The base math caries through from 1-20. Your build can effect that but so long as your keeping your main stat maxed you can do the things your class is designed to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious if any encounter type besides combat is being considered.
Problem is, what your class is designed to do might not be enough for the highest tier of encounter.
as an example Gunslinger in an extreme encounter is useless no matter what, the class itself doesn't work at that difficulty level
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslingers aren't amazing but useless against hard enemies is kind of a weird take, imo.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
sadly in an extreme encounter i think that a gunslinger would never ever find space, and that everyone would prefer a cleric or a bard over a wizard or a psychic
I played a level 6 gunslinger into a level 10 encounter in Outlaws and contributed tons, but clearly that's not possible, so I must exist in an alternate universe.
(It was even a sniper in an encounter where I basically was never allowed to find stealth spots.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious if any encounter type besides combat is being considered.
I highly doubt it.
Higher then martial level of to hit isn't good enough? Seems better then many dex martials to me.
So! the community takes great pride in saying that every build is viable and one can't just win the game in character creation; the second sentence stands true, but does the first? partially, in my opinion. it all depends on the encounter's difficulty!
You can't "win" in character creation but you can certainly "lose".
However you can lose in two different ways: as an individual PC, and as a team.
It's possible to having a set of "winning PCs" and thus lose as a team because they don't make a good mix.
It's a little less easy to have a "losing PC" and for the group to still be viable, but it happens. Especially if you have 5+ players.
The problem is that players coming from "that other tRPG" always think of what they will play. So they and many of those YouTubers only make individual character tier lists. Those are mostly meaningless in PF2E.
Successful PF2E players think of what the group will make together.
YouTubers making click-bait lists don't make team-comp tier lists because it's a much more complex model to build, and it is highly subjective and varies a lot more.
It's very easy to spot a 'losing' team comp. Unless you're wrong because of the specific adventure or set of players. ;)
It's not so easy to spot a 'winning' team comp. Unless you go ultra-basic in both the comp and what kinds of adventures they will be used in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played a level 6 gunslinger into a level 10 encounter in Outlaws and contributed tons, but clearly that's not possible, so I must exist in an alternate universe.
sadly in an extreme encounter i think that a gunslinger would never ever find space, and that everyone would prefer a cleric or a bard over a wizard or a psychic
Most lethal results in a PC I've ever played was a pistolero gunslinger using two dueling pistols. Not the same model as yours, but another one of those 'things that apparently don't exist despite my experience of imagining that I remember playing it.' :)
She was also my second most "out of combat potent" PC. Behind only the Thaumaturge I just started playing - so this is just a guess that my Thaumaturge will outshine what I was able to do with my Slinger. With my Slinger I was basically both a dynamic 'face' and 'detective' because I dipped into an archetype that gave skills that synergized well with where I'd put my stats.
I will concede to the anti-slinger faction that Gunslinger has some 'trap options'. But that doesn't mean the class isn't viable. Just means you need to avoid the trap options and then 'learn to play' the build you do go with - as a team.
I think the term for this is 'high skill floor' - meaning it takes to player skill to get to competent with the class. This isn't a problem. It just means it's a class beginners should avoid. Beginners will be frustrated with bad results.
I feel it also has a 'high skill ceiling'. Meaning that an advanced skill player can go very far with it and get extremely effective results. So a player with a lot of PF2E expertise can thrive on gunslinger.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you should advocate for violence against the devs, even if you do then call it a joke. That's a real person, y'know?
Higher then martial level of to hit isn't good enough? Seems better then many dex martials to me.
it really isn't, this is a combat focused game and the most lethal encounters are often the ones that involve enemies
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious if any encounter type besides combat is being considered.I highly doubt it.
Can we at least get consideration for combat that involves things like flying enemies, difficult terrain, distances longer than 60 feet, or varied combat objectives?
No? Just the FFVI combat scheme of everyone line up in a 20 foot radius area and duke it out in close range until one side is obliterated?
