![]() The always bad options do exist in almost any list of course, but that isn't exactly compelling reading. There are too few always good or always bad options to make it an interesting read. I was all excited to start building class guides for PF2e, before releasing that even constrained to the CRB it would have to be for specific builds rather than the classes themselves like it is in PF1e and various similar systems. In PF2e this can't really be built for in the same way. It didn't matter past a point if your specialty was being specifically countered or not you could generally overcome it. ![]() I just can't see a tier list working, PF1e you could force your way through any encounter design regardless of intent. And really, you would probably want to have some way of averaging out adventures too? There is so much of PF2e that focuses on synergetic team based playstyle being optimal that the other thing tier lists would ideally have to take into consideration is how many other classes play into other builds other classes have. Everything is T3 baseline with some edging on T2, all can reach T2 with good builds. I would disagree that anything is T4 classification in PF2e by PF1e standards. When it comes to versatility, you would have to lock out stuff like magic items and dedications to get anything close to a starting point, which would just be misrepresentative. They work, but because you cannot pump the math to auto succeed levels it isn't good for the party to heavily rely on one character for a single task/role. The issue with categorical tier lists is that specialists are kinda, suboptimal, in PF2e. Maybe a good start would be to define what a party needs: Healing, Single target and area capabilities, Social Skills, Exploring, Defensive Capabilities, etc. By this point I think we all are aware of it. That the old system don't work for classification is the premise of this post. "Survivability" "Highest potential single-shot damage" "Highest sustained DPR" "Independence" things like that could be fun, but strict tiers as we knew them simply won't work. Now I'm sure you could tier-list specific builds WITHIN a class, but on a class-by-class basis those types of direct comparisons are much more difficult.Īny type of ranking discussion would have to be broken into subcategories, like Lethe suggested. The gap between classes is significantly smaller, and because of the implementation of the feat system in PF2, variation makes strictly defining a tier for a class very very difficult. Classes had fundamentally different levels of strength across the board, and when you had a handful of classes that could replace the effectiveness of an entire party of lower-tier classes, those were clearly the superior choice. In 3.x/PF1 tier lists worked because they were true.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |