out for any given PC to be better than about 20-50% more damage than an average amateur built Fighter with 16 in their Key ability score.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The balance between classes is fine. Its much better than any other game out there that actually has meaningfully different classes.
You still can do a moderate amount with an efficiently built character. But the game wouldn't have a character building element if you couldn't do that. So there is always going to be a gap between the players who optimise and the players that care only about roleplaying and not much about optimisation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Champion and Bard are probably at the top of the list. Both game changers in how effective you are in a fight. Cleric too, lots of heals and heroism.
Fighter is really good too, particularly if you go for lots of reactions.Most of the martials and the arcane/occult casters are probably in the next tier.
Next tier down melee magus and inventor (seriously both get punished for being in melee with little damage gain compared to ranged versions), witch.
Melee investigator, alchemist at the bottom.
It depends on level too. Casters are not great early, but once you start using walls and area slows you can destroy an encounter fast.
There is nothing that good about Champion except that it is all laid out at first level. You have sold defences, a great regular reaction and focus spell healing. As a build you have to work at stuffing it up.
You can easily steal the best stuff from Champions and use it in another class. Likewise for Bards.
Magus is not a tier down from anything. SuperBidi is talking about banning them as overpowered in another thread.
We are also talking about the difference between a good build and a bad build. It is very easy to build an inventor or an alchemist that sucks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most classes excel in their own area so they are better at different things.
Sooo...
Fighters are best ...
...
Any classes I missed are best at being utterly forgettable
It's not that clear cut, and I'd argue a lot of these, but OK.
Magus and Swashbuckler are the classes you missed. They are both perfectly good classes.
It's not that clear cut, and I'd argue a lot of these, but OK.Most classes excel in their own area so they are better at different things.
Sooo...
Fighters are best ...
...
Any classes I missed are best at being utterly forgettable
As would I. But I have done so enough times already.
Most classes excel in their own area so they are better at different things.
Sooo...
Fighters are best ...
...
Any classes I missed are best at being utterly forgettable
It's not that clear cut, and I'd argue a lot of these, but OK.
Magus and Swashbuckler are the classes you missed. They are both perfectly good classes.
I won't debate but having tried a swashbuckler and been very frustrated with it, I swapped to a duel pick fighter and became what felt at least twice as effective (i was hitting twice a turn more often than i was hitting once a turn as a swash and critting frequently instead of rarely)
I played a rogue to after that and it felt like it could do everything the swashbuckler could in combat with less hoops to jump through to achieve the same effectiveness whilst also having a much better skill game.
The swash is cool but unless i was completely misplaying it was only occasionally effective which is not a problem I felt with any other melee class.
I haven't played the Magus but it had the misfortune to be in the same book as the summoner which in my mind is the coolest class in the game.
I just killed the Swashbuckler in my local campaign as a GM, the player wasn't using it well but was clearly frustrated with it. Too many solo monsters in the module was making it very hard to get panache or to land it. Anyway I'm working on Summoner builds and would appreciate your feedback in a day or so when I get the time to put them together.
Let's see. If I had to rate classes by balance.
A-tier (strongest-most powerful in most situations and you will notice a well built class of this type in your group):
Fighter
Bard
Champion
Druid
Magus (best alpha striker; brutal, fight ending critical hits)
Rogue
B-tier (very solid and not far behind A-tier; you can build very strong, fun, and powerful characters with these classes):
Sorcerer
Wizard
Cleric (best healer, but very average or below average at everything else; build options not that great)
Ranger
Barbarian
Monk
Oracle (cosmos, fire)
C-tier (clunky mechanics with some real mechanical weaknesses; you have to like the concept to play it because you definitely stand out as weaker, but still very playable)
Summoner
Investigator
Alchemist
Witch
Swashbuckler
Oracle (most others)
I have experience and cannot rate the inventor or gunslinger. Overall, the balance is good. Even C-tier classes are all very playable and fun if you like your concept.