I played a level 6 gunslinger into a level 10 encounter in Outlaws and contributed tons, but clearly that's not possible, so I must exist in an alternate universe.
sadly in an extreme encounter i think that a gunslinger would never ever find space, and that everyone would prefer a cleric or a bard over a wizard or a psychicMost lethal results in a PC I've ever played was a pistolero gunslinger using two dueling pistols. Not the same model as yours, but another one of those 'things that apparently don't exist despite my experience of imagining that I remember playing it.' :)
She was also my second most "out of combat potent" PC. Behind only the Thaumaturge I just started playing - so this is just a guess that my Thaumaturge will outshine what I was able to do with my Slinger. With my Slinger I was basically both a dynamic 'face' and 'detective' because I dipped into an archetype that gave skills that synergized well with where I'd put my stats.
I will concede to the anti-slinger faction that Gunslinger has some 'trap options'. But that doesn't mean the class isn't viable. Just means you need to avoid the trap options and then 'learn to play' the build you do go with - as a team.
I think the term for this is 'high skill floor' - meaning it takes to player skill to get to competent with the class. This isn't a problem. It just means it's a class beginners should avoid. Beginners will be frustrated with bad results.
I feel it also has a 'high skill ceiling'. Meaning that an advanced skill player can go very far with it and get extremely effective results. So a player with a lot of PF2E expertise can thrive on gunslinger.
With all due respect for your experience i thimk that you might've been a statistical outliar. gunslinger is an extremely simple class: "abuse fake out, crit" and while the first part is really consistent the second isn't, and often completely depentent on your team, therefore while you see it as a high skill ceiling i see it as... well, just a normal class? who doesn't benefit from being hyper mega buffed and using fatal weapons in said enviroment?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also played a Sniper Gunslinger who was the single greatest contributor to combat and out of combat.
I also played a Sniper Gunslinger who was the single greatest contributor to combat and out of combat.
Once again, i don't mean to be mean but you can understand that singular experiences are not absolute statements and they don't account for the absurdly singular and unique experience everyone has. i've seen, on multiple accounts, a warpriest outdamage a barbarian, should we say that warpriests are better damage dealer than barbarians?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also played a Sniper Gunslinger who was the single greatest contributor to combat and out of combat.Once again, i don't mean to be mean but you can understand that singular experiences are not absolute statements and they don't account for the absurdly singular and unique experience everyone has. i've seen, on multiple accounts, a warpriest outdamage a barbarian, should we say that warpriests are better damage dealer than barbarians?
The same can be said of your statements too, though. Like, whenever someone comes to the forums and says some declarative X statement, there are always people coming out being like "actually no, that's not been my experience" - so I really don't think any of this is some outlier or anything like that, and just that everyone's experience is actually different, and maybe we shouldn't be making blanket statements about something being universally true.
The same can be said of your statements too, though. Like, whenever someone comes to the forums and says some declarative X statement, there are always people coming out being like "actually no, that's not been my experience" - so I really don't think any of this is some outlier or anything like that, and just that everyone's experience is actually different, and maybe we shouldn't be making blanket statements about something being universally true.I also played a Sniper Gunslinger who was the single greatest contributor to combat and out of combat.Once again, i don't mean to be mean but you can understand that singular experiences are not absolute statements and they don't account for the absurdly singular and unique experience everyone has. i've seen, on multiple accounts, a warpriest outdamage a barbarian, should we say that warpriests are better damage dealer than barbarians?
Problem is, my statements are not backed up by my singular experience but my personal analysis of the class, which could very as well be wrong, but which claims to be applicable in every situation, accounting for the average and not the exceptions. everyone's experience is different but if we try to analyze a situation, in this case a class, we can come out with some near-objective statements; like: gunslinger doesn't offer significant utility nor significant damage (doesn't have the utility of a caster, doesn't have the damage of a ranger, nor the melee capabilities of almost every other martial) and is therefore a weak class.
doesn't mean that whoever played one is some kind of freek who ought to be educated on "how to perfectly play the game" since this inbalance applies only in the high tiers of difficulty.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also played a Sniper Gunslinger who was the single greatest contributor to combat and out of combat.Once again, i don't mean to be mean but you can understand that singular experiences are not absolute statements and they don't account for the absurdly singular and unique experience everyone has. i've seen, on multiple accounts, a warpriest outdamage a barbarian, should we say that warpriests are better damage dealer than barbarians?
