Aestus

Thanks for the correction! I understand the pain in reading through a thread that has been going for some time. You'll probably be happy to hear though that I've already adjusted my rankings on the classes you were concerned about. I demoted Ranger to Niche, promoted Chanter to Overloaded, and promoted Druid to Bread-n-Butter. I haven't changed Paladin. I still think it belongs in Niche. I'm happy to hear your case for where you think it belongs.

I haven't really considered it. Here are my initial thoughts: I have a video where I discuss class systems in CRPGs. In it I define a class choice as the choice of what leveling tree your character will progress on. A choice of subclass in Deadfire is not that. Its really just a decision you make within your leveling tree. Granted, it’s a particularly impactful one. So on its face, treating subclasses as classes strikes me as quite arbitrary. As a comparison, Cipher's don't need to take Ancestor's Memory, its a class choice, but a particularly impactful one. Should I rank Cipher-sans-Ancestor's Memory as its own class too? Should I rank Chanters-sans-summons independently? That is how treating subclasses as classes seems to me. In cases like Tactician, Priest of Skaen, or Bloodmage, I think its acceptable to just say “this is an unbalanced subclass, and it’s a big reason why I rank this class so high” and just leave it at that. Its an easy enough thing to say and understand, so I don’t see why I’d need to do something drastic to avoid it.

@Elric Galad On the topic of Confident Aim, you wrote: I said I'd check the math and get back to you. I seemed to have lost my spreadsheet for calculating attack resolution in Deadfire, so this math is very simplistic, but I think it communicates my train of thought well. I like to compare Graze-to-Hit with Hit-to-Crit, because I find that people naturally see the value in the latter but not the former. Assuming Accuracy that is less than 24 above their relevant defense, Graze-to-Hit will: potentially proc in 25 outcomes. will increase damage by 100% when it procs (due to inversions). By contrast, in the same scenario Hit-to-Crit will: potentially proc in 50 outcomes will increase damage by 25% if you Pen will increase damage by 55% if you OverPen If we round that to roughly 50% increase we have an easy comparison. Graze-to-Hit procs on half the outcomes but doubles the damage increase, meaning its roughly equivalent in impact to Hit-to-Crit. So, as a VERY rough rule of thumb, a %Graze-to-Hit is equal in value to its equivalent %Hit-to-Crit. Confident Aim gives you 30% Graze-to-Hit. By contrast, there isn't a single unconditional 30% Hit-to-Crit available in the game. If there was one, people would going crazy over it. All the while, Confident Aim is giving you roughly equivalent impact as a PL2 passive and no one looks twice at it. Of course, as you rightly point out, the Aware inspiration gives you 50% Graze-to-Hit, and Fighters should practically always have the Aware inspiration on themselves. Now I just want to note, that is a big upside of the Fighter. It should never be counted against the Fighter that they have a perma source of 50% Graze-to-Hit; that is awesome! However, stacking will effect Confident Aim, turning that 30% to a 15%, or 65% total. 15% is still quite good though! And the 65% total is bonkers. Remember, that is roughly equivalent to 65% Hit-to-Crit! So, I'd say Confident Aim is better than "meh." However, I agree that its not a build defining feature, especially because it only works for weapons, and weapon attacking tends to be subpar to spells. I'll just end by stating again that I know this math is extremely rough and abstracted. There are a TON of relevant things it does not factor in. For example: build features like Swift Flurry and Heartbeat Drumming which make Crit fishing a strategy worth building around in a way that avoiding Grazes is not. how crits effect damage when moving from UnderPen (or worse) to Pen. How the -100% damage from grazes will only reduce damage so far. It will not reduce to zero. How having Accuracy that is more than 24 above their relevant defense effects the comparison and many others. My analysis above is only meant as a rough form of comparison that is useful because its easy to hold it in your head.

Not at all! I will continue to change my opinions even after this list is released, I'm sure.

