| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has already been discussed before in these forums, the old ways do not work because most classes are between old tiers 3 and 4 (with some very specific builds maybe getting into tier 2 territory). Unless we agree on a new way to measure success, we are not going anywhere making tier lists.
I personally think separating casters (including alchemist) and martials into 2 lists is the way. Since you can't really step into the toes of one while playing the other and actually compete with it, merging them makes no sense as you will find a better chance of success on average with a party formed by both casters and martials than one just formed by one or the other. Besides base proficinecies, battlefield control and general utility, what is strong or weak for caster or martial standards is very different too.
Casters have to care about opportunity-cost of resource based abilities, how well they deal with the absence of spell slots, the amount of top level slots they have, their list of choice, etc.
Meanwhile martials can be measured by other things that have little to do with what's written above. How good they are at keeping their position, how good they are at hit and run tactics, mobility, sturdiness, dpr with 1, 2 and 3 actions, how easy to shut down they are, etc.
I also think that a good pf2 class tier list would need to measure party synergy somehow. How, I'm not sure.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Alastar: I don't think I agree more with your tier list than I would with a randomly generated one. Which shows how PF2 is well balanced.
In my opinion, the whole concept of tier list is meaningless in PF2 because the difference of efficiency between classes is far too small compared to the differences between GMing styles, making nearly every class both tier 1 and 4 depending on the table you end up playing at.
To take an example: In PFS, combats tend to be quite easy but skill challenges on the other hand are extremely common and important (they very often have an impact on secondary goals and as such on rewards). As such, Fighters, Champions and Barbarians are tier 4 as their combat prowess is not that important and their lack of skills is crippling.
But if you play Abomination Vaults where combat is central then Fighters, Champions and Barbarians are Tier 1 because you really want a lot of punch.
In PF1, tier 1 classes were able to outperform tier 4 classes in absolutely everything. So they were tier 1 at every table and as such tier lists were meaningful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
this is a bad thread with a faulty premise. if you really absolutely want a tier list you'd need to make multiple tier lists covering every broad capability a class can provide (ie damage vs mobility vs whatever), which kind of sucks conceptually to both make and read. this is a topic that can literally only exist to generate arguments
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
this is a bad thread with a faulty premise. if you really absolutely want a tier list you'd need to make multiple tier lists covering every broad capability a class can provide (ie damage vs mobility vs whatever), which kind of sucks conceptually to both make and read. this is a topic that can literally only exist to generate arguments
I think there is value in this type of discussion as long as it doesn't get toxic, not for class strength as in the previous edition, as that is pointless RN. Ease of play, complexity, versatility, ability to specialise, there are some things to be gained from talking about this.
I think this reddit post has the right idea about it (even though it may lack some depth behind it). Saying X is better than Y in absolute terms in this edition may be pointless, but there are so many points that can be discussed that can help newer players in the long run.
I also like a lot the categories The-Magic-Sword came up with, I think discussing those more often so we as a comunity can come to an agreement of sorts about those would be neat, like, who has better reach, Monk or Swashbuckler? I think that is interesting to discuss and can lead to some info for newer players.
I think this reddit post has the right idea about it (even though it may lack some depth behind it). Saying X is better than Y in this edition may be pointless, but there are so many points that can be discussed that can help newer players in the long run.
The problem of the reddit post you linked is that, difficulty aside, it just states the obvious.
So it's nice for beginners, but anyone with the slightest system mastery knows all about it.
I think this reddit post has the right idea about it (even though it may lack some depth behind it). Saying X is better than Y in this edition may be pointless, but there are so many points that can be discussed that can help newer players in the long run.The problem of the reddit post you linked is that, difficulty aside, it just states the obvious.
So it's nice for beginners, but anyone with the slightest system mastery knows all about it.
I did not meant the content, but the format.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did not meant the content, but the format.
In my opinion, the more you decompose the less information you give.
The actual exercise of making a tier list is to compare oranges to apples. If ultimately you are unable to say if Cleric is better than Bard then you haven't made a tier list at all.
I did not meant the content, but the format.In my opinion, the more you decompose the less information you give.
The actual exercise of making a tier list is to compare oranges to apples. If ultimately you are unable to say if Cleric is better than Bard then you haven't made a tier list at all.
Making a tier list right now is both pointless and something that lacks direction, but we can try to put that energy somewhere similar where it can end up being useful (and that can help in the future when someone eventually comes up with a good way of making a pf2 tier list).
I am very ok with devising a different Ranking system and reclassifying based on that.