I don't mean to be mean but you're full of it.
You've made a frankly outlandish assertion with absolutely nothing to back it up, and then responded to multiple people pointing out how it was wrong in their actual play experience with "oh you must be an outlier."
This is total and utter nonsense, speaking as a multi high level campaign GM. Gunslingers are absolutely capable of contributing just fine (including in extreme encounters, where that legendary proficiency is quite helpful), so this statement is flat out wrong:
Problem is, what your class is designed to do might not be enough for the highest tier of encounter.
as an example Gunslinger in an extreme encounter is useless no matter what, the class itself doesn't work at that difficulty level
What are you basing this on outside of nothing, and why does whatever that is count for more than what everyone else has to say?
I don't think the defining factor is even just combat encounter difficulty, but encounter design, which vary from GM to GM. APs have tended towards smaller maps with tight quarters, but not all of them and some have creatures that can really exploit range, cover, and terrain. Categorizing classes for what works well in Abomination vaults will not translate onto Curtain Call, or even another dungeon crawl-heavy AP like 7 dooms of sandpoint. Some of the encounter spaces in Age of Ashes, for example, practically demand massive overlapping encounters where a party without mobility and range will get torn to pieces, but Abomination vaults will see those features wasted.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that the whole "class tier" thing was developed for 3.x and was focused on the potential (assuming equal "skill" at optimization and play) to dominate over an entire campaign going from 1st to 20th level both in combat and narratively. It was never solely about "white room" combat effectiveness (like "highest DPR"); there was a reason the battlefield controller wizard was rated higher than a blaster sorcerer.
PF2 is specifically designed so that a single character cannot "do everything" and the entire party has to work together. Granted, some classes can be better at fulfilling specific "roles"/functions but that is not what the the class tier structure is about.
The class tier structure, for reference purposes:
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 one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.
Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.
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. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.
Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.
What are you basing this on outside of nothing, and why does whatever that is count for more than what everyone else has to say?Problem is, what your class is designed to do might not be enough for the highest tier of encounter.
as an example Gunslinger in an extreme encounter is useless no matter what, the class itself doesn't work at that difficulty level
Does a gunslinger do good damage? not really, casters outdamage him and so does rangers, this is less true at high levels but still stands true.
does a gunslinger have great utility? fake out is absolutely insane but other than the the class doesn't have the utility to match a caster's, no "huge" debuffs, no heals, no summons.
does a gunslinger have great defensive capabilities? can it contribute to the frontline in any significant manner? not really, the class is designed to be a ranged martial so it makes sense.
so, to wrap it up, it doesn't have enough utility nor enough damage/tankyness to be considered on the top of the food chain
as i said, i'm not saying that gunslingers shouldn't be played at all, but that if my gm isn't pulling their punched the gunslinger doesn't shine as much as he normally does
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect for your experience i thimk that you might've been a statistical outliar. gunslinger is an extremely simple class: "abuse fake out, crit" and while the first part is really consistent the second isn't, and often completely depentent on your team, therefore while you see it...
Well, you said it yourself: fake out is a pretty powerful feat. It's actually THE most powerful combat help you can get in the game. People love One For All (with good reason, cuz it's awesome), but it needs an action AND a reaction. Giving any of your friends a +1 to +4 to their attack for a mere reaction, every round, is already enough to say gunslinger has its uses.
As for critting, you're right that it's not consistent, and you don't benefit from the most obvious enemy debuffs (flanked or prone). But you still get the best attack progression in the game, and in the same way that you help others with Fake Out, you can hopefully get some buffs going as well. You benefit a lot from 4th level invisibility, or True Target, or Heroism. And you're golden when someone throws a synesthesia at a monster.