Precisely. That is enough to make it one of the best supports in the game as far as I am concerned. I don't think I've done that. We've discussed healing a lot in this thread, and I think I've been consistent that I think its best to build around passive healing and use active healing in a pinch. Priest + Cipher can take care of the active healing and you want them in your party for other reasons anyways. So, when I am considering Paladin LoH, its a very good source of active healing, but active healing is typically low on my list of priorities I guess. You think Herald is better than Cantor? I'm very surprised to hear that. What am I missing? I thought we agreed that Monk offers more in a multi than practically every other class. So, what is so special about the synergy of Paladin with Chanter that overcomes that initial imbalance to you? So far you've said it has more support + burst healing. I don't see how the support of Paladin can possibly outweigh the damage, action speed, and bonus to Intellect of a monk. Even in terms of control, Monks offer Forbidden Fist which is the earliest and most spammable source of Enfeebled in the game, + the increase in duration from the +10 Intellect. When I run the simulations in my head, it really feels like the extra damage and duration on effects/buffs will mitigate more damage then the Paladin can heal. Boeroer mentioned Zeal refreshing on summon death creating infinite zeal. That is a synergy, but it doesn't sway me much, because I don't think Zeal is a very good resource (Paladin actives are just ok), and Ancestor's Memory exists. I think you just answered your own question. I AM here to discuss. To dialogue. To hear people's reasoning and weigh it. The value is in hearing good arguments against my position. But gesturing to a consensus isn't an argument I can weigh. Also, I'm sure you will agree that general consensus is extremely untrustworthy. What's important is expert consensus, and even that needs to challenged and reexamined regularly. So when I encounter a general consensus that disagrees with me I think the best reaction is not to slavishly abandon my opinion, but to rethink it, which is why I created this thread.

I wouldn't say it that way, no. I love classes that provide a combination of roles. Take Wizard for example, it is good at tanking, striking, and control. I'd say its roughly in the top three classes in each of those roles. That's awesome! Same with the Cipher, its one of the best supports and one of the best strikers. On the Druid, I consider healing to be a subset within the broader support category. So Druids excel at healing, but in the broader support category I don't think they measure up to the big 3: Cipher, Priest, Chanter. Like I said though, this kind of reasoning can only get you so far. Its just a guide, but I think it clarifies why I think Paladin belongs in Niche Tier. Fair enough, but that's not me. Really what I am advocating is asking the question "why do I want this class for my composition/run?" and ranking classes based on that. So if the answer is, like the wizard, that this class is a top 3 in three separate roles, that is a legitimate reason to pick it. For the Paladin, I'd say its not in the top 3 in any role. Let me ask you then, why do I want a Paladin in my composition/run? What does it offer that a Priest/Fighter or Priest/Wizard or Monk/Chanter or any combination of Tank + Support multiclass combo doesn't do better? Is there a reason to pick it over its competitors that isn't a very specific niche? I wish this wasn't the case, but I find that stacking armor isn't a very good strategy for tanking. The armor system is a well balanced system, you can be powerful with it but its takes a heavy build investment. And there are counters, like true damage or high accuracy enemies that can crit you often. So you can't depend on it as a single vector for defense. Instead, you need to build armor + defenses + healing, etc and together those add up to a heavy investment of build resources. By contrast, alternative strategies like the ones we've already discussed in this thread are NOT well balanced. They are single vector strategies that get the job done for very low build investment, allowing you to focus more resources on building for damage and CC. This was a black pill for me when I was learning the game, because I spent so much time trying to build unkillable Paladins, and then I discovered other classes could be just as unkillable with much less invested. I am philosophically opposed to LoH just because of its action economy cost. We've talked about it to death, but action economy free healing is very strong in this game and it allows you to spend your action economy killing your enemies instead of just surviving. Idk if you've ever played Darkest Dungeon, but it kind of taught me this lesson, that you want to spend you actions killing and and disabling enemies if you can. Spending actions on healing is good in a pinch, when things are going poorly, but not as an overall strategy to build around. I agree that Heralds are powerful, but that is because they are half Chanter. Warcallers are even stronger and Cantors are even better than them. The Paladin part of the multi is the part I think is mediocre, and that is the part we are discussing. How do you think this fact should effect my opinion?

