Introduction:
Before I go on another 2 pager rant on another thread about how people complaining that wizards aren't as powerful is redundant and non-factual, I thought I would revive the Tier list system that had gotten such lively debate in the pf1e days.
This is an exercise that is meant to compare those rankings using the same metrics that were used in previous editions, but it is also meant to show how much the gap has narrowed in the edition shift.
I expect a lot of comments, some perhaps unkind, in the post, so I would remind you to stay civil, and to pay attention to the metrics used. Combat is not the only mode of pf2e, and while skill feats make characters VERY versatile, they are locked into your character build. A character that can adequately address any challenge through a daily shift in their abilities is more versatile than one who needs 3 weeks to reshuffle their skill feat. To quote the original list:
A common mistake when people discuss class balance, particularly in games like Pathfinder and DnD, is to focus solely on the character’s ability to kill things. This is an easy mistake because combat takes up the lion’s share of time in most campaigns, and social encounters typically won’t get you killed without first changing into a combat encounter. Instead, I propose that class balance should be determined based on the class’s ability to fill one or more roles in a party. Classes which are more powerful can fill more roles, and tend to eclipse other characters during play.
I will omit the part about classes eclipsing parties in here, because I do not believe that to be the case for any class in pf2e.
For future modifications, You can access the google doc of the list by clicking this sentence
With that preamble out of the way, here are the Tier:
Tier 1
Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better or on par with classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels.
-Cleric: With divine font, prepared casting, a huge complement of spells, no restriction on spells known, and the possibility of poaching spells from other lists easily, the Cleric is a solid Tier 1. The Divine spell list has been criticized in the past but recent additions have made it very comparable on almost all variables to other lists. To top it all off, Wisdom as a casting ability makes you overall more resilient and gives you the ability to easily max useful skills such as medicine, religion and nature. (An argument could be made for warpriest being Tier 2)
-Druid: Medium armor, shield block, good hp, keyed on Wisdom, prepared caster with access to all common spells immediately, great class feats such as animal companion, great focus spells. I don't expect anyone to object to the Druid being Tier 1
-Bard (Polymath muse): Bards simply have better proficiencies than other spellcasters, while leaving nothing on the table. With the best buffing spell in the game accessible at level 1, the occult spell list as a full caster, legendary will, master perception, and a slew of very potent abilities easily accessible, the bard is a powerhouse. It would normally be tier 2 because of sponatenous casting, but the polymath muse bard essentially has the versatility of a prepared caster, eventually, making this version Tier 1.
-Wizard (Substitution thesis): I expect this one to have pushback, but in a Tier list where being able to solve any problem on the go is the metric, the substitution wizard is definitely Tier 1. The ability to change any spell for any spell in your spell book over 10 minutes of studying is incredibly versatile, allowing you to solve almost any challenge instantly once you get a few levels under your belt. The Arcane spell list has a bunch of utility spells, and Wizards, like other prepared casters, have access to a lot of rituals to supplement that. The only downside is the lack of access to healing magic, which is why the rest of the class is Tier 2.
Tier 2
Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can’t pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no single character can do everything at the same time.
-Bard (Others): Being a spontaneous spellcaster limits other muse bards to Tier 2.
-Wizard (Others): Standard Wizards are Tier 2 because while they are the best prepared spellcasters for the Arcane list in the game, they do not have easy access to healing magic, which is much more potent in pf2e than previous editions.
-Magus: The Magus is a prepared caster who blends casting and fighting flawlessly. It's a bit MAD and has some issues with action economy, but overall it's Strength, Versatility, and sheer raw power makes it a solid Tier 2 pick.
-Oracle: The Oracle has great ability to go fish spells from other class and fun, engaging mechanics with focus spells. They suffer from the same general weak proficiencies of other casters but they are still very potent spellcasters. Spontaenous casting being less versatile than prepared is what prevents them from Tier 1.
-Psychic (Tentative): This class still needs to be debated more, but is overall a potent spontaneous caster with full scaling casting and the Amp mechanic makes them very potent in a lot of scenarios. I think Tier 2 is a good spot for this class.
-Rogue: Perhaps a surprise pick, I feel the pf2e Rogue is a versatility power house. With skills being much broader and versatile in Pf2e, the Rogue, as the master of skills, is also much broader and versatile, while still being a martial in its own right, and having a lot of options to fill any niche.
-Sorcerer: The iconic spontaneous caster, sorcerers have a lot of staying power, good focus points through bloodline, and the ability to access any spell list. Spontaneous casting is great and the preferred casting of many players, but ultimately less versatile than prepared, which is the only reason this class is Tier 2.
-Summoner: Summoners can access any spell list, although with limited options, and have access to a variety of ways to affect skills through their eidolon. They also have access to two exploration activities through the eidolon and are incredibly flexible in how they can be built. They perform on par with fighters and slightly underperform on level casters, but lack staying power in the spellcasting department.
-Thaumaturge (tentative): Thaumaturges are INCREDIBLY versatile, picking up to 3 out of a list of 9 implements which give them a lot of flexibility, they are the best at recall knowledge, have great damage mechanics that put them on par to other martials, have flexibility through the implement system and scroll crafting. I initially wanted to put them at Tier 3, but upon writing this I am moving them to Tier 2.
-Witch: The prepared caster version of Sorcerers, able to access any spell list and cross-access spells through their lessons and focus spells, the witch is very versatile. Generally poor class feat support and focus spells keep this class from Tier 1. It's a great versatile class but lacks the power to make it to Tier 1 as cleanly as the others.
Tier 3
Specialists are capable of doing one important thing very well while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, and generalists capable of doing many things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Classes occasionally have a mechanical ability that can immediately resolve an encounter, but this is a rare exception.
-Alchemist: Alchemists being incredibly versatile and having access to problem solving items at the drop of a hat if they've invested in their crafting recipes, Alchemists were in a very strong position for this list. They can heal, blast, solve problems, and have all the answers. What makes them Tier 3 is that in almost all of the solution solving processes that they have, they underperform the equivalent option (either a spell or skill feat) that Tier 1 and 2 classes have. Their poor scaling proficiencies also hold them back, so a solid tier 3 for their ability to be jacks of all trades, masters of none.
-Barbarian: The kings/queens of smash, the Barbarian is fun and versatile through its instincts, and it does the one thing well: killing s&!*. It's a solid specialist with some useful exploration activities.
-Champion: Great versatile controllers and defenders, the champion has spellcasting proficiency that scales, the best AC in the game, and access to spamable alignment damage, which is oftentimes very potent. Solid specialist.