Gunslinger isn't probably the best class dps-wise but balance in PF2e is still tight enough that anyone can play one without gimping the group.
Higher then martial level of to hit isn't good enough? Seems better then many dex martials to me.it really isn't, this is a combat focused game and the most lethal encounters are often the ones that involve enemies
So then swash, rogue, dex fighter and inventor must all be trash as well, being low damage dice and not a lot of bonus damage to attacks.
The pistol slinger in my group for kingmaker did really well and that's chock full of single higher level encounters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"So! the community takes great pride in saying that every build is viable"
Citation needed.
I have often addressed the flaws of wannabe gish builds, or how some otherwise meaty martial builds cannot tank the frontline, or how a build might require party synergy.
Apologies if I'm mistaken, Fabios, but aren't you the same person who posted another thread about "the community" that nobody recognized as pertaining to these forums?
In the Advice Forum you'll read much build advice w/o a trace of "great pride" that any build will suffice. Who says that? And to stretch your argument to say some classes' best builds won't succeed in extreme fights requires some evidence. And Gunslinger functions fine; we already have three players who've flourished as Gunslingers. So you resort to calling one a "statistical outliar (sic)". Where are these statistics?
Maybe it's a Reddit issue again, but either way, you're going to need evidence rather than assertions about these forums and the inferiority of classes that others play well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't really agree with the community's impression of the Gunslinger in the first place-- it does a lot of damage, is disproportionately good against bosses for the same reason the Fighter is so valuable and any reasonable strategy for playing around reload trivializes it, including the universal Risky Reload.
Some subclasses are better than others (I'd always take a Spellshot or a Triggerbrand over a Drifter, for instance, and Snipers and Pistolero's are both neat) but the bare class is good to begin with, especially since it has some stand out feats like Fake Out.
Vnguard is an odd duck, I actually kind of like it, but I want to tinker more with it, besides the defensive benefits i think one of the biggest advantages is popping Phalanx breaker to create action drag for enemy targets right before their turn comes up.
One reason I think that the class is perceived to under-perform, is that people generally conceal the drag on melee DPR that comes from having to move around a larger battlefield.
More generally, I think that any real under-performance needs to be demonstrated very clearly to be believed, otherwise we just end up with vibes dictating everything because people heard secondhand that something sucks, but the receipts were never really there.
You know people are still under working under the assumption that Spellshot changes your key stat and thereby lowers your accuracy?
Higher then martial level of to hit isn't good enough? Seems better then many dex martials to me.it really isn't, this is a combat focused game and the most lethal encounters are often the ones that involve enemiesSo then swash, rogue, dex fighter and inventor must all be trash as well, being low damage dice and not a lot of bonus damage to attacks.
The pistol slinger in my group for kingmaker did really well and that's chock full of single higher level encounters.
Swash has been buffed to infinity, now spamming Two flourishes a turn Is actually a viable damage strategy if you want to focus on that. It was cool but niche before, now with being able to get oanache 90% of the time It's great.
About rogue, like, c'mon, we both know that rogue Is great let's not kid ourselves.
I hate inventor but not because it's weak or anything, i Just hate It. But, i'd Say, i wouldn't gamble half of my class on a roll every game with a 5% chance to be SEVERELY impaired (overdrive)
I personally don't like damage Fighter, but with Its enormous feat array and utility array IT IS still a fighter so pretty good.
In my experience every gunslinger i've ever saw was utterly useless/very subpar compared fo everyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience every gunslinger i've ever saw was utterly useless/very subpar compared fo everyone else.
That's only your experience, though, and that seems to be different than what the others who actually played it think.
In my experience every gunslinger i've ever saw was utterly useless/very subpar compared fo everyone else.
A single person's experience... I think you better read what you write yourself and take it to heart:
Because your experience with Gunslingers is bad, it doesn't make the class bad.