What would the metrics be though ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am very ok with devising a different Ranking system and reclassifying based on that.
What would the metrics be though ?
Do we need a ranking system? The balance is so close that the class you pick won't make you drastically worse than another.
What's more useful, IMO, is clearly outlining what a class is good at and bad at. That's what I tried to do with my Class Selection Guide. You're not gonna see a huge difference in performance between your two hand fighter compared to a barbarian but you might if you tried to make the barbarian into an archer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Open access to uncommon or rare options is a house rule and, like any house rule, should be disregarded or relegated to a footnote at best.That's a prtty loose definition of a house rule when the CRB says: "you can grant access as freely as you want; some GMs open up all uncommon and rare options universally." It isn't even like rairty is consistent within the default game as it varies from region to region.
Rarity is a world building choice. Calling it a house rule is like calling whether your game takes place in the desert or the jungle a house rule, or the decision to include dragons in your adventure a house rule, or to give out specific magic items for your party versus just handing them gold. That's all just the game.
Sure, the gm "might alter the way rarity works" but that's no different from a house rule or using one of the alternative rules like free archetype. It's not a reliable assumption table to table and shouldn't be taken into consideration for general discussion or analysis except as a footnote that most of the good utility is locked behind gm fiat or specific access conditions.
And I don't think analysis divorced from the reality of the specific table is worth doing at all. Pretending like there's a universal path to success in a hobby defined by being open ended is silly.
If someone is trying to decide whether they should play a sorcerer instead of a wizard, and you have them advise based on a faulty assumption about their rarity access, then you've given them bad advise.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any PF2 classes belong in Tier 1, TBH. The description of "can end encounters singlehandedly with little thought" and "can do things better than a specialist in that thing" simply don't apply in Pathfinder 2nd edition.
What you should have is a bunch of classes in tiers 2, 3, and 4. We all understand that the Bard is stronger than the Witch, but tiers 1 and 5 are empty.
|
I guess we could create a poll to rank the casters and another to rank the martials. And, based on the results, statistically define tiers populated with classes.
And then try to theorize what puts a given class in a given tier.
But PF2's balance is so well-done that any change in a game's parameters can change the ranking.
For example, playing in PFS means everyone can heal and enemies change every scenario. So, Healing Font and prepared casters are less valuable than in an AP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this thread, has to made clear to me that the designers like Michael Jordan took it personal that lists like these existed and were relevant for PF1 and decided they were not going to be a thing for PF2.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this thread, has to made clear to me that the designers like Michael Jordan took it personal that lists like these existed and were relevant for PF1 and decided they were not going to be a thing for PF2.
One of their design goals was to not have skills made obsolete by spells.
They succeeded. One of the results is that tier lists as they were phrased aren't useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They also wanted for anybody to be able to basically be "good enough" in a thing if they invest appropriately in it.
PF2 is a game where there isn't an AP or a PFS scenario that couldn't be cleared by a party of 4 fighters that collaborate to diversify to cover a variety of potential challenges. Running 4 fighters through a PF1 AP is going to get ridiculous fast.
How about a ranking system based on an aggregate?
Combat power for each class would be ranked based on how much value the class contributes to in combat, based on the standards of control/healing/damage. Each class is given a score of 1 to 15 where control is given 1 to 5, healing is given 1to 5, and damage is given 1 to 5.
Narrative power for each class would be based on how well that class can benefit exploration activities and downtime activites. Exploration would be given 1 to 5, downtime would be given 1 to 5.
These scores would be based on the class itself outside of the broad feat system accessible to everyone, but also on how well the class synergizes with skill feats and skills generally being considered optimal (Wizards synergize better with crafting than fighters do, and are therefore advantaged. Bards are better at intimidation than wizards, and have the edge there)
We then aggregate each score:
Tier 1: 22+
Tier 2: 18-22
Tier 3: 14-18
Tier 4: 10-14
Tier 5: 6-10
Tier 6: 0-6
I don't expect a lot of Tier 6.
Would that be a better rating system for Pf2e ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an exemple:
Fighter:
Control: 4 out of 5, fighters have class feats that inflict debuff and restraint effects, and their critical specialisation can be very prevalent, effectively inflicting debuffs for free. On top of that, attack of opportunity, potentially multiple itterations of it, is great area denial.
Healing: 1 out of 5. Not great, but the fighter has some synergy with the battle medicine skill feat line because wisdom is often a very desired stat for fighters and they have several feat lines that leave a hand free.
Damage: 5 out of 5, the fighter does a lot of damage!