-Fighter: The fighters are the best damage dealers in PF2E, making them the one thing every new class is being compared to. It's incredibly effective at killing things and every different fighting style will perform it's options with ruthless efficiency. The very definition of a specialist class, but can still perform well in exploration and downtine thanks to PF2E's broadened skill system.
-Investigator: The investigator has the same versatility as the Rogue, but performs generally more poorly when compared to it, therefore it is ranked lower. (Argument could be made for Tier 4)
-Inventor: Solid martials that can modify their weapon/armor/pet to fit the needs of the day with only 1 day of downtime, the Inventor performs as well if not better than other martials in almost all scenarios, but also has access to great downtime activities through it's auto scaling of Crafting and free inventor feat, as well as great versatility through gadget mastery. Honestly if someone makes an argument for it I'm inclined to bump them to 2.
-Monk: Monks are second only to Champion in AC, have the best saves, are incredibly good at mobility, have a lot of problem solving tools. They underperform in the damage department vs Fighter/Barb/etc. but are overall a solid class. Good generalists with a solid specialisation in combat.
-Ranger: Legendary perception, great versatility through class feats (animal companions and traps) good saves, great HP, medium armor access and the hunter's edge power makes Rangers great characters. They function best as main damage dealers with an offset of support, and overall you will never feel bad for playing a ranger.
Tier 4:
Specialists are capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, and generalists are capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining. Classes rarely have any abilities that can completely resolve an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class’s focus.
-Gunslinger: Gunslingers, especially the sniper, can perform damage very well, but overall the class is built around the optics of being the masters of ranged combat, and fail at that overall. They are solid debuffers and supporters when built like that, but the general underperformance of firearms makes the Gunslinger slightly lackluster.
-Swashbuckler: I Love the swashbuckler, but it suffers from a lot of mechanical problems that make it unfortunately a Tier 4. It's locked into boosting Acrobatics+key skill making it locked in until level 11 for skill diversity, its damage is sub-par to rogue's and fighters, and precision damage doesn't apply to a lot of monster types. They're very flavorful, and worth playing, but Tier 4 nonetheless.
Tier 5
Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths.
No classes fit Tier 5, a great testament to how PF2e narrowed the gap.
Tier 6
Not even good at what they are intended to do. These are generally reserved for NPCs because they are not intended to be used as player classes.
N/A through changes to gamemastery guide.
Stay civil in comments, consult the google doc for the updated lists as updates, changes in view and new classes come out.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
:Reads title:
This sounds like a terrible idea.
This is an exercise that is meant to compare those rankings using the same metrics that were used in previous editions, but it is also meant to show how much the gap has narrowed in the edition shift.
I expect a lot of comments, some perhaps unkind, in the post, so I would remind you to stay civil, and to pay attention to the metrics used.
Yes. Definitely a terrible idea.
Well, at least he put Witch in tier 2. That actually seems pretty fair.
Well, at least he put Witch in tier 2. That actually seems pretty fair.
I aim to be as objective as possible. **tips hat**
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
such lively debate in the pf1e days
You have an interesting definition of "lively".
| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better or on par with classes that specialize in that thing."
I'd argue that there are no classes for which this is true, or, alternately, that the entire theoretical structure of the tier list is flawed by the way that it ignores endurance. Like, sure, a daily caster who's willing to be profligate with their spells can play the "better or on par with" game, but they'll also run out of juice pretty fast... and none of those T1 casters you propose handle "being on the front lines" all that well. Given that they're not powerful enough to trivialize away the need for "on the front lines" roles
Then, too, you're not holding true to your own premise. "Lore character" is a thing. "Party face" is a thing. Clerics and druids don't exactly shine in those roles, and therefore are not "doing absolutely everything". Back in PF1, there were spells that let you cheat those things well enough that you could claim they didn't matter, but PF2 is not that way.
You're also giving more weight to prepared casters than they deserve by not taking into account that there are some days where you won't know what's coming.
Basically, if you're running a campaign full of 5-minute workdays where you know exactly what you're getting into up front, and you don't need to deal with anything too skill-heavy, then yeah, wisdom-based prepared casters are great. If your entire campaign is like that, though, it is severely deformed. In a game that's not like that? I'd say that trying to call anyone T1 is either simply incorrect or not adequately taking the flaws of the class into account.
...though it is interesting to see you class swashbucklers as below monks here, given some of the positions you've held forth on in the past.
Sir, are you deliberately trying to start trouble again?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This tiering system got thrown out really early on in this edition because most utility spells either got locked behind uncommon+ (and are therefore auto assumed as banned outside of explicit access) or were nerfed to uselessness.
In addition, the only reliable way to solve (combat) encounters now is straight-up damage or AoE incapacitate (mook hordes only). Gone are the days of casters dropping a save or suck/lose/die with anything resembling reliability.
Then you've got the issue of martials getting utility and lower buff slots at the cost of a few feats. Given how just about every class has plenty of dead feat levels, this isn't a particularly rare occurrence.
When you take all of that together, you end up with a system where optimization is focused almost entirely on party DPR since you only need one caster to cover "on level" buffs, debuffs and control while everyone else has access to spell and skill utility.
such lively debate in the pf1e daysYou have an interesting definition of "lively".
It was a deliberate euphemism :-p
"Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better or on par with classes that specialize in that thing."
I'd argue that there are no classes for which this is true, or, alternately, that the entire theoretical structure of the tier list is flawed by the way that it ignores endurance. Like, sure, a daily caster who's willing to be profligate with their spells can play the "better or on par with" game, but they'll also run out of juice pretty fast... and none of those T1 casters you propose handle "being on the front lines" all that well. Given that they're not powerful enough to trivialize away the *need* for "on the front lines" roles
Then, too, you're not holding true to your own premise. "Lore character" is a thing. "Party face" is a thing. Clerics and druids don't exactly shine in those roles, and therefore are not "doing absolutely everything". Back in PF1, there were spells that let you cheat those things well enough that you could claim they didn't matter, but PF2 is not that way.
You're also giving more weight to prepared casters than they deserve by not taking into account that there are some days where you won't know what's coming.
Basically, if you're running a campaign full of 5-minute workdays where you know exactly what you're getting into up front, and you don't need to deal with anything too skill-heavy, then yeah, wisdom-based prepared casters are great. If your entire campaign is like that, though, it is severely deformed. In a game that's not like that, though... I'd say that trying to call anyone T1 is either inaccurate or not adequately taking the flaws of the class into account.
...though it is interesting to see you class swashbucklers as below monks here, given some of the positions you've held forth on in the past.