And that's the point i wanted to drive home! What i Just Said Is basically what everyone Said before me "well but in my campaign the gunslinger was great" which Is as valid as an argument as "well in my campaign It was useless" since, no matter how many there May be, anectodes are not valid data!
I can turn around whatever you said and you can turn around whatever i Say if we argue in this way, It becomes a relativistic ping pong of opinions, and that's not productive nor interesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I was hoping for a better discussion here.
This is total and utter nonsense, speaking as a multi high level campaign GM. Gunslingers are absolutely capable of contributing just fine
For sure Gunslingers can contribute fine. They are an Ok class. They suffer from
a) difficult action economyb) synergy for a ranged attacker is just more difficult than for melee. Mostly this is because flanking and tripping don't assist you as easily as it does for melee. Coordination requires better team work.
So often people just have bad experiences of the class.
But if you are putting classes into buckets Gunslingers aren't a top tier class like a Rogue or a Fighter either. So in the context of a tier discussion it is OK to diss them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
now spamming Two flourishes a turn Is actually a viable damage strategy
Er what did I miss that allows 2 flourishes a round let alone per turn?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
now spamming Two flourishes a turn Is actually a viable damage strategyEr what did I miss that allows 2 flourishes a round let alone per turn?
Nothing, i'm a dumbass and worded It poorly because i rushed.
I meant to Say that now attacking twice a turn, if possible, Is a consistent and viable damage ztrategy on a swash. Not two finishers i'm dumb. My mistake
I mean, the Remastered version of Guns & Gears comes out next month, so what actual changes to the Gunslinger do you think would make the class more fun to play?
I feel like the things that you can't change about the class is "this is the class that is best with Reload weapons, and it can combine more non-strike actions with reload actions than anybody else" which seems like a reasonable parameter for a class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is one of those cases where a popular line is often interpreted literally, when it would be better in general to bring up and understand the caveats behind it:
So in this respect, viability is quite a vague, subjective, and context-dependent metric that I don't think necessarily helps when discussing class balance. I do agree, however, that some classes tend to be more powerful than others under normal circumstances and in most typical party compositions, and the determining factor there is less to me their performance in encounters (even your Wizard or Psychic will have your 20th-level, fully-geared party wiping the floor with Treerazer), and more their ability to have high moments in play compared to other classes, how they excel at strengths shared by other classes, how broad or how intense their strengths are, and so on. All of that too is fairly subjective, but there's still room for common ground, and for what it's worth, I too think the Gunslinger could use a tune-up. Not necessarily an overhaul or overwhelming buffs, but a tune-up nonetheless.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I was hoping for a better discussion here.
Me too, but that requires something to base a discussion on, and what we got was "Gunslingers are useless because I said so". So here we are.
This is total and utter nonsense, speaking as a multi high level campaign GM. Gunslingers are absolutely capable of contributing just fineFor sure Gunslingers can contribute fine. They are an Ok class. They suffer from
a) difficult action economy
b) synergy for a ranged attacker is just more difficult than for melee. Mostly this is because flanking and tripping don't assist you as easily as it does for melee. Coordination requires better team work.
So often people just have bad experiences of the class.But if you are putting classes into buckets Gunslingers aren't a top tier class like a Rogue or a Fighter either. So in the context of a tier discussion it is OK to diss them.
Yep, that's all true. They're not a top tier class. But they're somewhere in the middle depending on what you're playing and how you build them. One player in Ruby Phoenix started as a Drifter and switched to Sniper and was much happier, especially once Legendary Sneak came online and hiding became super easy, barely an inconvenience.
He was known to keep greater elemental ammo in his gun when not in combat (thanks to Munitions Machinist), so he could start a fight with activating that and then Vital Shot, which is now doing 2 kinds of persistent damage on top of the hit (3 if he crits since it was a greater flaming gun, naturally). It was quite effective since using stealth for initiative left him hidden and going first a lot, and they had a Maestro Bard keeping up Inspire Courage during Exploration (so he had it even going first).