I love Paladins, they were actually the class that got me hooked on Deadfire, and my first 150 hours or so of the game was spent experimenting with Paladin builds. You may have gathered that a general method I use for ranking is to list what general reasons you want to pick a class for. Broadly speaking those roles are tank, striker, support, and control. I then try to compare apples-to-apples when it comes to role. So, the best tank kit (Fighter imo) ranks highly for me, because if you want a tank you are best off taking some variation of Fighter. Similarly, the best control kit is Wizard, and Wizard ranks very highly. Its a low resolution way of thinking about things and you don't want to depend on it for everything, but its useful as a guide. Paladin offers two things: tanking and supporting. My assessment is that its compares pretty poorly in both roles compared to its competitors. If I want a front line tanky unit I'm going to be looking at Monk and Fighter, hell, even Wizard, before I pick Paladin. For support, cipher, priest, chanter, etc. Paladin's competitors are the best classes in the game, and so Paladin suffers in the ranking for it. That said, it offers a very powerful niche in a multiclass build, and that is stacking defenses to become unhittable. Its a strategy that loses a bit of its lustre when there are buttons you can press that literally make you impossible to kill, but its still good. Defenses are a mathematical bottle neck the same as health, so if you stack them high enough you just can't be killed. Stacking defenses also synergizes with some niche but powerful strategies, like Riposte or Defensive Mindweb.

My thoughts exactly!

Ha! That's not going to happen. In my view that is out-to-lunch, and at the end of the day the video has to represent my view. Like I said though, if you or anyone else wants to discuss the alternative view on fighter in the video, I'd be happy to include your perspective.

True. I've been thinking about what you've said and feel like it would be better to switch Druid with Ranger. Ranger fits better in niche tier, because it has a specific niche, namely single target Accuracy. Druid fits well into Bread-n-Butter Tier because what everything it offers is a bread and butter strategy, only it doesn't excel at one of those strategies except healing, which we've already discussed. I'll probably bump Chanter up to overloaded tier based on your recommendation and Boeroer's. It will water down the tier a bit, but that is better then giving the wrong impression about chanter probably. I really don't understand this at all. I feel very strongly ya'll are badly underestimating the Fighter, but we don't need to talk about any more. I'm not persuaded by your arguments and you aren't persuaded by mine, and that is fine. It might actually give the list an interesting bit of controversy/clash of perspective. So my current list is: Game Breaking: Cipher, Priest Overloaded: Wizard, Fighter, Chanter, Monk Bread-n-Butter: Druid, Rogue Niche: Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin I am happy with this! If you are someone you know you know wanted to record a voice only discussion with me to offer another perspective and expose perceived weakness of my point of view to my audience, I'd be delighted to include you in the video.

It is direct in the sense that with Unbending you are incentivized to take a lot of instances of damage, and procing Mind of Matter depends on taking lots of instances of damage. So a tanking strategy that depends on taking lots of instances of damage synergies directly. You might estimate that its not that impactful, fair enough. I think it is impactful though, on the grounds that I did a full solo Brawler run (just PotD, no Magran's Fires), and I proced Mind over Matter often just from standard aggro. Of course, you get 100% of aggro in a solo run, but in a full composition Fighters should still be getting a vast majority of the aggro. I agree about the Tactician subclass, its another big upside to the Fighter class. But its expensive to include a Druid in your composition. Its just the opportunity cost of class selection for party composition that incline me to put Druid so low. The driving questions for me is "why would I pick this class? In what way does it outcompete other classes in its niche" and the answer for the Druid seems to be it doesn't really. I'd add that Wizard are unmatched at cleansing enemy buffs. I value that much higher than the Druid excelling at healing which I never seem to need. Yeah, to summarize my stance on the Druid, and really all three of the classes I put into Niche Tier: I think they are good, but tend to be outperformed by other classes that serve a similar function, except in a few niche composition strategies.

My thoughts exactly. I'd only add that I think Fighter is at similar levels to the Monk for what it adds in a multiclass. And that is kind of the bind I am in. If I put to many classes in Overloaded tier, the tier gets inflated and loses value. I have to make a judgment call on which to leave out. I think leaving out either the Chanter or the Monk is a valid judgement, as long as I explain that they are really valuable in their own right.