Sir, are you deliberately trying to start trouble again?
Thanks for the input !
I'll try to answer your points:
I'd argue that there are no classes[...] I overall agree with you, a tier system is built however in relation to each of the participant.
I'd argue that the tier system in pf1e was something like:
6---5----4-------3------------------------------------2-------1 In breadth between tiers
Whereas this one is more along the lines of:
6-----5------------------------4---3-----2-1 everything is very close to each other, but there are differences.
Being on the front lines is something a lot of these can do as well as any other class, considering how AC generally works and general feat/archetype access. You can do a wizard in full plate, it's hard and takes away some stats, but you can. One can argue that being within 15ft of your champion is much safer than being 60ft. behind. They do not trivialize the need definitely, but as mentioned at the beginning, this tier list is not only about combat.
As for the ''Schrodinger's wizard'' argument here... yes. Overall yes. BUT! What I have rated here, rather than pure versatility, is pivot time. If you go in without info, fail but acquire info, and come back, how long does it take you to pivot to optimum strenght? 30 minutes? A day? A week? A month? The classes in Tier 1 have the lowest pivot time for that flexibility and the highest access to ways to be more informed, by being strong in RK and research tasks as well as having spells and skill feats that give answers.
Then, too, you're not holding true to your own premise. "Lore character" is a thing. "Party face" is a thing. Clerics and druids don't exactly shine in those roles, and therefore are not "doing absolutely everything". Back in PF1, there were spells that let you cheat those things well enough that you could claim they didn't matter, but PF2 is not that way.
Clerics and Druids have casting keyed to an ability score that controls 2 of the 6 RK skills, and the two broadest (nature and religion) so I'd argue they're very good at lore. Party face is a thing, and clerics and druids have class abilities or synergy that help it (Druids make great faces cause diplomacy can be used on animals for exemple, and clerics often have high charisma) There are still spells that enable you to cheat those in pf2e, such as disguise self, charm, knock, portable library, mind reading, invisibility, etc. etc. they're still there! They'll make you as good or close enough to a specialist as you can get even if you're untrained. If you're trained they'll make you that much better at it! But if you cast them on the specialist, he's gonna be EVEN GREATER at it.
As well, large face challenges, for exemple, or large research projects are often broad skilled and incorporate a variety of mental stat related skills (The council of dwarves scene or the trial of the scarlet triad in AoA for exemple), and as such casters have the balance of possibility of being better at these, vs martials that often have only a secondary stat investment in Int/Wis/Cha.
The monk vs swashy thing : The monk thread was informative and led me to reconsider things. I aim to be impartial in this and thus had to account for this information. Thanks for helping me get there ;)
Sir, are you deliberately trying to start trouble again? Maybe :P ? Nan not really, I just feel like we've had a lot of threads that devolved into ''martials are best because best DPR hur hur'' and that no thread has ever really properly assessed versatility of classes in relations to each other and to often seen campaign scenarios.
It's what the initial tier list was about, making sure people understood that combat is not the only metric, and how classes performed within that reference frame. I am hoping it can be in this edition as well, although it is perhaps a fool's dream.
If it is a Tierlist simply for being versatile... Sure. But in that case I would call it that.
Though the Tier 1 description mentions not only versatility but also being great at all these things. A wizard can fill a lot of roles but I'd say is more of a jack of all trades. They can do great damage (in AoE, but less so single target), tackle many utility problems and social problems with spells and also buff and debuff. But in a lot of those aspects they lag behind other classes that do it better. Which I'd argue puts them in tier 2 by your definition. I'd argue no class really fits that tier 1 description. It also undervalues specialists a lot. The barbarians damage alone makes it a great asset in a team as their speciality (hitting very hard) will be useful very often.
I also think that Champion should be higher. They can deal decent damage (paladin), debuff (redeemer), prevent damage, heal (with a short buff) and charisma makes them a decent face. They also single handedly solve out of combat healing which is incredibly valuable at level 1 and 2 especially (before continual recovery comes online)
What's interesting about the versatility is that as you mention they can be great at all those things with only a spell slot. If they gear towards that thing, like all classes can do, then they become VERY good at those things. A wizard with Master Thievery and knock will be better at unlocking things than a rogue, a wizard with illusory disguise heightened to 3 and master deception WILL be better at impersonating than an investigator. If you account for every class having access to that diversity of build, then the class that has the diversity of daily choices to become at least passable at every single one of those options has great versatility indeed.
But it IS inferior to what it was. I think that's a good thing though.
As for specialists: Barbarians ARE great at killing and killing IS often required. But there are a lot of challenges that don't involve killing, and there the Barbarian will underperform, while prepared casters can perform very well in almost all of these (I'll do another post about that)
Noted for Champion, I can't say I disagree that much but let's let other people chime in before I change it.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tier 1
Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better or on par with classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels.
According to this, a necessary condition for being a Tier 1 class is "often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player". I don't know of any class in PF2 that can often solve level-appropriate encounters solo, to say nothing of solving them with a single ability and little thought. That by itself would seem to ensure that no PF2 class is Tier 1.
This tiering system got thrown out really early on in this edition because most utility spells either got locked behind uncommon+ (and are therefore auto assumed as banned outside of explicit access) or were nerfed to uselessness.
In addition, the only reliable way to solve (combat) encounters now is straight-up damage or AoE incapacitate (mook hordes only). Gone are the days of casters dropping a save or suck/lose/die with anything resembling reliability.
Then you've got the issue of martials getting utility and lower buff slots at the cost of a few feats. Given how just about every class has plenty of dead feat levels, this isn't a particularly rare occurrence.
When you take all of that together, you end up with a system where optimization is focused almost entirely on party DPR since you only need one caster to cover "on level" buffs, debuffs and control while everyone else has access to spell and skill utility.
I am aware it's been thrown out, can't say I don't understand why. I only aim to make the shift in dynamic more apparent.
For the uncommon+ access.... that's ultimately an acceptable premise although I've yet to play in a common only game as most GM's I know allow uncommon or rare access with some caveat, or give them as nice little perk rewards (you find a spellbook! it has rare spells! **wizard squees**)
For combat adress, I will do a separate post.
So Combat has been brought out a lot, and let me just draw from my own experience as well as the subsystems listed in AoN and the GMG.
If everything was combat, which some campaigns are, then this list would shift DRAMATICALLY, and yes fighter would be Tier 1. Fully agreed, no arguments here.
But everything is not combat a lot of the time.