The problem I have with a discussion like this is that "tiers" mean a lot of different things to different people, and statements like the class is useless in extreme encounters are such total nonsense that its not fostering any kind of nuanced conversation (and its impossible to take someone seriously who makes such outlandish statements). The old style 3.5 tier list existed because the game literally didn't function properly if you put a Tier 4 class into a Tier 1 party. Comparatively the gap between S and B/C tier in PF2, while definitely real, just isn't the same kind of gaping chasm and doesn't stop the B/C tier classes from feeling useful in a party.
Like, I feel Inventor is a pretty weak class. We have one in our Kingmaker group, alongside a Ranger/Thaumaturge/Cleric/Oracle. That character does well enough that the player feels like he's contributing and no one is going "I wish we had a Rogue instead." And that is definitely not an optimized Inventor.
|
I can guess the assumed contention here is that the community coddles weak classes. I haven't seen that. The community is old enough that it has a good grasp of what makes good features and whatnot. This might be the reddit effect though as mentioned above. I haven't been there in a while.
I will add to the dog pile of seeing gunslingers work well. Played one and seen three in a variety of difficulties. They were fine.
He was known to keep greater elemental ammo in his gun when not in combat (thanks to Munitions Machinist), so he could start a fight with activating that and then Vital Shot, which is now doing 2 kinds of persistent damage on top of the hit (3 if he crits since it was a greater flaming gun, naturally).
This reminds me that we could use some clarification on Alchemical Ammunition. Magical Ammo doesn't apply Property Runes, but the rules for Alchemical are less clear.
Played alongside a Vanguard through Outlaws of Alkenstar. They fit quite well into our group (Bomber Alchemist (me), Armor Inventor, and a Bard filled out the rest of the group.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a tier list. It isn't near as wide between tiers as it used to be. Every class I've seen has moments where they shine, even the investigator. I thought they would be terrible, but they get some decent feats and it wasn't as bad as I thought.
I don't care about tiers in this edition. The game is fairly easy. If the group works reasonable well together, they can defeat almost every encounter.
Sure, some classes are better than others the majority of the time in combat, but every class can contribute.
I stopped caring a while back about the difference in class power. I'm more concerned with the difference in interesting class options. Some could use more interesting upgrades to feats as they have boring feat chains. As far as raw combat power, the math is so tight that it is mostly irrelevant.
|
furthermore, party composition is way above the difference in individual classes. As an example, in the campaign that I'm running, our "rogue" which is straight up one of the better classes performed much much worse than when the player switched it to a swashbuckler (even before remaster) strictly because the party composition favored the swashbuckler more.
I'm curious, what was it about the Swashbuckler that made it perform so much better? Party had no flank buddies? One for All was even better than usual?
Note - not questioning your conclusion at all. It just surprised me a little and raised my curiousity.
|
I'm curious if any encounter type besides combat is being considered.
As someone who plays a goblin merchant sorcerer who doesn't cast spells in combat, I'm wondering the same. At least at low levels, they have always had useful options even in combat, and excel at social encounters, they are the only spell caster I've played in PF2e that has managed to find a use for every spell they know during a single game session.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious, what was it about the Swashbuckler that made it perform so much better?
.Flank-buddies was a big thing yes (the party at that time was a divine sorc, a bard, an armor inventor (who at some point switched to a fire kineticist) and the rogue), but also sturdiness and the fact that the campaign structure had them fight more enemies rather than few but higher level.
The swashbuckler much more easily ventured forth on his own, dealt very good damage since the level of the enemies meant he was able to do both attack+finisher consistently while keeping most enemies away from the squishies who could keep him up.
The rogue on the other hand was not as easily getting his full potential of damage (like, opportune was triggering once per fight at most and etc), and being more squishy meant he more often had to run away and switch to ranged (we're using APB so weapon switching isn't a big deal) leaving the ivnentor alone or drop.
Thank you. And an excellent example of why White Room calculations can be so different from actual experience. And of why actual experience can differ so much from table to table :-)