A-tier (strongest-most powerful in most situations and you will notice a
well played class of this type in your group):
Sorcerer
Wizard
Witch
Cleric
Druid
Oracle
Bard
Sorry, but I have played a lot of Magus and no way it is in the same tier as fighter. Particularly once you hit mid game and no crit is a "fight ender" and enemies start disrupting your already fragile action economy. Also, summoner when properly played is really strong with act together.Let's see. If I had to rate classes by balance.
A-tier (strongest-most powerful in most situations and you will notice a well built class of this type in your group):
Fighter
Bard
Champion
Druid
Magus (best alpha striker; brutal, fight ending critical hits)
RogueB-tier (very solid and not far behind A-tier; you can build very strong, fun, and powerful characters with these classes):
Sorcerer
Wizard
Cleric (best healer, but very average or below average at everything else; build options not that great)
Ranger
Barbarian
Monk
Oracle (cosmos, fire)C-tier (clunky mechanics with some real mechanical weaknesses; you have to like the concept to play it because you definitely stand out as weaker, but still very playable)
Summoner
Investigator
Alchemist
Witch
Swashbuckler
Oracle (most others)I have experience and cannot rate the inventor or gunslinger. Overall, the balance is good. Even C-tier classes are all very playable and fun if you like your concept.
I've only seen the Magus to level 8. So far they are brutal though swingy. Even their regular hits are very good.
Summoner just very clunky with movement and setting things up. If other classes are optimized, they have the enemy half-dead before the summoner sets up. If the eidolon gets nuked, the summoner is pretty useless and takes time to get back in action. Very clunky style of play for the types of games I'm in with highly tactical enemies.
Fighter is very good. But the Magus seems to switch between melee and range with cantrips. Their alpha strike is very nasty. They get other utility spells and abilities that are fairly nice.
...Sorry, but I have played a lot of Magus and no way it is in the same tier as fighter. Particularly once you hit mid game and no crit is a "fight ender" and enemies start disrupting your already fragile action economy. Also, summoner when properly played is really strong with act together.Let's see. If I had to rate classes by balance.
A-tier (strongest-most powerful in most situations and you will notice a well built class of this type in your group):
Fighter
Bard
Champion
Druid
Magus (best alpha striker; brutal, fight ending critical hits)
RogueB-tier (very solid and not far behind A-tier; you can build very strong, fun, and powerful characters with these classes):
Sorcerer
Wizard
Cleric (best healer, but very average or below average at everything else; build options not that great)
Ranger
Barbarian
Monk
Oracle (cosmos, fire)C-tier (clunky mechanics with some real mechanical weaknesses; you have to like the concept to play it because you definitely stand out as weaker, but still very playable)
Summoner
Investigator
Alchemist
Witch
Swashbuckler
Oracle (most others)I have experience and cannot rate the inventor or gunslinger. Overall, the balance is good. Even C-tier classes are all very playable and fun if you like your concept.
I've only seen the Magus to level 8. So far they are brutal though swingy. Even their regular hits are very good.
Summoner just very clunky with movement and setting things up. If other classes are optimized, they have the enemy half-dead before the summoner sets up. If the eidolon gets nuked, the summoner is pretty useless and takes time to get back in action. Very clunky style of play for the types of games I'm in with highly tactical enemies.
Fighter is very good. But the Magus seems to switch between melee and range with cantrips. Their alpha strike is very nasty. They get other utility spells and abilities that are
I thought the AOO would be a bigger problem. But so far not many creatures have it. My player is using the two-handed iron Magus. They slam hard. It's not hard to get spellstrike nearly every round.
One spellstrike a minute doesn't seem very good with no way to recharge it. A magus recharges with conflux spells and 1 action. Much faster to cycle through.
Not sure how your fighter with one spellstrike a battle is doing better than a magus. Doubt that happens in the campaign I'm in. My magus player is very good at quickly getting into Arcane Stance, getting temp hps, extra damage, and recharging spellstrike.