Exploration: 3 out of 5, fighters can retrain one flex feat every day to potentially aid niche situations (blind fight and such) and adapt to the environment. They get poor exploration support, but are Master in perception, which means that searching is always a good idea.
Downtime: 1 out of 5, fighters are not particularly better at downtime activites than any other class. They do have some room in their build for charisma or Int though.
This would put the fighter at Combat 10 out of 15, Narrative 4 out of 10, aggregate 14 out of 25, or Tier 4.
Maybe the Tier points system is too harsh and I need to start Tier 1 at 20+ and move down ?
Something that makes tiering classes tricky in PF2 is that the game generally does a good job of having specific feats, spells and items that make any group better at very specific situations than that group can manage just with general abilities, but also made it where those spells, feats or items rarely are enough to be able to pull out of a hat and auto succeed at a task that the party is not at least marginally prepared for in the first place.
So wizards and alchemists can usually really help a party succeed at something that might have been a 50/50 shot at earlier, but if the party had no chance to begin with, the addition of a wizard or an alchemist is unlikely to boost the party's chances of success even to 50/50.
PF2 ruined individual class tier because it is a game all about party synergy and there are just too many different ways to combine different options into something better than the sum of the parts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean to some extent, but I don't think it so much ruined class comparisons as changed how you have to measure things.
Like often these discussions focus on classes in radically different roles, which of course becomes hard to quantify, so maybe that shouldn't be the focus of discussion.
To go back to the video game comparisons, people make tier lists and class comparisons all the time in MMOs, but you don't usually see people ask whether the healer or dps is better in raids, because the question is kind of nonsensical in the context of how those games work.
So the inevitable fighter vs wizard comparison these threads always seem to come down to doesn't actually make a lot of sense with how PF2 plays (tbh, it didn't make a lot of sense in PF1 either).
But you absolutely can compare a wizard and a witch (especially a rune witch), or a fighter and a barbarian, because those classes occupy the same design space and 'slot' in a party.
I mean to some extent, but I don't think it so much ruined class comparisons as changed how you have to measure things.
Like often these discussions focus on classes in radically different roles, which of course becomes hard to quantify, so maybe that shouldn't be the focus of discussion.
To go back to the video game comparisons, people make tier lists and class comparisons all the time in MMOs, but you don't usually see people ask whether the healer or dps is better in raids, because the question is kind of nonsensical in the context of how those games work.
So the inevitable fighter vs wizard comparison these threads always seem to come down to doesn't actually make a lot of sense with how PF2 plays (tbh, it didn't make a lot of sense in PF1 either).
But you absolutely can compare a wizard and a witch (especially a rune witch), or a fighter and a barbarian, because those classes occupy the same design space and 'slot' in a party.
If you take MOBAs, the tier list compares fighters to wizards. In their case, they have an easy way of doing it: Calculating victory rate for each class. So the tier list can be calculated by a computer.
As a side note, inside a tier list for PF2, you have to compare Wizard to Fighter. Because even if they don't have the same roles, you will end up sometimes in a party where their role are either already filled or none of them is filled and then you have to compare a Wizard and a Fighter. The question will be, for example: I have a Barbarian, Rogue, Cleric and Bard party, what's the best fifth character between Fighter and Wizard?
But at the same time, if we take two "martials" the Alchemist and the inventor, and we compare them to a fighter and a barbarian, they come out way behind on the DPR calculator but provide a lot of use in the downtime sector and exploration and utility sector, even if they would technically be in the same pool. Hence the idea of my scaling system above.
Like yes of course pure DPR kings like fighter and barbarian will come out behind, but then again you don't really need to make those classes shine more. If you're playing a fighter, you know exactly what your deal is and you want to make your deal happen as fast and as consistently as possible like nonat1 hilariously represents here.
But the goal of a tier list, as I would see it at least, would be to better compare those classes that have made an effort to have a sane and versatile approach to the daily adventuring challenges but are often derided by a lot of the community as being "weak" because of the "DPR is king" fallacy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about a ranking system based on an aggregate?
The problem is that damage, control and healing don't have the same value inside a party. Control for example can be completely ignored in a party. And healing, once the first levels are gone, can also be reduced to the smallest part.
And there's a thing like too much healing or control. Cleric for me is just healing far more than needed. After the very first levels, any Divine/Primal Sorcerer is having far enough healing to keep a party up and the extra healing the Cleric provides is just wasted at the end of the day. So I'd put a lot of classes at 5 in healing even if technically the Cleric heals more, just because outside the very first level there's no need of a Healing Font.Also, you have secondary domains that can be very interesting but are not contained into damage, control and healing. Survivability, for example, is important too.