Let's take a few scenarios:
Chase scenes: Most often these are obstacles that can be navigated with skills, and each obstacle can feasibly present a skill check to any skill. There's however a general caveat that ''if a PC uses a spell slot, up to the GM's discretion, they can bypass that obstacle entirely'' Tier 1 and 2 classes perform better here because either A: they have a massive access to skills and utility items or B: They can use a cleverly thought out spell to simply bypass the need to roll.
Hearing scenes: Public speaking, trials, appeals to council, etc etc. Oftentimes charisma skills are the focus here (which synergises with a lot of Tier 2 classes) but also Int and Wis ones (sense motive, RK to know more about the speaker, etc). On top of that, utility spells such as mind probe, detect lies, zone of truth, etc give you an edge, and generic buffs that can feasibly last the entire scene such as pocket library, most 11+ mutagens, heroism etc etc. give you an edge. Tier 1 and 2 classes perform better here because they have access to these, whereas Tier 3 and 4 classes would need to retrain for weeks to be able to adress this challenge optimally.
Infiltration scenes Heists, espionnage, breakouts, hostage rescue etc. etc.
Oftentimes stealth and reconnaissance are the focus here, with stealth perception and thievery being up front. A lot of spells come in handy here, mind probe, curses, charm, dominate, invisibility, mind eraser, dimension door, knock, etc. etc. Tier 1 and 2 classes perform better here because they either A: have all of those skills at expert/master/legendary or B: have a wide access to those spells.
I could get more of these scenarios out but the simple truth is that PF2E is a varied system and GM's run a WIDE variety of games, some of which are combat heavy, and some of which are not, and whenever you're not in combat, versatility and pivot time to that versatility are the key factors.
Ergo, Tier 1 and 2 have an edge.
According to this, a necessary condition for being a Tier 1 class is "often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player". I don't know of any class in PF2 that can often solve level-appropriate encounters solo, to say nothing of solving them with a single ability and little thought. That by itself would seem to ensure that no PF2 class is Tier 1.Tier 1
Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better or on par with classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels.
Climbing a harsh cliff can be done with dimension door.
I cleared out an entire obstacle in a chase scene by casting stinking cloud in a crowd to disperse it, no roll needed.
Gravity Well cast twice near a cliff can solve an encounter immediately.
Casting sending for reinforcements, depending on the setting, can effectively nullify an encounter (My annoying bard with sending in Agents of edgewatch proved that often enough!)
Casting locate to find the important thingamagig for this part of the adventure can invalidate the need for an entire sequence that the GM had planned.
If you broaden encounter to not only narrowly encompass combat, then that premise holds true.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's what the initial tier list was about, making sure people understood that combat is not the only metric, and how classes performed within that reference frame. I am hoping it can be in this edition as well, although it is perhaps a fool's dream.
That's simply not true. The original tier list was "these classes utterly marginalize those classes, and if you try to cram them together into the same party, the person who's lower tier is going to wind up sad and pointless by level 8 while hte higher-tier character basically roflstomps everything." Any discussion of "tier" inherently falls into that mold.
I'd argue that the tier system in pf1e was something like:
6---5----4-------3------------------------------------2-------1 In breadth between tiers
Whereas this one is more along the lines of:
6-----5------------------------4---3-----2-1 everything is very close to each other, but there are differences.
That's not how it works, though. You brought in the old tier descriptions. The old tier descriptions were the things declaring distance between the tiers. You can't just say "I'm going to use the same words, but they magically mean different things now."
If you want to talk about "level of flexibility" all by itself, then that's cool, and that's a worthwhile thing to talk about, but you need to come up with your own descriptive text that more accurately imparts the thing you mean, and you probably shouldn't make such a heavy shout out to the idea of "tiers". State your assumptions and your meanings outright. Don't make us force them out of you with challenges to your logic. You lose credibility every time you do that.
According to this, a necessary condition for being a Tier 1 class is "often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player". I don't know of any class in PF2 that can often solve level-appropriate encounters solo, to say nothing of solving them with a single ability and little thought. That by itself would seem to ensure that no PF2 class is Tier 1.Tier 1
Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better or on par with classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels.Climbing a harsh cliff can be done with dimension door.
I cleared out an entire obstacle in a chase scene by casting stinking cloud in a crowd to disperse it, no roll needed.
Gravity Well cast twice near a cliff can solve an encounter immediately.
Casting sending for reinforcements, depending on the setting, can effectively nullify an encounter (My annoying bard with sending in Agents of edgewatch proved that often enough!)
Casting locate to find the important thingamagig for this part of the adventure can invalidate the need for an entire sequence that the GM had planned.
If you broaden encounter to not only narrowly encompass combat, then that premise holds true.
I think we're reading the "Tier 1" description differently.
Tier 1
...Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player...
I take the canonical examples of this to be the many 1-trick pony builds of PF1. For example, the uber-grapple monk build who just grapples and pins every other opponent, or the slumber-hex Witch, who puts them asleep for a coup de grace, etc. These are builds with one mechanical trick that can dominate many encounters, even if the players are playing on auto-pilot and barely paying attention.
I agree that in PF2 there are some non-combat encounters that clever players can solve with the appropriate spell (or alchemical tool). But this isn't a case where players who are barely paying attention can dominate many encounters using the same mechanical trick over and over again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chase scenes fail by virtue of being skill challenges. Anyone that's familiar with d&d 4e knows what a math trap those are. With the way the system scales, even a DC 15 for trained is going to get you consistent failures from multiple party members and once you move up to DC 20 expert it's over. In the end, chase scenes are just players begging gm fiat to let whatever spells or skills they have work so that it doesn't end at the first obstacle.
In "hearing" scenes every spell you mentioned outside of heroism and library is uncommon and therefore entirely reliant on gm fiat to exist for players. Not to mention that without conceal and silent spell everyone around you knows you're spellcasting removing any subtlety from the procedure. A good party is going to have every useful skill covered by someone anyway so I'm not sure what your point there is. Unlike chase scenes you only need one party member to make the check too so you don't run into scaling issues so long as they're properly geared.
Infiltrating runs into the problem of being stealth reliant. Given how enemy perception scales and how bad follow the expert and quiet allies are, the whole idea of covert infiltration is an unforced error on the party's part. The best you can do is invisibility sphere 5 for an hour of party-wide invisibility and then renewing silence 4 every 10 minutes. Workable, but very resource intensive and fails to the first enemy with an extra sense or true sight (which has a noticeable uptick in occurrence once invis 4 becomes an assumption). Knock is a level 2 wand your thievery character buys, much like a longstrider wand or something you grab with a casting dedication.