Great! Fair enough. It was silly for me to get all butthurt, I regret typing that paragraph. I was annoyed with people who weren't you, so I should have kept that out of our conversation. My apologies. For whatever its worth, knowledge about Unbending is no longer obscure. The Pillars of Eternity wiki entry on the ability links directly to a post that you wrote explaining it. It is, I get that. And there are MANY very simple things about this game I don't know that I probably should. I just assumed that the way I was speaking about Unbending made it clear that I knew what I was talking about. Again, what really happened is that I've been in this business for a while, and every time I challenge the consensus of a community I get swarmed with folks who prefer to dismiss me as either stupid, bad-faith, or both instead of imagining that consensus can be wrong - paradigms shift all the time in subjects much older and much more academically studied than Deadfire - and actually engage with my arguments. Anyways, that hasn't been what you've done though, so I shouldn't have let my frustration spill over. Sure, but its interesting that those examples you gave all belong to classes I also ranked as overloaded. I'll double check the math and get back to you. Is it possible exploring this might change your opinion on Fighters? It sounds like we agree on Ranger then. I ranked it at the very bottom of Bread-n-Butter Tier. To me, its borderline Niche Tier; it wouldn't bother me at all to demote it. Its mostly because I value Seer so highly. I often include a Seer in my compositions, and basically ignore Ranger otherwise. Let me ask this then: if Chanter summons are as good at absorbing aggro as you say, then why do you need that much healing? In my compositions, I draw aggro with my Unbending Fighter and that's typically enough that I can get by with passive, action-economy cheap sources of healing like Old Siec and Triumph of the Crusaders. AoE damage that penetrates into the back line can be a hiccup, but in a pinch Cipher and Priest have other active sources of healing, or even Withdraw, and those get the job done. And don't you think that healing is the kind of thing that you only need to have enough of? Because fights are ended when you kill enemies instead of outlasting them, it creates a natural asymmetry between offense and defense. This is something Thelee taught me in his FAQ. My take away from that lesson is that overkill damage is good, because it means you can kill enemies faster which reduces their action income and mitigates unpredictability. By contrast, overkill in healing, while valuable, is less valuable. It mitigates risk, but in a way that extends combat, which always carries with it an inherent unpredictability. So, as a principle, I try to build enough healing to reliably kill them before they kill me. Priests are mediocre healers, but I actually want them for their awesome buffs, and the fact that they bring enough healing is just bonus. I should test it again. My experience with Druids is that when it comes to damage and CC, Wizards outperform them. Is that incorrect? SHould I swap Wizard and Druids spots on the ranking?