And you have synergies. Survivability is mandatory on a melee character and not very important on a caster. AC is more important to a melee character than a caster. Etc...
For me, the whole point of a tier list, and its difficulty, is the overview. The more you go into parts and the less your tier list becomes useful as obviously everyone knows a Barbarian does a lot of damage and a Rogue is good outside combat. It just doesn't answer the question: Is it better to play a Barbarian or a Rogue?
If you want to meassure synergy somewhat, I think it is needed to cover best and worst case scenario for a certain class in a certain party composition, and also a "standard scenario" of 2 of any casters and 2 of any martials counting you, with some fixed assumptions for the 3 of them:
The party has most key skills covered (Medicine, Thievery, Diplomacy, other key abilities for the module or campaign)
The party does not have any direct anti-synergy going for it (Like playing a heal font cleric in a party where some PCs have negative healing)
For example, if we take Bard, best case scenario in a party of 4 is probably Bard being a solo caster with 3 martials that really care about numeric bonuses (either crit for a lot or attack several times consistently). Worst case scenario would be a party of 4 casters where you don't make a good use of Inspire courage.
Then we can go over how good or bad the class is in the 3 scenarios to get an impresion of how generally good the class is at fitting in. Pocket combos like Thaumaturge + caster or Champion + Rogue that work particularly well should also be covered.
Yah survivability had drawn on me.
How about 15 points for combat,
6 for damage
3 for survivability
3 for healing
3 for control ?
Yah survivability had drawn on me.
How about 15 points for combat,
6 for damage
3 for survivability
3 for healing
3 for control ?
That fails to account the fact that damage for martials and casters is valued differently. You can play a caster that deals no damage and still contribute to the fight considerably (not saying it is ideal). Same cannot be said for a martial.
Unless you are willing to consider Buffing and debuffing damage and survivavility, which would make things too much complicated to compare imo.
Also, the issue I see with an aggregate system is that it feels arbitrary how many points are assigned to a given category.
Well you could say something about the same for a martial, like a whip gymnast swashbuckler. Damage would be terrible but you'd get some great control about it.
Likewise a lot of damage spells for casters have control elements, like drain frightened sickened and clumsy, baked into the spell even on a success, so while it IS possible to play those extremes, no class, as a whole, could be said to possess no damage potential.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to meassure synergy somewhat, I think it is needed to cover base and worst case scenario for a certain class in a certain party composition, and also a "standard scenario" with some fixed assumptions:
The party, counting you, has 2 spellcasters and 2 martials
The party has most key skills covered (Medicine, Thievery, Diplomacy, other key abilities for the module or campaign)
The party does not have any anti-synergy going for it (Like playing a heal font cleric in a party where some PCs have negative healing)For example, if we take Bard, best case scenario in a party of 4 is probably Bard being a solo caster with 3 martials that really care about numeric bonuses (either crit for a lot or attack several times consistently). Worst case scenario would be a party of 4 casters where you don't make a good use of Inspire courage.
Then we can go over how good or bad the class is in the 3 scenarios to get an impresion of how generally good the class is at fitting in. Pocket combos like Thaumaturge + caster or Champion + Rogue that work particularly well could also be covered.
The usual assumptions made are that medicine and all skills related to hazards need to be covered and that the party needs to clear 4 severe or extreme encounters within one adventuring day without any foreknowledge of encounter setup. Funnily enough, your bard example is generally considered the best party, usually composed of two fighters, a thief and the bard.
Tangentially, four casters is considered the worst possible party configuration while four fighters (of varied builds) is among the stronger party setups.
But once again those analysis can change.
In SOT for exemple, a caster group is great because so far in two books of campaigning we've run into complicated research projects and skill challenges much more than complicated encounters.
|
|
Martials do reliable big damage to a single target.
Casters do not. They bring other things to the table though.
If your party needs this role covered, you will choose the martial.
If it's already covered, then the caster's versatility is likely in higher demand.
Because you're trying to build a party that covers as many roles as possible, ideally with many synergies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well you could say something about the same for a martial, like a whip gymnast swashbuckler. Damage would be terrible but you'd get some great control about it.
Likewise a lot of damage spells for casters have control elements, like drain frightened sickened and clumsy, baked into the spell even on a success, so while it IS possible to play those extremes, no class, as a whole, could be said to possess no damage potential.