Climbing a cliff is a level 2 wand of spider climb that anyone can buy and use if you aren't into athletics. D. Door 5 is cool for the mile range but you'll be by yourself since the spell can detect life in extra dimensional spaces and is on a 1 hour cooldown.
Stinking cloud you'd think would be bad in a chase as it obscures vision and risks giving the quarry a chance to dip down an alley unseen.
Are you describing two casters in one party both casting gravity well and praying the same enemies fail both times to drag them off a cliff? What are the odds of that happening?
Sending is good utility, no complaint there.
Locate is yet another uncommon spell.
I'm not saying utility is entirely gone or useless, but it's certainly nowhere near what was available before which is why the old tiering categories were discarded. It's also why a lot of the gameplay itself quickly becomes one-dimensional as what your party is actually capable of has been diminished. You just don't have the duration or efficacy on a lot of the old utility spells you used to be able to use to cover non-combat scenarios effectively.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Discussing tiers in PF2 is an interesting exercise, but I'm not sure using a framework designed for 3.5 really makes any sense here, because the paradigms don't even remotely fit.
Like "Bards are generally better than Gunslingers" is an argument you can make, but "Clerics can single handedly solve almost any problem as long as they're prepared for it" is pretty categorically untrue (I'd go a step further and say Clerics are generally pretty bad at solving problems on their own outside the couple of things they specialize in).
The OP just seems too stuck in 3.5 ways of thinking that haven't really been relevant for a decade, so I'm not sure how useful this list is.
I will admit that perhaps a different title would have been a better frame of reference, I simply wanted to repeat an exercise as I had understood it, and see how it has devolved through time.
I will comment more with sources soon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will admit that perhaps a different title would have been a better frame of reference, I simply wanted to repeat an exercise as I had understood it, and see how it has devolved through time.
I will comment more with sources soon.
I would suggest instead that you reconsider what it is that you're actually trying to express, reframe it without trying to make such strong parallels with the tier system, and repost as a new thread.
Fundamentally, the tier system was a brutal critique of 3.x class balance, and an attempt at a crude-but-functional fix of certain severe balance issues in it. I assert that PF2 does not have balance issues of anything like the degree that would call for such a thing, and does not deserve such a critique. Trying to "repeat the exercise" implies pretty strongly that you are asserting the opposite. If you do not assert the opposite, then you should use different framing, as the specific exercise in question is no longer particularly applicable.
I will admit that perhaps a different title would have been a better frame of reference, I simply wanted to repeat an exercise as I had understood it, and see how it has devolved through time.
I will comment more with sources soon.
I would suggest instead that you reconsider what it is that you're actually trying to express, reframe it without trying to make such strong parallels with the tier system, and repost as a new thread.
Fundamentally, the tier system was a brutal critique of 3.x class balance, and an attempt at a crude-but-functional fix of certain severe balance issues in it. I assert that PF2 does not have balance issues of anything like the degree that would call for such a thing, and does not deserve such a critique. Trying to "repeat the exercise" implies pretty strongly that you are asserting the opposite. If you do not assert the opposite, then you should use different framing, as the specific exercise in question is no longer particularly applicable.
Generally agreed,
But the critique was so brutal because the disparity was so vast, and to understand why the disparity was so vast and brutal, you had to understand the fundamentals of CvsM disparity and how what is measured in the tier system and in the CvsM analysis is narrative power and not fighting power.
My initial impetus for posting this class analysis was a lot of people giving, in other threads, very narrow minded, in my opinion, analysis of some of the classes.
I say narrow minded because they only account for combat power vs narrative power, which was my understanding of how the class tier list was rated.
In pf1e, if you only gauged combat power, the list would have been very different, a lot of Tier 5 classes performed very well in combat and were often played and even seen as essential. My initial thought with this post was to showcase that using those metrics, the discrepency has been narrowed but that in terms of narrative power, various classes still go rated better than others, although the disparity was narrower.
Perhaps I could have gone into more elongated details such as these initially, but I hadn't thought about it this much until now. Hindsight is 20/20
So Here is the initial tier list argument that got me introduced to the concept.
Here is it's listed core principle:
For those of you unfamiliar with what tiers are about, tiers are not an idle measure of how "awesome" a class is, but rather a measure of its problem-solving capabilities in terms of power and versatility. Consider a wide array of challenges (ie. kill a dragon, rescue a princess, cross a chasm, make your way past a trapped maze, protect a village/fortress from advancing hordes, uncover a spy, find a mystical artifact, solve a murder case, assassinate an enemy, make your way through swarms of monsters, make your way to a distant destination in the nick of time, protect/heal a VIP from taking large amounts of damage, and so on). What sets apart the high tiers (tier 1 and tier 2) are their ability to easily solve challenges (any sort of challenge for tier 1) through class abilities and the low tiers (5 or 6) is that they can only seriously contribute to a small variety of challenges and even then can end up performing badly. Spellcasters therefore tend to be higher in the tiers because not only are there extremely powerful spells in PF, but every spell is its own trick, thus providing an incredibly robust arsenal of tools to handle a very large variety of situations while the mundanes are usually stuck barely having any tricks at all beyond full attacking and rolling skills if they have the ranks for it (and even then many spellcasters can outperform mundanes at the mundanes' own job or otherwise render them unnecessary by using the right spells). As such, the major limitation on a spellcaster's problem-solving is whether he can cast the appropriate spells in time, and that includes the usage of partial spell preparation or methods to expand your spells known to hand yourself the appropriate spells as needed. This is why we call Pathfinder spellcaster edition.
The basic purpose of a tier list is to help people eyeball party balance and what kind of character is in danger of being severely overshadowed, made redundant, or otherwise left feeling useless. Even if you are a low optimization group that avoids the more potent tricks in a class's arsenal, large differences in tiers do tend to assert themselves sooner or later. At the end of the day, you don't want your game to feel like the comedic superhero team-up of the Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit.
Also, just to address some common arguments brought up by people who I am rather certain are just rushing for reasons to act dismissive: No, this tier list is not about level 20 characters, or spellcasters once they have 9th level spells (At the very least, Summoners and Oracles would be automatic T1 if that were the case, because they have Gate and Miracle). It is not a 3.5+PF tier list either. It assumes low-op to mid-op, played with a basic degree of competence (No 100% blaster Wizards, no dancing Bards who do nothing in combat, no human Paladins who thought it would be hilarious to put their favored class bonus into positive energy resistance just because they could), without going out of your way to break the game (even a Vow of Poverty Monk who keeps his vow is T1 with the right methods).