I wrote a long response and it seems like it didn't send. So this is a rewrite. If for some reason my first response made it to you and I just can't see it, feel free to ignore this. I completely agree! One of the awesome things about Deadfire is how well designed and balanced its tactical system is. It makes tier list challenging and fun! As you can probably tell from my list, I DO consider that combo fair game. I don't use it myself, because its boring and game breaking, but its not a bug. Unlike strats like Strand of Favor + Blade Cascade, its clearly intended design, and that makes me hesitant to exclude it. So I felt like the most fair thing to do is put Cipher and Priest in their own tier (game breaking tier), explain why, and leave it at that. Does that seem reasonable? Yes, I am very familiar with how Unbending works, thanks to the great work you and other regulars on these forums have done to research and document it. Do I really seem that ignorant though? I'm not trying to be bitchy asking that question, because you've been extremely helpful to me in this thread. I'm not an expert in this game like you are, but I'm also not some tourist hoping to steal some clicks with under researched, over produced bait. I'm a decent researcher and careful thinker. When you say Fighter's only offer Unbending, you are being hyperbolic, correct? If you have the time, I'd love to discuss this with a bit more detail. Here's some questions I have concerning the Fighter: What is your evaluation of farming Engagement Attacks as a strategy? To me, its one of the strongest strategies in the game, as it not only wastes enemy turns, but procs heavily buffed, action economy free attacks. For context, if I remember right, with Overbearing Guard a Fighter's Disengagement attacks gets +20 Accuracy and +150% damage. That is comparable to an Assassin stealth attack, but action economy free. What do you think about Disciplined Strikes? To me, an action-economy free, low-cost source of Intuitive + Concentration is extremely valuable on both caster and weapon builds. What do you think about Confident Aim? My exploration of inversion math led me to the conclusion that avoiding Grazes is deceptively impactful. What are your thoughts on the synergy between Unbending and Shroud of the Phantasm? It seems to me that Fighter's offer one of the best tank kits for exploiting Mind over Matter. Here is a sketch of my thoughts on the Ranger. Ranger's offer something unique as a multiclass, and that is heaps of Accuracy. There are other classes that offer lots of Accurcy (or Accuracy equivalents), like the Fighter, but none offer as much as the Ranger. I think of Accuracy as like the offensive version of HP, in that its a mathematical bottle neck; if you can't hit a target you can't kill it. In a game where Raw damage strategies like Disintergration exist, Accuracy becomes THE deciding factor for how fast you can kill priority targets. So Ranger starts looking really attractive as a bread-n-butter multiclass option, and importantly for something no other class offers to the same degree. Lets contrast that with Druid. Druid is a better class than the Ranger in a one-to-one comparison. However, my experience is that Druid gets out-competed by other classes in its niche (Wizard, Priest, Cipher). It also doesn't offer anything uniquely good as a multi. If there is one thing Druids excel at compared to other classes, its healing (right?). But healing is the kind of thing you want just enough of, and a Tank + Chanter + Priest is enough, and those are classes you want in your composition anyways. So in the broader view of the game Druids fare worse than Rangers, even though they are individually stronger. What do you think about that line of reasoning?

I'm seeing the light on Chanters. I believe you are right that they belong higher than I put them. I will probably shift them up to the Overloaded Tier, which means I probably ought to shift one of the current overloaded classes down. For now at least, I don't want to shift the Fighter down. So if I had to choose between demoting Wizard and Monk, which would you pick? I'm leaning towards Monk, but I'd appreciate your input. @Boeroer

I'm sure you understand what I meant. Unbending is self-only ability that improves one's ability to tank via healing. Paladin Lay on Hands can function that way if you cast it on yourself, but it obviously fits neater in the category of a support ability, since you can cast it on others. I also consider BDD a support ability even though the Priest can cast it on themselves too. Being able to put a buff on an ally is the hallmark of a support ability, whether its healing or anything else. Yes, if you check my original post you will see I put Priest and Cipher above Fighter and all other classes. They are the only classes in my game-breaking tier. So I agree completely. Limited duration is a problem, but no strategy is perfect and completely lacking in weaknesses. Solving the limited duration problem is actually very easy though, and requires very little investment. Stacking enough defenses to become functionally invincible is a much harder problem to solve and requires a much higher investment. This is a bug which I think ought not to be considered in the tier list. I am here for advice! However, I'm sure you will understand that I still need to be discerning. Not all advice is worth listening to, and a good way to test advice is to test the ideas through dialogue. I think if you read back to what I've written in this thread with a clear head you will see that's what I've been doing. Regardless, you are entitled to you opinion, and if you think I my motivations are insincere it is your right to think that. I am sorry that I gave that impression.

My bad, I misremembered the duration on the Lay on Hands, they are comparable in duration. Nevertheless, there are other considerations, i.e. the heal effect of Lay on Hands has anti-synergy with some of the important strategies with BDD, i.e. Deathgodlike or Streetfighter builds. I also think Priests bring way more to the table besides BDD. But fair enough, you made your point well, I ought to revisit Shieldbearer specifically. We agree though that my approach of considering subclasses as choices within a class rather then a unique class in themselves is good though, correct?

If you read my OP I outline there why I specifically want to make a class tier list.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If you scroll back you'll see I never advocate disregarding subclasses in my analysis. The question about subclasses was whether I should consider them as (A) an entirely separate class, or (B) an option within a class. I am advocating for B. So, to be clear, I am NOT going to ignore subclasses. I will 100% include subclasses in my analysis. On the Shieldbearer example. The BDD effect on Lay of Hands for Shieldbearer is a great example of Niche-Tier. The duration is very low compared to what Priests offer and you need a Priest to extend it with Salvation of Time. So in no way does having a Shieldbearer replace the need for a Priest if you are building around BDD as a strategy. Neverless, getting the effect so early does give Shieldbearer's a very specific niche that no other class fills that may be worth taking on a niche composition strategy.