A Whip gymnast swashbuckler cannot compensate its low damage by the CC it provides, that's one of the reasons why it is mediocre.
The issue is that damage is a more important factor for martials than for casters because well, they do more damage on average and less math swinging than casters.
Tangentially, four casters is considered the worst possible party configuration while four fighters (of varied builds) is among the stronger party setups.
4 fighters suck at anything that it is not designed to be possibly beaten by 4 fighters (not saying 4 casters aren't bad, tho).
Yah survivability had drawn on me.
How about 15 points for combat,
6 for damage
3 for survivability
3 for healing
3 for control ?
Doesn't work either.
Life Oracle: 3 healing, 3 survivability, 4 damage and 2 control = 12.Fighter: 6 damage, 3 survivability, 0 healing, 1 control = 10.
Life Oracle is way better than Fighter? Last time I checked it was not exactly what everyone was saying.
I'd maybe rate damage from life oracle at 3(Standard divine spell list, no class or feat support, signature spells scale well for damage), and control for fighter at 2 and healing for fighter at 1 (the standard). I'd also rate survivability of life oracle at 2, because of its curse.
This would give life oracle: 3+2+3+2 = 10
Fighter: 6+3+1+2= 12
In the 1-3 scale I would say
0: is subpar and is penalized for going that route
1: Par
2: Class supports this with feats and powers or with spell list
3: Excels in this sphere and is a reference for it.
wait should Oracle be 1 in survivability ?
And even if we disagree on the exactness of those metrics... its a discussion on the merits of each, which is exactly the point of the tier list, rather than a discussion on the validity of the entire thing.
Like you might disagree with what and how it's rated but if you agree that it's a semi decent way to calculate it, we're in business.
And if someone is wondering I have a background in economics so quantifying the unquantifiable is somewhat of a hobby of mine 😅
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd maybe rate damage from life oracle at 3(Standard divine spell list, no class or feat support, signature spells scale well for damage), and control for fighter at 2 and healing for fighter at 1 (the standard). I'd also rate survivability of life oracle at 2, because of its curse.
This would give life oracle: 3+2+3+2 = 10
Fighter: 6+3+1+2= 12
In the 1-3 scale I would say
0: is subpar and is penalized for going that route
1: Par
2: Class supports this with feats and powers or with spell list
3: Excels in this sphere and is a reference for it.wait should Oracle be 1 in survivability ?
And even if we disagree on the exactness of those metrics... its a discussion on the merits of each, which is exactly the point of the tier list, rather than a discussion on the validity of the entire thing.
Like you might disagree with what and how it's rated but if you agree that it's a semi decent way to calculate it, we're in business.
And if someone is wondering I have a background in economics so quantifying the unquantifiable is somewhat of a hobby of mine
I think the issue here is that this is a thing that shouldn't really be quantified in that way? Like, splitting up into segments and giving numbers to the descriptions can be useful for an overview, but the results that you get for adding those things together don't really mean much. Like, there isn't a numbering system that would result in them meaning anything useful.
Quantifying the unquantifiable isn't useful unless the resulting quantities, when used as data, actually assist meaningfully in making decisions that actually result in better outcomes. If all you're doing is coming up with numbers and then insisting that the results must somehow be useful because you derived them, then you aren't adding value to the system.
Now, the discussion on the individual subsections? Yeah. That sounds like something potentially quite useful. It's just the part where you try to stick them together and forge an aggregate that has problems.
I'd maybe rate damage from life oracle at 3(Standard divine spell list, no class or feat support, signature spells scale well for damage), and control for fighter at 2 and healing for fighter at 1 (the standard). I'd also rate survivability of life oracle at 2, because of its curse.
This would give life oracle: 3+2+3+2 = 10
Fighter: 6+3+1+2= 12
In the 1-3 scale I would say
0: is subpar and is penalized for going that route
1: Par
2: Class supports this with feats and powers or with spell list
3: Excels in this sphere and is a reference for it.wait should Oracle be 1 in survivability ?
And even if we disagree on the exactness of those metrics... its a discussion on the merits of each, which is exactly the point of the tier list, rather than a discussion on the validity of the entire thing.
Like you might disagree with what and how it's rated but if you agree that it's a semi decent way to calculate it, we're in business.
And if someone is wondering I have a background in economics so quantifying the unquantifiable is somewhat of a hobby of mine
I think the issue here is that this is a thing that shouldn't really be quantified in that way? Like, splitting up into segments and giving numbers to the descriptions can be useful for an overview, but the results that you get for adding those things together don't really mean much. Like, there isn't a numbering system that would result in them meaning anything useful.