I have even taken the time to requote the core statement of the other tier list I used for reference in my initial post:
A common mistake when people discuss class balance, particularly in games like Pathfinder and DnD, is to focus solely on the character’s ability to kill things. This is an easy mistake because combat takes up the lion’s share of time in most campaigns, and social encounters typically won’t get you killed without first changing into a combat encounter. Instead, I propose that class balance should be determined based on the class’s ability to fill one or more roles in a party. Classes which are more powerful can fill more roles, and tend to eclipse other characters during play.
Now I am the first to admit that there is a lot of baggage with the tier lists, but I do believe I was very clear with the stated intent of THIS one, and that the title is still appropriate, given iterations of it in other editions of the game.
What we measure, in a game that is much narrower in focus like pf2e, would thus be different when scaled to each other, but still have varying degrees. If you imagined a set power evaluation that was inherent to the pf1e tier list, then chill, all pf2e classes are tier 3, move on. But that's not useful, and it's not informative.
Hence, a new evaluation, done with the parameters of the new system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly believe the Tiers' contents reveal much about what the OP values highly. Not about the relative worth of the Classes.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Narrative power has always been the metric in tier lists, as far as I can understand, and that's what I intend to objectively rate here.
You're free to object to my points rather than to my perceived intent though.
Discussing tiers in PF2 is an interesting exercise, but I'm not sure using a framework designed for 3.5 really makes any sense here, because the paradigms don't even remotely fit.
Like "Bards are generally better than Gunslingers" is an argument you can make, but "Clerics can single handedly solve almost any problem as long as they're prepared for it" is pretty categorically untrue (I'd go a step further and say Clerics are generally pretty bad at solving problems on their own outside the couple of things they specialize in).
The OP just seems too stuck in 3.5 ways of thinking that haven't really been relevant for a decade, so I'm not sure how useful this list is.
Through analysing the past we can better understand the present is kind of what I was going for.
Clerics are as good at solving problems as the divine list is, and the divine list is pretty broad.
As for Tier 1 stated analysis, which I understand to be the main problem here, it initially was:
Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better or on par with classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels.
I understand this now to be flawed, and that a different phrasing would be best. I initially didn't want to modify it to use the exact same metrics but it doesn't hold true.
It's too late to change the thread, but I'll change the doc to:
Capable of participating meaningfully to everything, often on par or slightly behind classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of bypassing challenges or solving problems with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels.
If someone has a better modification to suggest, I'm all ears.
@ Gesalt: your argument that uncommon trait locks out almost everything is noted but by that metric half the printed spells, if not more, are unusable for any comparison between classes, therefore it's not a very useful basis for discussions.
I can put an asterisk that ''only having access to common spells can make some of these classes rank lower'' but other than that you kind of have to include uncommon and rare spells in there because they exist and a lot of GM's will allow their players to have them.
As for the rest of your argument: Yes, there is no substitute for a well geared and balanced party, and that's one of the design goals of pf2e.
Prepared casters and others (like alchemists) though have more flexibility than most because they can participate competently in nearly everything with the right preparation, and with clever thinking.
By comparison, a fighter can't say to their party ''make some loud noise at this time to cover the flex of my muscles so I can gain bonuses in this challenge''
But a Bard can excuse themselves to go to the bathroom, and come back with Discern Lies and Glibness on and absolutely devastate a social encounter. Martials don't even have that option.
Another thing that needs to be gauged for Balance between the classes is downtime activities.
As was discussed in my thread about settlement levels and their usefulness, Downtime activities are somewhat essential to high level play, and this is another area where Narrative Power comes into play, that then ties back in to direct DPR combat power.
There are mainly two ways to access higher level essential gear like fundamental runes and such:
-Craft them (requires the inventor feat and maxed Crafting)
-Go to a higher level city and purchase them.
For crafting them, some Tier 3 classes are great at this (alchemist and inventor), but their narrative power of crafting can be entirely invalidated by shadow walk/phantom steed/teleporting to a high level city, generally Absalom, and purchasing the items there. A comparative non magical solution would take so long as to derail the campaign.
P.S: Yes I know shadow walk and teleport are uncommon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was a deliberate euphemism :-psuch lively debate in the pf1e daysYou have an interesting definition of "lively".
So, you knew how this would go down but went ahead anyway, likely out of some deeply mistaken assumption that this will end any different because it's you who started the thread or because you made a "please be civil" disclaimer? Well, you're the definition of high Int and low Wis, then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you knew how this would go down but went ahead anyway, likely out of some deeply mistaken assumption that this will end any different because it's you who started the thread or because you made a "please be civil" disclaimer? Well, you're the definition of high Int and low Wis, then.It was a deliberate euphemism :-psuch lively debate in the pf1e daysYou have an interesting definition of "lively".
I dare to hope the best from my peers, and am often disappointed. I fail to see how that's a failure on my part though.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm going to quote your quote here.
The basic purpose of a tier list is to help people eyeball party balance and what kind of character is in danger of being severely overshadowed, made redundant, or otherwise left feeling useless. Even if you are a low optimization group that avoids the more potent tricks in a class's arsenal, large differences in tiers do tend to assert themselves sooner or later. At the end of the day, you don't want your game to feel like the comedic superhero team-up of the Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit.
If that's not what you're trying to do, then you should be using something other than a tier list.
Prepared casters and others (like alchemists) though have more flexibility than most because they can participate competently in nearly everything with the right preparation, and with clever thinking.
By comparison, a fighter can't say to their party ''make some loud noise at this time to cover the flex of my muscles so I can gain bonuses in this challenge''
But a Bard can excuse themselves to go to the bathroom, and come back with Discern Lies and Glibness on and absolutely devastate a social encounter. Martials don't even have that option.
So, Glibness is a +4 status bonus to Deception checks to lie, and against perception checks to discern lies. Discern List is a +4 status bonus to those same perception checks to detect lies. +4 status is a pretty big deal... but it's not "absolutely devastate" all by itself. You have to have a plan, it has to be the right sort of social encounter, you have to be built as a deceiver to begin with, and since you're a bard, those two are taking up two of your spell slots for the day *and* two spells known, on spells that are... situational. You also have to both have an opportunity to cast these things, and be prepared to deal with the situation if your lies are discovered later.