Not sure how your fighter with one spellstrike a battle is doing better than a magus. Doubt that happens in the campaign I'm in. My magus player is very good at quickly getting into Arcane Stance, getting temp hps, extra damage, and recharging spellstrike.You are right that the magus archetype spell strike is a thing for one round each combat and can therefore not be your 'standard' combat round. But with true strike and maybe a fitting focus spell this one time thing can be a significant damage boost (especially if you are a fighter with +2 to hit).
The question is, if spell strike+reload is still better than other classes 'standard' combat round though. Even with the reload focus spells, which will us up your focus points quickly. Also if you somehow have to spend an action otherwise your effectiveness suffers considerably. In addition you have to remember that the magus is a 8 hit point class which leaves their survival-ability somewhat leaking compared to most other combat classes.
And it gets magic in exchange. Free, no need to archetype. Seems to be working as intended. I love my magus, hits like a truck and with my witch archetype I have have more spells than a martial with the same dedication investment as well as access to in class focus spells. It all seems fair on my side of the fence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the varied and highly contentious opinions here (everything from 'magus is terrible' to 'im banning magi at my tables because they're so strong') is a good indicate, OP, of just how tight overall balance actually is.
Even the 'bad' classes tend to less be strictly bad and more have things that either annoy players or feel needlessly restrictive or disappointing.
I thought the AOO would be a bigger problem. But so far not many creatures have it. My player is using the two-handed iron Magus. They slam hard. It's not hard to get spellstrike nearly every round.
That was a stated objective of the edition. However pretty much all martial PCs seem to take it. They really need to fix up and provide other good reactions for PCs. I've seen good progress in this regard in the more recent releases.
...Sorry, but I have played a lot of Magus and no way it is in the same tier as fighter. Particularly once you hit mid game and no crit is a "fight ender" and enemies start disrupting your already fragile action economy. Also, summoner when properly played is really strong with act together.Let's see. If I had to rate classes by balance.
A-tier (strongest-most powerful in most situations and you will notice a well built class of this type in your group):
Fighter
Bard
Champion
Druid
Magus (best alpha striker; brutal, fight ending critical hits)
RogueB-tier (very solid and not far behind A-tier; you can build very strong, fun, and powerful characters with these classes):
Sorcerer
Wizard
Cleric (best healer, but very average or below average at everything else; build options not that great)
Ranger
Barbarian
Monk
Oracle (cosmos, fire)C-tier (clunky mechanics with some real mechanical weaknesses; you have to like the concept to play it because you definitely stand out as weaker, but still very playable)
Summoner
Investigator
Alchemist
Witch
Swashbuckler
Oracle (most others)I have experience and cannot rate the inventor or gunslinger. Overall, the balance is good. Even C-tier classes are all very playable and fun if you like your concept.
I've only seen the Magus to level 8. So far they are brutal though swingy. Even their regular hits are very good.
Summoner just very clunky with movement and setting things up. If other classes are optimized, they have the enemy half-dead before the summoner sets up. If the eidolon gets nuked, the summoner is pretty useless and takes time to get back in action. Very clunky style of play for the types of games I'm in with highly tactical enemies.
Fighter is very good. But the Magus seems to switch between melee and range with cantrips. Their alpha strike
I allow them to get in Arcane Cascade Stance if they used Spellstrike last turn. I always smooth over clunky mechanics if I can.
So why can't a normal Magus get in to Arcane Cascade if they Spellstrike last turn? The requirement is just last action cast a spell right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding class balance, I think it's telling that for me whether I like or dislike a class has very little to do with power in this tradition. My fondness for a class is fundamentally based on whether reading the class (or about the class) gets me to come up with an idea of viable character of that class.
Like the worst thing you can end up if you make obvious choices for any class is okay, and the best thing you can end up with making the best choices for any class is okay in the other direction.
Like I don't care for the alchemist because I can't really figure out how it plays and I'm not really inspired enough to find out. I do like the summoner because I was enchanted with the thematics of a class and came up with a concept I like a lot.