Quantifying the unquantifiable isn't useful unless the resulting quantities, when used as data, actually assist meaningfully in making decisions that actually result in better outcomes. If all you're doing is coming up with numbers and then insisting that the results must somehow be useful because you derived them, then you aren't adding value to the system.
Now, the discussion on the individual subsections? Yeah. That sounds like something potentially quite useful. It's just the part where you try to stick...
Tell that to modern day Keynesian economists (Keynes himself was not a fan of his earlier work) ! **Sigh** oh yesss GDP is definitely the best metric to use when calculating how well a country is doing, yessss **sarcasm**
To your other points, I think if we consider each separate data point to be a useful facet of an overall character.
Where:
Damage is weighted at twice the usefulness of survivability, healing or control and
Combat is weighted at 1.5 times the usefulness of exploration and downtime (or 3 times each of those components)
Then each of the weights measures generally how frequent those are to each other and therefore the aggregate is a decent enough ballpark of the general utility of that class.
Given how different each class can be based on feats its going to be a bit misleading.
Fair. Might be better to have a max and min - like, if you build for it, you can get X, and if you largely neglect it, you're still pretty much guaranteed Y... with general restrictions to "reasonable builds where it makes sense that you took that class". Like, sure, you can make even a Fighter a reasonably high level of wizard-style daily/prep utility if you sink all of their feats into spell-granting archetype feats, and max their charisma and intelligence for skill support, but that's a terrible build overall, as you'd be much better playing it as not a fighter.
This would give life oracle: 3+2+3+2 = 10
Fighter: 6+3+1+2= 12
In the 1-3 scale I would say
0: is subpar and is penalized for going that route
1: Par
2: Class supports this with feats and powers or with spell list
3: Excels in this sphere and is a reference for it.
If 3 is "Excels in this sphere and is a reference for it" what does 6 equal? God almighty making Noah build an ark?
Given how different each class can be based on feats its going to be a bit misleading.Fair. Might be better to have a max and min - like, if you build for it, you can get X, and if you largely neglect it, you're still pretty much guaranteed Y... with general restrictions to "reasonable builds where it makes sense that you took that class". Like, sure, you can make even a Fighter a reasonably high level of wizard-style daily/prep utility if you sink all of their feats into spell-granting archetype feats, and max their charisma and intelligence for skill support, but that's a terrible build overall, as you'd be much better playing it as not a fighter.
Back in 1e, we listed broad builds, not classes. I think we should separate, let's say, Warpriest from Cloistered Cleric or Flurry Ranger from Precision because they work fundamentally different even if the chassis is the same.
One of the first question we should make is, what subclasses or build paths require a different evaluation from the rest of the class?
I would say:
Alchemist
Bard
Cleric (cloistered)
Cleric (Warpriest)
Barbarian (not Fury and Superstition because they are just bad)
Champion (Good)
Champion (Evil)
Druid
Fighter (It can spec for sure, but I think you can cover them allconsidering it cannot do everything at the same time)
Magus
Investigator
Monk (Same as Fighter)
Ranger (Flurry)
Ranger (Precision)
Ranger (Outwit)
Rogue (not Eldritch Trickster because it is bad)
Witch (one for each tradition)
Sorcerer (one for each tradition)
Swashbuckler
Wizard
Gunslinger
Inventor
No idea about Summoner and Oracle. Curses are wildly different and spell tradition matters a lot for full casters, but not sure that's enough to evaluate them differently.
I'd maybe rate damage from life oracle at 3(Standard divine spell list, no class or feat support, signature spells scale well for damage), and control for fighter at 2 and healing for fighter at 1 (the standard). I'd also rate survivability of life oracle at 2, because of its curse.
This would give life oracle: 3+2+3+2 = 10
Fighter: 6+3+1+2= 12
In the 1-3 scale I would say
0: is subpar and is penalized for going that route
1: Par
2: Class supports this with feats and powers or with spell list
3: Excels in this sphere and is a reference for it.wait should Oracle be 1 in survivability ?
And even if we disagree on the exactness of those metrics... its a discussion on the merits of each, which is exactly the point of the tier list, rather than a discussion on the validity of the entire thing.
Like you might disagree with what and how it's rated but if you agree that it's a semi decent way to calculate it, we're in business.