Under PF2 balance, there's basically two things - combat, and everything else. Now, "everything else" is significant here (unlike, say, 4e) but it's still one of the two. Fighters are the most heavily combat-focused of all the classes. They have the most combat (specifically all-day combat that does not run out) and the least everything else. Casters and alchemists are much more utility-focused. They've got a fair bit of "everything else" and correspondingly less combat. If you, as a caster, decide that you want to focus on your utility side, then of course you're going to be good at it. In turn, you're going to be correspondingly worse at the combat side.If you choose to pretend that the combat side is, say, only 1/5th as important as the utility side, then of course casters are going to look good by comparison. That's not the real balance, though, unless you are playing a very specifically combat-light campaign.
/*****/
Also, this habit you have? Of starting dialogue by making inflammatory statements so that people argue with you? It's infuriating. A wrong assertion draws more attention than a question because we don't want to see the unwary convinced (incorrectly) that you're right. I resent it. I've fallen into the trap a few times, and I probably will a few times more, but eventually I'll decide that you're simply not worth paying attention to in any meaningful way, and I'll respond only to warn people away from listening to you. If you're doing it deliberately, then you need to know that patience is finite. If you're not doing it deliberately, then you need to know that that is what you're doing, so that you can adjust accordingly.
I dare to hope the best from my peers, and am often disappointed. I fail to see how that's a failure on my part though.
Case in point. This, right here, is you doing it again.
Indeed, glibness and discern lies don't stack.
And yes, everything else is important, and the ability to address it often is, as a good story is oftentimes not only combat. I feel like in past class comparison there has been way too much weight on the combat side and not enough on this side.
This was an attempt to address that by listing all the ways that utility is essential to the game and how each class has that narrative power, as was the stated goal of the initial tier lists, and how to best balance your party in response. I've had MANY encounters in printed material where the players felt discarded and useless, and players need to know that going in.
I'll adress the Ad Hominem in a different post.
Also, this habit you have? Of starting dialogue by making inflammatory statements so that people argue with you? It's infuriating. A wrong assertion draws more attention than a question because we don't want to see the unwary convinced (incorrectly) that you're right. I resent it. I've fallen into the trap a few times, and I probably will a few times more, but eventually I'll decide that you're simply not worth paying attention to in any meaningful way, and I'll respond only to warn people away from listening to you. If you're doing it deliberately, then you need to know that patience is finite. If you're not doing it deliberately, then you need to know that that is what you're doing, so that you can adjust accordingly.
AlastarOG wrote:
I dare to hope the best from my peers, and am often disappointed. I fail to see how that's a failure on my part though.Case in point. This, right here, is you doing it again.
And what's your solution, s~*$posting on side issues in threads where its not pertinent? I only wanted to separate from other threads and compare classes outside of a combat only post. I fail to see how that's inflamatory, I thought it might actually be nice, even though in the past it's devolved into s#++posting.
If I didn't post anything for fear of it devolving into s@*!posting I wouldn't post anything. You want a good exemple: I posted a thread to address and discuss that the community was perceived as being toxic, that then GOT LOCKED BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY WAS TOO TOXIC.
I post things and state my intent as clear as possible, in this forum that is made to discuss things. If people disagree with me, that's fine, debate is where ideas change. Nothing of what I do is willfully inflammatory, and I resent you accusing me of that, I would like it if you stopped.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, glibness and discern lies don't stack.
And yes, everything else is important, and the ability to address it often is, as a good story is oftentimes not only combat. I feel like in past class comparison there has been way too much weight on the combat side and not enough on this side.
This was an attempt to address that by listing all the ways that utility is essential to the game and how each class has that narrative power, as was the stated goal of the initial tier lists, and how to best balance your party in response. I've had MANY encounters in printed material where the players felt discarded and useless, and players need to know that going in.
I'll adress the Ad Hominem in a different post.
Okay, that bolded part? If that's your issue, then lead with that. Start with "I've had a bunch of times where my characters felt frustrated and marginalized because of a lack of utility in their classes, and I don't think people are paying enough attention to that side of things. Here's what I've found." It starts things off in a *much* better direction. Don't force us to argue with you in order to receive your most compelling arguments.
How am I to know that it's my most compelling argument without arguing about it first ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what's your solution, s%$~posting on side issues in threads where its not pertinent? I only wanted to separate from other threads and compare classes outside of a combat only post. I fail to see how that's inflamatory, I thought it might actually be nice, even though in the past it's devolved into s@#!posting.
If I didn't post anything for fear of it devolving into s@*#posting I wouldn't post anything. You want a good exemple: I posted a thread to address and discuss that the community was perceived as being toxic, that then GOT LOCKED BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY WAS TOO TOXIC.
I post things and state my intent as clear as possible, in this forum that is made to discuss things. If people disagree with me, that's fine, debate is where ideas change. Nothing of what I do is willfully inflammatory, and I resent you accusing me of that, I would like it if you stopped.
First, I want to make a thing clear. I did not assert that what you were doing was willfully inflammatory. I didn't know if it was willful. Apparently it was not, and that's good.
I have more to say on the topic, but your point is valid that I've derailed this thread too much already. I'll continue the discussion in PMs, if you're willing.
Your frustration has my sympathy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see that the tier system as phrased works at all for PF2. I'd want to put everything at Tier 2 or 3 and I don't really see that as a useful thing to do.
...
Tier 3
occasionally have a mechanical ability that can immediately resolve an encounter
...
This is problematic. There is precious little of this. Maybe a couple of spells but they all have limits. GMs play these a bit differently too.
Your examples heavily favour prepared casters which is unreasonable and speaks to a certain type of encounter. Prepared casters have problems including often not having a large portion of their abilites available as they didn't have perfect knowledge about their day.
You talk about Polymath Muse Bard as if it is separate from the others. If you really like their main ability (I'm not that fussed on it) any bard can take it via a 2nd level feat. Indeed almost any character via a simple multiclass. So its hard to pin it down as being a defining power feature of a subclass.
Then there is the matter of which level or level range you are considering. Casters and the Witch in particular suffer from lack of spell slots early, but at higher levels it matters less - action efficiency begins to be much more important.
You need to come up with new tiers first.
| 2 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.
For downtime, turns out anyone can craft, because it's a skill and 2 skill feats to invent magic items. That's the point of skills, anyone can do it and it gets easier as you level through item bonuses and fast proficiency scaling. Your level 16 wizard with 21 int and legendary crafting is going to be +1 (31 vs 30) on craft vs the fighter who started with int as a tertiary stat and raised it to 18 at level 15. Couple that with Aid +2 (cooperation) and neither has an appreciable chance of failing the DC 35 check (5% for the wizard and 10% for the fighter).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to show I think there is merit in the discussion. Here is my tier list in the link. I did it a while back now, and my opinions have shifted a little, I should rate the Monk better. But I am much less kind to prepared casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And for an alternative and perhaps more meaningful rating system, there is this one from The-Magic-Sword.