Exactly

Personally, I ban respec. Its an important feature, but not one that should be considered in a list like this. I guess I just don't agree. I really don't see any reason why I need to consider subclasses as individual classes.

My experience with the Paladin is that its one of the worst tanks in the game. The tanking strategy of stacking defenses and armor is subpar compared to Unbending or Barring Death's Door. The resource cost for Unbending is not nearly as severe as you make it sound. Healing is useful, but I consider that a support thing, not a tank thing. As a support the Paladin is decent, but does not offer anything truly unique or essential. For example, Barring Deaths Door or Ancestor's Memory are uniquely impactful support abilities. Does the Paladin have anything comparable to that?

I've done tests with a solo Brawler where all I did was auto attack Dorudugan and refresh Unbending when it timed out. It took forever to die. If my memory serves, I never died until I ran out of discipline, but I tested it last year so I may be misremembering. Regardless, I can attest that a decent Unbending Build can face tank Dorudugan for long enough to kill him with minimal micromanagement. Perhaps I am underestimating Chanter, but wouldn't you say that is worthy of a Overloaded Tier rank? To me it is borderline game-breaking. What do you think?

I think you know this isn't the whole story. In both cases it will depend on how well you control enemy aggro. My experience is, and I am sure yours is the same, that a single, unkillable character with proper aggro management can absorb enough damage to reduce kill potential in most encounters to a safe, manageable level. One Unbending fighter and a little bit of healing in your composition and you're set. Quite right. These are all factors to consider. Yes, this is huge. Its a big reason for why Chanters are so valuable in my opinion. I respect your opinion on this, but I am not interested in making that list. It may be worthwhile to do, but its just not what interests me about Deadfire. I still think micromanagement should be taken into account though. I think its best to think of RTwP as a system that uses attention as resource. YOu might say there is an attention economy in the same way there is an action economy. You will get more out of a build the more attention you pay towards micromanaging it, but there is finite amount of attention. Realistically, a good composition will take this into account. So if there are two strategies that perform equally well, but one requires less attention, then that one is a better strategy. On the Ultimate footage you posted. That was impressive! I should do a more summoned focus run again to reevaluate, I may be overlooking this strategy. In general though, Ultimate run strategies don't translate to my tier list one-to-one in that the Ultimate Challenge is a very different game then the full-party, PotD, Trial of Iron rules that I assume in my list. Here is where I stand on this question right now. I have a ton of experience with Fighters and Fighter multi's. On the basis of that experience I find many people badly underestimate how easy it is to get Unbending to invincibility levels, and how effective having an invincible unit is tactically. However, I don't have the same experience with summon comps. Maybe they are just as good or better. I will need to test them more. Thank you for drawing them to my attention!

Many difficult things are worth doing. I do not doubt there is much I don't understand about the game, but that is why I made this thread. This is useful because its the similar functions so we can directly compare. Which will absorb more damage and aggro, summons or a fighter built for Unbending? Its Unbending. Unbending is only limited by time. As en example, imagine both tanking strategies against Dorudugan (an import encounter to build for). An Unbending fighter is under near zero threat of dying until they run out of Discipline. Its simple and takes no micromanagement. By contrast, summons will die to bombs faster then you can summon them unless you can dodge the bombs with them, but that is a micromanagment intensive task. The Zeal trick is neat, but in a world with Ancestor's Memory, how unique is it really? I wish Ancestor's Memory didn't exist in the game, I think its poor design, so maybe I will ban it for my tier list. But assuming it isn't banned, how do you think that impacts your ranking of that strategy? I think a War Caller is better in most parties. Herald is overrated in my opinion, mostly because I think Paladin is overrated. A Chanter multi is a bread-n-butter unit that I almost always include in my party.