And if someone is wondering I have a background in economics so quantifying the unquantifiable is somewhat of a hobby of mine
Healing at 1 for Fighter? There is not a single healing ability in the whole class. It's the most obvious error. Life Oracle is maybe the tankiest caster, so 3 is the only valid value and the Fighter doesn't control anything unless you count AoE inside control but then you can't count it in damage (otherwise you count it twice), and if you don't count it in damage, then the Fighter is no more that strong when it comes to damage (2% more damage than a Barbarian, so nothing incredible).
Also, how do you dissociate the tanking ability of a Champion compared to a Fighter? You give the Fighter 2 in survivability?An Investigator or an Alchemist does 70% of the damage of a Fighter, how much do you rate it? Do you put them at 4? Or do you put them at 1? Both values are actually valid.
And how come that survivability is as important in your rating for a caster and a martial despite the fact that casters survivability is secondary to a caster efficiency when it's crucial to a martial?
Also, casters can deal damage, heal, control and a lot of things like that. But rarely simultaneously. So how do you compare the control ability of a caster who can control an entire fight but only a limited times per day and if you do nothing else simultaneously and a Maul Fighter who will trip an enemy every time they crit without losing a single point of damage (actually gaining some :D).
You will never manage to balance that. It will give you numbers like this one, where the Life Oracle is better than the Fighter based on... On not much.
If we're doing a by-build thing, then I feel like it kind fo makes sense to go deeper than that. So, instead of even trying to evaluate the class as a whole, you put out different coherent builds, and give their numbers, and you have a few build per class (as long as it makes sense to). For example, a generic evil champion with a two-hander is going to have different numbers than a Tyrant that's gone shield warden via Bastion in order to play silly games with catch-22 abuse.
This feels most extreme on the ranger, really, if only because of the kobold snaremaster build that dedicates most of its build to a subsystem that most rangers don't even touch.
On the Summoner... the kinds of spells you cast matter some, but the kind of eidolon you ahve can matter a fair bit. A fae-eidolon dual-caster build isn't going to play the same as a plant eidolon grapple-spec or a dragon eidolon breathe/frenzy build.
Of course, in many cases you can merge them. Like "most reasonably coherent Fighters are going to look something like X, but this build here and that build there...."
Maybe it's class-specific? I mean, I feel like warpriest and cloistered cleric are actually pretty close - just that warpriest gets a bit more durability and is marginally less terrible in melee, while the cloistered cleric can decide to dip into enemy-targeting spells if they like. Really, I think the big swing you see there is between dedicated heal font and dedicated harm font... but that's more like "harm font cloistered cleric is a special exception build that looks like X". I can't really seem harm font warpriest working unless you're somehow in an entire party made up of people with negative healing.
If 3 is "Excels in this sphere and is a reference for it" what does 6 equal? God almighty making Noah build an ark?
This would give life oracle: 3+2+3+2 = 10
Fighter: 6+3+1+2= 12
In the 1-3 scale I would say
0: is subpar and is penalized for going that route
1: Par
2: Class supports this with feats and powers or with spell list
3: Excels in this sphere and is a reference for it.
Damage is weighted more heavily than other facets cause it's more important, the scaling would be similar but I'll make an attempt at explaining it
0: deals absolutely zero damage, this class does not exist yet.
1: deals subpar damage (think melee warpriest without spells
2: Par damage (Alchemist)
3: average damage but situational or costly (investigator)
4: fair damage output butcan be finicky or luck based (rogue, inventor)
5: great damage through class features (magus, paladin champion)
6: the best damage in the system (fighter, barb)
I can't help but be curious if a wizard with champion dedication is a consideration in the analysis here?
If not, why not?
I would say no because everyone can multiclass champion or any other class really. If it's not unique to the class it shouldn't get weighted.
@superbidi:
Life Oracle is the tankiest caster because it has higher HP, but it still has poor saves due to no save ability synergy with key ability and proficiency scaling, no armor proficiency to speak of, and has a curse that actively damages them. These numbers are weighted agaisnt all classes as a ballpark. Champion fighter and monk would have survivability 3, even if fighter is overall lower than the other 2, because they are in the same "general area" for a 0 to 3 scale. On a 0 to 10 scale you might see more variance.
Likewise, life Oracle is maybe tanky as a caster, but I'd still rate it at 1 for reasons cited above. I'd maybe rate Wizards and cloistered clerics at 0 though.
Survivability is crucial to martials, less so to casters, but martials are more durable than casters objectively, and thus they get rated on the same scale, it is one of the martial's strenght to be durable, therefore it is important that this is showcased in the rating system.