Amount of AoO's increase as you level too. A lot of big boss type monsters seem to have it. Might be better in newer APs but I know AoA had a ton and so does ExC. Something like 1/3 of the enemies in the last couple AoA books have it.I thought the AOO would be a bigger problem. But so far not many creatures have it. My player is using the two-handed iron Magus. They slam hard. It's not hard to get spellstrike nearly every round.That was a stated objective of the edition. However pretty much all martial PCs seem to take it. They really need to fix up and provide other good reactions for PCs. I've seen good progress in this regard in the more recent releases.
AoA I think was a particularly brutal series of modules. I have noticed that AoO has not been as common in other APs. So far AoA is the most brutal AP I have played in. Every other AP has had far fewer close to TPK situations. I didn't mind myself as I like a brutal AP now and again, but AoA you really noticed how much harder it was in at least the first four modules compared to other APs.
I allow them to get in Arcane Cascade Stance if they used Spellstrike last turn. I always smooth over clunky mechanics if I can.
So why can't a normal Magus get in to Arcane Cascade if they Spellstrike last turn? The requirement is just last action cast a spell right?
Recent how it is played. Actions that say "If your last action was X" don't carry over between rounds. It has to be that round.
Honestly arcane cascade is so annoying to use (had lots of fights where I never got it activated) it should really be a free action, and bump the damage a bit to help out the melees.
Is this another one of those little sentences I missed somewhere in the rules where the last action has to be in the same round? Must be. I don't generally run things that way or a lot of stuff would be fairly useless like rend.
Is this another one of those little sentences I missed somewhere in the rules where the last action has to be in the same round?
Not really. The official rules are still a bit ambiguous about it. But like CaffeinatedNinja mentioned, we do have an unofficial ruling from Logan Bonner on the Youtube channel How It's Played. He says that abilities that reference next/previous actions only look at actions taken during that round.
To me that mostly feels like an 'ease of bookkeeping' ruling meant to keep the game simpler for inexperienced or distractable players. Ruling it to work the other way seems reasonable too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still not a fan of them burying rules changes in obscure youtube sources, but good to know I guess.
Is this another one of those little sentences I missed somewhere in the rules where the last action has to be in the same round?Not really. The official rules are still a bit ambiguous about it. But like CaffeinatedNinja mentioned, we do have an unofficial ruling from Logan Bonner on the Youtube channel How It's Played. He says that abilities that reference next/previous actions only look at actions taken during that round.
To me that mostly feels like an 'ease of bookkeeping' ruling meant to keep the game simpler for inexperienced or distractable players. Ruling it to work the other way seems reasonable too.
Heh. I'm still not going to follow that for a lot of abilities. Just makes them pretty lame.
Is this another one of those little sentences I missed somewhere in the rules where the last action has to be in the same round? Must be. I don't generally run things that way or a lot of stuff would be fairly useless like rend.I allow them to get in Arcane Cascade Stance if they used Spellstrike last turn. I always smooth over clunky mechanics if I can.
So why can't a normal Magus get in to Arcane Cascade if they Spellstrike last turn? The requirement is just last action cast a spell right?
Recent how it is played. Actions that say "If your last action was X" don't carry over between rounds. It has to be that round.
Honestly arcane cascade is so annoying to use (had lots of fights where I never got it activated) it should really be a free action, and bump the damage a bit to help out the melees.
Its not in the rules it is just a clarification from the lead designer. It is not necessary in any way. They really made no case for it at all. Its not a simplification if the rule is already clear and workable. Its just an annoying change for the sake of it. Personally I'd just ignore it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the alchemist the alchemist is the exception that proved the rule.
Nah, I'd say the alchemist fits. The class functions in a certain capacity, but a lot of players are frustrated by the specifics of its feat design (math fixers), balance (difficult to go all in on a concept), lack of options (body horror alchemist MIA, limited familiar support, poor alternatives to bestial mutagen, etc), and rules issues (compatibilty problems with ABP, awkward mechanics that don't work well together, awkwardness of using chirurgeon healing elixirs in combat, etc.).
When played properly with the right builds, the alchemist is a reasonably decent support character with a variety of options. The problem is that a lot of players come into the class looking to fulfill a certain fantasy and the Alchemist fails at achieving a lot of those ideas.