Just to show I think there is merit in the discussion. Here is my tier list in the link. I did it a while back now, and my opinions have shifted a little, I should rate the Monk better. But I am much less kind to prepared casters.
Thanks, I'll check it out !
And for an alternative and perhaps more meaningful rating system, there is this one from The-Magic-Sword.
I had read that one, I did indeed like it !
I just don't see that the tier system as phrased works at all for PF2. I'd want to put everything at Tier 2 or 3 and I don't really see that as a useful thing to do.
...
Tier 3
occasionally have a mechanical ability that can immediately resolve an encounter
...
This is problematic. There is precious little of this. Maybe a couple of spells but they all have limits. GMs play these a bit differently too.
Your examples heavily favour prepared casters which is unreasonable and speaks to a certain type of encounter. Prepared casters have problems including often not having a large portion of their abilites available as they didn't have perfect knowledge about their day.
You talk about Polymath Muse Bard as if it is separate from the others. If you really like their main ability (I'm not that fussed on it) any bard can take it via a 2nd level feat. Indeed almost any character via a simple multiclass. So its hard to pin it down as being a defining power feature of a subclass.
Then there is the matter of which level or level range you are considering. Casters and the Witch in particular suffer from lack of spell slots early, but at higher levels it matters less - action efficiency begins to be much more important.
You need to come up with new tiers first.
Hmmm it's been mentioned, I might actually rephrase the tiers.
Prepared Casters on a day to day campaign do have those flaws of vision, however I've found that in campaigns where you have time between events (which several AP give you, AoA, SoT, AoE all fall within that category somewhat where the players often have the luxury of preparing for a generic perceived challenge) prepared casters who made the correct hypothesis for the day will have very real and very direct narrative power.
But I do agree with your rating in your tier list about them that the level of technical mastery to draw out their full power is hard to achieve, to the point of being ultimately impossible. That doesn't draw away from their raw potential though.
There's also the ''I have some spell slots to spare'' approach that doesn't require as much system mastery. Wall of stone into stone shape, casting lock on every door, casting glyph of warding on every window, having access to the occasional teleport for a shoping trip, preparation for a day of ritual planar binding to get some allies (or some uncommon spells!) casting locate at the correct level when you need it, casting remove curse/disease at a level you can correctly counteract with, all of these are things that are trivial to prepared casters, but costly for spontaneous casters and perhaps even impossible to some martials. I feel like that ease of use between all of the spells is incredibly solid and oftentimes undervalued.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
however I've found that in campaigns where you have time between events (which several AP give you, AoA, SoT, AoE all fall within that category somewhat where the players often have the luxury of preparing for a generic perceived challenge) prepared casters who made the correct hypothesis for the day will have very real and very direct narrative power.
Yes campaigns do give prepared casters much more flexibility. Especially if its a deep long running campaign. But still there are retraining rules, and levels happen at a moderate frequency. So spontaneous casters do get options. Then of course arcane sorcerers actually have a spell book anyway.
There's also the ''I have some spell slots to spare'' approach that doesn't require as much system mastery. Wall of stone into stone shape, casting lock on every door, casting glyph of warding on every window, having access to the occasional teleport for a shoping trip, preparation for a day of ritual planar binding to get some allies (or some uncommon spells!) casting locate at the correct level when you need it, casting remove curse/disease at a level you can correctly counteract with, all of these are things that are trivial to prepared casters, but costly for spontaneous casters and perhaps even impossible to some martials. I feel like that ease of use between all of the spells is incredibly solid and oftentimes undervalued.
Wall of Stone, and Glyph of Warding have a lot of variation in how GMs intepret them. The way I play them is very permissive and powerful though. Some GMs push back against those spells with their interpretations because they see them as strong and maybe abusive. My spontaneous casters do take them as top picks.
Rituals are available to non casters. They are mostly a cost factor, and if your GM allows. My GMs tend to be very tight on gold.
Remove Curse/Disease can be done by third parties, or by scrolls/items. I'm unconvinced most remove X spells are needed or worthwhile. It seems like a down time activity to me. Note that even if you have them they are only 50% chance to be effective, so how many do you prepare?
| 6 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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tier list isn't the same for PF2. No class can solve everything. Every class will die and die fast if they try to go solo on almost anything at any level. In PF1 a wizard or druid could literally go alone on a major adventure and kill everything alone. Whereas a fighter or martial would die painfully and quickly once they ran into a caster or a sufficiently strong martial group.
It's not the case in PF2. I haven't played any class that felt particularly powerful other than maybe a druid and I would still put them around Tier 3 or 4 in the PF1 scale.
PF2 is a painfully difficult game that no class can do much alone.
however I've found that in campaigns where you have time between events (which several AP give you, AoA, SoT, AoE all fall within that category somewhat where the players often have the luxury of preparing for a generic perceived challenge) prepared casters who made the correct hypothesis for the day will have very real and very direct narrative power.Yes campaigns do give prepared casters much more flexibility. Especially if its a deep long running campaign. But still there are retraining rules, and levels happen at a moderate frequency. So spontaneous casters do get options. Then of course arcane sorcerers actually have a spell book anyway.
There's also the ''I have some spell slots to spare'' approach that doesn't require as much system mastery. Wall of stone into stone shape, casting lock on every door, casting glyph of warding on every window, having access to the occasional teleport for a shoping trip, preparation for a day of ritual planar binding to get some allies (or some uncommon spells!) casting locate at the correct level when you need it, casting remove curse/disease at a level you can correctly counteract with, all of these are things that are trivial to prepared casters, but costly for spontaneous casters and perhaps even impossible to some martials. I feel like that ease of use between all of the spells is incredibly solid and oftentimes undervalued.Wall of Stone, and Glyph of Warding have a lot of variation in how GMs intepret them. The way I play them is very permissive and powerful though. Some GMs push back against those spells with their interpretations because they see them as strong and maybe abusive. My spontaneous casters do take them as top picks.
Rituals are available to non casters. They are mostly a cost factor, and if your GM allows. My GMs tend to be very tight on gold.
Remove Curse/Disease can be done by third parties, or by scrolls/items. I'm unconvinced most remove X spells are needed or worthwhile....
And the rituals aren't powerful. Not like they're going to help you in some emergent battle or problematic situation. Even if you spend the cash to summon some powerful creature, they'll still get destroyed in battle against what you're fighting at an equal level.
| 1 person 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.