I'd rate fighters at 1 on healing because they have the ability to synergies well with skill feats that give healing, having a lot of builds with free hands and a general impetus and freedom of use to go get wisdom (you'll rarely see a fighter build without wisdom) not enough to be good at it, but enough that it counts vs, say, an evil champion (which I would rate at 0, unless they're dhampir)
I'm not saying it would be perfect, but I am saying it could be interesting to gauge and perhaps useful to some players.
A bit like pokemon IV stat compilations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an exemple:
Fighter:
Control: 4 out of 5, fighters have class feats that inflict debuff and restraint effects, and their critical specialisation can be very prevalent, effectively inflicting debuffs for free. On top of that, attack of opportunity, potentially multiple itterations of it, is great area denial.Healing: 1 out of 5. Not great, but the fighter has some synergy with the battle medicine skill feat line because wisdom is often a very desired stat for fighters and they have several feat lines that leave a hand free.
Damage: 5 out of 5, the fighter does a lot of damage!
Exploration: 3 out of 5, fighters can retrain one flex feat every day to potentially aid niche situations (blind fight and such) and adapt to the environment. They get poor exploration support, but are Master in perception, which means that searching is always a good idea.
Downtime: 1 out of 5, fighters are not particularly better at downtime activites than any other class. They do have some room in their build for charisma or Int though.
This would put the fighter at Combat 10 out of 15, Narrative 4 out of 10, aggregate 14 out of 25, or Tier 4.
Maybe the Tier points system is too harsh and I need to start Tier 1 at 20+ and move down ?
Do skills and abilities seem differentiated enough to do this?
I often end up with six or eight skills on almost every class with class skills, background, and racial feats and such.
What gives narrative power? I've heard of creative use of narrative power like some people like to make the wizard seems like some great trickster. But often you can just send the rogue up or anyone with an appropriate skill and have them make a bluff check.
Downtime? Making magic items? Anyone can do stuff on downtime to earn money to get a magic item or what not. And often magic items aren't even worth spending the time on.
Exploration? Some slight bonus? My buddy was a ranger. He never really did much during exploration. If you have a decent stealth skill which almost anyone can get since it is moderately high value skill, then you can sneak along maybe winning initiative.
I guess you could say the rogue is the best at using stealth since they get an advantage on the first round if they stealth up.
It doesn't seem worth doing a tier list in PF2. There aren't enough advantages for one class over another.
As an exemple:
Fighter:
Control: 4 out of 5, fighters have class feats that inflict debuff and restraint effects, and their critical specialisation can be very prevalent, effectively inflicting debuffs for free. On top of that, attack of opportunity, potentially multiple itterations of it, is great area denial.Healing: 1 out of 5. Not great, but the fighter has some synergy with the battle medicine skill feat line because wisdom is often a very desired stat for fighters and they have several feat lines that leave a hand free.
Damage: 5 out of 5, the fighter does a lot of damage!
Exploration: 3 out of 5, fighters can retrain one flex feat every day to potentially aid niche situations (blind fight and such) and adapt to the environment. They get poor exploration support, but are Master in perception, which means that searching is always a good idea.
Downtime: 1 out of 5, fighters are not particularly better at downtime activites than any other class. They do have some room in their build for charisma or Int though.
This would put the fighter at Combat 10 out of 15, Narrative 4 out of 10, aggregate 14 out of 25, or Tier 4.
Maybe the Tier points system is too harsh and I need to start Tier 1 at 20+ and move down ?
You probably be better off doing a tier list by role.
@Deriven Narrative power would be to ability to quickly adapt and pivot to circumstances, where pivot time is essential.
A wizard can radically alter their approach to a situation in a day, substitution wizard in 30 minutes, rogues either have what it takes or don't, they tend to be great at most things though so that counts. But if it's one of their weak areas, pivoting would take them weeks.
Downtime certainly depends on campaign, but if you assume a general golarion campaign away from massive city centers, the ability to craft proficiently is certainly valuable. Yes every class can perform downtime activities, but which class, in its core kit, gives you better abilities to influence downtime in a meaningful manner. A wizard is certainly better at crafting magic items due to high intelligence over a cleric or fighter, and their ability to teleport the group to high level settlements is in an of itself a massive downtime ability (since this might be a several days trip) that can invalidate even the best crafters.
Compared to a barbarian who is trained in "squishy things" lore, that is a massive advantage not only to themselves but to the group in general.
Exploration includes exploration mode stuff like avoid notice and such, but also other abilities and synergies like face skills, synergy with RK skills and the ability to perform well at skill challenges such as infiltrations, heists, chases, public debates, magic duels, sports contests and such.